Goverment Threads...?

[karkarinus]

It seems like Peregrine is begging for another ban aswell. I don't think he realises that he's on the thin line and is close to being outright banned anyway. Peregrine likes to mask seemingly innocent posts with underhanded attacks on groups of people he's been told not to attack, and then acts all innocent; sort of like a two-sided post: on one side he acts all clever by taking a jab at people and then returns with an innocent "that's not what I implied" post.

 

Actually, I'm just going to ban him for 24 hours anyway. It's late and I feel like giving the gimp another lesson on who controls these forums, and who dictates the rules. No religious debates, or insults on religious people means just that. He knows that, he's just seeing how far he can push it.

 

See you in 24 hours Peregrine.

 

 

 

With all due respect, Dark0ne, anybody can insult anyone about anything. Not just religion. Could be language, taste in music, anything. I firmly believe that no subject should be taboo, as long as people treat it as a DEBATE, and that means that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and should listen to those of others, as long as no insulting is involved. :)

[Dark0ne]

With all due respect, Dark0ne, anybody can insult anyone about anything. Not just religion. Could be language, taste in music, anything. I firmly believe that no subject should be taboo, as long as people treat it as a DEBATE, and that means that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and should listen to those of others, as long as no insulting is involved.

 

There's a difference between mature debate and petty squabbling where sychophants with better semantic understandings simply use their knowledge of vocabularly to bash those of a lesser understanding. It became quite obvious some time ago that certain members of this community, including Peregrine, could not heed warnings against them (perhaps because they were so wrapped up in their Maddox affair that they couldn't possibly be seen following the forums rules over bashing some "fool" who didn't agree with their narrow-minded ideology) and so certain subjects became taboo.

 

I'd like to remind people that this is not the land of the free -- these forums are dictated by me, and with good reason. If people have a problem with that they are kindly asked to leave (or, if they continue to disobey said discated law; booted out). This isn't to satisfy some egotistical fantasy but to ensure an entertaining and welcoming community for all.

 

If you would like to talk about things specifically denied on these forums then there are plenty of other places you can go to fulfill your needs.

[Alanador]

Well...can we debate in groups by PM or live chat, so it will not reflect on the forum negatively? I'll save my thoughts on this topic for when we find an all around amicable way to discuss it, for all who want to. That could be the work around. If folks really want to discuss it we can find a way, without infringing on site rules :)

[karkarinus]

With all due respect, Dark0ne, anybody can insult anyone about anything. Not just religion. Could be language, taste in music, anything. I firmly believe that no subject should be taboo, as long as people treat it as a DEBATE, and that means that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and should listen to those of others, as long as no insulting is involved.

 

There's a difference between mature debate and petty squabbling where sychophants with better semantic understandings simply use their knowledge of vocabularly to bash those of a lesser understanding. It became quite obvious some time ago that certain members of this community, including Peregrine, could not heed warnings against them (perhaps because they were so wrapped up in their Maddox affair that they couldn't possibly be seen following the forums rules over bashing some "fool" who didn't agree with their narrow-minded ideology) and so certain subjects became taboo.

 

I'd like to remind people that this is not the land of the free -- these forums are dictated by me, and with good reason. If people have a problem with that they are kindly asked to leave (or, if they continue to disobey said discated law; booted out). This isn't to satisfy some egotistlical fantasy but to ensure an entertaining and welcoming community for all.

 

If you would like to talk about things specifically denied on these forums then there are plenty of other places you can go to fulfill your needs.

 

 

 

Amen to that, then. Point taken. Say no more.

[Malchik]

Political debate is fine. Nobody minds an opinion being stated and getting the debaters' responses as a disagreement. But I have said until I am just about blue in the face, people who want to debate, with a few honourable exceptions, come with entrenched unvariable views. Debate means 'make you see things my way' instead of listen to arguments and make my mind up. It is ever thus. In any debating forum it is the audience who votes, not the speakers. Because this forum has no clear cut audience to vote, you end up with the two sides shouting at each other. If you wanted to have a proper debate you'd have to structure it formally - motion 'this house believes that etc.', one or two named speakers on each side, each giving one statement and one rebuttal the 'in favour' camp going first. After that questions from other forum members answered by whoever was asked. Final vote by anyone other than those debating. It is possible in theory but hard to imagine it would work in practice.

