What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2012, 07:03 PM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(08-04-2012 06:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If you threaten people with hell, call all atheists ignorant, refer to people as maggots etc etc, claim you "have" someone's girlfriend in a minute you are a bully.

There's a difference between a bully and a village idiot, Mark.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2012, 07:04 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2012 07:04 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(08-04-2012 09:21 AM)Leela Wrote:  Not sure why we are still jewing around on Egor as it has been stated multiple time that he is just an example here and not the main topic but if you need it so much, here you are:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...oss?page=2
You wouldn’t know a solid foundation if you were buried in one. Atheism
is going to die, too. Right now you are a parasite on the host which is
the Christian Church. Once you have killed your host, you will die too.
Let me explain more graphically—and stick with me now because there
will be a point.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...her?page=2
"Well, that's what they get for raising you, caring for you, protecting
you, sending you to school, buying your clothes, and trying to show you
the way to God. They get failure thrown in their faces. They probably
really like the utterly meaningless tattoo you got inscribed on your
body as well.

So, I take it you hate your parents for some reason? You must. Otherwise
you could have just kept your opinions to yourself, graduated, got a
job, moved out, and lived your life any way you pleased. But you had to
strike your mother right in her heart--for some reason.

Let me be the first to give you a big round of applause! What a great son you are!"

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...her?page=3
"Kids should have respect for their parents. That seems to be the first
moral quality to fall off when one becomes an atheist, common courtesy,
especially towards one's parents."

The following threat has been split BECAUSE he started destroying it where someone was grieving http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...n-argument

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ght?page=4
I'm here to discuss, debate, and tear your belief system apart. I hate
atheism with a passion. I don't hate you; I hate atheism. So, out of
love for you, I will have to hand you your ass.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...d-my-child
"Well, here's something you better get your head around, and I don't give
a damn about all the sympathy crap. You wouldn't have drug out the
miscarriages in a public forum to make your philosophical point if you
were that sensitive in the first place. So, I'll use your miscarriages
to make my point as well."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ily?page=3
"I shudder to think what you might do next with a crucifix if you don't get some recognition in life."

and so on... he posted a lot, I am not going through every little post. I just used the forum search and randomly clicked into topics.
These things where more or less personal but they are all bullying.

Now if I may, I am going to enjoy the rest of this sunday because it is nearly over.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. As I said in my opening, there is an almost bottomless pit of depravity here. Leela, if you have the time, post some more. You seem to be getting the message across much better than me.
(08-04-2012 07:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-04-2012 06:56 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If you threaten people with hell, call all atheists ignorant, refer to people as maggots etc etc, claim you "have" someone's girlfriend in a minute you are a bully.

There's a difference between a bully and a village idiot, Mark.
True. But he's both.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2012, 07:07 PM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(08-04-2012 07:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(08-04-2012 09:21 AM)Leela Wrote:  Not sure why we are still jewing around on Egor as it has been stated multiple time that he is just an example here and not the main topic but if you need it so much, here you are:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...oss?page=2
You wouldn’t know a solid foundation if you were buried in one. Atheism
is going to die, too. Right now you are a parasite on the host which is
the Christian Church. Once you have killed your host, you will die too.
Let me explain more graphically—and stick with me now because there
will be a point.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...her?page=2
"Well, that's what they get for raising you, caring for you, protecting
you, sending you to school, buying your clothes, and trying to show you
the way to God. They get failure thrown in their faces. They probably
really like the utterly meaningless tattoo you got inscribed on your
body as well.

So, I take it you hate your parents for some reason? You must. Otherwise
you could have just kept your opinions to yourself, graduated, got a
job, moved out, and lived your life any way you pleased. But you had to
strike your mother right in her heart--for some reason.

Let me be the first to give you a big round of applause! What a great son you are!"

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...her?page=3
"Kids should have respect for their parents. That seems to be the first
moral quality to fall off when one becomes an atheist, common courtesy,
especially towards one's parents."

The following threat has been split BECAUSE he started destroying it where someone was grieving http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...n-argument

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ght?page=4
I'm here to discuss, debate, and tear your belief system apart. I hate
atheism with a passion. I don't hate you; I hate atheism. So, out of
love for you, I will have to hand you your ass.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...d-my-child
"Well, here's something you better get your head around, and I don't give
a damn about all the sympathy crap. You wouldn't have drug out the
miscarriages in a public forum to make your philosophical point if you
were that sensitive in the first place. So, I'll use your miscarriages
to make my point as well."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ily?page=3
"I shudder to think what you might do next with a crucifix if you don't get some recognition in life."

and so on... he posted a lot, I am not going through every little post. I just used the forum search and randomly clicked into topics.
These things where more or less personal but they are all bullying.

Now if I may, I am going to enjoy the rest of this sunday because it is nearly over.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. As I said in my opening, there is an almost bottomless pit of depravity here. Leela, if you have the time, post some more. You seem to be getting the message across much better than me.
(08-04-2012 07:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  There's a difference between a bully and a village idiot, Mark.
True. But he's both.

Only if you let him get under your skin brother. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2012, 07:18 PM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
Mark i asked you for a link to the thread where he said that he "could have someone's girlfriend in a minute" so i could see it in context and you didn't seem interested.

As far as bullying goes yes hes been a complete dick but his posts haven't been a personal attack on an individual. He can say atheists are stupid all he likes just like the atheists here can say theists are stupid all they like its in no way bullying.

The posts that leela took the time to point out with the exception of the one where he was given a warning were all his opinion or him just being a dick and were not an attack on someone.

The thread where he made comments about a member who was upset about the loss of children he crossed a line and everyone made sure he knew it. he was warned that that behavior wouldn't be tolerated and he hasn't done anything on that level since.

And if you think the comments he's made count as bullying then many other members are just as guilty of bullying as he is.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2012, 07:21 PM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
The idea here is a good one, it just hasn't been handled the way it should have been.

Like I said originally, if it had been more open and less focused on one member this thread could have been far more useful.

Anyways, it's not like we aren't aware of the warnings system. We've only really used it once before and it had no effect. I came to equate it to suspending someone from school for skipping school. Someone likely to be warned isn't likely to care about the warning.
I am not likely to use it again. It's not ruled out, but so far I've had much better results from nice personal PM's.

We aren't big on banning, and this forum never has been, so it shouldn't be a big surprise to the long time members. It's not going to be big on banning for as long as I'm admin and hopefully not after either as that would make this place the same as all others.

The rules are purposefully not specific, though the new set is more specific, because everything is a case by case.
There are obvious things that are dealt with in the corresponding ways, and those are the things you guys don't ever hear about. Usually.

Take the spamming thing for example. There are obvious spammers that are dealt with immediately, and there are others not so obvious that need discussion first.
One issue we've had was with whether or not to allow links to personal websites in signatures, or not. Is it spam?
Not exactly clear cut. Besides we aren't really opposed to people talking about the things they are doing, but there should be a line shouldn't there? Yes, but it isn't a clear cut line. Every person is different. Some people literally come here under the guise of participation but are only interested in advertising. That's obvious, but sometimes it's hard to tell which ones aren't staying longer than one or two self serving posts and who is going to hang around.
We talk, and things get done.

Or take the bullying thing. Everyone is again different, some people are more sensitive than others, and some people are typically more abrasive than others. Both can have no ill intent and still cause harm to the other. Or both can be comfortable with one form of communication that may seem offensive to another person.
Also someone can say something offensive to someone, and receive offensive comments in return, but claim that the return comment was unwarranted. This is really common around here.
Threats are far easier to deal with. They are usually pretty clear cut. Also the reason we went from warnings to immediate bannings as far as genuine threat is concerned. Why waste time.

Bullying though has no clear definition because it is rather subjective. That is why we have the report option. It is so rarely used that it genuinely pisses me off. I hate when someone opens a thread to complain about something that was never reported. It's like saying the cops never come to your house even though you've never called them.
There is a statute of limitations. I'm not going to punish someone for something that was typed up months ago without report. That should be common sense.
You can't go to the cops months later and tell them someone stole you car and seriously expect them to help you.

Maybe that's a bad analogy, but I'm so stuffed right now that it's the best I'm typing hahah.

Anyways the rules are the way they are for a reason. They will change over time I'm sure, to deal with the increase in traffic. But not much.

If anyone has a problem with a post please report the post. If someone has an issue with another member, please let us know and we will look into it. Don't assume though, that what you want will be done.

Man I ate too much candy.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like lucradis's post
08-04-2012, 07:38 PM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(08-04-2012 07:21 PM)lucradis Wrote:  Man I ate too much candy.

Hear that. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 12:07 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
People keep saying that a Christian airing their view that atheists will go to hell shouldn't be allowed because people may be upset by it.

Just out of interest how many of you think that atheists should be banned from saying there is no afterlife? After all, that notion may be upsetting to a Christian.

Stark always said that just because we have 'atheist' in the title it didn't mean only atheists were welcome. All are welcome. Lucradis has always stood by that as well. I'm sure that includes indirectly making theists unwelcome by having a one-sided rule set as well as openly banning them.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hughsie's post
09-04-2012, 12:26 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2012 12:35 AM by Humakt.)
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
Well just to weigh in here, I think everyone needs to take a second and unpunch there panties a bit. Especially Leela, could not be in more disagreement with you if I tried really hard, firstly let me say Ive no intension of hiding behind freedom of speech, rather standing full square in front of it and defending it. As to bullying as FSM has already said and I'm not sure how you can see it otherwise the posts you cited are in all case the expression of an opinion and in no way are threats, the closest to a threat is at best a prediction that some person or other will go to hell. In fact, truth be told your tone is more bullying in nature, certainly the conduct you advocate is more threatening - conform or be banned. That is a direct threat, I could, but I wont troll my way through your posts and find examples of you breaching the most ludicrious of your rules - be civil or else - in fact the term "Jewing on" is far from polite when you think about it, I know the Nazis spoiled anti semantism for everyone and thats a bummer.

As Ive said in an earlier post, freedom speech is a hard thing to get right, where as I could not disagree with you more, you have the right to your view and the right more over to voice it and Im as happy to defend that right, whilst in disagreement of it as I am to defend the freedom of speech of anyone else.

Now Ive said all that and before everyone goes all ape over it, Im sure Leela isnt a bully or indeed anti semitic (could be wrong, but only polite to extend the benefit of the doubt) your tone is almost certainly bourne out of passion and a certain level of frustration and in a free and open forum we can all be adults and accept that, the phrase "jewing on" is at best not good form, but is probably just a lingistic artifact. This however illustrates my point in the UK, that phrase could very easily be labelled hate speech and as such could open the person to utter it up to criminal prosecution - an abomnibale state of affairs, but it shows the futilty of shackling free speech. The term is self explanitory its either free or it isnt, you silence one voice and you destroy it.

What I think the line is and have always though this is, freedom of speech extends to speech (or in this case the written word) you can say anything you want to me and thats fine, where legislation should take effect is in the realm of action, when you do a thing thats when it matters. On the case in your rules set there are several clauses that are just fine as they deal with actions, advertising is an action, engaging in criminal activity is an action and as has been stated is already dealt with. The others, most notably the civility clause is just completly contray to the idea of free speech and is just not a)nessecary in a forum of consenting adults b)not a rule 99.9% of the forum membership wont have breached. and lastly c)I doubt anyone here yourself included would want to frequent an enviroment where the manners police would warn and kick you for using your ignore button, ignoring someone in a public debate is a very rude thing to do after all.

Lastly and more generally, I find it also kinda of distasteful and certainly not civil (just to bang on that drum once more) to brand people as idiotic or a dick because they have a different world view, am I Christian no, can I respect a Christians view, yes I can. Of note in that last sentence is my critism in passing of FSM, a moderator on most forums I'd be perma banned for that or at the very least be threatened with a ban for daring to disagree with a moderator, worse yet critise one, here Im sure I wont be. Im pretty new here, I havent posted much and Ive only browsed a small amount of the content, but none the less this forum from what Ive seen is doing an admirable job, in a world were freedom of speech is fast being erroded, in fact has pretty much been destroyed, I for one applaud the staff in there stance and more power to there elbow.

Thats my point of view, do with it what you will, I hope everyone else remains as free to voice theres.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 01:20 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(09-04-2012 12:07 AM)Hughsie Wrote:  People keep saying that a Christian airing their view that atheists will go to hell shouldn't be allowed because people may be upset by it.

Just out of interest how many of you think that atheists should be banned from saying there is no afterlife? After all, that notion may be upsetting to a Christian.

Stark always said that just because we have 'atheist' in the title it didn't mean only atheists were welcome. All are welcome. Lucradis has always stood by that as well. I'm sure that includes indirectly making theists unwelcome by having a one-sided rule set as well as openly banning them.
Hi Hughsie, I had the same thought re offending Christians. But it is not a fair analogy. To tell a Christian you think there is no afterlife is not a threat. I grant it may upset them, but that is the nature of disagreement.

On the other hand, if someone says "you are going to hell"...that is a threat.

I, personally, don't believe it, and therefore don't feel threatened, but am disappointed that my fellow human being could say such a thing and mean it. I'm unlikely to buy him the first beer after the debate.

I'm thick skinned. Not everyone is thick skinned. We have a unique situation here because churches have had such free access to children in decades past, and still do. As a consequence many many people have a deeply ingrained fear of hell, no matter how they rationalise their own feelings. It is like a type of PTSD. Talk of hell can trigger deep anxieties, which can be very unpleasant. Some psychologists make a living out of trying to help people cope with their fear of hell.

And what of the 3-10 year olds that are still being taught about hell? Is that acceptable? Moral? To play with children's heads so as to frighten them into conformity? Playing with children's genitalia is not enough for churches, they must play with their heads as well.

Surely this is a practice that must be stamped out?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 01:29 AM
 
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(07-04-2012 07:29 PM)lucradis Wrote:  I'm not sure why this thread keeps getting new posts.



I do. It's about me. I know that sound arrogant, but it's a fact. It's been this way since the MSN groups. I've had this effect in every group I'm in. I have to be judicious where I post and when and how often. And these days, I'm even being a little more careful about what I say. But it doesn't matter. The fact is, people want me to respond to them. They'll call me a flaming dickhead and then want me to listen to their opinion about something. Sometimes people feel they have to confess shit they've done in their life.

And why? Because I'm the real deal.

in my...humble...opinion. Cool

(08-04-2012 02:09 AM)Leela Wrote:  no! no no no!
I am sorry... no!!!

This forum is getting popular and tons of Egors will come here and destroy the fun for others.

I find it very ignorant of a forum-team to just say "free speech".
EVERY forum has a proper ruleset that allows to kick the Egors of the internet BECAUSE the Egors of the internet are the people who can destroy a forum like this.
This forum, as I said before, was great when I joined.

Do not hide behind "free speech" you are not limiting free speech by having a rule set that allows you to ban someone who only spreads hate and discomfort.
Let's see, it is ot ok in to walk over to someone in public and start shouting at him and being very rude.
Why would it be ok to do that online? Just because we have a fucking ignore button? I said it before, I say it again, the ignore function is not a solution for the problem, but only for the individual.

I still care about this place and I would really like to help with this problem.

@lucradis I reached out to you specifically, because you are the administrator here. No reaction but "free speech". Man, do you care about this forum or not?
Yes, the forum is what it is because blabla. I read it. Do you see how people get pissed off? Do you want to lose the "good posters" the once who might have a tough discussion but who are reasonable enough to grow on it and to learn. Those who are keeping this forum alive WITHOUT forcing their opinions on others?
Did you miss that there are people leaving this forum highly official because they are pissed of enough by now? Wanna lose more? Or are you of the opinion "Ah well, we still have enough members". Well if all the reasonable members leave you are left with a forum full of trolls. Have fun with that.


It's funny, in a roadkill sort of way, that the very thing you are complaining about is the very thing that makes this forum different than the other atheist forums wich is the only thing a forum can do to stand out in the online world.

(08-04-2012 05:38 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  I'm sorry but we can't have one rule for people we don't like and another for the rest of the members



Oh yes you can. All the other atheist forums do. They will have a rule about civility but they will allow the atheist to say abominable things and then ban the theist the first time they say, "Whatever." They get off on being able to ban theists, because most Christian sites ban atheists.

The problem is, the Christians ban me even faster than the atheists. So, what to do? You're re-writing the rules? This should be interesting.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: