Alternate Voices: The Calling and its Implications

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Come on, Indy. This is a case of the chickens coming home to roost. You have to admit that you have a pretty big body of work on message boards from which people can delineate tendencies.

Can't you see the incredible irony of this whole thread? SEIQ posts an 'alternative voice code of conduct' so to speak, and then REPEATEDLY browbeats me, all because of a simple request.

Even if he suspected I would act in that fashion, if he really believed in what he posted to begin with, he would have initially given me the benefit of the doubt at the bare minimum.

Given the tone of his response to several people in this thread, I think he needs to go off in a corner and work on internalizing Mauss a little longer instead of going off on an extended fit of pre-emptive sanctimony.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Prove it.

Intentions cannot be proven, even (especially) to one's self. The fact is, you have done exactly what I said on many occasions whether you think you intended it or not. You enter the fray, shift the issue to some point in someon'e definition, strain at gnats, and ignore the issue that was introduced.

Experience argues against your professions of purity, as does your subsequent behavior.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Intentions cannot be proven, even (especially) to one's self. The fact is, you have done exactly what I said on many occasions whether you think you intended it or not. You enter the fray, shift the issue to some point in someon'e definition, strain at gnats, and ignore the issue that was introduced.

Experience argues against your professions of purity, as does your subsequent behavior.

Why don't you go over to the intellectual thread (which is really another attempt to discuss the main thrust of what this thread should have been about before you undermined yourself)? Would you care to give examples where I did any of the things you mentioned above?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7623

Thanks in advance.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You still haven't said what was offensive and condescending in that point.

That my argument is a strawman and my ideas are nonsense. I do not consider anything you have written, with sincere intent at dialogue as nonsense.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Can't you see the incredible irony of this whole thread? SEIQ posts an 'alternative voice code of conduct' so to speak, and then REPEATEDLY browbeats me, all because of a simple request.

Even if he suspected I would act in that fashion, if he really believed in what he posted to begin with, he would have initially given me the benefit of the doubt at the bare minimum.

Given the tone of his response to several people in this thread, I think he needs to go off in a corner and work on internalizing Mauss a little longer instead of going off on an extended fit of pre-emptive sanctimony.

I have every reason to believe that your "simple request" was exactly what I treated it as. And you have a way of extending "pre-emptive sanctimony" in such questions.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I have every reason to believe that your "simple request" was exactly what I treated it as. And you have a way of extending "pre-emptive sanctimony" in such questions.

So you think your conduct in this thread is beyond reproach?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

That my argument is a strawman and my ideas are nonsense. I do not consider anything you have written, with sincere intent at dialogue as nonsense.

Goodness sakes! Read your own posts, toolblue! You have just changed your objection from what I said about intellectual's work being interwoven with their faith to my objection that you haven't clarified your own point of view.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So you think your conduct in this thread is beyond reproach?

No.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Read what I wrote.

Satan's plan in the pre-existence was about forcing everyone to be blindly obedient to him. He didn't want the risks of a test, with its choices and subsequent knowledge. Your associating innoculation in the sense of exposure to non-hagiographic Mormon history with Satan has exactly zero scriptural support, prophetic support, and logical support. It's a false association, plain and simple. Worse, you seem to like the idea of blind obedience to authority, and the scriptures be damned.

My perspective is simply my perspective, not doctrine. You are being very careful to delineate Satan's behavior which is a contradiction to an appreciation for alternate voices. I do not think the situation was that cut and dried or black and white. The support for my views exist but I will not discuss it here.

Innoculation is not my word. Earlier on in the discussion I hummed and hawed whether to stick with the word and perhaps that was a poor choice.

I have said nothing about blind obedience and am befuddled by your assertion, for I have only championed the idea of freedom to choose ... ask UtahDan.

Now I've got to take my boys bowling

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Goodness sakes! Read your own posts, toolblue! You have just changed your objection from what I said about intellectual's work being interwoven with their faith to my objection that you haven't clarified your own point of view.

? You asked what was offensive ..... I answered.