raid517

As far as I have always understood it, neither do Mormons.

GJ

JavaFox

At least, you'd like to think so, since you won't make that case yourself.

I wasn't making fun of your appearance, religion, or nationality. I was attacking your debating style and the position you hold -- which is as valid a criticism as any. If you think that's too personal, you probably shouldn't be posting at all. At any rate, it's not really personal -- if anyone else was doing that same thing, they would have received the same response from me. I think you perhaps give yourself and your posts too much credit.

I think you were hoping that you and I'd see eye to eye on more issues. Just because I agree with you on some issues doesn't mean my positions have changed since I was last active here and it doesn't mean that I won't disagree with you. And It sure doesn't mean I won't attack false statements and sniper-debate with any less vigor than if they were made by anybody else. To think that I --or anyone else in this forum-- would only disagree with you out of a personal dislike is codescending and insulting.

Like I said, I like you just fine, and if you feel slighted by my posts, you probably need to develop a thicker skin and stop taking Internet posts so seriously. I do not bear grudges.

No, you're thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses (The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society). The Mormon Church doesn't really take a position on transfusion.

raid517

Well you know what I objected to - and it was really none of the above. I have a thick enough skin for debate - but what gets under my skin is when people start making false accusations. That's what makes it feel personal to me. Next thing I was waiting to hear was you coming up with the old tired phrase, ''but you said you hated Christians!'' You want to know how to piss me off? Well there's your golden ticket. All you have to do is accuse me of being the one thing I hate most.

As for making the case for the Authoritarian nature of American Republican government, I think that has pretty much been my entire raison d'etre the entire time I have been on this forum. Perhaps there was something in the many things I have said here that you have missed? I've spent over two years defending my positions. I would hardly call that 'drive by' by any standard.

As for hoping we can get along better. Meh... The world is a nicer place when people get along. But in this instance I can live with out without it.

It isn't something I'm likely to spend much time thinking about.

Life goes on regardless.

GJ

raid517

Well I've definitely heard of Mormons refusing medical treatment on religious lines. There was a case in this country where the social services had to get a court order to treat the child of a Mormon couple with a Kidney transplant - though possibly it is more a matter of personal conscience for Mormons than it is of strict religious doctrine - as it is for Jehovah's Witnesses.

GJ

JavaFox

I thought that I had already said I perhaps stepped out of line?

Either way, the easy way to avoid such accusations is to not make generalizations based on religion. Easy enough, I think. Especially considering you apparently know so little about Mormonism. It's not a good idea to make behavioral generalizations based on religion when you aren't that well-versed with the thought processes that religion fosters.

I bet that if I was constantly saying things like "The reason authoritarianism thrives in the Middle East is because Muslims are prone to erecting such governments!" I'd probably be called a bigot, too. It's a good thing to avoid, generally. Doubly-so here considering Orrin Hatch obviously supports stringent copyright controls more because of the cash in his pocket rather than the god in his heart, wouldn't you say?

Anyway, when I said you were drive-by debating, I wasn't talking about you saying Republicans are more authoritarian. That isn't the debate. You DID say, however, that Republicans were more supportive of the RIAA/MPAA. THAT was a snipe, since you've shown nothing to show that Republicans are any more apt than Democrats to support such things. You said it, now you want to drop it after I've challenged it. That's drive-by debating. I, on the other hand, made numerous examples showing that Republicans and Democrats both fail to understand technology and Fair Use.

I think we get along just fine. But if you're going to continue being petulant, there's not much I --or anyone else-- can do to help you.

raid517

Read my post again. I edited it.

And petulant is a judgment call, as much as me deciding to call you belligerent. Is it true?

I guess it really depends whether or not you are trying to score points.

In any case I would appreciate if you would drop this new tone you have adopted where you imagine you are my intellectual superior and you have to go about explaining everything to me. I don't appreciate being patronized, thanks all the same. When I'm in need of some help, I'll let you know - although I suspect you may have a very long wait.

And on balance I think that if you looked at the anti fair use bills that have been put forward in the last 10 years you would find that more were proposed by Republicans than by democrats. You might want to point out that the democrats may or may not have lent their support at some point - but what they hey - maybe that's because the American Democratic party lacks any real balls when it comes to these issues?

Remember I'm not in a position where I need to be obliged to feel tied to either of these groups.

There isn't much about either side of the American political spectrum that I see much worth in admiring right now.

I may lean more towards the democratic perspective sometimes - but they do not always lean towards me.

GJ

JavaFox

Again, you really need to drop the boo-hooing around these parts. If you think I'm attacking you personally, it's really only you. Any other readers, I think, will instantly see that I am attacking your position and not you. I've been called many things before --and I must admit that condescending is one of them-- but I don't believe I am being condescending here. I have never insulted your intelligence and in fact on numerous occasions I have said that you were one of my favorite posters here. So, like I said, any slight that you feel as a result of me arguing your points exists only in your own head.

I am not your intellectual superior and, with candor I'll admit, I've learned quite a bit from you and your posts, perhaps more than any other DH poster. Your accusations of hatred, dislike, or disdain could not be more off-base. So, like I said, you really shouldn't think I'm attacking you because I hate you because --believe me-- I don't hate you. Merely recommending that you reserve commenting on things you're not wholly familiar with doesn't mean I'm patronizing. If I was to comment on the House of Lords, I'd fully expect you to tell me to shut up because I don't know a damn thing about the House of Lords.

Anyway, you admit yourself that the Democratic Party is spineless on these issues and that goes a long way towards furthering my point, not yours. But give them some credit, because they've really taken the initiative in bashing American Fair Use rights on occasion. Frtiz Hollings is a real crusader for corporate copyrights. If you want to casually observe that Republicans have proposed and supported such legislation more often than the Democrats, you're free to -- not much reason or rhetoric on my part will change your mind. That said, those of us more immersed in American politics will have to respectfully disagree with your point because it really is less grounded in actual voting records and more in ideological disdain.

You keep mentioning that you're not American and I've identified and recognized that. Of course a non-American shouldn't be expected to know the internal workings of domestic American politics. I'm sure you don't expect me to know much about the English parliamentary system, either -- and I don't. But if I were to post in a thread about English politics and state "Man, that House of Lords sure is a bunch of assholes" or "The vote of no confidence sure is a useless aspect of English politics" I'd be argued into the ground. And rightly so! I would not be able to defend or criticize the Vote of No Confidence with any sort of intelligence or insight. I should be flamed in such a situation.

I think you've demonstrated that your knowledge of Mormonism is cursory at best --don't be miffed by this, I'm sure you realize that this is true-- and you are not immersed in American domestic poltics. That's fine. You shouldn't be expected or required to know all that much about either. What you should expect, though, is to be sharply criticized if you do comment on these things and are unable to back up your position. "Impressions" and "feelings" don't have a place in a political debate. Your opinions on American foreign policy is valuable, and I enjoying reading it. But commenting on someone you don't know much about --and by your own admission have a great deal of disinterest and disdain towards-- isn't something I think is constructive or worthwhile.

All I'm saying is that you won't see me popping off at the mouth about the British Crown or the sales tax in Manchester.

raid517

OK look just do a tally. Look up what legislation has been proposed and by who in this last 10 year period instead of spending endless hours (and paragraphs) knitting a position for yourself that ultimately comes over sounding like it is formed more of rhetoric than anything of any real substance. You appear to be inferring that I am somehow too intellectually lazy to argue the points I have made. Well that is a two sided blade. Perhaps the onus should be on you to find any kind of substantive evidence to refute the assertions I have made? A simply tally of proposals made and by whom would serve to settle this admirably between us once and for all.

You don't quite get my position and I doubt you ever really will. I am not entirely certain I like the American Democratic party - they too have been responsible for their own share of foreign policy disasters throughout this last 60 years. They often seem from my perspective to lack the resolve and will to do many of the things that need doing, to bring about genuine democratic change - both in America and throughout the world. It just so happens that I probably dislike them a little less than I dislike the Republicans, specifically because of the Republican tendency to over govern, to interfere in the personal aspects of peoples lives, to curb civil rights and civil liberties. Someone else here put it perfectly, I wish I could remember the exact phrase they used. Ah yes here it is, by PoopyTheJ. (I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him).

I think this has been true for a very long time in that both sides have been too much tied up in ideology to even consider if there is a possibility that there might be another way. Why not live in a world where financial pragmatism, civil liberties and freedoms and a desire to promote genuine democratic ideals abroad (instead of the piecemeal approach where you only hit people if they bug you) are all ideas that share an equal prominence in American life? Why should it always only be possible to have one and not the other?

In any case I refute the notion that I know nothing about American politics. I have a very substantial personal library and have pretty much studied American politics from before Independence and onwards. I have the same access to the same TV stations and the same electronic media as you, I have the same access to newspapers and magazines, several of which I regularly read. I think I am in more than a good position to argue a point effectively.

I also doubt that my understanding of Mormonism is as far off the mark as you imagine. It may not be in-depth, I haven't gone to Mormon churches and studied them - nor I doubt have most people. But my impressions were formed from Mormons that I have actually met and spoken to and I have at least - unlike some here taken the time to actually read the book of Mormon. So while not perfect, my understanding is at least slightly better than average. There are still things about them I don't know - mainly because I don't care to know - because it is not something that interests me that much. But again in this I am not so different to most other people.

I don't appreciate you trying to set out the terms for this - and for future debates where suddenly you feel at liberty to dismiss my comments because clearly (if you are to be believed) 'I don't know what I'm talking about.' Lets put an end to that here. Either you agree to debate on equal terms - or just don't debate at all. It's not exactly a hard choice to make.

Anyway thanks for the somewhat more conciliatory comments you made - although to be honest it still comes over more like 'high praise from Cesar'. But on the off chance that you might have meant it, let me return the thought by saying that maybe you aren't the most poisonous republican I've ever met. Lol, it may be limited praise, but in the light of recent events it's about as much as I can muster.

The rest of what you said about 'not getting upset' - well I explained to you very clearly what it was that annoyed me - and it has nothing to do with any of the other things you said.

You said sorry, so fair enough, lets not rake over it again and again. It's enough to say that it was uncalled for and untrue.

So long as we've got that clear then that's enough.

GJ

Nacht

The friend I spoke of has a father who is a doctor. He actively participates in the medical field in everything from transfusions, to surgery, to common illness. Also, he is very active in his church. Religously, they are against things like stimulants and the like, and they use medicine and science to back up their beliefs. They DO NOT use caffiene, because it is bad for you, as science and medicine has shown (although probably not as bad for you as they like to believe). They also WILL NOT drink anything like diet coke, because again science and medcine has shown that it can make you loose your memory (again, they probably exhagerate a little bit, but their stance is founded).

raid517

Well as I said there is something in what I said. They may not be wholly against it like Jehovah Witnesses - but they certainly have their own eccentricities when it comes to modern medicine, technology and culture.

GJ