General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

Hi Berberry,Not everyone is going to see what is so obvious to you, I'm sure you understand that. Sometimes those people who don't see your point of view will be persons in positions of considerable responsibility, or if not then at least moderators at EvC Forum. This is not to agree with you or with AdminPD, but just to share with you my own feeling that enough people understand your point that it will not get lost or smothered, even if it doesn't happen to get adequately expressed in any particular individual thread. But it is incumbent upon me to also point out that EvC Forum is not a haven for the easily offended, and that being offended, or even being the target of a blatant Forum Guidelines violation, doesn't excuse one from the Forum Guidelines.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The general philosophy for those who maintain a secular worldview believe in "live and let live." That means, let me believe in whatever I want to, and let me do whatever I want to do, so long as I don't hurt anybody.Taz basically said that gay sex doesn't hurt him. So I made the comment that just because he hasn't personally been raped, does that mean rape isn't wrong?One had nothing to do with the other. It had everything to do with his methodology. No it isn't. The only one whoever really understood what I was getting at was Holmes, who was an atheist, pro-gay, pro-abortion guy-- hardly someone who would advocate for me unless he understood what I was saying.I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that homosexuals are exactly like pedophiles or zoophiles. My reason for mentioning it so that you can understand my position better. If you say that homosexuality is good, but pedophilia is bad, while maintaining a morally relativistic view, you commit debate suicide. I just want you to be aware of that.This is the millionth time that I've gone over it. I suspect that you know exactly what I'm talking about, but you can't really defend your position so its easier for you to just chime in with name calling-- which is traditionally what people resort to when they're losing a debate. You make the inference. You do realize how oxymoronic it is to say that I have a narrow-minded worldview while not believing in any moral absolutes, right? It all boils down to opinion. So why would my opinion be viewed more narrowly than yours? Think deeply about it Berberry. The answer is staring you in the face. You can call it condescending if you want. I call it reasonable.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

There is a major distinction. One group does not invoke the image of a Creator, only reasons that there must be one, while the other invokes specific images and rules for the game. For whatever reason, Syamsu's post fell under the radar. If you'll note, my reply was the first reply ever. I revived nothing because it was never alive to begin with.

quote:

---

All you have to do is address my post IN Showcase if you have a problem with it and debate the issue there

---

Showcase is open for business. There is literally nothing that would prohibited you from posting a reply in Showcase. If you could only gain access from an Admin, just ask one. I'm an Admin. You want in? I'll make it happen. What for?!?!?I can't respond to someone else's thread? Seriously, what exactly is your objection? Point out what "rule" I'm breaking Paul. If you can do that, I'll concede. What great "truth" about me have you exposed, Paul? And what vicious and baseless accusations have I made? I thought I was in here to debate. The viciousness and baseless accusations seem to be all on your side of the table.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

quote:

---

There is a major distinction. One group does not invoke the image of a Creator, only reasons that there must be one, while the other invokes specific images and rules for the game.

---

No, if you believe in special creation - as most IDists do - you are a creationist. If you don't want to admit to wehat you beleive it doesn't make you any less a creationist.

quote:

---

For whatever reason, Syamsu's post fell under the radar. If you'll note, my reply was the first reply ever. I revived nothing because it was never alive to begin with.

---

i.e. what I said was true. Your only excuse was that nobody else bothered to reply at all. Which only makes reviving it worse, not better.

quote:

---

Showcase is open for business. There is literally nothing that would prohibited you from posting a reply in Showcase. If you could only gain access from an Admin, just ask one. I'm an Admin. You want in? I'll make it happen.

---

I am also an Admin. Howeve Showcase was inended for discussions involving particular people who were restricted to Showcase. And there are none currently active. It is not for others to slip around the PNT rules, or to raise obsacles to others who might wish to reply

quote:

---

What for?!?!?

​

I can't respond to someone else's thread? Seriously, what exactly is your objection?

---

If you have to ask why you shouldn't abuse the forum's rules for your own convenience maybe you shouldn't be an Admin. You have avoided the requirement for PNT and you are abusing the Showcase forum.

quote:

---

What great "truth" about me have you exposed, Paul?

---

A typical rhetorical trick - I never said anything about a "great" truth. Just ordinary truth. All I am saying is that the points I made were true. And you called them slander. So that's one example. We can point to your reply in the post, or the attacks you made on the ACLU.

quote:

---

The viciousness and baseless accusations seem to be all on your side of the table.

---

Why ? What have I said that wasn't true ? Vount that as another example of a vicious and false accusation

This topic continues at General Discussion 11.0 We could lay our discussions end to end and never reach any conclusions!