Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

{i didnt put this in the relegion section because it concerns manipulation for self interest by an organisation more than relegious validity}.

now we all know that wikipedia is a site that is dependant on individuals to edit and add to it to. it also states that one can not present a one sided or prpagandist or misleading or self interesting views or information when one is editting articles. browsing through a few articles concerning mormonism on youtube, i was more than a little shocked to see that not only are the main relegious pages completely void of any of the usual criticism for mormonism that we see and hear in society and intellectual circles, but PAGES UPON PAGES of misleading, psuedoscientific phenomoenon and connections between its scriptures/teachings and physical phenomenon have been created.
there is also no mention of the overt absurdities that are/were basic parts of the mormon teachings{e.g. the issue about RACIAL discrimination in mormonism is hardly touched upon and tinted in a very positive light}

dont beleive me?

exhibit a------------------{i dont even know where it ends}


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

{genetics and book of mormon..........................}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

{archeology and book of mormonism....................................}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

{joseph smith senior and junior...................not one word critiquing them or pointing out that they were frauds.....}


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Sr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

{beleifs............dont really mention the underwear or the space god or the devil being jesus' brother or rejecting blacks until the 70s as slaves or the fact of polygamy, no women are about as active as men here}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Beliefs_and_practices_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Chris
t_of_Latter-day_Saints

{historicity.....wow, does any1 else think this is too soft and not representative of the people}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

{prophecies.............again every noted criticism is rationalised away}


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

{blacks and the church............a sickeningly rosy picture}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement


and trust me it goes ON AND ON. this reminds me very much of over zealous {or maybe normal} scientology members who wud constantly check the content of scientology related topics on wikipedia and as soon as sumthing questionable from their propagandist point of view appeared, edited it away. to the point that wiki had to ban them for some time. im not sure whether its merely ignorance or laziness on part of the online community to let this slide. ive seen sumwhat similar trends on some islamic pages{not so much on christianity because too many are informed}, but even scientology propaganda pales in comparison to this whitewash.

ofcourse, this is rather dangerous seeing as just how important and valid{to a vast portion of people on the net} wikipedia is to the online community and many dont bother or cant be bothered to do field specific research on such subjects by reading individual books/volumes on them.

discuss, edit, agree, disagree.

They use the word apologist a lot, which has a pretty strong negative connotation. I'd argue that they hardly represent Mormonism as "fact" any more than they do with any other Christian sect (wikipedia seems to dismiss my own pet theory that Jesus was a soul eating 4D lizard man sent to free us from the demi-urge, Stan, but you don't hear me complaining).

This is definately the wrong forum for this. It belongs to the Mormon thread. You wanted it to get face time outside of the Mormon thread so more people could read this. Oh well. It will eventually be moved.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
{genetics and book of mormon..........................}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon


As far back as 1920, LDS members were counseled to not assume too much about Native American origins.

Also, it is quite apparent that you're not aware that Bruce R. McKonkie made the decision to put into the Book of Mormon preface, in the 1981 edition, his blurb about the Lamanites being the primary ancestors of the Native Americans, withOUT getting approval from the first presidency. He made the decision on his own and it was controversial inside the Church. Some members criticized it as too sweeping and inaccurate.

Low and behold, evidence comes forth, the Mormons change it to reflect properly.


But what would you say if there were found genetic evidence in some Native American peoples?


Originally posted by leonheartmm
{archeology and book of mormonism....................................}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon




Originally posted by leonheartmm
{joseph smith senior and junior...................not one word critiquing them or pointing out that they were frauds.....}


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Sr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

K. But this assumes, incorrectly, that they were frauds.



Originally posted by leonheartmm
{beleifs............dont really mention the underwear or the space god or the devil being jesus' brother or rejecting blacks until the 70s as slaves or the fact of polygamy, no women are about as active as men here}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Beliefs_and_practices_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Chris
t_of_Latter-day_Saints

Space God? Lame.

Devil being Christ's brother and our brother? Wait, you mean you don't know that it says, quite clearly, that Satan is a fallen angel in Isaiah? Unless you mean to imply that God didn't create his own angels, you just don't know very much about Christian mythology.

Rejecting blacks until the 70s? Wait, you didn't know that some "blacks" held our "Mormon priesthood" well before the 70s? You mean you don't know that there were quite a few racist people back then, even inside the Mormon church? Me thinks that you assume Mormons are perfect because their teachings demand that they be perfect. This is false. More on this "black hate" in a moment.


Originally posted by leonheartmm
{historicity.....wow, does any1 else think this is too soft and not representative of the people}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

The fact that there are so many anti-Mormon wiki articles doesn't strike you as a little odd? I guess not because you think the Mormons go buck-wild on on these wiki cites.

Can you find just as many wiki entries for the Catholic church?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
{prophecies.............again every noted criticism is rationalised away}


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

Does it shock your or something that there are apologetics out there that work just fine, logically, for almost every anti-Mormon argument out there? Surely you realize that a "fair and balanced" Wiki article will contain both the anti-Mormon sentiment, and it's apologetic, don't you?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
{blacks and the church............a sickeningly rosy picture}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Yeah, you obviously don't know anyting about Mormon history. You do know that the Mormons were hated in Missouri, kiled, persecuted, driven, etc....because they had unpaid clergy, were anti-slavery, got along well with Native Americans and taught the gospel to and baptized any human into the church.

"Though there were some naturally rough and violent people in the frontier state of Missouri, even respectable citizens of that state had legitimate reasons for being concerned about their Mormon neighbors. They were concentrating in one portion of the state, where they were becoming a significant economic and local political force. They tended to do business among themselves, leading to charges that their economic exclusivity was un-American. They were different, with a much-belittled religion and the odd belief that a Prophet was among them. They were also buying up much land in the area. They were also branded as pro-abolition in a state that favored slavery. There were concerns that Mormons would incite rebellion among slaves and Mormons were accused of slave tampering. Likewise, there was fear that Mormons might incite Indian wars, since the Mormons were favorably oriented toward the Indians and had tried to preach to them. Naturally, it was easy for neighbors to be suspicious and worried. Take the Missourians economic and political concerns, through in a little bigotry, couple that with Mormon frustration about endless persecutions against a "chosen people," and toss in some inevitable human misbehavior among the Mormons as well, and you've got a recipe for trouble.

Frankly, the above description is probably too generous to the Missourians. It does injustice to history to downplay the significant role that religious bigotry played. Terry L. Givens thoughtfully explores this issue in his book, The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 40-59). He notes that critics have long had a vested interest in emphasizing nonreligious reasons for the persecution of the Latter-day Saints, and historians have also focused on causes of the conflict other than religious bigotry. However, Givens notes, even before the Missouri Wars began, "the hundreds of mobbers involved at the outset were good enough to commit their complaints to paper" (ibid., p. 44), referring to a document "drawn up at a mass meeting in Jackson County, Missouri, in July 1833" that shows the significance of religion in the minds of the mobbers. It begins with lip service to the notion of leaving the "grossest supestition" of Mormon religion out of the conflict, but quickly launches into attacks on LDS beliefs. The authors raise the specter of Mormon "swarms" invading their land, people "who do not blush to declare, and would not upon occasion hesitate to swear, that they have wrought miracles . . . and supernatural cures, have concourse with God and His angels, and possess and exercise the gifts of divination and of unknown tongues" (ibid., p. 44). There follows a brief reference to LDS antiabolitionist tendencies - the only attempt in the document to provide a legal reason for opposing the Mormons - followed by a reiteration of a religious attack on the Mormons. Givens writes, "Rather than mount a serious attack on Mormon racial views in a way that would lend legitimacy - or at least mitigate - their violent solutions , the mobbers repeatedly invoke and caricature Mormon religious heterodoxy" (ibid., p. 44). In many of the actions against the Mormons, local religious leaders played significant roles. For example, affidavits signed by three members of the Church indicate that when Joseph Smith was court-martialed and sentence to death at Far West by the Missouri Militia, that "seventeen preachers of the gospel were on this court martial; and, horrible to relate, were in favor of this merciless sentence" (Clark V. Johnson, ed., Mormon Redress Petitions: Documents of the 1833-1838 Missouri Conflict (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1992), p. 407)."


http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Missouri.shtml#beginnings




From what it sounds like, you're very ignorant of both American and LDS history. You have a very biased opinion of Mormons, despite not even being a Christian. Why is it that you are so anti-Mormon? Aren't there much better religions to pick on out there that have quite ugly things going on in them? You could pick on all of the robbers and thieves who proselyte for money rather than their congregations eternal salvation. But, noooooo, you pick on the religion that believes in getting an education, unpaid clergy, developing a healthy family environment, working actively in the community, etc.




How about you read all of this?

http://www.jefflindsay.com/myturn.shtml

Mormons are white supremacists who believe that a gold sculptor and drug addict named Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

With regards to the topic, the articles about Scientology and Kabbalah also seem to have been tampered with.

Not unusual with all these religious fanatics and all.

everyone knows wikipedia is a private organization with its own biases and not a public service for people looking to mock the beliefs of others?

k, thanks!

Originally posted by inimalist
everyone knows wikipedia is a private organization with its own biases and not a public service for people looking to mock the beliefs of others?

k, thanks!

Of course but they clearly have the wrong biases, which infringes on people's ability to good-think.

Mentioning the word Wikipedia and I automatically go into scepticism mode, it's a great site but if I want to take anything seriously I'll 'shop around' and see if it all matches up. It's written by people for people so at the end of the day it comes down to no more than opinion versus opinion.

Originally posted by wicker_man
Mentioning the word Wikipedia and I automatically go into scepticism mode, it's a great site but if I want to take anything seriously I'll 'shop around' and see if it all matches up. It's written by people for people so at the end of the day it comes down to no more than opinion versus opinion.

Or we can apply the Rational Actor Theory. There's no rational reason to lie on Wikipedia, therefore no one will. Thus everything on Wikipedia must be true.

its statistically as good as all other encyclopedias, and benefits from remarkable response time, making it a more comprehensive site for breaking news events than most major news networks.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or we can apply the Rational Actor Theory. There's no rational reason to lie on Wikipedia, therefore no one will. Thus everything on Wikipedia must be true.

I'm just going on what I've seen on their in the past, and whilst the subject at hand may not have incited someone to write a page long response on another forum (in fact the 'arguement' at hand was only really three words long) it still made me realise Wikipedia is opinion driven. Now if anyone want's to dispute why Jason Mendonca of Akercocke shouldn't be included on a list of vocalists notable for their extensive vocal range then please feel free to argue ('tis only fair to mention what I was referring to in the first place).

Originally posted by inimalist
its statistically as good as all other encyclopedias, and benefits from remarkable response time, making it a more comprehensive site for breaking news events than most major news networks.

More importantly the explanations and style are much clearer than most other sources.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More importantly the explanations and style are much clearer than most other sources. Oh dude, I think you are going to the wrong wikipedia

Originally posted by wicker_man
I'm just going on what I've seen on their in the past, and whilst the subject at hand may not have incited someone to write a page long response on another forum (in fact the 'arguement' at hand was only really three words long) it still made me realise Wikipedia is opinion driven. Now if anyone want's to dispute why Jason Mendonca of Akercocke shouldn't be included on a list of vocalists notable for their extensive vocal range then please feel free to argue ('tis only fair to mention what I was referring to in the first place).

However you can't break everything down to "opinion vs opinion". All opinion based things come down to that but as leonheart demonstrated for everyone Wikipedia tends to show multiple sides to arguments which renders that somewhat moot.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh dude, I think you are going to the wrong wikipedia

Or you can go there. I happen to like my polysyllabic words, they're so much more concise.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or you can go there. I happen to like my polysyllabic words, they're so much more concise.

They scare me sometimes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
However you can't break everything down to "opinion vs opinion". All opinion based things come down to that but as leonheart demonstrated for everyone Wikipedia tends to show multiple sides to arguments which renders that somewhat moot.

Indeed you can't infact your argument of "opinion vs. opinion" could be expanded to most things in lifes rich tapestry, however I'm going on something that affected me and it so happend to be something that went on (for some time I hasten to add) on Wikipedia. And in all fairness I wasn't referring to 'everything' just one subject on a website that's well know for its public input.

Leonheartmm,

I am a bit confused, the first link I hit (the genetics) has criticism on the very first paragraph. Did you bother to read those Wki articles?

"There is generally no support amongst mainstream historians and archaeologists for the historicity of the Book of Mormon." -Wiki article on genetics

It goes on to say that the Native Americans do not have genetic markers with the Jews of old too, according to modern testing.

Originally posted by wicker_man
Indeed you can't infact your argument of "opinion vs. opinion" could be expanded to most things in lifes rich tapestry, however I'm going on something that affected me and it so happend to be something that went on (for some time I hasten to add) on Wikipedia. And in all fairness I wasn't referring to 'everything' just one subject on a website that's well know for its public input.

A thing I like about Wikipedia is just the mass of editors (though many obviously not peer reviewed), ordinary encyclopedias, even the ones for like 2000 or 3000 can ever come close.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A thing I like about Wikipedia is just the mass of editors (though many obviously not peer reviewed), ordinary encyclopedias, even the ones for like 2000 or 3000 can ever come close.

I love Wiki (I mentioned that in my first post) however I take everything with a pinch of salt it says on there - particuarly when it comes to it's musical statements.

Originally posted by wicker_man
I love Wiki (I mentioned that in my first post) however I take everything with a pinch of salt it says on there - particuarly when it comes to it's musical statements. Well, the thing you mentioned is actually based in opinion so obviously. If it comes to facts I find them pretty reliable though. And they often do cite sources in one way or another. I agree I'd double check, and if it is for something important you definitely have to find some other sources, but it's good on the whole.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the thing you mentioned is actually based in opinion so obviously. If it comes to facts I find them pretty reliable though. And they often do cite sources in one way or another. I agree I'd double check, and if it is for something important you definitely have to find some other sources, but it's good on the whole.

Hence why I take everything on that site with a pinch of salt, but when it comes to something like religion, well that's an area I tend to avoid as chances are you'll be aruging to the cows come home. Worst thing you'll find me aruging over is a bands genre description, and to me a place like Wikipedia is a very grey area when it comes to that as well.

lol, ya, shame wikipedia can't facilitate everyone's subjective classifications

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ya, shame wikipedia can't facilitate everyone's subjective classifications

Ah, you'll find the most 'ardent of metal fan disputing the likes of Cradle of Filth and System of a Down's genre classification.

ya, genres ruin music...

EDIT: but that is off topic... boo mormons!

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, genres ruin music...

EDIT: but that is off topic... boo mormons!

Easier to organise my iTunes for me

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, genres ruin music...

EDIT: but that is off topic... boo mormons!

HEY!


*Organizes Prop 9: legislation that would ban Canadian psychologists*

AHA! Take THAT!


WEEEE!

Originally posted by wicker_man
Easier to organise my iTunes for me Yeah, but do it for yourself, categorizing music absolutely tends to be immensely silly.

WAIT! YOU MEAN A RELIGION IS TRYING TO GAIN ADHERENTS THROUGH ALL SORTS OF MEANS, INCLUDING ONES THAT MIGHT NOT BE ENTIRELY MORAL?! AND IT'S USING THE INTERNET?! IMPOSSIBLE!



The massive glut of information available to society via the internet and services like wiki now is a good thing, and is unprecedented in history. Individual usages of this phenomenon might not be the most upright, but it is, on the whole, awesome that we have so much capacity for sharing ideas. So I couldn't give two sh*ts about this, honestly. The internet can and does do as much for any given cause, opinion, religion, etc. as any other. Mormonism doesn't benefit any more or less. And seriously, when's the last time you heard of someone switching religions because of a wiki article? Or internet articles in general?

And if they are being underhanded and devious about it, they should fear backlash such as this thread, and countless other similar reactions throughout cyberspace. Easy information works both ways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but do it for yourself, categorizing music absolutely tends to be immensely silly.

Indeed. It's extremely subjective.

I remember back in the day the Korn members were a little irked about being called a grunge band or something like that. I still have no idea what that means!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. It's extremely subjective.

I remember back in the day the Korn members were a little irked about being called a grunge band or something like that. I still have no idea what that means!
Basically cos KoRn was never a grunge band.
They are Nu Metal, or whatever that shit is.

silly analog music

Originally posted by inimalist
silly analog music

A techno fan? Of which groups?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. It's extremely subjective.

I remember back in the day the Korn members were a little irked about being called a grunge band or something like that. I still have no idea what that means! You don't know what grunge means?

Originally posted by dadudemon
A techno fan? Of which groups?

The IDM/breakcore scene is really good

I've always liked Hardcore Techno, especially the UK sound from like 97-2000, but that style is almost impossible to find right now

lol, how familiar are you with electronic music, have you heard of Deathchant or Bloody Fist Records? Planet Mu?

EDIT: just a little taste:

IDM:

36TcQpN_YU0

breakcore:

54gPrFXujf0

Originally posted by inimalist
The IDM/breakcore scene is really good

I've always liked Hardcore Techno, especially the UK sound from like 97-2000, but that style is almost impossible to find right now

lol, how familiar are you with electronic music, have you heard of Deathchant or Bloody Fist Records? Planet Mu?

EDIT: just a little taste:

IDM:

36TcQpN_YU0

breakcore:

54gPrFXujf0


Indeed, I know who all of those groups are. (Notice, I dont call them "bands"? )

I am also a BIG fan of hardcore. I also like The Prodigy and Photek.



I also like Libido Airbag (awesome music..it is great.), Shitmat, Aphex Twin (big time Richard D. James fan.), AK1200, and several others that I like a BUNCH but I can't remember right now. My favorited list from Pandora has them all.


Edit 0 By groups, I don't mean "Deathchant". I am familiar with bloodyfist records. I think another poster referred me to them from KMC, before.

Those who dislike music labels are just as silly as those who dislike religious labels. Yes, a label is an incomplete picture. So just recognize that fact, don't stereotype as a result of a label, and get over it. Labels are necessary for all kinds of reasons.

fdog

Originally posted by Digi
Those who dislike music labels are just as silly as those who dislike religious labels. Yes, a label is an incomplete picture. So just recognize that fact, don't stereotype as a result of a label, and get over it. Labels are necessary for all kinds of reasons.

fdog

The thing with music labels is that they tend to be mostly subjective. And that the arguments about them are ridiculous.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The thing with music labels is that they tend to be mostly subjective. And that the arguments about them are ridiculous.

All labels are mostly subjective. Doesn't mean we don't need them for various reasons. But arguments about labels being ridiculous, sure. That doesn't mean usage of them is, though. That would be covered in the "don't stereotype" portion of my previous brilliant post.

313

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed, I know who all of those groups are. (Notice, I dont call them "bands"? )

I am also a BIG fan of hardcore. I also like The Prodigy and Photek.

I'm a huge prodigy fan, in some way or another, all the classic standards come back to Prodigy

thats sick you like hardcore. Is it more the oldschool break sound then? Or like, do you know Radium/the frenchcore scene?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I also like Libido Airbag (awesome music..it is great.), Shitmat, Aphex Twin (big time Richard D. James fan.), AK1200, and several others that I like a BUNCH but I can't remember right now. My favorited list from Pandora has them all.

I'm not as big into Aphex Twin, but I love Shitmat. Haven't heard any Libido Airbag I don't think though... Have you heard the new Shitmat release on Planet Mu? 'one foot in the rave', it is all mostly the oldschool break sound, like early prodigy stuff, its pretty fantastic.

Have you heard any Venetian Snares? His stuff is so amazing. One of the few electronic artists, at least that I know of, to do stuff in like 7/4 or 5/4 or other non-4/4 time signatures.

hU_NRegd82w

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit 0 By groups, I don't mean "Deathchant". I am familiar with bloodyfist records. I think another poster referred me to them from KMC, before.

