Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _wenglund »

RockSlider wrote: I believe another thread is in order to pursue my late 50's upbringing in the Mormon corridor and if it's simply a weakness in me or partly my upbringing that fostered these things.


If you can't just blame the Church for your sexist attitudes, you can always blame me and Will. The crowd here is already disposed in that direction, and it will help to cover your sins with ours. Anything beats taking personal responsibility.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _MsJack »

Will Schryver wrote:MsJack, I know you simply cannot, at this point in time, appreciate the full magnitude of your miscalculation, but you've now made your bed and you'll have sleep in it, as they say.

So, does this mean you're not going to get back to me on my Lawful Evil Elf question?

Will Schryver wrote:Hey, I think you ought to post all this stuff on your blog.

Great minds think alike. (And apparently, so do ours.)

Will Schryver wrote:Send stuff off to all your friends and relatives.

Erm, no thank you. My friends hardly need a primer on what misogyny looks like, there wasn't enough Jimmer in this thread to interest my Mormon in-laws, and there would have to be a lot more talking about guns to reel in my blood-kin.

Will Schryver wrote:Pass out jump drives at the next Exmo Conference, at the bar, along with the beer and the condoms.

Never been to an ex-Mormon Conference, but I hope you found the beer and condoms to your liking.

Will Schryver wrote:Heck, let's see you make this Schryver Snuff your prime objective for the next few months (or take a cue from Scratch, and turn it into a half-decade long crusade.)

Delusions of grandeur much? I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but what I did here was just a Monday in my life. Really. I spent more time last week trying to kill Nefarian with my guild than I did composing this thread.

And since Nefarian doesn't call women "bitch" when they deliver a well-deserved blow, I'd much rather be DPSing him than you.

Will Schryver wrote:Either way, you've crossed the line now. There's no turning back. You'll have to ride this wave all the way in, for better or worse. I hope you're up to it.

You really don't get it, William. You aren't the first apologist to try and cow me into taking or not taking a certain course of action with vague whispers about how disappointing I am or how I'm about to tarnish my reputation. Thus far, you're the third, and you are by far the smallest fish to try that ploy.

What can I tell you. It just gets less and less intimidating every time I hear it.

I'm sorry that you didn't choose to engage my concerns more substantively. I did not really think that you would, but I figured you deserved the chance to set things right.

by the way, if you can provide links to where you apologized for your comments about Emma Smith and your harassing behavior towards KimberlyAnn, I'll be glad to add them to the OP.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Tarski »

Droopy wrote:Will is here and under this particular knife, again, because of his work in the apologetic arena, with particular emphasis on his Book of Abraham arguments and ongoing challenge to the Book of Abraham's critics.


Rubbish. (Are you ever right about anything? Anything?)

No one is accusing Nibley of misogyny.
No one is accusing Hamblin of misogyny.
Why?

If it were some sort of misguided reaction to apologetic particulars then why don't we see personal attacks on these men of the sort Will has earned?



The apologetic arguments as such are not at issue here and are trivial in this context.

I know Dan Peterson has not weighed in here (and who could expect it?) but I have some indication from him about his attitude about a couple things.

I hope very much he will forgive me for saying this but he has indicated to me that while he thinks Will is intelligent and that his theories are perhaps a bit better than the critics realize, he does not appreciate Will's descents in the realm of the vulgar and does not understand it at all. He also has indicated that Beastie is a mostly reasonable and certainly intelligent person (except perhaps, in his view when she seems to give some credence to the theories of Mr. Scratch.)
In case Dan has forgotten, I have his own words with which I could remind him.

So apparently, our Dr. Peterson, who we might expect to remain partisan just cannot admire Will's antics and certainly cannot be found describing Beastie as repulsive. In fact, I have a hard time imagining him describing anyone in those terms. I fully expect that the best of the apologists, those who take their actual religion seriously, cannot endorse this or many other of Will's obnoxious traits.
If the rest could step back and look again, paying attention to subtext, they would see, if they haven't already, an aggressive chauvinistic bully.

I am glad LOAP had the character to speak up. I expect he will be followed by a few more eventually.

I know Peterson is the apologist critics love to hate but Will is better suited for that honor.

For my part I am extremely offended that Beastie or Harmony should be called repulsive. It angers me almost more than anything I have heard from Will. These are fine women who just refuse to be submissive in Will's presence (and really, why should they or any woman?)

The fact that even now Droopy can only be found defending this crap shows how insanely partisan he is (as if we didn't know that already). Shame on you Droopy. Shame.

PS. Please stop saying unalloyed and unreconstructed so many times. Why aren't you smart enough to realize what an embarrassing impression you give with these little phrases? These aren't big words, nor are they examples of eloquence. Instead it comes across as a lame affectation of some sort.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Droopy »

Tarski wrote:Will is here and under this particular knife, again, because of his work in the apologetic arena, with particular emphasis on his Book of Abraham arguments and ongoing challenge to the Book of Abraham's critics.


Rubbish. (Are you ever right about anything? Anything?)


I'm sure you wish, very, very much, that it were.

No one is accusing Nibley of misogyny.


No. Nibley was accused of being a pedophile and of engaging in bizarre sexual activities with his own daughter. That received a great deal of traction here, and was defended staunchly (irregardless of its utter lack of plausibility) by some of the very same people now baying for Will's blood.

No one is accusing Hamblin of misogyny.
Why?


How many times have Hamblin, Gee, Rhodes et al been called liars, frauds, intellectual hacks, and mindless sycophants of the Brethren in this forum?

If it were some sort of misguided reaction to apologetic particulars then why don't we see personal attacks on these men of the sort Will has earned?


I've been seeing them for years here, and for the same reason - they're competent scholars and effective apologists, and they've had a number of people here feeling threatened and cornered for a long time.
The apologetic arguments as such are not at issue here and are trivial in this context.


Yes they are. This entire exercise is a diversion, just as are all the attacks on Daniel, Nibley, Gee, bc, me, or anyone else who defends the Church here effectively and consistently. Will's intermittent colorful personal hardballs thrown at various characters here are a red herring, and nothing more. I need do little more than look at beastie's attempts at the very same smear with me, even though lacking literally anything with which to substantiate her claims, to see the pattern.

I know Dan Peterson has not weighed in here (and who could expect it?) but I have some indication from him about his attitude about a couple things.

I hope very much he will forgive me for saying this but he has indicated to me that while he thinks Will is intelligent and that his theories are perhaps a bit better than the critics realize, he does not appreciate Will's descents in the realm of the vulgar and does not understand it at all.


While I'm not going to take your word here for what DCP thinks on anything, I will say that I agree with him that Will should work on other ways of expressing himself when he feels the need arises. I doubt - highly - that Daniel has labeled Will as a misogynist.

That's at another level, and that is where this thread began.

He also has indicated that Beastie is a mostly reasonable and certainly intelligent person (except perhaps, in his view when she seems to give some credence to the theories of Mr. Scratch.)


I think Beastie is typical of the contemporary western pseudo-intellectual; a person, very much like Scratch, with a very good grasp of the English language and who can manipulate and deploy words effectively, but without the philosophical depth, imagination, or creativity that is mark of the true "intellectual," which, for me at least, is not merely a clever and sophisticated wordsmith, or even a sophisticated thinker (mere complexity of thought is not enough, and can mask intellectual shallowness and even guile) but a truly serious, deep - and self honest - thinker. She has a large background of education and knowledge that could be of value to her and others, but which has been deployed in a fervent fight against truth. I say "pseudo" also because I've found Beastie's arguments, over as many years, to be fraught with a consistent penchant with playing fast and loose with facts and the statements of others.

There is a deep tendentiousness to much of what she writes that is quite noticeable to others not beholden to her particular agenda.

So apparently, our Dr. Peterson, who we might expect to remain partisan just cannot admire Will's antics and certainly cannot be found describing Beastie as repulsive. In fact, I have a hard time imagining him describing anyone in those terms. I fully expect that the best of the apologists, those who take their actual religion seriously, cannot endorse this or many other of Will's obnoxious traits.


But, as I've shown, they're only obnoxious because their Will's. For some reason, the obnoxiousness sticks only to him, and not to the flaming, juvenile internet punks here, many of whom have long made up a significant section of the major posters on this board.

For my part I am extremely offended that Beastie or Harmony should be called repulsive.


Beastie is repulsive because she has stood out here as a stubborn character assassin of the same caliber as Scratch. I know because she has attempted it with me, an attempt which I took to be extremely serious at the time, given its subject matter.

Harmony is veritably one of the wolves within the flock so eloquently elucidated in the scriptures as a feature of the Latter Days, and which, when once encountered, can never be forgotten. It is probably the fact that she continues her pose and her pretense with such brazen, self righteous conceit that grates, not so much what she says about any given subject.

Its one reason I have not engaged her here in probably well over a year or more, having finially given up. My few words to her recently are the first in a very long time.

It angers me almost more than anything I have heard from Will. These are fine women who just refuse to be submissive in Will's presence (and really, why should they or any woman?)


Perhaps they are, in some sense I'm not aware of. However, in those senses of which I am aware, I find both of them rather unlikeable.

The fact that even now Droopy can only be found defending this crap shows how insanely partisan he is (as if we didn't know that already). Shame on you Droopy. Shame.


What have I defended, pray tell?

PS. Please stop saying unalloyed and unreconstructed so many times. Why aren't you smart enough to realize what an embarrassing impression you give with these little phrases? These aren't big words, nor are they examples of eloquence. Instead it comes across as a lame affectation of some sort.


Try licking some cupcakes Tarski. It might take the edge off.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

MsJack wrote:You really don't get it, William. You aren't the first apologist to try and cow me into taking or not taking a certain course of action with vague whispers about how disappointing I am or how I'm about to tarnish my reputation. Thus far, you're the third, and you are by far the smallest fish to try that ploy.

What can I tell you. It just gets less and less intimidating every time I hear it.



Hello Ms. Jack,

Unfortunately, Mr. Schryver has betrayed himself:

search.php?keywords=danite&terms=all&author=William+Schryver&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

Here we have a man who "in jest" wishes death upon apostates, and makes aggressive & sexually tinged derogatory remarks toward women with whom he disagrees. Whatever persona he maintains in his real life, I believe he lets the mask fall when he's online. I truly believe this man is in need of the repentance process, which includes making amends to the people he has offended in a humble and permanent manner. If he does that I believe he'll be a better man, and a better representative of his faith. We'll see.

V/R
Dr. Cam
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_Will Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:12 pm

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Will Schryver »

Eric wrote:Isn't the C-word already censored on this board when you type it out? So harmony supposedly edited a 'C' followed by three asterisks from Will's post and then threatened to suspend him for it? That seems a little strange to me...

Notwithstanding our differences on most things, Eric once again provides evidence for why I respect him more than just about any other man who posts on this message board. He will not be beholden to any kind of "group think" behavior. Maybe his resistance to that kind of thing arises out of his Boys Ranch experience. Maybe it's just part of who he is. But you have to tip your hat to a man who is willing to stand up and highlight the obvious, even as the prevailing mob atmosphere suppresses such impulses in everyone else around him. Here's a man who doesn't pause to count the cost before he stands to speak the truth as he sees it. That, in my book, is a man worthy of attention, and a man most likely destined to make his mark in life, while the spineless crowd from which he rises cowers in the smoldering shame of their own mediocrity.

At any rate, your trenchant observation had previously eluded me, but is 100% correct. Had I, in reality, used the "C" word in a sentence, the board software would have censored it, leaving a "c" followed by three asterisks--meaning, of course, that no one ever saw the "C" word in a post I made. This entire charade has been an exercise in the principle that:

... it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him.


Anyway, in my absence from the board, I see several new pages have been produced. I can't hope to read it all, but I'll scan through the posts of Blair "More Holier Than Thou" Hodges*, MsJack, and perhaps even Doctor Scratch. I'm sure I can come up with a little something to say in their behalf.




* = Not a phrase of my own invention; I've merely adopted it. It has only temporarily replaced "Blair 'The Future of Mopologetics' Hodges" in popularity. You know, upon reflection, it occurs to me that it's far better to be mocked in public and respected in private than respected in public and mocked in private. But I'm kind of funny that way ...
I thought myself the wiser to have viewed the evidence left of such a great demise. I followed every step. But the only thing I ever learned before the journey's end was there was nothing there to learn, only something to forget.
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Ceeboo »

TEST




Cunt


Peace,
Ceeboo
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Ceeboo »

Ceeboo wrote:TEST




c***


Peace,
Ceeboo




Hmmmmmmmmm??????????




Peace,
Ceeboo
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _RockSlider »

Ceeboo wrote:TEST
c***

Test
c ***
cu **
cun *
c * * * *

as suspected all required editing to put in the splat. Dang and I'm not even a KEP encryption expert.
_Dad of a Mormon
_Emeritus
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:28 am

Re: Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

Post by _Dad of a Mormon »

Ceeboo wrote:TEST




c***


Peace,
Ceeboo


I tried the same thing! (I just did Preview, though.)

It is an interesting observation, but I would like some clarification from those who actually saw it. What did you see? It is possible that the c-word may have been added to a filter after this incident, or it could be that they saw c***. If what they saw was c***, it still would have been pretty clear from context that the c-word was intended. So this hardly gets Will off the hook. (Or maybe Will can explain what was intended by c***.)
Post Reply