Is attacking definitions not allowed in PPR?

Post Reply New Topic

How many Strident Theists are there?

^^^^

Around the PPR. Not many.

My comment about "core dogma" was only an offhanded comment related to the so-called "stridents" here, but I would be interested in hearing why you believe "the terms of service of this forum are quite polarized towards the left." Today's politicians IRL would have difficulty adhering to these rules of conduct:

===========
The following activities are unacceptable on WrongPlanet:

1. Posting offensive language, comments, video, or images ... swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members;

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect.
===========

So, and simply as an example here, your request for a non-hostile corner for Christian discussion was overcome by the impossibility of enforcing those rules "to the letter" rather than by any hard-coded polarization.

And then, of course, there is this:

===========
Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.
===========

... and I do not believe that is polarizing. Rather, some of us just happen to be outnumbered ... and that is just how things are for now.

Okay, okay, but then how might you defend the implication someone else is choosing to remain ill? Not making any big deal of that here, but still clinging to this simple rule:

=========
Unacceptable content includes ... behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members;
=========

In an A.A. setting when somebody was remaining defiant against what I already know actually works, I used to remind them they are quite free to just go on ahead and die in any way they wish ... but now the WP rules have helped me see that was just not nice.

I've been informed that I'm a racist, which is a little surprising to me since I really don't care about the outward appearance of others, however the definition of a "New Racist" apparently is that one doesn't care about the outward appearance. Nowadays people are supposed to be ever consciously aware and responding to external differences in epidermal melanin concentration so that if a person has a low concentration they must always be on the verge of apologizing for actions that they have not personally committed - and apparently if one doesn't agree with this then they are a "racist."

Sexism is one thing which most people seem to understand is a double edge sword here as both misogynists and misandrist attitudes are not respected (nor ought they to be), however for it to be within the rules of all forums including PPR seems a little odd as it is essentially a political issue.

Homophobic language is primarily the leftward bent since the only people who are labeled "homophobes" are conservatives. It seems like an attempt to silence opposition via fiat. I didn't really care about it until I saw the recently new forum right underneath the Kid's Crater forum. To outlaw any debate to the contrary is to merely allow the moral left to speak while intentionally censoring the moral right. Can you see how this could be perceived as a leftward bias within the rules themselves?

What's wrong with it being below the Kid's Forum?

And how is debate about homosexuality outlawed? I'm pretty sure you are free to post about your primitive beliefs, just not in a support forum for LGBT people

Also of course it's only conservatives who are labelled homophobic - homophobic people usually ARE conservatives

Yes, now I can after some things you have said, yet I also believe that is *only* a perception and *not* Alex' actual intent. I believe the WP rules of conduct are aimed only toward simple civility, and I have yet to find myself ever being unable to be civil because of them.

... and you have just violated a WP rule of conduct by judging one's beliefs in that kind of manner.

How?

"Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable"

You did not say that to attack any belief via any kind of argument whatsoever, you simply added an adjective to deride (or whatever) the WP member.

I think what is being said, possums is that accusing one of having a inherent belief system unsubstantiated is a rile breaker but that Mr Parakeet gets around his "I believe that homosexuality is a perversion" comments as NOT being a rule-breaker by simply not accusing but of giving his belief without the accusation?
Am I right here possums? Such a terribly fine line.
Now if we were to say that such views are based on a Christian doctrine and that this doctrine were devised by people barely out of the Bronze Age, then this attesting a primitive mindset may in fact not be, in any way unsubstantial. In fact if we were to look at historical timelines and divest it with proximity it would probably hold true that the doctrines followed were in fact historically ancient. Many of the old testament believes would be tracked further back to an older people.
Closer and closer to what most reasonable people would consider ancient people in a primative time in comparison especially to this world of Nasa Space Shuttles and internets.
Would you agree possum?
Now whilst the Christian ethos seems mired in a smiting vengeance, wrathful God of the old testament it also conversely centres on the peaceful, gentle and tolerant prophet and son of God, Jesus.
When it comes to appreciating Christian faith, is one a God Christian in believing in the accepting and tolerant believe structures of the Christ of the New Testament of the smiting wrathful God of the old?
Were a Christian to be bigoted and find perversions in others not like them, then I would suspect that they would be taking their belief structures not from the beliefs of the humble tolerant Jesus but the earlier and ancient (dare we accept primitive) beliefs of the God of old for which the beliefs were based in time immemorial. Ancient and primitive beliefs.
Mr Parakeet hold which kind of beliefs I wonder? Tolerant or condemning?
I for one would not seek to know his mind or his beliefs but would ask simply that he show his heart on his sleeve and tell us whether he is a tolerant Christian accepting of people of all diversity or whether in fact he is a intolerant and/or bigoted Christian.
If the latter is true then indeed it appears that his beliefs are base in very ancient tradition dating back to at least the Elamites who were a Primitive people.
Of course I am happy to prove that many of the old testament stories have such origins and were based in pre-Judaic faith.

Last edited by Dame_Edna on 11 Feb 2011, 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

No. The "rule breaker" here on WP is to deride a WP member for having whatever right or wrong beliefs s/he might happen to have.

So possum if a belief is called primitive and under investigation it did for all intents and purposes appear to be primitive then is this deriding a member or is this a member accurately portraying something as they see it?
I would imagine it is no less a fault than another member saying to a forum with many homosexuals on it that "they find homosexuality a perversion"?
Not that it bothers me naturally possum. I am here for the wonderful discourse.

Ah, I did not realize I had a new monaker! I can be a bit slow to catch on at times ...

Within my own perception or judgment, I would say/agree the poster is simply and only "accurately portraying something as they see it".


Yes ... but then that does raise the matter of exactly when, where and/or how someone might actually post either such view, and that is where flaming simply will not be tolerated.

Okay, okay, but then how might you defend the implication someone else is choosing to remain ill?

-----------

Cutting to cut to the chase, I lost some of the key markings, so quote boundaries wuill mot be correct, bear with me please.

Again, common speech shortcuts are involved.

Forget the example of the Last Battle dwarves, which is not in everyone's background, thoufg I have used it. Forget even those groups which for doctrinal reasons try to refuse for themselves and their children treatments generally seen as curative.

Go straight to my mother. For more years than I like to remember, she suffered. Every medication prescribed for her had worse side effects and less of the desired effect. She loudly bemoaned her condition and had unkind things to say about her physicians. Alternative treaments were suggested [I do not recall if we dared to mention homeopathy, but my wife from concern suggested a number of possibilities - including some adjunct therapies accepted in current medical practice]. Her response was essentially, even though this would not be constly, even though it would not be invasive or painful, even though the AMA has no objection, it is baseless superstition and I am not gouing to try it.

She told me at least once, her situation was purely a natural consequence of her past behavior, it would be wrong to pray for relief because God has nothing to do with natural phenomena and God SHOULD not help her out.

Anyhow:

I could have been more explicit and worded it as "choose not to try something which I suggest might work on your illness."

Which is all I intended, and how I would have understood it.

I could have stopped at "okay, be like that."

But if defensive speech at that level is requisite, I need to shut up, I cannot monitor myself nor predict others to that degree.

I think you wll find that I am not the one here least willing to engage anybody in a serious respectful discussion. The binary gent's original query I took at face value - and find his "all Christian responses are disguised" disappointing, to say the least.

--------------

It is not the wording needs to be watched. It is attitudes. One time I said a simple good morning to a colleague - who glared at me, accused me of condescension, and stomped off. I ask the meaning of the to me unintelligible Bill O'Reilly post, when it is explained I mention The View as a piece TV I have heard is worthy of satire, and people start taking this as political subversion. Oy.

Part of Asperger's is difficulty with communication. All too often though, when there is uncertainty in meaning, people assume the worst possible interpretation as the most likely. Certainly there are people who intentionally seek to offend and they make life suck for the rest of us when we speak in our own mannerisms and others automatically assume that the lack of canned psittacisms is indicative of an intentional affront to another.