Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[SoCalCoug]

It seems to me that if you can predict an argument, it probably makes some logical sense.

I can predict that my 5-year-old is going to advocate for leaving the closet light on so that the monsters don't get him. Yep. Logical sense.

[UVACoug]

Has somebody not allowed you to post your viewpoint? Have you been censored?

Or have we just ganged up with on you because your viewpoint is as predictable as the sun's rise and most of us know we'll disagree with it before it comes out, based on past interaction?

The debater in you should know that you have to defend your own ideas. The lawyer in you should know that you have to know your audience.

If you're not being actively censored, I don't understand what you just wrote. But if you wish, we can start (again) with something simple. How about whether or not the church has ever changed in response to internal or external pressure.

Oh, wait. We did that already, but it wasn't even here. The results were the same though.

Since when did predictability make an argument wrong? It seems to me that if you can predict an argument, it probably makes some logical sense. Now an argument has to be novel or unheard of in order to be acceptable here? Huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[UVACoug]

I'm not on a lot of internet boards outside of this one, but compared to the few I've dabbled on, this board is amazingly respectful, IMO, particularly if you consider the two subjects one should really never broach at parties--politics and religion. I guarantee that woot, NS, JIC, et al bite their tongues more often than they'd like, far more often than Tone Loc and UVA, for example. I get that religion is a sensitive and personal subject but I think most people try to remain pretty respectful of that. Maybe a frank discussion feels harsh (or angry or sad or whatever) because things are so protected at church. Still, I'd be happy to line up "TBM" comments against "anti" comments--I think you'd be surprised to see how much latitude the former group gets.

I appreciate that I can come here and have my idiotic viewpoints ridiculed at only half the intensity that they deserve to be ridiculed by. If people are biting their tongues here, I would hate to see what it is like when they let loose.

[LA Ute]

No it was another post about you being picked on. Get over it. Nobody has censored you.

That word "censored" is awfully hard to find in my posts below.

[LA Ute]

How about instead of thinking up new and creative ways to point out the fault in other posters you (as in everyone) just debate the topic? Let the individual decide who presented the best case and make their own judgments. A bunch of very intelligent men playing passive-agressive grab-ass is dumb.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think my post to which you are responding above was about open-mindedness....

No it was another post about you being picked on. Get over it. Nobody has censored you.

[Blueintheface]

How about instead of thinking up new and creative ways to point out the fault in other posters you (as in everyone) just debate the topic? Let the individual decide who presented the best case and make their own judgments. A bunch of very intelligent men playing passive-agressive grab-ass is dumb.

[LA Ute]

Has somebody not allowed you to post your viewpoint? Have you been censored?

Or have we just ganged up with on you because your viewpoint is as predictable as the sun's rise and most of us know we'll disagree with it before it comes out, based on past interaction?

I think my post to which you are responding above was about open-mindedness....

[Pheidippides]

One of this subforum's main problems is that many seem to think, as you appear to, that you're in a position to decide what deserves a defense and what does not. Also (and maybe this is engineer-like binary thinking) you seem to think that every time I point out a hole in an argument, or lay out an alternative point of view, I am actually espousing that point of view. The lawyer and former debater in me likes to point out the other side. I know there is a widely-held belief among many of the progmos here that you are awesomely open-minded, but I invite you all to consider the possibility that you may not be as open-minded as you think you are. Politely allowing people to post views that run counter to the orthodoxy that prevails here is not open-mindedness.

Has somebody not allowed you to post your viewpoint? Have you been censored?

Or have we just ganged up with on you because your viewpoint is as predictable as the sun's rise and most of us know we'll disagree with it before it comes out, based on past interaction?

The debater in you should know that you have to defend your own ideas. The lawyer in you should know that you have to know your audience.

If you're not being actively censored, I don't understand what you just wrote. But if you wish, we can start (again) with something simple. How about whether or not the church has ever changed in response to internal or external pressure.

Oh, wait. We did that already, but it wasn't even here. The results were the same though.

[LA Ute]

Yep. One of LAU's main problems is that he doesn't seem to be particularly choosy about his apologetics. He defends everything, even things that deserve no defense whatsoever. Then when it blows up on him he paints the response as anti-believer bias. Yawn.

One of this subforum's main problems is that many seem to think, as you appear to, that you're in a position to decide what deserves a defense and what does not. Also (and maybe this is engineer-like binary thinking) you seem to think that every time I point out a hole in an argument, or lay out an alternative point of view, I am actually espousing that point of view. The lawyer and former debater in me likes to point out the other side. I know there is a widely-held belief among many of the progmos here that you are awesomely open-minded, but I invite you all to consider the possibility that you may not be as open-minded as you think you are. Politely allowing people to post views that run counter to the orthodoxy that prevails here is not open-mindedness.

[Jeff Lebowski]

LA Ute is, of course, as believing as they come, and whether you want to call that devotion or mindless goose stepping is not important. The larger point is that he is unwilling to take anything on faith if it doesn't come
from On High. "What? Gum and licked cupcakes? Never heard it, so it must not be true and/or a problem. Where's your proof?" He is, in effect, bizarro Korihor, although we love him too much to want him stricken dumb. Most of the time, anyway.

Yep. One of LAU's main problems is that he doesn't seem to be particularly choosy about his apologetics. He defends everything, even things that deserve no defense whatsoever. Then when it blows up on him he paints the response as anti-believer bias. Yawn.

[Pheidippides]

I hereby withdraw my suspicion that your post was angry. [ATTACH=CONFIG]2140[/ATTACH] I do think a lot of people express anger and frustration here. That's what I am really saying.



Hey, wait just a minute. I have said I deplore the licked cupcake analogy and that it ought to be stomped out of existence. I am just saying I haven't run into it. I've also said I would say something (to counter it) if I ever heard the analogy. My theory continues to be that it is most prevalent in highly-concentrated Mormon areas.



There you go again.


Couldn't you just talk to the teacher? Seriously. And make sure your daughter has the Gold Coin lesson in FHE more than once before that can even occur.



You know what will happen to you if you do that. Texas is only a short plane ride from where I am, and my boots are heavy.

Actually, the YW teaching on a local level will be fine (my wife is in there to monitor as part of the presidency). I've butted heads with one bishopric member over asking about masturbation (going so far as to say that she doesn't need to go to the temple if they asking anything more than questions adults get) but that's it. Nothing I can get too up in arms with.

But I'm carefully watching the various gender roles in the church and youth and am very concerned, as is my wife. So I think that for a lot of the time we're opting out of YW for better activities, iust like we're probably opting out of scouts with my son and having him join a non LDS troop if we go that way.

The gum thing is a fear that will hopefully stay unrealized. Not that I will have to tell my daughter how stupid that is - she, independent of me, is already questioning church authority quite well, thank you very much.

[LA Ute]

On a conference call, chatting with two employees on line, following up on email, and tracking my web site clicks. checking in here from time to time. not giving it a lot of emotion one way or another. but my emotion when i made that original post had no sadness or anger in it. mocking, yes. and to be clear not mocking LDS but mocking the apologists that come up with theories like you were pushing in your post.

What part of it seemed angry?

I hereby withdraw my suspicion that your post was angry. peace.gif I do think a lot of people express anger and frustration here. That's what I am really saying.

Excellent post. I agree with the freedom bit.

I think many of us have spent a few years angry at something or other, but that has passed for most of us I think. I can't speak for anybody but myself, but happier now than I have been in...well, I can't remember. I see that in others too.

What LA Ute is misdiagnosing as anger and sadness is frustration - or, more precisely, the frustration of trying to coexist with a church that is incredibly messed up in many ways, at least when viewed from most vantage points that don't include complete devotion. And, more evident here, the frustration that the completely or mostly devoted have absolutely no clue what we are seeing. The unstated corollary to this is that there are a lot of great things there too, else why would we still participate?

LA Ute is, of course, as believing as they come, and whether you want to call that devotion or mindless goose stepping is not important. The larger point is that he is unwilling to take anything on faith if it doesn't come from On High. "What? Gum and licked cupcakes? Never heard it, so it must not be true and/or a problem. Where's your proof?" He is, in effect, bizarro Korihor, although we love him too much to want him stricken dumb. Most of the time, anyway.

Hey, wait just a minute. I have said I deplore the licked cupcake analogy and that it ought to be stomped out of existence. I am just saying I haven't run into it. I've also said I would say something (to counter it) if I ever heard the analogy. My theory continues to be that it is most prevalent in highly-concentrated Mormon areas.

I pick on LA because (a) it's fun and (b) we have established a pattern of crossing what little wits we have, but it shouldn't surprise anybody that the devout defend what they love, tooth and nail, even when it comes to ridiculous arguments or unsupportable positions (as people like me see it).

There you go again.

That's not important, although we do - I do - have to learn how to coexist, at least for the time being. But the pattern I am seeing is that one day all the ridiculousness and concerns outweigh the good for people and they say, if you'll pardon the language, "f*** it, I'm out." And I have to ask myself if that's what will happen to me when/if my daughter gets the gum lesson from a well-meaning but stupid leader and I go batshit crazy on the phone after the face (because that's what will happen).

Couldn't you just talk to the teacher? Seriously. And make sure your daughter has the Gold Coin lesson in FHE more than once before that can even occur.

I guess what I'm saying is the more I reflect on my own childhood and the various experiences of others, the more I'm not sure I want my own kids to run the risk of being part of it, and maybe I am better off being Presbyterian or something.

You know what will happen to you if you do that. Texas is only a short plane ride from where I am, and my boots are heavy.

[LA Ute]

I probably don't count as a reasonable person, but I read it more as sarcastic than angry.

I think you're reasonable, but you can't trust my ability to discern that.

[Indy Coug]

I'm choosing to take that as a compliment and will assume I'm not being mocked. :thumbsup:

No mockery here. I think we're basically on the same page on this topic.