Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 263 of 424 (567638)
07-02-2010 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by crashfrog
07-01-2010 5:10 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
If he really wanted to discuss how moral relativists could find some thing immoral and not others, there are an infinite number of examples he could have used, none of which would have had anything to do with gay sex.
True, but NJ's whole argument was about applying moral relativism *TO* gay sex. And there is nothing wrong with posing this argument - the debate is then on to the validity of the argument. This argument is certainly going to upset/insult/offend some people, whether they are gay or not. But that cannot take away from the validity of the argument.
why did he continue to use it? Well, he's told us - because he was a homophobic jerk-off back then.
No, that is what he was. But that is not why he chased the argument so vociferously. It was because he was an evangelical Christian. His default position was that heterosexuality was the God-given norm and homosexuality was a God-damned perversion (along with incest, bestiality, etc). This is what evangelical Christians typically believe. So all the questions relating to why he was picking on homosexuality for his comparisons and not heterosexuality were stupidly naive.
Now, I have every respect for someone who thinks that evangelical Christians are disgusting homophobes who should be shunned, suspended, banished for daring to mention their prejudices. BUT THIS IS A FUCKING EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM DISCUSSION BOARD and there is just a tiny chance that we may get some of those evangelical Christians turning up here, armed with their homophobic views. And the topic of homosexuality may just come up in discussion. And one of these evangelical Christians may just try to understand the arguments that non-"evangelical Christians" use to justify why homosexuality is not just to be tolerated but is actually on an equal footing with heterosexuality. And he may just think that if your reasoning opens the door to one God-damned sexual perversion, then how come it doesn't open the door to the other God-damned sexual perversions that God mentioned in the SAME FUCKING VERSE of Leviticus.
And so the debate is on. But just yelling "consent" repeatedly doesn't win it: why is consent so essential? etc, etc. NJ brought up the point that consent did not seem to be rife in the animal kingdom. Schraf's reply - well you should see my horses - again isn't quite at the level to settle the issue. And that is as far as the debate was allowed to progress.
As far as I am concerned, we* never gave a sufficiently coherent and satisfactory reply to NJ, and so he kept pushing, thinking that he was actually winning the argument. All of the demands for moderator action must have seemed to him as pure defeatism. And don't forget that it was his own faith and beliefs that he was defending, not some simple homophobic hang-up.
* I was actually still an evangelical at the time, and so tended to stay quiet around such topics. I couldn't justify to other Christians my own beliefs around sexuality, as they were contrary to both standard evangelical Christian belief and to condescending liberal Christian inclusiveness. And for the record, some of my best friends have seen Brokeback Mountain, and they say it's actually quite good.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by crashfrog, posted 07-01-2010 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 9:15 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 295 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2010 3:42 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 265 of 424 (567643)
07-02-2010 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Rrhain
07-02-2010 4:14 AM


Hey, late for the party much?
Not until you apologize for your behaviour and change your ways.
Sorry, you seem to have missed out on our conclusion: nothing to apologise for, nothing to change...
Moving on...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Rrhain, posted 07-02-2010 4:14 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 279 of 424 (567724)
07-02-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2010 10:53 AM


Re: relativism
Our relationship hasn't quite progressed sexually just yet.
Hmmm, you know how in the mornings you can't sit down comfortably, and Mod has that twinkle in his eye...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 10:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2010 2:24 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 281 of 424 (567726)
07-02-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by purpledawn
07-02-2010 11:04 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
I thought inbreeding was the reasoning behind not allowing those too closely related to marry today.
Sure, but an incestuous couple do not have to consider having children. And a gay incestuous couple don't have that worry. There have been plenty of situations where long separated siblings have met up and fallen deeply for each other. Do we allow a fear of inbreeding to force them apart by law?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by purpledawn, posted 07-02-2010 11:04 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 291 of 424 (567784)
07-02-2010 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Modulous
07-02-2010 2:24 PM


Re: he calls me tk421 when no-one is around
Brings a whole new meaning to being at your "post", shall we say... and more to the question, why you're not at it? Hmmm?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2010 2:24 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 300 of 424 (567811)
07-02-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by crashfrog
07-02-2010 3:42 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Nem/Hyro connected it to gay sex because he wanted to talk about gay sex, not moral relativism.
He wanted to talk about both, one in the context of the other. And that is about all there is to say about it.
I'm always surprised when people don't evince enough self-awareness not to make the "but some of my best friends are.." argument.
And I'm always amazed when yanks cannot detect satire, but there you go
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2010 3:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2010 4:42 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 307 of 424 (567826)
07-02-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by crashfrog
07-02-2010 4:42 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
He wanted to be offensive. He wanted to say that gay sex was the moral equivalent of rape.
That's your take. Not mine, and not others. He was asking provocative questions that were understandable given his background. Questions that we did not adequately answer at the time. End of...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2010 4:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 324 of 424 (567995)
07-03-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by crashfrog
07-03-2010 7:05 PM


Re: Without precedent - or well documented history of capriciousness?
You should step down from your moderator post immediately, as you've made it clear in this thread you're no more fit to moderate now than you were, then.
Crash, you've fuckin' lost it mate. This is a fuckin' internet debate site. I may be pissed at the moment (in the British sense) but you need to take some time out. Three years doesn't seem to cut it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2010 7:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2010 8:42 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 334 of 424 (568051)
07-04-2010 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by crashfrog
07-03-2010 8:42 PM


Re: Without precedent - or well documented history of capriciousness?
Crash to Mod writes:
You should step down from your moderator post immediately, as you've made it clear in this thread you're no more fit to moderate now than you were, then.
Crash to me writes:
[your] reaction seems dramatically out of proportion to the restrained and deliberate post to which you were replying.
can you not see how unbelievably OTT you are? Restrained? FFS Crash, your inability to recognise any chance of being wrong is as frightening now as it was when you endlessly "debated" Holmes. Much of what you have brought to bear in this thread has been exposed as false, and the rest as debatable. Many have stood up and said that we don't agree with you and Rrhain's interpretation of events. But here you are, acting as if there has been zero opposition and claiming right to sentence on the back of a unaminous jury. The jury wasn't unaminous, it's not even in your favour.
The simple facts are that you were wrong then, Rrhain was wrong then, you are wrong now, Rrhain is wrong now. My confidence in these facts? High, say 90%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2010 8:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2010 9:10 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 346 of 424 (568097)
07-04-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Hyroglyphx
07-04-2010 9:31 AM


Re: Deliberation
Most certainly: nay
And to the thread question of
quote:
Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Again: nay
Looking back at Moderation 14.0, it seems quite clear that it was Rrhain's usual bullshit that led up to admin's explosive response (tho' it was Berb's words that were the actual trigger.) Rrhain was repeatedly asked by various members to desist but he refused and continued in his childish sexually charged rant. His had one decent message that actually appeared constructive in its argumentation, and my one post in that thread was to give him kudos for it. But sadly, it was just one amongst his many others.
Has the actual cull been expunged from the history? I can't find Brenna's comments to Percy that signalled the beginning of the cull-proper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2010 9:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Admin, posted 07-05-2010 8:15 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024