Religious Debates Are Banned

[Vagrant0]

The exact same thing can be said of politics. Many people identify themselves by their political party and beliefs. But not only are political debates allowed, insulting people over politics is allowed. Recently there was a thread titled "George Bush - Mock him here!", posted with full admin approval. A thread with no purpose other than insulting Bush, and by extension, the millions of people who respect him. Why should it be any different if I made a thread titled "Jesus - Mock him here!"?

Politics isn't as significant of an identity as Religion for most people. While yes, there is some overlap here, most political beliefs are based in socioeconomic status, not in how people are raised. If you change that status, the identity changes, political interests change, Religion remains the same. Religion is more than idle beliefs to be shaded with others, it is about faith.

 

Besides the point... Bush is Bush... He's been a joke even before he came into office. People mock him, not because of real political opinion or identity, but because it's so easy and culturally acceptable to do so. Even still, it wasn't posted as a debate, but in the offtopic thread, so people assume that anything said isn't meant seriously. The only reason why the debate was allowed, for as briefly as it did, was because it was moved somewhere else, where the setup and intentions were different. Had the discussion continued in that thread, I'd probably be looking at a strike, and the thread would be quickly closed.

 

At any rate, religion is just one of those issues like veganism, homosexuality, or race which just aren't appropiate to be discussed in any length here. As said, most people aren't informed enough to contribute, and those who are are often very biased in their views. There is no room for debate, only senseless shouting at eachother, it solves nothing, enlightens no one.

[Peregrine]

Whether you are right or wrong, you believe you know so much more than anyone else. It makes it impossible to debate with you because you are not prepared to accept you may be wrong. Others must be wrong because, perforce, they are less knowledgeable and less intelligent than you are. This assertion is as illogical as anything anyone else can say on any issue. It predisposes me to doubt your arguments before I have even looked at them. However I am too old and wise to actually fall into that trap.

 

I am prepared to accept that I may be wrong, if evidence is presented. The problem is nobody ever does that (because the evidence doesn't exist), they just act like I'm expected to change my mind if they say it enough times. There's a huge burden of proof here... my beliefs (in general) are backed up by solid evidence, and near-unanimous agreement from the scientific community. And I personally have years of high-level classes in math, physics and engineering, as well as countless hours of reading on other areas of science and philosophy. And just to make it even more solid, I generally have the wisdom to avoid posting anything unless:

 

1) I am very sure it's factually correct (see above about peer-reviewed scientific theories), and I have the facts/statistics/etc to back it up.

 

or

 

2) It's a subjective question of opinion, where my opinion is just as valid as the expert's.

 

So when I say "I am right", it's just a shorter way of saying that for all relevant purposes I am very unlikely to be wrong. If you want to disagree with me on scientific topics, you'd better have some amazing counter-evidence.

 

But on the question of debates I agree. We do not have debates. We have opportunities for people to give their opinions which is the best a forum can do. We could call it a discussion forum instead but that is just semantics. But do you think I really take any notice of what a fourteen year old member of the church of christ homophobe Virginia has to say or a twenty something year old from the church of proselytising atheism come to that? You can work out the answer yourself.

 

What you personally care about isn't relevant here. If you don't find it entertaining, don't read the forum, but that's not a reason to ban the subject for the rest of us. There is no fundamental difference between debates/discussions/whatever on religion and debates/discussions/whatever on any other subject. Let those who are interested participate, and those who aren't can just skip opening the thread. We have a very neatly organized forum system here, nobody's forcing you to click on thread titles you aren't interested in.

 

The exact same thing can be said of politics. Many people identify themselves by their political party and beliefs. But not only are political debates allowed, insulting people over politics is allowed. Recently there was a thread titled "George Bush - Mock him here!", posted with full admin approval. A thread with no purpose other than insulting Bush, and by extension, the millions of people who respect him. Why should it be any different if I made a thread titled "Jesus - Mock him here!"?

Politics isn't as significant of an identity as Religion for most people. While yes, there is some overlap here, most political beliefs are based in socioeconomic status, not in how people are raised. If you change that status, the identity changes, political interests change, Religion remains the same. Religion is more than idle beliefs to be shaded with others, it is about faith.

 

And once again you're wrong. There is a high correlation between religious belief and cultural/socioeconomic status, beyond mere "what I was raised as" (for example, an inverse correlation between strength of religious belief and level of education). And just like politics, religion often changes with changing life experiences (see, for example, the entire concept of the "born-again" christian). Unless you're saying the average person is too hopelessly stupid to form their own opinion as an adult, religion is just as much of a choice as politics.

 

For many people, they are exactly the same. If you disagree, just look at the near-worshipful way a lot of conservatives talk about 'freedom', or the death-threats and outrage produced by flag burning (an attack on a purely political symbol). Yet these disagreements are entirely acceptable on this forum. If I decided to post a picture of a burning American flag, not only would it be allowed, but many people, admins included, would join in with the usual "lol, bush/us suck!" comments. On the other hand I would be banned instantly if I posted a picture of a burning bible. Why is there a difference? The two images would provoke the same anger from (often) the same people, so why is one ban-worthy and the other not?

