General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0

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 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

Fine. Amend it to "if you support the right of Christians to worship freely, you have no reason for not supporting the rape of goats."And no, I feel no need to back it up with evidence. It has exactly as much support as NJ's statements do. NJ's posts, paired with Berberry's suspension, adequately counter this statement all on their own.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

Yeah... in this vast, complex tapestry of trial and error, that has no doubt taxed the cunning and ingenuity of the moderators to their very limit, you know what hasn't been tried? The statement, "NJ, stop being a prick." In fact, there has been a great deal of support for him on the side of the moderators, including the repeated suggestion that he's making a perfectly valid comparison between Berberry and a rapist.Of course, "stop being a prick" is just how I'd phrase it. (What with all the prickitry.) But then, I haven't seen anything along the lines "NJ, support the comparison or drop it" either. I make it a point not to try and coax people into realizations with which I disagree.

---

"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

So is the sex NJ has with his wife, something with which he has no problem. What's your point? See, that's where you're wrong. He's making absolutely no attempt to demonstrate that fact whatsoever... he's just stating that we don't, over and over again. Yeah. You quote him saying the contrary in one breath, then quote him going right back to "WHEEEEEEE! THEY'RE THE SAME!" in the next. And as Chiroptera points out, this difference has been explained to him, over and over and over again, ad nauseum. Really, for years now. He's not innocently asking for an explanation of what he sees as a hypocrisy, because he already knows the difference. He's conflating acts that he wants to associate with one another, with no basis for doing so.

---

"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

Oops. You've gone farther in your reasoning than NJ. So now you're officially defending a completely fictional NJ, who is far more competent than the genuine article.But yes, I agree that this fictional NJ is quite persuasive, and just making a neat little point about a philosophy.

---

"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

Nor can I force you to do your fucking job, and view his statements in the context of his history on this forum, and the information we all know he already has. Life, as they say, is difficult. Here's a nifty bit from an earlier post of yours.

quote:

---

comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them

---

Then it was a comparison, sure, but it was an okay comparison. Now it's not a comparison at all. How odd.EDIT FOR EDIT: Yes, let's point to Berberry's comments from eight months ago, in response to a completely different statement from a completely different poster. Wow, you really do suck at context.In fact, let's do it right after fucking suspending him, so he's not here to say what he did and did not mean. Wow, I just threw up in my mouth a little.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.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

Wouldn't want to go thinking about the reasons for the rules or anything. Treating Berberry with a little basic decency is not something I'd refer to as "political correctness." As I've said several times... if NJ had, at any point, followed up with, "And here's WHY I'm comparing them," and offered up anything that hasn't been countered on this forum a thousand times, TO HIM, then great.He hasn't. It's not censoring of offensive views. It's smacking down someone who's acting like an ass. Instead, you chose to smack down the person to whom he was being an ass.

---

"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

Yes he does. Then he states it again. One of your own quotes shows it.

quote:

---

What I do is show why if you should morally support one, why don't you morally support the other by the same premise?

---

His argument presupposes that the same moral premise supports both acts. This moral premise, according to NJ, excludes heterosexuality.How can this not be read as saying that the two are morally the same? So it wasn't ever a comparison, even when you said it was. Hm. Then, after a couple months have passed, NJ shows up and repeats his opening, insulting version again, as though nothing was ever said. Somebody points out why he's mistaken. So wait a little while more. Then he starts up again, with the same insulting version. Somebody again points out why he's mistaken. So he waits a while more. Then starts up again, with the same insulting version. Every time somebody points out why he's wrong, he not only completely ignores it, he pretends next time that nothing was ever said to him.By this point, only a retarded monkey who was thrown out of retarded monkey school for being too retarded and monkeylike to pass the qualifying exams for retarded monkeydom could not realize that NJ really has no desire to discuss moral relativism, and just wants to put the words "homosexual" and "rape" (or "bestiality" or what have you) in the same sentence as many times as possible.The moderators don't call him on it, because that would require some sort of judgement call, and we all know how scary those can be. So Berberry does, since really, he's the one being repeatedly insulted, over the course of months. Berberry gets suspended. No, you're quoting him out of context immediately after removing his ability to respond.

---

"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

Out of curiosity, is there anything in the forum guidelines about supporting one's points... such as, say, the idea that homsoexuality is the same, morally, as rape... with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation? Maybe something about addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument? Maybe, and I know this is a longshot, an admonishment against repeating previous points without further elaboration?Now, maybe I'm all wacky, but I think that since NJ has heard, over and over down the months and years, the reasons why moral relativists do not consider rape and homosexuality to be moral equivalents, his mindless repitition that we have to do so might just violate a point or two on that list.And while we're on the subject of basic decency, I can't imagine there's anything in the forum rules about treating other members with respect, but maybe there should be. Even if it would occasionally require a judgement call or two.

---

"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

One month ago: No response from NJ. Last week: NJ has had it explained to him, less than a month earlier, that a difference in determining the morality between his pet fetishes and homosexuality is consent. He does not respond. He waits a month, chooses rape (which by definition is nonconsensual) as his new comparison, and launches right back into it.

---

"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

It's worth noting that I haven't asked for NJ to be banned or suspended for making offensive remarks, nor suggested that he shouldn't be allowed to do so. What I've done is goggled, slack-jawed, at Berberry getting suspended for calling him on being offensive. (And right there with Berberry at his anger at moderator insistence that no, NJ's not being offensive.)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

But defending yourself against insult is called upon within twenty minutes. Got it.I'm really not gonna bother going back and forth with you anymore on whether NJ meant offense. Don't worry though, I'm sure he meant to imply that moral relativists should also reject heterosexuality.And remember... when you take the test? Peel the banana first. THEN eat it. Common rookie mistake.

---

"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

Your judgement is balls-on accurate. See how easy that is?Suspend if you please. My first response on this thread expected a suspension.

---

"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

Your reading is wrong. The thread is about homosexuality. The response (originally someone else's, but NJ picked it up and ran with it) was that since bestiality is not okay, obviously neither is homosexuality. In both cases, he's ignoring the sticking point, that consent is the difference between these acts. Whether he phrases it as a slippery slope or as moral relativism, he's making the same argument and ignoring the same rebuttal. Both arguments hinge around a lack of any context with which to morally seperate homosexuality from other sexual acts, and the response in each case is the same.Changing the dressing slightly doesn't mean he's not harping on the same point.

---

"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