General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

very well then...You may wish to read this post and my response http://EvC Forum: Are Scientists Less Moral or Honest than Non-scientists? -->EvC Forum: Are Scientists Less Moral or Honest than Non-scientists?. I think you will understand the situation much better.Thank you for your time.

As per request from AdminNwr, this is to report that the problem occurs on my page 17 only, from #241 on.EvC Forum: Peppered Moths and Natural Selection

I am not seeing any problem with firefox, with opera, or with konqueror.So I booted to windows, and tried IE6. Sure enough, it is ridiculously wide. I cannot find any reason for this. It seems to be an IE6 bug.But I will look some more.

I'll add a little more info here.The problem is in message 246. I determined this by starting an administrator edit on several messages, which displays that single message above the edit screen. Message 246 displays far too wide. (I did not save my "edit" results).In message 246, there is a paragraph that begins with the sentence "But we don't know what the fraction was for homozygous versus heterozygous." (without the quotes). That paragraph shows up as 7 lines in the edit window, 4 lines on my firefox display. IE is attempting to display that as one very long line. I was unable to find a reason for this, except a possible bug in IE.I wonder what IE7 does with that line

Same thing.Actually IE7 handles that one (246), More to follow.Very strange. IE7 also shows the same problems in that message. Even if the paragraph is placed in a display:non div the problem persistsEdited by jar, : No reason given.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

This discussion began here. So please explain why it's okay to compare gays to animals at this forum.Nothing against you personally, omni, but right now you're in the position of defending what I consider the indefensible. When an insult against an entire group of people is that crystal clear it should be unacceptable.

---

W.W.E.D.?

I think all of us agree that NJ make a damn fool of himself and showed that he is at heart a bigot. But I don't think we should stop people from saying such things. He did not address an individual. It was addressed to a group. He does have the right to be a fool. It is not at all like other really nasty comments made here at EvC even about specific members that are allowed to stand even though equally offensive. After all, iano as one example, said that I should be taken out and shot. Now that is personal and yet was allowed to stand. The reason was that it simply showed the world the total bankruptcy of his position.

---

Oh, come on. Nemesis isn't comparing homosexuals to animals. He takes the typical view that the argument for gay marriage consists of "If it makes someone happy they should be allowed to do it," and then uses an analogy to show where that argument breaks down. This is a common and acceptable method of making arguments concerning ethics and morality, akin to showing the opponent's argument is invalid because it leads to a contradiction.If he is in the wrong, then it is because it has already been explained to him that this is not the argument that is being made but he has not been listening. In that case, it is a different forum rule that he is violating.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

in the thread I linked above, holmes wrote me:

quote:

---

I don't want you getting mad at me, but I would like to calm you down...

---

I'm perfectly calm, holmes, and I'm not mad at you.

quote:

---

...the request for such rights is fundamentally the same.

---

No, it's not. Assuming the right to marry a consenting human adult is not the same as assuming the right to marry something or someone that can't give consent. To do that you're assuming the right to exercise the rights of someone else. That's quite a bit more than asserting your own right to consent to a legal contract.

quote:

---

On the flipside, as soon as you demand that he should take your feelings of how relationships should be judged

---

I'm not asking anything of the sort. I'm simply asking to not be compared to animals. And any way you slice it, saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry cuz we wouldn't allow people to marry animals is a comparison of gays to animals. No two ways about it.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Berberry, this is a difficult issue for me. I find n_j's comments deeply repugnant. I think you know me well enough by now to understand that. I have noted that n_j seems to drift ever closer to nasty personal affront; I have cautioned him in that thread once already, and I continue to watch closely.Let's look at the passage in question, where n_j responds to schrafinator: I read his comments as saying that he finds gay marriage wrong, and the marriage of adults to children or people to animals even more wrong: I, too, suspect his comments are intended to imply an equivalence I find even more offensive than his surface statements, but that is not explicitly what he said.I agree with jar that, by and large, it is better to allow the hateful and offensive access to full daylight, where their mean-spirited worldview can be seen by all for what it is.I care a great deal about free speech for two reasons: the truth-tellers must be heard, and the hatemongers must be exposed. If we ban all hateful speech, we help the hatemongers more than we help ourselves.I think the proper lines to draw at a public forum are these: the line between offensive opinion and personal insult/attack, and the line between an exposition of belief and an exhortation of criminal action.I'm sorry if that disappoints you, but I am trying to apply an even-handed policy that will inevitably offend everyone at one time or another, while still allowing strong differences to be sharply defined.I suppose I will inevitably call some wrong, but I don't think that is the case here. I will always welcome all perspectives on my performance.Edited by AdminOmni, : No reason given.

---

Trust me.

Chiroptera writes me:

quote:

---

He takes the typical view that the argument for gay marriage consists of "If it makes someone happy they should be allowed to do it,"

---

But who made that argument? I checked upthread and schraf didn't seem to be making it.

---

W.W.E.D.?

It is ridiculous to accuse NJ of any sort of comparison between humans and animals, or any sort of mean-spirited personal beliefs for that matter. There is nothing in anything he's said that suggests such an attitude. I read his remark as the standard position all of us take who oppose gay marriage. The comparison is meant to demonstrate that marriage has the specific purpose of uniting two heterosexuals of the opposite sex and of a certain age, and no other combination of people qualifies, which has nothing to do with the people themselves but with what marriage is for. I have gay friends by the way, and they know my opinion and they are still my friends. I also happen to like Berberry. There is nothing personal or insulting implied in the position taken by NJ or me or any conservative Christian.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I understand you, Omni, but I can remember being nearly suspended more than once over the years here for making insulting statements about christians, statements that weren't necessarily aimed at one particular member. I also tend to agree with jar's point, but I think that when an insult like that appears, a counter-insult should be expected, and if you'll look back you'll see that I made one. I didn't get suspended for it, so at least at this moment I'm not raging mad about anything.

---

W.W.E.D.?

quote:

---

It is ridiculous to accuse NJ of any sort of comparison between humans and animals...

---

Why, when that's exactly what he did?

quote:

---

I read his remark as the standard position all of us take who oppose gay marriage.

---

Which is the problem, as I see it. In 1900, you might have gotten away with saying that if we let blacks vote, next thing you know we'll be letting monkeys vote. And it would have made as much sense. After all, you're not comparing blacks to monkeys, you're saying that once you start letting someone other than white men vote, you've changed our entire democratic system into something it was never intended to be.

---

W.W.E.D.?

In the other thread I responded that you didn't have to respond, but too late! Shoot.Since you did, I'll explain my statement. Yes it would be the same when viewed by a relativist, or from a relativist perspective.The appeal to "consent", or even believing that children or animals can't give consent, is based on cultural assumptions/criteria. They aren't universally valid or recognized. In some nations it is quite possible and legal.I'm not arguing that you should view it this way, just that that's the endpoint of relativism, which is the exact thing that NJ is arguing against. He wants to say there is a difference, perhaps even a vast difference between gays getting married and marring an animal.I think that's why you may be wayyyy off, or at least premature, in slamming NJ on this. While I doubt he wants gay marriage I have no way of knowing what his stance is on kids or animals getting married as compared to gays. This is a separate issue but let me address this as well. A person could say this with no concept that they are comparing a gay person to an animal. All they have to be seeing is a similar problem with the marriage, that it would be illegitimate or immoral, and the reasons could be vastly different.Frankly if NJ finds marrying children immoral it has to be for something completely different than for why he would find gay marriage illegal or immoral, as there is no age proscription on marriage in the Bible. Thus there is no direct comparison (assuming he is using the bible as his source).

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)