What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2012, 12:54 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(10-04-2012 12:50 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I miss the days of the mighty ban hammers, those were epic times to live on the internetz, now we're all civil and respectful. I miss the epicness Sad
Try Freedomain radio. Unless you cow tow you, get your epicness right in the face.

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
10-04-2012, 04:08 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(09-04-2012 03:53 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(09-04-2012 09:03 AM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  Not to belittle your meaning, I just had to point out the difference would be evidence (reality and make believe), just saying Tongue

Sorry I just couldn't let that slide...lmao

I'm pretty sure that, to Egor, hell is just as certain as death from falling off a cliff.

And I doubt it makes very little difference to him that we don't agree with him in believing in hell.

To continue with my analogy, imagine if you were in that situation. You told the person not to jump because they would die. If they tell you that they don't agree with you do you care? Hell no, as far as you are concerned it doesn't matter what they believe they are going to die.

That is the situation Egor is in.
Hi Hughsie.

I hear it about Christians wanting to save people from hell. I agree that sometimes Christians are genuinely concerned about atheist's welfare. I'll discuss that in a minute, but first I want to clear something up.

I can't help but wonder if you've decided I've been challenging your authority. If that be the case, I want you to know I am no political animal. I didn't even know Lucradis was in charge of the show, and didn't know it was a moderator's job to ban people. So my rattling on about E was in no way connected with anyone of "the staff." Other people were calling for him to be banned (I never did, although I do feel they have a case), yet I thought they were just addressing everyone on the forum, not you guys in particular. I sensed many, many people's exasperation with him, and was just trying to work out some consensus to dealing with the issue. I didn't even know that was a moderator's job...that's how out of touch with the politics of forums I am.

So...back to the issue..."threats", or if you prefer, talk, of hell. Consider the history. Hell was invented to control people's behaviour. If you have a piss poor argument and can't sell your opinion, one option is to threaten people with a punishment (argumentum ad baculum) if they don't comply. It is a convenient ploy, because you don't have to deliver the punishment yourself, and you don't have to prove it is a fact. This pathetic primitive control tactic needs to be exposed for the garbage it is. Egor won't admit he is a product of long outdated fundamentalist Protestant piffle, yet he is.

Many modern Christians are too embarrassed by hell to mention it anymore. Last night, Cardinal Pell (a conservative old fossil) from Sydney, in a debate with Richard Dawkins, admitted that many atheists will go to heaven. So Catholics obviously have moved away from the "believe or burn" bullshit. (If I had been Richard, I would have asked Pell to explain why Jesus said "bring anyone here who refuses to worship me and execute them in my presence").

I put it to you that E. is not all lovey dovey for his fellow man who he wants to spare from eternal damnation. In one of his posts he talks of God's pleasure at watching people burn. Egor doesn't like people who aren't part of his belief system...which basically means everyone in this world apart from his wife. He threatens us with hell because we ain't verucuntians, not under his control, and he just can't fathom that.

It's the same old story....history repeating itself...."only I understand the gospels, only I'm pure, so do as I say fuckin' say or you'll burn." That may have worked in isolated communities in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, but it ain't going to work anymore now we have the internet.

I don't care whether you ban him or not. Seriously. Just let me, and others, rub his face in the dirt when he offends good people. By all means stand up for him if you think I have crossed the line, but don't take it personally if I disagree with you about him. I am in a war with "Egors," and I ain't backing down.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
10-04-2012, 05:11 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(10-04-2012 04:08 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I can't help but wonder if you've decided I've been challenging your authority.
You're just having to shout down the crowd. I think there was a decision taken a while back that mods would post in green or pink (depending on if they liked pink) when they were speaking as mods and in normal colours when they're just being generally assholes. Maybe should also be publicised more, together with the rules, as a lot of people make the mistake of not realising that mods aren't malevolent robotic intelligences waiting for one of us normal peeps to step outta line.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
10-04-2012, 06:29 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
Quote:I can't help but wonder if you've decided I've been challenging your authority.
This brings about my favorite, "Question everything." If you see a problem then apparently it needs to be addressed. It will never be addressed if someone doesn't speak up. No one wants their "Authorit-I" questioned, but they should have thought that through before accepting an authoritative position. Smile

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 08:28 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
sorry, I couldn't resist to post this:




[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 10:46 AM
 
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(10-04-2012 04:08 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Many modern Christians are too embarrassed by hell to mention it anymore. Last night, Cardinal Pell (a conservative old fossil) from Sydney, in a debate with Richard Dawkins, admitted that many atheists will go to heaven. So Catholics obviously have moved away from the "believe or burn" bullshit. (If I had been Richard, I would have asked Pell to explain why Jesus said "bring anyone here who refuses to worship me and execute them in my presence").

I put it to you that E. is not all lovey dovey for his fellow man who he wants to spare from eternal damnation. In one of his posts he talks of God's pleasure at watching people burn. Egor doesn't like people who aren't part of his belief system...which basically means everyone in this world apart from his wife. He threatens us with hell because we ain't verucuntians, not under his control, and he just can't fathom that.

I don't threaten you with hell; Jesus Christ threatens you with hell. I simply agree with Jesus Christ. That's never going to change, and what you describe as the backing off of the doctrine of hell is simply part of the deterioration of Christianity.

Quote:It's the same old story....history repeating itself...."only I understand the gospels, only I'm pure, so do as I say fuckin' say or you'll burn." That may have worked in isolated communities in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, but it ain't going to work anymore now we have the internet.

You don't have to be a Veridican. In fact, you can't be a Veridican. Following another man's religion just won't work. You must follow Jesus Christ.

Quote:I don't care whether you ban him or not. Seriously. Just let me, and others, rub his face in the dirt when he offends good people. By all means stand up for him if you think I have crossed the line, but don't take it personally if I disagree with you about him. I am in a war with "Egors," and I ain't backing down.

Good. I was afraid I was going to have to give you this treatment:






[/quote]

(10-04-2012 05:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-04-2012 04:08 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I can't help but wonder if you've decided I've been challenging your authority.
You're just having to shout down the crowd. I think there was a decision taken a while back that mods would post in green or pink (depending on if they liked pink) when they were speaking as mods and in normal colours when they're just being generally assholes. Maybe should also be publicised more, together with the rules, as a lot of people make the mistake of not realising that mods aren't malevolent robotic intelligences waiting for one of us normal peeps to step outta line.

Y'all ought to make me a moderator. It would be good to have that diversity on the staff. I wouldn't embarass you.



Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 11:46 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
Mark Fulton wrote:
"we" are the people on this forum, united by our common humanity, our love of debate and our desire to learn from each other. "We" discuss philosophy, ethics and morals. I think most would agree "we" are part of a groundswell movement against the indoctrination of religion...although some are passive, others more active. [...] I put my ideas out there and I invite comment, and I accept we are all different.


This is a little off topic - I am brand new to this forum and as such am a bit late to the party and only know about this subject, from what I've read in this thread. I just wanted to applaud Mark on this statement - it's beautifully phrased and is exactly the kind of sentiment I hoped to find when I joined this forum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EthicalMom_60502's post
10-04-2012, 11:50 AM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(10-04-2012 10:46 AM)Egor Wrote:  I don't threaten you with hell; Jesus Christ threatens you with hell. I simply agree with Jesus Christ.

There's a cop out. "Just following orders" says the trooper. Bullshit. What part of "thou shalt not credit evil" are thou failing to understand? Puppy needs some summer school. Angel

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 04:08 PM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(10-04-2012 11:50 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(10-04-2012 10:46 AM)Egor Wrote:  I don't threaten you with hell; Jesus Christ threatens you with hell. I simply agree with Jesus Christ.


There's a cop out. "Just following orders" says the trooper. Bullshit. What part of "thou shalt not credit evil" are thou failing to understand? Puppy needs some summer school. Angel

I'm just going to add, because a parent is racist doesn't make it okay for the kids to agree with it, or to mention it when you can keep your mouth shut.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2012, 04:24 PM
RE: What degree of abuse or threat is acceptable?
(10-04-2012 04:08 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi Hughsie.

I hear it about Christians wanting to save people from hell. I agree that sometimes Christians are genuinely concerned about atheist's welfare. I'll discuss that in a minute, but first I want to clear something up.

I can't help but wonder if you've decided I've been challenging your authority. If that be the case, I want you to know I am no political animal. I didn't even know Lucradis was in charge of the show, and didn't know it was a moderator's job to ban people. So my rattling on about E was in no way connected with anyone of "the staff." Other people were calling for him to be banned (I never did, although I do feel they have a case), yet I thought they were just addressing everyone on the forum, not you guys in particular. I sensed many, many people's exasperation with him, and was just trying to work out some consensus to dealing with the issue. I didn't even know that was a moderator's job...that's how out of touch with the politics of forums I am.

So...back to the issue..."threats", or if you prefer, talk, of hell. Consider the history. Hell was invented to control people's behaviour. If you have a piss poor argument and can't sell your opinion, one option is to threaten people with a punishment (argumentum ad baculum) if they don't comply. It is a convenient ploy, because you don't have to deliver the punishment yourself, and you don't have to prove it is a fact. This pathetic primitive control tactic needs to be exposed for the garbage it is. Egor won't admit he is a product of long outdated fundamentalist Protestant piffle, yet he is.

Many modern Christians are too embarrassed by hell to mention it anymore. Last night, Cardinal Pell (a conservative old fossil) from Sydney, in a debate with Richard Dawkins, admitted that many atheists will go to heaven. So Catholics obviously have moved away from the "believe or burn" bullshit. (If I had been Richard, I would have asked Pell to explain why Jesus said "bring anyone here who refuses to worship me and execute them in my presence").

I put it to you that E. is not all lovey dovey for his fellow man who he wants to spare from eternal damnation. In one of his posts he talks of God's pleasure at watching people burn. Egor doesn't like people who aren't part of his belief system...which basically means everyone in this world apart from his wife. He threatens us with hell because we ain't verucuntians, not under his control, and he just can't fathom that.

It's the same old story....history repeating itself...."only I understand the gospels, only I'm pure, so do as I say fuckin' say or you'll burn." That may have worked in isolated communities in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, but it ain't going to work anymore now we have the internet.

I don't care whether you ban him or not. Seriously. Just let me, and others, rub his face in the dirt when he offends good people. By all means stand up for him if you think I have crossed the line, but don't take it personally if I disagree with you about him. I am in a war with "Egors," and I ain't backing down.

Haha, no need to worry about me feeling like your challenging my authority Smile. I don't see myself as having any authority, my mod powers are utilised to approve posts and nuke spambots, nothing more. Besides, if I ever wanted to speak as a mod the agreed method is for me to post in the colour of my username, just avoid any confusion (we've had issues with people thinking Lucradis was intervening as an admin when he was actually just airing his views as a member).

As far as bannings go, any decision on a ban gets discussed by the forum team and Lucradis makes the final judgement, no mod would ever ban an actual member unless requested to do so by Lucradis.

As far as rubbing dirt in his face goes then I'm not gonna tell anyone that they cannot do it, we are all for free speech of course. I just want to remind you that it may not have the desired effect. At the moment, rather than ridiculing Egor you are giving him more ammunition to fire at you, more of a platform to broadcast his views, and bringing his views to far more people than would have seen them. Crucially this also includes people who don't want to see his views.

It doesn't make much difference to me but I wouldn't want you to inadvertently cause more problems for people who are offended by Egor.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: