Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 46 of 304 (410742)
07-17-2007 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Taz
07-17-2007 2:29 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
See, some would argue that there is nothing immoral about bestiality. Animal don't have rights.
Had that come up in debate I'm sure we could have discussed the existence of animal rights. Though it would probably have been off topic.
When we talked about gay marriage, he compared that with marrying an animal or a motorcycle.
Indeed - and it drives towards an interesting question. What is the point of marriage and what is the government's role in that?
When we talked about homosexual sex, he compared that with rape.
And the difference is informed consent. It is easily rebutted.
This was what convinced me that nem jug's chosen examples weren't innocent at all. They were very carefully chosen for specific situation and specific topic to imply that gay people shouldn't have any right to give consent.
What's the problem with that? This is a debate forum after all. If we can't debate people with opinions very different from ours, what's the point? There is only one way to stop ideas we don't like being expressed here and that is to censor debate. Which seems absurd to me. If Nem was being disrespectful to a specific poster that would be one thing, but putting forward questions that are at the heart of the debate is something else entirely. All that is required to rebut Nem's point is to show how one can consistently apply rules and not special plead in the case of homosexuality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Taz, posted 07-17-2007 2:29 AM Taz has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 47 of 304 (410745)
07-17-2007 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Taz
07-17-2007 2:42 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
. I am trying to say that long term direct exposure to the hatefilled filth that the christian bigots give to gay people actually make them more sensitive to the issue.
Makes some people more sensitive I'm sure. Here at EvC we try to encourage dispassionate debate - if it's a subject that you get upset about you have the choice of not opening a thread which is in stark contrast to real life in which you may be forced into dealing with a difficult subject.
I'm sure plenty of holocaust survivors went out of their way to engage with holocaust deniers - but plenty learned it simply wasn't worth the increased blood pressure. That's all I'm suggesting for anyone who is upset about people who question the morality of homosexual affairs.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Taz, posted 07-17-2007 2:42 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by berberry, posted 07-17-2007 3:23 AM AdminModulous has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 304 (410748)
07-17-2007 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 3:06 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
I said I was leaving and I am. But I can't let this get by without comment. There's actually MUCH, MUCH more that needs to be said to you, but I have only a minute just now. I'll be back.
quote:
Makes some people more sensitive I'm sure. Here at EvC we try to encourage dispassionate debate...
So let me get this straight: unless I'm prepared to be insulted in the most vile, disgusting and totally baseless manner imagineable by an administrator on this board, then I need to just stay the fuck away from here? Is that what you're saying?

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 3:06 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 4:38 AM berberry has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 49 of 304 (410753)
07-17-2007 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by berberry
07-17-2007 3:23 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
So let me get this straight: unless I'm prepared to be insulted in the most vile, disgusting and totally baseless manner imagineable by an administrator on this board, then I need to just stay the fuck away from here? Is that what you're saying?
No, my point is that I do not think you were insulted, though I remain open minded on the subject and am following the discussion in the admin forum as to whether you were. So far all I have seen is nemesis questioning the morality of homosexual acts and challenging those that see them as not being immoral to develop a consistent reason for why different sex acts (or marriage proposals etc) are considered immoral and others moral. He refers to the Bible, what reasoning, he asks, do we have for our position?
If you are offended by a debate opponent asking for you to justify your moral system, or if you are offended that a person might even question the morality of homosexuality (sex/marriage etc) then a debate forum that occasionally deals with issues of morality might be something for you to avoid. Personally I think it sufficient to avoid the threads discussing morality and/or sexuality. This can be difficult since we all have topics that wind us up, and it is not easy to refrain from reading or responding to them with a peice of our mind. If you feel the most prudent course of action is to leave altogther then so be it.
I do not think you need to stay the fuck away from this forum, far from it, I just think it might be wise to avoid certain topics for the time being.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by berberry, posted 07-17-2007 3:23 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by berberry, posted 07-17-2007 8:02 AM AdminModulous has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 50 of 304 (410754)
07-17-2007 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
07-17-2007 2:06 AM


Re: What's good for the goose, isn't good for the gander
PaulK responds to me:
quote:
Already answered:
Oh, I know that they're trying to say that there is something wrong with being gay, but that's the entire point: Such an attitude is inherently bigoted. The act of trying to compare gay people and specifically gay people to something commonly considered "nasty and perverted" when such a comparison would never be made with regard to straight people is inherently bigoted as there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't do.
Thus, if it would never be considered plausible with respect to straights, it cannot be considered plausible with respect to gays.
quote:
But I'd judge it more likely to be intentional.
I very much agree. After all, why bring it up if you aren't trying to equate the two?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2007 2:06 AM PaulK has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 304 (410763)
07-17-2007 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 4:38 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
I still don't get it, so I'll try again.
quote:
No, my point is that I do not think you were insulted...
I hope you never visit the Deep South, or if you do I hope you keep this to yourself. Else, you'll immediately be pegged as a self-loathing right-winger and you won't find yourself with many friends. I suppose Taz is right about the difference in here and there, cuz down here gay folk have been dealing with this specific insult all our lives; it's a stock argument for the fundies.
So I want to be sure I have this right: if I can come up with the most disgusting, vile, demeaning comparison imaginable to use as an insult against the xians here, and I time the use of it to coincide with the online presence of the most devout xians here, I can expect the complete support of the admins here and, in fact, might be considered for an admin position myself?
So far, you and every other admin has avoided answering Ringo's simile, so please don't avoid answering this question again if you reply to me: Would a comparison of African-Americans to dirty apes also be acceptable here at EvC? Would such a demeaning insult likewise earn the respect and defense of the admin staff?
quote:
...though I remain open minded on the subject and am following the discussion in the admin forum as to whether you were.
As I'm sure the stupid himself is enjoying following that thread. What a perfectly level playing field we have here, huh?

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 4:38 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 8:28 AM berberry has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 52 of 304 (410768)
07-17-2007 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by berberry
07-17-2007 8:02 AM


comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
I hope you never visit the Deep South, or if you do I hope you keep this to yourself. Else, you'll immediately be pegged as a self-loathing right-winger and you won't find yourself with many friends.
I have visited the Deep South since I have a lot of family there (Louisiana mostly - though they are spread around a bit and I've spent some time in Alabama).
I suppose Taz is right about the difference in here and there, cuz down here gay folk have been dealing with this specific insult all our lives; it's a stock argument for the fundies.
I am not suggesting that calling homosexuals sexual behaviour immoral is not insulting to gays. It is. It is not, however, specifically insulting to you. We don't suppress debate where a person has a problem with the morality of another group - otherwise we would not be able to lay out a claim outlining the immorality of the Christian Right. It works both ways.
So I want to be sure I have this right: if I can come up with the most disgusting, vile, demeaning comparison imaginable to use as an insult against the xians here, and I time the use of it to coincide with the online presence of the most devout xians here, I can expect the complete support of the admins here and, in fact, might be considered for an admin position myself?
It depends on the nature of the comparison. If you were to equate Christians with baby rapers that would probably be marked as inflammatory (I can't imagine an argument that would hold here, but if one exists I would be happy to see it presented), but if you were to say that Christians were mentally abusing children by threatening them with torture if they step out of line...that would be a fine topic of discussion.
Would a comparison of African-Americans to dirty apes also be acceptable here at EvC?
Would such a demeaning insult likewise earn the respect and defense of the admin staff?
Yes. African-Americans, like native Americans and Europeans are all covered in dirt and grease and they are all apes. I can see an appropriate comparison. Indeed the standard natural history of mankind is that populations of apes from Africa evolved into the people we call Africans.
It would earn my defence and respect. Likewise asking for a nonreligious and consistent justification for accepting homosexuality but rejecting bestiality as moral with no special pleading is also perfectly fine discussion topic. Nemesis was essentially trying to express that 'moral relativists' have to special plead in the case of bestiality because they cannot justify calling it immoral.
As I'm sure the stupid himself is enjoying following that thread. What a perfectly level playing field we have here, huh?
Sure - if either of you can point to where the other was personally insulted I will judge whether sanction has taken place. I've looked across the evidence so far presented as far as I can see and I have not found that it leads to the conclusion that nemesis was being disrespectful to another member.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by berberry, posted 07-17-2007 8:02 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by berberry, posted 07-17-2007 8:41 AM AdminModulous has replied
 Message 56 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 10:25 AM AdminModulous has replied
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2007 1:38 PM AdminModulous has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 304 (410771)
07-17-2007 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 8:28 AM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
Wow, I guess they were looking for a gay version of Clarance Thomas when they promoted you to admin!
quote:
I am not suggesting that calling homosexuals sexual behaviour immoral is not insulting to gays.
Where the hell did you get that from? I'm talking about a direct, moral equivalence between innocent gay sex and BESTIALITY and/or RAPE. It is done for the purpose of insulting gay people and ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER!!!. It goes just a teensy bit beyond saying it's "immoral", you insufferable nitwit!
quote:
Yes. African-Americans, like native Americans and Europeans are all covered in dirt and grease and they are all apes. I can see an appropriate comparison.
Thank you for telling us about yourself.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 8:28 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 07-17-2007 9:26 AM berberry has not replied
 Message 58 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 10:48 AM berberry has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 54 of 304 (410780)
07-17-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by berberry
07-17-2007 8:41 AM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
Hi Berberry,
I'm going to suspend you for a week in a way analogous to protective custody, because I'm guessing you're saying lots of things right now that you'll later regret saying. Hope to see you next week, I mean that.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by berberry, posted 07-17-2007 8:41 AM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 10:04 AM Admin has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 304 (410785)
07-17-2007 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Admin
07-17-2007 9:26 AM


Un. Fucking. Believable.
All Christians rape goats.
I fully expect you to suspend any Christians who are offended by this statement. For their own good, of course.
Under no circumstances should I be suspended for making the statement. It's not insulting if there's a valid reason for making the comparison, and let's face it... I enjoy saying that Christians rape goats. That's valid.
EDIT WHILE I CAN: Yes, I expect to get suspended for this post. Whatever. I've honestly never been so disgusted by this forum. The only thing more mind-boggling than Berberry getting suspended for being insulted is the idea that he should, for some reason, "regret" defending himself.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 07-17-2007 9:26 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 10:52 AM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 60 by Admin, posted 07-17-2007 10:54 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 304 (410787)
07-17-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 8:28 AM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
It depends on the nature of the comparison. If you were to equate Christians with baby rapers that would probably be marked as inflammatory (I can't imagine an argument that would hold here, but if one exists I would be happy to see it presented), but if you were to say that Christians were mentally abusing children by threatening them with torture if they step out of line...that would be a fine topic of discussion.
This would be a valid point, if NJ had, at any time, pointed out what objective act involved in homosexuality is comparable to rape and/or bestiality, and how it is comparable. He hasn't. His only basis for comparison is that he doesn't like any of them.
Let's not confuse this for an intelligent criticism of Berberry's lifestyle which he doesn't like hearing, because it's fucking well not. All NJ is doing is saying "they're the same, they're the same, whee!" over and over again. His comparison is, to carry your metaphor, a baby-raper comparison, not a mental abuse comparison.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 8:28 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Chiroptera, posted 07-17-2007 10:37 AM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 63 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 11:18 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 304 (410788)
07-17-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dan Carroll
07-17-2007 10:25 AM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
This would be a valid point, if NJ had, at any time, pointed out what objective act involved in homosexuality is comparable to rape and/or bestiality, and how it is comparable. He hasn't. His only basis for comparison is that he doesn't like any of them.
I'll also point out that NJ has always brought this up in the context of asking us about the moral distinctions we draw between the two. And we have always explained the moral difference between the two. For some reason, though, those pages show up blank on his web browser. He claims that we atheists (and, of course, anyone not opposed to homosexuality must be an atheist) have no basis for making moral distinctions, even though we constantly try to explain that we do.
If this is a matter for moderator action, it is largely because this has always come up in the context of a discussion where NJ refuses to even read the replies.
On the other hand, NJ has never really explained why he thinks that they are morally equivalent. (Well, we know why he does -- because some clown with that very shoddy type of theologic training associated with some Protestant sects, says it's in the Bible.)
Added by edit:
See this post.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Removed signature -- official matter forum
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 10:25 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 58 of 304 (410790)
07-17-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by berberry
07-17-2007 8:41 AM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
Wow, I guess they were looking for a gay version of Clarance Thomas when they promoted you to admin!
The reason was much simpler I'm afraid: New moderator/admin - AdminModulous.
Where the hell did you get that from? I'm talking about a direct, moral equivalence between innocent gay sex and BESTIALITY and/or RAPE.
I saw no such moral equivalence. I saw an argument against moral relativism by attempting to show how it special pleads for marrying children or dogs. It is easily rebutted but it is not morally equating the two - but rather enquiring as to how moral relativists can avoid equating the two without special pleading.
Thank you for telling us about yourself.
I was only telling you about myself in the sense that I, like all humans, am an ape that can be defined as being 'dirty'. I'm not sure what else you think I told you about myself.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by berberry, posted 07-17-2007 8:41 AM berberry has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 59 of 304 (410791)
07-17-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dan Carroll
07-17-2007 10:04 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
All Christians rape goats...It's not insulting if there's a valid reason for making the comparison, and let's face it... I enjoy saying that Christians rape goats. That's valid.
First of all, it is not a comparison it is an alleged statement of fact that needs to be backed by evidence were you to seriously propose it. This is not comparable to nemesis' statements in any way whatsoever since he did not say that all gay people have sex with animals.
Second, whim does not count as a valid reason to make a statement. If you were attempting to demonstrate how Christians special plead by showing an example of where they are forced to special plead - you will have made a valid point.
Yes, I expect to get suspended for this post
This is a thread for the non members to criticize moderation procedures. You did that, and I see no reason to suspend you for it and would speak out should you be suspended for it.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 10:04 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 11:03 AM AdminModulous has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 60 of 304 (410792)
07-17-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dan Carroll
07-17-2007 10:04 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
You are hereby not suspended until further notice!
Three moderators have tried to talk Berberry down, and he's ended up getting even more angry and more insulting each time, and so I suspended him to prevent him from saying even more things he might later come to regret, e.g.:
berberry in Message 53 writes:
It goes just a teensy bit beyond saying it's "immoral", you insufferable nitwit!
quote:
Yes. African-Americans, like native Americans and Europeans are all covered in dirt and grease and they are all apes. I can see an appropriate comparison.
Thank you for telling us about yourself.
I understand he's upset, but this can't go on for days and days while moderators trial-and-error their way toward the proper words but in the meantime just become substitute targets. If you'd like to take responsibility for coaxing him back into a realization that we're not his enemies and into conformity at least of a sort with the Forum Guidelines I'd be more than happy to unsuspend him.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 10:04 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 11:11 AM Admin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024