Prejudice or Perspicacity? Racist or Realist?

[Martin]

Whew..... I thought my last remark would have got me booted for sure so I'm resting easier now.

 

Yes' date=' I would defend my German friend from being called a Nazi. I would also defend my black, yellow, green and blue friends along with my Israeli friends and my gay and lesbian friends. I have done that in other threads here because I'm not a racist. I don't have any Muslim friends because the only ones I have seen were the two girls in school that didn't talk to anyone. I tried my best to get them involved with my group ob nice people but no dice. All they wanted to talk about was their faith. They even ended up boycotting the prom and writing a letter to the principal. I spoke of all that in another thread.

 

I would like to have some cool Muslim friends and if I did I would defend them like my other friends. But.... not their religion. I will never defend that. Before you comment, just remember I don't defend the Christian bible either and I'm very much a Christian like girl. If you look at some of my very early posts you would see where I had big issues with it and still do.

 

There should not be a policy on SFN to prevent discussing any religion that oppresses its women and children and allows killing in the name of a fictional character. At one time it was Christianity, in my time.... its Islam.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

I am proud to be on the same board with you and think you contribute a lot.

 

I don't confuse a message board like SFN with the real world and I think it has a valuable "safety-valve" and "petri-dish" function.

 

You have courage and you raise difficult issues and it is valuable to me to hear you because you are DIFFERENT from me and I want to understand how you feel and think. especially where you differ most from me.

 

and my hope for the world rest a lot on the expectation that we can understand each other well enough to make careful distinctions and creative resolutions to conflict.

 

BTW I am a PACIFIST regarding religious warfare. I think religious wars are the worst kind and don't accomplish their aims, which is why they tend to be the most destructive and last the longest.

 

So when I hear your war talk, Bee, that is where I differ most.

 

In the coldwar years we lived with a threat to our lives. We had nuclear missiles pointed at us. I got used to that.

 

I felt the Soviet Union was a threat not just to our lives but to the European equivalent of the BILL OF RIGHTS. The Soviets threatened to overrun Western Europe and make a police state the way they did Eastern Europe.

(illegal wiretaps, paid ideological informers, statecontrol newspapers, thought-police at the university...)

 

I think the lesson was---don't get hysterical when your life is threatened. If the other guy is merely threatening your life then at least he isn't threatening to change your rule of law, or constitution, or free speech protection, or police spying wiretap rules, or basic Western Civ values, your independent judiciary, separation of church from state etc.

 

Living under threat that some people get killed by a bomb---that is like NORMAL for people who lived in 1950-1970. what is more serious, what you have to be prepared to fight for, is basic rights of the individual, Western Civ, values built into the constitution. Or, as it came down to in the 1950-1970 period----the ability of the Democracies of Western Europe to resist being absorbed by the Soviet block and become like Eastern Europe police state countries.

 

Maybe this is wise/foolish, right/wrong----doesnt matter now. I just want you to know where I'm coming from.

 

when you say "terrorist might kill us! let's kill them first!" this doesnt scare me or get me excited. So a terrorist might kill some of us.

WHAT IS THE REAL THREAT? What is this situation that we dont seem able to resolve, what is it threatening to do to our society?

What is this threatening to do to Islamic societies?

What are the threats to the global community?

 

I think we should analyze what is at stake, especially for us (because that is our special responsibility) but also for other traditionally liberal democracies---with consitutional governments---and other countries in general.

===============

 

Well that is my point of view.

I think militancy is a bad drug that societies get addicted to, and one's foreign policy should be directed to protecting ones basic ideals and values but not making more enemies than you need to and not MILITANTIZING either your own society or the other guy's.

 

I also think that it is helpful to have a critical discussion of Islam. that is separate from the people. I often like Moslems---I see the vast majority of them as clean, honorable, fair-dealing, and caring for the poor, and having cohesive families. Well yeah we all have our stereotypes! That is mine. I tend to like lapsed Roman Catholics a whole lot too:-) Is there anybody here who doesnt have stereotypes in their head?

 

On the other hand come to think, there were two Egyptian Cal students that we sublet our rent-controlled apartment to one year and they were horrible. dishonest. I still hate them. Maybe they were Egyptian Coptic Christians---I have no idea if they had any religion at all. It would be flaming to say what I think of those two guys.

 

Dr. F**** the Archeologist, an Egyptian with a German wife, was absolutely charming though. It is never simple.

 

And there is always weirdness in relation between the sexes, humans have never figured that out---this purdah burkhah business is aweful. And your two highschool fellow student Moslem girls, that was certainly stupid of them to write a letter to the principal objecting to the prom! The smart thing for them would be to make friends with you and show you their neat attractive side---winning friends would do their faith credit.

 

So you can get INDIVIDUAL CASES of good and bad and wise and stupid people who are Moslems.

========================

 

HERE IS MY MAIN MESSAGE, BEE: I think if you want to you should analyze and criticize the Islam Religion. I think we need to be free to criticize religions and philosophies.

 

I support your right, but it is more than that---it is INTERESTING. I urge you to try to figure out and to express rationally what are the things that make some religions better than others.

 

In Western Civ there is a key distinction between VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS and involuntary ones. Race is involuntary.

 

when Hitler went after the Jews it did not do a Jew any good to say "look, I renounced Judaism and became Episcopalian!" He still went to the camp.

 

That is ugly, you don't criticize people for involuntary identities.

 

But I think you ought to be able to criticize JUDAISM.

 

I don't particularly want to criticize Judaism, but I ought to be able to do that (actually it is a pretty neat religion with some fascinating traditions, but it has its flaws too). One should be able to compare and evaluate.

 

I or anybody should be able to criticism Judaism without being slandered as an "Anti-semite"

 

You, if you dont like Islam Religion, should be able to describe what you dont like without be labeled as an "Anti-Arab"

 

Criticizing a religion is different from attacking a group of people.

The people who go to discussion boards should be prepared to hear criticism (even flippancy!) of whatever they hold dear. If they hold their religion dear then they should be prepared to see written criticism of it.

To TOLERATE THE EXISTENCE of written messages that are critical of it.

 

I think that's basic. Abstract entities can be criticized. You dont have to be kind to them.

 

Groups of people one should try to be kind to. And get along with. But they should be prepared to tolerate critical examination of their cherished ideas.

==============

well I tried to kind of sketch my position.

 

Bee, I really think there are more creative ways of resolving the MidEast troubles, we just havent found them. Religious war is basically unproductive in this situation. If you are going to bomb or invade Iran and North Korea because of their nuclear program then you want to be FRIENDS with all the Moslems you can. You dont want to make it a religious war and get a lot of extra enemies. Limited aims. Focus. Tradeoffs.

So I don't like your talking about a religious-based war. Taking on the whole Moslem world---Indonesia too I guess. It doesnt have achievable goals.

 

But I don't think it is harmful for you to talk about religious war. It clarifies everybody's opposition to it so it is a learning thing. And besides part of the discussion board idea is to be able to talk about the normally untalkable:-)

 

hope this made a little sense.

 

Salaam (peace),

 

Martin abu dhabu ben Martin, your Arab sympathizer friend:D

[Bettina]

It depends on the clarity of your sight.

 

The above includes an inplied presumption that islam is a religeon that intereres with basic human rights' date=' the right to exist etc, and the problem (imo) is that i've never seen this presumption fully and validly supported.

 

Im all for free speach, and the right to discuss matters, even if they may offend, but, again imo, a line has to be drawn as to when to tell someone to support their claims or shut up, reguardless of what they're saying.

 

I have no problem with people expressing derogatory views about christianity, islam, blacks, whites, men, women, gays, whatever (some of those groups i belong to), as long as theyre validly backed up.

 

if they're not... then that's fine too. no one is immune to making mistakes, and mistaking an invalid conclusion for a valid one is a forgivable error.

 

However, when someone has been repeatedly shown that their views are flawed, yet, rather than altering them or demonstrating them not to be flawed, they just repeat them, it starts to get annoying, reguardless of what the oppinion is; and if said oppinion is derogatory to a group, then we're obviously in the area of unsuported predjudice, i.e. racist shit-headery.

 

In principle, the methodology of arriving at a conclusion is more relevent to wether something is unfairly predjudiced than the truthfulness of the conclusion. If i say that 'all nazis are nasty because they molest childeren' even tho i have had it demonstrated to me that most nazis do not molest childeren, then i'm being unfairly predjudiced. Yes, coincidentally, nazis are nasty, but thats not the point. if i'm sticking with flawed logic to support a prejudiced oppinion that i have descided to have, then that is unfairly prejudiced by definition.[/quote']

 

I have shown that an entire country, run by Islamic law, interfered with the basic human rights of women and children for years until it was liberated in 2001. I applaud my country for disolving one of the most oppressed societys in history. Maybe you should look at these links and decide whether more support for my claims are needed and if those are no good I have dozens more.

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/uimonen/gallery1.html

 

http://www.blacklooks.org/2006/06/somalia_sharia_and_rights_of_women.html

 

Bee

[Jim]

ParanoiA: You may provide all of those quotes' date=' but you missed one big one. As lucaspa said in another thread:

 

 

Context rawks.[/quote']

 

 

Despots are never the aggressors. That limitation is meaningless.

[Dak]

I have shown that an entire country' date=' run by Islamic law, interfered with the basic human rights of women and children for years until it was liberated in 2001. I applaud my country for disolving one of the most oppressed societys in history. Maybe you should look at these links and decide whether more support for my claims are needed and if those are no good I have dozens more.

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/uimonen/gallery1.html

 

http://www.blacklooks.org/2006/06/somalia_sharia_and_rights_of_women.html

 

Bee[/quote']

 

But, what is the problem?

 

Is it islam? is it fundamentalist islam? is it a majority or minority of islam? is it the society? is it religeon? is it islam (or any religeon) that is allowed too big a say in the ruling of a country? a combination of the above? something else?

 

Christianity was pretty comparable to what you describe in ye olde days, and now it's not. this makes me think that christianity either wasn't, or wasn't fully, to blame for the mass of atrocitys that were commited in its name, but rather there must have been something else that (possibly combined with christianity) caused the atrocities, the suppression, etc. same with islam.

 

in short: i dont deny that a problem exists, but i dont see any reason to specifically blame it on islam as opposed to the society, or a minority of religeous extremists.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Ask the women dragged out of her house and stoned to death if it was ok because their "culture" allowed it. Ask the women who gets beaten because she accidentally showed her face to another man. That isn't culture, its a violation of basic human rights and as a human being, I refuse to accept it.

http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Muslim_societies#Domestic_violence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_behaviour_in_Islam#Wife_beating

 

Please read and educate yourself on what their law really says. Get all sides of an issue before you go and jump to conclusions.

 

Islam interferes with those rights and I've shown that over and over again by pre war Afghanistan. I'm not misunderstanding any of it.

Not technically Islam, but their distorted and radical misinterpretation of it.

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA: You may provide all of those quotes' date=' but you missed one big one. As lucaspa said in another thread:

 

Now, the quotes are somewhat selective and out of context. For instance, the first site says:

 

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) " 2:191-2

 

But if we go back a couple of verses, we get the context:

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. "

 

Context rawks.

 

No, what you get is a contradictory statement at best. It doesn't say "Kill attackers" or "Kill aggressors" - it says to kill disbelievers. The context you're claiming is just another statement; one isn't in reference of the other.

[john5746]

There should not be a policy on SFN to prevent discussing any religion that oppresses its women and children and allows killing in the name of a fictional character. At one time it was Christianity' date=' in my time.... its Islam.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

And Christianity still has those problems and may in the future. I see no reason to separate Islam from Christianity and Judaism in speaking of intolerance. You might as well say Arabic needs to be eliminated because it causes so much destruction, etc.

 

The Islamic society has some serious problems, but I am not ready to condemn the religion any more than the other Abrahamic religions. I think it would be better if they keep their religion in a democratic, secular society than an atheistic dictatorship, IMO. Of course, it would be best to finally catch up with the Greeks and resign our religion to mythology!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, what you get is a contradictory statement at best. It doesn't say "Kill attackers" or "Kill aggressors" - it says to kill disbelievers. The context you're claiming is just another statement; one isn't in reference of the other.

The phrase "but begin not hostilities" is pretty important.

[Pangloss]

This thread needs some focus. I'm not sure you guys have even defined exatly what this debate is about, much less what positions you hold relative to one another. Just to give one example, we've gone from discussing a rule of "no racist remarks" to creating a perception that no discussion that involves general criticism of religion will be tolerated, but that's not our policy -- we ALLOW that. Misunderstandings and miscommunications are flying around this thread like popcorn on the Fourth of July, and the heat of debate is completely obscuring the issues.

 

For starters, I think the discussion of board policy should be shelved from this thread and relocated to either the General or the Suggestions/Feedback forums. Hopefully along with some suggestions for improvement instead of just criticism.

 

Then I'd like to see people stake out their positions more clearly, and make sure they are addressed separately from other subjects. I'd also like to see more listening and less spinning.

[Skye]

And I haven't even mentioned the dead silence among its believers in the face of terror attacks. No outrage. Nothing. Go ahead, ask them if any suicide bomber will burn in hell or be punished according to their religion.

Plenty of Islamic groups condemn terrorism, such as this by a Islamic conference of foreign ministers.

 

http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/11_extraordinary/declaration.htm

[ParanoiA]

The phrase "but begin not hostilities" is pretty important.

 

I knew that was coming. So you ignore the multiple references to killing disbelievers and hold on to the one statement that says to not begin hostilities.

 

Hypocrisy is a common ingredient in religion. It doesn't surprise me and it doesn't get Islam off the hook.

 

I agree with John5746, it would be much better to "catch up" with the greeks and understand this is all just make believe for impressionable humans with no scientific presence of mind. Not that I blame them, but we should be smarter than that now.

[ParanoiA]

This thread needs some focus. I'm not sure you guys have even defined exatly what this debate is about' date=' much less what positions you hold relative to one another. Just to give one example, we've gone from discussing a rule of "no racist remarks" to creating a perception that no discussion that involves general criticism of religion will be tolerated, but that's not our policy -- we ALLOW that. Misunderstandings and miscommunications are flying around this thread like popcorn on the Fourth of July, and the heat of debate is completely obscuring the issues.

 

For starters, I think the discussion of board policy should be shelved from this thread and relocated to either the General or the Suggestions/Feedback forums. Hopefully along with some suggestions for improvement instead of just criticism.

 

Then I'd like to see people stake out their positions more clearly, and make sure they are addressed separately from other subjects. I'd also like to see more listening and less spinning.[/quote']

 

I think this thread has changed position but it's not spin and miscommunication.

 

It started about censorship in relation to condemning a religion. In arguing that out, we have referenced Islam and our issues with it - which is what led to the censorship debate in the first place.

 

And that is where it has stayed. We continue to debate about whether or not Islam is racist or bad. I don't see any problems with that, we're doing just fine, other than it has changed direction from the original topic.

[Pangloss]

Relax, nobody's shutting anything down. If anything I'm supporting your position, so stop being so paranoid(a). ;-)

 

This thread is absolutely NOT about whether Islam is racist or bad. It's about what we're going to allow people to discuss or not discuss. That's why we've moved it to the Suggestions forum. I have *great* concern about what our policies are and how those policies are perceived by the membership community, I'm *not happy* with the way things have been going lately, and I think my concerns are shared by not only the membership but also the leadership of the board. These issues need to be hashed out, and I'm glad that we're doing so. By all means, PLEASE continue.

[Severian]

I thiink most of the problem is simply bad communication. Sometimes people make generalizations about groups of people and while these generalizations may be true for some part of the group, or even a majority, they are not true in general. This leads to offense, particularly is a member is part of the group but does not fit the generalization.

 

Often it is just down to bad wording. For example:

 

Hypocrisy is a common ingredient in religion.

 

I know what he is trying to say: that hypocracy is common in the practice of religion. But that is not how it reads' date=' and is not how I first read it. Another possible interpretation would be that it is saying that all religions contain one ingredient in common - hypocracy. For anyone religious, this is offensive.

 

On the other hand, often the poster will just set out to insult with comments like:

 

this is all just make believe for impressionable humans with no scientific presence of mind.

[Phi for All]

I don't think anyone on this board, especially a non-Muslim, is going to be able to convince anyone that all of Islam is evil and should be treated like Nazism or the KKK. I prefer to let Islam show us that or not.

 

So let's take a look at what is still left to decide. I don't like hiding behind the argument that Islam is an ideology and when condemning it you're not condemning those who practice it. Isn't that inherent in beliefs? If I say that Judaism is the devil's religion and it's spread must be stopped, aren't I also associating it's followers with evil and condemning those who are spreading it?

 

We love a good debate here but we've got to stop using crap sterotypes and fallacious arguments within them. When someone continues to use fallacies or racist statements to make their point known we have warnings that can be issued. These are the kinds of remarks that can derail a good debate and waste the time of people who are sincerely interested in learning with an open mind.

[ParanoiA]

I thiink most of the problem is simply bad communication. Sometimes people make generalizations about groups of people and while these generalizations may be true for some part of the group' date=' or even a majority, they are not true in general. This leads to offense, particularly is a member is part of the group but does not fit the generalization.

 

Often it is just down to bad wording. For example:

 

Hypocrisy is a common ingredient in religion.

 

I know what he is trying to say: that hypocracy is common in the practice of religion. But that is not how it reads, and is not how I first read it. Another possible interpretation would be that it is saying that all religions contain one ingredient in common - hypocracy. For anyone religious, this is offensive.

 

You could interpret it multiple ways when you take once sentence out of the context of the post. When you add it back, you see the sentence was used in reply to written "text" that came out of the bible. Hypocrisy is common in the "text" of religions - all of them. If you're offended, I'm sorry but that doesn't make the statement incorrect or in need of censorship.

 

It's becoming more and more obvious that America is buried in political correctness and beaurocracy. No one takes responsibility for their own reactions. It's always "somebody else's fault" , or "somebody insulted me". I wish we could get over ourselves and recognize that genuine perspective can be insulting, but it isn't wrong.

 

 

On the other hand' date=' often the poster will just set out to insult with comments like:

 

this is all just make believe for impressionable humans with no scientific presence of mind.

 

I did not set out to insult anyone with that statement. That is what I sincerely believe. I also said I don't blame them and that we should be smarter than that now.

 

I can understand if you take issue with my arguments. But try to at least be genuine in your replies. You're leaving out half of my statements to make yours true. That's not right. I don't do that to anyone else here and I also don't have a vendetta against someone simply because I don't agree with them.

[ParanoiA]

I don't think anyone on this board' date=' especially a non-Muslim, is going to be able to convince anyone that all of Islam is evil and should be treated like Nazism or the KKK. I prefer to let Islam show us that or not.

 

So let's take a look at what is still left to decide. I don't like hiding behind the argument that Islam is an ideology and when condemning it you're not condemning those who practice it. Isn't that inherent in beliefs? If I say that Judaism is the devil's religion and it's spread must be stopped, aren't I also associating it's followers with evil and condemning those who are spreading it?

 

We love a good debate here but we've got to stop using crap sterotypes and fallacious arguments within them. When someone continues to use fallacies or racist statements to make their point known we have warnings that can be issued. These are the kinds of remarks that can derail a good debate and waste the time of people who are sincerely interested in learning with an open mind.[/quote']

 

But we're not using crap stereotypes. We're explaining why we think this way about Islam. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. We're just saying you shouldn't bar certain kinds of speech, just because it condemns an entire religion - as long as it is an intellectual argument and not cheap obscenities.

 

I realize that's a thin line and it's subjective. I don't expect everyone to agree with every statement as to whether or not it's a position with value, or just racist propaganda. But to censor it altogether is the wrong approach.

 

For argument's sake, let's say the KKK wasn't "presumed" to be a prejudice entity, so forum rules protect it from insult and blanket condemnation. Like Islam, it has followers and it is rooted in a selective and perverted form of religion.

 

If we disallow speech that condemns that ideology or religion, we would never be able to "presume" it's prejudice. We could all still be giving respect to a disrespectful practice.

 

We have to enable the process of debating religious or ideological condemnation if we're to recognize the bad ones.

 

Again, I'm not saying Islam is evil. I have made a case that it's racist in it's fundamental level, but I'm not prepared to condemn it to the devil.

[Mokele]

I think one factor that's fundamentally missing is the tone of the discussion.

 

For istance, IMM and I have had several interesting and enlightening debates about veganism and related subjects, and clearly don't agree, yet we both discussed each other's underlying reasoning civilly and without offense.

 

The difference is the tone. If I said "Veganism is deeply flawed and silly, and is just new-age fluff", she'd have every right to get pissed, since even though I'm free to criticise the philosophical stance, I'm not really doing so in a respectful, academic, productive way. In contrast, if I say "I strongly disagree with the reasoning by which veganism dismisses the philosophical schools which I feel lend strong support to animal testing", I'm still criticising the philosophical stance of veganism, but I'm not being flatly offensive and, more importantly, I'm doing so in a reasonable way that furthers dicussion.

 

Now, let's try with Islam. Comape this:

"Islam is an inherently violent and oppressive religion."

to this:

"Many Islamic traditions have stances on women's rights and violence which give me cause for concern, and the following Quaran passages illustrate my point."

 

Both are critical of Islam as a religion. But one is offensive, trite, and contributes practically nothing to a discussion, while the other is a well-reasoned, level-headed approach to a sensitive topic that puts it in terms that will lead to productive and interesting discussion about whether and to what degree these issues are a genuine part of the Islamic faith and/or particular sects.

 

Seriously, tone makes a *HUGE* difference. If you've got a point worth making, it's worth taking the time to express yourself in a tone that won't result in, well, crap like this.

 

Mokele

[Jim]

I think one factor that's fundamentally missing is the tone of the discussion.

 

For istance' date=' IMM and I have had several interesting and enlightening debates about veganism and related subjects, and clearly don't agree, yet we both discussed each other's underlying reasoning civilly and without offense.

 

The difference is the tone. If I said "Veganism is deeply flawed and silly, and is just new-age fluff", she'd have every right to get pissed, since even though I'm free to criticise the philosophical stance, I'm not really doing so in a respectful, academic, productive way. In contrast, if I say "I strongly disagree with the reasoning by which veganism dismisses the philosophical schools which I feel lend strong support to animal testing", I'm still criticising the philosophical stance of veganism, but I'm not being flatly offensive and, more importantly, I'm doing so in a reasonable way that furthers dicussion.

 

Now, let's try with Islam. Comape this:

"Islam is an inherently violent and oppressive religion."

to this:

"Many Islamic traditions have stances on women's rights and violence which give me cause for concern, and the following Quaran passages illustrate my point."

 

Both are critical of Islam as a religion. But one is offensive, trite, and contributes practically nothing to a discussion, while the other is a well-reasoned, level-headed approach to a sensitive topic that puts it in terms that will lead to productive and interesting discussion about whether and to what degree these issues are a genuine part of the Islamic faith and/or particular sects.

 

Seriously, tone makes a *HUGE* difference. If you've got a point worth making, it's worth taking the time to express yourself in a tone that won't result in, well, crap like this.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

You make a fair point, Mokele.

[Phi for All]

Seriously, tone makes a *HUGE* difference. If you've got a point worth making, it's worth taking the time to express yourself in a tone that won't result in, well, crap like this.

Thanks, Mokele. I think this really should be the ideal we keep uppermost in our minds. I don't want hasty generalizations and other fallacious arguments to drag down a good debate and I saw that starting to happen. I appreciate all the input from the people who took the time.

 

Let's keep our tone respectful and our arguments reasonable and I think we'll have fewer complaints..

[ParanoiA]

I completely agree with Mokele. And I'm probably guilty of using the wrong tone. I will try to keep that in mind in future posts. You can't pursuade someone by insulting them. And even if I have, what I believe, a good reason to condemn a religion, I should at least be respectful enough to use tact to get my point across. Otherwise, they're just going to lash out and never absorb the substance.

[Phi for All]

I completely agree with Mokele. And I'm probably guilty of using the wrong tone. I will try to keep that in mind in future posts. You can't pursuade someone by insulting them. And even if I have, what I believe, a good reason to condemn a religion, I should at least be respectful enough to use tact to get my point across. Otherwise, they're just going to lash out and never absorb the substance.

Well said, ParanoiA. Those last two sentences should be on the official SFN T-shirt.

[Dave]

The moderators are in a very difficult position here. On one hand, if we decide to close a thread or remove particular posts, then we may get accused of restricting people's freedom of speech. On the other hand, if we do nothing then there's all kinds of post reporting and PMs flying around. There's absolutely no way that we're going to do any kind of moderating without stepping on toes and, possibly, annoying quite a few people. The problem is that, in order to maintain the post quality and general niceness of the boards, it needs to be done.

 

At the end of the day, it's going to be up to the moderators. They're in positions of power and I trust them to do a good job of evaluating the situation with a level head. Because this entire thing is such a massive grey area, we're never going to make everybody happy.

 

I can't just wave a magic wand and produce a definitive list of things you can't say or groups you can't offend. We have to use common sense and objectivity to evaluate these things. Granted, that doesn't happen sometimes. Without meaning to offend, I think that exactly the same thing applies to you guys; Mokele's post sums the situation up exactly. By taking a little time and effort to make your post civil, the mods are going to be less likely to remove it and/or give you warning points and everyone can get on a lot happier.

 

This is a big issue for SFN. I think it's really starting to hurt the boards. I also think it's not something that we should spend hours and hours debating over. If we all just use our common sense, take everything with a pinch of salt and make liberal use of the preview button, this issue wouldn't be an issue at all.

 

The future of the P&R forum is still in flux at the moment. It is likely that we're going to come to some kind of arrangement in the next couple of weeks. The thread posted there raised some interesting questions, but we'll have to see what happens as I believe the science content is really getting affected, and this board was set up to discuss science - not religion.

 

So, my advice: keep a level head. That's about all I can realistically say on the issue.

[ParanoiA]

Honestly, I think I'll just go. This is not what I signed on for. I fled other forums because of all the immaturity present in the posts. An intelligent mind was difficult to find. I came here because I thought I could escape the silly childish crap that goes along with most forums.

 

Instead, some of your most popular posters have turned out to be intelligent but at a price. It seems smart people think they have a right to be rude to folks who have differing opinions or maybe it's just insecurity issues. I don't see the sense in getting all worked up in a debate just because somebody doesn't agree with you.

 

 

Lastly, Dak, I understand your point. But that "text" I was referring to was a dictionary worthy example of hypocrisy. So I don't think it's fair to say it was an unsupported assertion on my part. I can only provide the support so much...eventually someone has to read it.

[Dak]

Lastly, Dak, I understand your point. But that "text" I was referring to was a dictionary worthy example of hypocrisy. So I don't think it's fair to say it was an unsupported assertion on my part. I can only provide the support so much...eventually someone has to read it.

 

well, my point still stands [edit]has been deleted[/edit], even if it isn't accurate in this instance.

 

BUT, even tho you had one example that could be argued as hypocritical (or, as cap'n was arguing, mitigating -- his point, afaict, was that quoting 'kill the disbelievers' is misrepresentative, as the actual quote should be nearer 'dont start violence, but if someone else starts on you, kill the disbeliever', which is significantly different) your assertation that 'hypocracy is inherent to religon' is unsupported; the one possible weakly supporting argument is not, imo, enough to uphold your claim.

 

having said that, the first half of your conversation (just before the part i quoted) was, imo, an example of how to do this kind of argument properly. iirc, you made a point, phi asked for support, you provided it, cap'n and phi both made suported counter-points, you made an imo unsuported counter-counter point...

 

then the problems started. rather than arguing that your counter-counter point was unsupported and requesting that you adequately support it (or providing a supported rebuttal of your counter-counter point), severian stepped in with an unsuported assertation of his own, to which you responded by rehashing your unsuported claim, etc etc.

 

again, i'm not having a go at anyone involved in the conversation, just trying to disect it and point out what i think the cause of the problem being discussed is.

 

i think if everyone tries to remain civil as mokely pointed out, and tries to avoid the situation whereby the convorsation is reduced to merely using unsuported assertation after unsuported assertation, there should be very few problems.

 

Let's keep our tone respectful and our arguments reasonable and I think we'll have fewer complaints..