See? The ad hominem is embedded in the faulty assertion built upon the faulty premise. That there is no "dishonor" unless we are already guilty of a type of malfeasance - "twisting".
Sorry, not going to let you off that easy.
Instead of using more accurate terms or words like “church critic”, the word “anti-” is used as it relates to the mormons as a people, “anti-mormon”. That it is a personal prejudice. To draw parallels to many “anti-” [such as anti-semitism] pogroms from the past and currently.
It’s an incendiary word that is already loaded with negative connotations that arouses in people a reflexive response that is neither necessary or relevant, almost feral in nature.
To elicit a sympathy response from an outsider who may or may not understand what has actually been said in previous discussions, only reflexive outrage.
The persistent use of the term “Propaganda” falls into the same category.
Casting out aspersions like feed corn without providing proof to support the accusations is "dishonorable". It is a clear demonstration of the Alinsky methods of attacking the poster, not the content.
Even when confronted on the "blasphemy" episode, the attempt was made to turn it around on to me. That it was my "twisting" of what was said, etc. ad nauseum. That is "dishonorable".
The use of broad and gross generalizations against the individuals using carefully parsed words in a thinly veiled, childish and cowardly attempt to hide behind the forum rules while at the same time giving the impression that the poster is the one being "attacked".
That is "dishonorable".
It may be within forum guidelines and rules, but it is NOT "honorable".
I don't expect a TBM to give any quarter to an apostate who speaks out against the church, but don't pretend it's "honorable" to malign the poster.
Most of the questions folks have regarding Mormonism center upon conflicts with where Mormonism deviates from Christianity; if the mormonism apologist/deceiver answers directly, they have to verify they believe the mormon version and thus show they accept the blasphemies rather than what Christianity teaches; this instantly reveals that Momronism is not Christianity, that the apologist/deceiver knows it is not Christianity, and that the apologist/deceiver is fine with that even as the LDS apologist uses Jesus' name in their demonic cult name.
It is also clear that the Parsimonious Deflector is using FreeRepublic.com to try and proselytize for this cult religion, so exposing the glaring variations from the truth of Christianity would defeat the devious purpose of the poster.
The Anti-Mormon gang spouts Anti-Mormon Propaganda constantly. That’s a fact. I don’t care if you like the way it’s phrased or not. It’s a fact.
Even when confronted on the “blasphemy” episode, the attempt was made to turn it around on to me. That it was my “twisting” of what was said
umm... you did twist it. I never said what you said I said. I even laid it out for you one statement vs the other. 2 totally different things. Sorry. You lose.
That is "dishonorable".
It may be within forum guidelines and rules, but it is NOT "honorable".
It is my opinion that the very method that is being used by Paragon "Defender" is an attempt at a clever end run around the very nature of the forum and the forum rules, and as a covert "in-your-face" disrespect of Jim Robinson's expressed abhorrence of the Christian bashing that was going on in the LDS Caucus threads.
I have noticed that the articles being posted now by PD are even more anti-Christian in nature and the threads are becoming in effect "caucus-like" in PD's refusal to even attempt to enter into a two-way conversation as we see in his non-responses to FatherofFive making a mockery of the very title "forum" (forum:a public meeting or assembly for open discussion).
We see very few posts by other FR mormons, and in my opinion they are content to let PD carry on his little joke.
Now, I have seen several instances where the RM has indicated that if a poster is NOT adding to the conversation, but is in fact acting as a disruptor they have been removed from the thread.
RM, is there a difference between the disruptor non-responses and Paragon Defender's spam posts and non-responsive posts that add nothing to an honest discussion of the posted article?
Is this method of dishonest avoidance of actual discussion to continue? That seems to lead those of us who actually wish to discuss the article two choices: To be led down the garden path of back-and-forth name-calling, or avoiding completely these threads, and in effect allowing them to become mormon caucuses on anti-Christian articles which JR has condemned. If you will visit the posting history of Paragon Defender, you will see numerous threads that have under 50 replies on them.
This in effect, allows the anti-Christian article to stand alone as a caucus, with no posts that elicit a "discussion".
This seems again to lead to the practice of using the FR religion forum as a proselytizing arm of the mormon church.