Current State Of The Forum

Christians, atheists, theists and skeptics: make your best case here.
Forum rules
Keep it real, minimal cutting and pasting please: we want to hear what YOU have to say!

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:10 pm

Patrick Star wrote:Actually I have seen you defend some Christians (next paragraph), but I wouldn't hold that against you.


If it were just that and was appropriate in any given case, I wouldn't care either. But he went waaaa-haaaay further than that and would task atheists for even daring to question the beliefs of theists. "Why do you care what so-and-so thinks? Or believes?" As if this were not a forum where Christians and Atheists interact. But in hg's realm to do that in a way he doesn't like means you "hate all Christians". Which is a CLASSIC deflection theists use whenever they are confronted by non-believers. "Oh, you're criticizing my Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/Scientology beliefs. Why do you hate Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/Scientology so much??"

Anyone care to deny that's what theists do on an ongoing basis? Anyone want to deny an atheist doing the same thing isn't just as wrong?

In a way, the Moonwood-Locus thread is a similar version of this. He's taking the position that he can chastise people -- atheists always -- for how they respond to theists. Again, once in awhile is one thing, but this is hg's consistent pattern. Confront atheists, chastise atheists, call out atheists for active engagement, and by and large (not perfectly, 100%, but ALMOST always, like 99%) remain mute and silent on anything theists do or say or argue. He is completely at ease for instance trashing me for recognizing there's a social struggle going on and he ridicules it: "Ooooh, 'The Fight'!" he croons derisively.

Here's a link to where he did these very things: "Ooooh, the fight!"

Really I no longer care about anything he thinks (again, though I used to), but now that I see him for what he is, I simply tell him to fuck off. Why? I'll answer that in the next bit...

I will defend whomever I believe is correct in a disagreement and sometimes that person is a Christian. I agree with your distaste of bullying. It is despicable in all its forms and there's no need for it. However, there have been occasions where I've seen a person (Christian or atheist) who is behaving just badly enough that they are clearly just below the threshold for civil conversation, and that often tips another into outright hostility. Maybe that's not a real justification but it certainly is a persuasive argument. I believe the member Clare is one of these who has done this and I do not engage in any conversation with her any longer because of it. That's my technique for avoiding bullying; just avoid those who can't or won't behave themselves.


So on this one is the "why" I tell people to fuck off. Clare's not much of a bully, she's just an incoherent dingbat who likes to promote some whack-o poem she thinks has relevance. Debating her is useless primarily because she's thoroughly dishonest not so much intellectually but tactically. She'll create sock puppets, she'll delete posts, she'll rewrite shit-- hell, the who forum had to have its methods rewritten because of her lack of integrity (which of course she'll deny). So I too ignore her.

But hg does something quite different, though is no less devoid of integrity. He tries to block atheists from confronting theists and we cannot afford that any more. We MUST confront them, we MUST confront those who would defend them as he does. In a way, though my vernacular is far harsher (as a native born New Yorker, to my ears it sounds funny more than anything else, but such words also really accurately reflect the disgust I feel at some people; like asshole is an orifice that expels nothing but shit-- something I argue hg does endlessly) than his, he's bullying people left and right. It's harder to see because he couches it in questions and without harsh language, but it's there. Look at the locus thread. "Whatcha doon that fer?" "Why you doon that??" "Why do you question people's beliefs?" "Why doncha leeb 'em alone??" And again almost in the exact same direction almost every time: Against atheists.

He also likes to play that "endless questions game" where he'll say, "Why do you think it's important to confront them on this?" then when you answer, something in that answer will prompt him to ignore everything you say but add a new question to it: "Why do you think confrontation has validity?" and so on. Even if you ask him a question, it's just ignored. It's another tactic, and he has done it countless times -- again, almost always towards atheists. And then when you flesh it out for him, he calls you "long-winded" (like he probably thinks this is, and he probably thinks because I'm willing to expose all this about him I also care that he does it, but I just don't care anymore-- I'm just reporting the facts because you are looking for info).

Finally, the way to stop bullies who are actually bullying is to NEVER just ignore them. You confront them and you stand them down. You expose them and show their actions are transparently known and you do not put up with it. This is true in the sandbox, the playground, the political sphere and the religious debate realm. You NEVER ignore bullies. This tells them and others that they have won.

And that's what got us all in this place in the first place. By atheists deferring and pretending that religions were harmless and we didn't need to confront them, our entire society-- and the single most powerful nation on the planet -- are in the hands of demented whackos who lie constantly, cheat unceasingly, and who will do anything to stay in power. HG is but a tiny molecule in size in this mix but there's far too many similar molecules, primarily on the theist side, and it simply has to be changed if humanity is going to survive.

(PS: To all of this, when I would engage with him, he would take all I've said and respond with a single sentence in the form of a question: "Why do you think it's important that humanity survives?" After numerous such responses, I knew I was dealing with a broken moral compass in a person and have given up on him, except to call him out for the tool he is when he pops his empty head up and continues his bullshit).

I hope this has given you more to understand.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10418
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby humanguy » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:21 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:[
Finally, the way to stop bullies who are actually bullying is to NEVER just ignore them. You confront them and you stand them down. You expose them and show their actions are transparently known and you do not put up with it. This is true in the sandbox, the playground, the political sphere and the religious debate realm. You NEVER ignore bullies. This tells them and others that they have won.


Straight from the bully's mouth. Perfect.
Most of us, just about all of us, have the capacity to be rock and rolled by a feeling of pure ecstatic raw joy. You do, don't you? We should respect each other for that.
User avatar
humanguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: Lumpen Post-Industrial District
Affiliation: Human

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:33 pm

Patrick Star wrote:I don't disagree with your assessment of our current state of politics, but how does that relate to my comment that we cannot limit people's practice of religion? Everything you said regarding political participation is valid, but that should never, ever include limiting one's practice of religion, lest it lead to just a different form of totalitarian government.


It doesn't relate to that, I was focused specifically on your comments that we must lobby -- i.e., you brought up the political methodology and I was noting that there are significant problems with the pathway thanks to how our politics stands today. I do NOT believe we ever need to limit people's rights to believe or think whatever they want and I agree with you -- and disagree with Archlich -- that we can somehow legislate how parents raise their kids. The solution to that is to just keep educating people and
as we can see, less and less people will be incredulous con-man targets as they are educated.

There's a reason Christians fear the idea of atheists in control of government. They have 50 years of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea as evidence that the right kind of government could and would oppress them. So that has to be front and center when we address these kinds of issues. Oppression of religion is not the end goal here; it has to be liberty for all, which is nothing the Constitution doesn't already guarantee us all.


It's demonstrably true that all three of your examples were in fact religious, they were just secularly religious -- worship the state, the state is the god in their models--everything else is exactly the same (orthodoxy, punish heresy, us vs. them, etc.). In fact, the methodology used cast established religion as the enemy, which again is a mechanic that religions have gained great success by utilizing: ISIS for instance condemns all religions that are not Islam as heretical and worthy of death. Communism simply made the same decree and they implemented it against "all religions" (except of course, their own). They murder their competition. If you think that's what I am advocating, please look to my signature line which I put in years ago to answer that charge. I'm for FREEDOM, not for tyranny. (Archlich understood this in his reply previous to this one).

And North Korea isn't even secularly religious-- it's just as supernaturally religious as any theocracy. Kim Jong Nam, though long dead, is still the president of the country, and is still to be deferred to as actively engaged. Christopher Hitchens rightly called the DPRK the only existing necrocracy on the planet.

And I have to point out that saying politicians are ignoring a voter base is looking through the eyeglass in reverse. It is the voter base who has to ensure that politicians are not ignoring them. I would argue that the Trump people did exactly that last November. There are 16 or so Republicans who didn't win and it's because they ignored the wrong people. I hate Trump as much as any Liberal, but I can't argue with the votes. He won the right states and that is impossible to ignore.


There's a bit of a gray area here in that far too many citizens don't vote at all so a minority fanatical wing often holds the win. But the reason far too many don't vote is because your eyeglass metaphor is inaccurate.

Theoretically you might be right in a mildly corrupt state, but it's a not at all controversial to acknowledge that politicians are almost completely at the beck and call of their donors, and their donors are corporations who were given citizenship status by the Citizens United ruling. By and large, politicians really don't give a damn what the voters say, because the billionaire corporate structure authors the message the voters get to hear anyway.

Certainly there are exceptions to this; Sanders proved that small donations and grass roots still have a chance, which the Clinton campaign literally murdered by messaging through their donor base, but by and large these races are financial juggernauts that pretty much remove the average individual from accessing true representative democracy. Trump won by a far greater degree of cheating, demonizing enemies (both real and perceived), floating massive propaganda (i.e., lies and true "fake news") via social and air media, gerrymandering, race-baiting, and voter suppression, but the good news is, he in fact won the "blue wall" (which Clinton stupidly ignored in her own hubris) by a mere 2 votes per precinct (about 70,000 votes across numerous states).

Two things failed here, both due to the same problem -- the electoral college. Before I continue, let me say that quite a number of things failed along the way, but there is one final firewall that failed and that's what I'm addressing here now. I could list the others but this is long enough.

First, the popular vote SHOULD hold sway now the we're no longer in the 18th century, but secondly, and more importantly, the EC did not do its job. It's JOB was to ensure a madman DIDN'T take over the presidency, which they failed to do (but were 100% legally and morally and constitutionally within their rights to do). Each state can look to their own state of course, but they can also look to the popular vote AND they can use their own judgment to stop a tyrant from taking office. They failed to do their job.

And this is the second time in our lifetimes this happened; in the 2000 race, the SCOTUS took over and --in an outright flagrant slap to the constitution, the right leaning court handed the presidency to Bush who then slept through 9/11 and got us into a war where countless tens of thousands were slaughtered, and ISIS was given sway to some into being. And to bring it back full circle, this enriched the corporation who are the very ones who support those politicians and buy them off with immoral sums of money.

These things matter, and always have and are connected, and religion plays a HUGE part in the whole engine.

All that said, according to the decision and the law, Trump has the presidency. Hopefully, his lifetime of escaping one criminal act after the next will finally catch up with him, but then we'll have Pence, who is a theocrat through and through.

That's why the voter is totally apathetic. There's no winning even when you win and that's what this whole offshoot of the thread was a bout.
Last edited by Keep The Reason on Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10418
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:37 pm

humanguy wrote:Straight from the bully's mouth. Perfect.


Annnnd... cue the response:

Fuck off, quisling.

:smt006
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10418
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby humanguy » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:30 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:Fuck off, quisling.


You're so butch, Moe.
Most of us, just about all of us, have the capacity to be rock and rolled by a feeling of pure ecstatic raw joy. You do, don't you? We should respect each other for that.
User avatar
humanguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: Lumpen Post-Industrial District
Affiliation: Human

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:39 pm

MEME FOR HUMANGUY.jpg
MEME FOR HUMANGUY.jpg (41.52 KiB) Viewed 42 times
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10418
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby ArchLich » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:30 pm

humanguy wrote:
Keep The Reason wrote:[
Finally, the way to stop bullies who are actually bullying is to NEVER just ignore them. You confront them and you stand them down. You expose them and show their actions are transparently known and you do not put up with it. This is true in the sandbox, the playground, the political sphere and the religious debate realm. You NEVER ignore bullies. This tells them and others that they have won.


Straight from the bully's mouth. Perfect.


If your post consists of nothing but mudslinging, they're entirely devoid of merit. You're not doing yourself any favors by giving people even less reason to consider you worthy of intellectual consideration. When you respond to something, try using sentence structures that actually provide relevant talking points to a presented topic.
Knowledge is power, and is also limited to empirical perception. Irony.
ArchLich
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:44 am
Location: Florida
Affiliation: Agnostic, Atheist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Patrick Star » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:39 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:If it were just that and was appropriate in any given case, I wouldn't care either. But he went waaaa-haaaay further than that and would task atheists for even daring to question the beliefs of theists. "Why do you care what so-and-so thinks? Or believes?" As if this were not a forum where Christians and Atheists interact.


That's a fair point. This is the entire point of this forum. The creator of the forum could verify that if he were still around. I wouldn't say the intention was for atheists to bash and harass Christians, but certainly to have some very direct discussions without a lot of safeguards. So it becomes one of those things where you have to ask where do you draw the line. I would say that if it gets too much for you then the best option might be to just not participate in this particular sport.

He also likes to play that "endless questions game" where he'll say, "Why do you think it's important to confront them on this?" then when you answer, something in that answer will prompt him to ignore everything you say but add a new question to it: "Why do you think confrontation has validity?" and so on. Even if you ask him a question, it's just ignored. It's another tactic, and he has done it countless times -- again, almost always towards atheists. And then when you flesh it out for him, he calls you "long-winded" (like he probably thinks this is, and he probably thinks because I'm willing to expose all this about him I also care that he does it, but I just don't care anymore-- I'm just reporting the facts because you are looking for info).


I can appreciate questioning just about anything, but it is valid to consider whether the question is genuinely inquisitive or is it just another form of derision? I can honestly say that someone who bothers me this much just eventually gets put on ignore. If nothing they have to say has any value then engaging with them seems not only pointless but counter productive. Just by engaging you miss out on an opportunity to spend your time doing something more productive.

I hope this has given you more to understand.


Yes, I believe I understand it better now, thanks to comments from both of you.
User avatar
Patrick Star
resident
resident
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:54 pm
Affiliation: undisclosed

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:42 pm

ArchLich wrote:If your post consists of nothing but mudslinging, they're entirely devoid of merit. You're not doing yourself any favors by giving people even less reason to consider you worthy of intellectual consideration. When you respond to something, try using sentence structures that actually provide relevant talking points to a presented topic.


Let us give credit where credit is due. He's actually graduated to single sentence statements, and not an endless loop of meaningless, redundant queries.

Good boy, humanguy!
Atta boy!
Dat's a good boy!
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10418
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:58 pm

Patrick Star wrote:That's a fair point. This is the entire point of this forum. The creator of the forum could verify that if he were still around. I wouldn't say the intention was for atheists to bash and harass Christians, but certainly to have some very direct discussions without a lot of safeguards. So it becomes one of those things where you have to ask where do you draw the line. I would say that if it gets too much for you then the best option might be to just not participate in this particular sport.


The owner was more or less hands off unless it was a sock puppet (Clare? you listening?) or a spam bot.

In order to minimize the emotional play-outs, he agreed to a "Civility Lounge" where everyone has to be polite to one another (Rian moderates it). Nothing stops anyone, including hg, from going there. It's relatively lightly attended versus this section of the forum. I moderate a "Formal Debate" room, though it gets little use as well. Apparently, enough people do like the brash and unpolished aura here, since here is where they come (by the way, I tried the CL but it was not for me and I wound up being banned from it and I could not possibly care less since... it's not for me.) It's a free market metric in action.

But hg can go there and dance the minuets as much as he likes; it wouldn't matter to me (and he'd always avoid the presence of Moe -- er, me) and if others follow and this part of the forum goes silent that would be fine by me as well.

I can appreciate questioning just about anything, but it is valid to consider whether the question is genuinely inquisitive or is it just another form of derision? I can honestly say that someone who bothers me this much just eventually gets put on ignore. If nothing they have to say has any value then engaging with them seems not only pointless but counter productive. Just by engaging you miss out on an opportunity to spend your time doing something more productive.


Of course. Asking questions is fine. That's not what he would do; he'd use it as a mechanism or a tactic. You could ignore that but he'd never answer any points, he'd just come back with these one-sentence rhetorical devices.

He's doing it right now, rather than address anything he just types out short, meaningless boo-hoos, though these are not ended with question marks so I've congratulated him on his evolution. tiny baby steps, but steps nonetheless.
Last edited by Keep The Reason on Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10418
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Patrick Star » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:00 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:It's demonstrably true that all three of your examples were in fact religious, they were just secularly religious -- worship the state, the state is the god in their models--everything else is exactly the same (orthodoxy, punish heresy, us vs. them, etc.). In fact, the methodology used cast established religion as the enemy, which again is a mechanic that religions have gained great success by utilizing: ISIS for instance condemns all religions that are not Islam as heretical and worthy of death. Communism simply made the same decree and they implemented it against "all religions" (except of course, their own). They murder their competition. If you think that's what I am advocating, please look to my signature line which I put in years ago to answer that charge. I'm for FREEDOM, not for tyranny. (Archlich understood this in his reply previous to this one).

And North Korea isn't even secularly religious-- it's just as supernaturally religious as any theocracy. Kim Jong Nam, though long dead, is still the president of the country, and is still to be deferred to as actively engaged. Christopher Hitchens rightly called the DPRK the only existing necrocracy on the planet.


Those are all valid points, but don't you agree that part of what drives Christian fears is a nation that is deaf to their concerns for free practice of religion? That was the primary point I was trying to drive home. I don't pretend to know how to alleviate these sort of fears, they have fears that are based on almost complete fiction (Sharia Law?). But this has to be taken into account if we hope to move the needle in the direction we want to move it. My ultimate hope is that we could somehow convince the voting Christian public that we are not a threat, but a promoter of real freedom. Not an easy task.

There's a bit of a gray area here in that far too many citizens don't vote at all so a minority fanatical wing often holds the win. But the reason far too many don't vote is because your eyeglass metaphor is inaccurate.

Theoretically you might be right in a mildly corrupt state, but it's a not at all controversial to acknowledge that politicians are almost completely at the beck and call of their donors, and their donors are corporations who were given citizenship status by the Citizens United ruling. By and large, politicians really don't give a damn what the voters say, because the billionaire corporate structure authors the message the voters get to hear anyway.

Certainly there are exceptions to this; Sanders proved that small donations and grass roots still have a chance, which the Clinton campaign literally murdered by messaging through their donor base, but by and large these races are financial juggernauts that pretty much remove the average individual from accessing true representative democracy. Trump won by a far greater degree of cheating, demonizing enemies (both real and perceived), floating massive propaganda (i.e., lies and true "fake news") via social and air media, gerrymandering, race-baiting, and voter suppression, but the good news is, he in fact won the "blue wall" (which Clinton stupidly ignored in her own hubris) by a mere 2 votes per precinct (about 70,000 votes across numerous states).

Two things failed here, both due to the same problem -- the electoral college. Before I continue, let me say that quite a number of things failed along the way, but there is one final firewall that failed and that's what I'm addressing here now. I could list the others but this is long enough.

First, the popular vote SHOULD hold sway now the we're no longer in the 18th century, but secondly, and more importantly, the EC did not do its job. It's JOB was to ensure a madman DIDN'T take over the presidency, which they failed to do (but were 100% legally and morally and constitutionally within their rights to do). Each state can look to their own state of course, but they can also look to the popular vote AND they can use their own judgment to stop a tyrant from taking office. They failed to do their job.

And this is the second time in our lifetimes this happened; in the 2000 race, the SCOTUS took over and --in an outright flagrant slap to the constitution, the right leaning court handed the presidency to Bush who then slept through 9/11 and got us into a war where countless tens of thousands were slaughtered, and ISIS was given sway to some into being. And to bring it back full circle, this enriched the corporation who are the very ones who support those politicians and buy them off with immoral sums of money.

These things matter, and always have and are connected, and religion plays a HUGE part in the whole engine.

All that said, according to the decision and the law, Trump has the presidency. Hopefully, his lifetime of escaping one criminal act after the next will finally catch up with him, but then we'll have Pence, who is a theocrat through and through.

That's why the voter is totally apathetic. There's no winning even when you win and that's what this whole offshoot of the thread was a bout.


No, I don't think my metaphor is inaccurate at all. You stated a number of true things, but you are not focusing on one of the most important ones. Donald J. Trump won the election DESPITE more and better corporate money from almost every other person running against him! That is simply votes and no matter how many statistics you analyze about who is or who isn't voting or why, the bottom line is that votes actually count. And when someone gets up and says something that truly motivates some group of people sufficiently large enough, those votes will have an impact. You can't argue that he created votes. It doesn't matter who he insulted. Arguing for the popular vote is completely irrelevant because that's just not the way it works, no matter how much you or I believe it should. The fact is, enough human beings believed in that scum bag and as a result, we have probably the most ridiculous person in the entire world leading our nation. Maybe Kim Jung Un or Rodrigo Duterte is worse, I'm not really sure. And btw, a pretty staggering number of those human beings who voted for him actually voted for Barack Obama. I actually know a few black people who did and can't explain it in any rational way. Trump broke every single rule of campaigning. He flipped his finger at every single conventional method during the entire two year run. And yet he still got enough votes to win. My point is this: find something better to motivate people and we can actually win.
User avatar
Patrick Star
resident
resident
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:54 pm
Affiliation: undisclosed

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby humanguy » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:24 pm

I'm on the road starting tomorrow (AAAH!), but I want to attempt to make myself as clear and simple as possible. Here I go. I want to try to understand Christians as human beings, as I do every human being, and I want to try to show Christians how to understand atheists the same way. My vision, if I may be so bold as to call it that, is to achieve a mutual understanding between us, atheist and Christian, on as many levels as we could possibly come together on, and ideally learn some things from each other, as I have here on this forum. If we could do that I think much good would come from it, but if we continue to fight like tribe against tribe (Lawrence of Arabia) I can't see anything positive resulting from that. Could anyone?

I know I've just set myself up for an atheist firing squad, but that's how I think and I stand firm on it.
Last edited by humanguy on Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Most of us, just about all of us, have the capacity to be rock and rolled by a feeling of pure ecstatic raw joy. You do, don't you? We should respect each other for that.
User avatar
humanguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: Lumpen Post-Industrial District
Affiliation: Human

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Clare » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:39 pm

Patrick Star wrote:Actually I have seen you defend some Christians (next paragraph), but I wouldn't hold that against you. I will defend whomever I believe is correct in a disagreement and sometimes that person is a Christian. I agree with your distaste of bullying. It is despicable in all its forms and there's no need for it. However, there have been occasions where I've seen a person (Christian or atheist) who is behaving just badly enough that they are clearly just below the threshold for civil conversation, and that often tips another into outright hostility. Maybe that's not a real justification but it certainly is a persuasive argument. I believe the member Clare is one of these who has done this and I do not engage in any conversation with her any longer because of it.


Let's see if you can give a sufficient example...
Clare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3213
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:23 pm
Affiliation: Catholic

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Rian » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:00 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:In order to minimize the emotional play-outs, he agreed to a "Civility Lounge" where everyone has to be polite to one another (Rian moderates it).

Wow, is THAT a misrepresentation!

From the very beginning (and BTW, marcuspnw, an atheist, is the one that actually got it going) it has been jointly moderated by an atheist moderator and a Christian moderator who confer on every decision. The first two mods were marcuspnw and myself. He had some difficulties happen in life and had to leave suddenly, so IIRC it was Spongebob who was the next atheist moderator. He had to leave (I'll leave it to him whether or not he wants to give specifics about why, but it had nothing to do with the Christians) and then tirtlegrrl was the next atheist mod. She and her husband moved to England for a job and she eventually stopped coming here and it pretty much died down for a while until marcuspnw came back and agreed to be the atheist mod again.

There was only one short period of time when there was no atheist mod, and during that time, I intentionally didn't get the CL going again because the whole point was to have a mod from each POV.

So stop with the lie that I moderate it. It is jointly moderated by an atheist mod and a Christian mod.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Current State Of The Forum

Postby Keep The Reason » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:11 pm

Rian wrote:
Keep The Reason wrote:In order to minimize the emotional play-outs, he agreed to a "Civility Lounge" where everyone has to be polite to one another (Rian moderates it).

Wow, is THAT a misrepresentation!

From the very beginning (and BTW, marcuspnw, an atheist, is the one that actually got it going) it has been jointly moderated by an atheist moderator and a Christian moderator who confer on every decision. The first two mods were marcuspnw and myself. He had some difficulties happen in life and had to leave suddenly, so IIRC it was Spongebob who was the next atheist moderator. He had to leave (I'll leave it to him whether or not he wants to give specifics about why, but it had nothing to do with the Christians) and then tirtlegrrl was the next atheist mod. She and her husband moved to England for a job and she eventually stopped coming here and it pretty much died down for a while until marcuspnw came back and agreed to be the atheist mod again.

There was only one short period of time when there was no atheist mod, and during that time, I intentionally didn't get the CL going again because the whole point was to have a mod from each POV.

So stop with the lie that I moderate it. It is jointly moderated by an atheist mod and a Christian mod.


Oh for crying out loud. Marcus was gone for a long time, and tirtlegrrl has disappeared as well. I didn't mean you ONLY moderate it, I meant you're the only one I knew was active who did it. Yes, marcus is back but only JUST back-- like a few days as best as I can tell, and I didn't even recall he was the original moderator.

You know, a mild, minor moment of forgetting something isn't by definition a "WOW, is THAT a misrepresentation!"

What, are you looking for something to get in high dudgeon about? Because my replay of it with minor detail forgetting isn't the crime of the century. Jesus. Get a grip.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10418
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests