Should there be a Religion forum?
Current time: 08-21-2014, 08:55 PM
User(s) browsing this thread:
Author: zonsb
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 55
Views: 12090

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should there be a Religion forum?
02-15-2012, 08:37 AM
Post: #46
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
Quote:And funny, but up until his last few days posts, I actually wouldn't have had much qualm with your statement about Jace.

I would say the same of you, Eye2. Other than the mentioned replete self-annotations of yours, I never had problems with you, and I could just skip over it happily.

But you backed an assholes play, and I don't apologize to you for calling you on it in equal course. My beef was with stU alone, not over Deism, Atheism, or any other convolution, but respectful and accurate discussion. First responses I ever gave him were FACTUALLY based critiques to his points, and you can look them up if you wish to dispute them.

You never ran this ad hominem crusade against me as "Defender of the Forum" when I ran Outofstate's troll ass out of here for being an inane pratt and offering nothing, or for very gently and very respectfully stepping in to give NonE a (gratefully and graciously received) look into the mirror, on the "Proof of God" thread, where I very clearly did not attempt to promote Logan's position, either.

If it's a matter for derision that those who would not waste time with a "divisive" subject matter, then you are as tarred by the baby as the rest. I had no beef with you, still don't much care, but I see you whine like a pussy and bring my name up in derision on forum threads I'm not even involved in. Where do I go around defaming you not directly to your face and not directly towards the matter at hand?

You show to me that stU was somehow being accurate to the facts about equating a 1-1 ratio of initiating violence compared between priests and judges, and that I was somehow wrong in (very civilly and concisely pointing this out, twice, before being at all impolite), and I'll apologize to you both.

I'd be more than happy to know I can just go back to skimming your posts until I hit the meat of it, but since you seem to think so much of me, I suppose I'm obligated to pay you some attention.

My only beef with you was backing stU without (apparently) going back to the beginning or doing your homework on me as to how I always start from a place of respect and patience.

You took what I said to be far more personally directed at you. You're quite wrong. You backed an asshole. An openly discredited asshole. I don't care about your views or arguing with you. If I had, you and I would have sparred long...long ago.

So if you want to actually see the degree of consistency, factual integrity, and personal integrity your buddy showed on his arrival to the forum, I suggest you return to the start.

http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread.php?tid=3204

And as well return here:

http://marcstevens.net/board/showthread.php?tid=3183

And witness how I always conduct myself to stick with cordiality and reason, so long I see it being actually taken (at very least) for the intent of good faith in which it is offered.

And I'd like you to consider how you yourself react when, from all the facts as you understand them, those you are communicating with don't show any sign of giving a good damn about what anyone else presents, no matter how considerately you attempt to do so.

You think I've somehow stepped over some line? Show me how and when the precedent wasn't set, by the opposing party, for it in such case, and that I ever jump upon so readily or at all happily.

The way you continue to piss and wail on about me, you'd think I had some actual pattern of using such strong language as I came to to make my point. I'd love to see you or anyone dredge up enough evidence of that here, from any other topic and compare it to how regularly you yourself get into pissing matches with other board members. I can still count on half a hand the number of members I've ever tussled with, and that's because the others were openly exposed for the trolls they are and left.

Even stU isn't attacking me as childishly as you are. Grow up for two seconds and look at the facts. Cause we all acknowledge it matters who started it, do we not? Or is the NAP somehow not extend able to slanders or attempting to pass of sloppy logic to blanketly paint a whole group of people as psychopaths?

Had you taken a moment and looked at your new mate's behavior, you might have seen that more of what I said in my now infamous post was directed towards his bullshit. It was simply sparked by seeing someone like you who, I had thought, at least prided himself on getting the record straight, jumping in as you did while so obviously missing the point and lending him a veneer of legitimacy to hide behind.

I dare you to show how anyone who initially responded to stU's post on psychopaths did so in any disrespectful of god-promoting way, and that we did not simply address factual and logic consideration your little mate very sloppily left out.

Quote:I say Priests and Ministers are scumbags with a robes on, a dress on.

Those are the facts[?].

This is the thesis statement your boy has tried to pass as logical (and not as an opinion statement in ANY way) since the first. Point out the one very tiny, inconvenient fact, that not every single priest or minister uses violence to do their jobs every day, but all judges must (to remain employed) and apparently anyone who does so is simply an irrational religion-toting fight-picker.

I come here to learn and discuss things I can't get most other places and from people I expect to understand that this drivel is being "discussed" all over the place already. I expect a little more understanding of division of specialization, and at the very least more damn integrity in cordial and ACCURATE communication of the facts and the record.

So if you still think, now, (if you got of your own high horse long enough to at all examine my position from my POV without projection), that I was not in any way justified is saying "Fuck off!" to the party (and his supporter) who very self-centeredly attempted to steer this board away from the far smaller market of agorism toward the over-saturated hell-scream of religious/anti-religious twaddle, then I repeat it again to both of you.

One shouldn't believe everything one thinks.
-Jace: Johanson
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2012, 09:15 AM
Post: #47
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
Quote:Lawyers and Judges are scumbags with a robes on, a dress on.

Those are Marc Stevens words. Are they facts?

My facts are comparable to his facts.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2012, 12:11 PM
Post: #48
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
.
.
.

Is it possible to cause division over the matter of whether something is or isn't divisive?
.
.
.

[Image: thinker.gif] The Feeler

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2012, 08:32 PM
Post: #49
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
No, stU. That is his conclusion, supported by his facts that not one judge or lawyer is in business through peaceful means (which did, in FACT, precede the concluding statement, many times on many occasions). If he made the mistake of stating this conclusion in a fashion portraying it as fact in some single instance, boo-bloody-hoo, this is entirely excusable as he far more regularly makes this particular distinction and proves it.

You, on the other hand, seem to think he does not nor ever bothered to expound on make his case, but has somehow set precedent to give you or anyone else justification to spout your bile without showing any greater standard of proof yourself. The facts were clarified and laid before you in response, showing the ground of BOTH sides. And all you bothered with instead were attempts at word-play to try and conflate the two theses.

Is the burden still supposedly upon me to demonstrate all, eye2? Did you bother examining the record or not?

One shouldn't believe everything one thinks.
-Jace: Johanson
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2012, 09:17 PM
Post: #50
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
How many would be willing to donate to a tip jar if I put one up?

I think we should support stU's hate filled rants. The world doesn't have enough hate. And we could also fund a torrent so that zonsb could have a 24/7/365 stream of all of his misinterpretations of me. There may yet be someone in China who's not read his encyclopedic diatribe of all of the errors of all things NonE. I think it's the least we can do.

Anyone for donating a bunch of Bitcoins to this great cause? Heart

- NonE Cool

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2012, 09:40 PM
Post: #51
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
an open appeal... to the 6 or so direct participants, but especially to newcomers and non-"taken over"-thread participants:

ok.
First, I've been looking in the proverbial mirror. Yes, I value that as a general process.

And so it is from there, along with a couple of PMs exchanged, that I proceed. The first thing I re-visited were boynton/stU's relative posts, each one of just his. I was looking for evidence of his blatantly being divisive. I sincerely just don't see it. Was he being provocative? To me, yes. Was he a bit terse or impersonal, as a newcomer particularly, in his posting style? Could be said and I wouldn't counter it.

But was he being divisive? I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind. Maybe I'm naive. I do tend to see value in his core point, as I've openly expressed, so a certain blindness may indeed be in play. On the matter of whether his topic is divisive, I can only offer it's a matter of opinion. But on a forum that is espoused to be centered in going by the facts, I'd offer that comparing elsewhere for reinforcing one's opinion is biased. Framing an argument right out of the gate can be effective at shutting down an opponent, I'm sure.


From a genuine interest of peace seeking and dust settling eventually, I can only appeal to a similar period of reflection on others parts.
I propose that a calm re-look at the "taken over" (alleged attempts, hyperbole aside) posts, over the couple of days that they occurred, alone may prove significant.

My query next would be along the lines of asking: would having simply ignored the few posts possibly have been a less divisive approach --particularly if what was responded didn't include the likes of this:
Quote:
thread: [I forgot to get the title, but it's here]
an assholes play - this ad hominem crusade against me - I ran Outofstate's troll ass out of here for being an inane pratt and offering nothing - those who would not waste time with a "divisive" subject matter - I see you whine like a pussy - You backed an asshole. An openly discredited asshole. - attacking me as childishly as you are. Grow up for two seconds - Or is the NAP somehow not extend able to slanders or attempting to pass of sloppy logic to blanketly paint a whole group of people as psychopaths? - my now infamous post was directed towards his bullshit - your little mate - this drivel is being "discussed" all over the place already - more damn integrity - (if you got of your own high horse long enough to at all examine my position from my POV without projection) - justified is saying "Fuck off!" - very self-centeredly - the over-saturated hell-scream of religious/anti-religious twaddle -

This from the ignoramus who thought he put me in my place - Shut the hell up, please. - a childish moron like yourself - You make Atheists look like whining counter-racists and offer nothing worth so much as a smooth fart. -

OHOHOHOhohohohoho! OH, this is going to piss i2i off - We've even had trolls just like him, and the forum didn't break down before. - Fuck off, with your jaded tar-brushing and irresponsible generalizations - You assholes place every religious person in this big group of the damned -

The reason, I'm sure, that Marc (and myself, for one) don't want this shit on here - this shit - What a patent imbecile! - your inane rant about religion -

some high-minded assholes - Don't be such a dick. - you're being a hypocritical asshole - Have a nice trolling. - DO you have something worth a damn to offer? - you and other trolls just like you - You think what you have to say is so damn important? - you twit. - by what basis can you ever bitch if it's not - don't be an asshole. Only the cowardly -
lecture the world on name calling while you imply - you pompous twerp - You don't give a shit - Ad hominem my ass - far as I'm concerned. No more civility, no more tolerance - pulling the same sort of horse-shit - All these assholes follow the same M.O. Call them out and they twist like the worms they are

No? Fantastic! Tell me more about them!" OR "Yes? Fuck off, then!" -

You think I've somehow stepped over some line? Show me how and when the precedent wasn't set, by the opposing party, for it in such case, and that I ever jump upon so readily or at all happily.

Hopefully everyone reading here have read boyntonstU's posts and can tell me: do they indeed set this precedent? And even if you disagree with that it doesn't, is this the best possible means of addressing a risk of division?

I originally questioned how the topic of Godist religion, distinctive of Statist religion, would be inherently divisive/disastrous here, of all places. Looking again, if this is the tact taken when the mere subject is brought up via questions, in initial stages, I'm beginning to see it would indeed be inevitable --but for entirely a matter not of the topic, but of those holding the belief it has to be divisive, so dammit it has to be.

If one's goal here is community, I for one find the inclusion of these in posts that are said to be about NOT being divisive, well, I'd say they are what's divisive. What do you think?

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-15-2012, 09:51 PM
Post: #52
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-15-2012 09:40 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  ok.
First, I've been looking in the proverbial mirror. Yes, I value that as a general process.

Good post. Well, except for the quotes. There were a lot of places where I made an ass of myself that you seem to have missed. But I'll be generous and let it slide THIS time. Wink

I've been pondering this, too, and my own place in the show. I'm not sure that I have any answers yet. But good on ya for starting the conversation.

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2012, 09:22 AM
Post: #53
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-15-2012 09:51 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  There were a lot of places where I made an ass of myself that you seem to have missed. But I'll be generous and let it slide THIS time. Wink

Your " Wink " duly noted, actually I have noticed (I would add, OF COURSE I've noticed, you asswipe moron ignorant slut... but then I'd be doing IT myself --A'GAIN). And I have made too many of a parallel mess myself as well.
But I don't know that I've ever seen it in a such a flurry over a mere couple of days-- but more specifically, not over it being stated/espoused that it's purpose was being against creating, causing or stirring up division ie building community. I could be missing it too. So, Point Counter-point.
[Image: snl_weekendupdate.jpg%3Fw%3D540]

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2012, 09:55 AM
Post: #54
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-15-2012 09:51 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(02-15-2012 09:40 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  ok.
First, I've been looking in the proverbial mirror. Yes, I value that as a general process.

Good post. Well, except for the quotes. There were a lot of places where I made an ass of myself that you seem to have missed. But I'll be generous and let it slide THIS time. Wink
...
- NonE

Let me clarify. By the "except for the quotes" part, what I meant was that they seemed all focused on one "member" (!), Jace, rather than being more inclusive. If it was your intent to go after him, why not just do so openly? As I tried to point out with humor, I also say and do offensive, and stupid, things at times, and there are certainly others who are less than perfect.

I like the tone where you seem to be questioning the collective nastiness of the forum of late. I am not innocent in this. I support that. (The questioning, not the nastiness.)

And you DO SEEM to have ticked off Jace! Confused

And, not just you, it sure would help if people would append attributions to quotes. Unlike zonsb who seems to harbor an encyclopedic memory of every imagined slight since the dawn of civilization, I don't have the time nor inclination to try and catalog each and every minuscule dot and titter (what the hell does that mean? I don't know, but it SOUNDS good, doesn't it) made in the world. Life is full of fun and wondrous things to admire and partake in.

Speaking of which, have I gotten off on some rabbit trail here?

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2012, 12:12 PM (This post was last modified: 02-16-2012 12:34 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #55
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-16-2012 09:55 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  If it was your intent to go after him, why not just do so openly?

Interesting, if not significant perspective, per word choice. What's the entry options listed on http://www.nonentity.arg/thesupreme1dictionary/ under "go after him"? (and while we're there, we might as well click over to look at "openly"...seeing as how I gave the links?)

It was my intent to "go after" the words/wording (as aforementioned, in a flurry) and whether they best represented the means to division prevention and community building, regardless of who used them.

Quote:Life is full of fun and wondrous things to admire and partake in.

Except way less so for those in cages for from religious persecution. Tho even there I suppose, the case can be made that roaches are fun and wondrous things... as are block walls, bars, stainless steel... so what are we doin' out here?!


Thanks for the overall clarification (attempt?) post. Sincerely. All kidding aside.

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2012, 12:23 PM
Post: #56
RE: Should there be a Religion forum?
(02-16-2012 12:12 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  It was my intent to "go after" the words/wording (as aforementioned, in a flurry) and whether they best represented the means to division prevention and community building, regardless of who used them.

Point taken.

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: