Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 46 of 424 (567016)
06-29-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 3:58 PM


Re: It's Not Easy Being Green
You didn't answer the question, Frog.
Why are you here?
And I continue to be struck by how prophetic I turned out to be
Everything that happened in the Purge occurred almost exactly as I predicted
I felt then that the actions of moderators were eroding confidence in their objectivity, and events ultimately proved me right.
Is this what you want, Frog? Vindication of your feelings from back then? You want us all to stand in awe at your prophetic nature?
We don't care, Frog.
My response, whether you find it civil or not, is appropriate.
Suck it up, grow a pair, and get on with life, man. You're not 16 anymore.
But I think your problem is deeper that that.
You have a hard-on for the moderation style on this forum, don't you? They didn't react the way you think they should. You see the near unanimity of the moderators' opinions against you as some kind of conspiracy. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion.
I am entitled to mine. Despite your continued harangue about how arbitrary, capricious and cruel the moderation was, in fact it was not.
After three years absence you jump in here and start throwing shit around. Why? To vindicate your feelings from back then? To show how "right" you were back then? To kick Mod in the balls while rubbing crap in Percy's face?
You say the forum has collapsed. All evidence to the contrary the board was then and is now doing just fine. Is this what is pissing you off?
What kind of vindictiveness is this, Frog? You say you are not holding a grudge. Your protestations to the contrary it appears you indeed do still hold a grudge, and a powerful poisonous one at that.
Petulant child.
Again, Frog:
Suck it up, grow a pair, and get on with life, man. You're not 16 anymore.
So back to the question.
Why are you here, Frog?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 3:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:34 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 424 (567017)
06-29-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 10:13 PM


I think NJ was pretty clearly on the record for thinking that homosexuality was the moral equivalent of rape, yes. I think that because NJ opened topic after topic to say exactly that, and when he wasn't opening topics to say it, he was saying it in any thread that was even tangentially related to homosexuality.
Well I don't. I don't think you can know what he's thinking from the text he submits on a forum.
No, I don't think he was "musing about moral relativism", and neither did anybody else. Even Percy knew what he was doing:
Admin writes:
My own opinion is that NJ engages in gay-baiting in these threads, and that he does so subconsciously and isn't aware he's doing this.

He does so subconsciously and isn't aware he's doing it... that's not thinking it.
But for some reason, time after time it was only NJ's intentions that mattered. Nobody asked what Dan's intent was; nobody asked Rrhain's intent; nobody asked Berberry's intent.
Actually, it wasn't that NJ's intentions did matter, it was that they did not.
I apologize but I see no statement or judgement of intent in the material you quoted whatsoever. Intent is irrelevant to whether or not someone is being compared to a rapist - they're either being so compared, or they're not.
Which you cannot know without judging their intent.
NJ's intent should also be irrelevant, but for some reason, the moderator community decided to make it central, and to decide that they simply couldn't respond to NJ's out of control personal attacks until NJ's intent was made perfectly and abundantly clear.
Right, because you can't really tell what his intent was. Even if he wrote exactly: "I think that homos are rapists.", you still don't know if he really thinks that or is just trolling.
The ultimate result - the --> direct --> result - was that Percy decided that no matter what moderators did, a storm of criticism was sure to ensue. Hence the Great Purge. In this judgement he was sadly incorrect, there would have been one course of action that would not have provoked a storm of criticism, and it was the action that had been requested for months: suspend NJ for gay-baiting across half a dozen threads.
I mean we only told the moderators what we wanted, a hundred times. They did everything --> except --> that. Astounding.
But that would have to be a different set of rules. Ones where you judge peoples' intents by a few lines of text and then determine what they're thinking so you know how to moderate them. I don't think that's possible and am against the rules being that way.
Everyone's judgment is gonna be different and you can't really know what the intent is.
But again - intent shouldn't matter. And indeed, in most cases the moderators acted like intent --> didn't --> matter. Except in the case of NJ, where it was apparently determined that intent was paramount.
Why was that? It's never been satisfactorily addressed.
Because you guys were telling the moderators what, you thought, NJ's intent was. Ber was insulted because he thought that NJ really did think homos were rapists. But this is something you guys couldn't really have known, so NJ's intent was paramount in the sense that it should not be being brought up as a problem.
The most reasonable interpretation is that one or several moderators simply --> decided --> that's how they were going to treat NJ, and then the rest of the moderators felt they had to support them in that. The results was months of people begging for moderator action against NJ, who was disrupting threads with disgusting anti-gay hate speech.
To know that it was anti-gay hate speech would require judging the intent, and that's against the rules.
Did you even read the thread? Jesus. We were fine with the rules. We loved the rules.
We just wanted the moderators to start following them. That's all.
No, you want to judge peoples' intents and argue the person instead of the position.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 10:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 424 (567018)
06-29-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
06-29-2010 1:01 AM


At the time, I tried to read NJ's comments in different ways. Taken in context of individual posts that he made this comment in, then yes one could argue that he was only musing about moral relativism. But since he kept bringing it up and kept asking what the moral difference was between homosexuality and rape, I really saw no other interpretation except that he was baiting.
At that point, you're no longer arguing the position but are arguing the person. And you're judging his intent.
For all you know, he really was stupid enought to not see that his arguments were wrong.
We're not idiots.
No, but you're limited by the medium. That you think that you can judge people's intents and thoughts from some text they submit on a forum is a problem.
Without looking up the threads themselves, I even remember the first time berberry lost patience. NJ made the usual "if we allow homosexuals to get married, then what's to prevent people from marrying kids and dogs?" argument. Berberry replied with "we're not kids or dogs, you twit" or some other name calling. Berberry got a warning for that. So, apparently, it was ok to compare berberry to kids and dogs with a thin veil of moral relativism, it was not ok to call NJ a twit or some other name.
You don't know that he was comparing Ber to kids and dogs. That's you judging him. Don't do that.
After that saw NJ's explanation that he was talking about moral relativism rather than comparing gay people to dogs, I stood back and watched. Then NJ went ahead and made the same comparason in half a dozen other threads in the name of moral relativism. It became apparent pretty fast that he was either making thinly veiled snide comments or he was baiting.
Or that he really did lack the understanding or was simply an idiot, or that he truley believed he had a relavent and valid argument... we don't know.
That's why you argue the position and not the person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 1:01 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 12:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 49 of 424 (567022)
06-29-2010 10:13 AM


BWAH-HA-HA-HA!!!
This thread is awesome.
This is the funniest drama I've read in some time.
Hike up your skirts and hit 'em with your purse!!
There are no sides to this anymore. The "statute of limitations" on this is long since past. Seriously, we discuss morals here all the time, we all know there are lots of grey areas where "right" and "wrong" becomes extremely subjective and difficult to specify. Especially when no one is physically hurt and the only "damage" is the possibility of feelings getting hurt.
This is one of those grey areas.
No one is right or wrong now.
No one was right or wrong when it actually happened.
Everyone has excuses (oh, sorry... "valid reasons") for why they did what they've done.
If you like to debate, this board is still (and always has been) the best place in teh interwebs (which they now have on computers!) to do so in as much of a professional way as available. (Not "as possible"... but have you really ever found a better place that is as popular as this one? So what's the gripe?).
If y'all insist upon continuing to go over this drivel, I shall poke fun because... seriously... it's beyond hilarious that this stuff is even getting mentioned again.
I'm cheering for the side that thinks they're right!!
Oh... and Germany, I'm still cheering for Germany too. I even watched a few seconds of one of their games! I'm the best fan ever.
Edited by Stile, : Because I can edit a post without looking like I forgot something, and you can't.

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 50 of 424 (567023)
06-29-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 7:50 PM


Offensive = suspension
No, of course you were of that opinion. What Dan was saying to you was the exact same kind of thing NJ had been saying to Berberry. How did you not get that? Did you think Dan --> really --> thought that "all Christians rape goats"? Did you think that he was really concerned that NJ was making --> unsupported --> statements, as opposed to offensive insulting statements
I have to say that while I don't agree with his moral views about homosexuality, NJ was not being understood. The moderators seemed to agree that NJ was referring to a moral relativity, not calling homosexuals the same as goat rapers (or whatever the fuck).
The moderators seemed to agree, and that coming from a gay man. If I'm not mistaken, Modulous is gay, or bi-sexual. Yet, curiously, one gay guy (Modulous) didn't see it as overtly offensive, and the other gay guy (Berberry) felt personally assaulted.
Even supposing there was an equivocation, was it customary to suspend people for being offensive? Quite frankly it boggles the mind how many overly-sensitive people were on the forum at that time. Jesus fucking Christ, people need to toughen the fuck up.
They participate because they firmly --> believe --> that their buddy did the right thing. I believe you firmly believed that none of the moderators had done anything wrong. I do!
I just don't understand what your intent is now. You made your point then, you're making your point now. It doesn't appear that the veritable scales have fallen off the eyes of Modulous, so to speak. He still seems to stand by his original actions, minus a few discrepancies that he's apologized for. Doesn't this simply amount to a differences of opinion?

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 7:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 424 (567027)
06-29-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Bolder-dash
06-28-2010 11:30 PM


Re: Are you joking still?
Percy wants an echo chamber, and so that's what he gets, and I find it disgusting that he makes claims of it being one of the best moderated sites on the internet. As to how I have seen you personally be involved in discussion and moderations, I don't have a big problem with it, but at the same time you do begin virtually all conversations with an aire of "Well, let me do you a favor of explaining the truth to you..." and then it becomes a prolonged battle on the part of the responders to unravel the reasons why something isn't necessarily the truth, while at the same time being hurled at mercilessly with tomatoes by 10 of your philosophical cohorts, and then Percy.
I find it ironic that you say this, because many evolutionists have said the exact same thing, only in reverse. They've claimed, numerous times, that they're on a tight leash, but the creo's get away with bloody murder. In fact, in the threads that are being discussed now, I saw that charge against Percy slung around quite a bit.
What I see is a decent moderating team who impartially judge each thing carefully. There are some extremes from time to time. I think the Moose is a bit severe in the administration of his duties with his willingness to slam the gavel of justice at even the hint of an infraction.
All in all, Percy, Mod, Purple Dawn, do a very good job of moderating on average. I suspect that if most people were a moderator on this site, you'd see the true meaning of partiality and bias.
I think quite a few people on this thread are taking things for granted.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-28-2010 11:30 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 52 of 424 (567034)
06-29-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
06-29-2010 1:01 AM


At the time, I tried to read NJ's comments in different ways. Taken in context of individual posts that he made this comment in, then yes one could argue that he was only musing about moral relativism. But since he kept bringing it up and kept asking what the moral difference was between homosexuality and rape, I really saw no other interpretation except that he was baiting.
Christians often bring up the philosophical trappings of moral relativism, and NJ seemed to be no exception. They seem to think that you can really corral the atheists with it. One could even argue that his infatuation was more with moral relativism versus moral absolutes, based on my readings, than about homosexuality. It seems that he used gay marriage and moral relativism as a way to prove that allowing for it means allowing everything because their is no way to morally distinguish one taboo thing from another.
In no way, however, was he saying that gays are the same as goat fuckers or rapists. I am mystified that you could even draw that inference. He clarified like 9,000 times. What his argument consisted of was if you allow for gay marriage, what moral imperative would preclude beastiality or any other "sexual sin?"
That's a long way off from saying that homosexuals are also zoophiles. I don't see how anyone can draw that inference.
I don't think he was "gay-bating," but even supposing he was, so what? Quite honestly if you were all too dumb not to take the bait, then he won that little social experiment, don't you think?
What concerns me is Crashfrog, you, Dan, Berberry, and Co. seem to wanted to have crucify NJ for his unpopular beliefs, and not for the content. You wanted the PC police to swoop in and punish him for not being politically correct. That's bullshit. That's worse than believing that gays have threesome's with sheep and kids.
We're not idiots.
Yeah, I'm not so sure about that if he was able to have stirred up so much animosity that three years later he and the moderators are single-handedly credited with the ruination of EvC. Either you misjudged what he was saying and heard what you wanted to hear, or you fell right in to his trap.
Without looking up the threads themselves, I even remember the first time berberry lost patience. NJ made the usual "if we allow homosexuals to get married, then what's to prevent people from marrying kids and dogs?" argument. Berberry replied with "we're not kids or dogs, you twit" or some other name calling. Berberry got a warning for that. So, apparently, it was ok to compare berberry to kids and dogs with a thin veil of moral relativism, it was not ok to call NJ a twit or some other name.
How is that comparing homosexuals to kids or dogs?
It is unquestionable that he didn't like homosexuality, just like 98% of Christians. He didn't hide that fact, but I've read countless threads that have attributed the the Great Purge, and I have to conclude that I see things as Modulous, who didn't even like him, and Mod's gay. I can't see it at all. Yeah, sure, he's a douche. But an even douchier thing is to want to ban or suspend people because their feelings were hurt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 1:01 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by cavediver, posted 06-29-2010 12:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 57 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 12:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 60 by Rahvin, posted 06-29-2010 12:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 53 of 424 (567041)
06-29-2010 12:19 PM


I must admit it is good to hear from some of the long missing members again. Hi Crashfrog! Always liked to read your posts, made a clear impression on me. And it is good to see that Bolder-Dash is keeping up a bit from time to time. Greetings BD, all the best to you as well. I hope you two will stick around a bit, would truly appreciate your opinions.
Edited by CosmicChimp, : No reason given.

My mind keeps trying to copy itself. Try as I might to stop it, almost everything I do seems to be some sort of a crude attempt at making copies. Gawd, what an egomaniac.

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 54 of 424 (567042)
06-29-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 10:01 AM


CS writes:
For all you know, he really was stupid enought to not see that his arguments were wrong.
Oh, please, NJ was not an idiot. If anything, he was very intelligent. Don't expect me to believe he honestly did not understand the moral difference between homosexuality and rape.
You don't know that he was comparing Ber to kids and dogs. That's you judging him. Don't do that.
If he did it once, then I'd let it go. If he did it twice, I'd begin to suspect. He did it dozens of times in half a dozen threads. If he wasn't comparing Ber to kids and dogs, why did he keep bringing it up and use it as an example?
Or that he really did lack the understanding or was simply an idiot, or that he truley believed he had a relavent and valid argument... we don't know.
Yes, we did know. He was an intelligent person. I believe he was intelligent enough to know the moral difference between homosexuality and rape.
In the first half a dozen times he brought it up, we really did try to explain to him the difference between homosexuality and rape. But after explaining it to him half a dozen times by each of us, it became clear that he was either an idiot (which he was not) or he kept bringing it up across half a dozen threads dozens of times to make a thinly veiled snide argument.
What's the difference between catholics and pedophiles again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 10:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 12:42 PM Taz has replied
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 06-29-2010 2:19 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 55 of 424 (567045)
06-29-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 11:51 AM


Christians often bring up the philosophical trappings of moral relativism, and NJ seemed to be no exception. They seem to think that you can really corral the atheists with it. One could even argue that his infatuation was more with moral relativism versus moral absolutes, based on my readings, than about homosexuality. It seems that he used gay marriage and moral relativism as a way to prove that allowing for it means allowing everything because their is no way to morally distinguish one taboo thing from another.
100% spot on. Most evangelicals live and breathe this sentiment, and the idea that you can reason it out of them with a mere 10-20 repetitions of the same logical argument is laughable. This is what I couldn't understand at the time - "NJ is an evangelical Christian - what else do you expect???"
Hmmm, and I wonder where they get the idea...
Someone once writes:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you. If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
The fact that with our shared heritage we see this exactly the same way gives me hope that I'm not just stupid and blind in failing to see what Crash, Berb, Dan, and Rrhain were seeing...
Edited by cavediver, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 11:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 56 of 424 (567046)
06-29-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
06-29-2010 1:01 AM


Taz writes:
Without looking up the threads themselves, I even remember the first time berberry lost patience. NJ made the usual "if we allow homosexuals to get married, then what's to prevent people from marrying kids and dogs?" argument. Berberry replied with "we're not kids or dogs, you twit" or some other name calling.
What puzzles me is how he misinterpreted that to mean that NJ thought homosexuals are kids and dogs. Is this what got all that started, cause it seems like an overreaction to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 1:01 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 12:44 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 1:00 PM Huntard has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 57 of 424 (567048)
06-29-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 11:51 AM


Hyrogoyphx writes:
I am mystified that you could even draw that inference. He clarified like 9,000 times. What his argument consisted of was if you allow for gay marriage, what moral imperative would preclude beastiality or any other "sexual sin?"

And we clarified to him like 10,000 times that gay marriage and rape weren't two comparable things. And please, I believe he was smarter than trying to really use the slippery slope argument.
That's a long way off from saying that homosexuals are also zoophiles. I don't see how anyone can draw that inference.

What's the difference between catholics and pedophiles? If we allow catholics to pray openly, what's to prevent pedophiles from kidnapping your children?
That's what's comparable with his slippery slope argument, which we know he wasn't idiotic enough to make.
I don't think he was "gay-bating," but even supposing he was, so what? Quite honestly if you were all too dumb not to take the bait, then he won that little social experiment, don't you think?

We didn't take the bait. We just became frustrated after explaining to him like 10,000 times why homosexuality and rape weren't comparable and that there's no slippery slope from allowing gay marriage to allowing pedophilia.
Like I said, I don't believe he was idiotic enough to not know the difference.
...and Mod's gay.
Mod ain't gay. He's bi, which is a totally different animal, one that researchers have proven to not exist... just j/k.
But an even douchier thing is to want to ban or suspend people because their feelings were hurt.
For the record, I never wanted anyone to get banned. I even repeatedly requested Admin to give a blanket amnesty to everyone, including some of the craziest crackpots we've ever seen. I don't want to see anyone banned.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 11:51 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 1:45 PM Taz has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 424 (567050)
06-29-2010 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Taz
06-29-2010 12:22 PM


Oh, please, NJ was not an idiot. If anything, he was very intelligent. Don't expect me to believe he honestly did not understand the moral difference between homosexuality and rape.
I'm not. I'm saying that when he talked about homos and rape in the same post, that he was not saying the two were the same thing. He didn't understnad, nor do I really, how y'all keep reading that as him saying that the two are the same thing.
If he did it once, then I'd let it go. If he did it twice, I'd begin to suspect. He did it dozens of times in half a dozen threads. If he wasn't comparing Ber to kids and dogs, why did he keep bringing it up and use it as an example?
Maybe because he thought it was a good example that nobody had sufficiently rebutted yet. We can't say that he must have been on a rampage aginast the gay by calling them rapists. You don't know that.
Yes, we did know.
No, you didn't. You thought you knew... and that's a big part of the problem here, with all you guys who think you can judge peoples' intentions like that.
He was an intelligent person. I believe he was intelligent enough to know the moral difference between homosexuality and rape.
So do I. His argument was that the atheist position was in no place to make that distinction. He was wrong, but we wasn't calling homos rapists. That you think you can read his mind and say that he was is your problem, not his.
But after explaining it to him half a dozen times by each of us, it became clear that he was either an idiot (which he was not) or he kept bringing it up across half a dozen threads dozens of times to make a thinly veiled snide argument.
Or that he thought your explanation was lacking, or didn't understand how it was applicable, etc.
That you're asribing this motive to him is what the rules for arguing the position and not the person are intended to prevent. that you guys are incapable of doing that is a big part of the problem with all this.
What's the difference between catholics and pedophiles again?
Do you think you should be suspended for that?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 12:22 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 424 (567052)
06-29-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Huntard
06-29-2010 12:30 PM


Taz writes:
Without looking up the threads themselves, I even remember the first time berberry lost patience. NJ made the usual "if we allow homosexuals to get married, then what's to prevent people from marrying kids and dogs?" argument. Berberry replied with "we're not kids or dogs, you twit" or some other name calling.

What puzzles me is how he misinterpreted that to mean that NJ thought homosexuals are kids and dogs. Is this what got all that started, cause it seems like an overreaction to me.
He's not the only one. Berberry, Taz, Crash, Rrhain, Dan, Schraf, etc. all though that making that comparison is saying that you think that homos are kids/dogs.
I don't get it either. Its one of those crazy liberal PC things, me thinks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Huntard, posted 06-29-2010 12:30 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Huntard, posted 06-29-2010 1:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 60 of 424 (567053)
06-29-2010 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 11:51 AM


But an even douchier thing is to want to ban or suspend people because their feelings were hurt.
Suspensions are very often not "punishments" so much as forced time to cool off. We debate very heatedly around here from time to time, and sometimes people need to step back, relax,and remember that we're arguing on the internet here, not determining national policy. Often the people getting too heated can't make that determination for themselves, and so a brief suspension is in order.
If anything, I wonder if an earlier 48-hour suspension for all of the people getting their panties in wads to cool off before things got so out of hand would have had better results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 11:51 AM Hyroglyphx 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