Jump to content

Malc

Members
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About Malc

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. OK - I can't argue with you on people's rights to hold opinions - whether they agree with my opinions or not.
  2. FWIW, I was responding to what I quoted of Teancum's post, and not to any earlier discussion. In spite of what you say, some members who consider themselves faithful seem to feel that it's their right to judge the no-longer-believing member's former state of faith or belief. Do you agree that they are within their rights to do so?
  3. Sorry I'm a bit late to this discussion. This is just a variant of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I expect that, up until the point at which a member became aware that you no longer believed, they would have described you as an exemplary member, strong and faithful, to be admired, etc. It's only after knowing that you don't believe any more that the current believer needs to retrofit an addendum to your description. And that likely includes priesthood leaders who knew you and never had cause to doubt you - an example of discernment gone MIA. I (may I be forgiven) have said
  4. I wasn't aware that he was broadcasting the video; if so, then I take your point - it seems rather counterproductive. Anyway, I was really just responding to klindley's statements: "How a production company or series of YouTube videos would inflict violence on John Dehlin is beyond me. Maybe John is actually terrified that these videos will somehow kill him."
  5. I don't think that anyone could seriously argue that a video would inflict violence. I don't think that that's the point. However, it is not unknown for violent people to take their cue from a statement by someone they admire, and act, or threaten to act, on it.
  6. Hardly. I just thought that perhaps someone who knew how to get in touch with FM might let them know. If it were me, I'd hope someone would tell me. But if you say that's unreasonable I won't argue with you. Perhaps they are totally unaware of what's going on.
  7. I've looked (though, I admit, not very vigorously) for some kind of statement from FAIR about the video, since it was retweeted by someone closely associated with them. I have to admit that I'm puzzled at my lack of success. While they didn't make the video, they don't seem to be anxious to dissociate themselves from it.
  8. I'm often at least as "surprised" as you are at behaviour that's OK in Utah - I'm from Canada!
  9. To whom would it be obvious that Kwaku is black, and when would that be obvious? For example, when I first heard of him I didn't know if Kwaku was his IRL name, and made no assumptions about his age or colour. Knowing that it is his real name still doesn't tell me that he is black, only that it's not a typical anglo-saxon name. And surely you're not suggesting that Dehlin is mocking Kwaku's religion because Kwaku is a black kid, right? (assuming, for the sake of argument, that Dehlin is mocking Kwaku's religion) If Kwaku had been a middle-age white guy, nothing in the complaint would
  10. I don't believe that that was the defining issue - that's why I don't understand why it matters at all. I wonder why juliann is making a point about a middle-aged white guy complaining to the police about a young black guy. If the complaint didn't refer to colour, why should it matter what colour or age either is.. I assume that you're not suggesting that Kwaku's colour gives him a free pass here - or that Dehlin's colour means that he should keep quiet. (btw, that's not a snark - I really mean that I'm making that assumption, informed by your previous posts that I've read.) If
  11. If the middle-aged white guy had called the police to complain about a young black guy, I might agree - and agree (at least to some extent) with juliann. As far as we know, Dehlin made no mention of Kwaku's colour when he called the police.
  12. Are you suggesting that it would have been OK if their skin colours were reversed, or if both were the same?
  13. Not to contradict you at all, Calm, but anyone outside of the LDS-related blogosphere is unlikely to understand this relationship, or lack thereof. What people will see is that Kwaku's videos are hosted on FM, and will likely infer a relationship that "insiders" know does not exist. This is why I think that FM should consider making a clear statement to the effect that they do not condone this kind of attack on anyone, critic or not.
  14. However, it might be worthwhile for FM to explicitly distance themselves from the clip (since it has a character labeled FAIRMORMON) and the idea of violence against critics of the church.
  15. I haven't seen anyone saying that this is a FM production - just people pointing out that it was tweeted out by someone recently who is associated with FM and whose videos are featured on the FM website. Have you seen people circulating it as a FM production? ETA: Although I'm not a faithful member of the church, and am often critical of the organization, if anyone were to ask me if I thought that this clip represented either the church of FM, I would reply "definitely not"
×
×
  • Create New...