sock puppet's 1st Post wrote:An interesting question, the thread title, Polygamy Porter. I'm sure every investigator for the police in Utah County and every psychologist that will be analyzing this woman will be asking it too.
maklelan's 1st Swipe wrote:No, if my interaction with actual professionals is any indication, they approach their jobs with professionalism rather than with sophomoric prejudices. They do, after all, deal with murders and crime in Utah on a daily basis, not just sporadically on Mormon-related message boards.
Sammy Jankins wrote:Mayan Elephant wrote:if she was in colorado city you would ask if she was a polygamist. if she was in the magnolia housing project you would ask if she was african american. if she was in Lancaster County you would ask if she was Amish. if she was in charming you would ask if she was gemma teller morrow. the question is not at all in poor taste.
Would it be appropriate to speculate if she was African American, and then speculate that her being African American had something to do with her killing her infant children? Maybe use it as an opportunity to take a jab at African American culture?
I agree with Sethbag, the thread is in extremely poor taste. We don't even know if she was Mormon.
Here's an idea. Let's wait until we know something about the why of the murders before seizing on the murders as some ghoulish opportunity to take a stab at Mormonism.
sock puppet's 2nd Post wrote:Does being African American mean a person has been told not to have an abortion?
Does being African American mean a person has been told that children that die before age 8 get a free pass into heaven?
I do not see the analogy.
maklelan's 2nd Swipe wrote:Failing to see an analogy you don't want to see is easy. You just have to highlight any area of difference and insist the analogy fails. It betrays a staggering ignorance of what an analogy actually is, but it's pretty standard sophomoric logic. For your information, the analogous concept is the built in prejudices that are exposed in speculating on motivations.
sock puppet's 3rd Post wrote:The thread title asked a question. It is a legitimate question that despite your 'actual experience', professional investigators and psychoanalysts will be asking too. Your paranoia is wherein lies all the fears of prejudice. A bit brittle these days, mak, are you from your time working in the COB?
maklelan's 1st Dodge wrote:The question in the title is not that big a deal. The actual post is the problem. I think my comments make that clear enough. Keep trying with those little rhetorical jabs, though. Maybe they'll distract people from all the criticisms you're trying to evade.
sock puppet's 4th Post wrote:And you've attacked me despite ALL my comments in this thread making clear enough that I've only defended the title question, not the OP. Get that defensive, paranoid sty out of your eye there, and onward Christian soldier.
maklelan's 2nd Dodge wrote:The criticism I'm referencing is the one aimed at your attempt to deny the validity of the analogy Sammy pointed out. Are you going to attempt to defend your argument, or do you see no rhetorical value in that at this point?
sock puppet's 5th Post wrote:Now you're simply lying. The POST.
But you don't even have the modicum of integrity one could argue that remains in Lying for the Lord. You just Lie for the Corporation. What a hack.
maklelan's lack of integrity wrote:Everybody--including you--knows my integrity is not the issue here. I have been criticizing the post throughout the thread. I have been criticizing your posts because of your silly response to Sammy's analogy. Your rhetoric is getting confused and desperate.
Keep trying to ignore but mischaracterizing the entire exchange. It's the only play the morally bankrupt hack for LDS Inc. that you are has. Keep digging your hole deeper--after all, JSJr says, for money, there's buried treasure in the afterlife--if it weren't for those damn evil spirits that keep moving it.