so ... Mitt Romney.

[melon]

Originally posted by diamond
I use the word "ppl" as a form of shorthand on the boards, a quick search would establish that.

And that's how I interpreted it, personally.

[diamond]

Originally posted by melon


And that's how I interpreted it, personally.

For years you've posted here and, I'm always impressed with your astuteness in some areas Melon.
I admire your ability to write, it's apparent you have an above average IQ, based on your posts.
Your parent or parent(s) probably raised you in a good environment to help your talents flourish, I however wasn't so lucky.


Where we part is in ideologies:

I don't agree with your views on HIV, you’ve posted that it *isn't* a precursor to AIDS, (in other threads) however medical science largely disagrees with you.

I don't agree with you that African men shouldn't be circumcised, you posted in other threads that African men shouldn't have to undergo this procedure when medical science says it would reduce AIDS by 50% on the African continent, I disagree with you there.

You've supported elective abortions due to deformities or potential deformities found in a pre born children. That could open up a flood gate for more late term abortions.

Remarkable ppl like:

Stephen Hawking
Helen Keller
Thomas Edision
Bryan Lambke


could have been aborted, under your line of proposed thinking.

Lastly, I as well as with millions of others are not convinced that the gay question is completely genetic- too many Ex Gays have said they made conscious choices to be Gay and you can't arbitrarily dismiss those ppl, maybe there are both factors to consider.

I understand that some Gay ppl are convinced that it is hereditary, that will be something for our Creator to decide, while in the meantime I love all mankind and hate no one.

My final point in this is, that Mitt, Mormon Christians are not narrowminded bible thumping neandrathals that you sometimes attempt to paint us to be.

cheers-

dbs

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by diamond

My final point in this is, that Mitt, Mormon Christians are not narrowminded bible thumping neandrathals that you sometimes attempt to paint us to be.

but then you bring up the ex-gay lie and talk about Stephen Hawking and abortion and ignore things like harlequin type ichthyosis when it comes to genuinely abortable birth defects.

so, no, i don't see you as spewing hate, but i do see you hiding behind sentimentalism in order to jusify positions that are no different from the positions of the kinds of Christians who see Mormons as no different than the Hale-Bop people.

and i misunderstood you on the "ppl" point. my apologies.

[martha]

Originally posted by melon


And that's how I interpreted it, personally.

Me too. It just bugs the hell out of me.

[BVS]

What a derailment...

[diamond]

Originally posted by Irvine511




no different from the positions of the kinds of Christians who see Mormons as no different than the Hale-Bop people.

and i misunderstood you on the "ppl" point. my apologies.

My point is that although Melon is educated everything that Melon posts isn't Gospel, a lot of it is debatable theory.

In the meantime enjoy the meteor

[melon]

Originally posted by diamond
Where we part is in ideologies:

I don't agree with your views on HIV, you’ve posted that it *isn't* a precursor to AIDS, (in other threads) however medical science largely disagrees with you.

That was the equivalent of "intellectual masturbation," as it is often quite difficult to create a truly unique debate here. And in keeping with that, I took on an overly one-sided position with that debate, for purposes of being a "Devil's advocate."

There's a couple of things, however, that can be learned from an "HIV denier." One, that nothing should be sacred in science. To equate the inherent uncertainty of the scientific process to "Holocaust denial" is a highly dangerous slope--particularly since we're dealing with a relatively young illness. Most of our illnesses have had the "luxury" of having existed for millennia; AIDS, however, has only reliably existed for 26 years. I have concerns about "zealotry" when it comes to this subject, because we have a lot of interesting variables related to it. Those who are most "at-risk," for instance, also had immune system destroying behaviors. For wealthy Westerners, it has usually involved illicit drug use. For Africans, there's a huge number of factors, which include poor sanitation and malaria. Where it gets further complicated is the fact that these anti-HIV drugs are, in themselves, toxic to the immune system. So, in my view, while public policy should be formulated on the sound scientific consensus--and that "consensus" is that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus and can only be treated with rigid antiviral drugs--it is dangerous, from a scientific perspective, to sit on your laurels. I believe that further studies are warranted on how much of what we attribute to "AIDS" is related to immune-suppressive activities versus a virus and how many AIDS-related complications and deaths are related to those same immune-suppressive activities versus a virus versus those same toxic drugs meant to "treat" you. It must be remembered that HIV/AIDS is not the first immune-related affliction known to mankind, but the sheer number of symptoms and afflictions attributed to the HIV virus is rather atypical. That, at the very least, arouses my scientific curiosity and, I believe, deserves further study.

In short, my stance is not about "HIV denial" as much as a desire to understand potential nuance and an acceptance of humility that what we're dealing with here is, compared to all other illnesses and disease vectors previously known to mankind, "new." And I'd be honestly surprised if we know "everything" there is to know about HIV/AIDS.

I don't agree with you that African men shouldn't be circumcised, you posted in other threads that African men shouldn't have to undergo this procedure when medical science says it would reduce AIDS by 50% on the African continent, I disagree with you there.

On a similar note, my issue with this is that I believe these studies to be based on poor science and simplistic conclusions. So you circumcise all of Africa. Could you, in good conscience, then tell that circumcised male to go have unprotected sex with an HIV-infected partner? No. And that's the main issue here; it's a matter of correlation.

I have other issues with circumcision that have to do with the fact that I reject any unnecessary medical procedure forced on any minor, and the fact that, in a minority of cases, botched circumcisions have resulted in major discomfort, dysfunctional curvature, and, in the most severe of cases, the complete "decapitation" of the head. I cannot even imagine what a nightmare it would be to have to deal with that, and I'm sure you would not be comforted with the thought that you were just "an exception."

The foreskin serves an evolutionary function, and it is to prevent the "head" from desensitizing and drying out. The notion that there is "no difference" between a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis sexually flat out ignores the fact that some adult men have chosen circumcision and have reported desensitization (and, for some, that was their desired effect, for whatever reason), and some adult circumcised men have chosen "foreskin restoration" procedures and end up reporting a dramatic increase in sensitivity.

My whole point on this issue is that it has long been determined that unnecessary medical and surgical procedures should never be performed on someone who cannot consent, and just as we decry the fact that many African cultures are more than happy to mutilate a woman's genitalia out of some asinine sense of "tradition," we cannot ignore the plain fact that us, as "Westerners," are unnecessarily mutilating male genitalia out of similarly asinine reasoning.

I think the reason why FGM continues in Africa, despite everyone telling them to stop, is not all that different from why the U.S. continues to circumcise men against their wills: because we don't want to admit that our parents needlessly mutilated us.

You've supported elective abortions due to deformities or potential deformities found in a pre born children. That could open up a flood gate for more late term abortions.

Remarkable ppl like:

Stephen Hawking
Helen Keller
Thomas Edision
Bryan Lambke


could have been aborted, under your line of proposed thinking.

This is your most ridiculous statement of all, as this was nothing more than a thread to provoke discussion. Nothing more and nothing less. Personally, abortion is on the bottom of my list of "importance," because it will never ever affect me whatsoever. My personal beliefs, however, are more in line with that Anne Rice article posted here recently. So there goes your argument.

Lastly, I as well as with millions of others are not convinced that the gay question is completely genetic- too many Ex Gays have said they made conscious choices to be Gay and you can't arbitrarily dismiss those ppl, maybe there are both factors to consider.

You bitched about my supposed views on HIV above, and, as far as I'm concerned, this stance is about as pseudoscientific as it gets. Every credible scientific and psychiatric association has flat out rejected your assertion. The "ex-gay" myth has, as well, been long debunked, with the term mainly being an issue of semantics. An "ex-gay," according to these religious organizations, is the equivalent to a gay man pretending to be straight. Period. All credible longer-term studies have shown that no change in sexual orientation is possible; the "ex-gay" fraud is nothing but an act, and I have demonstrated articles after articles from credible sources to that effect. All you can do to back up your argument is to cut and paste propaganda from religious organizations that have a clear bias.

And you have the gall to bitch about how mainstream Christians misrepresent Mormonism! You are doing the same thing as them, quoting from the same kind of hateful religious propaganda as they use against you.

My point in this is, that Mitt, Mormon Christians are not narrowminded bible thumping neandrathals that you sometimes you attempt paint us to be.

The evidence currently does not support your conclusion here.

[melon]

Originally posted by diamond
My point is that although Melon is educated everything that Melon posts isn't Gospel, a lot of it is debatable theory.

And much of the point of a "debate," as such, is to "put up or shut up." That is, back up your stance with clear, irrefutable evidence or accept that you're wrong. Much of what you "cite" boils down to your own opinions/prejudices or flimsy propaganda with a clear bias.

Over the years, when I have had an opinion here, I have backed it up--in great detail. If you disagree with me, fine...but back it up with evidence! I'm not about to grant automatic credence to beliefs, just because they're "different." That's not how logic and the scientific process work.

[diamond]

my time is too precious, and i'm not here to debate.
it's counter productive, we can both site references from here to eternity, and still disagree on those references that the other party chose.

i think in the larger scheme of things, instead of getting worked out over our dis agreements, your time would be better suited persuing the work projects you're currently engaged in, stengthening your relationships w you friends, family and reaching out to the nearest hetrosexual and telling them you're not mad at them, and that you don't hate them.

buy them a jamba juice or something.

dbs

[phillyfan26]

Why even come here if you're not going to debate? That's the definition of hit-and-run posting, by the way.

And to lecture others about how they spend their time is condescending and misplaced. It's not your business at all. Making this personal is where you cross the line.

[Diemen]

When you can't back up your arguments, you've got to deflect the attention from that somehow... why not through condescension? It's the diamond way.

[melon]

Originally posted by Diemen
When you can't back up your arguments, you've got to deflect the attention from that somehow... why not through condescension? It's the diamond way.

I'm tired of being made for a fool by constructing elaborate arguments for someone who flat-out closed his mind a long time ago.

Perhaps the best course of action is to respond to "diamondnonsense" with a simple:



And respond to "diamondbigotry" by reporting the posts/threads to a moderator and not responding to the threads further.

Because, really, I don't see the alternative at this point.

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond
and reaching out to the nearest hetrosexual and telling them you're not mad at them, and that you don't hate them.

Once again, look in the mirror. Practice what you preach.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Suddenly Mitt Romney seems extremely humble and non-pompous

[diamond]

First online news conference presented by LDS church to clarify items such as

-It's not endorsing Mitt, it never endorses polictical candidates.
-Disspells some misconceptions
-Explains some theological beliefs.

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/ind...RD#media-video


Click it on, go to bottom left and click on small picture, pretty interesting.

dbs

[coemgen]

Then do a general search for "problems with Mormonism" and visit www.exmormon.org. Some intersting stuff there, too.

[Varitek]

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/1...ny_new_add.php



It really is a clever ad.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by diamond
First online news conference presented by LDS church to clarify items such as

-It's not endorsing Mitt, it never endorses polictical candidates.
-Disspells some misconceptions
-Explains some theological beliefs.

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/ind...RD#media-video


Click it on, go to bottom left and click on small picture, pretty interesting.

dbs

Originally posted by phillyfan26
hit-and-run posting

[BVS]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...confronted.cnn

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...confronted.cnn

God that's pathetic, but it's typical Romney. How can he look at that man and listen to that man and respond in that way?

Talk about being pwned


I guess "ask Mitt anything" is a risky proposition.