Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,646 Year: 4,903/9,624 Month: 251/427 Week: 61/103 Day: 5/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Change in Moderation?
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6108 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 244 of 303 (157532)
11-09-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by coffee_addict
11-09-2004 1:45 AM


in support of Lam...
My two cents for what they're worth...
Lam's partial suspension came off a bit harsh to me since Lam seems to be a reasonable forum member - why not simply throw a warning his way? I'm sure if simply asked to, Lam would have drastically cut down on posting new topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by coffee_addict, posted 11-09-2004 1:45 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-09-2004 2:21 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6108 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 252 of 303 (157843)
11-10-2004 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by AdminHambre
11-09-2004 2:14 PM


Re: Some of my best friends are moderators, honest
Discussing subjects like DNA and geology with someone who's unfamiliar with scientific theory is amusing, but perhaps educational. Engaging someone you know is an inflexible fundie in debate over such emotionally-charged issues over and over again is a sign that neither of you know when it's time to quit.
I understand your point about the very low likelihood of someone changing their mind on these social issues, but I like to believe that some positive change has come of it.
There was a thread started by someone who vehemently stated for 100 posts or so that homosexuality was wrong because sex without the possibility of procreation was immoral. When countered with the example of infertile heterosexual couples, he admitted he had a vasectomy - and I read into his posts that he began to rethink his previously immobile stance upon the comparison.
It seems to me the chances of educating an "inflexible fundie" on abiogenesis or evolution is about the same as educating them on homosexuality. That doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.
Importantly, Lam repeatedly tries to maintain his threads as Biblically-oriented, so at least the originator is attempting to maintain a Biblical context. Likewise, homosexuality seems to intuitively fly in the face of evolution, and thus the biology of homosexuality has produced some rather interesting (and educational) discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by AdminHambre, posted 11-09-2004 2:14 PM AdminHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by AdminHambre, posted 11-10-2004 8:57 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6108 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 256 of 303 (158125)
11-10-2004 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by AdminHambre
11-10-2004 8:57 AM


Re: Some of my best friends are moderators, honest
I don't appreciate being painted as a discriminator and a homophobe for pointing out that Biblical discussions have jack shit to do with contemporary realities.
I'm confused. Did you think I was calling you a discriminator and a homophobe? I wasn't, and I'm sorry that you took it that way.
Biblical discussions do have to do with reality, since that is what apparently a majority of Americans base their views of homosexuality upon. You seem to state that is fine to examine cultural context but not Biblical context of homosexuality, yet the foundation of the cultural context is the Biblical context.
I'm hopeful. I like to think some people have gained a little wisdom in the homosexuality threads. Sometimes this happens in the midst of a shit-flinging match, admittedly...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by AdminHambre, posted 11-10-2004 8:57 AM AdminHambre has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6108 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 257 of 303 (158129)
11-10-2004 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Adminnemooseus
11-10-2004 11:39 AM


helpful bare links?
Regarding this exchange.
quote:
Pink: Here is a webpage that debunks various young earth arguments, including a few based on silt accumulation.
Perhaps you will find it helpful.
quote:
AM: Isn't that mighty close to being a bare link?
I think the creation side frequently gets chastised for responses of this nature. The rule applies to the evolution side also.
My comment was made following a link by Nosy where he suggested that techristian's comments were completely wrong, and thus techristian should do some research.
I would hope the content of my reply showed that I was simply providing a resource, rather than directly countering any comments made by techristian. (In fact, the reference I provided doesn't mention his assertion).
Does the "bare link" rule apply even if you are simply providing a resource?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-10-2004 11:39 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-11-2004 3:15 AM pink sasquatch 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