Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 15 Aug 2017, 09:25 AM   #675743 / #76
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,650
Default

Those wankers badly ill-treated that little girl in front of everyone. Good on the person that filmed it so we can see the nasty crap that goes on in such places. It's a form of abuse. Poli, stfu. You're making an ass of yourself.

Last edited by ruby sparks; 15 Aug 2017 at 09:37 AM.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 15 Aug 2017, 11:24 AM   #675746 / #77
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Admin; Mod: Religion, The Smoking Section
 
Jobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 25,735
Default

No, Poli has some degree of logic backing his argument. It *is* normally wrong to tape people unawares, as Norton did, then publicize it widely.

However, in this case it's justified, in the opinion of most of us here. (Not all; Ozy and James Bannon both demurred.) So I think it's worth our while to listen to Poli's opinion- even though we may disagree.

-------------

Quote:
Saying a bunch of crazy shit about Scientology in a court document to get off of a fraud charge is nothing whatsoever like illegally posting video footage of someone's baptism on the internet. You seriously are unable to see the difference?

I don't think he had all his marbles, and his behaviors were so out there as to be difficult to ethically classify, but I certainly don't think Fishman was well-intentioned, no. Schizophrenic or no, the circumstances under which his muckracking spirit was wakened was clearly a bit self-interested.

But neither did he post private information or videos about anyone. Whether or not you believe the stuff he wrote and testified to, it was at least all topically about the thing he was purportedly trying to expose. I mean, the guy thought he was exposing an evil organization that called "hits" on people. If the videos we're talking about in this thread included proof of fucking murder, obviously I would have no issue with Norton taking them... to the police.
Of course I see the differences- but it would seem you aren't seeing the similarities. Fishman revealed the kooky secrets of Scientology; Norton revealed the kooky secrets of the Mormons. I think that both actions are essentially ethical, because no non-kooky individuals were substantially harmed by their revelations, and even the kooky ones are no worse than embarrassed, and revealed as kooks. And revealing the kookiness (not to mention crookedness) of anyone trying to extract money from their marks is definitely an ethical act.

Last edited by Jobar; 15 Aug 2017 at 11:39 AM.
Jobar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 15 Aug 2017, 12:23 PM   #675750 / #78
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
You are focusing on legality. There are many legal things that are harmful. Such as conversion therapy. Or potentially harmful, such as carrying guns everywhere, including into bars.
Are those things in the video?
Who said they were? It was a general statement, like your general statements. The legality of something has little to do with the ethics of it.
__________________
Mother Superior (referring to the Three Stooges): Like Moses in the desert, I believe the Lord will guide them. Because they're pure of heart.

Sister Mary-Mengele: And dim of wit.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 15 Aug 2017, 02:38 PM   #675751 / #79
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
No, Poli has some degree of logic backing his argument. It *is* normally wrong to tape people unawares, as Norton did, then publicize it widely.
Sure, but poli did not join a discussion thread on that general topic.

So you have a secret cult that discriminates against and represses gays, that has a fairly recent history of doing electric shock and vomit-aversion therapy on them. I read that 60% of LGBT homeless youths in the State of Utah are from Mormon families and that the suicide rate among them is alarmingly high. And in the OP we see how children are treated regarding the issue.

I do not think that any of the goings-on, secret or otherwise, in such an organisation, deserve not to be openly exposed to the wider public. It's that simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
How are they 'hurt'?
Winner of this month's Stupidest Question Award. Congratulations. For even having to ask.

Last edited by ruby sparks; 15 Aug 2017 at 03:09 PM.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 15 Aug 2017, 02:53 PM   #675752 / #80
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Laquisimas
Posts: 19,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
No, Poli has some degree of logic backing his argument. It *is* normally wrong to tape people unawares, as Norton did, then publicize it widely.
Sure, but poli did not join a discussion thread on the general topic.

So you have a secret cult that discriminates against and represses gays, that has a fairly recent history of doing electric shock and vomit-aversion therapy on them. I read that 40% of homeless youths in the State of Utah are LGBT from Mormon families and that the suicide rates among them is alarmingly high. And in the OP we see how children are treated regarding the issue.

I do not think that any of the goings-on, secret or otherwise, in such an organisation, deserve not to be openly exposed to the wider public. It's that simple.
Well, and that's where we disagree. I don't think life is simple, nor should thinking be simple. Convincing me that someone is enough of a "bad guy" that the normal rights of a citizen no longer apply to them isn't going to happen; I think it is deeply injurious to society as a whole to strip your ideological opponents of their personhoods. It only breeds mutual contempt, even violence, and is no way to secure your own rights or anyone else's.
__________________
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
Politesse is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 15 Aug 2017, 02:59 PM   #675753 / #81
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
No, Poli has some degree of logic backing his argument. It *is* normally wrong to tape people unawares, as Norton did, then publicize it widely.
Sure, but poli did not join a discussion thread on the general topic.

So you have a secret cult that discriminates against and represses gays, that has a fairly recent history of doing electric shock and vomit-aversion therapy on them. I read that 40% of homeless youths in the State of Utah are LGBT from Mormon families and that the suicide rates among them is alarmingly high. And in the OP we see how children are treated regarding the issue.

I do not think that any of the goings-on, secret or otherwise, in such an organisation, deserve not to be openly exposed to the wider public. It's that simple.
Well, and that's where we disagree. I don't think life is simple, nor should thinking be simple. Convincing me that someone is enough of a "bad guy" that the normal rights of a citizen no longer apply to them isn't going to happen; I think it is deeply injurious to society as a whole to strip your ideological opponents of their personhoods. It only breeds mutual contempt, even violence, and is no way to secure your own rights or anyone else's.
Stripping ideological opponents of their personhood. Lol. Good one. Outing ill-informed and in this case woo-based discrimination and abuse more like. Keep digging pal. Your theist cousins are depending on your sort of supportive apologetics in order to carry on doing the sorts of stuff they like to do behind closed doors. Keep up the good work on their behalf. Then sleep at nights, after perhaps imagining that the affected kids and young people in such organisations are your own children. Or catch yourself on.

Last edited by ruby sparks; 15 Aug 2017 at 03:25 PM.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 15 Aug 2017, 09:07 PM   #675758 / #82
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Admin; Mod: Religion, The Smoking Section
 
Jobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 25,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
No, Poli has some degree of logic backing his argument. It *is* normally wrong to tape people unawares, as Norton did, then publicize it widely.
Sure, but poli did not join a discussion thread on the general topic.

So you have a secret cult that discriminates against and represses gays, that has a fairly recent history of doing electric shock and vomit-aversion therapy on them. I read that 40% of homeless youths in the State of Utah are LGBT from Mormon families and that the suicide rates among them is alarmingly high. And in the OP we see how children are treated regarding the issue.

I do not think that any of the goings-on, secret or otherwise, in such an organisation, deserve not to be openly exposed to the wider public. It's that simple.
Well, and that's where we disagree. I don't think life is simple, nor should thinking be simple. Convincing me that someone is enough of a "bad guy" that the normal rights of a citizen no longer apply to them isn't going to happen; I think it is deeply injurious to society as a whole to strip your ideological opponents of their personhoods. It only breeds mutual contempt, even violence, and is no way to secure your own rights or anyone else's.
Competing goods; an individual's right to privacy, and to keep secret things which do no injury to others, vs. society's right to know and critique the actions of individuals, religions, and organizations of all sorts which may constitute fraud, or other variety of cheating or theft.

Competing evils; which is worse- to reveal an individual's participation in rites and ceremonies they would prefer to keep private, or to allow them to be taken in by some con game, even though they don't see or understand they are being conned?

Obviously Poli comes to a different conclusion than we do.
Jobar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 15 Aug 2017, 09:50 PM   #675759 / #83
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Laquisimas
Posts: 19,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
No, Poli has some degree of logic backing his argument. It *is* normally wrong to tape people unawares, as Norton did, then publicize it widely.
Sure, but poli did not join a discussion thread on the general topic.

So you have a secret cult that discriminates against and represses gays, that has a fairly recent history of doing electric shock and vomit-aversion therapy on them. I read that 40% of homeless youths in the State of Utah are LGBT from Mormon families and that the suicide rates among them is alarmingly high. And in the OP we see how children are treated regarding the issue.

I do not think that any of the goings-on, secret or otherwise, in such an organisation, deserve not to be openly exposed to the wider public. It's that simple.
Well, and that's where we disagree. I don't think life is simple, nor should thinking be simple. Convincing me that someone is enough of a "bad guy" that the normal rights of a citizen no longer apply to them isn't going to happen; I think it is deeply injurious to society as a whole to strip your ideological opponents of their personhoods. It only breeds mutual contempt, even violence, and is no way to secure your own rights or anyone else's.
Competing goods; an individual's right to privacy, and to keep secret things which do no injury to others, vs. society's right to know and critique the actions of individuals, religions, and organizations of all sorts which may constitute fraud, or other variety of cheating or theft.

Competing evils; which is worse- to reveal an individual's participation in rites and ceremonies they would prefer to keep private, or to allow them to be taken in by some con game, even though they don't see or understand they are being conned?

Obviously Poli comes to a different conclusion than we do.
What con game is being revealed by these videos? As I have repeatedly said, had the videos actually contained evidence of wrongdoing (and I mean wrongdoings in the sense that most people would understand them as wrongdoing, not the "wrong" of other people believing something you don't or acting in a way you wouldn't care to) then the situation would be different.

Suppose you attended the funeral of a dear friend, and someone who had also attended supposedly as a friend, turned out to be secretly filming a video that they posted on ChristianForums afterwards, so they could publically mock atheists for crying at the death of a friend who they clearly know is in hell right now given the stupid weeping and carrying on. You might not think that what they did was illegal, but wouldn't you think it was a bit twisted? Would it matter to you that they felt their action was justified by the greater evil of your collective unbelief and the damage it does to society? You do not mind when someone challenges your views honestly and rationally, I know that. But you should mind if someone is lying to and manipulating you, to use your own intense emotions as weapons in some godforsaken ideological war of their own that has nothing to do with why you were all there.
Politesse is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Yesterday, 08:24 AM   #675772 / #84
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 5,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Suppose you attended the funeral of a dear friend, and someone who had also attended supposedly as a friend, turned out to be secretly filming a video that they posted on ChristianForums afterwards, so they could publically mock atheists for crying at the death of a friend who they clearly know is in hell right now given the stupid weeping and carrying on.
I have no objection to that whatsoever, as long as no "creative" editing à la Center for Medical Progress is involved.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Yesterday, 12:39 PM   #675781 / #85
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Admin; Mod: Religion, The Smoking Section
 
Jobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 25,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
What con game is being revealed by these videos? As I have repeatedly said, had the videos actually contained evidence of wrongdoing (and I mean wrongdoings in the sense that most people would understand them as wrongdoing, not the "wrong" of other people believing something you don't or acting in a way you wouldn't care to) then the situation would be different.

Suppose you attended the funeral of a dear friend, and someone who had also attended supposedly as a friend, turned out to be secretly filming a video that they posted on ChristianForums afterwards, so they could publically mock atheists for crying at the death of a friend who they clearly know is in hell right now given the stupid weeping and carrying on. You might not think that what they did was illegal, but wouldn't you think it was a bit twisted? Would it matter to you that they felt their action was justified by the greater evil of your collective unbelief and the damage it does to society? You do not mind when someone challenges your views honestly and rationally, I know that. But you should mind if someone is lying to and manipulating you, to use your own intense emotions as weapons in some godforsaken ideological war of their own that has nothing to do with why you were all there.
I'd roll my eyes and think 'how very Christian of them.' I'd probably feel they were shooting themselves in their collective foot. I expect most Christians would deplore the action, and would speak out against it.

But Politesse, you aren't factoring in the call- indeed, the requirement- for tithes, paid to the Mormon church. Real money, paid out for imaginary benefits. (I trust you agree that they can't actually make you a god, as they claim?)

I consider that a con. Frankly I think that sort of thing ought to be illegal; but since it is not, I think that publicizing it is the best we can do at present. I still find Norton's actions ethical, perhaps even admirable. At high personal cost- shunning by family, former friends, and no doubt loss of considerable business income- he has exposed this inanity/insanity to the world at large.
Jobar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Yesterday, 01:08 PM   #675784 / #86
Ozymandias
________________
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Winner of this month's Stupidest Question Award. Congratulations. For even having to ask.
I think any 'hurt' can be most clearly be laid at the feet of the parent who put the child up to making the statement. It is quite clearly a pre-prepared statement that was designed to be shut down in order to make a political point. They even videoed it to provide 'evidence'! I doubt the child even wrote it.

The only thing that surprises me is how long they let her carry on for.

And if the parent dislikes the Mormon church this much, why don't they just leave? If they have already tried to leave and were prevented or encountered discrimination, then that is a separate issue, but there is no evidence of that in the posted video.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Yesterday, 01:52 PM   #675786 / #87
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Laquisimas
Posts: 19,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
What con game is being revealed by these videos? As I have repeatedly said, had the videos actually contained evidence of wrongdoing (and I mean wrongdoings in the sense that most people would understand them as wrongdoing, not the "wrong" of other people believing something you don't or acting in a way you wouldn't care to) then the situation would be different.

Suppose you attended the funeral of a dear friend, and someone who had also attended supposedly as a friend, turned out to be secretly filming a video that they posted on ChristianForums afterwards, so they could publically mock atheists for crying at the death of a friend who they clearly know is in hell right now given the stupid weeping and carrying on. You might not think that what they did was illegal, but wouldn't you think it was a bit twisted? Would it matter to you that they felt their action was justified by the greater evil of your collective unbelief and the damage it does to society? You do not mind when someone challenges your views honestly and rationally, I know that. But you should mind if someone is lying to and manipulating you, to use your own intense emotions as weapons in some godforsaken ideological war of their own that has nothing to do with why you were all there.
I'd roll my eyes and think 'how very Christian of them.' I'd probably feel they were shooting themselves in their collective foot. I expect most Christians would deplore the action, and would speak out against it.

But Politesse, you aren't factoring in the call- indeed, the requirement- for tithes, paid to the Mormon church. Real money, paid out for imaginary benefits. (I trust you agree that they can't actually make you a god, as they claim?)

I consider that a con. Frankly I think that sort of thing ought to be illegal; but since it is not, I think that publicizing it is the best we can do at present. I still find Norton's actions ethical, perhaps even admirable. At high personal cost- shunning by family, former friends, and no doubt loss of considerable business income- he has exposed this inanity/insanity to the world at large.
More of the whole "try to convince Poli that Mormons are so evil the rules of common decency don't apply to them" tactic. I don't know why you think this is going to work. I mean, tithing? For fuck's sake, I tithe. Not to the Mormons obviously, but I have every right to decide where my money ought to go.

I get it: atheists hate Mormons, Mormons hate atheists. Everybody hates each other and what a beautiful world. I'm sorry, but that doesn't excuse inter-religious "sabotage". Nor, unless you are exposing something, can it count as an exposé. I'm pretty sure most people are aware of the existence of church offering plates.
Politesse is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Yesterday, 03:48 PM   #675794 / #88
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 7,950
Default

Quote:
What con game is being revealed by these videos?
The oldest one; of cult brainwashing and child abuse.

Quote:
As I have repeatedly said, had the videos actually contained evidence of wrongdoing (and I mean wrongdoings in the sense that most people would understand them as wrongdoing, not the "wrong" of other people believing something you don't or acting in a way you wouldn't care to) then the situation would be different.
So we narrow the threshold further to majority opinion, the obvious problem being that many laws start out as a minority opinion. Anti-slavery would be an excellent example, but let's go with majority opinion. It's safe to say that child abuse is a harm that would fall under majority opinion, yes?

So now it becomes a question of whether or not cult brainwashing constitutes child abuse. In the OP we have a child being abused for sexual identity. Justified now?
__________________
Stupidity is not intellen
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 08:44 AM   #675823 / #89
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
.....but there is no evidence of that in the posted video.
What, Ozy, is the point of you talking about evidence, when what there is in fact no evidence for is what you asserted in your post, that the girl did not write the statement herself?

More to the point, you weren't, as it happens, replying to Hermit's point about the girl in the video anyway, you were responding to the wider point about harm. There is plenty of evidence that the actions and attitudes of such cults to homosexuality does cause harm to many, especially to young people and kids.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 09:27 AM   #675824 / #90
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
But Politesse, you aren't factoring in the call- indeed, the requirement- for tithes, paid to the Mormon church. Real money, paid out for imaginary benefits. (I trust you agree that they can't actually make you a god, as they claim?)

I consider that a con. Frankly I think that sort of thing ought to be illegal; but since it is not, I think that publicizing it is the best we can do at present. I still find Norton's actions ethical, perhaps even admirable. At high personal cost- shunning by family, former friends, and no doubt loss of considerable business income- he has exposed this inanity/insanity to the world at large.
Of course, the tithing is voluntary though, isn't it? Sort of. I mean, there's no blatant pressure from on high put on the humble, ordinary faithful to pay up, even when they can't really afford it, with dubious, arguably exploitative promises about reaping future benefits of all varieties, spiritual and material. Yeah right. And it's not as if the church leaders are getting big salaries on the quiet. Oh no. None of that.

Look, even setting aside the at least questionable money-extraction and remuneration schemes and the aforementioned brainwashing and abuse (and we haven't even mentioned sexism yet) and never mind, for a moment, the silly rituals, dressings-up, masonic-esque handshakes and secrecy, and the intimidatory internal disciplinary procedures for the 'unworthy', what we are basically talking about here is a cult that was, from the beginning, set up as a lie, by a dishonest conman, who was also later caught having an adulterous affair with a teenage servant, then started mouth-farting about it being ok, 'cos god really really said to him in a holy revelation that it was. It's beyond a complete joke. The word 'dodgy' was almost invented just for such things.

Last edited by ruby sparks; Today at 10:05 AM.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 10:04 AM   #675825 / #91
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 5,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
But Politesse, you aren't factoring in the call- indeed, the requirement- for tithes, paid to the Mormon church. Real money, paid out for imaginary benefits. (I trust you agree that they can't actually make you a god, as they claim?)

I consider that a con. Frankly I think that sort of thing ought to be illegal; but since it is not, I think that publicizing it is the best we can do at present. I still find Norton's actions ethical, perhaps even admirable. At high personal cost- shunning by family, former friends, and no doubt loss of considerable business income- he has exposed this inanity/insanity to the world at large.
Of course, the tithing is voluntary though, isn't it? Sort of. I mean, there's no pressure from on high put on the humble, ordinary faithful to pay, even when they can't really afford it, with dubious promises about reaping benefits of all varieties (including material rewards). Yeah right. And it's not as if the church leaders are getting big salaries on the quiet. Oh no. None of that.

Look, even setting aside the at least questionable money-extraction schemes and the aforementioned brainwashing and abuse (and we haven't even mentioned sexism yet), and never mind, for a moment, the silly rituals and masonic-esque handshakes and secrecy, and the intimidatory internal disciplinary procedures for the 'unworthy', what we basically are talking about is a cult that was, from the beginning, set up as a lie, by a dishonest conman, who was also later caught having an adulterous affair with a teenage servant, then started arse-farting about it being ok, 'cos god reely reely said to him in an alleged revelation that it was. It's beyond a complete joke.
Also, remember California's Proposition 8 in California. The Mormon Church was a principal leader in that campaign. Private religion, my fucking foot. The LDS is as political as any explicitly political party. It actually had set quota for "voluntary" dollar contributions its parishes, or whatever they are called, were expected to meet. 20 million bucks of the financial aid in favour of Prop 8 did in fact come from the Mormons. I regard Norton's secretive recordings as a highly moral act for this reason alone. Any disclosure that might embarrass the church is morally valid, given that religion's officially decreed and organised reprehensible political activities. Fuck it sideways up the arse with a wire brush.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 10:23 AM   #675826 / #92
ruby sparks
Senior Member
 
ruby sparks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 7,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Nor, unless you are exposing something, can it count as an exposé. I'm pretty sure most people are aware of the existence of church offering plates.
They might know about the offering plates, but the Mormon Church has long told its followers, I believe, that it does not have paid (or well-paid) leaders as a result of what goes onto the plates. I think the leaks about the apparent untruth of this probably counts as an exposé.

Last edited by ruby sparks; Today at 10:43 AM.
ruby sparks is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 01:17 PM   #675832 / #93
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Laquisimas
Posts: 19,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Nor, unless you are exposing something, can it count as an exposé. I'm pretty sure most people are aware of the existence of church offering plates.
They might know about the offering plates, but the Mormon Church has long told its followers, I believe, that it does not have paid (or well-paid) leaders as a result of what goes onto the plates. I think the leaks about the apparent untruth of this probably counts as an exposé.
Indeed they might. If those were on the video.
Politesse is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old Today, 03:12 PM   #675836 / #94
Ozymandias
________________
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
What, Ozy, is the point of you talking about evidence, when what there is in fact no evidence for is what you asserted in your post, that the girl did not write the statement herself?
It's fairly obvious though. Moreover, it doesn't really matter who prepared it, she wasn't invited up to give a political statement and it was perfectly within their rights to stop her.

If I were teaching a class where students had to give talks on physics, and one decided to come out as gay and give a political exposition, then I would also stop them because it is not the appropriate forum.

Quote:
More to the point, you weren't, as it happens, replying to Hermit's point about the girl in the video anyway, you were responding to the wider point about harm. There is plenty of evidence that the actions and attitudes of such cults to homosexuality does cause harm to many, especially to young people and kids.
OK - let's unpack that then. The statement you are supporting is "15 million humans are hurt by Mormonism". Again I ask, how? You have already said that this is "this month's stupidest question", so it should be a fairly easy thing to answer, no?

Your last response might indicate that you think these 15 million are all gay. Is that what you are saying?
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus