Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Lemmie »

Mr. Midgley wrote:I was more than merely "implying" that without faith in God and immortality, then life is ultimately meaningless. Now you are free to set out the tenets of your atheist religion. And be sure to explain how mere "meat wads" can have any real meaning that goes beyond merely pleasuring themselves until they disappear forever.

Gadianton wrote:DCP already explained this to Fred Kratz. Fred asked what more could he want than the good things in life he's experienced, and DCP responded, to continue experiencing those things in the next life (presumably indefinitely).

In other words, DCP is telling Fred that a meaningful life is only found in pleasuring ones self, but on the condition any time constraints removed.

:lol:
Omg the things I learn here. No wonder they're so afraid of the TK Smoothie. All the time in the immortal universe, and not a single thing to do with it! :cool:

User avatar
Maksutov
God
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Maksutov »

So is the Midge a God Wad? Sounds icky. :eek:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7654
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:
Mr. Midgley wrote:I was more than merely "implying" that without faith in God and immortality, then life is ultimately meaningless. Now you are free to set out the tenets of your atheist religion. And be sure to explain how mere "meat wads" can have any real meaning that goes beyond merely pleasuring themselves until they disappear forever.


DCP already explained this to Fred Kratz. Fred asked what more could he want than the good things in life he's experienced, and DCP responded, to continue experiencing those things in the next life (presumably indefinitely).

In other words, DCP is telling Fred that a meaningful life is only found in pleasuring ones self, but on the condition any time constraints removed.


This really does raise some fascinating theological questions, doesn't it? I've long wondered what is meant to happen to agency in the CK. If each person is an exalted God, then you obviously cannot "force" them to do anything. So, is it the case that, as a God, you effectively "recreate" all the your friends and loved ones, but, of course, they answer to you, since you are the God? Similarly, would the Mopologists re-create their enemies, just in order to smite them down? I.e., DCP could reanimate Ed Decker, and then kill him with a lightning strike. He could theoretically create an infinite number of Deckers, and kill each of them in a different manner: stricken with boils; cancer; rockslide; car accident--you name it.

And what happens to the "rules" of mortal existence? Those go away in the CK, right? Or is the idea that the "virtuous" exalted beings just flat-out won't want to do those things? Peterson fancies himself a gourmand (he's not, though: if you pay attention to the things he says that he orders, he's always ordering the trashiest food items, like some kind of bean and beef pizza; it's as if he learned his tastes in food from Guy Fieri. He never met a deep-fried item that he didn't like, and he's never heard of something called "vegetables"), so would that mean that he'd get to drink Dom Perignon, coffee, and Bordeaux? You mention masturbation and "self pleasure." Is that permitted? Would he be able to not only to engage in guilt-free viewings of salacious Jennifer Lopez videos, but he would actually be able to graduate to hardcore porn?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 3907
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
This really does raise some fascinating theological questions, doesn't it? I've long wondered what is meant to happen to agency in the CK. If each person is an exalted God, then you obviously cannot "force" them to do anything. So, is it the case that, as a God, you effectively "recreate" all the your friends and loved ones, but, of course, they answer to you, since you are the God? Similarly, would the Mopologists re-create their enemies, just in order to smite them down? I.e., DCP could reanimate Ed Decker, and then kill him with a lightning strike. He could theoretically create an infinite number of Deckers, and kill each of them in a different manner: stricken with boils; cancer; rockslide; car accident--you name it.

And what happens to the "rules" of mortal existence? Those go away in the CK, right? Or is the idea that the "virtuous" exalted beings just flat-out won't want to do those things? Peterson fancies himself a gourmand (he's not, though: if you pay attention to the things he says that he orders, he's always ordering the trashiest food items, like some kind of bean and beef pizza; it's as if he learned his tastes in food from Guy Fieri. He never met a deep-fried item that he didn't like, and he's never heard of something called "vegetables"), so would that mean that he'd get to drink Dom Perignon, coffee, and Bordeaux? You mention masturbation and "self pleasure." Is that permitted? Would he be able to not only to engage in guilt-free viewings of salacious Jennifer Lopez videos, but he would actually be able to graduate to hardcore porn?


Literally, this is what just happened to me. My wife is also asking me why I'm laughing out loud. All I can say is thank you! This was brilliant!
Image
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 21638
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by moksha »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Peterson fancies himself a gourmand (he's not, though: if you pay attention to the things he says that he orders, he's always ordering the trashiest food items, like some kind of bean and beef pizza; it's as if he learned his tastes in food from Guy Fieri. He never met a deep-fried item that he didn't like, and he's never heard of something called "vegetables"), ...

Sounds a bit mean. Brother Peterson will have at least one wife urging him to eat a healthy diet to maintain his perfected body.

... so would that mean that he'd get to drink Dom Perignon, coffee, and Bordeaux? You mention masturbation and "self-pleasure." Is that permitted?

A large container of Orange Julius, a La-Z-Boy power recliner, a book by a Germanic author, and some soothing music by Lex de Azevedo played for eternity is sufficient for Dr. Peterson without that forbidden stuff. He will be a cerebral Celestial being, exempt from the sweaty procreation duty of lesser Gods.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Philo Sofee »

moksha wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:Peterson fancies himself a gourmand (he's not, though: if you pay attention to the things he says that he orders, he's always ordering the trashiest food items, like some kind of bean and beef pizza; it's as if he learned his tastes in food from Guy Fieri. He never met a deep-fried item that he didn't like, and he's never heard of something called "vegetables"), ...

Sounds a bit mean. Brother Peterson will have at least one wife urging him to eat a healthy diet to maintain his perfected body.

... so would that mean that he'd get to drink Dom Perignon, coffee, and Bordeaux? You mention masturbation and "self-pleasure." Is that permitted?

A large container of Orange Julius, a La-Z-Boy power recliner, a book by a Germanic author, and some soothing music by Lex de Azevedo played for eternity is sufficient for Dr. Peterson without that forbidden stuff. He will be a cerebral Celestial being, exempt from the sweaty procreation duty of lesser Gods.


HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!!!!!!!!
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 21638
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by moksha »

I think it is admirable that Dr. Midgley wished Gemli well in the wake of the flooding in New Orleans. I imagine he has compared the street map for Gemli with the points at which the levee might be breached by water. Plus, Dr. Midgley did not express any glee that contaminants from the flood water could accelerate raw meat spoilage.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Lemmie »

Someone informed him last week that gemli, according to the article on top New York Times commentary, lives in Boston. Midgley's comment about flooding was stupid. Just another vehicle to insult.

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Physics Guy »

The New York Times reader comments are a famous phenomenon. They're usually as worth reading as the articles. Any other public forum on the Internet is a painful comedown; the Times comments are like some 18th century fantasy of educated civil discourse except with diversity. I presume it's because the Times has paid moderators. In comparison Sic et Non is not so much bush league as sandlot.

If it's the same Gemli at Sic et Non as the respected New York Times commenter, then Sic et Non has a distinguished visitor. Midgely complains about internet anonymity but he doesn't seem to have thought through its implications. If you don't know who that anonymous poster is in real life, then you don't know whether insulting them would be stupid.

And yes, the New York Times Gemli appears to live in Boston, not New Orleans. Boston may be just a little bean and cod town but it would be mean to look down on Boston just because it isn't Provo. Boston tries to be as sophisticated as it can. I think it has a few colleges.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Lemmie »

Physics Guy wrote:The New York Times reader comments are a famous phenomenon. They're usually as worth reading as the articles. Any other public forum on the Internet is a painful comedown; the Times comments are like some 18th century fantasy of educated civil discourse except with diversity. I presume it's because the Times has paid moderators. In comparison Sic et Non is not so much bush league as sandlot.

If it's the same Gemli at Sic et Non as the respected New York Times commenter, then Sic et Non has a distinguished visitor. Midgely complains about internet anonymity but he doesn't seem to have thought through its implications. If you don't know who that anonymous poster is in real life, then you don't know whether insulting them would be stupid.

And yes, the New York Times Gemli appears to live in Boston, not New Orleans. Boston may be just a little bean and cod town but it would be mean to look down on Boston just because it isn't Provo. Boston tries to be as sophisticated as it can. I think it has a few colleges.

:lol:

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9464
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Gadianton »

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/danp ... 4539879599

Gemli is taking a big beating from junior apologist FourFingerjake. "you are a dishonest bigot" and on and on. In fact, he's even bringing in Jesus to justify his outrage, claiming Jesus was famous for calling people names and putting them down.

FourFingerjake wrote:"Fred Kratz," Jesus was not always meek and mild. He frequently called people names"


FourFingerjake wrote:Why, are you in bed? Do you imagine that I'm standing by your bed? Have you stopped your medications? You should see a psychiatrist, one who is really there, but not me.


Now this is interesting, because it turns out that 'ole jake is IRL, a board certified practicing psychiatrist with a long career behind him. Wow. I'll be checking these comments tomorrow, as I expect some heavy up-voting from LM and K57.

If there were ever a testament to the wicked clutches of Mopologetics: where else would an established mental health professional go on political rants and tell people he doesn't like they need medication and to go to a shrink, aside from Sic et Non?

Fred Kratz is rightfully requesting FourFinger to post under his IRL, and even noted that when Jesus "went off" on the Pharisees, he did so under his real name. (lol)

Fred Kratz wrote:Yes, He did, and unlike you, did so without hiding his identity.


Well, seems a little unhinged to say the least for a board certified psychiatrist to get online and start calling people names and tell them they need medication. The sad part is, he's found the wrong group of friends -- these guys will pat him on the back and up-vote him, and push him over the edge rather then show concern for this kind of unprofessional behavior and put an arm around their brother and suggest cooling it. That's what they did to Schryver and any and all others, they cheer their teammates on for the bad a personally risky behavior.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 21638
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by moksha »

Is FourfingerJake for real or is he Pahoran doing a dress rehearsal for the role of New Zealand TV psychiatrist, Dr. Kemara?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Lemmie »

Logophile > Fred Kratz

....As for hiding one's identity, I would remind you that Dr. Peterson sets the rules here. If he does not mind that we post using screen names, who are you to complain?

O the irony. Why does Logophile (or Peterson, for that matter, or ANYONE) never say that to Midgley????

So gemli gets abused constantly by Midgley for anonymity, even though Peterson, whosets the rules, "does not mind" that people post anonymously. Gemli's followers from the New York Times are certainly getting an education about how mopologist Mormons interact with the rest of the world. At least they are no longer associated with the Maxwell Institute, but the reputation of BYU faculty is certainly taking a hit.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Lemmie »

Fourfingeredjake > Fred Kratz • 8 hours ago

...And why are you so obsessed with my identity,"Fred Kratz"? You seem like a creepy, frustrated stalker, which is reason enough to not reveal my name.

O the irony. Again. Someone needs to use this exact phrase next time Midgley stalks gemli.

Ffjake has stated exactly the reason no one should post any information about themselves when Midgley is reading and DP is moderating.
Last edited by Lemmie on Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Lemmie »

Dan
Peterson mod > gemli

....[Note to the Gemli Fan Club: This is plainly another of gemli's spectacular victories, one of his inevitable triumphs. Celebrate it!]

Wow. DP must be here reading constantly. He canNOT leave it alone.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Lemmie »

danpeterson mod

Nobody here has endorsed demeaning others


What a workaround. Note DP argues he doesn't 'endorse' comments demeaning others, because obviously 'allowing' comments demeaning others is different. :rolleyes:

The comments on this Mormon blog are sickening. BYU professors and Mormon, board-certified psychiatrists behaving badly. I predict ffjake will eventually come to his senses and have Dan delete a couple of the comments of others proudly stating his IRL details.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9464
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Gadianton »

O the irony. Again. Someone needs to use this exact phrase next time Midgley stalks gemli.


obviously Fred Kratz is baiting them expertly into defending their sock puppets, and as apologists do, they take the bait and never learn. Apologists literally cannot be consistent, whatever seems like they should say today has nothing to do with what they said yesterday or might have to say tomorrow.

Fred Kratz is making fools of all of them right now.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Lemmie »

I may have to separate this out as its own topic, but in light of Midgley's viciously unrelenting attacks regarding commenters who post anonymously, rappleye's utter lack of self-awareness over at his Neville-shaming blog īs just too funny:
First, we are not “anonymous”; we are pseudonymous. We want the argument to be about Jonathan Neville’s claims and tactics, not personalities.

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... -will.html
[bolding added]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That is priceless. Do these guys not even think for two seconds before they post?!!

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7654
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Lemmie wrote:I may have to separate this out as its own topic, but in light of Midgley's viciously unrelenting attacks regarding commenters who post anonymously, rappleye's utter lack of self-awareness over at his Neville-shaming blog īs just too funny:
First, we are not “anonymous”; we are pseudonymous. We want the argument to be about Jonathan Neville’s claims and tactics, not personalities.

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... -will.html
[bolding added]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That is priceless. Do these guys not even think for two seconds before they post?!!


Ah, so Neal Rappleye is the principal author of “Neville-Neville Land”?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

Lemmie
God
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Lemmie »

in spite of DP's multiple protestations that he has no idea who they are, it took me all of three minutes to find a "neville-neville land" post authored by rappleye in some version of BOMC's original article index, so yes, i' m pretty sure it's him.

And since he specifically said he is NOT writing to remain anonymous, I think its okay to give his name.

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7654
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Rules of Patheos: Midgley appears to violate TOS 10x

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Lemmie wrote:in spite of DP's multiple protestations that he has no idea who they are, it took me all of three minutes to find a "neville-neville land" post authored by rappleye in some version of BOMC's original article index, so yes, i' m pretty sure it's him.

And since he specifically said he is NOT writing to remain anonymous, I think its okay to give his name.


Thanks, Lemmie. Mightn’t you provide a link to the BoMC post? Barring a public disavowal from Rappleye, I’m inclined to think it’s safe to identify him as the author.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests