LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeBentley said:
You simply cannot go "X is so important to me and so central to my sense of self that any criticism of it is a personal attack on me."
Click to expand...


Well, you can, you're just in for a world of disappointment if you expect anyone to take such a statement seriously or alter their behavior because of it.
 
Foster Zygote said:
You have yet to present the posts containing these "venom-filled attacks". People have expressed their disgust with her attitude toward homosexuals. If this is an attack, then so must be her statement that she finds the practice of homosexuality to be an abomination.
Click to expand...

You seem to labor under the illusion that Janadele is the sole offender and that her legions of critics are lilly white--authentic, well-meaning souls who have invariably treated her with civility and decorum. Kindly note the following:

halleyscomet, Post 7810, 30 Sept.: ". . . your current, rigid, gloating and prideful sham of belief is pretty much the opposite of enlightenment."

desertgal, Post 7479, 24 Sept.: "She [Janadele] appears more despicable with every post."

deaman, Post 7469, 23 Sept.: "The fact [emphasis added] that you hate people who are different from you says about what you choose to generate in your life."

deaman, Post 7963, 3 Oct.: ". . .people are calling her on her lies, calling her for upholding fraud, calling her for spewing out hatred, racism, and bigotry."

Shalamar: Post 7526, 24 "Sept.: "Too bad you [Janadele] are blind, and very bigoted."

desertgal: Post 7528, 24 Sept.: "What purpose does continuing. . .other than to feed her self-righteous, hate-infested ego?"

Shalamar: Post 7549, 24 Sept.: "Your hate knows no bounds."

desertgal: Post 7536, 24 Sept.: "Ugh . . . what a horrible, blighted way to live. And she doesn't even know it."

Craig: Post 6057, 11 June: ". . .you chose to follow a rapist and a liar."

pakeha: Post 6129, 25 July: "It's probably the only thing that she's ever done right in her career."

jfisher: Post 6171, 25 July: [Re. her children]: "Did she raise them to be as brain-washed as she has presented herself in this thread? Are they mindless syophants [sic] with respect to the LDS Church?

pakeha: Post 5475, 7 April: "It's really sad to witness the effects of falling prey to a conman's spiel, freely abdicating intellectual honesty [emphasis added]."

desertgal: Post 5508, 8 April: [Responding to a quotation Janadele had posted]: "Oh, Jesus. Shut up already."

desertgal: [Referencing Janadele and her associates]: "Prudish, bigoted, religious zealots."

Let's see, was it Slowvehicle who claimed that Janadele had never been personally attacked on this thread? In a sequel to this post, I'll quote that piece of twaddle (among others). You will, of course, want to stay tuned.
 
None of those are personal attacks.

You are operating under a sadly common error of thinking. The MA requires us to be civil, not nice. We can call people out on personal flaws within reason here.
 
skyrider44 said:
You seem to labor under the illusion that Janadele is the sole offender and that her legions of critics are lilly white--authentic, well-meaning souls who have invariably treated her with civility and decorum. Kindly note the following:

halleyscomet, Post 7810, 30 Sept.: ". . . your current, rigid, gloating and prideful sham of belief is pretty much the opposite of enlightenment."

desertgal, Post 7479, 24 Sept.: "She [Janadele] appears more despicable with every post."

deaman, Post 7469, 23 Sept.: "The fact [emphasis added] that you hate people who are different from you says about what you choose to generate in your life."

deaman, Post 7963, 3 Oct.: ". . .people are calling her on her lies, calling her for upholding fraud, calling her for spewing out hatred, racism, and bigotry."

Shalamar: Post 7526, 24 "Sept.: "Too bad you [Janadele] are blind, and very bigoted."

desertgal: Post 7528, 24 Sept.: "What purpose does continuing. . .other than to feed her self-righteous, hate-infested ego?"

Shalamar: Post 7549, 24 Sept.: "Your hate knows no bounds."

desertgal: Post 7536, 24 Sept.: "Ugh . . . what a horrible, blighted way to live. And she doesn't even know it."

Craig: Post 6057, 11 June: ". . .you chose to follow a rapist and a liar."

pakeha: Post 6129, 25 July: "It's probably the only thing that she's ever done right in her career."

jfisher: Post 6171, 25 July: [Re. her children]: "Did she raise them to be as brain-washed as she has presented herself in this thread? Are they mindless syophants [sic] with respect to the LDS Church?

pakeha: Post 5475, 7 April: "It's really sad to witness the effects of falling prey to a conman's spiel, freely abdicating intellectual honesty [emphasis added]."

desertgal: Post 5508, 8 April: [Responding to a quotation Janadele had posted]: "Oh, Jesus. Shut up already."

desertgal: [Referencing Janadele and her associates]: "Prudish, bigoted, religious zealots."

Let's see, was it Slowvehicle who claimed that Janadele had never been personally attacked on this thread? In a sequel to this post, I'll quote that piece of twaddle (among others). You will, of course, want to stay tuned.
Click to expand...

You really, really, really do not "get" the idea of "personal attack". Pointing out that a person's behaviour is despicable is not despising the person.

Let me say that again: describing a person's behaviour, especially behaviour in a thread, in the person's own posts, is not attacking the person.

Let me offer you another example: when you pretend to be able to tell me, each and every time that you do, that I "made a decision" to "become faithless", are you attacking me, personally, or what you (wrongly) perceive to be my behaviour?

Did you bother to report each and every one of these so-called "personal attacks" to the moderators? If a post appears to you to violate the MA, that is what you should do.

Is this derail any more than an attempt to avoid answering the questions about how your interpretation of your sect's superstitions about eschatology are supposed to repair the fraud that is the BoA, or the imaginary history in the BoM?

Do you intend to address why, in your opinion, what happens among consenting adults, in private, is any business of the CJCLDS? Particularly when none of the adults involved have any desire to be, or to be considered, or to be invited to be, LDS? How does anything that happens (for instance) within the boundaries of my land, among legal, freely consenting, adults, affect you in any way at all?
 
Last edited:
skyrider44 said:
You seem to labor under the illusion that Janadele is the sole offender and that her legions of critics are lilly white--authentic, well-meaning souls who have invariably treated her with civility and decorum. Kindly note the following:

<snip>
Click to expand...

Critiquing beliefs or positions is not the same as personal attacks.

Why do you apparently find it so hard to understand that?

And where is Janadele, anyway? Why does she need you to defend herself and her hateful positions?
 
Last edited:
skyrider44 said:
You seem to labor under the illusion that Janadele is the sole offender and that her legions of critics are lilly white--authentic, well-meaning souls who have invariably treated her with civility and decorum. Kindly note the following:

*snippy snip*


Let's see, was it Slowvehicle who claimed that Janadele had never been personally attacked on this thread? In a sequel to this post, I'll quote that piece of twaddle (among others). You will, of course, want to stay tuned.
Click to expand...

And here is Janadele's post that likely sparked many of the responses:

Janadele said:
The denseness and inability to comprehend English demonstrated by some posters in this thread, continues to amaze me. Simple sentences are misconstrued, their meanings twisted, distorted and misinterpreted, by the otherwise seemingly intelligent. This could only be from the influence of Lucifer, who delights in confusion and in clouding the minds of those who allow him so to do.
The following facts are simple and should be easy for all to comprehend... a baker is requested to bake a rainbow cake and to decorate it to depict a same sex couple supposedly entering into a "marriage", the baker rightly believes that by doing so he would be demonstrating approval and support for a "celebration" which he considers to be grossly immoral and against the commandment of his God. This should be his choice to make, instead he is summoned to court, fined, his business closed and his livelihood taken from him. This is how the followers of Lucifer try to force their evil immoral standards upon others in the name of "discrimination".
Click to expand...

Her words show her to be rather hateful and bigoted, since she seems to be a spokersperson for her church, it makes the LDS look VERY poorly.

Have you called Janadele out on what she's said, Skyrider44? Or are her words acceptable to you?
 
Shalamar said:
And here is Janadele's post that likely sparked many of the responses:

Her words show her to be rather hateful and bigoted, since she seems to be a spokersperson for her church, it makes the LDS look VERY poorly.

Have you called Janadele out on what she's said, Skyrider44? Or are her words acceptable to you?
Click to expand...

It is also worth pointing out that Janadele's screed is unfactual; she is either lying, or persisting in demonstrable factual error. sr44--is "false witness" not a problem in the CJCLDS?
 
What's telling is that all those quotes, are true.

What have you got against the truth?
 
Indeed.

We've reached the absolute nadir of trying to shift the focus of an argument, complaining that the person pointing out that you are holding opinions that are vile, bigoted, and hateful by calling the person telling you this "mean."

Well I'd rather be mean then hateful anyday.
 
Janadele refused to engage in actual discussion here.

Even now, she employs someone else to defend her vapid and bigoted arguments, and to attack those who may have questioned her beliefs.

I can't imagine how she, skyrider44, or anyone else can believe these two are presenting the LDS church in a positive light.

Their arguments are repugnant.
 
Well, Janadele is back from her sabbatical and posting. Perhaps she will grace us with her presence in this thread, and then skyrider44 can return to telling us about the Book of Abraham.
 
Janadele said:
As mentioned earlier in this thread:
The elements are eternal. All that exists has always existed without a beginning.
Click to expand...
Nope. The Big Bang created mainly hydrogen, early population stars fused that to elements up to iron, supernovae created heavier elements. Decay and fission regularly change elements. Hell a friend of mine "milks the cow" every morning to extract technetium for radiopharmacology.
 
If Janadele's and the Mormon Church's statements are not hateful and bigoted, then it should presumably not be hateful and bigoted if I were to make the following statement (which I would not, except here as an example of great impoliteness, by the way): The Mormon Church is a so-called "religion" of so-called "Christians." If I were to make such a statement in such language, I would have to be an absolute moron not to believe that its intention was to be demeaning. Language like this may be permissible, but it wears its bigotry on its sleeve.
 
jsfisher said:
Well, Janadele is back from her sabbatical and posting. Perhaps she will grace us with her presence in this thread, and then skyrider44 can return to telling us about the Book of Abraham.
Click to expand...
Eternal optimism is an admirable trait; I hope you will not be disappointed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom