Double Mormon Ticket...

[Phantasmal]

This post is full of nonsense. Read the thread, throughout you continued to "suggest" that a "double-Mormon" ticket would be disastrous even after finding out that even Mormons don't consider anybody "always a Mormon"...

Seriously, this has become very sad. You want me to pretend that what you said didn't mean anything and that your later more vague posts restating it while "blaming" the "misunderstanding" of others made it all better. I gave you the out. Just say, "Well, oops! Apparently I didn't know about LDS and trusted the article, I should have researched a bit."

Instead you just pushed on, continued to "suggest" what you knew to be false and then later dropping a pre-conversation you had about it from some LDS people who ate at your house and insisted, for no apparent reason as the article came out days after that event, that "once a Mormon, always a Mormon"...

See, that is how you see it, I see it from Jarod's perspective. He personally did not see it as disastrous but thought the Teavangelists would.

You blew it WAY out of proportion, in my opinion, calling him a bigot, when I don't see him as bigot.

 

[Jarod]

Let me guess, you got into phony Americanized Pop Buddhism back in the day?

Nope I was a member of the /unitarian church until fairly reciently.

 

[Jarod]

This post is full of nonsense. Read the thread, throughout you continued to "suggest" that a "double-Mormon" ticket would be disastrous even after finding out that even Mormons don't consider anybody "always a Mormon"...

Seriously, this has become very sad. You want me to pretend that what you said didn't mean anything and that your later more vague posts restating it while "blaming" the "misunderstanding" of others made it all better. I gave you the out. Just say, "Well, oops! Apparently I didn't know about LDS and trusted the article, I should have researched a bit."

Instead you just pushed on, continued to "suggest" what you knew to be false and then later dropping a pre-conversation you had about it from some LDS people who ate at your house and insisted, for no apparent reason as the article came out days after that event, that "once a Mormon, always a Mormon"...

I also never said it would be disasterous. I said that it would be harmfull to the ticket, even though I disagree that it should be. I still belive that regardless of if the Mormons believe you can quit or not. Much like the President picking a black man as a running made would have been harmfull.
So we are making progress, now you are claiming I continued to "suggest" instead of insisted. Where did I do this suggesting?

 

[Jarod]

This post is full of nonsense. Read the thread, throughout you continued to "suggest" that a "double-Mormon" ticket would be disastrous even after finding out that even Mormons don't consider anybody "always a Mormon"...

Seriously, this has become very sad. You want me to pretend that what you said didn't mean anything and that your later more vague posts restating it while "blaming" the "misunderstanding" of others made it all better. I gave you the out. Just say, "Well, oops! Apparently I didn't know about LDS and trusted the article, I should have researched a bit."

Instead you just pushed on, continued to "suggest" what you knew to be false and then later dropping a pre-conversation you had about it from some LDS people who ate at your house and insisted, for no apparent reason as the article came out days after that event, that "once a Mormon, always a Mormon"...

Please pull a quote of mine where I continued to "suggest" what I knew to be false? I am glad it has changed from insisting to suggesting.

 

[Damocles]

Please pull a quote of mine where I continued to "suggest" what I knew to be false? I am glad it has changed from insisting to suggesting.

I've already done that earlier in the thread. As I said... you can have the last word. I lost much respect for you as you tried to convince others that you really didn't mean it "that way" and crawfished rather than simply manning up.

 

[Damocles]

Crap can't unthank a post in tapatalk. I didn't even know you could thank... well I'll do it later..

 

[Jarod]

I've already done that earlier in the thread. As I said... you can have the last word. I lost much respect for you as you tried to convince others that you really didn't mean it "that way" and crawfished rather than simply manning up.

So you cant do it, I undersand... if you already did, just tell me the post number because I cant find it.

 

[Jarod]

The last word on this should be from you and it should go something like this...

"I am sorry I did not give you the benefit of the doubt, bigot is a strong word and should not be thrown about lightly. While I belive you were wrong about the Mormon Church that does not make you a bigot or a liar."

Until then I intend to continue bringing it up, I dont like to just let go of unjustice. I dont like the gratitous use of strong words like "bigot" and "liar" coming from people I generally respect. I belive it waters down the true insult that is bigot and liar. It is important to disagree and hash out our political differences, it is also important to call people out when you belive them to be wrong. It is harmfull to sling names at people while doing this and it is harmfull to the debate to use these terms lightly. The discorse in important, but to allow yourself to stoop to petty name calling because you dont like someone's point is shamefull.

Still waiting on you to man up!

 

[Damocles]

So you cant do it, I undersand

I'll simply point you once again to the thread. It isn't hard and I'm not here to read it to you. If you can't find the posts I previously quoted or understand why somebody may draw the same conclusion as I (apparently many are partisanly disingenuous) do I'd suggest a bit of introspection.

 

[Phantasmal]

I'll simply point you once again to the thread. It isn't hard and I'm not here to read it to you. If you can't find the posts I previously quoted or understand why somebody may draw the same conclusion as I (apparently many are partisanly disingenuous) do I'd suggest a bit of introspection.

And I stated that your conclusion is yours and mine is mine and you see it one way because you choose to and I see it another because I choose to and your opinion isn't necessarily the right one, but it is yours and your are allowed to have one.

 

[Damocles]

Still waiting on you to man up!

Link me up to your post where you simply state it was wrong to spread, purposely once you gained knowledge of the right, through direct misinformation (e.g. "everybody I know says this") or through implication (e.g. I'm not "sure" you are right), and you may get something more than simple restatement.

I believe you can grow as a person. I believe you even have internally but are embarrassed to simply say so.

It isn't hard to say you trusted a source you later found to be in error...

 

[Jarod]

Link me up to your post where you simply state it was wrong to spread, purposely once you gained knowledge of the right, through direct misinformation (e.g. "everybody I know says this") or through implication (e.g. I'm not "sure" you are right), and you may get something more than simple restatement.
I believe you can grow as a person. I believe you even have internally but are embarrassed to simply say so.

It isn't hard to say you trusted a source you later found to be in error...

Im not understanding what you are asking for in the bold?

 

[Jarod]

I never prevously said it is "wrong to spread, putposely once you gained knoledge of the right, through direct misinformation or through implication," but I will say it now. Wrong, but not necessarly bigotry. I simply do not belive I did that!

 

[Damocles]

I never prevously said it is "wrong to spread, putposely once you gained knoledge of the right, through direct misinformation or through implication," but I will say it now. Wrong, but not necessarly bigotry. I simply do not belive I did that!

Let's give an example...

Let's say I came on here with an article about cheating attorneys that said, erroneously, all lawyers took a class on how to cheat. You came along saying it was a piece of bigotry (based on false negative stereotypes it fits the definition nicely) with a link to an ethics class... informing me of my error.

I then proceeded along the same line regardless saying I had a couple attorneys hanging at the bar with me who said it too... and I just can't "know" you were right.

A two attorney ticket only makes it more likely... blah, blah...

 

[Jarod]

Let's give an example...

Let's say I came on here with an article about cheating attorneys that said, erroneously, all lawyers took a class on how to cheat. You came along saying it was a piece of bigotry (based on false negative stereotypes it fits the definition nicely) with a link to an ethics class... informing me of my error.

I then proceeded along the same line regardless saying I had a couple attorneys hanging at the bar with me who said it too... and I just can't "know" you were right.

A two attorney ticket only makes it more likely... blah, blah...

I would say that you are wrong, if my cites were from the American Bar Accociation (the orginization that regulates law schools and what they are required to teach) I would say your friends are uninformed, likely intentionally. I would also say that you are trusting the wrong source because your friends compared to the creditable web cite are clearly wrong.

However, If it was your argument that a two attorney ticket would not be popular with the populace because of a wrong or right perception about the class on how to cheat, I would likely agree with you. A large segment of the population has a very negative perception of attorneys and just might be wrongfully biased against all attorneys.

I would not call you a liar or a bigot, I would assume and trust that you were telling the truth about the friends and what you belived.

Now if your cite were from some random attorney who simply posted something because he/she is a former attorney, I would be more likely to understand why you would belive your friends and I would not question why you refused to determine that I was for sure correct over your friend.

 

[Jarod]

I simply reiterated the same thing I said before using a synonym rather than just repeating the same sentence. What you spread here is a falsehood, a lie, a prevarication...

It isn't true that one "cannot leave" the church. First the falsehood was provided by an article, but once you were informed that it was untrue and that one most certainly can leave the church, it became you choosing to spread the falsehood so you can make it apply to somebody you thought would be politically "hurt" by the assertion.

Where did I spread the alledged falshood after being told it was untrue? Just show me where... I have heard two different things from two different sources, I have decided to not make a judgement so I will not and have not asserted what I preveously though was true.

 

[Jarod]

Where did I spread the alledged falshood after being told it was untrue? Just show me where... I have heard two different things from two different sources, I have decided to not make a judgement so I will not and have not asserted what I preveously though was true.

Nothing?

 

[Damocles]

Nothing?

Again, in this thread. Pay attention to the places I quoted your posts pointing out that you continued to spread the flat ignorance. I even gave an example of how you did it.

Jarod, read the thread. Take some piece of time. I quoted the posts, I pointed it out, simply asking an already answered question isn't argument it is simply and deliberately obtuse. I know most people don't want to simply say they were wrong to trust a biased source deliberately spreading ignorance, but to continue on the same track after finding the truth makes it deliberate.

Again, it isn't that difficult to say you trusted the wrong source, instead you just tried to argue that you had "these friends" who "just happened" to be at your house the weekend before the article was published discussing something that isn't true about their religion...

 

[Jarod]

Again, in this thread. Pay attention to the places I quoted your posts pointing out that you continued to spread the flat ignorance. I even gave an example of how you did it.

Jarod, read the thread. Take some piece of time. I quoted the posts, I pointed it out, simply asking an already answered question isn't argument it is simply obtuse.

So you refuse to give any specifics. Hell, just give the post number. I have read the thread, a couple times. Its just not there, but if you have a particular exerpt I could re-read I would be better able to consider your claims.

 

[Damocles]

So you refuse to give any specifics. Hell, just give the post number. I have read the thread, a couple times. Its just not there, but if you have a particular exerpt I could re-read I would be better able to consider your claims.

Again, Jarod. I quoted the posts, I pointed it out, I did it repeatedly. Pretense of this type is deliberate and I am embarrassed for you.