[karkarinus]

Political debate is fine. Nobody minds an opinion being stated and getting the debaters' responses as a disagreement. But I have said until I am just about blue in the face, people who want to debate, with a few honourable exceptions, come with entrenched unvariable views. Debate means 'make you see things my way' instead of listen to arguments and make my mind up. It is ever thus. In any debating forum it is the audience who votes, not the speakers. Because this forum has no clear cut audience to vote, you end up with the two sides shouting at each other. If you wanted to have a proper debate you'd have to structure it formally - motion 'this house believes that etc.', one or two named speakers on each side, each giving one statement and one rebuttal the 'in favour' camp going first. After that questions from other forum members answered by whoever was asked. Final vote by anyone other than those debating. It is possible in theory but hard to imagine it would work in practice.

 

I've already bowed to Dark0ne's decision and it must be final, but I still beleive that if we can stick to DEBATE, then no subject should be taboo. There will always be people who force there opinions on others, and do not play by the rules, but ban the perpetrators, not the topic. I am merely expressing my opinion, not contradicting our host in what at the end of the day is his house.

[Peregrine]

Peregrine likes to mask seemingly innocent posts with underhanded attacks on groups of people he's been told not to attack, and then acts all innocent; sort of like a two-sided post: on one side he acts all clever by taking a jab at people and then returns with an innocent "that's not what I implied" post.

 

 

I might be guilty of many things, but underhanded attacks aren't one of them. I make no secret of my contempt for various people and/or groups. Kind of hard to call it a mask of innocence when I call someone a moron directly...

 

Just to be clear: if I call someone a moron, I mean it. I'm not implying anything, I'm directly stating exactly what I mean. So I'd appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of dishonest tactics like that, because I don't use them.

 

 

There's a difference between mature debate and petty squabbling where sychophants with better semantic understandings simply use their knowledge of vocabularly to bash those of a lesser understanding.

 

When have I ever used vocabulary as the core of my argument? The only time I've ever focused on poor writing skills is when someone posts an incoherent mess of AOLish that doesn't deserve anything better. And I mean truly incoherent, not just a few minor spelling errors. But those are very rare, almost all the time I post point by point fact-based counterarguments in debates.

I challenge you, find me ONE serious debate where I've used another poster's poor grammar as my only argument, without adressing their arguments directly.

 

It became quite obvious some time ago that certain members of this community, including Peregrine, could not heed warnings against them (perhaps because they were so wrapped up in their Maddox affair

 

I love how the problem you have with debating religion is that insults are involved, but you have no problem throwing a few of your own at me... just like calling my beliefs a narrow-minded ideology, while protesting when I do the same to someone else.

 

that they couldn't possibly be seen following the forums rules over bashing some "fool" who didn't agree with their narrow-minded ideology) and so certain subjects became taboo.

 

Maybe you should actually read what I write sometimes. If you actually did, you wouldn't be calling me narrow-minded. I have no problem with most religious people, in fact I have friends spanning the whole range from complete atheist to devout christian. And I don't insult any of them for their beliefs. I don't even argue with them about it very often, and only when they actually want to discuss it. I only insult people in two situations:

 

1) They are displaying such an appalling degree of ignorance on a subject, whether religious or otherwise. And I don't mean saying "I believe in god", I'm talking about clear factual errors, especially when they refuse to accept proof once it is presented.

 

2) They are trying to enforce their beliefs on other people. "I believe x" is fine, "I believe x and I'm going to make it a law that you have to follow x too" isn't. Maybe you have it easier in England, but in the US there are far too many of these peoeple. And insulting them isn't too harsh, it's too little.

 

 

Just to make it clear...

 

I have no problem with most religious people, in fact I have friends spanning the whole range from complete atheist to devout christian. And I don't insult any of them for their beliefs.

[loveme4whoiam]

But the topic is still a banned one, so regardless of your clear acceptance of your friend's beliefs, there doesn't seem to be much of a point in continuing this.

[Malchik]

Peregrine you did insult people on a fairly regular basis (by replacing their posts with gobbledegook) but perhaps you saw it as sarcasm. There is a very thin line between sarcasm and insult and perhaps we set it in different places. The point - and I have had PM'd discussions with you on it - is that an insult is the last defence of the loser. In a position of power, which you had as a moderator, it should never have been needed at all.

 

But I do have sympathy for anyone who is in a society whose legislature feels they have the gift of some unprovable but not to be doubted beings behind them. It must make you intensely frustrated. It would me. Let us leave it at that.

[Alanador]

I would just like to add, that true debate like was referred to here earlier by Malchik, cannot happen unless ALL parties involved can agree on what is fact (evidence, just like in court), and seperate it from what is speculation. In my post on the drills that is what I am doing...laying the foundation for a debate by introducing what I have been able to verify as fact, and what I can provide to you as fact that you can verify at your chosen and trusted news source...if such a thing really exists. Therefore, knowing that true independance of news is EXTREMELY hard to find, if not an outright impossibility, I fall back to redudancy...and though the stories may differ from page to page, there are elements they all concur on. See you all soon!