jwhitlock Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Here's a question, before I hit the rack.How did the two who posted before me get to be "Pundits"? I always supposed that meant that someone had something in depth or worthwhile to contribute about a subject.I must have supposed wrong.Good night.
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Have you been denied your right to free speech? Has anyone said Oaks must not express his opinion? Yet you react to criticism like it will totally extinguish your religion. Yea, the "persecution" is "on". All for criticism in a free society. What are you? A wimp? You expect everything to go your way and for all to accept Mormonism without question? Sounds to me like you'd be happy if no one uttered a single word of criticism, in line with Oaks' statement that criticism of Church leaders is never justified - "even if it is true". Ironically, Elder Oaks's address was presented expressly to support the right of everyone to engage in public criticism without the fear of reprisals or intimidation. <sigh>
Analytics Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 What then, pray tell, am I supposed to understand by your comment - which I'll quote again here for effect:"...supporters of proposition 8 suffer from the same thing that blacks in the South did..."Of course, if you'd meant to limit your comment to voter intimidation, you would have... (drum roll)... simply quoted what Elder Oaks said accurately, instead of "paraphrasing" it for us. Perhaps we can't understand what Elder Oaks really meant, unless you paraphrase it properly for us. Right?Since your only real response to my comment is to sniff about "understanding [your] intentions better than [you] do", and since you also didn't bother (also disingenuously) to deny that's what you meant, I suspect that I'm pretty much on the mark about your intentions.Or would you like to actually retract and clarify your post, if I got it wrong?You can use your own judgement of whether or not I clarified my post when I followed-up by quoting Elder Oak. I'm not going to argue about it with you anymore.My actual point was about how absurd Campbell's analysis in the OP was--your accusation that one of my words was sinisterly unspecific has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of my criticism of Campbell.
David Bokovoy Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Thanks Scott for drawing our attention to this report. I'll confess that I really hadn't paid too much attention to what Elder Oak's actually said. I honestly can't see how anyone could take offense to the remarks.
selek Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Are you surprised, JWhit?Oaks committed the penultimate sin: he told the truth, and in so doing exposed the hypocrisy of the Left and left their intellectual vacuity and moral bankruptcy squalling naked in the full light of reality.Faced with the stark reality of their betrayal of both common decency and American civil virtue, the malefactors have but two choices- reform and forsake their evil ways or attempt to destroy those who stand as witnesses against them.Like every other moral coward, preening narcissist, and corrupt fool on the planet, Annie, Angostini, and the rest have chosen to try and destroy what they can neither refute nor factually dispute.But then, that's not exactly new, now is it?
Ray Agostini Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 He made it clear in his speech. He was talking about voter intimidation.jWhitlock: Explain "voter intimidation". I'd like to hear the nuances of your apologetic.Voter intimidation of Blacks included real violence against Blacks which sought to prevent them from voting. And in the 1960s this was not hard to do. They were accosted and violence against them was real. Courts consistently rule that physical violence or threats constitute voter intimidation, but, as today's conflicting rulings show, there is no judicial consensus on which nonviolent acts are legally considered intimidating. State and federal laws that ban intimidation don't offer much guidance on how courts should define it. The Ohio law, for instance, says that "no person shall
Zakuska Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Who stopped Mormons from voting? Didn't you win? Didn't you get the "desired result"? Wasn't Prop 8 passed? You are forgetting what was revealed on Dr. Phil.Both sides were threatening the other with intimidation tactics and Job loss. This happened to blacks. They also where kicked out their homes for even trying to register. PS. Mormons were mailed Fair dust, Not fairy floss.
selek Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Isn't it ironic and meanly amusing how Ray insists upon his Constitutional right to criticize Elder Oaks, yet gets foamy and flustered when WE exercise OUR Constitutional right to criticize HIM?Note that none of up has called for him to be silenced- our insistence that if be accurate and intellectually honest is sufficient to drive him to distraction.
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Explain "voter intimidation". I'd like to hear the nuances of your apologetic.Voter intimidation of Blacks included real violence against Blacks which sought to prevent them from voting.Apparently, one needn't actually employ violence or succeed in preventing people from voting in order to engage in voter intimidation if merely dressing up in uniforms, holding a nightstick, and speaking insults outside a polling place were enough to create '"the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that [a certain civil rights activist] had ever seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago' (link).Considering that timid is the root of intimidation, I'd be willing to argue that anything which makes people nervous or afraid to vote for or otherwise support efforts to vote for a person or cause is, by definition, voter intimidation. People--especially the ones who disagree with me!--ought not be made 'to pay for' holding and then acting upon a sincere opinion...unless, of course, we've entered some brave new world post liberal democracy.Imagine if people could lose their livelihoods simply for daring to criticise Elder Oaks....
Ray Agostini Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 PS. Mormons were mailed Fair dust, Not fairy floss.The "dust" was not shown to originate with anti-Mormons. If only you'd check your facts once in a while. But sure, be quick to demonise all "anti-Mormons". Look for enemies on every street corner - to feed your hypersensitive perscution complex.Which you are particularly good at.
Ray Agostini Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Isn't it ironic and meanly amusing how Ray insists upon his Constitutional right to criticize Elder Oaks, yet gets foamy and flustered when WE exercise OUR Constitutional right to criticize HIM?I fear or protest your criticism of me? Get out of your apologetic mirage, you utter and abusive fool!
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 The "dust" was not shown to originate with anti-Mormons. If only you'd check your facts once in a while. But sure, be quick to demonise all "anti-Mormons". Look for enemies on every street corner - to feed your hypersensitive perscution complex.Which you are particularly good at.So the unknown white powder was mailed to the temple by friends of the Church who meant it as a gift to be enjoyed by the patrons and local Saints??? Since, as you have so eloquently argued, it couldn't have been the work of our make-believe 'enemies.'
Ray Agostini Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 So the unknown white powder was mailed to the temple by friends of the Church who meant it as a gift to be enjoyed by the patrons and local Saints??? Since, as you have so eloquently argued, it couldn't have been the work of our make-believe 'enemies.'You are patently, insufferably and totally ignorant of the facts. But I'd expect you to join the throng calling for the hanging of "anti-Mormons". I'm suddenly feeling a gush of compassion for the "denizens" on RFM. You apologists do such good work.
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 You are patently, insufferably and totally ignorant of the facts.Help me out with the facts, then, Ray. You seem to 'know' that the anthrax scare wasn't the work of Church enemies. Please do continue. I'm happy to be enlightened.
Ray Agostini Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Imagine if people could lose their livelihoods simply for daring to criticise Elder Oaks....That's pretty much what happened to critics of the Mormon Black Policy. You think the Church would have employed them? Have you seen the list of excommunicants for just questioning the historicity of the BoM? Does the name David Wright ring a bell? Does the name Brent Metcalfe ring a bell?How many more people are you going to spit out of your doctrinal mouth?Where does your crusade to eliminate "intransigents" end? Anyone for a stake BBQ?
Ray Agostini Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Help me out with the facts, then, Ray. You seem to 'know' that the anthrax scare wasn't the work of Church enemies. Please do continue. I'm happy to be enlightened.Do your own reading. It has not been established whodoneit.But I seriously think you'd prefer to remain in your anti-anti-Mormon delusions.You don't fool me for one second.
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 That's pretty much what happened to critics of the Mormon Black Policy. You think the Church would have employed them? Have you seen the list of excommunicants for just questioning the historicity of the BoM? Does the name David Wright ring a bell? Does the name Brent Metcalfe ring a bell?How many more people are you going to spit out of your doctrinal mouth?Where does your crusade to eliminate "intransigents" end? Anyone for a stake BBQ?OK, I get you. So excommunication from a voluntary organisation is identical to driving people out of gainful employment in the secular workplace. That makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying.
selek Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Like I said... foamy (the "at the mouth part" was unspoken) and flustered.And now, of course, he's even MORE desperate to change the subject.We really should sell popcorn to these things... it's hugely entertaining to watch...
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Do your own reading. It has not been established whodoneit.Of course it hasn't. You merely asserted, in the exact same state of ignorance on this point as I am in, that considering an anthrax scare to be the work of someone opposed to the Church was a manifestation of a persecution complex which sees enemies where none exists. Do you really think the person/people who did it had no enmity? For example, do you think it was a purely random event? Maybe they got the address wrong?
Ray Agostini Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 OK, I get you. So excommunication from a voluntary organisation is identical to driving people out of gainful employment in the secular workplace. That makes perfec sense. Thanks for clarifying.Voluntary? Did all the ex-Mormons born into Mormonsim ask to be born into it? What is "voluntary" about the religion your parents shoved down your throat from the time you were born, and told you you are going to hell if you rejected it? To burn with Lucifer. What is "voluntary" about religious intimidation? What is "voluntary" about being born into a religion that says you reject it at the peril of your soul, and your salvation? What is "voluntary" about the emotional and spiritual abuse that accompanies this? You must "get into line", or suffer damnation. I am so glad I didn't bring my children up with this religious sewage.
Ray Agostini Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Do you really think the person/people who did it had no enmity? Sure. But how do you know they are ex-Mormons? Through a seance?
Ray Agostini Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Like I said... foamy (the "at the mouth part" was unspoken) and flustered.And now, of course, he's even MORE desperate to change the subject.We really should sell popcorn to these things... it's hugely entertaining to watch...You have as much credibility as Donald Duck.
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Get out of your apologetic mirage, you utter and abusive fool!You are patently, insufferably and totally ignorant of the facts. But I'd expect you to join the throng calling for the hanging of "anti-Mormons". How many more people are you going to spit out of your doctrinal mouth?Where does your crusade to eliminate "intransigents" end? Anyone for a stake BBQ?But I seriously think you'd prefer to remain in your anti-anti-Mormon delusions.You don't fool me for one second.You have as much credibility as Donald Duck.By the way, is this the same Ray Agostini who, yesterday in the Inappropriate Cheerfulness thread, chastised Latter-day Saints for not living up to our prescribed 'Ethic of Civility' or treating our opponents with kindness?
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Sure. But how do you know they are ex-Mormons? Through a seance?Mate, WHO said it was the work of 'ex-Mormons'???
selek Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Voluntary? Did all the ex-Mormons born into Mormonsim ask to be born into it? What is "voluntary" about the religion your parents shoved down your throat from the time you were born, and told you you are going to hell if you rejected it? To burn with Lucifer. What is "voluntary" about religious intimidation? What is "voluntary" about being born into a religion that says you reject it at the peril of your soul, and your salvation? What is "voluntary" about the emotional and spiritual abuse that accompanies this? You must "get into line", or suffer damnation. I am so glad I dodn't bring my children up with this religious sewage.Ray's dialogue is great, but the meltdown just isn't complete without the visuals and special soundtracks...Can anybody lend him a couple of gallons of split-pea soup and the Exorcistsoundtrack?Or even just an MP3 of wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.