Bloody Fist is one of my favorites. Deathchant is another label, so good. Their releases 1-30ish are the best music in the world, imho, lol. Hellfish and Producer, if you know their stuff.

oh hell, spam-tastic:

ptn6MxeK_K8

Originally posted by Digi
All labels are mostly subjective. Doesn't mean we don't need them for various reasons. But arguments about labels being ridiculous, sure. That doesn't mean usage of them is, though. That would be covered in the "don't stereotype" portion of my previous brilliant post.

313

fair enough

but classifications like speedcore/terrorcore/noizecore/darkcore are rarely as useful as "hard", "aggressive", "down tempo" or other such, non-genre specific, terms. In the styles of electronic music I like, knowing the geographic location of the producer says a lot more about how it will sound generally than does its "genre", though the two overlap a lot.

The type of genres people come up with, and the things they try to identify in the music to say why they belong to one genre scene or another is a total social construction, and I think the way people genre music has way more to do with that than any real empirical design of the song, and the same old "us" - "them" mentalities.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

but classifications like speedcore/terrorcore/noizecore/darkcore are rarely as useful as "hard", "aggressive", "down tempo" or other such, non-genre specific, terms. In the styles of electronic music I like, knowing the geographic location of the producer says a lot more about how it will sound generally than does its "genre", though the two overlap a lot.

The type of genres people come up with, and the things they try to identify in the music to say why they belong to one genre scene or another is a total social construction, and I think the way people genre music has way more to do with that than any real empirical design of the song, and the same old "us" - "them" mentalities.

Well then that's not a critique of labels, just a critique of stupid people.

But agreed in full, though I don't think it knocks my earlier argument much. I just remember making a thread in the music forum once where I invented a label in order to try to describe the style of music I enjoyed, in hopes that others would know of such music and we could all learn of new bands and such. Instead I was just roundly insulted and mocked for coming up with a new "useless" label. It seemed counter-productive, to say the least.

Originally posted by Digi
Well then that's not a critique of labels, just a critique of stupid people.

But agreed in full, though I don't think it knocks my earlier argument much. I just remember making a thread in the music forum once where I invented a label in order to try to describe the style of music I enjoyed, in hopes that others would know of such music and we could all learn of new bands and such. Instead I was just roundly insulted and mocked for coming up with a new "useless" label. It seemed counter-productive, to say the least.

touche, however, wouldn't your argument be something like "genres could be useful, though people will mess them up", like, most Utopian ideas, lol.

I don't know though. It may just be stupid people, but genres are totally personal constructs, so their existence is through the collective agreement of stupid people. You cannot separate the one from the other, as "genres" cannot exist outside of human evaluations. LOL, take that post-modernism!

Originally posted by inimalist
touche, however, wouldn't your argument be something like "genres could be useful, though people will mess them up", like, most Utopian ideas, lol.

I don't know though. It may just be stupid people, but genres are totally personal constructs, so their existence is through the collective agreement of stupid people. You cannot separate the one from the other, as "genres" cannot exist outside of human evaluations. LOL, take that post-modernism!

**** that.

Originally posted by inimalist
touche, however, wouldn't your argument be something like "genres could be useful, though people will mess them up", like, most Utopian ideas, lol.

I don't know though. It may just be stupid people, but genres are totally personal constructs, so their existence is through the collective agreement of stupid people. You cannot separate the one from the other, as "genres" cannot exist outside of human evaluations. LOL, take that post-modernism!

But language is "construct of collective agreement" to begin with and we all seem to like that. Generas are extremely useful for purposes of discussion, but only if they enter the public consciousness.

I suppose I could co-sign Sym. But inamilist got my point the first time, as I did his. I just didn't feel like splitting philosophical hairs on the point.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/71/Mormon-poster.jpg

Is that a real movie?

I hope so....

hahahaha

that sounds amazing

apologetic revisionists too in denial about the nature of their own faith while sumultaneously trying to live in the modern world veiling their cognitive dissonance with hostile assimilation confuse me. hint hint.