|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 24, 2013 06:22 AM |
|
|
|
I don't think neither delusional nor sinner are insults. They are nowhere near to relatively offensive idiotic.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 06:30 AM |
|
|
Calling someone a sinner is basically calling that person a flawed/ broken human, and delusional people are unable to see simple truths/ tell falsehoods from truth because they lack something fundamental in their ability to process information. I consider both to be insults based on those criteria. *Shrug* but oh well, that's subjective I guess...
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 06:32 AM |
|
|
|
What is insulting about being flawed, aren't we all flawed?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 06:34 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 06:38, 24 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
According to my understanding anything stronger than,"I disagree with your position," "I disagree with conservative philosophy because" will be grounds for discipline. Statements like religion was made up by man (which clearly is an offensive statements to religious people), religion is delusion, atheism is irrational, ect seem to certainly be disallowed. At this point I'm not even clear it it is ok to say, "Murder is immoral."
Not this, Elodin, but things like: Atheists are delusional, homosexuals are sinners, religious people are fanatically delusional, etc, etc. It's direct insults to the people, not the institutions, that will not be tolerated. You do see the difference, correct?
According to the HM Corribus sent I can't call an idea "idiotic, inane, or poppycock" so critique of ideas with the use of negative adjectives is not allowed.
It is also not accpetable to call someone a liar even whey they tell lies about you.
I've certainly never called anyone an idiot or innate, in contract to the false charges in the HM and I've never called anyone a liar unless they repeatedly made false statements about my person.
I'm certainly eagerly awaiting very clear and concise answers from moderation because they are deciding to enforce things differently from how they have in the past and posters need to know what is expected.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 06:35 AM |
|
|
Not the place for discussion, Artu.  And there is a difference between being flawed normally and being flawed in a way that is seen as sub-human or an extreme. Not liking ice cream is acceptable, being a pathological liar is not. Both are flaws. Again, it's subjective.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 06:59 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
I recommend giving people the benefit of the doubt. They could certainly be saying something that is untrue (the OSM is full of that), but that doesn't mean they're liars, because to be a liar, there is the intention of falsehood. So if someone says something untrue, you can say "That's incorrect" - but you don't need to assume that they're saying something untrue on purpose, with the intent to mislead.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 07:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin:
I recommend giving people the benefit of the doubt. They could certainly be saying something that is untrue (the OSM is full of that), but that doesn't mean they're liars, because to be a liar, there is the intention of falsehood. So if someone says something untrue, you can say "That's incorrect" - but you don't need to assume that they're saying something untrue on purpose, with the intent to mislead.
I haven't called anyone a liar when they disagree with some idea of mine but when they make false statements about what I do or what I believe and I have attempted to correct them and they persist in making false claims about me. In that case they are indeed willfully and maliciously making false statements about me.
But what is categorically false is to claim that I call anyone a liar for simply disagreeing with any idea I have posted. For instance, I've never said, "Hah!! You say God does not exist! You are a liar!"
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 08:03 AM |
|
|
When you uncover so much from you, writing about everything and everywhere, other people may see things about you that yourself can't perceive-or don't want to. But is Internet, so nuf' said, the therapy at two cents/hour.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 08:29 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
I mean, perhaps they misrepresent you because they misunderstand you.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 10:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
According to the HM Corribus sent I can't call an idea "idiotic, inane, or poppycock" so critique of ideas with the use of negative adjectives is not allowed.
It would be so much better for everyone if you simply used the phrase "I don't agree" or even "I think this is stupid" much more regularly, and "poppycock" a lot less, don't you agree?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 10:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
According to my understanding anything stronger than,"I disagree with your position," "I disagree with conservative philosophy because" will be grounds for discipline. Statements like religion was made up by man (which clearly is an offensive statements to religious people), religion is delusion, atheism is irrational, ect seem to certainly be disallowed. At this point I'm not even clear it it is ok to say, "Murder is immoral."
Perhaps moderation can clarify that if that is not the case.
While I'm no mod, I think I can still help. 
Everything is okay, that you can make a "non-trivial, non-personal/individual case" for. So let's see:
"Religion was made up by man" is a completely ok statement. Why? Because there are thousands of it, and they can't be all right, can they? So your point would be: true - but NOT MINE (and a couple of others who have problems with understanding of details). So with your religion not being the OLDEST, the first ones would have to have been made up by man.
In short - even if there may be the benefit of the doubt for a specific case, the general situation is, that this is a true statement, and, more importantly, someone claiming it can make a non-trivial, non-personal/individual case for it. (As opposed to this, you make make a case for "person X is an idiot", since you may follow up with a "because" ... "because he said that the world is flat", but the case is not "non-personal/individual" (and generally these are also QUITE trivial as well, as in, "he said Michael Jackson sucks, so he is clearly an idiot").
"Religion is delusion" - somewhat follows from the first one, however this is debatable in the sense that if there IS a godly background for the world, then there would be a correct religion and Man is just searching for the right one, but the idea as such would NOT be delusional. Still, this falls under the same category than above, although the main problem with THIS one (as opposed to the first one) is that this is more or less a corollary of a broader statement, which goes into the more personal direction: the next logical step is: "all religious believers are deluded", and this is already way down the slippery slope to calling each other names.
In short - this can be brought up once for the sake of at least pointing to it, but since you have to make a non-trivial, non-personal/individual case for it, in doing that you will have to explain why religion is delusion, and then we are going more or less back to the first one.
"atheism is irrational" is a completely ok statement, why? Because you can - and did - make a non-trivial, non-personal/individual case for it: ("Religious people are happier on average, less prone to suicide and so on, and there is the problem to explain something coming from nothing", saying basically that if religion is indeed a delusion, at least it is a pragmatically rational one, because it makes people happier than without and gives a ready explanation for the unexplainable, while atheism is basically a form of denial ("Give me the whole truth or give me nothing!")
In short - no problem.
"Murder is immoral" - not much to say against that one, or is it? This, however, is more or less standing and falling with the definition of the words "murder" and "immoral", so that statement is actually pretty ... trivial, come to think of it. 
However, it would seem that while the statement is trivial, you can make a non-trivial, non-personal/individual case for it - but that you'd have to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The main problem seems to be, Elodin, that you take everything that somehow goes against "religion in general" quite personal, which makes debating these things such a minefield. We cannot discuss ANYTHING AT ALL, if we take every small belittling of something we hold dear, take as a personal insult. I mean, I like Black Sabbath from when they started back in 1969, and you don't want to know how often I've been hearing how their music is dumb as bread (meaning, "people listening to that crap must be dumb as bread, because that's the main prerequisite to being able to stand it"). You SHOULDN'T take these kind of things personal, least of all on the web.
Is it trivial to compare the music of Black Sabbath with religion stuff, or even offensive? I don't think so, really.
I think, you - everyone - shouldn't discuss "ideas" (and in a broad sense religion is an idea as well), when you can't look past your personal involvement.
I'm QUITE sure, that everyone here will be able to debate unpersonally over an issue, like, "science is a big deceiver" or something like that (provided the initial poster had made a good case for it), and I also think that there is no problem with debating the "cons" or "sins" of atheism ("no moral") or even agnosticism ("no balls") without getting too personally involved here.
See it this way: whatever we talk here - talk is cheap, and an internet debate with people you don't personally know and have no "world reputation" as experts for anything isn't worth to become all fired up about.
Remember: you are no one's lawyer, and this is not a court.
disclaimer: this post is well-meant. Should someone feel aggravated somehow - sorry. Calm down. Please.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 10:33 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:44, 24 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
According to the HM Corribus sent I can't call an idea "idiotic, inane, or poppycock" so critique of ideas with the use of negative adjectives is not allowed.
It would be so much better for everyone if you simply used the phrase "I don't agree" or even "I think this is stupid" much more regularly, and "poppycock" a lot less, don't you agree?
Doom, you yourself have recently used "idiotic" and a certain moderators seem to enjoy saying negative things about religion. I could make quite a list of quotes indeed if I were so inclined.
Quote:
The most idiotic thing about this is that I'm saying that America is great for like 10 posts and Fred still goes berserk on how I hate America. Lol.
Quote:
Second, yes, it's idiotic NOT to acknowledge what WONDERFUL luck you've got to be born and raised in the richest country in the world.
And of course other negative adjectives are used quite commonly in the OSM. All one has to do is do a search for the word.
Anyways, what's done is done and we'll see if moderators step up their game, enforce everything fairly, and live by what preach to others or not. Time will tell.
But what we DO need is clarity from the moderation on exactly what is and is not allowed so we all know what to expect.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 11:01 AM |
|
|
@jj
I really don't think, when it comes down to actually moderating posts, a logic that refined is applied all the time and neither it should be. Basically, it's all about not being provocative and keeping a civil manner. Yes, that is subjective but not very subjective. Nitpicking this or that phrase doesn't mean much in the end, it's all part of a context. Actually, two contexts; the context of your post and the context you create as a poster in general.
What I'm afraid of is, we now may be stepping into a policy in which the moderators will be extra picky about sarcasm or relating a person's characteristics to the point he makes, since if they don't, Elodin will try to "get them" on hypocrisy as he declares. When in fact, we could have had a much more flexible ground in the first place.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 11:24 AM |
|
|
That's why I tried to explain that the problem isn't NEGATIVITY AS SUCH, but only negativity you cannot make a non-trivial, non-personal/individual case for, because otherwise you cannot debate anything at all, and that it makes no sense to take negativity against an idea personal just because you hold the idea dear.
If someone CAN make a non-trivial non-personal case AGAINST something you happen to hold dear or think true, you are involved only indirectly, and you SHOULDN'T take it personal, because you can counter that with a non-trivial, non-personal case FOR that something; if you can't or can only counter it with a case AGAINST something else, you have actually no point ...
Of course it IS permissible to ask a poster making a negative case against something, whether they can make a case FOR something as well, because an all-negative point of view ("all sucks, nothing certain") would somehow put a specific negative perspective into a more general negative perspective and relativize it.
Anyway. It's the spirit in which we debate, is probably what the moderation wants to tell us. Strangely enough I can hear Simon & Garfunkel singing The Boxer: "All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 11:29 AM |
|
|
|
So you listen to the good stuff too, not just Black Sabbath
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 11:59 AM |
|
|
Uh, err, wait ... how do we get that on-topic ... err
Yes! I like stuff utilizing FEEDBACK (see that, Cor? Perfectly on-topic!), like Jimi Hendrix and a couple hundred others...
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 12:21 PM |
|
|
If two people just can't reach each other with their arguments, it's best that they quit trying altogether.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 12:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Doom, you yourself have recently used "idiotic" and a certain moderators seem to enjoy saying negative things about religion. I could make quite a list of quotes indeed if I were so inclined.
Of course I did, and so does every poster here from time to time. it's allowed if not overly offensive and repetitive. On the posts you kindly quoted: the post was so deliberately missing the point that I facepalmed at the amount of trolling put into it.
You're missing the obvious point - you're using those adjectives EXCESSIVELY. Not once per 10 posts, not once per 100. When talking about politics, the word "Loony" is there EVERY time.
What we basically asked of you is to reduce the number of copy-paste adjectives and use more "polite" formula in general. We're not telling you to refrain from calling something idiotic, retarded or stupid for all eternity on HC. It's like cursing. When people throw a cuss-word once per 10 posts and star it out, it's fine. But if someone fills every post of his/hers with stared-out words, it quickly gets old, annoying, and demands our attention.
Another issue is that you also deliberately associate certain groups with stupidity and keep repeating it over and over. Liberals, democrats... all stupid, loony, and whatever-other-adjective-comes-to-your-mind. Every 2nd post or so.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 02:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Doom, you yourself have recently used "idiotic" and a certain moderators seem to enjoy saying negative things about religion. I could make quite a list of quotes indeed if I were so inclined.
What we basically asked of you is to reduce the number of copy-paste adjectives and use more "polite" formula in general. We're not telling you to refrain from calling something idiotic, retarded or stupid for all eternity on HC.
....
Another issue is that you also deliberately associate certain groups with stupidity and keep repeating it over and over. Liberals, democrats... all stupid, loony, and whatever-other-adjective-comes-to-your-mind. Every 2nd post or so.
A bit of a hyperbole, eh Doom?
I'd be more than happy to take some time out today to show constant belittling of religion, religious people, America, and conservatives by several posters if you'd like. Since those groups being constantly berated by certain posters seems to go unnoticed.
Anyways, since it seems Corribus is normally the one moderating the OSM I'd like for him to make clear exactly what he expects so no one is confused and we can all be good little posters.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 24, 2013 02:18 PM |
|
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
