Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

LOL! Yeah, I don't think we got along too well in the past, but it's been bliss ever since. Kind of hard to wrap your mind around it, eh?

---

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

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.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.

---

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

Awwwww, what a sweetheart I could too. I still have some atavisms that rattle a few people from time to time. I have no illusions that the peace will remain. While I'm not as barbed as my former self, I have full faith that I can still stir the board in to a seething frenzy over something I think Rhavin's Mindless Middle accusation of me is actually him witnessing my old self warring with my new self. Such internal strife within me! I think I tend to take the middle ground more often now because I generally have the distinct ability to see both sides of an issue.

---

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

There's one guy who I think will hate me to the bitter end, either as Hyro or Nem. For him it would be like playing the role of Hitler. He'd be too conflicted.

---

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

Now that I've thoroughly derailed the thread, let's get back on topic amicably.My contention is not that EvC collapsed, but in lieu of the Great Purge it has certainly changed. I think the identity of the forum was scarred, not irrepairably, but scarred nonetheless.EvC still exists, but I do miss the old crew, while embracing the new crew.We need to be honest with ourselves in noting that the only reason this site exists is because of controversy. If we have no one to debate with, we have no site worth coming to.Now that I've defected to the Dark Side, that's one less person to bitch about and argue with. But what are your thoughts on site improvement?

---

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

Thanks! The prodigal son has returned

---

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

It is evidence that Hyro/NJ is the type of person who would repeatedly bait Berberry with hate speech, yes?

Make the deduction yourself.I admittedly was homophobic, and it's evident that my omission of who I really was could be reasonably construed as a form of deceit. I'm obviously not a perfect person (I know, shocking, eh?) but all I can do is point to the evidence which is well documented and have you judge that.(I find my quote at the time very prophetic)If you feel that I was baiting Berb, then okay. While I realize that I was construed as offensive, I was not trying to intentionally hurt Berb personally. By the very nature of my moral stance with homosexuality at the time, it was inevitable that he, being a gay man, would be offended on some level.The issue is whether or not I was equivocating homosexuals as being pedophiles or zoophiles. I wasn't. I think it is overwhelming that my arguments had more to do with moral relativism than it did with anything else.In those days I really thought that I had a good apologetic argument. I just used that argument in tandem with something like gay marriage.Since people felt more impassioned about gay marriage than they did with moral relativity, the subject of gay marriage and homosexuality would overlap on numerous occasions. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Embedded link

---

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

The way it has usually been handled, for as long as I've been here, is:Argue the position, not the person.If one member is being antagonistic by making personal slights (ad hominem), they are in violation of forum rules. There is no rule, however, for saying things that people find offensive by the simple fact that "offensive" is far too subjective.Invariably, you could talk about eating meat and offend a vegan. You shouldn't be suspended for discussing eating meat and you shouldn't be suspended for disliking people that eat meat, but you could be suspended for needlessly saying that the vegan (the specific vegan you are addressing) is a pussy because he doesn't eat meat.And even then there is room for discretion that really does need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.But generally speaking, the policy has always been: Argue the position, not the person.

---

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

It depends upon the content and the infraction. It also depends on whether or not the individual is being personal. Context is very important in a matter like this.Specifics are a big help, so lets look at my case. Was I following around Berberry or was Berberry following me around? Was I personally insulting Berberry or was he personally insulting me? You would have to first answer these questions to get to the appropriate answer.I happen to agree with the moderator's assessment in this case, but then, I could be charged with bias. You have to make that deduction yourself.But again in general, argue the position not the person, is a staple mantra around EvC.

---

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

Goading is a forum offense, so in a general application of the law, yes. But so much is a matter of interpretation. (Was he goading, was he just having a conversation?) Those kinds of interpretations have to be made.Spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.

---

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

What would you like to see done in light of this? I apologized then, I apologize now, as NJ I opted (of my own volition) to not engage in topics concerning homosexuality thereafter, and now have changed my views concerning homosexuality.I don't have a time machine, I can't afford one yet so I cannot undue the past. I don't know what your motivation is at this point. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

---

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

No problem. I think because I'm too close in this, I'd better sit this one out and just watch. Just let my attorney know if I'm called to the stand, and then I'll testify

---

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

A filthy, godless heathen!

---

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

How hard is it to hide online?... No brilliance, there.

---

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

At the time I really thought I was on to something, as you've stated. If you recall, apologetics and the philosophies of religion and existentialism were my schtick. I thought that while atheism had many good arguments in its defense, I thought the answers for why morality would be independent of a God was lacking.And yes, I never felt like I received a sufficient answer for why "consent" should be the unifying principle. After all, if an 18-year old teenager consentually wants to marry his 21-year old biological sister, they still cannot legally do that. Why, if age-of-consent is the arbiter? The only real justification anyone has (at the end of the day) is that it's taboo. We just feel that it's wrong, and so, it's wrong.I brought that up too. My arguments weren't confined to homosexuality by any stretch of the imagination.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. I think my initial assesment was right. It ultimately does boil down to opinion if moral relativism is true, and nothing else.I also still stand by the notion that laws derive from a moral framework, as we don't simply arbitrarily create laws. We create laws with a moral in mind. That, of course, does not mean necessarily that an absolute moral law-giver exists, or if it does, we haven't the ability to distinguish which morals are absolute.The paradox between moral relativity and moral absolutes still stand in my mind. I haven't been able to solve that quandry. It seems on some philosophical level, both are necessary.

---

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