Lemmie wrote:I apologize, I was not clear. I meant "I disagree that [YOUR contributions to] Mormonism [are] academic, within ANY sphere." My comments here are in reference to your work, not any one else's work.
Nice. Thanks so much for another slap in the face. It couldn't have been timed any better than the last gobbldygook statement. I'll just retract some of my actual heartfelt thanks from the previous posts, where I was feeling a little more friendlier to y'all. I can see that that sentiment was misplaced, and should have maintained my former judgments of the nature of who I was dealing with here.
Lemmie wrote:I apologize, I was not clear. I meant "I disagree that [YOUR contributions to] Mormonism [are] academic, within ANY sphere." My comments here are in reference to your work, not any one else's work.
Nice. Thanks so much for another slap in the face. It couldn't have been timed any better than the last gobbldygook statement. I'll just retract some of my actual heartfelt thanks from the previous posts. It seems that this really has run its course.
So disagreement is a slap in the face? What is the logic behind that? You see disagreement as someone being mean to you? So if people like you, they are obligated to agree with your ideas? That is illogical in the extreme.
Lemmie wrote:So disagreement is a slap in the face? What is the logic behind that? You see disagreement as someone being mean to you? So if people like you, they are obligated to agree with your ideas? That is illogical in the extreme.
No, actually its not. Its only the charity that you choose to show in your choice of words that makes the difference between a "nice" way of saying my work is full of it, and a pure slap in the face that had ill intent along with the "disagreement." You've shown your ability to deliver not only disagreement but to make sure I knew what you personally think of Mormons like me. So, this has come to an end. I've been nice enough and I'm tired of the stupid stuff, so farewell.
I'm sure that you are familiar with the Mormon concept. And yes, you are not forced to make any choice. You can make any choice you please and you are never forced by any evidence of any kind to choose to suspend judgement of facts. You people may claim that you are forced by some sort of evidence into a certain position, but that would be a pure statement of falsehood. You choose the epistemology by which you judge value, and you also choose to be swayed by something. This much is all objectively true regardless of coming from Mormonism.
Morley wrote: I'm sure that you are familiar with the Mormon concept. And yes, you are not forced to make any choice. You can make any choice you please and you are never forced by any evidence of any kind to choose to suspend judgement of facts. You people may claim that you are forced by some sort of evidence into a certain position, but that would be a pure statement of falsehood. You choose the epistemology by which you judge value, and you also choose to be swayed by something. This much is all objectively true regardless of coming from Mormonism.
EdGoble wrote: I'm sure that you are familiar with the Mormon concept. And yes, you are not forced to make any choice. You can make any choice you please and you are never forced by any evidence of any kind to choose to suspend judgement of facts. You people may claim that you are forced by some sort of evidence into a certain position, but that would be a pure statement of falsehood. You choose the epistemology by which you judge value, and you also choose to be swayed by something. This much is all objectively true regardless of coming from Mormonism.
This is not just a Mormon concept. It's abundant among many religious sects, especially fundamentalists. Evangelicals are particularly fond of it.
EdGoble wrote: I'm sure that you are familiar with the Mormon concept. And yes, you are not forced to make any choice. You can make any choice you please and you are never forced by any evidence of any kind to choose to suspend judgement of facts. You people may claim that you are forced by some sort of evidence into a certain position, but that would be a pure statement of falsehood. You choose the epistemology by which you judge value, and you also choose to be swayed by something. This much is all objectively true regardless of coming from Mormonism.
Lemmie wrote:So disagreement is a slap in the face? What is the logic behind that? You see disagreement as someone being mean to you? So if people like you, they are obligated to agree with your ideas? That is illogical in the extreme.
No, actually its not. Its only the charity that you choose to show in your choice of words that makes the difference between a "nice" way of saying my work is full of it, and a pure slap in the face that had ill intent along with the "disagreement." You've shown your ability to deliver not only disagreement but to make sure I knew what you personally think of Mormons like me. So, this has come to an end. I've been nice enough and I'm tired of the stupid stuff, so farewell.
you've been nice enough?! let's let your words speak for you.
EG wrote:I went to the extreme of basically spoon-feeding even the most casual reader that doesn't want to apply the least amount of mental effort, leading them by the hand, and I shouldn't have had to go to that extreme. And I did it precisely because people like you continually claim that they don't get it.
People have been pussy-footing around you in this thread because of how easily you are offended, and yet you still write obnoxious stuff like the above quote.
yes, I disagreed with you, and I said it in a normal way. If you would like to have a rigorous conversation about your research, great, but if you need to be babied and cajoled, while your own tantrums are tolerated and ignored, this is not the place to do it.
EdGoble wrote: You people may claim that you are forced by some sort of evidence into a certain position, but that would be a pure statement of falsehood. You choose the epistemology by which you judge value, and you also choose to be swayed by something.
I don't understand this. Can you give me an example of some belief I might choose (outside of religion, of course) that evidence does not influence?