1840s oppression of Mormons in Illinois

[Pahoran]

Hi Pahoran,

You asked,

The answer is yes. The only question that remains is why do you insist with arguing with me about what my position actually is? Why have you have latched onto this straw man like a pit bull? Could it be because you know my actual position is stronger than yours?

No.

It's because I know it isn't a straw man at all.

As do you.

Your position is stronger than mine in exactly the same way as it was in a previous thread, where you scampered like a frightened rabbit away from supporting your argument, then tried to taunt me from a safe distance.

You previously argued that Joseph was murdered, not for his religious beliefs but for his "bad political decisions." This is a fact, "Analytics."

You subsequently smugly appealed to the evil deeds of your predecessors as evidence of the badness of his political decisions. This is also a fact, "Analytics."

Calling it a "straw man" is therefore an intentionally counterfactual claim. As is SOP in certain circles.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

I've never blamed Joseph Smith for his own murder, but he is responsible for the choices he made.

Rabbit droppings.

USU "I leave you the last word" 78

[Pahoran]

The irony of you blaming the victim in the Boggs atempted murder is off the charts, BTW.

One of the victims of the Boggs assassination attempt was Joseph Smith. He didn't do it, but those who hated him immediately tried to pin it on him. And they've never stopped trying.

So what's your view on this, Analytics? Are you going to (at last) man up enough to stake out a position and defend it?

Or will you scamper away again, and then try to cover yourself by posing as the magnanimous fellow who was just too decent to argue from such an unassailably "strong position?"

I can hardly wait!

Regards,

Pahoran

[hagoth7]

...

...But it was a nice dodge. Bet you were a wrestler in school. Am I right?

Not sure whether that was intended as

1) an insult to Analytics or

2) an insult to wrestlers.

[Analytics]

No.

It's because I know it isn't a straw man at all.

As do you.

Please don't project your delusions onto me. Of course it was a strawman.

Your position is stronger than mine...

Thanks for admitting that.

[Analytics]

One of the victims of the Boggs assassination attempt was Joseph Smith. He didn't do it, but those who hated him immediately tried to pin it on him. And they've never stopped trying.

So what's your view on this, Analytics? Are you going to (at last) man up enough to stake out a position and defend it?

Or will you scamper away again, and then try to cover yourself by posing as the magnanimous fellow who was just too decent to argue from such an unassailably "strong position?"

I can hardly wait!

Regards,

Pahoran

Since you asked, I'm quite certain that Joseph Smith didn't assassinate Boggs. He wasn't even in Missouri at the time.

[Vance]

Since you asked, I'm quite certain that Joseph Smith didn't assassinate Boggs. He wasn't even in Missouri at the time.

AND . . . . Boggs WASN'T assassinated.

[Glenn101]

Since you asked, I'm quite certain that Joseph Smith didn't assassinate Boggs. He wasn't even in Missouri at the time.

If I remember correctly, he was accused of having Porter Rockwell attempt the assassination. One poster in another place, I believe it was Kerry Shirts, opined that the fact that Boggs was still alive to make the accusation as the best evidence against Porter as a would be assassin.

Glenn

[Deborah]

One poster in another place, I believe it was Kerry Shirts, opined that the fact that Boggs was still alive to make the accusation as the best evidence against Porter as a would be assassin.

Joseph Smith is reported to have said that he knew Porter didn't do it or Boggs would be dead.

[Anijen]

So why does the fact that Young was treated fairly indicate that Smith wouldn't have been?

Um, just a guess here, that Joseph and Hyrum being brutally shot down proves this.

[Analytics]

If I remember correctly, he was accused of having Porter Rockwell attempt the assassination. One poster in another place, I believe it was Kerry Shirts, opined that the fact that Boggs was still alive to make the accusation as the best evidence against Porter as a would be assassin.

Glenn

Joseph Smith is reported to have said that he knew Porter didn't do it or Boggs would be dead.

It

[Vance]

It

[Scott Lloyd]

I don

[Analytics]

Don't know if this easily accessible information is in the "Meridian" article to which Vance linked us, but here's a sentence from The Story of the Latter-day Saints by James Allen and Glen Leonard:

(p. 193).

I had thought this was fairly well-known. What a pity that Analytics has been left to wonder about it all these years. How glad I am to be able to enlighten him.

Thanks for the info. That detail isn't on the accounts I've seen on the web. It isn't that big of a pitty though. As I really don't care that much about this, I haven't studied it in serious detail.

[LeSellers]

I had thought this was fairly well-known. What a pity that Analytics has been left to wonder about it all these years. How glad I am to be able to enlighten him.

I imagine he'd be disappointed to learn there is a viable explanation. Now how can he club the church with his ignorance?

Lehi

[ttribe]

Thanks for the info. That detail isn't on the accounts I've seen on the web. It isn't that big of a pitty though. As I really don't care that much about this, I haven't studied it in serious detail.

Except that it tends to undermine the subtle suspicion you were raising.

[Pahoran]

Please don't project your delusions onto me. Of course it was a strawman.

Call for references, please. You see, Analytics, I have quoted your own words, in their context, to show how I arrive at my description of your argument. You have opposed that with nothing but a bare denial. At any time, you could have offered an alternative explanation, interpretation or clarifation to show that your argument was other than how I described it; but you have failed entirely to even attempt it.

So now you get to either put up or shut up. No more meaningless puffery about how unassailably "strong" you imagine your position to be. Demonstrate, please, why my description was so self-evidently wrong.

In the absence of such a demonstration, the only available conclusion is that of course it was not a strawman.

And that you knew it all along.

Thanks for admitting that.

As honest a representation as you've ever made.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Since you asked, I'm quite certain that Joseph Smith didn't assassinate Boggs. He wasn't even in Missouri at the time.

Nice dodge!

Ah, if only you hadn't waxed so faux indignant about "straw man" arguments.

As you of course knew all along, I did not state, suggest or imply that anyone had ever accused Joseph of actually holding the gun.

But I note that you have subsequently vindicated my faith in you. For, while labouring to avoid taking any responsibility for the accusation, in the noblest tradition of gossip, you have nevertheless tried indirectly to make it stick.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

Call for references, please. You see, Analytics, I have quoted your own words, in their context, to show how I arrive at my description of your argument. You have opposed that with nothing but a bare denial. At any time, you could have offered an alternative explanation, interpretation or clarifation to show that your argument was other than how I described it; but you have failed entirely to even attempt it.

So now you get to either put up or shut up. No more meaningless puffery about how unassailably "strong" you imagine your position to be. Demonstrate, please, why my description was so self-evidently wrong.

Sigh.

Here is the straw man, in your own words.

The Mormons weren't persecuted for their religion; they were driven out of Nauvoo and Illinois because of the political stupidity of Joseph Smith. How do we know that Joseph's political decisions were stupid? Because they resulted in the expulsion of the Mormons! And thus, the case is proven.

It

[Glenn101]

................

It

[Pahoran]

Sigh.

Here is the straw man, in your own words.

It's not a straw man, and it is not honest for you to continue to pretend that it is.

A straw man, just in case you don't know, is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's argument in order to make it easier to attack.

If I did not understand your argument -- and you have yet to show that I did not -- then there was no intent on my part. Indeed, it would be a reasonable starting point for you to admit that my representation of your argument was available based solely upon what you said, and when you said it.

It

[Analytics]

(I would throw an "as you know" Pahoranism in right here, but I now wonder whether you are in fact possessed of an attention span sufficient to sustain you through this.)

See, I can do cheap shots too.

Even Pahoran can do Pahoranisms? Who would have thought!

Seriously. Could anything be more ironic that Pahoran lecturing somebody about cheap shots? You are the undisputed master of cheap shots. Sometimes your posts contain actual content and sometimes they don

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm simply calling it an axiom so that you can see what part it plays in the logical structure of my actual argument, as compared to your straw man.

Calling something an axiom does not make it one. A normative definition of the word axiom is "a statement universally accepted as true." The very existence of this thread

[Scott Lloyd]

Analytics, on 10 June 2010 - 10:20 AM, said:

Let

[Pahoran]

Even Pahoran can do Pahoranisms? Who would have thought!

Seriously. Could anything be more ironic that Pahoran lecturing somebody about cheap shots? You are the undisputed master of cheap shots. Sometimes your posts contain actual content and sometimes they don