Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2014, 08:34 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 08:22 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 08:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is your opinion of Rule 1 and/or Rule 5. It is not universally shared.

Doesn't matter. My opinion coincides with the current administration's therefore it's correct.

That is not a logical statement - the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 08:33 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 08:32 AM)pablo Wrote:  I reported the post of my fake quote and got a reply that it was not in violation of the rules.

Why would a fake quote be in violation of the forum rules?

5) No Malicious Disruption
This applies to deliberate and pre-meditated disruptive behavior.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
10-10-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 08:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 08:33 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Why would a fake quote be in violation of the forum rules?

5) No Malicious Disruption
This applies to deliberate and pre-meditated disruptive behavior.

Yeah that does seem to be a rather deliberate act on his part.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 08:32 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 08:30 AM)unfogged Wrote:  You mean there's a consensus of the experts which makes it unarguable?
Laugh out load
No. It's just an inside joke with Chas to get under his skin. He and I do that to each other.

I had figured it was something like that; I was just making a (probably poor) joke about anonymous66's "argument".

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 08:38 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 08:33 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 08:32 AM)pablo Wrote:  I reported the post of my fake quote and got a reply that it was not in violation of the rules.

Why would a fake quote be in violation of the forum rules?

The question should be, why wouldn't it be?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
10-10-2014, 08:39 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 08:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 08:22 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Doesn't matter. My opinion coincides with the current administration's therefore it's correct.

That is not a logical statement - the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Does to. If I agree with the the people who make the rules or interpret the rules, I am correct. The forum doesn't have autonomy or a rigid standard. It has rules that are semi-subjective and are purposely written for interpretation by the ones lording over.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 08:39 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 08:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is not a logical statement - the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Does to. If I agree with the the people who make the rules or interpret the rules, I am correct. The forum doesn't have autonomy or a rigid standard. It has rules that are semi-subjective and are purposely written for interpretation by the ones lording over.

In other words - the rules are pretty useless.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 08:40 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 08:39 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Does to. If I agree with the the people who make the rules or interpret the rules, I am correct. The forum doesn't have autonomy or a rigid standard. It has rules that are semi-subjective and are purposely written for interpretation by the ones lording over.

In other words - the rules are pretty useless.

Depends on if they are enforced in a consistent way.

During my tenure, I may have not been 100% consistent, but I was pretty close (at least I think so, Chas probably doesn't).

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 08:53 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 08:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 08:40 AM)Anjele Wrote:  In other words - the rules are pretty useless.

Depends on if they are enforced in a consistent way.

During my tenure, I may have not been 100% consistent, but I was pretty close (at least I think so, Chas probably doesn't).

The only rule that seems to be held with some consistency is the 'no porn' rule. All others seem to be there only to have some category to tie a ban to. And even that is sometimes hazy.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 08:48 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 08:40 AM)Anjele Wrote:  In other words - the rules are pretty useless.

Depends on if they are enforced in a consistent way.

During my tenure, I may have not been 100% consistent, but I was pretty close (at least I think so, Chas probably doesn't).

I don't believe I ever expressed that opinion. Consider

As I recall, you seemed consistent - I just didn't agree with you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: