Is attacking definitions not allowed in PPR?

Post Reply New Topic

No, please do not do that!


Agreed, and I openly admit to occasionally having my own set of misunderstanding filters in place.

Especially coming from you, "psittacisms" is rich and very satisfying.

I must say one of the reasons I come back to WP and even PPR is that FAR more than in other contexts, astronomically more than in academia, we are willing to explain to the offended what we really meant and to accept the explanation.

In academia though, there's all the matter to do with grading as a punishment for disagreement from instructors to students and between coworkers there would probably be the ever present possibility of being fired at the slightest offense if they manage to snitch and slant their reports enough. On forums and between those who have no ability to harm the other occupationally there is automatically, at least slightly, more freedom of speech.

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.[/quote]

One may see it here?

wrongplanet. net/postxf150555-0-180.html

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:21 pm

"I consider homosexuality to be a perversion and I am strictly heterosexual and married to a woman."




Indeed, my Christian friend but it IS pretty hard to assume any other interpretation isn't it?

What do you consider homosexuality and di you intend to flame/offend?

Moreso cherub, are you seeking now to accuse those you offended with trolling or picking on you? You are a smart boy and I am sure you have very clever answers to such questions and I am very keen to hear them. (Oh so you know I am not trying to belittle you here, you are far younger than me and could well be young enough to be my son so I am not inferring you a child)

If someone were to contact me and ask for some specific moderation or intervention there, I would take a look and make my own assessment and either do something or nothing according to my personal approaches I have already made clear either here or elsewhere.

Of course possum and I think this is very apt that a moderator would do so.
Having said this, I don't know that I am that invested in such things.
It was just to perhaps give a little bit of understanding and shared wisdom to place a little context in discourse that you may not have otherwise had.
Sometimes things indeed spring from nowhere and I simply think that seeing some of the assertions made against this member "Volodja" in respect to their reactions probably deserved an even-handed viewing, given light of the surrounding context of which you were blissfully unaware.
Not of course suggesting that you were acting in any manner unbecoming. I think you appear to my readings to be very fair and even-handed but without the ability to know what had been presented and said, it makes your position rather difficult.
Goodnight possum, I must retire for the night.
It has been an interesting night. Good talking with you.

Acknowledged, and that is why I have asked folks to break me in gently here.

I actually don't think I did add in "primitive" just to insult or offend. I genuinely do see his beliefs as kind of backward. That's MY belief, if you like.

If me posting that I think someone's beliefs are primitive is wrong, then surely saying many of the members on here are perversions is just as bad? I mean I am talking about someone's BELIEFS. iamnotaparakeet is insulting people for who they ARE, not their beliefs or opinions

Possibly not -- only you would really know -- yet that adjective was not in any way required to make your specific and contextual point at that time. In any case, however, and as someone else has pointed the need out to me elsewhere, I do intend to continue to at least occasionally try to disregard some of my own personal "filters" or whatever while trying to help assure civility here on WP.

Why do you call me a friend when you seek to entrap me and contort anything I say?

I do consider homosexuality to be a perversion of the intuitively natural male-female sexuality. I am not intending to offend, but offense is bound to occur, especially within those who seek to be offended at all costs. Homosexuality is not the natural condition of sexual relationships, it is a deviation from that which allows for generations to follow. Also, polygamy is a perversion of the original ideal as per Genesis 2:23-24 and Matthew 19:4-6,

Matthew 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said to them, "Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?'
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

So, in that respect polygamy is also a perversion of the original male-female sexuality, but for somewhat different reasons. Now, what is all your goal in asking leading questions and calling me names like "cherub"? I've seen the posts you made in the moderator attention forum and recognize the type of insinuations that you are making, so don't feign to call me "friend" while the majority of your posts as a new member here have been spent upon arguing against my presence here upon wrong planet.

Make that two people who've signed up for, so far, the sole purpose of mocking Christians. Lee - I don't know if it's possible to remove a thread, but you might want to in the case of the "free speech" thread. (Ah, irony - or proving the thread's point, rather.) If it's encouraging woodwork critters like Dame and Squid, it might well be better to have it gone. Especially as a moderator, to all appearances, joined in the mockery.

Three.

I had ached the peroration of a response to iamnotaparakeet when something in cyberspace went mad and swallowed all I had written. I will need to regroup.

Anyhow - HOW did this morph into discussion of himosexuality [that was a typo, but so nice I will leave it - apologies to Lesbian readrers].????

And what are "moob pictures"?

This all stemmed from discussion of the question posed in the title of this thread, and then we had been having some insighful discussion of a related nature ... and now it has all devolved into whatever it has ... and I think that is enough of that.