Agree. This thread seeks attention more than resolution.
A respectful request to Sherman for tolerance in moderation.
- Thread starter Eeset
- Start date
Agree. This thread seeks attention more than resolution.
Lon
Well-known member
It's nice that 'Christian' is removed from your label then? I'm a bit more offended regarding my love for the Lord Jesus Christ than you seem to be. "Imaginary" is a slight both against me and my God. You? You'd deny Him before men. Good thing "Christian" was removed from your identity... "Respect my God. If not? :wave2: :wave2: :wave2:" He'll come back knowing his tenure here is by grace. We are all 'guests' here. TOL isn't a democracy. I can't 'vote' them to become Calvinist either. Nice try, TeSee. Not gonna happen.
Lon
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
No, it really doesn't. There is a delusion here where a few of you think this site is a democracy or you have some say. I happen to be on page with most values AND I have integrity to obey rules I said I'd follow when signing up. One who doesn't have that integrity will continue to learn the hard way. Your opinion 'may' be noted by mods or members, but it is rejected. It does not, in point of fact, hold.
So is "Freelight." "Freelight is stupid. Freelight is ugly." See how that works? When you 'mean' it, it is infraction worthy. If I said either of those and meant it, I'd expect an infraction. "Freelight is just a word, folks."
Guess what? Your 'former comments' do not, in point of fact, 'stand.' Your high opinion of yourself nor whatever you think is 'reasonable' actually is and neither accepted or acceptable.
Glad you bumped the thread so you could be addressed soundly and correctly. Learn not to offend. The day TOL lowers its standards to allow what is inappropriate and harmful regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, is the day I'll likely leave and I'd think Knight and the mods with me, as well as a good many of the Christian members. You don't get to say whatever you want about my mom, you don't get to say whatever you want about my God. /thread and again thanks for the bump so I could end it.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Me too, and I will address misrepresentations and misconstrued assumptions about my religious beliefs or any particular subject as I feel the need for that to happen, per my usual custom.
Hmmm,...whose being offended? I got banned from the Satan Inc. (TOL's heretic list) thread because I am strong and vocal about my opinions and serving 'corrections' about my religious beliefs, where I see the need to address and correct mistaken views on them, or a subject that I see being mishandled. You ought not to feel 'offended' by my liberty to do so unless my commentary in my own defense or a particular subject is somehow "offending" to you, although some here are freely given reign to mock, deride and ridicule other peoples beliefs or a given subject, with no moderation or restraint being given to that, for instance concerning the UB. This is why bringing up this thread is timely and pertinent, since 'moderation' is always subject to changes or modification, universally in principle, and in certain given cases.
Lon
Well-known member
And? Anybody paying attention? Every get a mod saying "Oh PJ! You are right. How could I have ever given that infraction?" :dizzy:
Again, it makes no difference. You nor I write nor interpret TOL rules. If we did, I'd certainly have had you banned for blasphemy against the Scriptures and the Lord Jesus Christ. When Mods deem you've made an infraction against TOL rules and against our Lord Jesus Christ, such will ever result in a justifiable time-off. There are very few perma-bans. It amounts to 'cry baby.' I have ONE(1) warning on TOL. Ask Delmar how I handled it. I actually told him I wasn't purposefully breaking a TOL rule and I laughed with him. NOW I yet probably deserved the infraction though the reason I got it was not at all my intent. I was simply saying a guy made a good comment and I couldn't find why he got an infraction. The infraction was questioning mod discipline. That's not what I was purposefully doing. What I did realize CLEARLY at that point, was that a 'warning' isn't anything at all. A few days off isn't anything at all. Crying about it? I'd like to see a month out of every year where mods got a mandatory reprieve from the inane, enforceable by a month ban, which in effect, would give them two months off from this kind of mindless cry-baby complaining about breaking rules each and every member of TOL said they'd uphold! Timely bump? :nono: Indulgence once again of cry-babies ad nauseam.
An expressed disbelief in God is one thing, but a person who goes around telling people their God is 'imaginary' has no business on a theology site.
They are only around to start problems with the religious, and that's the key thing that needs to be acknowledged.It's nerve racking to the faithful, and they know it, and yet stick around anyway just to be a thorn in the side.
They are only around to start problems with the religious, and that's the key thing that needs to be acknowledged.It's nerve racking to the faithful, and they know it, and yet stick around anyway just to be a thorn in the side.
genuineoriginal
New member
The answer is found in The NEW-UPDATED 10 TOL Commandments
Everyone is allowed to call people retard, moron, idiot, and stupid if they have a good reason for doing so.
However, people that do it against people for having right-wing and Christian beliefs will have a greater burden of proof to show it was done with cause.
It can be taken as a given that there is cause when right-wing people call left-wing people morons for saying something against being right-wing and Christians calling non-Christians idiots for saying something against Christian beliefs.
Jose Fly
New member
So I could say that you're one of the most consistently idiotic and unintelligent posters I've ever encountered, and that would be just fine as long as I felt it was justified?
What if the discussion has nothing to do with religion?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Hi JF,
This sometimes seems to be a biased management call, since some are freely allowed to name call who are of the same 'faith' or 'comraderie' as management, so this gives them more 'leverage' so to speak. Then there is the issue of whether the 'name' was 'deserved' or 'earned', again a matter of subjective determination...which marginalizes certain people and puts them in lower class. Here we have to deal with issues of kindness, mutual and earned respect, courtesy, civility, etc.
I try to skirt this or imply something indirectly, if I feel one's manners earn him the title of being an 'idiot' (or whatever), because of their manners. Otherwise, if I see a behavior expressed over and over again, and they've more than earned a certain 'name', I might go ahead and share that. I usually try to engage in a creative-dialogue or direct the discussion into something more cooperative and fruitful. Of course 'name-calling' ought to be a last resort, or dispensed with altogether, if at all possible. The problem appears when the forum bias is used to demean or denigrate others in an extreme or exaggerated fashion, and then this is allowed by the management...that's where sometimes lines are crossed.
I have never seen a good reason for someone to resort to the above names. Those words are used for the sole purpose of demeaning others. It shows a lack of self-control, self-esteem and laziness on the part of the name-caller.
I am Christian and I am not offended by his comment. I expect unbleivers to act like they don't believe and I am not shocked when they do. Nor does his comment threaten me. That said, if he came to my home and started making comments that are intended to be offensive, it is with in my rights to ask him to leave.
genuineoriginal
New member
Not quite, it is the moderators that would need to agree that it was justified.
Are you an idiot or did you miss the way I separated political spectrum and religious beliefs into two separate categories?
Jose Fly
New member
Were such a thing to occur, it would give the impression that that side of the debate had nothing substantive left to offer, and had been reduced to nothing more than childish name-calling. Were that to be part of a forum management's normal operating procedure, it would give the impression that that side of the debate was so weak, it could not survive in a fair environment and needed such special protection in order to persist.
I'm glad to see that you're above that sort of thing.
genuineoriginal
New member
Then don't use them.
There is a reason for using them other than the reasons you stated for why you would use them.
_____
Gettin' the Mule's Attention
Adapted by Dr. Mike Lockett, The Normal Storyteller
A long time ago a farmer wanted to buy a mule from his neighbor. He asked the neighbor if the mule had any problems.
"Not a problem," the neighbor said. "This mule will do anything you ask. All you have to do is ask him nicely." The neighbor added, "Just make sure you never mistreat my mule."
The price for the mule was fair, so the farmer bought the mule. The very next day the farmer wanted to plow his field. He hitched the mule to the plow. The mule had no intention of pulling that plow!
The farmer said, "Git up!" But the mule paid no attention. The farmer tried talking nicely until his face almost turned blue. It did no good. So, he called his neighbor over.
The neighbor came right away. When he heard the problem, he walked over and picked up a two-by-four. He hit the mule right in the head. Then he whispered in the mule's ear. That mulee started plowing back and forth the field, turning the soil over without anyone standing behind the plow.
"I thought you said never to mistreat your mulee," stated the farmer. "You said all that I had to do was to talk nicely to him."
"Well," answered the neighbor. "You just have to get his attention first before talking to him."
Gettin' the Mule's Attention
Adapted by Dr. Mike Lockett, The Normal Storyteller
A long time ago a farmer wanted to buy a mule from his neighbor. He asked the neighbor if the mule had any problems.
"Not a problem," the neighbor said. "This mule will do anything you ask. All you have to do is ask him nicely." The neighbor added, "Just make sure you never mistreat my mule."
The price for the mule was fair, so the farmer bought the mule. The very next day the farmer wanted to plow his field. He hitched the mule to the plow. The mule had no intention of pulling that plow!
The farmer said, "Git up!" But the mule paid no attention. The farmer tried talking nicely until his face almost turned blue. It did no good. So, he called his neighbor over.
The neighbor came right away. When he heard the problem, he walked over and picked up a two-by-four. He hit the mule right in the head. Then he whispered in the mule's ear. That mulee started plowing back and forth the field, turning the soil over without anyone standing behind the plow.
"I thought you said never to mistreat your mulee," stated the farmer. "You said all that I had to do was to talk nicely to him."
"Well," answered the neighbor. "You just have to get his attention first before talking to him."
Jose Fly
New member
It is interesting that those on the Christian side of the discussion feel they need special name-calling privileges. :think:
I think it is *odd* ... to bash something (in this case a deity) one does not believe in ... though I don't see questioning the existence of a deity as bashing.