Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Mormon Logic Trap (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Mormon Logic Trap
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Possibly, one of the more important questions of our time:

http://usu-shaft.com/2010/byu-censors-letter-to-the-editor-critical-of-prop-8/

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I liked the commentary and discussion here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/09/09/interview-with-byu-student-cary-crall/

It's more interesting because it's an LDS blog and most of those commenting are LDS.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep.

When it comes down to it, the votes had little to do with the civil treatment at hand, and everything to do with enforcing a punishment for moral sins, which province belongs to God alone and not rightly to any mortal on earth.

night, Matt.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any time you want to give an intellectually honest response to my objections, go for it, pumpkin. I'm still here,
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Any time you want to give an intellectually honest response to my objections, go for it, pumpkin. I'm still here,

I can't speak for munga, but it's been that long since I've read your objections that all I can remember is they had a degree of personal integrity lacking to most arguments against gay marriage. That, and (correct me if I'm wrong, because the tendency of Ornery to go hell for leather on armchair legalese means I've avoided SSM threads for a while because that sort of debate isn't my cup of tea), I vaguely recall you being not at all opposed to civil unions.

Or to sum it up in one sentence: I need a refresher course in Gay Marriage According To Pete At Home.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rallan: pretty much. Only thing I'd add is that IIRC Pete also wants it to remain explicitly legal for organizations to discriminate between civil unions and marriages for the purposes of, say, adoption rights.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
Possibly, one of the more important questions of our time:

http://usu-shaft.com/2010/byu-censors-letter-to-the-editor-critical-of-prop-8/

Nice, Munga, to link us all to a site that displays pictures of temple garments. How exquisitely loyal of you.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, would that be closer to apostasy or unorthodoxy?

I wouldn't have noticed, btw, without you pointing it out.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D Pace
Member
Member # 1493

 - posted      Profile for D Pace   Email D Pace       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
Possibly, one of the more important questions of our time:

http://usu-shaft.com/2010/byu-censors-letter-to-the-editor-critical-of-prop-8/

Nice, Munga, to link us all to a site that displays pictures of temple garments. How exquisitely loyal of you.
This of course made me click on the link to check if this were true. I don't see any temple garments. I don't see any obvious links to "pictures of temple garments." I don't choose to go digging around in the website to find these pictures, out of respect and no need.

However, it would seem that saying,"Wow! Look what's buried in this website!" creates a much greater possibility of someone actually viewing things which people believe should not be publicly displayed by anyone, than a link to one specific page of that website.

Posts: 376 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With a brief search I've not been able to locate any such pictures either.

Perhaps Pete should provide us the exact link so that we know where exactly we should not be looking.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The headline
quote:
BYU censors letter to the editor critical of Prop 8
seems an exaggeration of what happened, since the letter was in fact published by The Daily Universe and still remains available through the Web. How much of the content of a student newspaper is retained on its website, and for how long, seems something for the editors and the university to decide. The more important message seems to be that the BYU student newspaper did in fact publish a dissenting view directly opposed to the actions and words of the church leadership, in an action generally in support of academic freedom at the university. That the letter drew criticism is not surprising, but it did get published.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, Pete, in your haste to chastise munga you've caused far much damage to the principle you cite... I haven't found it either, but I *am* curious and just might peruse till I do - solely because of you, not munga.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't find anything either.

Because of Pete, I had to go to Wikipedia to find pictures of temple garments.

[ September 17, 2010, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: vegimo ]

Posts: 255 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
seems an exaggeration of what happened, since the letter was in fact published by The Daily Universe and still remains available through the Web.
The initial publishing of the letter would have been by the student staff of the Universe, potentially with the input of their academic supervisor. The removal of the article from the web site was almost certainly driven by outside forces as an idealistic young journalism student would be loath to pull controversial piece based on the stated offense of some readers.

I don't think there's any credit to be given to the university in this matter, as the decision to publish was likely driven by this small group of students while the decision to withdraw was likely more of a "powers that be" sort of thing.

I base this on no direct information, but on some familiarity with the workings of the The Daily Universe through some family relations. This wouldn't be the first time that higher-ups at the school have overridden the journalistic decisions made by the student staff.

[ September 17, 2010, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Yeah, Pete, in your haste to chastise munga you've caused far much damage to the principle you cite

What "principle" did I cite?

quote:
With a brief search I've not been able to locate any such pictures either.
Quest for mormon underwear.

Get a focking life, folks. It's not that interesting.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
I *am* curious and just might peruse till I do - solely because of you, not munga.

You think that keeps me up at night? Seriously, get a life.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice link, munga.

Sad that BYU quashes the discussion, but good to see that the mormon youth still includes pioneers. [Smile]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The letter contained nothing but lame motive inferences. That's no more "discussion" than what munga and I do here re SSM.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the last day or so, the lawyers attempting to defend Proposition 8 filed briefs to address the issue of why they should not be forbidden to appeal Judge Walker's decision, as normally only the governor or attorney general of California would have standing to appeal such a decision. The present governor and attorney general have refused to appeal, saying the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 have no merit - and the last date for filing such an appeal has now passed.

In addition the briefs have to address the question of why Judge Walker's decision should not be sustained, and same sex marriages be permitted to resume immediately. As the letter to the editor noted, the defenders failed to make a case before Judge Walker. Even if such a case should be made, it seems a dangerous precedent for an appeals court to replace the facts or arguments rejected at the original trial.

This note has been added to a loosely related thread in an attempt to keep up with the legal case without starting a thread on Proposition 8 itself. Nothing seems likely to matter much in that case until the appeals court issues some ruling.

MattP wrote,
quote:
This wouldn't be the first time that higher-ups at the school have overridden the journalistic decisions made by the student staff.
This indeed seems probable, and is true of most university newspapers, as student journalists often start more of a firestorm than they expect. But I am reluctant to call the explanation given for removing the letter an outright lie, based on no evidence. Maybe the "higher-ups" commonly lie to the public, but that raises serious questions as to why anyone should ever believe them, or any authorities of the church they represent.

[ September 18, 2010, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But I am reluctant to call the explanation given for removing the letter an outright lie
I never said it was a lie. Their stated reason was that they had received complaints that the letter was offensive. I just think it's probable that the complaints they were responding to came from people in authority at the school or the church. When your boss says "I don't like that" you stop doing it, even if he doesn't say "stop doing that."
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I just think it's probable that the complaints they were responding to came from people in authority at the school or the church.
I'm definitely of the opinion that it was establishment authorities that shut the discussion down, not sensitive student editors.

But I can see some students, specifically those who may be particularly assured of their own righteousness, complaining about the letter. Nobody likes to hear that their moral calculus boils down to blind obedience.

But again, I'm with you Matt. Those hypothetical student complaints weren't the ones that caused the clamp-down on opinion in the op-Ed section of the student press.

[ September 18, 2010, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think their moral calculus boils down to blind obedience. Their moral calculus is based on religious principles, which is perfectly fine. The problem arises when you try to impose rules on other people and pretend your arguments are justified by logic or legal precedent, when in fact they are based on religious principles.
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
I just think it's probable that the complaints they were responding to came from people in authority at the school or the church.
I'm definitely of the opinion that it was establishment authorities that shut the discussion down, not sensitive student editors.
What they shot down was not a "discussion." It was some jerk trying to misrepresent the other side's position. It's not like the student was making new arguments. Just casting motive inferences on the arguments of the other side.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
The problem arises when you try to impose rules on other people and pretend your arguments are justified by logic or legal precedent, when in fact they are based on religious principles.

What problem arises? How would we know whether that's actually what happened, if you can't be specific and say what dark and dangerous problem arises as a consequence?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, for one thing, your case gets laughed out of court by any judge with half a brain.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What problem arises?
Whether covertly or overtly, introducing religious principles in politics seems to me to make it far more difficult for people of different faiths (or lack thereof) to live together.

If you make it a law that everyone must bow down towards the East five times a day at specific times, Christians won't like this even if some *claim* it has no real religious purpose, it just is a good gymnastics regime which also helps boost community spirit.

quote:
How would we know whether that's actually what happened
Like any other political issue, the proponents/opponents just have to be convincing. There's no specific way of how they'll attain this.

Right now most same-sex marriage opponents just haven't been able to convince the rest of us that it's not religion that primarily drives them.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
What they shot down was not a "discussion." It was some jerk trying to misrepresent the other side's position. It's not like the student was making new arguments. Just casting motive inferences on the arguments of the other side.

I'm pretty sure they'd have to discontinue the BYU Opinion page if they required someone to make a new argument or avoid misrepresenting the other side.

BYU's paper is publishing a bunch of opnions right now on their website where one guy complained about skirts being too short, and several respondants accused him of ogling the slightly titillating dress of the morally challenged females in question and not being able to control his evil thoughts.

In fact, I think these qualities would appear in the Opinion pages of almost any newspaper.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry I misrepresented your position, MattP.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
if you can't be specific and say what dark and dangerous problem arises as a consequence?
Huh.

As opposed to the specificity with which you've demonstrated the dark and dangerous problems of the semantics of gay marriage?

[Wink]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What they shot down was not a "discussion." It was some jerk trying to misrepresent the other side's position. It's not like the student was making new arguments. Just casting motive inferences on the arguments of the other side.
Just so you know, Pete, the fact that you happen to stick to your guns and persist in claiming your argument isn't religiously motivated doesn't mean that your co-religionists stick to that particular claim.

Most folks are pretty simple, and it only takes about a minute of discussion for most Mormons I've spoken with to admit that their opposition to SSM is religiously motivated.

This piece was written by someone who actually did oppose SSM, against her conscience, because of religious pressure. Frankly, this seems the precise reason for shutting down the discussion. Can't allow people to start whispering about how their conscience is opposed to the dictates of religious leaders.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey folks. I didn't think this link would get any attention. Nice to 'see' ya'all again. Also, I've discovered that I have forgotten how to do all that fancy footwork - embedding links and so on. I might get up to speed again...

The pod-cast recently was really interesting. found here:

http://mormonstories.org

The pod-cast ran a little long, but it was revealing. I was not aware of several of the practices that were done around the Prop 8 furor (because I didn't live in CA, and I wasn't at BYU, the call-center capital of the west). Crall details in the pod-cast that he and others were enlisted as newly-released elders to do the footwork and door-knocking in California. Crall didn't have a problem with knocking, because he'd just been knocking on doors for the church on his mission. The problem this time around was that he could see that the ideas he was asked to present were intellectually dishonest. For instance, Prop 8 wouldn't have forced churches to have to begin homosexual marriage and he could understand that, but he was asked to spread that idea. It tried his faith. Later when we reported to BYU for school, he was asked to do phone-banking (as a CA resident) and present arguments that he could see were not fact-based. The church members in the area of BYU were urged to pitch in to make schedules possible for the BYU dialers by making them dinner or cleaning their apartments.

This is the first time in my lifetime that I have been aware of the church doing something (many things) that are, in fact, not legal. It isn't entirely unprecedented (polygamy, etc) but it is new to me.

Also, the church will have to live this down. This is not as easy as it once was, because today we have media to freeze evidence in time.

Example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eGZ2xrzFC4

Crall did say in the pod-cast that what he has received most of all from those near him is a resounding silence. However, church members from around the world have written to him with support and encouragement. So, interesting times, these.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Nice link, munga.

Sad that BYU quashes the discussion, but good to see that the mormon youth still includes pioneers. [Smile]

exactly my thought, seekprom!

I was glad to see it, too.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Any time you want to give an intellectually honest response to my objections, go for it, pumpkin. I'm still here,

I think we've pretty much said all we want to say to each other on the topic, Pete.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
quote:
What they shot down was not a "discussion." It was some jerk trying to misrepresent the other side's position. It's not like the student was making new arguments. Just casting motive inferences on the arguments of the other side.
Just so you know, Pete, the fact that you happen to stick to your guns and persist in claiming your argument isn't religiously motivated doesn't mean that your co-religionists stick to that particular claim.
Which, true or not, gives mungkins and Tomkins the excuse to claim that I must really not believe what I'm saying.

It's my experience with those two that makes me say, suppressing this particular loser is, at worst, the absolute least of the Daily Universe's sins. It's like weeping that the Daily Kos refused to publish a letter from Rush Limbaugh.

Get over it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Any time you want to give an intellectually honest response to my objections, go for it, pumpkin. I'm still here,

I think we've pretty much said all we want to say to each other on the topic, Pete.
You've never said anything to *me*, munga. You've spoken to a stereotype. You've never pulled your head out of your ideological ass long enough to figure out who you were talking to.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
What they shot down was not a "discussion." It was some jerk trying to misrepresent the other side's position. It's not like the student was making new arguments. Just casting motive inferences on the arguments of the other side.

I'm pretty sure they'd have to discontinue the BYU Opinion page if they required someone to make a new argument or avoid misrepresenting the other side.
Yes, but when a university is dominated by a group that's a minority nationwide, you'll have a hard time getting printed if you jump on throwing the most ignorant and hated stereotypes about that group.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Well, for one thing, your case gets laughed out of court by any judge with half a brain.

If you're the judge, Tom, it doesn't matter whether the person really is motivated by religion or not. All you have to do is know that they are religious, and disagree with their political point of view, to infer that it must be religiously motivated. Please point to one thread in the history of this board that shows otherwise.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except I'm not the judge.

The guy who was the judge wrote, I believe, a fairly decent summation of the opposition's complete failure to present him with any non-religious arguments.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oi, Pete.

I get that the issue is personal to you, but the *ignorant hate* paint doesn't seem to go with what the student wrote.

At all.

A lot of Mormons I know had a tough time with prop 8. The girl said she felt compelled to support it because of her religion. Assuming she's spoken with a couple of other zoobies about the issue, she's got a good inductive warrant to suggest that others are supporting it on the same basis.

She seems decently informed, and motivated by something that definitely ain't hate.

In any case, when it comes to crying "ignorant/hate," do unto others, you know...

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Oi, Pete.

I get that the issue is personal to you, but the *ignorant hate* paint doesn't seem to go with what the student wrote.

Not quite what I said. More like ignorant and hated. So much as ignorant false stereotypes that aren't inspired by hate so much as you get angry sick of hearing that stupid ****.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1