 

Besides the point... Bush is Bush... He's been a joke even before he came into office. People mock him, not because of real political opinion or identity, but because it's so easy and culturally acceptable to do so. Even still, it wasn't posted as a debate, but in the offtopic thread, so people assume that anything said isn't meant seriously. The only reason why the debate was allowed, for as briefly as it did, was because it was moved somewhere else, where the setup and intentions were different. Had the discussion continued in that thread, I'd probably be looking at a strike, and the thread would be quickly closed.

 

Besides the point... Jesus is Jesus. He's been a joke even before he came into the world. People mock him, not because of real political opinion or identity, but because it's so easy and culturally acceptable (ok, well that part doesn't really apply) to do so. And you know, from my perspective, that's a completely true sentence.

 

Like it or not, just as there are people who are offended by criticism of their religion, there are people who are offended by criticism of their politics and/or respected leaders. In these debates (or discussions or whatever you want to call it), the exact same insults are exchanged.

 

At any rate, religion is just one of those issues like veganism, homosexuality, or race which just aren't appropiate to be discussed in any length here. As said, most people aren't informed enough to contribute, and those who are are often very biased in their views. There is no room for debate, only senseless shouting at eachother, it solves nothing, enlightens no one.

 

The rules say religious debates are banned. Veganism, homosexuality and race are completely acceptable by the current rules. Which is kind of my point... religion is only one of many controversial subjects that could be debated. There are only two options, assuming Dark0ne has any interest in an objective and fair set of rules, and not just "shut up Peregrine, you're wrong":

 

1) Remove the ban on religious debates, and allow it along with every other controversial and potentially troublesome subject.

 

or

 

2) Remove the debates forum entirely, and lock any thread discussing anything more serious than "what's your favorite Oblivion NPC?".

[Vagrant0]

1) Remove the ban on religious debates, and allow it along with every other controversial and potentially troublesome subject.

 

or

 

2) Remove the debates forum entirely, and lock any thread discussing anything more serious than "what's your favorite Oblivion NPC?".

There isn't any benefit to either of them; on one hand that opens people to freely make any controversal topic they want, if only to get other people upset, on the otherhand people will naturally have minor debates, and would need a place for it. It really only seems to be you (and maybe a few others) who get so damn serious about these things. Your own beliefs in what is fair don't change the fact that this simply wouldn't help anyone, and only make things harder for the mods. Dark0ne doesn't need to do either, she can simply allow things to stay as they are, lock this topic as a final decision, and let that be the end of it. It is her forum, she normaly tries to be fair, but there is nothing saying that she has to be. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other places to bring religious discussions, try over there. I personally like the lack of religious rhetoric around here, it makes for fewer disruptions, I would imagine there are others who feel the same (that goes for athiest rhetoric as well).

[Peregrine]

There isn't any benefit to either of them; on one hand that opens people to freely make any controversal topic they want if only to get other people upset,

 

This is already true. Every single controversial topic you can imagine is acceptable, with the single exception of religion.

 

on the otherhand people will naturally have minor debates, and would need a place for it.

 

People will naturally have religion debates, and would need a place for it.

 

See how easy this is? It doesn't matter if people want to start debates, the moderators can just close the thread with a "no debates allowed" post. This works just fine in the case of religion, so why not apply it evenly to every other subject that generates the same flame wars?

 

 

It really only seems to be you (and maybe a few others) who get so damn serious about these things. Your own beliefs in what is fair don't change the fact that this simply wouldn't help anyone, and only make things harder for the mods. Dark0ne doesn't need to do either, she can simply allow things to stay as they are, lock this topic as a final decision, and let that be the end of it. It is her forum, she normaly tries to be fair, but there is nothing saying that she has to be. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other places to bring religious discussions, try over there. I personally like the lack of religious rhetoric around here, it makes for fewer disruptions, I would imagine there are others who feel the same (that goes for athiest rhetoric as well).

 

Dark0ne, what a shameful secret! I knew you Brittish people had that crossdressing thing, but going all the way?

 

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. People (myself included) get "so damn serious" about politics and other subjects. I've used, almost word for word, the same insults that got religion debates banned in a debate on video game consoles. And yet the world isn't suddenly ending, the moderators aren't overwhelmed with work, and nobody feels the need for a ban on the subject. The only difference un-banning religious debates would make is the exact details of what subject is being argued about at the moment.

 

And once again, if you don't care about the debates, don't read the thread. Nobody is forcing you to open a debate thread if you aren't interested in it. Just let the rest of us argue in peace.

 

 

But you know, I think I'll take advantage of this ban while I can...

[Malchik]

Reverend Peregrine, can you not understand that this forum does not permit flaming on any issue? It's in the rules. Are they not clear? Flaming includes insulting others, which you freely admit that not only do you do, but that you enjoy doing. If you had been prepared to present your case without resulting to insults it is highly unlikely any ban would have been imposed in the first place.

 

You brought the ban into force and however much you wish it hadn't happened and however illogical you think it is, you have to live with it.

 

So please, just drop the matter.

[Peregrine]

The fact that it's against the rules doesn't stop it from happening... and you know perfectly well that I'm not the only person who throws around a few insults occasionally. At least I'm honest about it, and don't hide behind some transparent image of "politeness" when I insult people. An d I'm perfectly fair in it, I don't go running to the moderators every time someone says something I don't like (and yes, I've been insulted on this forum, and I'm not horribly traumatized over it).

 

So please, answer the question... are the current debates happening in this forum acceptable? This is a yes or no question, either they are, or they aren't, there is no middle ground.

 

If they are, then there is no reason to keep religious debates banned. Even the absolute worst of those old threads was no worse than currently active threads, so even the worst-case scenario isn't all that bad. The only difference might be the use of "fundamentalist moron" and "filthy sinning atheist" instead of "trigger-happy bush fanboy" and "commie traitor".

 

If they aren't, then lock all of the current debate threads, delete the debates forum, and ban all debates. If the level of conflict that would exist if religion was on the list of valid topics is too much, so is the level of conflict that exists right now. The members of this forum are clearly incapable of meeting your standards of debate, so why do we have a debate forum?

 

 

And if you actually read the threads, you'll notice I did present my case without insults. I presented it politely and directly, telling people in full detail why they were wrong. I only start insulting people once they refuse to even read my arguments, and simply repeat the same already-disproven "argument" again and again until the thread is finally locked. I have no problem with different beliefs and viewpoints, and I will gladly argue them without a single insult. But I have no patience for stubborn ignorance, endless fallacies, and general refusal to follow any standard of rational discussion.

[Malchik]

If flaming occurs and is noticed or reported on any forum it gets removed and the offenders earn strikes or bans. (You were a moderator once, you know how it works.) It is not specific to the debates section. The decision to ban debates on religion was taken by Dark0ne, whose forum it is, but supported by the moderators including myself, after some exceptionally virulent insults from you to other forum members.

 

You say it is illogical to ban religion but nothing else.

 

I hear you. The situation will not change.

 

If we suddenly started getting a rash of racist, sexist, genderist, ageist etc. etc. posts then we might go beyond simple deletion or banning individuals to banning those topics too. Fortunately so far these have been the exception rather than the rule.

 

And you are being honest in saying you admit to insulting others. I am being equally honest when I say it is against the rules and will not be accepted.

[Peregrine]

If it is illogical, then change the situation. Illogical behavior should not be accepted, join in on my side and tell Dark0ne to fix his forum.

 

And those insults were not exceptionally virulent, in fact they wouldn't even earn a PG-13 rating in a movie. If anything, I was too nice to those people. A poster who fraudulently creates quotes is a liar. This is a dictionary definition, not an insult. A poster who admits to willingness to torture and murder in the name of his god (or ANY ideology... I'm looking at you, Bush fans) is a sociopath. This is a dictionary definition, not an insult. A poster who consistently makes flawed scientific arguments is ignorant. This is a dictionary definition (and one that applies to anyone, in various areas, I am no exception... I admit that I am ignorant about many things), not an insult.

 

All of these statements are both objectively true, and directed at behavior that should not be acceptable, and especially shouldn't be treated with approval. If this was a properly moderated forum, all of those posters would have had their posts edited or removed long before I got to insult them. But since I was participating in the debate, it would have been a massive abuse of my powers if I had done it myself. The next best thing, acting as an ordinary member, is to call them on their unacceptable behavior, not to pretend that their dishonest tactics are actually acceptable.

 

 

 

And by the way, I'm glad you consider my insulting people the equivalent of racism, sexism, genderism, etc. I'm impressed by that level of hypocrisy, warning against insults while making a massive one of your own.

[Malchik]

I have stated the position clearly. The fact that you find it illogical and you think illogicality is wrong I hear.

 

The situation will not change.

[Dark0ne]

Blah blah blah blah blah, Peregrine ... how tiring.

 

The simple fact is; religious debates are banned because I had enough complaints about you, and others, on the subject for it to warrant a vote of "we really can't be bothered to handle all this crap, let's scrap it" from myself and the moderators. Throw your logic out the window: welcome to the forums where (hello? We've been here before) what I say goes. If I say discussion on monkeys is prohibited, it is so.

 

I really, really don't need to explain myself to you, or anybody here. If people didn't/don't like it, they wouldn't/won't post on the forums.

 

We've done this sooooo many times before. Lets hope this is the last.