Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Which verse? I cant seem to find what you are talking about.
The second coming of Christ and the apocalypse would be within their generation:
- Matthew 24:34
- Mark 13:30
- Luke 21:32
I was mistaken referring to this as after he died, but it’s widely accepted that he was speaking of when he would return from heaven (aka, the cigarette store).
And in case no one has pointed it out: he also lied about being the Jewish messiah (while he is the Christian messiah, he failed to live up to standards for the Jewish messiah).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
He clearly specified he’d be back before the last of those present had died. This was after he had died and come back. You’re making it sound like his great prophecy was akin to he had for dinner last week; instead of as it was contextually a statement of the future… Or do you think he was an idiot who needed to tell the people around him that he was in fact there with them in that moment and not all of them were yet dead in that moment?
Sure he did not know when in their lifetime he would return, but it was to be within their lifetime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
What you’re describing are the many previous times dad went out for smokes, not final time in which he failed to return right after saying how long he’d be gone... At least biblically, I’m dubious of his appearances on toast and the like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Except he told the people there he’d be back before the last of them passes. That is like saying I’ll be back in 30 minutes with a pack of smokes. Do we keep expecting dad was telling the truth but just got delayed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
He lied, much like a father just going out for a pack of cigarettes…
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If he starts a thread titled something like “my IQ is in the double digits” then within that thread yea, otherwise it’d most closely match the example of what not to do from the end of that paragraph:
Even jumping to the simplified conclusion of calling him a [dummy] would be problematic and would merit a warning. But calling him what he takes pride in being, in threads where he’s talking about it, is topical discussion.
So if he raves about how great the Barbie movie was, within said thread you could call him someone who plays with dolls (anywhere else such would be a lame insult … and yea, liking a movie does not assure the factually of that conclusion).
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You should be tagging whiteflame and oromagi. I am the assistant moderator; so if I made a ruling on a perceived insult in either direction, the decision would then be appealed to them anyways.
Generally I’ll say context and repetition matter.
As an example:
Oromagi and I disagree about the price of tea in China, and one of us in frustration declares “you suck at math,” which is followed by the biting reply “no you SUCK at MATH!” At that point it’s not a big deal.
A couple ways it would become problematic is if either of us began following the other into unrelated threads over it, or if in the original thread either of them us devolved into real vileness (ethnic slurs as an example).
I should add that not all descriptors are insults, even if they have negative associations. Not long ago I called a pedophila apologist, a pedophila apolagist. He was quite offended, because he just supports old men fucking pre-teens, and calling that what it is makes him look bad. I would still do this today, as he made his stance crystal clear what he is… That said, if I followed him around calling him pedo in unrelated discussions, that would cross more than one line. Even jumping to the simplified conclusion of calling him a pedo would be problematic and would merit a warning. But calling him what he takes pride in being, in threads where he’s talking about it, is topical discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If you were or are an educator, would you be fine with working at a school which would expect you to align with that explanation of merit in your curriculum?
For a college level class titled "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Glossary ofTerms" sure. It's how racists can twist 'merit' to be anglocentric.
If I was teaching basic English in high school, then no.
There's a big difference between common usage, and specific usage within an area of study. The second does not negate the first, it's more an expansion on how something innocent seeming can be misused. Trump's and Biden's adult-sized-children being in the white house due to their 'merit' would be an example.
I believe what they are more accurately trying to describe is nepotism, under the guise of 'merit.'
This actually reminds me of the common corruption/treason high up in the military. Having served in Iraq not long after the Dragon Skin body armor fiasco, I can fairly say the merit of the shit they forced us to use, was not in alignment with the reality of combat; rather it was in alignment with bribes from the makers of said garbage. I call it treason, because it gets people killed.
This is more commonly seen with weapon systems, where the merits they are testing for is not which is the best weapon but rather which is the pre-selected weapon they'll be paid bribes to select. They also have a magical place to test said systems, free from dust, heat, cold, etc. So the shit the jams if not cleared obsessively frequently, passes muster because they had no way to know it would be used on planet earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
In context of the lesson plan it’s fine. As a definition for the word merit it’s garbage.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Get it genius?Reported for Ad-hom and continued harassment.
If you feel another member is harassing you, I advise against seeking interaction with them.
I don't feel that a little sarcasm is pushing things in a comparable way to routine insults. Sure, if a certain member starts following you around calling you Genius, then I would see a serious issue; but I currently do not.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Cool idea!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
My understanding is that it’s to make the sex more closely match with the gender. Or put another way, to make the mental and physical realities align.
Of course, being transgendered does not assure interest in becoming transsexual.
Created:
Posted in:
tl;dr:
Personal attacks and harassment, particularly when they done over a prolonged period of time and target specific member(s) of the site, are ban-worthy offenses.
Any questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ronald Reagan is considered the patron Saint of Republicanism.
It’s a political organization, not quite a cult. As figurative speech, it would only be broadly applicable to very old republicans who voted for the guy back in the 80’s. Even then, they could like his ass backwards policies, while disagreeing with his personal views (not that all would care).
That you’re needing to use a term against a group for one of their members coining it, does not inform a great love for them, it rather implies at least a dislike. That you dislike a group and are upset that someone called that dislike hate, seems like a serious over reaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You didn’t answer the question. Can you respond please?
Seriously? You waited just 45 minutes to complain that I am not in this site 24/7.
As for your question…
Are you aware the term Welfare Queen was coined by President Reagan?
I was not aware of that. Thank you for the information.
You can fairly describe me as someone ignorant on which terms Reagan coined (and it’d be reasonable to expand that to believing I’m ignorant on Reagan in general until something suggests otherwise).
Given that it’s a mainly derogatory term anyway (per Wikipedia), I would consider that a sign of him being a hater. I can’t connect the dots to how that would automatically apply to anyone who does not use said term (unless Reagan is some type of immortal evil which has possessed roughly half of the USA); but you’re welcome to try.
FYI, Reagan is a public figure. Someone can call him a transsexual nazi pornstar who was great at economics, or any other lies, and it would not be a CoC violation.
Calling all Republicans the aforementioned insults, could cross the line due to encompassing site members.
As for desiring to call people dumb:
Frequently, level of provocation, and more all play roles in severity of the CoC violation. I cannot imagine whiteflame or oromagi stepping in over any isolated incident of a single insult; but when there’s a pattern reducing it to just vitriol, they’ve decided intervention is warranted.
Saying someone experiences anger on some particular subject, is less of a problematic descriptor than making negative references to their intellect on all matters. E.g., I gave you reason to think I’m ignorant about fine details regarding Reagan, you could fairly call me ignorant in that matter. It becomes a problem if you jump from that to declaring I’m as dumb as a maple leaf.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Dude, you created a context to which you hating certain people is a fair assessment. Calling people “welfare queens” is very unlikely to be said out of anything kind towards said people.
If the issue is that hate is too strong of a word, then you’re splitting hairs over mild semantics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I get it… everyone here gets it— you hate Republicans, and especially Republicans who happen to be poor and/or dummies *yawn*Yep.Reported as ad hom
Someone agreeing with an interpretation, is unlikely to cross any lines. Said interpretation did strip context but certainly added nothing to the potential insult.
The previous post it agreed with, has context that makes it not troublesome. Of course, if you feel being described as someone who hates poor dumb red tie tribesmen is character assassination, you're welcome to appeal to whiteflame/oromagi.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Not offensive enough to constitute a CoC violation, and I highly doubt anyone gets penalized for lameness and unoriginality.
and yet those are the worst crimes! 🤣
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If Cain was Number 3.Who did he procreate with when he was banished to Nod.
this can be dismissed with the goddidit fallacy. 🤣
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
while your syllogism is flawed, your conclusion about net negatives is quite a good point.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The last two presidential elections I was firmly Team None Of The Above!
I miss McCain vs Obama. We all knew McCain didn’t stand a chance but whomever won, we wouldn’t be the laughing stock of the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
A thread like this is just a reflection of the author.
Still, were a normal user targeted, intervention would occur.
By necessity moderators are callous. There are limits; but it takes a lot more than some sad projection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Replying to #77
Not all ad hominems are fallacious when demonstrably proven true.
You're not even wrong. However, you've missed the point.
RM boasted and given his past behaviors and how he has handled himself in certain debates and forum discussions disproves his assertions made herein.
Are we reading the same post? Please let me know which debates and forum discussions he referenced at: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9594-what-made-you-interested-in-debate?page=1&post_number=3
That is factually accurate; therefore, what MPS said was NOT an insult.
Not quite how that works within English. Regardless of truth, the attempt to demean someone is to insult them. Not to get political but Trump insulted women by saying he gets away with random sexual assaults against them; that he did get away with it, does not change the offense he caused.
You all need to be clearer and more consistent when dealing with your so-called enforcement of the CoC.
You're literally complaining about exactly that.
Any enforcement exercised should remain private, not public.
Most are private, so long as they do not result in a ban. Due to self-evident confusion on the standards, to make them clearer some posts will be highlighted to better inform everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Sorry you are super genius to spot this. MPS was my sissy partner for a while while I explored my bi side, that's one of the lower IQ exes.All of this is sarcasm, please don't shoot me.Everyone is visibly cringing at your embarrassing attempts at being funny.This line isn't even remotely clever or offensive enough to reach the mod's radar.
It got a chuckle out of me. And I will always appreciate an attempt to lighten the mood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@Mps1213
Mps, Regarding #8
I backed down to being only an assistant moderator a long ass time ago, and the increased enforcement standards are not my brainchild. So Whiteflame and/or Oromagi should be messaging you soon, along with making a more comprehensive post…
Let’s look at the post, for problematic bits.
First off Rational madman, you do not have a high IQ and are a terrible critical thinker in my experience debating with you.
- The user in question appears to have blocked you. That doesn’t mean you may not aim a post at them but it does make it more susceptible to scrutiny.
- You are clearly the aggressor. The user in question does not appear to have made any references to you, unless you know each other IRL.
- It opens the conversation by implicitly calling him a dummy. While questioning someone’s intelligence can come up as a conversation becomes heated (not ideal but understandable), there was zero progression.
- The qualifier after the fact is like saying “dishonor on you, dishonor on your cow… no offense!” Giving proper context can elevate what would otherwise be an insult but the goal here looks like it was to insult rather than converse, merely with a “no offense” type statement tacked on.
None of this is to say you may not be critical of each other. The big problem is low denominator level insults for no apparent reason.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
what does the fanchick tag mean?
Somehow discussion of that term has come up, and I am utterly clueless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
As I wrote some years ago on the subject:
- Don’t do mindless insults. Just calling someone a retard makes you look uninspired. It’s much better to properly evaluate their logic, point out every flaw in it, and leave them being a mentally deficient the unspoken but only rational conclusion from the evidence.
Our intention is not to forbade hurt feelings. Most people have great difficulty differentiating between being proven wrong and being physically assaulted (seriously), so feeling will be hurt. This will never be a safe space where ideas cannot be challenged. It is that this is a place for ideas to be challenged, so it ought to be the ideas targeted first and foremost, instead of the speaker.
And a reminder I had to post in another thread: "Bans do not precede the other intervention steps."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
He has been reincarnated as a gold digger for the Soviet Union. All his original sins are wiped clean. Blank slate.Perhaps, we should give him a free pass.
At least from a moderation standpoint, no one seems to care about them either way right now.
Heck, I even went so far as to not check for authentication matches when I suspected someone was a new persona of his.
Either way, the account is currently a much needed source of entertainment on this site. The previous patterns of this suggest in time it will take the jokes too far; but we haven't crossed that river yet.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So if the rap battle happens past monday morning your time, then it will mean a ban?
No. Interesting question, but no. I honestly have no idea if Whiteflame intends the increased enforcement to apply to rap battles, and yet the answer is still no.
First of all rhyming is not against the CoC. The content of a rhyme could be; but the mere act of rhyming itself is not.
Second, the CoC violation would need to be brought to the attention of the moderation team; and even then they'd have to take it seriously. If some Karen is going around reporting every rap battle because they hates culture, we are unlikely to take the spammed reports seriously.
Third, the violation and/or pattern thereof would need to actually be noteworthy. Isolated insults (in rap battles or not) are not really the issue, it's when they become both habitual and personal (or severe enough) that it becomes worthy of attention.
Forth, bans do not precede the other intervention steps. As I wrote above, "...will result in warnings and if continued then bans."
Additionally, as seen some years ago, I am a a defender of rap.
Or what are you really saying
Enforcement is going to start increasing on Monday.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Greyparrot
@FLRW
@Sir.Lancelot
Please see post #47.
Created:
-->
@thett3
@ADreamOfLiberty
@Best.Korea
@IwantRooseveltagain
@TWS1405_2
Regarding reports in this thread:
Enforcement is going to start increasing on Monday.
While this is not meant to be carte blanche on all bad behavior in the mean time, it is understood and expected that people will not instantly change when already in the middle of heated discussions and tolerance of vitriol had become the norm.
Streams of thoughtless and/or repetitive insults which date stamped July 3rd and onward, will result in warnings and if continued then bans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
In case you're not Wylted...
Wylted was a very active prankster around here, who even built one or two joke roleplay accounts.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
While it's certainly his type of humor, there's no guarantee they are the same person.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Go to Wendy's and ask where nearest Burger King is.
This one is foolproof!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Her mind is too small at that point, regardless if she looked like a woman.
But what if she ate cucumbers and dates? Then it’s ok right?
/satire, also an actual argument I recently heard from a Muslim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@swordburial17
Related to: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9532-non-fallacious-defenses-of-muhammad?page=2&post_number=51
What’s your opinion of other Muslims arguing that instead of Hadiths being wrong, that Muhammad being a pedophile was a virtuous thing about him?
Also which belief do you suspect is more common among Muslims?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The first few seconds of that told me enough about his point of view… evil liberal conspiracy against innocent pedophiles… how dare the western world value women as people. 🤮
Note:
He’s not all wrong. As we know from Afghanistan, the western values are very damaging to Muslim girls, as it encourages them to read, which in turn gets them shot by Muslim men.
Note2:
I’m against any theocracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@swordburial17
This whole pedo thing was never questioned before 20th century. Even his enemies who attempted to assassinate him and spread rumours about him never thought of it. Surely people then never found it disturbing. It is only after 20th century people started questioning him.
Key problem here, that self refutes your earlier points about false accounts written by his enemies. If Islam was a-okay with pedophila until modern times, then it was in no way libel against him to claim he partook.
That said, earlier you pointed out an interesting issue:
The biggest hit came from the very own Islamic rulers. They made their Maulanas to write false hadiths and incite the common public's religious jingoism to send them in wars.
So assuming the prophet was not a pedo, it could have been pedo Islamic rulers forging (or editing) hadiths in support of their vices. This does lead to a big problem that it would seem hadiths should not be part of the faith due to what the leaders of the faith have done to ruin them.
From an early post:
hadith cannot be true for several reasons. First, the Prophet could not have gone against the Quran to marry a physically and intellectually immature child.
You do get why this is problematic? You are cherry picking to support your bias, rejecting any evidence about his life which does not fit with your opinion of what he should have been, regardless of what he might actually have been. This is the other pitfall of virtue ethics. Still, not a bad one, as you're guided by morals instead of religious zeal.
If I find him to be a lecher I will surely condemn him. However I doubt it. It is like declaring Jesus as a fraud.
Neat coincidence, that's much of why Jesus was put to death. ... But I do get your point, many Christians would be enraged by that notion, without pausing for rational thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@swordburial17
It sounds like a lot of cherry-picking by all sides in Islam.
Maybe the prophet was right that people should have just used the Quran, and not recorded things about him (ironic that those records include him telling them not to make such records).
He is the perfect example of how a Muslim should be.
Related to this, do you subscribe to virtue ethics? Do must other Muslims?
In this case virtue ethics refers to pre-decided positive or negative judgements, like anything he did must have been good because he did it.
As a thought experiment:
If you found real proof that the prophet sexed someone much younger than 20, would you then deny his perfection?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@swordburial17
Why were these mistakes (from multiple sources) not corrected? And since it seems much more easy to mess up years than basic details of relationships, why should we assume that the testimonies about the marriage are wrong instead of the calendar years?
Plus if those sources are known to be so unreliable, why are they used as a basis for law? To include allowing child marriage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It is extremely non-Muslim ignorant to spell his named Moh...
Thank you for the correction. I have updated to thread title to reflect this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Absolutely futile judging the distant past by todays standards.
In the time span of the universe, humanity itself is meaningless. However, for most of us it’s quite meaningful.
We frequently look at popular world leaders from past times and hold them up as heroes or villains; Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves cannot have done any good if the brutality of the slave trade was morally neutral; and Mao Zedong was the biggest mass murderer in history, which most of us have a knee-jerk reaction that such is a bad thing.
We ourselves might be judged, by A.I. from the year 3046.
Yes. And?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Pot V Kettle.
That’s just a what about ism. It doesn’t actually defend one action, to say an unrelated action was also bad; not even were the other action worse.
E.g., O.J. Simpson does not become innocent on account of Charles Manson also killing people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
the English point of view.
In order to discuss it within English, we must use English.
I know you have spent some time in Muslim countries- do you feel knowledgable on the subject?
The samples of Islam I witnessed almost certainly left me with a slanted point of view. I saw good and bad; yet the bad won out and took control of Iraq after I left. A regular occurrence over there was Islamist military leaders raping boys to shame the families.
In Mohammed's own time, Mohammed's conduct was moral and legal, no?
As one who wrote the law, of course it was legal. However, just because one can get away with something, does not make it moral. Consider Jesus being crucified; was he evil because the law was against him? Of course not.
Plus when it comes to religious claims of perfection, the actions must hold up to the test of time or else not be perfect.
Created:
Posted in:
I keep seeing defenses of him so weak they seem designed to insult the Muslim community. So I am curious, any actual Muslims here have any good defenses of him?
This is referencing his pedophila. The trollish defenses are things like the Todd Akin defense (it's not rape because he got her pregnant), and various No True Scotsman (no true pedo waits until they're nine, etc).
...
Alternatively, if there are no good defenses of him, how do you reconcile that with your faith?
Created:
Posted in:
would any of us have stayed or got caught if the mood of DDO then was what DART is today?
I’ll admit that I would not.
While there certainly were plenty of assholes shitting all over the place in DDO, I was always confident the normal people outnumbered them by a wide margin; and there were dicks like Imabench around fucking the assholes.
Plus when I joined DDO I was in university, needing lots of writing practice.
…
I’ll freely admit I’d prefer to just be rid of anyone I consider to be morally intolerable. From there it’s be a slippery slope to banning people I find intellectually intolerable (which is to say utter morons and gaslighters).
I of course rarely put bans in place (aside from the countless ad bots, which are unworthy of being mentioned in the public log). I try to moderate based on the will of the site, with only limited attempts to manipulate the site zingiest (pushing legibility to replace spelling and grammar as an example).
…
I should mention that this site doesn’t have true freedom of speech, nor should it. However, we must not let it devolve into an echo chamber either. We need room for controversial opinions, as disagreements are core to our value proposition. IMHO, striking the right balance should be the near-term goal.
Created:
There’s some weird areas that kind of talk gets into.
Essentially I don’t view it as a real call to action, so much as criticism of group think.
Let’s swap it out for a religion we all dislike: Charles Manson’s cult. True followers of Charles Manson ought to murder people… this doesn’t imply anyone should obey Charles Manson; rather it seems like an implied reason people should not follow Charles Manson.
A user might proclaim a religion encourages pedophilia, and yet proclaiming this about the religion, is not claiming that people should obey such a religion.
Created: