|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Too much moderation on these boards? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Sorry I would suspect that you would be classed as "not a true christian". yes, yes, of course. as i am often here. it would involve some acting skills, first. i would imagine that sticking to a strictly literal interpretation (something i'm very good at), and only biblical topics, would help. (although, honestly, that site gave me the heebeejeebees after reading a moderated thread or two...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
NN writes: Almost all of us (on both sides) agree that science has nothing to say about the creation of the universe (yet or maybe forever). However, it can make statements about specific ways that it could have been created. I'm afraid I can't agree at all. Imo, secularist mainline science's whole concept of cosmology and space expansionism ultimately hinges on it's perception of the creation of the universe. 1. It's teaching on the age of the universe implicates creation/origin. For the most part it assumes that the universe is about 15 billion years old. 2. It teaches that space expanded from a singularity of mega-high density. 3. "Of how it could have been created?" No, Of how it had to be created, because those who disagree are considered "unscientific." BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
So yes, there's a double standard. Because of their faith-based focus creationists face significant challenges at a science site that has many scientist and science-centric members, and so they are provided greater leeway regarding the Forum Guidelines. Is this a science site? Sure, there are topics in which the empirical data is examined and argued. But these are a relatively insignificant proportion of the total. It seems to me that most threads are those where personal philosophy is the fuel which keeps things moving. Whilst in pure science threads a two-tier system might serve a purpose it cannot extend any further than that without presupposing that that a philosophy about science is a fact rather than a philosophy. If the two tier extends further then the bias which supposedly buttresses the faith position is actually one which seeks to weaken it. For it opens every position to the smear of that position being protected by big brother (as jar and schraf have recently done). I would request that henceforth any two tier approach be removed from admins dealing with me in any thread. If that means my partaking of pure science threads is limited by inabilty then so be it. Elsewhere, I would prefer to have people show me by their argument that my position is handicapped rather than invoke Big Brothers edict that it is so from the outset.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Buz, I mentioned this in response to GDR and suggested to him the option of opening a thread to discuss it or anything else.
This is obviously NOT the thread to discuss this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes, it is. Let's go talk about science, Ian. Pick a thread, and I'll be there with bells on, just let me know. What's that? You don't want to discuss science? Oh, well, I guess I'll have to make due with other conversation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
... making gross generalizations about an entire ethnic group, religion, country, or people, and claiming they are all murderous, evil,... If you were reading carefully you would have noted that nobody is talking about the ethnic group, country or people. It's about the religion. The religion prescribes aggression. the word "or" is inclusive. look at it again:
quote: "Might be annoyed" is pregnant with implications that it takes willful obtuseness to miss. maybe you're reading too much into this. it does sound like a bit of sarcastic understatement, yes, but the implication it is pregnant with is not "so we all deserve to die in terrorist attacks, and everything they say is right and holy."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1311 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
Was searching for a discussion on 2LoT, found this.
EvC Forum: Second Law of Thermodynamics Note Admin's message 16, If that's not a prime example of even handedness I don't know what is, I would be astounded if a creo site afforded the same equality to the evolutionist argument... Edited by Creavolution, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1311 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
faith writes: "Might be annoyed" is pregnant with implications that it takes willful obtuseness to miss. Faith, that's a mighty big chip you got on your shoulder...It could be said that Hitler might have been annoyed with churchill, does that imply he was right? It could be said that some football hooligans might be annoyed with their opposition, does that imply they are right? It could be said that The IRA mioght be annoyed with the UVF or bice versa... it does not imply that either side are justified or correct. dig your self out of your firmly entrenched position for a moment, take part in the debate, argue your points. Calling people crazy, or questioning their common sense does not contribute to the discussion. You do your message a great disservice. Edited by Creavolution, : removed hypocracy (and emmotive language)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Was searching for a deicussion on 2LoT, found this. EvC Forum: Second Law of Thermodynamics Note Admin's message 16, If that's not a prime example of even handedness I don't know what is, I would be astounded if a creo site afforded the same equality to the evolutionist argument... the post in question:
quote: his post was a reply to mine, which said:
quote: that topic was a bad choice for promotion -- and i'm surpised it got through. i've seen much, much better topics fail to meet standards, or get rejected. but percy tries to do the best he can with what he's given, and keep things as fair as realistically possible. Edited by arachnophilia, : typo, added percy's post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1311 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
Indeed, and admin's call for a halt to evo responses, to ensure fair representation of the ID/creo side is a prime example of the even handedness, and even bias in FAVOUR of creationists to ensure both sides of the argument get an airing...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
that topic was a bad choice for promotion -- and i'm surpised it got through. There was some discussion on that. IIRC, and it's been a while so forgive any vagueness, the topic was promoted because it was from a child, it was a valid question, and it was also one that should be pretty easy to answer succinctly. We realized that there might be piling on but hoped we could keep it within reason. There was no question that the Admins knew it would be a high maintenance topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Indeed, and admin's call for a halt to evo responses, to ensure fair representation of the ID/creo side is a prime example of the even handedness, and even bias in FAVOUR of creationists to ensure both sides of the argument get an airing... yes, quite so. i have, myself, often argued for a kind of creationist affirmitive action around here, if not outright pro-creo bias, just to keep the debate going. there have been points when there were so few creationists here that it got kind of boring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Oh, well, I guess I'll have to make due with other conversation. You mean the non-science stuff which occurs on this science site. Making it not-just-a-science site. And if the non-science stuff formed the majority of all discussion what would that do to the notion that it is a science site? Hole it below the water line perhaps? Have a look through All Topics if you want empirical backup for my position. Edited by iano, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
There was some discussion on that. IIRC, and it's been a while so forgive any vagueness, the topic was promoted because it was from a child, it was a valid question, and it was also one that should be pretty easy to answer succinctly. We realized that there might be piling on but hoped we could keep it within reason. There was no question that the Admins knew it would be a high maintenance topic. yes. i seem to recall now that she was quite young. another good reason to stop the pile-on. there are no real hard-and-fast rules for how to moderate effective. i would imagine you have to take each situation as it arises. generally, percy and the rest of the moderation staff seem be very fair, or at least fair to the best of their abilities regarding the individual considerations each thread requires. the question is, is equality or even mild pro-creo bias good enough for the creationists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
quote: Yes, it is. there are both science AND religion fora here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024