12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 09:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 07:19 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Well, that's one rhetorical leap beyond the evidence, and it actually raises a bunch of addition questions about the three and eight witnesses, Smith's own conviction about his experience, and a number of other things. The evidence best supports the conclusion that the text was the work of a 19th century mind, but to go from that directly to "fraud" is a false inference.

No, fraud is the most likely answer. The second most likely answer is delusion.

No, no, no, Chas.

An explanation such as "well the evidence is out there, but we haven't found it yet" (hey, just like the Exodus!) or "a divinely inspired work nonetheless contains incredibly misleading anachronisms" (as a... test, I guess?) has the virtue of being literally unfalsifiable. Which is always nice.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
16-01-2014, 09:51 AM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2014 10:26 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
Fine. Makle, lets start over. I am not going to resort to a ridiculous finger pointing exercise of who was condescending to whom and who started it. Lets just start fresh, eh? You stated, unless I am misunderstanding your point, that 1) he was never convicted and you list the reasons for leg bail as common for first time offenders; and 2) even if he was guilty, you trivialize or minimize what he did due to his age. Am I correct?

(15-01-2014 04:06 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Well, first, he was never convicted of anything... Long story short, when he was a kid he, like many other people, tried his hand at divining the location of treasure. Somebody hauled him before a judge and he had witnesses swear he had a gift and other witnesses swear he was a fraud. The judge decided there was enough for a trial and remanded him to custody, but he was given "leg bail," or told to scram. Whoopie. I've done much worse things than that as a teenager, and I would certainly find it unfair for someone to try to impugn my integrity now on the grounds that I was a kid once.

I find it extremely telling that you are applying your sociological understanding of a teenager by todays standards with zero regard to a teenager in the 19th century. John Rockafeller had finished his education, moved away from his parents and had his first real job, making serious money, when he was "only a teenager" (age 16).

It is no secret to anyone that by today's standards, adults have extended the definition and assumption of the cognitive abilities of a child. In short: children are children longer. Adolescence is extended well into your 20s. In the 19th Century, the age of adulthood in terms of emotional maturity and economic capacity was much younger. It was nothing for a 12-14 year old to hop on a boat alone and immigrate to the United states, where nowadays, a 12 year old can barely be considered mature and responsible enough to stay home alone, walk to school, or engage in any activity that doesn't require adult "supervision"

Therefore, to imply that he was just a "teenager" and therefore should have some kind of leeway, especially for a "first time offender" is ridiculous.

A person's history, irrespective of whether or not its a juvenile record or not, is still something I consider to be material. If I had a daughter, and she wanted to date Eric Smith, I would have a hard time getting past what he did when he was "just a child" of 13.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Smith_(murderer)



(15-01-2014 04:00 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Would you invest your money with a man that was previously convicted of bank fraud? I sure wouldn't. And yet this is exactly what you are doing, investing your life on the word of someone who is a convicted conman.

Quote:No, I've never made any decision based solely on the words of Joseph Smith.

And yet without Joseph Smith and his divine message, there would be no mormon religion. That would be like saying that you subscribe to Economic Trade Theory yet do not give credence to John Nash. This statement makes zero sense to me. Please Explain.



Now, to deal with the other part, which is your insistence that it wasn't a conviction, merely a pre-trial, what was the conclusion of the actual trial? You are saying he didn't have an actual trial. You aren't "given leg bail", which literally means to cut and run. As in, instead of facing trial, he ran, according to you.

Even if I say this is true, which I do not, I still do not discount the charges that were brought. Have you ever served on a Jury, Makle? Do you understand that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't guilty, but that the burden of proof was not met. I have set a man free that I was pretty sure did the crime, but that the prosecution did a bad job of meeting the criminal standard.

Now you can sit there on a soapbox and decry that a man not proven guilty is innocent, but when push comes to shove and real life applicability, this just isn't true. And to prove it, there isn't a parent alive that would let Casey Anthony watch their kids? Doesn't matter that she was exonerated of the charges against her......

Edit: What I find incredible, this whole gold plate story, is that we disregard the Bible as faulty due to the second, third, etc. accounts of what transpired, and that any miracles of Jesus took place before the invention of the camera.

However, If JS had these plates, with such divine message, and wanted to prove their existence (never by independent persons, only JS friends and family), then why not arrange for the plates to be photographed? The daguerreotype had been invented, so there is no excuse for not otherwise documenting their existence. Or, is it more likely, that a person who has already been accused of lying and defrauding people in regards to "treasure hunting" that he had in fact repeated this process, by lying about this particular gold plated treasure?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 10:21 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Fine. Makle, lets start over. I am not going to resort to a ridiculous finger pointing exercise of who was condescending to whom and who started it. Lets just start fresh, eh? You stated, unless I am misunderstanding your point, that 1) he was never convicted and you list the reasons for leg bail as common for first time offenders; and 2) even if he was guilty, you trivialize or minimize what he did due to his age. Am I correct?

Close. I am particularly troubled by the looking glass accusation, but he was demonstrably not convicted by a court or a jury. Either way it does little to change my perception of him.

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I find it extremely telling that you are applying your sociological understanding of a teenager by todays standards with zero regard to a teenager in the 19th century. John Rockafeller had finished his education, moved away from his parents and had his first real job, making serious money, when he was "only a teenager" (age 16).

You're appealing to John D. Rockefeller as a prototypical 19th century youth against which to measure Joseph Smith? Are you joking? Rockefeller grew up in multiple different urban environments and had an excellent formal education. He was also working as a bookkeeper at the age of sixteen when Joseph Smith was still milking cows on the farm. One of his stated goals as a youth was to earn $100,000. This is a completely distinct upbringing from that of a farm boy born in Vermont and upstate New York from 30 years earlier.

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  It is no secret to anyone that by today's standards, adults have extended the definition and assumption of the cognitive abilities of a child. In short: children are children longer. Adolescence is extended well into your 20s. In the 19th Century, the age of adulthood in terms of emotional maturity and economic capacity was much younger. It was nothing for a 12-14 year old to hop on a boat alone and immigrate to the United states, where nowadays, a 12 year old can barely be considered mature and responsible enough to stay home alone, walk to school, or engage in any activity that doesn't require adult "supervision"

While it's certainly true that there was more integration into adult responsibilities at younger ages back then, it is an exaggeration to say it was "nothing" for a 14-year-old to leave his family and immigrate to the US.

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Therefore, to imply that he was just a "teenager" and therefore should have some kind of leeway, especially for a "first time offender" is ridiculous.

That's how contemporary accounts describe the broader interpretation of his actions. Even when he was later working on the Book of Mormon he was repeatedly described as a "boy" with "childhood imagination," etc. This is a rather tenuous line of argumentation to try to construct.

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  A person's history, irrespective of whether or not its a juvenile record or not, is still something I consider to be material. If I had a daughter, and she wanted to date Eric Smith, I would have a hard time getting past what he did when he was "just a child" of 13.

So now you're trying to equate glass-looking in the 19th century to murder? Again, you cannot possibly be serious. You actually think it's a valid comparison to say that you disagree with me being dismissive of the petty activities of a teenager because you don't think you'd allow your daughter to date a murderer?

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  And yet without Joseph Smith and his divine message, there would be no mormon religion. That would be like saying that you subscribe to Economic Trade Theory yet do not give credence to John Nash. This statement makes zero sense to me. Please Explain.

I think I explained enough. Joseph Smith is not the proximate cause of any of my decisions. There's an enormous difference between "giving credence" to someone who developed a theoretical model and saying I base decisions directly on believing Joseph Smith's words. I can assess the claims of Mormonism myself without an appeal directly to the claims of Joseph Smith. Your arguments are becoming increasingly silly.

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Now, to deal with the other part, which is your insistence that it wasn't a conviction, merely a pre-trial, what was the conclusion of the actual trial? You are saying he didn't have an actual trial. You aren't "given leg bail", which literally means to cut and run. As in, instead of facing trial, he ran, according to you.

Yes, if you google it you will find the definition "cut and run," but certainly you aren't so obtuse to believe that in 19th century rural court settings no one was ever allowed by unconcerned authorities to escape. Note the lexical sense of the word "escape" does not include being set free in and of itself. That sense arises from the verbal phrase "allowed to escape," just as "given leg bail" is a verbal phrase that refer to being allowed to escape. You're committing the etymological fallacy by insisting I am inaccurate in saying he was "given leg bail."

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Even if I say this is true, which I do not, I still do not discount the charges that were brought.

Irrelevant. I don't dispute that. I dispute that there was a conviction by a jury of his peers, which was precisely your claim (that no jury was ever mentioned anywhere in any document appears to have escaped your notice).

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Have you ever served on a Jury, Makle?

Yes.

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Do you understand that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't guilty, but that the burden of proof was not met. I have set a man free that I was pretty sure did the crime, but that the prosecution did a bad job of meeting the criminal standard.

I'm very well aware of the burden of proof.

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Now you can sit there on a soapbox and decry that a man not proven guilty is innocent, but when push comes to shove and real life applicability, this just isn't true. And to prove it, there isn't a parent alive that would let Casey Anthony watch their kids? Doesn't matter that she was exonerated of the charges against her......

So you're actually not going to argue that he was in fact convicted, as you originally asserted and then reasserted. You're only here to argue that he was probably guilty of the crime of which he was accused, which is something I've never challenged. Are we done here?

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 10:42 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 10:21 AM)maklelan Wrote:  You're appealing to John D. Rockefeller as a prototypical 19th century youth against which to measure Joseph Smith? Are you joking? Rockefeller grew up in multiple different urban environments and had an excellent formal education. He was also working as a bookkeeper at the age of sixteen when Joseph Smith was still milking cows on the farm. One of his stated goals as a youth was to earn $100,000. This is a completely distinct upbringing from that of a farm boy born in Vermont and upstate New York from 30 years earlier.

No. Not at all. I am just providing an example that you were considered an adult in your teenage years in the 19th century. You are making the assumption that people who live in Urban areas are more worldly and educated than those who live in rural. Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full.

Also, you are assuming - erroneously - that milking cows on a farm must mean that person has no emotional or mental maturity? You really do appear to look down on people based on their professions, education, and upbringing.


(16-01-2014 10:21 AM)maklelan Wrote:  That's how contemporary accounts describe the broader interpretation of his actions. Even when he was later working on the Book of Mormon he was repeatedly described as a "boy" with "childhood imagination," etc. This is a rather tenuous line of argumentation to try to construct.

uh huh. This is two faced double talk. Shocking You can't tell me that his childhood imagination means that he should not be held accountable or that is integrity shouldn't be affected because he was too young and "imaginative" to be cognizant of what he was doing. Then go on to tell me that this "childhood imagination" held no part in his claim about angels and nonexistent planets?No

Either he is a child, or he isn't. If he is a child even in his adulthood and therefore can't be held accountable for his actions, then any stories he later concocts musts be from a child. Make up your mind.

(16-01-2014 10:21 AM)maklelan Wrote:  So now you're trying to equate glass-looking in the 19th century to murder? Again, you cannot possibly be serious. You actually think it's a valid comparison to say that you disagree with me being dismissive of the petty activities of a teenager because you don't think you'd allow your daughter to date a murderer?

Again, no. I'm pointing out that the things that you do as a "teenager" do have an affect on your integrity as an adult.

(16-01-2014 09:51 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  And yet without Joseph Smith and his divine message, there would be no mormon religion. That would be like saying that you subscribe to Economic Trade Theory yet do not give credence to John Nash. This statement makes zero sense to me. Please Explain.
(16-01-2014 10:21 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I think I explained enough.

Fine. Then I guess we are done here. If you are going to treat me with exasperation, there is nothing more to say. I will point out that not once during my last post did I express any frustration at the things "I've already stated" with you. If you don't want to engage someone, then don't engage and get exasperated that you engaged. Grow up.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
16-01-2014, 10:54 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(15-01-2014 09:52 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I think Maklelan's behaviour has been reasonable and I would very much like to see him around here more often.

Nice to see (and not a surprise) to see these two getting all chummy as they are a perfect match.

I was going to say "hey look, the two self-righteous condescending pricks are holding hands" - oops, guess I did!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
16-01-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  No. Not at all. I am just providing an example that you were considered an adult in your teenage years in the 19th century.

No, that you could be considered an adult, just like today.

(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are making the assumption that people who live in Urban areas are more worldly and educated than those who live in rural. Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full.

I grew up on a farm in West Virginia, and I know exactly what kinds of things people with rural upbringings have head starts on and what things they have to catch up on. John D. Rockefeller is a horrible example to hold up of how people in their middle teenage years are viewed by society in the 19th century. 1826 is also a far cry from 1853.

(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Also, you are assuming - erroneously - that milking cows on a farm must mean that person has no emotional or mental maturity? You really do appear to look down on people based on their professions, education, and upbringing.

I am assuming no such thing. I am pointing out there's a difference between the worldviews and values of children growing up on a farm and those growing up as bookkeepers in Cleveland and New York City. There's a reason "folk" worldviews are common to rural settings and not to urban settings. There is a reason religion is more commonplace on farms than in the middle of large urban centers.

(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  uh huh. This is two faced double talk. Shocking You can't tell me that his childhood imagination means that he should not be held accountable or that is integrity shouldn't be affected because he was too young and "imaginative" to be cognizant of what he was doing. Then go on to tell me that this "childhood imagination" held no part in his claim about angels and nonexistent planets?No

I'm not trying to defend his integrity, I'm pointing out that he was viewed by his community as a youth and not a grown man.

(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Either he is a child, or he isn't.

Absolutely false. Childhood and adulthood constitute a continuum, not a dichotomy.

(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  If he is a child even in his adulthood and therefore can't be held accountable for his actions, then any stories he later concocts musts be from a child. Make up your mind.

My mind is made up. Nowhere did I ever suggest he's not accountable for anything.

(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Again, no. I'm pointing out that the things that you do as a "teenager" do have an affect on your integrity as an adult.

Well, when those things are murder, then yes. Are you honestly blind to the fact that there's a monstrous material difference between how murder bears on one's long term moral profile and how things like shoplifting or petty vandalism bear on it?

(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Fine. Then I guess we are done here. If you are going to treat me with exasperation, there is nothing more to say. I will point out that not once during my last post did I express any frustration at the things "I've already stated" with you. If you don't want to engage someone, then don't engage and get exasperated that you engaged. Grow up.

I'm not getting exasperated, I'm just incredulous that you've completely abandoned the argument you insisted you were going to make and then started asserting that we need to measure Joseph Smith's upbringing against John D. Rockefeller's and that his integrity as an adult is as impugned by a glass-looking trial as it would have been had he been a convicted murderer. Those are just laughable lines of argumentation.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 11:24 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 11:03 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  uh huh. This is two faced double talk. Shocking You can't tell me that his childhood imagination means that he should not be held accountable or that is integrity shouldn't be affected because he was too young and "imaginative" to be cognizant of what he was doing. Then go on to tell me that this "childhood imagination" held no part in his claim about angels and nonexistent planets?No

I'm not trying to defend his integrity, I'm pointing out that he was viewed by his community as a youth and not a grown man.

If he is a youth, then why is his story regarded as TRUE?


(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  If he is a child even in his adulthood and therefore can't be held accountable for his actions, then any stories he later concocts musts be from a child. Make up your mind.

(16-01-2014 11:03 AM)maklelan Wrote:  My mind is made up. Nowhere did I ever suggest he's not accountable for anything.

My mistake. I thought you when you said:

(15-01-2014 04:06 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Whoopie. I've done much worse things than that as a teenager, and I would certainly find it unfair for someone to try to impugn my integrity now on the grounds that I was a kid once.

it was a pretty good indication that you felt that what happens in childhood shouldn't be carried into adulthood, thereby impugning your integrity, and undermining the concept of accountability.

(16-01-2014 10:42 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Again, no. I'm pointing out that the things that you do as a "teenager" do have an affect on your integrity as an adult.
(15-01-2014 04:06 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Well, when those things are murder, then yes. Are you honestly blind to the fact that there's a monstrous material difference between how murder bears on one's long term moral profile and how things like shoplifting or petty vandalism bear on it?

Wow. You just don't seem to understand my point. Of course shoplifting is not murder and there is a monstrous difference. However, when I am considering a candidate for employment with my company, if he was, at any point, even ARRESTED (irrespective of any conviction or whathaveyou) for larceny, and his employment responsibilities require handling merchandise, you better believe I'm not hiring him. If he is cleaning toilets, then his arrest record is not material to his job functions.

Joseph Smith was charged with fraud involving glass looking and treasure hunting, then he goes on to make extraordinary claims involving gold plates (treasure) found through glass looking. THIS. IS. MATERIAL. TO. HIS. CREDIBILITY.

I do not believe that you are too obtuse to see the difference I am making to the one you are making.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
16-01-2014, 11:38 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 08:50 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Again you seem to think I am trying to defend the Book of Mormon. This little coffee drinking emoticon is so ridiculous because every time one of you posts it in an attempt to condescend and talk down to me, it is unilaterally a function of misunderstanding and naivety. I have asked you and everyone else here to just take me at my word, and yet you continue to attribute to me motivations that have nothing at all to do with me. Please stop.

So you're a Mormon that doesn't think the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired? Yet you're a member of the Church and consent to their authority? Okay, why do you consent to such a setup? What do you get out of it? You don't think the book is historically accurate or divinely inspired, so you're happy to give the Church your time and income because?


(16-01-2014 08:50 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 07:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fraud or not, why should I or anyone else lend any credence (and 10% of my net income) to a Church built upon the fictitious story of a 19th century man claiming to divine inspiration and entirely unable to substantiate it? Consider

That's for each person to decide.

Yeah, why? That's what I don't get. What do you get out of it if it's not literal truth, historically accurate, or divinely inspired? What do you get out of it that couldn't be had outside of your cult? What would I get out of it if I'm concerned with looking for the truth? I'm just not seeing it. Huh

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-01-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
(16-01-2014 11:24 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  If he is a youth, then why is his story regarded as TRUE?

People who regard his story as true do so because of considerations outside of simple assumptions about whether or not a teenager is likely to be telling the truth.

(16-01-2014 11:24 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  My mistake. I thought you when you said:

(15-01-2014 04:06 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Whoopie. I've done much worse things than that as a teenager, and I would certainly find it unfair for someone to try to impugn my integrity now on the grounds that I was a kid once.

it was a pretty good indication that you felt that what happens in childhood shouldn't be carried into adulthood, thereby impugning your integrity.

Being accountable for something stupid you did as a child (and this obviously does not include things like murder, just so there's no misunderstanding here) does not mean you carry it with you throughout the rest of your life. I did stupid stuff as a youth and was held accountable as a youth. I no longer consider myself accountable to those things. Am I doing things wrong?

(15-01-2014 04:06 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Wow. You just don't seem to understand my point.

No, you don't seem to understand your point. Whatever it is you've got careening around inside your head is not making it to the keyboard.

(15-01-2014 04:06 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Of course shoplifting is not murder and there is a monstrous difference. However, when I am considering a candidate for employment with my company, if he was, at any point, even ARRESTED (irrespective of any conviction or whathaveyou) for larceny, and his employment responsibilities require handling merchandise, you better believe I'm not hiring him. If he is cleaning toilets, then his arrest record is not material to his job functions.

So if a 30-year-old man with excellent qualifications applied for a position and you saw that he was tried and acquitted for misdemeanor shoplifting at 14 years of age, you would automatically throw out his application? And you don't even care whether or not he was actually guilty. Good heavens, I'm glad I never have to work for someone like that.

(15-01-2014 04:06 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Joseph Smith was charged with fraud involving glass looking and treasure hunting, then he goes on to make extraordinary claims involving gold plates (treasure) found through glass looking. THIS. IS. MATERIAL. TO. HIS. CREDIBILITY.

Agreed. Of course, I never challenged this. That it's material is quite different from how you interpret its materiality, and it's clear from your comments that you have no capacity for understanding or forgiveness when it comes to childhood mistakes. I'm glad to see you've abandoned your original claim that he was convicted, though. At least I could educate one person here about LDS history.

(15-01-2014 04:06 PM)maklelan Wrote:  I do not believe that you are too obtuse to see the difference I am making to the one you are making.

I see that the one you are making has no bearing whatsoever on any of my concerns. It appears you've just moved the goalposts to a distance and location you're comfortable with, but didn't notice that it's entirely off the field of play.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: 12 Reasons You Should Reject Mormonism
You know, Makle, there really isn't a need for page long responses that pick apart every sentence. Some things can go left unsaid.

For example, it is unnecessary for you to quote me regarding criminal standards, just so that you can haughtily tell me, "I am very well aware of the burden of proof." It adds nothing to the conversation, or furthers the debate in any way. In fact, its only purpose appears to be so that you can assert that you are smarter than I and that no one can possibly tell you something you don't know. If you wanna bang on your chest that you are smarter than I, go ahead, but IMO, it makes you look stupid.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: