Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2014, 09:03 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.

I'd say the majority opinion here probably agrees with me; that would make me correct.

Quote: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.

Now that is not a view shared by even all of the FT, and you know it.

Decisions on banning were stated repeatedly to require precise rules violations.

So I call bullshit on your statement.

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, 09:06 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 09:03 AM)Chas 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.

I'd say the majority opinion here probably agrees with me; that would make me correct.

Quote: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.

Now that is not a view shared by even all of the FT, and you know it.

Decisions on banning were stated repeatedly to require precise rules violations.

So I call bullshit on your statement.

I should have clarified that this was in regards to Rule 5 (kinda Rule 1, but not really). Rule 5 is different.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 09:06 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 09:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'd say the majority opinion here probably agrees with me; that would make me correct.


Now that is not a view shared by even all of the FT, and you know it.

Decisions on banning were stated repeatedly to require precise rules violations.

So I call bullshit on your statement.

I should have clarified that this was in regards to Rule 5 (kinda Rule 1, but not really). Rule 5 is different.

There is no good reason for that, and it is not part of the rules.

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, 09:16 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 09:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 09:06 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I should have clarified that this was in regards to Rule 5 (kinda Rule 1, but not really). Rule 5 is different.

There is no good reason for that, and it is not part of the rules.

Why?

The whole rule is inherently subjective.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 09:20 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 09:16 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 09:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no good reason for that, and it is not part of the rules.

Why?

The whole rule is inherently subjective.

It seems that would make it more of a guideline than a rule.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 09:22 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
moronmouse is violating the golden rule...

....don't be a fucktard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 09:27 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 09:16 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 09:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no good reason for that, and it is not part of the rules.

Why?

The whole rule is inherently subjective.

So you don't see the inconsistency? The insistence that specific rules violation and a specific process must be followed is not a subjective rule interpretation.

I am all for having a set of guidelines that the administrator uses to determine whether to ban or not.

The history of the last 2+ years is that of strict adherence to one interpretation, not one of wisely judging cases.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-10-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 09:20 AM)pablo Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 09:16 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Why?

The whole rule is inherently subjective.

It seems that would make it more of a guideline than a rule.

Again. All depends on how it's defined.

I was, unfortunately, the admin during its forceful entry, and had to try and make this subjective rule fit/be enforceable among the other objective rules.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 09:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 09:16 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Why?

The whole rule is inherently subjective.

So you don't see the inconsistency? The insistence that specific rules violation and a specific process must be followed is not a subjective rule interpretation.

I am all for having a set of guidelines that the administrator uses to determine whether to ban or not.

The history of the last 2+ years is that of strict adherence to one interpretation, not one of wisely judging cases.

See above.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2014, 09:41 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2014 09:47 AM by Chas.)
RE: Did the defintion of "atheist' change?
(10-10-2014 09:35 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-10-2014 09:20 AM)pablo Wrote:  It seems that would make it more of a guideline than a rule.

Again. All depends on how it's defined.

I was, unfortunately, the admin during its forceful entry, and had to try and make this subjective rule fit/be enforceable among the other objective rules.

Forceful entry?

And I think you mean 'absolute' or 'well-defined' or something. All rules will be subjective.

I'm guessing that what is meant is a rule that can be objectively applied, where the criteria are clear and there is no judgement involved.

I shudder at the thought.

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: