Poll: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Only because your ability to think objectively about issues related to Mormonism has been hampered by your over-zealous attempts to defend it at all costs.

This, or some variation thereof, has become a stock attack used by antagonistic critics against those who defend the Church of Jesus Christ. It is a classic ad hominem and well-poisoning fallacy. Being an ardent defender of the Church does not necessarily affect one's ability to "think objectively," any more than being a habitual critic affects the critic's ability to "think objectively."

Ironically, it is most often the antagonists who accuse the defenders of making ad homs.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/14/2015 at 9:25 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

An abundance of knowledge does not always equal wisdom. Very often, in fact, it does not. 

 

On 12/15/2015 at 5:23 PM, consiglieri said:

Glad to know I am exception to that rule.

Whew!

Exception to what rule? I didn't express a rule.

What I did is make the axiomatic observation that having an abundance of knowledge does not necessarily endow one with great wisdom.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This, or some variation thereof, has become a stock attack used by antagonistic critics against those who defend the Church of Jesus Christ. It is a classic ad hominem and well-poisoning fallacy.

 

I guess I will have to take your word for it, since you have proven yourself an expert in all of the above.

And that's just in the last few days.

Man, you are good!

 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Exception to what rule? I didn't express a rule.

What I did is make the axiomatic observation that having an abundance of knowledge does not necessarily endow one with great wisdom.

And prove you have absolutely no sense of humor.

Nice work!

 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You beat me to the punch, Russell. I was going to point out the same thing regarding consig's asinumption.

I will just mention, for those who might not know, that the post hoc fallacy, more formally known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), is illustrated by the absurd assertion that the rooster causes the sun to come up because the dawn always follows its crowing.

Consig's a priori assertion that the proclamation is "likely a legal document" related to the Hawaii case is yet another instance of his trademark sophistry.

 

Thanks, Professor.

But you know, every now and then, actually placing a historical act (i.e., the Proclamation) in its historical context (i.e., the Hawaii gay marriage appeal) can lead to the recognition that there is a connection between the two.

It's not rocket science.

Nor is it uncommon.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You beat me to the punch, Russell. I was going to point out the same thing regarding consig's asinumption.

I will just mention, for those who might not know, that the post hoc fallacy, more formally known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"), is illustrated by the absurd assertion that the rooster causes the sun to come up because the dawn always follows its crowing.

Consig's a priori assertion that the proclamation is "likely a legal document" related to the Hawaii case is yet another instance of his trademark sophistry.

 

 

53 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks, Professor.

But you know, every now and then, actually placing a historical act (i.e., the Proclamation) in its historical context (i.e., the Hawaii gay marriage appeal) can lead to the recognition that there is a connection between the two.

It's not rocket science.

Nor is it uncommon.

I've already acknowledged the plausibility of the speculative theory you cited.

But being plausible does not make a thing factual. To establish that something is factual requires more work than merely raising a possibility or suspicion.

To bring this closer to the matter at hand, merely placing a thing within a historical context is not, all by itself, probative. It does not necessarily establish a causal connection between that thing and something else, much less establish a primary causal connection, as you have claimed and asserted here with regard to the family proclamation and the Hawaii case.

As we have seen, President Packer, an eyewitness to and player in the formation of the proclamation, has publicly stated how it came about, and he didn't even mention the Hawaii case.

And your personal mistrust of and contempt for the Brethren is not probative either.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As we have seen, President Packer, an eyewitness to and player in the formation of the proclamation, has publicly stated how it came about, and he didn't even mention the Hawaii case.

And your personal mistrust of and contempt for the Brethren is not probative either.

I disagree.

I think it says a lot about Consig's probity.

[Nemesis]

Everyone knock off the personal jabs and have a discussion before I close the thread.

 

nemesis

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Nemesis said:

Everyone knock off the personal jabs and have a discussion before I close the thread.

 

nemesis

Thanks, Nemesis!

Has Ares talked to you about the subject I was asking Mod permission to post?

This was around a week ago now and I haven't heard anything back yet.

[Nemesis]

49 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks, Nemesis!

Has Ares talked to you about the subject I was asking Mod permission to post?

This was around a week ago now and I haven't heard anything back yet.

In your messenger invite me into the conversation so I can see it.

 

nemesis

[consiglieri]

10 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

In your messenger invite me into the conversation so I can see it.

 

nemesis

I will do that.  For some reason, I couldn't PM you because I got a message that my inbox was full.

But that didn't keep me from sending it to Ares, so that is where I sent it.

I have deleted a bunch of old messages from my inbox, so I will try you here in a minute.

Thanks!