Posted on 05/27/2012 9:35:33 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Neither of your examples have anything to do with the statistical term “outlier”.
Since I was the one who expressed my interest in Goode as an outlier, it is my use of the true definition that applies, not the one you pull out to fit your argument of the moment.
One thing I’m noticing here is a distinct inability by the anti mormon posters to recognize irony, analogies, etc.
For example, I made reference to Martin Luther, the Old Testament, Protestantism, etc. To show how one could criticize their religion along similar lines. I don’t have any interest in criticizing protestantism or mormonism. But they post lengthy (super lengthy) defenses not realizing the main point.
I made these ironic analogies exactly because the original post called on Catholics and Protestants to jointly reject the mormon “heresies”. I attempted to remind them that RC’S obviously can view protestantism as a heresy, and in their humorless responses they have stated that the RC church indeed had committed many wrongs and deserved the protestant revolt. So much for a joint response by all “traditional christians”.
I can discuss any religion and the list of differences in mormon theology was somewhat interesting. However, the intent of the post plainly was to convince me that mormonism is some kind of threat to be parried. Except that we all seek to preserve our own religion versus others, I think the alarm about mormonism is fantasy.
“Traditional Christians” fought hundreds of years of wars in Europe, viewing each other as heretics worthy of extermination. America was established as a sanctuary from all that, and mormonism does not even come close to being worthy of religious alarm.
Modern day Islam obviously is a greater concern, and even there the American approach is not to ban any religion. But that is another subject.
For the record, I have no problem with any peaceful law abiding religion. I don’t even underdtand where some posters got their particular concern about mormonism. However, I certainly think it’s valid to post back explaining my belief they are mistaken.
Please offer your sophistries (fallacious arguments) somewhere else:
Stating that X (e.g. disguising ad hominum attack can be accomplished by Y (e.g. using question marks) does not imply that every time Y is used that X follows.
Glad smeone finally is talking about Romney, which interests me far more than mormonism.
You state “Romney is despicable because of his pro-abortion stance ....”
And that is/would be a very valid point EXCEPT that Romney is pro life. It is this constant time warp thinking which really bugs me.
Nor is Romney the first republican to have switched from pro choice to pro life. You don’t believe Romney? Yes, I know that, but a candidate’s “stance” means something. And in this case it is a conservative, pro life stance.
Obama, on the other hand, is 100% pro abortion, even to the point of infanticide. Yet you rail against the pro life candidate. Odd.
Just a short reponse to illustrate the great chasm in your “logical” progression:
“If you’re speaking out of religious conviction here in your ongoing tirade vs. perceived “bigotry,” then you’ve got a LOT of work to do on other threads...Better get your lecture tour in order.
“Otherwise, I openly challenge and question you on your lack of consistency...which has already been well-displayed by your open resistance to applying your Virgil Goode win (say the state of CA) vs. the same Q as applied to Mitt Romney (can he win the state of CA?).”
If I ask if a spider is an insect, I am not morally, logically, scientifically nor otherwise obligated to query if every other living thing, or indeed ANY other living thing is an insect. Your attempt to put me, unfairly, in that philosophical corner displays more about your inferrences (that I was asking an “unfair” question about Goode) than it does about my question. It also hints at a shade of insecurity regarding Goode’s candidacy. It is the rhetorical equivilant of the childhood “that’s not fair, Brother pulled Sissy’s hair and you didn’t ask him” which, of course, does little to answer the original question, “Did you pull Sissy’s hair?”
I agree with you.
I was also accused of some breach of Chhrstian behavior should I compartmentalize politics and my Christian beliefs. I thought “Render unto Caesar” clearly applies here - but evidently not.
I’m now wondering if I should stop going to my Jewish haberdasher, or my Hindu grocer, or my agnostic money manager, or the Muslim donut shop, or (GASP!) my Mormon dentist!?
Of course, just as my choices in each of those areas are guided by how each performs compared to other choices available, so is my vote informed by the performance (or actions) of the candidates, not by their religious affiliation. I don’t dislike Obama because of his Muslim upbringing, it is one thing that gives me pause, but if he implimented Reagan type policies, it wouldn’t matter to me. Heck, I wouldn’t care that he was friends with Bill Ayers, if he were like Reagan!
I do have a pretty clear understanding of the...shall I call it “obsession”? I perceive that most of these anti-ISMs are former Mormons. I too left a cult in which I was raised, and for several years I was impassioned about the “wrongness” of the teaching and of what was done to my family. I played the same tune on a different fiddle. The time came that I realized that my life, my salvation and my happiness could no longer be touched by the leaders of the cult - and I was finally free. Free from fear and anger and, most importantly, free to forgive.
In this thread, I asked a few simple questions - intended to discern the underlying motives of the poster. I got my answer, which confirmed my guesses - but then was beset by relentless badgering that implied some nefarious motivation for my questions - devolving into questions (the all important “?”) of the sincerity of my beliefs, my position (or the fervor thereof) on abortion and on and on and on. Frustrating for me, one who enjoys the rigors of a good, honest debate.
I have enjoyed your posts on this thread - which is why I posted to you in the first place.
Yes!
There is a LOT of that going on in this thread!
I'm glad you've noticed half of it.
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
So THAT was your reasoning?
Silly me; I thought it was a red herring drug across the trail...
Some?
Who exactly failed to express their concern?
However, I certainly think it’s valid to post back explaining my belief they are mistaken.
Mistaken about WHAT?
It is hard to follow the reasoning, if the facts are merely vaguely referred to.
Seven Differences Between Mormonism and Christianity
O...
K...
Oh?
You really don't care about the DIFFERENCES; just the agenda?
You know; this is how I feel about Mitt; too!
I, however, do not have the confidence that he WOULD be very Reaganesque.
I could be wrong - I have been before.
I’m not aware if the anti-mormon folks are all former mormons. I find their reactions to be simplistic at best. Very child like. Yes, I know they will read this and post an answer to every sentence. Clever things like, “but I’m not a child so how can my viewpoint be that of a child?” Or “Here is the definition of ‘child’ from 10 Bible verses, so you must be wrong because I do not fit God’s definition of a ‘child’”.
There is a fine line between their extreme devotion and fanaticism. We have folks here who go on and on “proving” every point with Bible passages and their interpretations of those passages. They are blind to the possibility of being wrong. But let me tell you folks, as the old joke goes “this is 16 plus years of Catholic education speaking” and you can be wrong.
I don’t believe in Mormonism (meaning I don’t believe it is the truth, Elsie, I know it exists). But I also don’t believe in Elsie. I further go the extreme step of not worrying what Elsie says regarding the Pope’s supposed views on my posts here. It’s like an alternate universe here in which people are playing Pope.
However, there is a real world. In that world, people don’t give much of a good darn about Mormonism, Mormonism is not much of a threat to Catholicism, and there is no evidence that Mitt Romney is going to govern the USA as a “Temple Mormon”.
I post here in an effort at dialogue, and also to give some voice to the many Freepers who find these views to be extreme. But hey, it’s a free country and I could be wrong.
Elsie: Below is a good example of either 1. You are goofing around or 2. You really are not able to follow simple points. Below are your responses to my post. First, I said I don’t understand where some posters got their particular concern about Mormonism. Your response is a bit of a non sequitor. My very next sentence says, but I believe they are mistaken.
You then say I didn’t identify what they are “mistaken” about. Did you not get that one sentence follows another and I am saying they are “mistaken” to have a “particular concern about Mormonism” (meaning a serious concern about Mormonism in particular)?
I mean really, are you yanking my chain, or do you really think it’s valid to answer each sentence separately, and not to understand the meaning of two sentences, or a whole paragraph?
I notice this is very common on the thread. You take every sentence and “disprove” it, meanwhile not seeing the whole and claiming to not even understand the point the person made in a few paragraphs. Seems to be related to a very doctrinaire interpretation of isolated Biblical quotations.
example below:
“I don’t even underdtand where some posters got their particular concern about mormonism.
Some?
Who exactly failed to express their concern?
However, I certainly think it’s valid to post back explaining my belief they are mistaken.
Mistaken about WHAT?
It is hard to follow the reasoning, if the facts are merely vaguely referred to.”
Silly me; I thought it was a red herring drug across the trail...
___________________________________
No silly you its a paleface Williebird drug across the ballot..
Not like the Founding Fathers envisioned but then maybe its Willie who is to cause the Constitution to hang by a thread...
This would do it Im sure...
Then there are those faithful Christian conservatives who rush in and save the day...
Depose the fishy smelling traitor Willie and put a Conservative man or woman in the White House...
I think thats how it goes...
Of course, these are different situations so the previous one doesn't prove anything about the present one. Jack Kennedy was a CINO whose personal life exhibited little or no concern for Catholic theology. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is an enthusiastic true believer in Mormon theology.
So Islam apparently "gives" you "pause," and that's "a-Ok" to effect an eval of a POTUS candidate; but not Mormonism...
And that's not religious "bigotry."
Yeah. We get these finest-line distinctions.
NOT.
[also...we note you don't go on the Obama threads accusing anybody of bringing up his Muslim ties of engaging in religious "bigotry..." (that's what I meant by your lopsided aps here)]
So...December 2007 -- supposedly over three years AFTER Romney supposedly "switched" to pro-life -- is a "time warp?"
Ridiculous...see chart below where you can read Romney's comment to Katie Couric in Dec of '07...then try convincing us that his statement there was "pro-life"...
Just scroll down to LAST row...middle column...:
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' |
| Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth | Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation | Ann Romney, 2011: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
| Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth | “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007) | So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.” |
| Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) | "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?" |
| 1994 (Campaign) | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” | Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) |
| 1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 | (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/ann-romneys-planned-parenthood-donation/">Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts | 2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?) |
| 2002-2004 | “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again? | Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?) |
| 2005 | May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04! | What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine |
| 2006 | April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). | "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates |
| Early 2007 | On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? | Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life! |
| Summer 2007 | "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" | Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer? |
| December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life' | December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!" | In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.