posted
I think he's made it pretty clear A) what his reasoning is, and B) that he has absolutely no intention of stopping. He's either getting banned or maintaining the status quo.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gefilte fish has nothing to do with Judaic (is that the right adjective?) theology, being rather a manifestation of Jewish culture
You didn't say Judaic theology, you said Judaism.
And BTW:
quote:I found dkw's question a bit silly and responded accordingly.
Same here. It's pretty safe to assume that references to Gefilte fish are probably a joke.
quote: If you cannot speak on the subject of theism without personal insult and attack, without (to reference the TOS) "disparag[ing] others for their religious beliefs," then please consider yourself subject-banned.
This seems pretty clear cut to me. It doesn't say you're on probation, it says consider yourself banned. But considering that you've violated the TOS several times since then, I think Tom is right about Pop.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You're still dodging the question. Why do you insist on turning every discussion remotely related to religion into an argument about whether it's rational to believe in God?
Because that's what interests me about religious discussions.
Touching the subject ban, consider this post from page 4:
quote:You may consider the conditional a final warning.
No. It's a forum for registered members that has a specific set of rules that we agree to abide by. Except that you agreed to abide by them, but routinely break them.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But considering that you've violated the TOS several times since then
Without disputing that I may have done so in the past, it's not immediately obvious to me where I've done so in this thread. No doubt you have some examples in mind; might you quote them?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, given that you have been officially "warned," why do you want to force him to actually ban you?
Because like all crusaders, he has to be Right. And if he can't be Right by making everyone think like him, he'll be Right through (perceived) martyrdom.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Tom Davidson and the other atheists may discuss anything they please. Lisa, rivka, and Armoth may discuss anything except Judaism. BlackBlade and the other Mormons can discuss non-Judeo-Christian religions, and can apply for permission in the case of non-mainstream Christian sects. Kmb needs to learn what 'belief' means before she can say anything intelligible on any subject; you too are a bit susceptible to that weakness. Other posters can apply to me as they feel the urge, and I'll tell them whether or not they can post in a given thread.
Or, to put it differently, the theological discussion to which I have no objection is a bit of a theoretical beast, interesting only as a contrast to what we've actually got.
quote:I think he's made it pretty clear A) what his reasoning is, and B) that he has absolutely no intention of stopping. He's either getting banned or maintaining the status quo.
Well, we probably wouldn't be talking about this (still, it comes up every so often) if it wasn't just as obvious to darn near everyone else as it is obvious to him religious people are delusional that he is either a) lying about his motives and reasoning, or be b) seriously mistaken about how to serve those motives and reasons in an effective way.
Look at his track record. I think it's a fair question to ask, since he's been at this for years: who has he persuaded? Whose religious beliefs or even neutrality towards religious beliefs has he ever even shaken, however briefly? Is society changed by his style of rhetoric and argument on this matter? Has this community been changed by it? Well, yes, actually: his presence in many religious discussions on Hatrack has made many folks just stop talking about it altogether around here.
If one were to evaluate his likely motives and reasons for talking the way he does based on his consistent results, well, a very different picture emerges than the one he claims to believe in. So different that must either be lying, or drastically, fundamentally, perhaps irreparably (since it's been going on for so long) mistaken about what he's actually doing.
ETA: Basically, it's either what Dante said, or KoM is himself unaware that it's what Dante said.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to recall that steven was a Mormon when he first came here. Of course it's hard to assign credit in these matters, but at least I don't seem to have completely prevented his deconversion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let's ask him, then: steven, were you a Mormon when you first started participating on Hatrack, were you a Mormon? And if you're not any longer (because I don't actually know one way or another), how much if anything of that change in your life would you attribute either to KoM in particular or Hatrack as a whole?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I seem to recall that steven was a Mormon when he first came here. Of course it's hard to assign credit in these matters, but at least I don't seem to have completely prevented his deconversion.
*blink* That certainly doesn't match my recollection.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven wasn't a Mormon, although he was quite evangelical about Dr. Price and his raw food diets.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nu, I could be mistaken as to steven, but I'm fairly convinced at any rate that there was one poster who came here as a Mormon and deconverted - either in spite of, because of, or regardless of me. It's hard to run double-blind experiments in these matters.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Enochville was an in-your-face evangelizing Mormon, who turned into an in-your-face evangelizing atheist.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nu, I could be mistaken as to steven, but I'm fairly convinced at any rate that there was one poster who came here as a Mormon and deconverted - either in spite of, because of, or regardless of me. It's hard to run double-blind experiments in these matters.
Well, you hardly get to lay claim to a 'deconversion' if it happened in spite of (how would that work?) or regardless of you, now do you?
Why you persist in claiming you're trying to do something with your religious discussions other than serve your own vanity is beyond me, simply because it seems to incredibly unlikely.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: But considering that you've violated the TOS several times since then, I think Tom is right about Pop.
I don't think anyone should draw any conclusions based on Papa Moose not acting quickly right now, since he and Mama are expecting a birth at any moment. He might be otherwise occupied.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, you hardly get to lay claim to a 'deconversion' if it happened in spite of (how would that work?) or regardless of you, now do you?
To be fair, that particular point wasn't claiming responsibility for said deconversion. He was merely pointing to an example of deconversion taking place, and acknowledging (slash hiding behind the fact) that you neither prove nor disprove that KoM had a hand in it.
I don't think KoM has actually broken the "TOS" in particular in this thread to a degree that the rest of us haven't (in particular given the fact that the thread began with Papa Janitor saying "no more personal attacks" and the theme of the thread promptly became "everyone point at people who are ruining the forum." Lisa was right about that irony. But I think the conversation was important and there's no way to discuss it without pointing out the people causing problems.
So far (to my knowledge) KoM HASN'T technically hijacked a thread and made it about religion since we started this (at least not after the point where PJ officially banned him from such, and by that point this thread had already evolved to such a discussion). What he has done is made it clear that at the very next opportunity he intends to do that.
I'm not sure the distinction matters or not, but it's there.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: You are boggled because I used "Optimus Prime and the Judeo Christian God" in a sentence, or because I acted like there was even the slightest chance I was NOT helping to derail the thread?
haha, no, I was just poking fun at the nature of the quotes. Not you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nu, I could be mistaken as to steven, but I'm fairly convinced at any rate that there was one poster who came here as a Mormon and deconverted - either in spite of, because of, or regardless of me. It's hard to run double-blind experiments in these matters.
Well, you hardly get to lay claim to a 'deconversion' if it happened in spite of (how would that work?) or regardless of you, now do you?
If indeed my posts are counterproductive, then any deconversions that occur here would have to be in spite of them, no? Alternatively, someone might come here for discussions and deconvert, but they would have deconverted no matter where they went, so that would be a regardless. I cannot know short of running a test with two samples of theists, some of which are exposed to my arguments and some which are not. Neither can you. However, any deconversions demonstrate, at least, that my posting is not so counterproductive as to make correct action impossible.
quote:Why you persist in claiming you're trying to do something with your religious discussions other than serve your own vanity is beyond me, simply because it seems to incredibly unlikely.
If it will make you feel better, by all means: I'm merely posting my own view on religious matters, without concerning myself with the issue of deconversion. This is, presumably, what everyone else is doing as well, so now we can get back to criticising my posting style rather than my motivations, eh?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside I do want to do a better job about saying, "I believe this" or "The Mormon Church teaches that." I tend to simply say "Christ taught..." or "Christians believe..." and because I'm so focused on getting my ideas out there I forget how arrogant that sounds.
In my mind I'm always thinking, "This is my interpretation of what Jesus was saying." But because I don't actually write that every time it gets in the way of conversation when somebody disagrees.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:so now we can get back to criticising my posting style rather than my motivations, eh?
I would like to know why you're motivated to post in the style you do, actually. Is it simple trolling, or do you really hope to achieve something?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neither can you. However, any deconversions demonstrate, at least, that my posting is not so counterproductive as to make correct action impossible.
Well, yes. Was that ever at issue?
quote: quote:Why you persist in claiming you're trying to do something with your religious discussions other than serve your own vanity is beyond me, simply because it seems to incredibly unlikely.
If it will make you feel better, by all means: I'm merely posting my own view on religious matters, without concerning myself with the issue of deconversion. This is, presumably, what everyone else is doing as well, so now we can get back to criticising my posting style rather than my motivations, eh?
Well, no, that's what some people do. Other folks - such as yourself - claim to be serving some bigger purpose, some effort at a perceived greater good, through their posting habits. And in a very specific, focused way, too, not just the general 'make the world a better place by being a better person in it' sort of thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's a fair question to ask, since he's been at this for years: who has he persuaded? Whose religious beliefs or even neutrality towards religious beliefs has he ever even shaken, however briefly?
quote:I would like to know why you're motivated to post in the style you do, actually. Is it simple trolling, or do you really hope to achieve something?
I must say that I have never made any conscious stylistic choice. I post the way I think.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I must say that I have never made any conscious stylistic choice. I post the way I think.
After years of being involved in discussions about your posting style, you're telling us that not once did you stop think about your posting style enough for it to be a conscious choice? Even if that were true, at a certain point, the refusal to make a conscious choice is a conscious choice.
posted
I don't see how that suggests I was saying you make correct action *impossible*, KoM.
As for posting what you think...so, what, you've spent all this time thinking just 'being yourself' would be enough to get the job done? That job being educating religious folks on how misled they are, thus helping them?
posted
I am not surprised. Being that destructive is indicative of not thinking at all about anyone else but oneself.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb] [QUOTE]I must say that I have never made any conscious stylistic choice. I post the way I think.
I remember when you first started posting, you were even more inflammatory then you were now. I could be wrong about it being you, but I'm almost positive I was taking part in a discussion where you kept saying that women throughout history never exhibited true bravery, or somesuch. I also remember asking you to chill out in a thread at least once.
Some time later, you made a post to the effect that you had finally checked an unused email addy that you used to register for Hatrack, and noticed dozens, perhaps even hundreds of emails asking you to curb your posting style. And it genuinely seemed to me that you did, at least at the time. At least for a little while.
Hence, you have exhibited, at least a little bit, a potential to change your behavior for the sake of the community.
You say this like it's a good thing. Civilization requires filters.
Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: [QUOTE] ... the thread began with Papa Janitor saying "no more personal attacks" and the theme of the thread promptly became "everyone point at people who are ruining the forum." Lisa was right about that irony
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb] [QUOTE]I must say that I have never made any conscious stylistic choice. I post the way I think.
I remember when you first started posting, you were even more inflammatory then you were now. I could be wrong about it being you, but I'm almost positive I was taking part in a discussion where you kept saying that women throughout history never exhibited true bravery, or somesuch.
I am fairly convinced I have not said anything of the sort. Perhaps I was commenting on the lack of women, historically speaking, in formal battles and regular fighting units?
quote:Some time later, you made a post to the effect that you had finally checked an unused email addy that you used to register for Hatrack, and noticed dozens, perhaps even hundreds of emails asking you to curb your posting style. And it genuinely seemed to me that you did, at least at the time. At least for a little while.
I remember the episode, but it was only the one email, from the moderator.
[ January 06, 2010, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: How about the five million soldiers who died in combat in the Great War, alone? How many of them were female? There are certainly brave women out there in history. But they are utterly outnumbered by the brave men.
It probably makes me a bad feminist, but I'd almost rather see the chauvinism than what you're doing now.
And in regards to the latter, *shrug*. I don't read your email. I only remember you posting once in regards to it. Are you denying that you changed your behavior at all because of it?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nu, I stand by my statements in that thread, in particular this formulation:
quote:Courage is not gender specific, true. Still, historically, it is men who have mostly been required to demonstrate physical courage. No-one has ever drafted women, to the best of my knowledge.
Please notice: I have not claimed that women would be unable to demonstrate physical courage, if given the chance. I have merely said that, historically, we have more evidence for physical courage as a male trait, than a female one. In a similar vein, we have more evidence for physical strength as a male trait than as a female one. I do not attach any moral significance to either of these facts, but I insist that they are facts. Provide counter-evidence if you wish. If you merely discard them as chauvinistic, I cannot stop you. But that's not the way to arrive at truth.
ETA: I also note that this is nowhere near a claim that women have not been brave, as you originally paraphrased me.
[ January 06, 2010, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, to some extent, women's acts of physical bravery are more common and less dramatic. Pregnancy and labour for example. Until quite recently, it was a fairly dangerous undertaking and most women went through it at least once - usually more. Battle, while also dangerous, was not a commonplace occurrence that most men throughout history experienced.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are dodging the entire point of my post. Are you, or were you ever, able to change your behavior at Hatrack?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would really prefer not to rehash that whole thread, and this precise argument was indeed raised in it, but childbirth does not call for the sort of courage I was speaking of. Once it starts, you can't stop it; no volition is involved, and hence no courage as such. One may face childbirth with fortitude and endurance, or with hysteria and tears; but one cannot make a conscious choice to get the hell out of there, as is (usually) possible on a battlefield. The style of courage I was discussing involves a decision to stay in a dangerous situation; no such decision is made during childbirth.
Now, you could argue that's there is a conscious choice made in the months preceding the actual birth, and you'd have a point. But I find it difficult to compare this with the immediacy of being shot at and staying where you are. An unpleasant situation three months hence just isn't the same as the fight-or-flee decision with adrenaline pumping through the veins right now.
And I would add one further point, here: Modern, Western women have much better options for avoiding childbirth than their predecessors did. And they are doing so in droves. I do not say that the low birthrates (and high abortion rates) of industrial nations are caused by the fear of childbirth; children are inconvenient for much longer than that. Still, wouldn't it be nice for your argument if women with the choice got pregnant at the same rate as women without it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: You are dodging the entire point of my post. Are you, or were you ever, able to change your behavior at Hatrack?
If that was the point of your post, it was very well hidden; you would have been better off asking directly in the first place. To answer the question, yes, but I haven't been convinced of the desirability of doing so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: How about the five million soldiers who died in combat in the Great War, alone? How many of them were female? There are certainly brave women out there in history. But they are utterly outnumbered by the brave men.
It probably makes me a bad feminist, but I'd almost rather see the chauvinism than what you're doing now.
And in regards to the latter, *shrug*. I don't read your email. I only remember you posting once in regards to it. Are you denying that you changed your behavior at all because of it?
Links like that merely prove that there is no such time as a golden age. Look at the contents in the first post in the thread.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would really prefer not to rehash that whole thread (Snip)
Okay.
Hum. I phrased myself very badly. I didn't actually mean that I was reluctant to take up the discussion again; I meant that I had already addressed this point to some extent in the other thread. Complete mismatch between intention and sentence, there.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
