Tridimity

Thanks

Hi, I'm trying to access my blog via the Blogs tab and receive this message: There appears to be an error with the database. If you are seeing this page, it means there was a problem communicating with our database. Sometimes this error is temporary and will go away when you refresh the page. Sometimes the error will need to be fixed by an administrator before the site will become accessible again. You can try to refresh the page by clicking here Please could anyone help with this? Tri

Obviously but there has been zero opportunity to make those changes - instead any who introduce a controversial topic are silenced outright.

I restarted the topic under the thread title 'Neutral Comment' and that too was locked - with 2 Mod notes for good measure!

But unlike speeding, there could have been the potential here to very quickly change the thread so as to promote productive discussion, but that chance was denied by the Mods. I don't care for your opinion and am not accountable to you. You cannot provide a solution if the moderator decides to discard your piece wholesale - it would be the equivalent of flatly rejecting a manuscript rather than suggesting points for improvement.

I would have been receptive to criticism if it had been justified but instead it was handed from on high with zero opportunity for discussion. If the Mods had suggested the necessary modifications e.g. change to thread title, more commentary, I would have implemented those changes - that would have been constructive criticism. I haven't seen a single Mod take into consideration any of the reasons as to why I posted in that manner, and frankly I don't look forward to coming here again, and clearly my contributions here will not be missed. Surprising that Despedida

Ophi, The religious leaders whom you have encountered certainly sound worthy only of admiration. Please could you clarify, what would be the advice of your local minister to a child or young person who is attempting to make some difficult decision in life?

Some people find that it's better to live by oneself than to live with the wrong person; some people would feel lonelier by sharing their life with a partner who does not understand their true nature, than they would by living with their self.

"Mudslinging" and "preachiness" - not very helpful in trying to understand the meanings - replacing one verb or noun with a synonym. The Mod actions certainly prevented any 'flame wars' or 'soapboxing' but also prevented any productive discussion of what I think is an important topic. New method for cancer prophylaxis: kill every cell in your body before it has a chance to go awry "If you find yourself on the end of a mod note, it's fair to say you made a mistake somewhere." In order for that statement to have any validity, you must have first given some independent thought as to the rationale of Mod actions following members' posts. In order to extrapolate to my particular situation, you would need to extend the same thought processes to this particular case, and make a judgment. You have already said that you "don't know" so the extrapolation is invalid. I think you actually agree with the Mod action but are too politically correct to say so. Say so! I really don't care Mod notes make the poster, who may have contributed a substantial number of quality posts, look like an idiot by immediately cutting them off and censoring their opinions not only on the topic at hand but also on their treatment at the hands of Mods who are, let's face it, probably younger and less qualified who nevertheless feel it is their noble duty to silence anything that might rock the boat. So the poster is disrespected and shamed, the Mod leaves on high horse, and there is no opportunity for the poster to justify their actions. The title was strong - I have already mentioned that the argument against the generalisation of the thread title would have been well received within the thread itself, but alas any communication was prevented before any such discussion could take place. Not all religions recommend physical violence as a means of modifying children's behaviour, but in this particular case the suggestions were inextricably linked to Christianity, and symptomatic of a trend that pervades some religions especially Christianity and Islam - to promote the absolute submission of women and children to authority figures: the family patriarch, religious authorities and God. The trend of promoting absolute submission of subjects - especially women and children - to the will of male family members, religious authorities and God stands. This does not occur with all religions (e.g. it does not feature in Buddhism or Humanism, both religions I adore) but does pervade some of the major world religions, especially Christianity and Islam. If you can prove this not to be the case I will be receptive to withdrawing my entire argument.

There are certain interesting linguistic terms here, 'flame wars' is presumably any heated discussion, silly me I thought that was the point of a discussion Forum. Any unwanted emotional response is labelled 'soapboxing'. So what if the children involved in these abuse cases were to come out and emotionally appeal against their abusers, would that also be soapboxing? Perhaps if they set their case in context with a few lines of text it will be worthy of an audience? I appreciate that not all religious people use physical violence as a means of punishing their children, and it would have been quite an effective argument against my thread title, if posed within the thread. However, the source of the advised punishment methods in this particular case was inextricably linked to the religious affiliations of the parents and is, I think, reflected more broadly in the nature of religions which demand that believers become subservient to the will of God and religious authority figures. My hope was that a member would comment further on what I had posted and I would subsequently follow up - I never planned to spawn a 'hit-and-run' thread.

Anybody know what these 'appropriate' channels are? Why is it okay to publically criticise a member's contribution but not for a member to publically criticise a Mod's contribution? They should either both be public or both be private.

TAR, While I agree with most of your points above, I would add that, even if every other single human being on the planet with whom one could make a reference to morality, were to deem it morally acceptable to harm oneself or others - this does not mean to say that to do so is justified. The world and its inhabitants may go a long way in shaping our conception of right and wrong, but ultimately as free-thinking individuals we must choose where to draw the line and make our moral distinction from the crowd. This, perhaps, is why I venerate Socrates and his courage in questioning received wisdom. Tri

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25268343 I found this article interesting and thought that others might. It features religious practices which include physical punishment so as to subjugate children completely to the will of parents. The purpose of the thread is of course for discussion so please comment if you wish to. It may be impossible for members outside the UK to access the website but I have been reliably informed that to include the text is not acceptable - so you will just have to guess what is in the article. Good luck! I have feelings about this, being human, but I will not mention them because to do so would be SOAPBOXING.

TAR, People are capable of change, so even those who display the negative characteristics aforementioned, may transform into tolerant, considerate, thinking individuals. However, the fact that a person displaying those negative characteristics, deems me to be negative in some way, e.g. if they say 'you're not a nice person', then I'm going to take that with a pinch of salt and interpret it in the context of the source origin (a closed-minded, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic, conceited bully). Their comment is then contrary to reason because, if my espoused values are opposite to theirs, I can be assured that I am infact a nice person. This attitude can be dangerous though: if you do not accept that morality consists of not harming others or oneself, then the pack may lead you (well, not you personally, because you are better than all of this) but may lead a person astray to commit atrocities. This is why independent thinking and freedom of conscience is essential. I believe that people are fundamentally good and that it is circumstances that lead them to commit immoral acts - if a person were left on their own, to listen to their inner voice or conscience, without influence from circumstances or events (e.g. poverty and lack of social mobility; withholding of love by parents and others; physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse by others) then they would immediately recognise the correctness of harming neither oneself or others. Tri