|
Author
|
Topic: Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Hyroglyphx writes: Spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.
Then I think we are in agreement. I of course don't mean one such post, but continuous posting like that should be dealt with, I think.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 231 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 10:08 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
Message 248 of 424 (567516)
07-01-2010 12:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 246 by onifre
07-01-2010 12:41 PM
|
|
Re: The Bombshell of Revelation
onifre writes: Buz? Why would you let Buz down? Did he train you for debate?
Buz liked NJ, and his stances on stuff a lot. He considered him somewhat of a like minded spirit, I think. And now look what NJ's become!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 246 by onifre, posted 07-01-2010 12:41 PM | | onifre has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: The Bombshell of Revelation
Hyroglyphx writes: A filthy, godless heathen!
I hope Buz's heart doesn't give out when he learns the news.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 257 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 1:33 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Hyroglyphx writes: Now, as it stands with my beliefs today, I think legally one should be able to do just about anything that does not hurt or impede someone else, but morally I still do not have an answer to that conundrum.
Why shouldn't they be allowed morally to do as they please, as long as they don't hurt anybody else?
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Hyroglyphx writes: If siblings want to marry, but are disallowed because it is illegal, you have to ask the question why it is illegal if they are above the age of consent. Aren't they prohibited on the basis of someone else's version of morality and not their own?
They are. And I am against that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 272 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 9:41 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 294 by AZPaul3, posted 07-02-2010 3:31 PM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
purpledawn writes: I thought inbreeding was the reasoning behind not allowing those too closely related to marry today.
You don't have to be married to get kids, you know. Also, you don't have to get kids because you're married.
| 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 |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 318 of 424 (567903)
07-03-2010 5:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 294 by AZPaul3
07-02-2010 3:31 PM
|
|
Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
AZPaul3 writes: Genetic inbreeding can produce horrendous deformities.
Yep.
Though throughout history incest was practiced regularly, its results did not go unnoticed, hence the cultural taboo. There is a very specific scientific rational for banning incest.
Not really. You can have sex without making children. You can have sex without being married. You don't have to get children because you are married. You don't have to be married to get kids. So, no, I don't think there is a scientific reason to ban incest. There is a scientific reason to ban siblings getting kids, however. And you know what, I am against siblings getting kids. If only to "protect" the kids.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 294 by AZPaul3, posted 07-02-2010 3:31 PM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Without precedent - or well documented history of capriciousness?
Bolder-dash writes: That was certainly not the case in the past, and for modulous and others who want to make the fairly outlandish claim that creationists and others who held opposing viewpoint to the norm on this forum got the greater benefit of the doubt from moderators, I challenge them to back that up with facts. Such as showing the number of people who were suspended or banned the last two years who were pro-evolution and those who weren't, and their respective duration of bannings. I think you can take it as a total number, or as a percentage of users who fall in either category and you will clearly see that creationists and the like get banned at a much higher frequency on this site, than do the evolutionists.
They were banned because they failed to follow the forum rules, not because of the views they held. Look how long Buz or ICANT have been here, if there really was an "anti-creationist" thing going on here, do you really think they would be allowed to have stayed on for so long?
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Deliberation
Hyroglyphx writes: Did Modulous overstep his duties and go from forum enforcement to forum brutality?
From what I've read about all this: nay.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 341 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2010 9:31 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Deliberation
Bolder-dash writes: So, is there reason for me to be suspicious, even despite the fact that so many evolutionists here have claimed that opposing viewpoints are given more latitude for discussion?
No, there's no reason. Try proposing a thread on the "merits and shortcomings of astronomy" and see if that gets promoted. The point Moose made, very correctly I might add, is that literally anything can be brought up. Think of it this way: Post 1 is about mutations. Post 2 is about the 2LoT. Post 3 is about speciation. Post 4 is about adaptation to the natural environment. Post 5 is about how evolution helped modern medicine along. Do you not see this will be a mess of a thread when this happens?
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
Re: Deliberation
Let me point out that the problems you are perceiving should be discussed in the Topic Proposal Issues thread, you poor persecuted you.
|
™ Version 4.2