LDS

[RoboTimbo]

You don't understand the fallacy in argument known as argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy occurs when the person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. Read the list. Is Jan's argument being attacked or is Jan, as a person, being attacked? The answer is obvious.

No, the fallacy is in saying that someone's argument is incorrect because of some unrelated characteristic of the person. The mistake you've made isn't uncommon. It doesn't apply here because people are directly addressing her arguments as being incorrect by their own nature. Do you understand the difference now?

Even if you want to take refuge behind the MA, the statements I list are not "civil," and Jan's alleged failings are portrayed as much more than "flaws."
She is "despicable," she has "abdicated intellectual honesty," her "hate knows no bounds," etc.

Address it in the correct thread in FM.

So, how about those anachronisms in the BoM and the conman Joseph Smith's fraud he perpetrated? I know you don't want to give the impression that you are dishonestly avoiding the on-topic questions about "LDS".

 

[Foster Zygote]

You don't understand the fallacy in argument known as argumentum ad hominem.

Yes, we understand. Had anyone said, "Janadele is wrong because she is a bigot", then that would be an argumentum ad hominem. But what has been said is, "Janadele is wrong because the source she cites as support for her claims regarding morality has been shown to be a clumsy fiction". The fact that people are appalled by the narrow-minded attitude she has toward homosexuals doesn't invalidate the argument against her claims. In fact, I'm rather bemused by your implication that the arguments presented in favor of the veracity of the LDS have not been addressed. They've been addressed in a rather devastating fashion, which is, of course, why you keep seeking to change the subject to one of the character of your opponents. Ironically, this is an ad hominem on your part. "They're wrong about Joseph Smith and the LDS because they're mean."

 

[halleyscomet]

What did I say that was intolerant to deserve such harsh comments about my own faith? Both the above comments came entirely out of the blue.

I think part of it is jealousy. You're a better witness and a better representative of your church than she is. 1 Corinthians has a lot to say about coveting spiritual gifts, and I think that's what's happening here. The people here who do not share your faith are questioning you and probing your beliefs, but not attacking you. The attacks you've received have come from people who claim to share your beliefs, have been supposedly trying to engage in the same back and fourth discussion you're engaging in, and have failed miserably to convey anything about their faith besides arrogance and rote repetition of dogma.

I used to be a very Evangelical Conservative Christian. I know what effective witnessing looks like and what shoddy, embarrassing arrogance disguised as witnessing looks like. I also know that the people who lob Chick Tracts like a hippie throwing seed bombs get pretty pissed when someone comes in and uses genuine humility and knowledge to accomplish what their pompous tract papering failed to do.

Your critics remind me why I left organizes religion. You remind me of why that was such a hard thing to do.

 

[halleyscomet]

It obviously matters immensely, otherwise why the venom-filled attacks on not only Janadele's views, but on Janadele as a person. To attack a person's position is one thing, but to attack the person proper (ad hominem) is quite another.

How is it an attack to call a bigot a bigot?

How is it an attack to criticism someone for being evasive in their answers?

How is it an attack to point out plagiarism?

When a person behaves badly, it is hypocritical to protest when people react badly to their behavior.

I think the most significant attack going on here is you attacking the reputation of the LDS church by providing such a hostile example of Mormons.

Cat provided sensible, to the point and honest replies to the questions asked. You have charged in with a ham-fisted attack, completely ignoring the fact that the thread's entire tone had been changed by a person replying honestly and sincerely, instead of with rote repetition.

I still think John Smith was a con artist with a predilection for barely pubescent women. I still think the entirety of Mormon scripture is a collection of lies and humbug. However, Cat has convinced me that all Mormons are not dunderheads and oafs. She has given me a concrete example of a Mormon I can respect.

Personally I think you're just upset that Cat has, in the space of a few posts, shown just how horrible you and Jan are at evangelism.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You don't understand the fallacy in argument known as argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy occurs when the person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. Read the list. Is Jan's argument being attacked or is Jan, as a person, being attacked? The answer is obvious.

Yes, the answer is obvious. Janadele's behaviour, from her evasiveness all the way down to her indifference to facts, is being attacked. In the same way that Janadele feels perfectly justified in describing a lifestyle that does not affect her in any way as "disgusting" and "abhorrent"; Janadele's behaviour is being called "dishonest", "deceitful", "evasive", and "despicable".

It is, in fact, you who do not understand the idea of commenting on the post rather than the poster; upon the argument rather than the arguer.

Even if you want to take refuge behind the MA, the statements I list are not "civil," and Jan's alleged failings are portrayed as much more than "flaws."
She is "despicable," she has "abdicated intellectual honesty," her "hate knows no bounds," etc.

There are solutions which could be suggested but it would be better for Janadele, herself, to address them

Now that this OT derail attempt has been dealt with, perhaps you might explain how your sect's idiosyncratic ideas about eschatology are supposed to repair demonstrably a-historical claims about conditions in the pre-Colombian Americas, and about routine Egyptian funerary texts.

 

[Empress]

delete

 

[Empress]

I think part of it is jealousy. You're a better witness and a better representative of your church than she is. 1 Corinthians has a lot to say about coveting spiritual gifts, and I think that's what's happening here. The people here who do not share your faith are questioning you and probing your beliefs, but not attacking you. The attacks you've received have come from people who claim to share your beliefs, have been supposedly trying to engage in the same back and fourth discussion you're engaging in, and have failed miserably to convey anything about their faith besides arrogance and rote repetition of dogma.

I used to be a very Evangelical Conservative Christian. I know what effective witnessing looks like and what shoddy, embarrassing arrogance disguised as witnessing looks like. I also know that the people who lob Chick Tracts like a hippie throwing seed bombs get pretty pissed when someone comes in and uses genuine humility and knowledge to accomplish what their pompous tract papering failed to do.

Your critics remind me why I left organizes religion. You remind me of why that was such a hard thing to do.

halleyscomet = nommed

 

[halleyscomet]

halleyscomet = nommed

Thank you.

I am not, by the way, ignoring your contributions to the thread. I was specifically discussing why I think Cat was being attacked. There have been multiple former and current Mormons contributing concretely to this thread. This thread has been very educational when it has not been sidetracked.

 

[Craig4]

Me too!

We must collaborate or perish!

What we need is a hat with some rocks in it and a Reformed Egyptian/English dictionary.

Then we'll show 'em, by Crikey!

Um... actually, I was more thinking that my comments about the abortionist Smith employed were worthy of inclusion in his list.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Janadele's ugly and bigoted remarks are not immune to criticism.

There is a simple solution here. Stop with the copy pasta propaganda, bigotry, preaching and engage in a real and substantive discussion.

This is a skeptics site. We aren't interested in trite platitudes, cliche or mindless rhetoric.

 

[RandFan]

BTW: I think it is disgusting to eat Balut, Lutefisk, Rocky Mountain Oysters, for that matter oysters raw, and many other foods. But just because I find eating them disgusting does not mean that the act of eating these foods is immoral. If you don't like Sushi or homosexual acts then don't eat sushi or engage in homosexual acts.

How ******* hard is that?

Stop judging people who are not hurting other people.

 

[Akhenaten]

Um... actually, I was more thinking that my comments about the abortionist Smith employed were worthy of inclusion in his list.

Sorry.

My attempt to ride on the coat tails of your (I thought) clever sarcasm seem to have gone awry.

Apologies for my clumsy.

 

[Empress]

Janadele's ugly and bigoted remarks are not immune to criticism.

There is a simple solution here. Stop with the copy pasta propaganda, bigotry, preaching and engage in a real and substantive discussion.

This is a skeptics site. We aren't interested in trite platitudes, cliche or mindless rhetoric.

Ah, but then they might be forced to confront the fact that they've dedicated their lives to a religion started by a randy fraud and continued by a racist misogynist. Much easier to derail and to sing "la la la I can't hear you!" while attacking others.

Your ability to face the lies you were raised with, acknowledge that you were taught something wrong, and change your mind despite knowing you would face personal trials for turning your back on your religion is meritorious, and unfortunately, Janadele and skyrider seem incapable of your courage. It's a shame.

 

[deaman]

There is also a word to describe a person who professes to represent "a God of Eternal Love", but then turns around and tells people they are unintelligent, dispicable, abhorrent and going to hell for loving people in their lives.

That word is "hypocrite".

 

[Craig4]

Sorry.

My attempt to ride on the coat tails of your (I thought) clever sarcasm seem to have gone awry.

Apologies for my clumsy.

No worries, I just wasn't trying to go all nuclear option and pretend to have a vision like the douchebag who started their ********** up religion.

 

[halleyscomet]

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."

How is that an attack? I was contrasting her stated beliefs with the Buddhist concept of "enlightenment."

Let's break down my comment, shall we?

rigid

This is hardly something either of you could claim is an insult. Given her stated adherence to her reading of LDS dogma being called "rigid" in her beliefs is a compliment.

gloating

I will freely admit, this one is open to interpretation. She's made it pretty clear that she thinks our failure to accept Mormon writings as dogma is a shortcoming on our part, not a reason for her to even consider the questions we've raised about her "beliefs." Her confidence and pride in having accepted Smith's writings as divinely inspired comes across as gloating to me. The result is she ends up essentially espousing a form of Calvinist Predestination despite her denial that she believes in predestination.

prideful

It's not prideful to repeatedly insist she gets to decide what does and does not belong in the thread? She spent so much time playing the martyr card over simple questions that it got spun off into another thread. How prideful must a person be to think forum moderation that doesn't protect her feeling is somehow biased?

One of the major proof of her pride in her inability to learn from her behavior. She has been repeatedly banned from forums for pretty much the same behavior, yet she is too puffed up with self-importance to learn from her mistakes.

http://gold-silver.us/forum/printthread.php?t=62718&pp=10&page=23
http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43813.0.html

She refuses to learn how to evangelize effectively. Is not refusal to accept correction an indication of pride? If she were NOT prideful, don't you think she would have learned from Cat's example instead of attacking her?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9520656#post9520656

sham of belief

Go back and re-read the thread and you'll see that she rarely, if ever, articulates a belief in her own words. She almost always quotes other sources, sometimes without proper attribution. Back in my evangelical days, this style of "Parrot Theology" was pointed out as a sign that someone is ripe for conversion, that their "faith" is not in the doctrines being repeated, but in the source claimed. It was because of this danger, the fragility of a parrot faith, that we were taught to actually understand theology and articulate it in our own words.

Janadele's faith is a sham. She claims belief in Jesus Christ and the writings of Smith when it's clear her REAL faith is in the Elders of the LDS church. Shake her faith in the LDS Elders, and she will cease to be Mormon, just as whoever converted her to Mormonism shook her faith, not in what she believed before, but in the institution that provided the dogma she parroted.

Personally, I suspect she's most likely to fall into the hands of a conservative LDS splinter group, given her willingness to defend a pedophile polygamist without knowing anything about the charges against him.

pretty much the opposite of enlightenment

Again, in context, it's clear I'm referring to Buddhist ideas of enlightenment. Is is really an insult to point out a very conservative LDS Mormon is not Buddhist?

As a final note, what DID she do to get kicked off Twitter?
http://tagwalk.com/user/Janadele

 

[Empress]

As a final note, what DID she do to get kicked off Twitter?
http://tagwalk.com/user/Janadele

Oh wow. More fuel to feed the fire of her perceived martyrdom.

 

[LashL]

Okay, folks, please get back to the topic of thread. If you wish to discuss forum management issues, please take it to the appropriate sub-forum. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[deaman]

Ok, back to the topic.

Can Skyrider44 or Janadele, please give an account of the aforementioned discrepencies in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, please.

 

[Cat Tale]

Now that Janadele is back from her sabbatical, she can answer for herself instead of through her mouthpiece. Janadele, if you missed it, Cat Tale wrote a response to your diatribe via skyrider. No doubt she would like an answer as she has been nothing but kind and informative on this thread and can reasonably expect the same of others.
I've quoted her post here, in case you missed it while you were gone:

Thanks Empress, the actual post along with Skyrider44's/Janadele's comments is at this 7967. I like for things to be kept in context, that way people can see what was said on both sides.