A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[NineOneFour]

Tell me, people from RatSskep, could this thread right here exist in your forum without the ban hammer or the thread-locked hammer falling?

Hmmmm?

Yes, and there's two of them right now.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Hint: no.

[JimC]

As I said earlier, there's no point debating with people who hold those views. There is no rational basis for holding views like that, so presenting them with a rational argument isn't likely to hold much sway over them. Some people are just fuckheads, and there's not much any of us can do about it.

In that case all Creationists should be banned from posting, because there is no rational basis for their views, which would mean that we would never again be treated to one of Cali's epic arsehole-tearing nuclear posts destroying the likes of Robert Byers ever again. Of course Byers is never going to learn, of course he will put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la", but people in the gallery like me will read and learn - I like to see bullshit ripped apart, I like to see conspiracy theories and nasty, baseless crap demolished word by vile word.

This explains why you're here and not there, but it doesn't say anything about why they should change, does it?

It is possible both to accept that they have every right to do there own thing, and at the same time be critical of that thing...

I think...

[NineOneFour]

Tell me, people from RatSskep, could this thread right here exist in your forum without the ban hammer or the thread-locked hammer falling?

Hmmmm?

Absolutely. This "Gallstones Tangent" as I shall call it, is just a spill over from a similar thread at RS. She wasn't replying over there, so I followed her here.

She isn't replying because her entire point was "Seth was treated unfairly." I liked to SEVEN of Seth's posts that were sanctionable where the moderators did nothing.

How many strikes does this guy get? 400?

[NineOneFour]

rEv, like I said before, I don't post at RatSkep much, do you think the majority of the members there are satisfied/happy with its moderation?

Yes.

[Trolldor]

As I said earlier, there's no point debating with people who hold those views. There is no rational basis for holding views like that, so presenting them with a rational argument isn't likely to hold much sway over them. Some people are just fuckheads, and there's not much any of us can do about it.

In that case all Creationists should be banned from posting, because there is no rational basis for their views, which would mean that we would never again be treated to one of Cali's epic arsehole-tearing nuclear posts destroying the likes of Robert Byers ever again. Of course Byers is never going to learn, of course he will put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la", but people in the gallery like me will read and learn - I like to see bullshit ripped apart, I like to see conspiracy theories and nasty, baseless crap demolished word by vile word.

This explains why you're here and not there, but it doesn't say anything about why they should change, does it?

It is possible both to accept that they have every right to do there own thing, and at the same time be critical of that thing...

I think...

Ain't that the beauty of this place? The ability to be critical of what we disagree with?

[pErvinalia]

As I said earlier, there's no point debating with people who hold those views. There is no rational basis for holding views like that, so presenting them with a rational argument isn't likely to hold much sway over them. Some people are just fuckheads, and there's not much any of us can do about it.

In that case all Creationists should be banned from posting, because there is no rational basis for their views, which would mean that we would never again be treated to one of Cali's epic arsehole-tearing nuclear posts destroying the likes of Robert Byers ever again. Of course Byers is never going to learn, of course he will put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la", but people in the gallery like me will read and learn - I like to see bullshit ripped apart, I like to see conspiracy theories and nasty, baseless crap demolished word by vile word.

Yes, in a way all creationists should be banned. But as you say, there is something quite special about watching one get thoroughly demolished. But I think in reality at RS that creationists are welcome, as long as they don't preach. The problem is, that to be a creationist, your only option in an intellectual debate is to preach given that no evidence can be provided. I don't actually spend a lot of time in the theist forums, so I can't comment very authoritatively on what goes on there. But anytime I do pop in, there certainly seems to be some leeway given to the regulars to abuse the more troll-like religionists. I think given our focus on atheism, that it's probably considered acceptable to rubbish religious delusion.

[pErvinalia]

rEv, like I said before, I don't post at RatSkep much, do you think the majority of the members there are satisfied/happy with its moderation?

I think they are, but there's no doubt that lately there seems to be some discontent. The interesting thing is that only a few weeks ago, it was discontent from the other side - i.e. there were complaints that the mods were letting too much slip through. But now the focus seems to be on them being too strict. They really are caught between a rock and a hard place, and I really think they are a genuine bunch of people who try their best to take on board as many ideas and opinions as possible.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I see you conveniently missed my point above concerning the fact that it was the tea-partiers themselves who adopted that name. It is what they call themselves!

That doesn't stop it from being a derogatory term though.

It certainly is when I use it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

RDF2 is just a proof of SSDD. It was silly to think it would be otherwise.

[FBM]

It is possible both to accept that they have every right to do there own thing, and at the same time be critical of that thing...

I think...

You have the right to do that, of course, but I don't see where it helps anything. I just vote with my feet...eh...keyboard? Live and let live. I don't see much reason to expect every forum to cater to my particular preferences, and don't see much benefit to complaining when they don't.

[FBM]

Ain't that the beauty of this place? The ability to be critical of what we disagree with?

If you're here, you see the beauty in that. For those 'over there', they apparently find beauty in what they have there. Eye of the beholder and all that.

[devogue]

As I said earlier, there's no point debating with people who hold those views. There is no rational basis for holding views like that, so presenting them with a rational argument isn't likely to hold much sway over them. Some people are just fuckheads, and there's not much any of us can do about it.

In that case all Creationists should be banned from posting, because there is no rational basis for their views, which would mean that we would never again be treated to one of Cali's epic arsehole-tearing nuclear posts destroying the likes of Robert Byers ever again. Of course Byers is never going to learn, of course he will put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la", but people in the gallery like me will read and learn - I like to see bullshit ripped apart, I like to see conspiracy theories and nasty, baseless crap demolished word by vile word.

Yes, in a way all creationists should be banned. But as you say, there is something quite special about watching one get thoroughly demolished. But I think in reality at RS that creationists are welcome, as long as they don't preach. The problem is, that to be a creationist, your only option in an intellectual debate is to preach given that no evidence can be provided. I don't actually spend a lot of time in the theist forums, so I can't comment very authoritatively on what goes on there. But anytime I do pop in, there certainly seems to be some leeway given to the regulars to abuse the more troll-like religionists. I think given our focus on atheism, that it's probably considered acceptable to rubbish religious delusion.

So it's okay for Creationists to spout crap as long as they "don't preach". In that case why can't a Nazi spout crap about Jews as long as he doesn't try to recruit? You may say that the Nazi's views are more odious, but then you are on shaky ground, because there is no definite "scale of odiousness" - if anything, I would say that the Nazi is less dangerous because individually and as a society we are educated and possibly intrinsically lean towards moral repugnance when it comes to Nazi ideology, but Creationism is accorded a level of tolerance, and often respect, by society at large even though it is dangerously anti-science and truth.

So why tolerate the espousal of Creationist drivel which ridicules honest mainstream science and can warp the minds of children (and adults) while slamming the door on Nazi drivel which ridicules mainstream science and can also warp the minds of children (and adults)?

To differentiate between the two is irrational, especially on a forum with "Rational" in its name.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To differentiate between the two is irrational, especially on a forum with "Rational" in its name.

Unless it's "Rational" in name only.

[JimC]

It is possible both to accept that they have every right to do there own thing, and at the same time be critical of that thing...

I think...

You have the right to do that, of course, but I don't see where it helps anything. I just vote with my feet...eh...keyboard? Live and let live. I don't see much reason to expect every forum to cater to my particular preferences, and don't see much benefit to complaining when they don't.

Well, perhaps it is all about what we mean by the word critical. I mean a fairly measured, unemotional critique, which does not imply any real animosity, but does express a preference for the style of this place. Certainly not complaining, which only makes sense if you are part of something that you want to change...

(I'm a member there in theory, but don't end up posting there much...)

[Pappa]

To differentiate between the two is irrational, especially on a forum with "Rational" in its name.

Shhhh.... we have "rational" in our name here too remember.