What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2012, 02:06 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(09-04-2012 01:29 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(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.
Please be sure to tell us when the verundian population increases from 2 to 3
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2012 02:29 AM by Humakt.)
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
[Your statements in bold, Im a real retard when it comes to this quoting buisness, apologies]

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.

No its not a threat, it is a voicing of concern. If I make the statement if you continue to drink and drive, you'll be involved in an accident and come to harm I am not threatening you, Im stating my believe that your behaviour is detramental and potentially harmful. As a Christian, believes that behavin out of accordance with Gods will is detramental and the concequence, it can in fact be looked on as a compassionate act bourne out of concern for your wellbeing. You dont need to agree with them, but you could at least try to think about there motivation before condemning them. Also if you give it even a modicum, of thought you will see that they are threatening nothing, theyre not suggesting they will send you to, they are flat out telling you of what they believe will be the consequences of yur actions. In fact the one guilty of making the threat is God, so if anyone is a bully its God, so if anyone deserves to be banned its God.

What your effectivly saying is dont speak of your conviction in what you believe, because I dont respect your right to have beliefs that differ from my views and if you dont comply Im gonna try to have you banned. At least thats how its coming across to me, as I cant believe you dont understand that in being Christian this is what they actually believe.

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

I refer you to the above paragraph.

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.

Again I would contend you feel threatened because you have not been. As for disappointment theres a lot of that floating around. I dont think anyones suggesting that you would be required to buy anyone a drink.

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.

OK, lets try this on for size. Im pretty tolerant. Not everyone is tolerant. The situation is that our civil liberities have been and are continuing to be eroded. As a consequence many many people have a deeply ingrained fear of persecution, no matter how they rationalise their own feelings. Its like a type of PTSD (actually its more accurately a form of anxiety, but I digress). Talk of incarseration, torture, detention without trial or censorship can trigger deep anxieties, which can be very unpleasant. Some psychologists even make a living out of trying to help people cope with feelings of anxiety.

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.

What about them, more to the point what are you suggesting removing not only peoples right to speak, but there right to freedom of religion. More to the point what buisness is it of yours how parents bring up there children. Would you for a second tolerate it, if a Christian told you that you damned your child by not teaching them the good word, Im sure you wouldnt and rightly so. Back on to civility, thats just plain rude. Are you suggesting that no atheist is capable of child molestation, or as men of god churchmen must be held to higher standard or are you just being delibertly provactive. These are a tactics roundly deplored and decried in the religious, but just hunky dory for us. I think not. If ever any head way is to made, it is incumbant upon us to hold ourselves to a higher standard than those we seek to educate if that is our aim, personally I see no reason convert others, but I get why others do.

Surely this is a practice that must be stamped out?

Again a tad on the inflammitory side, and the description could be construed as an invitation to a violent act. Surely, civilty and toleration of one anothers views is a practice that ought to be encouraged.

Really when all said and done we've had enough of this burn the heretic stuff, perhaps if in the unlikly event we ever meet you'll allow me to buy you a beer and we can just chill out.

Or to put it more succinctly I have a beard, some suffer from Pogonophobia- Fear of beards. Am I a bully because I dont shave?

then a fat lady cries, WAAAGGHHH!!!! - Dr. Cox.

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
[+] 2 users Like Humakt's post
09-04-2012, 02:24 AM
 
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(09-04-2012 02:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please be sure to tell us when the verundian population increases from 2 to 3


I think to be a Veridican you have to refuse to be a Veridican.

How's that for a koan? Shocking



I'm not bullying when I say atheists are going to hell. I truly don't want you to go to hell. There are some I know who are going to hell no matter what. They will never believe and they can't believe, but I refuse to really believe that which I seem to know is true. I've seen God save people who were unsaveable. He did, after all, save me. What I should have become, what should have happened to me, how things should have turned out, never came to be. He stuck with me when I was wrong. He protected me when I didn't deserve it. If Jesus can raise the dead, he can save an atheist who should never have been able to believe. I know in this forum are some who will never believe, can't believe, are bound for hell--but I believe in miracles.

I don't want anyone to go to hell. I want to help people not go to hell. I want to show people that Jesus has nothing to do with Christianity as we know it in 2012, and that this life is only a temporary college for the kingdom of heaven. There is hope; there is life; and there is truth--there is no reason anyone should go to hell.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
09-04-2012, 02:44 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2012 03:23 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(09-04-2012 02:14 AM)Humakt Wrote:  [Your statements in bold, Im a real retard when it comes to this quoting buisness, apologies]

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.

No its not a threat, it is a voicing of concern. If I make the statement if you continue to drink and drive, you'll be involved in an accident and come to harm I am not threatening you, Im stating my believe that your behaviour is detramental and potentially harmful. As a Christian, believes that behavin out of accordance with Gods will is detramental and the concequence, it can in fact be looked on as a compassionate act bourne out of concern for your wellbeing. You dont need to agree with them, but you could at least try to think about there motivation before condemning them. Also if you give it even a modicum, of thought you will see that they are threatening nothing, theyre not suggesting they will send you to, they are flat out telling you of what they believe will be the consequences of yur actions. In fact the one guilty of making the threat is God, so if anyone is a bully its God, so if anyone deserves to be banned its God.

What your effectivly saying is dont speak of your conviction in what you believe, because I dont respect your right to have beliefs that differ from my views and if you dont comply Im gonna try to have you banned. At least thats how its coming across to me, as I cant believe you dont understand that in being Christian this is what they actually believe.

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

I refer you to the above paragraph.

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.

Again I would contend you feel threatened because you have not been. As for disappointment theres a lot of that floating around. I dont think anyones suggesting that you would be required to buy anyone a drink.

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.

OK, lets try this on for size. Im pretty tolerant. Not everyone is tolerant. The situation is that our civil liberities have been and are continuing to be eroded. As a consequence many many people have a deeply ingrained fear of persecution, no matter how they rationalise their own feelings. Its like a type of PTSD (actually its more accurately a form of anxiety, but I digress). Talk of incarseration, torture, detention without trial or censorship can trigger deep anxieties, which can be very unpleasant. Some psychologists even make a living out of trying to help people cope with feelings of anxiety.

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.

What about them, more to the point what are you suggesting removing not only peoples right to speak, but there right to freedom of religion. More to the point what buisness is it of yours how parents bring up there children. Would you for a second tolerate it, if a Christian told you that you damned your child by not teaching them the good word, Im sure you wouldnt and rightly so. Back on to civility, thats just plain rude. Are you suggesting that no atheist is capable of child molestation, or as men of god churchmen must be held to higher standard or are you just being delibertly provactive. These are a tactics roundly deplored and decried in the religious, but just hunky dory for us. I think not. If ever any head way is to made, it is incumbant upon us to hold ourselves to a higher standard than those we seek to educate if that is our aim, personally I see no reason convert others, but I get why others do.

Surely this is a practice that must be stamped out?

Again a tad on the inflammitory side, and the description could be construed as an invitation to a violent act. Surely, civilty and toleration of one anothers views is a practice that ought to be encouraged.

Really when all said and done we've had enough of this burn the heretic stuff, perhaps if in the unlikly event we ever meet you'll allow me to buy you a beer and we can just chill out.
Hi, I agree the threat of hell from the Christian is usually (but not always) voiced out of concern. Sometimes it is vindictive, and often it is a veiled threat to comply or else.

Even when it is voiced out of concern, the fact remains it seriously upsets some people, and Christians need to be made aware of that.

You are jumping to conclusions about me. I'm not necessarily saying someone who threatens hell should be banned. They should, however, be made aware their behaviour is offensive. Like smoking in a restaurant. You can smoke , but you must do so outside. That is very different from persecuting someone who smokes.

My comments re pedophilia in church was just a joke that no one takes seriously. It was just a little "addition"

Parents do have the right to let churches indoctrinate children. I just think it is a shame.

Violence is never part of what I promote.

Absolutely we should be civil and tolerant of other's views. The hard part is deciding when and how to object. That is, in fact, what this post has been all about.

If I am ever in your country, or you in mine, some serious beer drinking should happen!
(09-04-2012 02:24 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(09-04-2012 02:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please be sure to tell us when the verundian population increases from 2 to 3


I think to be a Veridican you have to refuse to be a Veridican.

How's that for a koan? Shocking



I'm not bullying when I say atheists are going to hell. I truly don't want you to go to hell. There are some I know who are going to hell no matter what. They will never believe and they can't believe, but I refuse to really believe that which I seem to know is true. I've seen God save people who were unsaveable. He did, after all, save me. What I should have become, what should have happened to me, how things should have turned out, never came to be. He stuck with me when I was wrong. He protected me when I didn't deserve it. If Jesus can raise the dead, he can save an atheist who should never have been able to believe. I know in this forum are some who will never believe, can't believe, are bound for hell--but I believe in miracles.

I don't want anyone to go to hell. I want to help people not go to hell. I want to show people that Jesus has nothing to do with Christianity as we know it in 2012, and that this life is only a temporary college for the kingdom of heaven. There is hope; there is life; and there is truth--there is no reason anyone should go to hell.
Ok Egor. This will probably backfire on me, but I just read this thread you posted and I sensed just a touch of genuine human empathy and calmness in your writing. I haven't encountered that before from you.

Is there any chance you could start some real communication here, and by that I mean stop treating each discussion as a tennis match in which you just have to hit a winner every time? Is it possible you could stop telling people what they really think and start listening to what they say for themselves? If you are capable of that, my attitude to you will soften, as may some others. Its all about shutting your own opinions up for a while and listening to your fellow man. We all have to do it, me included, and it ain't easy. You up to it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
09-04-2012, 03:59 AM
 
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(09-04-2012 02:44 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Its all about shutting your own opinions up for a while and listening to your fellow man. We all have to do it, me included, and it ain't easy. You up to it?



No. Sit down; shut up; listen; and learn. Dodgy

...sorry, is that kind of talk against the rules now?



Let me rephrase, that was insensitive: No, I'm not going to shut up, Mark. You're just going to have to strap on a bomb and detonate yourself in my presence. That would probably work. Thumbsup
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 04:21 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(09-04-2012 03:59 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(09-04-2012 02:44 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Its all about shutting your own opinions up for a while and listening to your fellow man. We all have to do it, me included, and it ain't easy. You up to it?



No. Sit down; shut up; listen; and learn. Dodgy

...sorry, is that kind of talk against the rules now?



Let me rephrase, that was insensitive: No, I'm not going to shut up, Mark. You're just going to have to strap on a bomb and detonate yourself in my presence. That would probably work. Thumbsup
didn't think so. goodnight
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2012, 04:28 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2012 04:30 AM by Humakt.)
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
[Same format as last post, Im still a retard]

Hi, I agree the threat of hell from the Christian is usually (but not always) voiced out of concern. Sometimes it is vindictive, and often it is a veiled threat to comply or else.

Hi, although doubtless true, not sure what gives you the insight to determine which is which in any individual case, or indeed why it matters. Just to be super pedantic, I think you mean spiteful rather than vindictive and as to the veiled threat buisness not sure I go with that, if they know there stuff it is'nt veiled or indeed a threat it is from there point of view a direct causal certainty, if you read the bible Im sure you'll find also that it doesnt beat around the bush veiling this it out right states it. But as I said before the christian is not the one doing the threatening, its the God. I think youd need to search a long time before you found a christian that said they would send you to hell, but Im also pretty sure if you looked long enough you'd find some Smile.

Even when it is voiced out of concern, the fact remains it seriously upsets some people, and Christians need to be made aware of that.

That again is not really relevant it is not reasonable, no expect everyone to moderate there behaviour because it may upset someone. As I said I have a beard, I know full well that some people are phobic of beards that however in no way makes me a bully because I dont shave. Of course, if I knew someone was phobic, I would be sensative to that. Perhaps also the view that our denial of there god endangers us from there perspective seriously upsets some christians and maybe we should be aware of that. Another way of looking at it is a child about thrust his arm into a fire may be upset by being yanked away or yelled at, from our view we can reconcile that upset by the prevention of injury, simalary a christian can be fully aware of the potential upset and reconcile it against the potential harm.

You are jumping to conclusions about me. I'm not necessarily saying someone who threatens hell should be banned. They should, however, be made aware their behaviour is offensive. Like smoking in a restaurant. You can smoke , but you must do so outside. That is very different from persecuting someone who smokes.


Possably so, however from what Ive read youd support the promotion to forum mod of someone who does and you at the very least do seem to me to have a bee in your bonnet over something. Im sure theyre perfectly aware some find them offensive, there isnt an idea, a person or thought that isnt offensive to someone else. But taking offensive is an action it is taken and as such is the responsabilty of the one offended. Im a smoker, I can remember when I could indeed smoke in a restaurant, this however is not a matter of offence, but law so Im not sure what your driving at. Your implication is though, at least thats how it reads to me is, as this is not a case of persecuting smokers it stands in contradiction to the persectution cristians employ in voicing there concern. Or perhaps your advocating that it should be likewise against the law for christians to say these things. But really in on the whole, in this as in most case of offense being taken I have little sympathy for the offended, on the whole that whole buisness can be dealt with a modicum of either maturity or flat out not caring. But, basically a big dose of getting over themselves and not being so precious about the whole the thing. Then a fat lady cried WAAAGGHH!!!! - Dr. Cox.

My comments re pedophilia in church was just a joke that no one takes seriously. It was just a little "addition"


Your turn to make an assumption, I took it seriously or are you saying Im nobody, why sir you offend me and upset me greatly - oh no wait, but you could have and you should be aware of that.


Parents do have the right to let churches indoctrinate children. I just think it is a shame.

Finally, I concur.

Violence is never part of what I promote.

I did not say you were promting violence I said the language you used could be interrpted as violent.

Absolutely we should be civil and tolerant of other's views. The hard part is deciding when and how to object. That is, in fact, what this post has been all about.

Civility only goes so far in my book, it should be the starting point certainly. But I have exceedinging little difficulty in telling the uncivil to go fuck themselves. Civility is a reciprocal thing. And I say this only for clarity, I dont advocate tolerating every view, I only advocate the right of the intolerable to be discussed even advocated, but as Ive said where I draw the line is when discussion transitions into action. That is to say it perfectly fine for a christian to say you'll burn in hell, and you if you have any respect for freedom of speech or the freedom of religion absolutly have to suck up and get on with your life, it is however a completely different thing if that christian attempts to burn you at the stake then there is no nessecity for you suck anything. Indeed as I said in my first post in this thread freedom of speech is a very hard thing to get right, it is not an easy thing to defend the sometimes indefensible, to tolerate the intolerable, but it is the very nature of the beast there is really no getting around that.

If I am ever in your country, or you in mine, some serious beer drinking should happen!


Im T-total so if we meet I'll let you be be serious, I'll stick with my usual detached amuse or bemusement. If you visit the UK that is, as odds are your an american I wont be travelling I have a strict policy of not travelling to place barbaric enough to practice the death penalty.

Either way, cheers and enjoy your next drink regardless of our proximity.



(09-04-2012 03:59 AM)Egor Wrote:  [quote='Mark Fulton' pid='102099' dateline='1333961059']
Its all about shutting your own opinions up for a while and listening to your fellow man. We all have to do it, me included, and it ain't easy. You up to it?


Im confused isnt that exactly what Ive been saying to you Smile

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, 06:24 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2012 06:30 AM by FSM_scot.)
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(09-04-2012 12:26 AM)Humakt Wrote:  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.

Just to clarify when I call him a dick it is due to his attitude and not because of his beliefs.

You are correct that I will never ban someone over a disagreement with me. We aren't that kind of forum. If we ever became that kind of place I wouldn't come back.

(09-04-2012 01:29 AM)Egor Wrote:  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.

We aren't most atheist forums. We rarely ban and plan to keep it that way.

The re written rules are essentially the same ones that stark created. The new ones just give a Bit more clarification about what they mean.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
09-04-2012, 07:36 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
Mark,

How would you feel if you were on here, saw a post from someone claiming they were gonna jump of a cliff because they can fly, told them not to do it because it will most likely lead to their death, and we banned you for it?

I think Egor truly believes we are going to hell, just as strongly as we believe jumping off a cliff will lead to someone's death.

What grounds do we have to limit him and no-one else? Especially when we've already established that the notion of no after life can be very upsetting to a theist.

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, 07:57 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(09-04-2012 12:26 AM)Humakt Wrote:  in fact the term "Jewing on" is far from polite when you think about it
Humakt, I'm dead certain this was a typo - she intended "jawing on". Leela is intensely aware of these issues as she is German. I realise you haven't really been around her much, but she is very far from antisemitic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: