|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
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.
Spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
onifre writes:
Buz liked NJ, and his stances on stuff a lot. He considered him somewhat of a like minded spirit, I think. Buz? Why would you let Buz down? Did he train you for debate? And now look what NJ's become!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
I hope Buz's heart doesn't give out when he learns the news.
A filthy, godless heathen!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
Why shouldn't they be allowed morally to do as they please, as long as they don't hurt anybody else?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
They are. And I am against that.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
purpledawn writes:
You don't have to be married to get kids, you know. I thought inbreeding was the reasoning behind not allowing those too closely related to marry today. Also, you don't have to get kids because you're married.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Yep.
Genetic inbreeding can produce horrendous deformities. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
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?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
From what I've read about all this: nay.
Did Modulous overstep his duties and go from forum enforcement to forum brutality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
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. 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? 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 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Let me point out that the problems you are perceiving should be discussed in the Topic Proposal Issues thread, you poor persecuted you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024