Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

NJ pursued the matter relentlessly with those who were quite evidently offended by his comments and questions. In that sense at least he was "gay baiting".On the other hand moral absolutism was one of NJ's main areas of discussion whether it related to sex or not. And he seemed to genuinely feel that he had one over on the moral relativists on this particular issue. Quite possibly because rather than getting dispassionate rebuttals he was in many cases inspiring emotionally charged invectives. Regarding the content of what NJ was saying alone I think there definitely has been overreaction and misconstrual.NJ's own stated moral line was clear. Right and wrong are biblically derived. And in that sense at least (whatever else one thinks of the comparison or of the legitimacy of such biblical condemnation) gay sex and bestiality are indeed linked. Of course it can be pointed out that eating lobster is also linked in terms of being a biblical "abomination"................I can see why some might take offence at him asking the questions he asked in the manner that he asked them. But I also don't think that asking where the moral line is and on what basis there is any line at all for moral relativists is unreasonable. In fact I think it is rather interesting. As a line of questioning in itself it certainly doesn't warrant being banned even if expressed insensitively or even provocatively.If on one hand it should be considered a moral right for consenting adults to be able have sex with whomever they choose then on the other hand can we say that incest is immoral?If the defining difference between moral sex and immoral sex is consent are there exceptions and if so on what basis are they made?Why is consent the defining factor in deciding what is moral and what is not? Who decided this?Can we really say that bestiality is morally wrong because animals cannot give consent whilst simultaneously feeling morally righteous as we turn them into cheap shoes?Why is marriage of any sort a "right" and why should the state rather than the Church define who can marry who?These are rhetorical questions. Anyone who has witnessed me post on these topics can probably pretty much guess my own position on these matters anyway and I don't want to drag this thread down the route of attempting to answer them here.But they are examples of the sort of thing that NJ was getting at. And are very valid questions. Message 150 up and down thread exemplifies these conversations.

I think he did. In the thread I linked to. Yes he harrassed certain members on this topic - But the question is why?. I still think that your description remains a skewed version of events. I think he thought he had moral relatavists on the run and as his main long-term topic of interest he pursued it relentlessly. He did this with those who he felt were unable to refute his arguments. And he did it with those who responded emotionally. I don't dispute that there was a degree of antagonism in his methods but the questions were valid and NJ expressed reasonably coherently why he found the answers provided unsatisfacory IMHO. Simply stating that consent is obviously the key criteria to a biblical literalist and then expecting him to just accept that as inarguable is both naive and not even argumantelly sound.Ironically it seems to be Mod who made the best defence of the consent positon. One that NJ was unable ultimately to counter in the thread I linked to.But NJ's presumed intent in all this is all very subjective. I fail to see how you can say that you and others are obviously correct regarding NJ's intentions whilst others are obviously wrong? You can (and have ) questioned Mod's judgement in all of this and he has readily admitted mistakes. But he is not alone in seeing NJ's overall conduct and intent as something other than that which you insist is obvious to all.Mod may be guilty of misjudgements. As arguably are many involved in the whole debacle including yourself and others advocating similar points of view.But you seem determined to quesion Mod's genuineness and sincerity in a way that I think seems unjustified to many here including myself. If NJ's sole intention were to antagonise and "gay bait" you might be right. I don't see that as his sole, or even primary, intention. Many people whom I consider reasonable disagree with you. If you or I were told that our theist bashing "died in the wool" (as you were recently described to me) atheism was insulting to theistic members here would you change yor arguments?

The only objection was to his arguments.

Well that isn't how it seems to those who disagree with you. It seems like the perceived intent behind his arguments is far more important to his detractors than anything NJ ever actually said. Have you not picked that up from this thread?

The only person he actually pursued was Berberry, and he didn't pursue him making moral relativist arguments, he pursued Berberry by re-iterating that morally he was no different than a rapist horse-fucker, and "gosh why are you getting so offended when I call you a horse-fucker, horsefucker? It's just an argument about moral relativism, honest!"

You think my version of events is skewed because you're making up events that never happened to support yours.

In my admittedly subjective opinion you are guilty of that which you are accusing me of. NJ did engage in numerous arguments pertaining to moral relatavism. I had many debates with him on that subject myself long before the forum meltdown debacle. Moral absolutism was his EvC thang .

Crash writes: ​ NJ asked what the difference between a homosexual and a rapist was supposed to be, and he was told "consent." He never asked why that difference mattered; he never asked anything!

Yet in the thread I linked to NJ and Mod have exactly that discussion. Mod seems to successfully counter NJ's position on this. Message 150 up and down thread.

Because I have two eyeballs, a functioning brain, and I can read and interpret statements in plain English. That's how I can arrive at the conclusion that I'm correct and others are wrong - because I'm right, and they're wrong. How else would I get there?

How are you suggesting that those of us who have reached a different conclusion reached that conclusion? We also have functioning brains and eyes and are able to interpret statements made in plain English. Many of us are also arguably in a far more objective position on this than yourself.

Mod's wrong. Full stop; he was wrong then, and you and he are wrong now.

So you assert. But many here disagree with you. Previously and now. It isn't as black and white as you want to pretend it to be.

I mean, Jesus Christ I've only said it a dozen times already. If what NJ was saying had really been so harmless, letting him say it as much as he wanted wouldn't have resulted in crisis. But that's exactly what happened.

You can say it a dozen more times if it makes you happy. Your predictions of a crisis that you yourself arguably contributed to are not evidence of your assertions regarding the nature of the crisis being correct. If a bunch of people collectively decide that justice has not been done and that they are going to be aggrieved by said injustice they are not necessarily the best people to make the judgement that their reaction to the perceived injustice is evidence of a legitimate grevance. And - Yes the same could be said of the moderators in this instance.The difference seems to be that they acknowledge that things could have been handled better whilst you insist that anyone who disagress with you regarding any aspect of why this all happened is just obviously wrong.It just isn't that obvious. It isn't that black and white. If it were there wouldn't be this discussion now.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You claimed that those who disagree with you on this are just blatantly wrong. How is that not black or white? Shades of grey........ You should review your contributions to the thread Mod linked to in the OP. That, I suspect, is what those of us with shorter memories or lss time at EvC are basing our conclusions on.

Grammatically your are 100% correct. But fuck dude you still come across as struggling to inflict a position on NJ that doesn't add up except in the most convuluted (albeit grammatically correct) of ways.You honestly think this constitutes gay baiting by means of accusing heterosexuals of being gay?I'm sorry but IMHO you have lost all perspective on this.

It reallydoes not come across like that in the quote you cite. Are there any more explicit examples of NJ engaging in this behaviour or is that example of grammatical inexactitude your sole basis for accusing him of this?

I'll take that as a "no" then? You sound paranoid and your "evidence" smacks of highly subjective paranoid extrapolation and interpretation. Of course maybe all those, including myself, who disagree with you are just inattentive imbeciles. This is a possibility.

I'll take that as a "no" then? ​ Are there other examples?

You tell me. You said that was his cunningly homophobic tactic. Based solely on a single highly detailed grammatical technicality. Apparently.

Or, you're ignorant. Don't forget that possibility too! I mean, did you go through NJ's entire posting history and read it? ​ No? Then it's actually a highly likely possibility that NJ said a lot of things you don't know about, now isn't it?

If, as you are now suggesting, it is a requirement that one is familiar with NJ's entire posting history in order to appreciate the true extent of his bigotry and "gay baiting" ways you can hardly condemn those moderators who have not read his every post in exquisite contextual detail in succumbing to his wily ways and coming to the same conclusions that I and other ignoramuses have here. Can you?

I don't think he was anything but an occasionally clever bigot..

Apparently so fucking clever that he has us all fooled except for those like you who have read his every post and who can see through his cunningly manipulative police trained methods.The rest of us are only human Crash. And that includes Mod.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

There hasn't been a "collapse".And the sugnificant "blip" that did occur was the result of a number of factors and a number of people.

