A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[Warren Dew]

I guess the question is, why would you want to generalise and denigrate a group of people?

1. To make a rhetorical point.

2. Because the generalization is rationally supportable.

3. Because the generalization is true.

I'm pretty sure (1) applies in this case, but I'm more bothered by suspensions for (2) and (3) over there.

Interesting that you had to come over here to have this discussion, rather than feeling comfortable having it over there. That says something, doesn't it?

[devogue]

Oh no. Another Dew.

[maiforpeace]

Oh no. Another Dew.

Warren, you are the only Dew around here - he's a few letters ahead of you in the alphabet.

By the way, welcome to the forum!

[devogue]

Oh no. Another Dew.

Warren, you are the only Dew around here - he's a few letters ahead of you in the alphabet.

By the way, welcome to the forum!

+1

Hang around!

[pErvinalia]

The original poster stated an opinion. If he's going to be warned for his personal views, as opposed to challenged, then there's nothing rational about your approach.


/thread.

I'm not sure if this is in response to me, but if so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I'm not responding to the OP of this thread at all, I'm just addressing Gallstones point.

I was actually referring to the warning of the author of the fatrolls thread.

Oh, ok. In that case your post makes no sense. The mods aren't there to provide counter-arguments. They are there to enforce the FUA. They acted perfectly rationally by enforcing the FUA as fits their role.

The post makes perfect sense. If you are 'rationally skeptical' why is the default position to warn members for having an unfavourable opinion and not challenging them?

Because it's hate speech.

[pErvinalia]

I guess the question is, why would you want to generalise and denigrate a group of people?

1. To make a rhetorical point.

2. Because the generalization is rationally supportable.

3. Because the generalization is true.

I'm pretty sure (1) applies in this case, but I'm more bothered by suspensions for (2) and (3) over there.

Interesting that you had to come over here to have this discussion, rather than feeling comfortable having it over there. That says something, doesn't it?

Fuck off. Irony fail.

I came over here because someone on ratskep linked to this topic over here. GS made a post that I wanted to reply to, so I did. What the fuck is your problem with that?

[pErvinalia]

I'm just glad that this forum provides a venue where RatSkeps can have an actual discussion

ahehehe .. hyeah.

Yea, but too bad that's the only reason why some of them come over here.

Wow, I didn't realise it was such a parochial backwater over here.

[Tigger]

The original poster stated an opinion. If he's going to be warned for his personal views, as opposed to challenged, then there's nothing rational about your approach.


/thread.

I'm not sure if this is in response to me, but if so I'm not really sure what you are talking about. I'm not responding to the OP of this thread at all, I'm just addressing Gallstones point.

I was actually referring to the warning of the author of the fatrolls thread.

Oh, ok. In that case your post makes no sense. The mods aren't there to provide counter-arguments. They are there to enforce the FUA. They acted perfectly rationally by enforcing the FUA as fits their role.

The post makes perfect sense. If you are 'rationally skeptical' why is the default position to warn members for having an unfavourable opinion and not challenging them?

Because it's hate speech.

We discuss things like that here in our parochial backwater: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=15748

[maiforpeace]

I'm just glad that this forum provides a venue where RatSkeps can have an actual discussion

ahehehe .. hyeah.

Yea, but too bad that's the only reason why some of them come over here.

Wow, I didn't realise it was such a parochial backwater over here.

It's the truth, isn't it? The only posts you have made on our forum has been to rag about RD when it shut down, to rag on our members who have complained about RS, to tell someone else to fuck off...and you are lecturing us about hate speech?

[JimC]

I'm just glad that this forum provides a venue where RatSkeps can have an actual discussion

ahehehe .. hyeah.

Yea, but too bad that's the only reason why some of them come over here.

Wow, I didn't realise it was such a parochial backwater over here.

It's the truth, isn't it? The only posts you have made on our forum has been to rag about RD when it shut down, to rag on our members who have complained about RS, to tell someone else to fuck off...and you are lecturing us about hate speech?

[pErvinalia]

I'm just glad that this forum provides a venue where RatSkeps can have an actual discussion

ahehehe .. hyeah.

Yea, but too bad that's the only reason why some of them come over here.

Wow, I didn't realise it was such a parochial backwater over here.

It's the truth, isn't it? The only posts you have made on our forum has been to rag about RD when it shut down, to rag on our members who have complained about RS, to tell someone else to fuck off

So what?

Parochialism is alive and well it seems in your posts.

...and you are lecturing us about hate speech?

I don't think you quite know what "hate speech" is.

[maiforpeace]

So what?

Parochialism is alive and well it seems in your posts.

You just love that word, don't you?

...and you are lecturing us about hate speech?

I don't think you quite know what "hate speech" is.

I wasn't comparing what you are posting with hate speech - I know what hate speech is. I was simply pointing that you are lecturing others about hate speech, when you yourself have been somewhat hateful, insulting and condescending towards me and other members here, which is only a few degrees less unpleasant than hate speech is.

So I invite you to relax, have a brew, and go post something silly in the pub and get to know us better. Some of us are actually pretty cool people.

[Robert_S]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

[maiforpeace]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

You're kidding? That's crazy.

[pErvinalia]

So what?

Parochialism is alive and well it seems in your posts.

You just love that word, don't you?

...and you are lecturing us about hate speech?

I don't think you quite know what "hate speech" is.

I wasn't comparing what you are posting with hate speech - I know what hate speech is. I was simply pointing that you are lecturing others about hate speech, when you yourself have been somewhat hateful, insulting and condescending towards me and other members here,...

Umm, pot...kettle...

which is only a few degrees less unpleasant than hate speech is.

Really. Glad you think hate speech is so frivolous.

So I invite you to relax, have a brew, and go post something silly in the pub and get to know us better. Some of us are actually pretty cool people.