Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 10:56 AM
39 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,580 Year: 3,617/19,786 Month: 612/1,087 Week: 202/212 Day: 17/27 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 106 of 134 (450109)
01-20-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 3:10 PM


And declaring that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists is "civil"?

No, it isn't. If I thought that any member was declaring gays to be rapists or paedophiles or incestuous, I'd take immediate action. I appreciate you think that one of our members did this, but the issue is not how to handle someone calling gays rapists but instead it is did someone call gays rapists?

We've argued this latter point at length so I don't think it does us good to go over it any more. However, I think it important to clarify that we agree on the former issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 3:10 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Rrhain, posted 01-21-2008 5:36 PM AdminModulous has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 719 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 107 of 134 (450120)
01-20-2008 9:26 PM


Amen's got quite a mouth on him these days.

Message 39.

Thats what natural scientist believe... and I really consider them to be a pain in the ass, since they are selfish pointless debaters.

A person is ignorant to you, because he doesn't feel like dealing with your bullshit?

seriously TN, your a selfish debater and a waste of time.

Message 37.

eh, where the fuck is your proof?

2) you seem to be a science jock, always counting how many people who, in your case, probably really didn't want to deal with your bullshit and just said "fuck it"

Dunno if he's crossed the line.

Gettin close, tho.


Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 108 of 134 (450331)
01-21-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by arachnophilia
01-20-2008 2:00 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
arachnophilia responds to me:

quote:
see, there you go again.

quote:
and again.

Yep. And until we get a ruling from the admins that it is ALWAYS unacceptable to make the blanket claim that anybody or any number of people are incestuous, pedophilic rapists, then I shall keep doing it.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is no problem with NJ declaring gays to be incestuous, pedophilic rapists, why is it a problem to turn that prejudice back around on him? He's the one who brought it up.

NJs argument is a variation of the logical fallacy of Special Pleading. Rush Limbaugh made quite a bit of hay declaring that all drug addicts should be thrown in jail.

And then he got caught doing drugs.

Suddenly, his tune changed. He couldn't explain why his drug addiction was different than that of those he said should be in jail. And thus, the way you get around his special pleading is to turn his argument back around on him. That isn't personal. It is merely specific. We choose Rush's specific circumstance because it is the closest to the issue at hand: Rush's declaration.

"Courage of your convictions," and all.

Now, I'm not saying that NJ is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist. I'm simply saying that he thinks about it an awful lot. NJ has made a lot of hay declaring gays to be incestuous, pedophilic rapists. But since he is the only person who ever deigns to think about raping one's infant child when considering the topic of sex between adults, it is not personal to ask him why. It is merely specific. NJ is the one that brought it up. Therefore, he needs to explain why it is that the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex immediately made him think of raping his infant son.

If he cannot explain how he got there, if he cannot explain why heterosexuality doesn't lead to incest, pedophilia, rape, drugs, murder, bestiality, etc., then he has no justification for his claim that homosexuality necessarily leads to it.

He's the one who brought it up. Why is it taboo to make him justify it for his own case?

quote:
NJ, nearest i can tell, is arguing that allowing homosexuality opens the door for other forms of sexual deviations that he feels are wrong.

But he can't explain why. Why does heterosexuality not lead to those things?

I am attempting to reframe the discussion. Rather than trying to force the justification be of gays, I am having NJ justify straights.

Apparently, that is so offensive that it cannot be allowed. It's OK to accuse the gay people here of being incestuous, pedophilic rapists, but heaven help you if you hint that perhaps the straights need to explain themselves.

quote:
but you're directly calling him a rapist and a pedophile.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that when he thinks about having sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately starts to think about raping his infant son. That doesn't mean he actually does it. It simply means that he can't help but think about it. And the thought is so compelling that he feels the need to tell us about it. It is up to him to explain why.

Do honestly not understand the difference?

Hint: There is a festive clue in there about NJ's defense of his own argument. Can you figure out what it is? Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?

quote:
when you phrase it as an attack on your opponent, it is an ad hominem.

But it isn't about him personally. It's about his statement. He's the one who brought it up. Nobody was thinking of such things except him. Therefore, it is his responsibility to explain why the thought of sex with someone of the same sex made him immediately consider raping his infant son.

quote:
and he has said repeatedly that this is not what he's trying to do.

And we believe him why?

So what you're saying is that if I tell you repeatedly that I am not trying to say that NJ is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist, that'll be good enough for you? After all, I have never said he actually is. I have only said that when he thinks about having sex with someone of his own sex, his mind immediately starts envisioning raping his infant son. Again, that doesn't mean he actually goes out and does it. I have asked him if he's trying to tell us something, but I have never said he has gone out and done it.

Hint: There is a festive clue in there about NJ's defense of his own argument. Can you figure out what it is? Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?

quote:
you are rather basically misrepresenting his argument

Huh? Have you not read his argument? Did you not see his reaction when he learned that gays are actually less likely to molest children than straights?

Are you really that naive? OK: Guess I get to ask you the same question:

Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? I do not ask this for my health. It is not rhetorical. I really want to know your answer to that question. For if you do, it would explain a lot about your defense of NJ. If you don't, then we're back where we started with your inability to understand that if NJ's argument shall not be applied to him, then it necessarily means that it shall not be applied to anybody else, either, and he should stop making it. Since he seems to be incapable of controlling himself, since he seemingly cannot help but tell us all of his visions of raping his infant son when he thinks about sex with someone of the same sex, perhaps he should be told to have those thoughts somewhere else.

quote:
one of them is against the forum rules

And yet, NJ is still allowed to post. If it is against the forum rules, why is NJ still allowed to post? Since he ALWAYS brings up the vision of raping his infant son when he thinks of sex with someone of the same sex and since it ALWAYS derails the thread, why has nobody figured out that the solution is to stop him from joining in on such subjects?

Again, it's like the idiots in schools who seem to think that the solution to bullying is to punish the ones being bullied for fighting back.

quote:
yes, rrhain, everyone who expects you to behave yourself like an adult is a baby-raper.

Yes, arachnophilia, that's what I'm trying to say. You hit it spot on. Couldn't have nailed it any better. I'm amazed that you were able to read my mind so clearly.

Hint: I didn't really mean that. I know my words seemed to indicate that I did, but I didn't. Perhaps just because somebody says something, that doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

quote:
you know, it's rather hard to claim to have the moral high ground when you're content to sling mud down in the gutter with the worst of them.

Who said I was claiming the moral high ground? What I said I was doing was trying to make a point. Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?

Three wrongs don't make a right, arachnophilia. If it's wrong when I do it, then it's just as wrong when NJ does it and it is just as wrong to come down on me and not him.

You will notice that NJ is never questioned about why he seems to jump to raping his infant son when he thinks about having sex with someone of the same sex out of the blue. It is always and solely in response to his equation of gays to incestuous, pedophilic rapists. So if you think it is bad form to turn that argument back around on him, then the solution is to prevent the original argument from being brought up in the first place.

Since he ALWAYS brings up the vision of raping his infant son when he thinks of sex with someone of the same sex and since it ALWAYS derails the thread, why has nobody figured out that the solution is to stop him from joining in on such subjects?

quote:
just try to behave yourself and not attack other forum members.

I have not attacked NJ. I have simply pointed his own argument back against him. If it is personal to have his argument applied to him, then it is personal to have it applied to anybody else.

So why is NJ still allowed to make that personal argument?

If I tell you enough that I am not attacking NJ, will that be sufficient? That seems to be your standard: All I have to do is tell you I'm not and you'll buy it. So fine.

I'm not attacking NJ. I have never said he actually does rape his infant son. I've simply said that the thought of sex with someone of the same sex makes him think about it.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 2:00 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 01-21-2008 5:52 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 109 of 134 (450351)
01-21-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by arachnophilia
01-20-2008 2:05 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
arachnophilia writes:

quote:
and comes whining here

Excuse me? The moderators decree that any discussion of the situation must be done here and it is "whining" to do so?

Gee, arach...what does that make you? You responded to the whiner!

quote:
christianity has a very small definition of what is morally accepted sex.

And that's fine. The problem is not that NJ has a list. The problem is that he seems to think that everything on the list is the same and has no desire to justify that claim.

And apparently, while it is appropriate to declare gays to be incestuous, pedophilic rapists, it is inappropriate to turn that argument back around on him and ask why it is that he cannot help but think of raping his infant son whenever he thinks of sex with someone of the same sex.

quote:
perhaps the thread could argue against that position instead of merely attacking the person who feels that way.

But nobody has attacked NJ. I have never said that he actually IS an incestuous, pedophilic rapist. I've simply said that he thinks about it.

When I think of kidnapping, I also think of murder. That doesn't make me a murderer. It just means I think about it.

Now, I can justify why I do: When people kidnap people, they are often in a desperate state. And usually kidnapping requires the use of some sort of weapon to get the victim to come along. Given a desperate person with a weapon, the possibility of murder coming along for the ride goes right up. Now, I know that many kidnappers don't do it with the thought of killing their victim. And I would not be shocked to find that most kidnappings don't end up in murder (though my recollection is that if the victim is not retrieved quickly, the chances of them having been murdered skyrocket), but it is because we have all the elements of a murder present (weapon, person not thinking clearly) that when I think about kidnapping, I also start considering murder.

You will note, however, that the fact that I think about murder when I think about kidnapping does not mean I have ever committed or even contemplated committing either murder or kidnapping. But, it is clear that if I am constantly bringing up murder whenever the discussion of kidnapping comes up, I am going to have to explain myself as to why I can't get the image out of my head. After all, since not all kidnappings end in murder, there would seem to be at least some level of disconnect between the two.

Contrast this to, say, election fraud. When I think of election fraud, I don't think about murder. There is nothing inherent in the stealing of votes, stuffing of ballot boxes, reprogramming of voting machines, etc. that has the prerequisites of murder. If I'm going to equate election fraud to murder, I'm going to have to explain why it is that I constantly think of murder whenever I consider election fraud.

So far, NJ has yet to explain why it is that whenever he thinks about sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately thinks about raping his infant son. That doesn't mean he has ever done so or has any intentions of doing so. It simply means that he has to explain why he cannot separate the two. Why does he immediately envision raping his infant son whenever the subject of sex with someone of the same sex crosses his mind? Nobody else brought it up. Nobody else even hinted at it. It sprung specifically from his thoughts, so it is his burden to explain himself.

That isn't personal. That's specific. There's a difference.

quote:
but hate-speech in return is not the answer.

So why is "hate-speech" in the first allowed?

If it's "hate-speech" to turn NJ's argument around on him, isn't it "hate-speech" for him to bring it forth in the first place?

Remember: NJ is the one who brings it up. We wouldn't be talking about incestuous, pedophilic rapists if it weren't for NJ. Therefore, if it is problematic to deal with the subject of incestuous, pedophilic rapists, shouldn't we concentrate our attentions on the person who can't help but to bring the subject up?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by arachnophilia, posted 01-20-2008 2:05 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 110 of 134 (450358)
01-21-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by AdminNWR
01-20-2008 3:19 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
AdminNWR responds to me:

quote:
This is not a debate thread. Your question is off-topic for this thread.

Inquiring into the thought processes of the administrators that they use to justify their administrative responses is not on-topic in a thread about the thought processes of the administrators that they use to justify their administrative responses? Just what do you think is the point of this thread? If we can't ask the admins to justify their administrative actions here, where do we do it?

I do not seek to ask them to justify why they do or do not think that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists. I simply seek to find out if they do or do not. It's a simple, yes-or-no question. Is it really so difficult to answer?

If they do, then that would explain why they don't respond to NJ's equation of being gay with being an incestuous, pedophilic rapist. Since they do not see a problem, it is futile to try and spur them into action.

If they don't, then one has to wonder why they don't respond to NJ's equation of being gay with being an incestuous, pedophilic rapist. Since it would seem to be clear that since NJ's claim ALWAYS derails the thread, the simplest solution would be to shut it down when it is brought forth.

I am asking why they are perpetuating a double standard. One of the ways of doing that is to see if they actually don't have a problem with the statements being made. If they don't, then it is clear that they would not see a double standard. But if they do have a problem, then they need to explain why they are perpetuating a double standard. It doesn't matter what the subject is that is the basis for the double standard. The problem is specifically the double standard.

If they don't see it, then that explains why they don't do anything about it.

How am I supposed to determine if they don't see it if I don't ask them about it?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by AdminNWR, posted 01-20-2008 3:19 PM AdminNWR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by AdminNWR, posted 01-21-2008 5:41 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 111 of 134 (450359)
01-21-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jar
01-20-2008 3:19 PM


Re: Gay Issues Discussion Threads
jar responds to me:

quote:
Yawn.

Then why did you bother to respond in the first place, jar. You obviously care that much. If it really is of no interest to you, then step back. Surely you aren't saying that I'm hurting NJ's pwecious, widdle feewings are you?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 01-20-2008 3:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 01-21-2008 5:31 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 112 of 134 (450362)
01-21-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Rrhain
01-21-2008 5:23 PM


Re: Gay Issues Discussion Threads
Nope, I'm saying your posts make you look like an ass. If that is your goal then carry on.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Rrhain, posted 01-21-2008 5:23 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 113 of 134 (450368)
01-21-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by AdminModulous
01-20-2008 3:58 PM


AdminModulous responds to me:

quote:
quote:
And declaring that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists is "civil"?

No, it isn't.


Then why aren't you doing anything about it? Has it not occured to you that this entire problem is predicated upon NJ's continual inability to discuss the issue at hand? Have you not noticed that it is always NJ who brings up the subject of incest, pedophilia, rape, murder, bestiality, etc.? Have you not noticed that it ALWAYS derails the thread when he does so?

So why are you picking on the people who are fighting back? Shouldn't you be focusing your attention on the person who brings it up in the first place?

This problem will vanish if you simply followed your own guidelines and stopped the bigot from putting forth his vomit.

quote:
If I thought that any member was declaring gays to be rapists or paedophiles or incestuous, I'd take immediate action.

And did you not see his reaction when he was informed that gay people are actually less likely to molest children than straights?

quote:
did someone call gays rapists?

And what makes you think he didn't? Be specific. How does equating being gay to being an incestuous, pedophilic rapist not calling gays rapists? How does saying that sanctioning homosexuality is equivalent to sanctioning rape not equating being gay with being a rapist? How does equating two terms not mean that one is the other?

It'd be very simple for NJ to prove that he doesn't equate the two: Craft an argument that doesn't equate the two. But he never does so. Whenever the subject of sex with someone of the same sex comes up, he immediately jumps to the question of raping his infant son. How the hell did he get there?

quote:
However, I think it important to clarify that we agree on the former issue.

No, AdminModulous, we apparently don't agree on it.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by AdminModulous, posted 01-20-2008 3:58 PM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by AdminModulous, posted 01-21-2008 6:00 PM Rrhain has responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 134 (450370)
01-21-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rrhain
01-21-2008 5:19 PM


Rrhain takes a 24 hour break
Inquiring into the thought processes of the administrators that they use to justify their administrative responses is not on-topic in a thread about the thought processes of the administrators that they use to justify their administrative responses?

That is not what you were doing in Message 103 to which I had replied.

You have continued to debate in this thread, despite the earlier warning.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 110 by Rrhain, posted 01-21-2008 5:19 PM Rrhain has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2008 2:47 AM AdminNWR has acknowledged this reply

    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 55 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 115 of 134 (450373)
    01-21-2008 5:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 108 by Rrhain
    01-21-2008 4:15 PM


    Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
    edit: seems admin action has taken place, didn't see it before i posted. post hidden.

    Yep. And until we get a ruling from the admins that it is ALWAYS unacceptable to make the blanket claim that anybody or any number of people are incestuous, pedophilic rapists, then I shall keep doing it.

    in other words, you know the rules, but you're going to keep breaking them because you don't understand the rules.

    What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is no problem with NJ declaring gays to be incestuous, pedophilic rapists, why is it a problem to turn that prejudice back around on him? He's the one who brought it up.

    because attacking your opponent in debate instead of his argument is a very basic logical fallacy and disrupts the flow of civil debate on the site. i understand that you think you are attacking his argument by using it against him, but that's irrelevent. you are attacking a member of the board.

    Now, I'm not saying that NJ is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist.

    just like rush limbaugh wasn't saying all drug addicts should go to jail? the body of your posts disagrees with you. you repeatedly asked NJ why he fantasized about raping his infant son. i would call that an accusation that he is an incestuous pedophiliac rapist. perhaps, rrhain, the more important question at hand is why are you obsessed with imagining him doing such things? there's a certain logical disconnect between what he says and what you accuse him of, so one must wonder where this idea in your head is coming from.

    I'm simply saying that he thinks about it an awful lot.

    on the contrary, you seem to think about it an awful lot. i certainly read nothing about his desires in his posts.

    But since he is the only person who ever deigns to think about raping one's infant child when considering the topic of sex between adults, it is not personal to ask him why. It is merely specific.

    it seems that you very basically do not understand what "personal" means.

    NJ is the one that brought it up. Therefore, he needs to explain why it is that the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex immediately made him think of raping his infant son.

    and i explained it to you above, whether or not NJ did. the christian right feels that all these things fall under a broad category of "sexual deviancy" and that if you open the door for one sexual deviancy, the rest will come with it. that is the point you should be arguing against, not what you fantasize about NJ doing.

    He's the one who brought it up. Why is it taboo to make him justify it for his own case?

    it's not. it's taboo to specifically attack a single person you are engage in debate with. i realize that you think certain positions are disgusting, but turning generally bigotted arguments into specific attacks...

    I am attempting to reframe the discussion. Rather than trying to force the justification be of gays, I am having NJ justify straights.

    that's fine. attacking him in the process, specifically, is not.

    No, I'm not. I'm saying that when he thinks about having sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately starts to think about raping his infant son. That doesn't mean he actually does it. It simply means that he can't help but think about it. And the thought is so compelling that he feels the need to tell us about it. It is up to him to explain why.

    Do honestly not understand the difference?

    when you get a grasp of what your opponent's argument actually is, feel free to come back and lecture the rest of us on "not understanding the difference."

    But it isn't about him personally

    then don't attack him personally. is this really so hard to understand?

    And we believe him why?

    because he's making the argument. he's probably a better source on what he's trying to say than you are.

    So what you're saying is that if I tell you repeatedly that I am not trying to say that NJ is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist, that'll be good enough for you?

    it's a useful clarification, yes, but your actions are still inappropriate.

    Hint: There is a festive clue in there about NJ's defense of his own argument. Can you figure out what it is? Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?

    yes, like there is a legal "double" standard that allows the KKK to exist and spew their hate speech, but when they start burning crosses on peoples' lawns they get in trouble. that's not a double standard, it's a standard. and part of it is specificity. do you really not understand this concept? don't personally attack your fellow members.

    Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? I do not ask this for my health. It is not rhetorical. I really want to know your answer to that question. For if you do, it would explain a lot about your defense of NJ.

    i do not.

    If you don't, then we're back where we started with your inability to understand that if NJ's argument shall not be applied to him, then it necessarily means that it shall not be applied to anybody else, either, and he should stop making it.

    you're still missing the very basic point. i understand that you feel attacking many people is a lot worse than attacking one person, but generalities and specific attacks are two very different things. you cannot make specific attacks. period.

    Since he seems to be incapable of controlling himself, since he seemingly cannot help but tell us all of his visions of raping his infant son when he thinks about sex with someone of the same sex, perhaps he should be told to have those thoughts somewhere else.

    and constantly mischaracterizing your opponent in this manner, whether or not you say he is doing these things, is in rather poor taste -- regardless how tasteless you feel NJ's point may be. if you think his behavious is disgusting, don't do it yourself.

    And yet, NJ is still allowed to post. If it is against the forum rules, why is NJ still allowed to post?

    no, rrhain. try to parse the sentence more carefully, and not live in your own little la-la land. personal attacks are against the forum rules. being a bigot is not.

    Again, it's like the idiots in schools who seem to think that the solution to bullying is to punish the ones being bullied for fighting back.

    yes, well, when the bullies are fighting with fists, and the bullied brings a gun to school... it's hardly the same thing, is it? but oh, no, wait, that's okay because bullying is wrong, and people should be able to fight back? anything in the name of stopping the people you hate? not much better here, but a whole lot worse.

    yes, rrhain, everyone who expects you to behave yourself like an adult is a baby-raper.

    Yes, arachnophilia, that's what I'm trying to say. You hit it spot on. Couldn't have nailed it any better. I'm amazed that you were able to read my mind so clearly.

    Hint: I didn't really mean that. I know my words seemed to indicate that I did, but I didn't. Perhaps just because somebody says something, that doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

    perhaps you should stop fantasizing about people raping babies.

    Who said I was claiming the moral high ground?

    perhaps that's my problem. you're content to be a bigot too.

    What I said I was doing was trying to make a point. Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?

    you are held to the same standard. in fact, if there's a double standard, it's that you got off when you personally attacked another poster. i promise that NJ wouldn't have been so lucky.

    Three wrongs don't make a right, arachnophilia. If it's wrong when I do it, then it's just as wrong when NJ does it and it is just as wrong to come down on me and not him.

    you attacked another member personally. he did not. why do you not understand this?

    I have not attacked NJ. I have simply pointed his own argument back against him. If it is personal to have his argument applied to him, then it is personal to have it applied to anybody else.

    So why is NJ still allowed to make that personal argument?

    congratulations! you have used logic to prove that black is white! i'm sorry, rrhain, but words have meanings. "personally" is when something is directed at a specific person. "general" is when it is not. your logic is faulty.

    Edited by arachnophilia, : typos

    Edited by arachnophilia, : post hidden


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 108 by Rrhain, posted 01-21-2008 4:15 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    AdminModulous
    Administrator (Idle past 182 days)
    Posts: 897
    Joined: 03-02-2006


    Message 116 of 134 (450378)
    01-21-2008 6:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 113 by Rrhain
    01-21-2008 5:36 PM


    No, AdminModulous, we apparently don't agree on it.

    Yes, we do agree that if someone was to declare gays are incestuous or paedophiles then action should be taken. Where we disagree is whether or not someone has done this. We have debated where we disagree ad nauseum, and I see nothing new to add to it. If you really want my answer to the questions you put forward, simply refer to General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 where most, if not all of them are addressed.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 113 by Rrhain, posted 01-21-2008 5:36 PM Rrhain has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 118 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2008 3:00 AM AdminModulous has responded

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6349
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 117 of 134 (450653)
    01-23-2008 2:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 114 by AdminNWR
    01-21-2008 5:41 PM


    Re: Rrhain takes a 24 hour break
    AdminNWR responds to me:

    quote:
    That is not what you were doing in Message 103 to which I had replied.

    Here is my entire text of Message 103:

    So why are we not allowed to call them out on their bigotry and turn it around back on them? Can what we say actually offend them? Do they really give us that much credit?

    It's the double-standard, jar, that is the problem. NJ can call people incestuous, pedophilic rapists without comment but somehow to reflect that back upon him is unacceptable?

    Where am I doing anything but question the admins' double standard? I am certainly not arguing for or against gays, rapists, pedophiles, commiters of incest, etc. I am simply wondering why it is that the admins let those who claim gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists to slide while those who call them on it get attacked as "violating forum guidelines."

    Why is NJ still allowed to post, AdminNWR? Be specific.

    Perhaps you meant Message 102. Here is my complete text there:

    And declaring that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists is "civil"?

    Once again, I ask you directly: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists?

    If not, if you truly are concerned with maintaining the guidelines and keeping threads on track and civil, then you would stop the person who is being uncivil and throwing things off.

    Since you don't in the case of NJ equated gays to incestuous, pedophilic rapists, one has to wonder if you don't agree. Therefore, I ask you directly for the third time:

    Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't blink when someone makes that claim.

    ...

    The originator hasn't spoken and you haven't enforced any guideline at all. The last time this was brought up, you did the same thing directly against the wishes of the originator.

    So once again, I ask directly: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't act when someone makes such a claim.

    Where am I trying to debate the merits of NJ's claims that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? Be specific.

    Instead, I am asking why NJ's claims are considered "civil" since they never get shut down.

    Be specific. If equating being gay with being an incestuous, pedophilic rapist is "civil," why is it beyond the pale to wonder why NJ constantly thinks of raping his infant son when he considers sex with someone of his one sex?

    If this thread isn't here to allow the users to question the admins' judgements, to get them to open up and explicitly describe why they are doing what they are doing, then where do we do it?

    Or are you saying that this entire thread is nothing but a sham? To make it look like the users might have some say in this board but that it's just a ruse to keep us happy: The reality is that the admins are never to be questioned?

    How might a user convince an admin that the admin screwed up if "debating" is not allowed? Should we declare a "Great Debate" thread between the user and the admin? Would that be the better place for it?

    Justify yourself, NWR. Why are you here? How do you contribute? Why does your presence make things better?


    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 114 by AdminNWR, posted 01-21-2008 5:41 PM AdminNWR has acknowledged this reply

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6349
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 118 of 134 (450655)
    01-23-2008 3:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 116 by AdminModulous
    01-21-2008 6:00 PM


    AdminModulous responds to me:

    quote:
    Yes, we do agree that if someone was to declare gays are incestuous or paedophiles then action should be taken.

    Apparently not or you would shut NJ down. Again, he ALWAYS brings up this fantasy of raping his infant son and it ALWAYS derails the thread and yet somehow, he is still allowed to post. Has it not occurred to you that this problem would never happen again if you just did your job and shut such thread-wrecking comments down at the source?

    quote:
    If you really want my answer to the questions you put forward, simply refer to Thread General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 in Forum Suggestions and Questions where most, if not all of them are addressed.

    You seem to forget that I was part of that thread and contrary to your claim, not a single point was addressed. Instead, you just stuck your fingers in your ears and sang la-la-la, can't hear you!

    It seems we've got a repeat performance. Since NJ ALWAYS makes this bizarre claim about raping his infant son and since it ALWAYS derails the thread, why are you punishing those that fight back?

    Shouldn't you be paying attention to the bully?


    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 116 by AdminModulous, posted 01-21-2008 6:00 PM AdminModulous has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 119 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-23-2008 3:08 AM Rrhain has responded
     Message 123 by AdminModulous, posted 01-23-2008 8:21 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

      
    Adminnemooseus
    Director
    Posts: 3879
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 119 of 134 (450656)
    01-23-2008 3:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 118 by Rrhain
    01-23-2008 3:00 AM


    Links please
    Again, he ALWAYS brings up this fantasy of raping his infant son and it ALWAYS derails the thread and yet somehow, he is still allowed to post.

    It is certainly helpful if you would supply link(s) to such things. I certainly don't feel like spending a lot of time searching for such.

    Adminnemooseus


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 118 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2008 3:00 AM Rrhain has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 120 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2008 4:20 AM Adminnemooseus has responded

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6349
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 120 of 134 (450659)
    01-23-2008 4:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 119 by Adminnemooseus
    01-23-2008 3:08 AM


    Are you that lazy?
    Adminnemooseus responds to me:

    quote:
    quote:
    Again, he ALWAYS brings up this fantasy of raping his infant son and it ALWAYS derails the thread and yet somehow, he is still allowed to post.

    It is certainly helpful if you would supply link(s) to such things. I certainly don't feel like spending a lot of time searching for such.


    You're kidding, right? You don't read your own board?

    In Message 3 of the "Gay marriage and the law" thread...MESSAGE 3!...he starts right in:

    Anyone that makes that argument is making an incredibly specious one, IMO. What I believe is that it does is open the floodgates to more degradation.

    Yes, yes...not quite there, but we know what's coming. "Degradation"? What on earth could he possibly mean by that? Why here it is: Just a few paragraphs later:

    After this comes will be the next battlefront -- pedophilia.

    Huh? Pedophilia? Where did that come from? Why does homosexuality lead to pedophilia whereas heterosexuality does not? We'll never know because NJ will never say. But, he's not done:

    If I am wrong, I will eat my words. In the next 15-20 years, you will see a major battle being fought for pedophile rights. Its already at the doorstep, under the ubiquitous guise of love.

    Once again, the equation of homosexuality to pedophilia. No explanation as to why heterosexuality doesn't do this...only homosexuality. And still he's not done:

    Now I ask the reader: Given that I have made both pro and con points about homosexual marriage, can any of you, even if you lean towards homosexual marriage, at least understand where I am coming from? Have you ever honestly considered the repercussions for allowing it?

    Huh? How does being gay lead to the molestation of children? What on earth does being gay have to do with pedophilia? And what are these "repercussions"? Why is it that NJ never seems to consider these "repercussions" when considering heterosexuality? Why is it only thinking of having sex with members of the same sex that causes it to happen?

    Again, this is in [I][B]MESSAGE 3![/i][/b] The thread hasn't even started. NJ hasn't made any other posts. The very first thing he does is equate being gay to molesting children.

    Nator then tries to avoid the direct statement, but NJ won't let it go. In his second post in the thread, Message 9, he lets loose with this:

    Can you think of any immediate problems with polygamy? Incest?

    Huh? How did polygamy and incest enter into it? Nator was talking about encouraging people to get married so that they would be in a stable relationship and NJ immediately jumps to polygamy and incest as if that were what homosexuality causes. No explanation as to why being gay leads to this whereas being straight does not. It's just assumed. Being gay is equivalent to polygamy and incest. Nobody else brought it up. Why did NJ?

    And then look at Message 10 where NJ responds to subbie who also avoided all questions of NJ's excremental introduction of molestation:

    Does the same apply to incest, polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, zoophilia, regulating drugs, regulating cigarettes and alcohol, etc, etc? Your argument is based upon individual desire, without examining the consequences. In your mind, the adage, "If it feels good, do it," should be the defining principle to look up to.

    That's his entire post. We've now wandered so far away from marriage and the sex of the participants that it's ridiculous. Prostitution? Bestiality? Drugs? What on earth does any of this have to do with the topic? Subbie had to literally scream at NJ to stop.

    And then there's Message 13 where NJ decides to post a picture of some scantily clad men in body paint from what we can only assume is a Pride parade, along with this quote:

    Can you feel the pride?

    While the picture was cut out by the admins, none of the rest of the post was. Let's see what NJ said that led up to that need to demonize gay people:

    Granny Magda was responding to NJ's claim that if we accept homosexuality, then we will end up accepting pedophilia by pointing out that Denmark and the Netherlands have had same-sex marriage for years and yet, "Neither state shows any inclination to legalise paedophilia." What does NJ say to this:

    That's fantastically hilarious, if not totally ironic, that you mention it because not even one month ago, I just busted 4 out of 5 Danish sailors with child pornography.

    Now, what Danish sailors were doing in San Pedro, we won't ask because the problem is that NJ's response has nothing to do with Granny Magda's statement. That there are people who break the law does not mean there is any pressure to change the law. So why would NJ respond in such a way? Perhaps because he has equated being gay with being a child molester? That the two are inexorably linked? No, that's just idle speculation. We can't know what NJ is thinking.

    Ah, but Granny Magda has anticipated that and directly states that "the two topics are unrelated." But how does NJ respond to that?

    No, there is a very special place in my heart for child molestors. If walking the plank were still a legal practice, I might assume it too light a punishment.

    But I know what you mean...

    Can you feel the pride?

    And here we have it...the direct connection of being a child molester to being gay. And while AdminPD had the sense to know that something was up, somehow he managed to completely miss the important part. Instead, he was distracted by the shiny object.

    And that's just on the first page, Minnemooseus, friend. Four posts, four equations of being gay to escalating examples of exploitation and violence. One with a not-so-subtle hint of him doing the violence, himself. And speaking of violence, in his very next post (Message 28) he equates being gay to spousal abuse:

    If they are irrelevant in establishing a baseline, then spousal abuse is also irrelevant.

    A "baseline"? A baseline of what? How does being gay have anything to do with beating your spouse? In a way that being straight does not? But he's not done. In response to nator's discussion of monogamy and its relation to marriage (specifically that it is harder to be monogamous outside of marriage than in it):

    I do agree, but you are asking me to exonerate a greater sin out of a lesser one.

    "Greater sin"? So now being gay is worse? But he's not done:

    Then pedophilia is a trait that cannot be stopped. Its innate. If it that is so, then we can't very well ask them to stop what is normal, can we? You can't stop rapists because they are simply following their instincts. Monkeys don't ask for permission, especially the alpha male.

    So here we go again with the pedophilia, rape, and bestiality. What does any of this have to do with being gay compared to being straight? Since straight people engage in all of those activities with much more frequency than gay people, why does NJ focus on the people who don't do it as if they were the cause? But he still not finished:

    That's like saying adulterers have been repressed and persecuted. That's like saying pedophiles have been repressed and persecuted. That's like saying rapists have been repressed and persecuted.

    Do you not see? Being gay is the same as being an adulterer, a pedophile, a rapist.

    And finally, [I][B]FINALLY[/i][/b], we get to a post of NJ's that doesn't mention pedophilia, rape, incest, bestiality, pornography, drugs, etc. Message 30. Ah, but NJ is being subtle here:

    Try not to forget for a moment that it is homosexuality infringing on every one else to conform to their ideas, not the other way around.

    No justification is forthcoming for this pronouncement. But given everything he has said before, it is clear that NJ is saying that being gay will cause the destruction of society by unleashing pedophilia, rape, incest, bestiality, pornography, drugs, etc. The fact that he does not use those words in this post is irrelevant. A post does not exist in a vacuum. It must be placed within the context of all the other posts by that author within that thread and quite possibly in other threads.

    And that's just two pages! Do you really want me to go through every single post of NJ's in this single thread? So far, he hasn't been able to get away from his constant need to tell of his thoughts of raping his infant son when he thinks of having sex with someone of the same sex. And none of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread. Remember, subbie had to [I][B]SCREAM[/i][/b] at NJ to stop.

    Do you bother to pay attention to your own board? I know, it's big. But when there is a clear controversy going on in one of the threads, are you seriously claiming that you cannot be bothered to look it up on your own? Are you that lazy?


    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 119 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-23-2008 3:08 AM Adminnemooseus has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 121 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-23-2008 6:45 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
     Message 122 by cavediver, posted 01-23-2008 7:13 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

      
    Prev1
    ...
    4567
    8
    9Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019