If your problem here is that moderators didn't take into account months (if not years) of subtle non-specific-contextual-based non-rule breaking by NJ in addition to the wishes of a bunch of people who apparently disagree on many EvC related issues but who collectively decided that on a social issue on which they have a lot in common that NJ deserved to be suspended for his long term contextual non-rule breaking - Well I remain unconvinced of the validity of your argument. It sounds like argumentum popularium with presure-group-mentality-pseudo-moral knobs on. Has not Mod already conceded that moderation mistakes were made? If moderation mistakes were made does that somehow make your position and interpretation of this entire fiasco correct? I was a relative newbie here when this particular shit storm kicked off and I had no inclination to take part at the time. But I debated a lot with NJ on the issue of moral relativism. And the picture you are painting of him is not what I expereinced. Nor is it backed up by your quoted examples (as many here have stated and as is exemplified by your inability to backup assertions made in recent posts). Nor do I think it is an accurate portrayal of his position as I retrospectively read his posts now in the context of this thread.The idea that your position on this is somehow more objective than mine, or that those who support your position are more objectively accurate than those who have concluded the opposite, is frankly unfounded.You need to understand why some people disagree with you on this without assuming they are ignorant, imbecilic, delusional or incapable of English comprehension as a starting premise on your part.

On one hand you say that NJ's homophobic vitriol was so obvious and blatant that only an imbecile could fail to see it.On the other hand you are citing subtle but dastardly misuse of a pronoun as an example of his wily ways, telling us that his police training enabled him to cleverly imply and insult under the radar of normal comprehension and asserting that unless we are familiar with his entire posting history we cannot possibly grasp the extent of his homophobic hate mongering.These two positions do not add up.I never intended to embroil myself to this extent. So I will leave it at that and you can have the last word if you so wish.My opinion for what it is worth is that you, and no doubt others on both sides of this argument, are just incapable of any perspective on this issue. This is a highly subjective and in my view very inaccurate portrayal of past events.Good to see you back BTW

(***Straggler falls off his chair open mouthed and dumbstruck***)Holy schmoley mother of moley.I never saw that coming.

Or you could instead consider the following:

Hyro.. I mean NJ, No I mean Hyro to Huntard writes: ​ Well, I was homophobic and a bit of a doucher. I didn't like the idea of homosexuality because my God didn't like it. But I didn't hide that fact. And I believed that they were in sin and couldn't see the light. Turns out that it was me who couldn't see the light. ​ But I meant then, as much as I do now, that I never hated them. That is the honest truth. And back then it was very much about my fascination for absolutes vs relativism. You, Straggler, CS, Modulous, Cavediver, etc, having accurately understood what I said back then.

Hyro.. I mean NJ, No I mean Hyro to Huntard writes: ​ It's not that I defend my former self or my former beliefs. I am defending the sincerity of my former self. What you saw as NJ was the truth, not some clever Jedi mind trick. Crash inadvertantly gave me wayyyy more credit than I was worth.

That is pretty much how I saw it too. Crash is determined to see some sort of conspiracy and is viewing every action of NJ's as that of a master manipulator.I mean for Christ's sake a misplaced pronoun was cited as an indefensible attack!! All perspective on this has been lost.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hyro writes: ​ LOL! Yeah, I don't think we got along too well in the past

I have to admit that I quite enjoyed debating NJ Message 8

but it's been bliss ever since.

I am sure that I can put an end to that particular honeymoon.

Kind of hard to wrap your mind around it, eh?

Hell yeah!!

Let's just let it go and move forward. A lot of people saw it the way Crash does, and a lot of people saw it the way you do.

I have already embroiled myself in this topic more than I ever intended.

Let's just live in peace until we can find something else to argue about. I'm sure it won't take long! After all, this is EvC, the home of controversy.

Let's start a thread where we discuss the morality of agnostic rabbits and whether or not they have the right to own guns?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think you could apply the second two of those sentences to many people here to some extent. Including myself at times.But with regard to reconciling the two pieces you quote - Well I would start by quoting NJ in full rather than by selecting individual sentences and piecing them together in the way that you have. I think this has a very different meaning to the one you are implying. Being intentionally controversial even to the point of not caring who gets offended is not the same as being intentionally or overtly hateful.Isn't this in many respects the debate raging in the gender and comedy thread already? What is? The fact that he has hidden his identity? If that is what you are referring to then - No I don't think it is indicative of that.Did NJ relentlessly pursue a point with a gay member on a controversial topic in language that the member in question clearly found deeply offensive? Yeah I think we all agree that he did.Did he call the guy an animal fucking homo who deserved to be hated? I honestly don't see it.What else is there to say on this?