19 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeOf course anyone can decide if a post is deliberately offensive, but the decision is still largely subjective. People have their own standard of 'offensive'. If the community standard of offense is seen as favoring a certain viewpoint (and thus censoring the opposition), it will inevitably drive opposition participants away. Thus, it's important not to be too heavy handed in moderating the forums.
BDP: "Who can tell for sure if the offense is 'deliberate'?"
The mods will have to decide this and please don't tell me that it is impossible to decide whether an insult or offense is meant to be an insult or offense or not. For instance repeated insulting and offensive behaviour usually is intended, unless of course one is suffering from Tourettes. ...[text shortened]... romising PR policy for a chess site that wants to be a chess community and a quality chess site.
I still object to the contention that a statement must be 'necessary' to a debate. There is no requirement that all posts be necessary to a debate, or that there be a debate at all. The description of the Spirituality forum also includes 'general discussion'. It does not matter if you feel that a certain poster or posters are making 'unnecessary' posts, even if they are Ad Hominems. Only the community standard applies.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeFighting offense by offending is sometimes unavoidable. The initial offender of course doesn't like to be reminded of past mistakes. I fail to see how a serious discussion makes the topic any easier. It's an unpleasant topic, so of course people are going to have bad experiences discussing it, especially those trying to defend the undefendable.
BDP: "The jokes are a product of the offense caused (to christians and non-christians alike!) by the Catholic's Church dreadful handling of a scandal. This is an offense that will linger no matter how many 'offensive' threads you strike down on a chess website's forum.
Fighting offense by offending isn't quite the correct course of action I would sa ...[text shortened]... result will be that instead of opening up to a discussion they will close and turn away from it.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThe absolute offensive nature of religions, most religions, is the
Offensive? In what way are they offensive? Because they are religious?
propensity to attempt to prosletyze and thereby grow, thereby getting
a bigger slice of the world pie, more political and military power,
in short more power over people, which is what the top layers of
said religions want, its called the will to dominate. Thats what I find
offensive. There should by all rights be 6 billion religions in the world,
one for every person, not ten or twenty or whatever. NOBODY has the
right to subvert another to their way of thinking ESPECIALLY by force.
If there were 6 billion religions in the world, we would all have a much
happier life I can guaruntee that.
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemOn the point of "debate" this the Spirituality forum and not the Debates forum and relevance in any thread is defined by the thread title and not by some up-tight apologist?
Of course anyone can decide if a post is deliberately offensive, but the decision is still largely subjective. People have their own standard of 'offensive'. If the community standard of offense is seen as favoring a certain viewpoint (and thus censoring the opposition), it will inevitably drive opposition participants away. Thus, it's important no ...[text shortened]... making 'unnecessary' posts, even if they are Ad Hominems. Only the community standard applies.
On the point of "censorship": What do you expect from people that are in a religion that has a 1700 year tradition of violently suppressing dissent?
19 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYou seem to be missing the point and turn it into another discussion.
Of course anyone can decide if a post is deliberately offensive, but the decision is still largely subjective. People have their own standard of 'offensive'. If the community standard of offense is seen as favoring a certain viewpoint (and thus censoring the opposition), it will inevitably drive opposition participants away. Thus, it's important no ...[text shortened]... making 'unnecessary' posts, even if they are Ad Hominems. Only the community standard applies.
The discussion we are having has nothing to do with "opposition" stances.
.... and if you still want to look it that way my experience at RHP tells me that there are people who want to drive away religious people looking at the offensive, insulting and agressive way they react to posts even in the case these posts were made by children (+13 of course) expressing their wiews.
I always took the stance that these agressive and insulting posts were indeed a way of stifling opposing, in this case, religious debaters. That's another reason to stop it because it is undemocratic and manipulating. There were too many debaters who have pm-ed me, or made contact in another way, saying they would no longer participate in discussions because they didn't want to recieve a loadfull of insults, degrading posts and other verbal p&&p, p&ss and p&ke every time they posted in the forums. Among them were very young debaters, children in fact.
BDG: "I still object to the contention that a statement must be 'necessary' to a debate."
Please, that's not what I said. I presented this "necessity" criterium in the context of trying to establish, the mods' duty, whether a certain statement could or should be seen as an offensive one and as a result of that should be removed.
If a, to some people potentially offensive, statement is an integral part of a person's serious views, like the "you are going to hell" statement for instance, then of course this should not be censored away because it is a necessary stance in the context of the debaters point of view. Their reasoning simply cannot do without it. We would not be able to understand their view as a whole. This in contrast to the clear cut insults we can read in other debaters' posts. These offensive terms or statements aren't necessary at all in trying to understand their views, I hope.
There are lots of unnecessary statements which are not offensive at all. Of course they need not to be censored, unless of course you are a teacher teaching people how to discuss effectively .....
19 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe things you're saying about religion apply as far as I am concerned more to polical parties, religious or secular.
The absolute offensive nature of religions, most religions, is the
propensity to attempt to prosletyze and thereby grow, thereby getting
a bigger slice of the world pie, more political and military power,
in short more power over people, which is what the top layers of
said religions want, its called the will to dominate. Thats what I find
offensive. T ...[text shortened]... e 6 billion religions in the world, we would all have a much
happier life I can guaruntee that.
Would the world be better off without political parties, religious or secular ?
19 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompI did say that there is no requirement that posts in "Spirituality" be part of a debate. I'm not sure what the rest of your question means, though...
On the point of "debate" this the Spirituality forum and not the Debates forum and relevance in any thread is defined by the thread title and not by some up-tight apologist?
On the point of "censorship": What do you expect from people that are in a religion that has a 1700 year tradition of violently suppressing dissent?
I expect the site leaders to uphold the right to dissent, regardless of certain posters who would suppress it.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI wasnt disagreeing with you .
I did say that there is no requirement that posts in "Spirituality" be part of a debate. I'm not sure what the rest of your question means, though...
I expect the site leaders to uphold the right to dissent, regardless of certain posters who would suppress it.
That was in support.
The antics that hoe pulls are intended to start stuff and then he goes and cries like a stuck pig to the mods when he gets it returned in kind.
just today he has alerted at least 3 posts in his effort to run rhp like torqamada ran spain.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompPfffffftttt ........🙄 😀
I wasnt disagreeing with you .
That was in support.
The antics that hoe pulls are intended to start stuff and then he goes and cries like a stuck pig to the mods when he gets it returned in kind.
just today he has alerted at least 3 posts in his effort to run rhp like torqamada ran spain.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe discussion we are having has everything to do with opposition stances.
You seem to be missing the point and turn it into another discussion.
The discussion we are having has nothing to do with "opposition" stances.
.... and if you still want to look it that way my experience at RHP tells me that there are people who want to drive away religious people looking at the offensive, insulting and agressive way they react t ...[text shortened]... be censored, unless of course you are a teacher teaching people how to discuss effectively .....
Many feel fervor for their religion or belief system, so it's easy to cause offense in a forum like this. For example, it is not easy for a Christian to see objectively why the phrase "you are going to hell" could be offensive to a non-christian. In the christian mind, it is a warning against ultimate disaster; in the non-christian mind, it is a condemnation of their own personal faith.
You claim that without that 'going to hell' phrase, "we would not be able to understand their view as a whole". The claim is irrelevant to the issue of offense. All it takes is one non-christian to be offended, and here come the TOS enforcers to delete the post, if they're really serious about enforcing this stuff. The non-christian can also claim a deliberate pattern of repeat offenses, designed to discourge non-christians from participating, etc. etc.
In short, I feel that over-moderation, such as you seem to advocate, will be the death of this forum. By effectively restricting all non-christian viewpoints, you will have created what (perhaps) you really want: A Pro-Christianity Forum.
20 Sep 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemstandard hoe stuff is
The discussion we are having has [b]everything to do with opposition stances.
Many feel fervor for their religion or belief system, so it's easy to cause offense in a forum like this. For example, it is not easy for a Christian to see objectively why the phrase "you are going to hell" could be offensive to a non-christian. In the christian m ...[text shortened]... tian viewpoints, you will have created what (perhaps) you really want: A Pro-Christianity Forum.[/b]
Paste da Popes bull
insult anybody that doesnt act like they are in awe of it
then cries to the mods that somebody if offending him.
and goes on a rampage temper tantrum
that's his M.O.
and his goal is to supress opinions other than the Popes.
he thinks he's torqamada.