Fraggle:Conduct Unbecoming

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Gustav, Nov 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    please sanction these insulting and hate filled comments. moderators should not overtly refer to members in such demeaning terms. nor should they frivolously advocate the destruction of societal institutions that clearly fulfill a need of the general populace. furthermore, the implied genocide of religious practitioners is extremely disturbing. i mean, how would one go about getting "rid of them all"? outlaw and disband all religious institutions? demolish all synagogues, churches, mosques and temples?

    none of that would even remotely eradicate humanity's impulse towards religious expression. it would just cause a radicalization of large segments of the worlds population. the responses to that will then be defined by the slippery slope. when the gulags are full, the calls for a final solution will become insistent and inevitable.

    i suggest that sciforums not host the seeds to such inhumane depravity.


    i suggest that frag be placed on administrative leave pending an investigation.
    there is a clear admission of an intent to insult and that cannot be ignored or glossed over if the staff intends to relate to the community in good faith. the community has been banned for far lesser offenses and this is an opportunity to show that no one here is above the law. there is no 1% in sciforums
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2011
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Except no implied genocide of religious pratitioners was made.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    i disagree because there is a serious lack of critical analysis of the hypocrisies, delusions and lies that religion has perpetrated. science forums are one area that can be in a society where religion has had free reign to the point of non-accountability that it's important that it be criticized and not given the traditionally venerated respect that religion has become entitled to and religionists expect.

    if this honest deconstruction and analysis of their religions/beliefs is unwanted or offends them, then it's utterly illogical to discuss it on a science/critical thinking forum.

    furthermore, the pink elephant in the room has grown so large that even religionists deride and mock topics that are deemed pseudoscience, ufo's, ghosts, monsters, telepathy, spiritualism etc when it is just as valid as their made-up or not to be proven/disproven beliefs. this is totally unfair and should be mocked for what it is. it's about time they are given a taste of their own medicine and be made to wake up.

    anything of a spiritual or esoteric nature that is not of their religion, religionists equally dismiss or mock.

    if anything religion should be relegated to the pseudoscience forums. they NEED to realize how much entitlement they have wrought and don't push their luck any further!!!
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2011
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    naturally you are free to construe frag's...
    ...statement in a manner that is necessarily constrained by your intellectual ability. of course one would hope that dissenting opinions contain at least a barest modicum of critical analysis and reasoning but i suppose a simple pronouncement would have to suffice in your case.
    what do you have in mind? what actions are you prepared to pursue once the determination....."their luck has run out"....has been made?
     
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope Gustav, in the same token as Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if you are going to accuse someone of genocide then you need to produce something much more compelling than that quote.
     
  9. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,877
    Thing is... that statement Frag made referred to the RELIGION and it's BELIEFS, not the people practicing them... come on Gustav, you know better than to try to twist words to get people in trouble, don't you?
     
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    i respect no religion that proclaims itself as the only way or only true religion when it has no more proof than another. that is with fundamental religions. notice i don't have issue with buddhism or even with certain religious sects such as bahai or univeralist etc.

    if a religion and it's proponents want respect, they need to give respect to others or else they don't deserve any. this is something that proponents of monothestic religions skirt or minimize with their fake innocent pretense.
    that's not even my opinion, that just adds up to make sense. this is not an issue of facts vs opinions. this is opinions vs opinions when fundamental religion treats their religion as fact and other philosophies and spiritual paths as opinions.
     
  11. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    actually it would behoove you to read with diligence and attempt to comprehend that no such accusation was made. i merely considered implications of frag's professed sentiment of getting rid of the aforementioned religions. as far as i can tell, that process would necessarily impact certain segments of humanity

    i see
    condemning and advocating the destruction of a "RELIGION and it's BELIEFS" in no way implicates and involves its practitioners? please provide your reasoning
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    BS
    Is clearly an accusation, else what is extremely disturbing?
     
  13. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Fraggle's essays are always well thought out, all avenues covered. I get a lot out of them. The problems with religions have been well identified.
     
  14. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    I am convinced of the validity of the following principles:

    There is no collective guilt. Guilt is personal and must be proven.

    Everyone has the right to seek happiness, as he thinks fit, provided they respect the laws.

    (These principles should be respected not because of their imposition by law but because of our conscience.)
     
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Peacefully convert all believers into enlightened atheists through friendly, intellectual persuasion? The "all" he referred to getting rid of, was clearly the religions themselves, not any individual believers.

    I don't see where Fraggle proposed actually harming anyone, nor compelling anyone to do anything. The conviction that humanity would be better off without (Abrahamic, and specifically fundamentalist) religion is just that - and I'll note that many believers exhibit a similarly chauvinistic and totalizing end goal for their parts.

    About the worst that you could accuse Fraggle of there would be paternalism and hubris. Which, indeed, are maybe not qualities that we'd love to see in a mod, since they can make it difficult to foster an open, inclusive dialogue. On the other hand, he's honest and clear about what he thinks, which also counts for something.

    The rest of these inane accusations of genocide or attacking Islam or whatever are just so much cheap drama. Frankly, this entire tactic of erecting defenses for trolls by trumping up hysterical accusations of complicity in imperial genocide has gotten really long in the tooth. It isn't fooling anyone, but it is offensive to the actual victims of the actual problems that are so cheaply projected onto individuals here.

    It's already a well-settled point that non-profane insult is going to be allowed, and even encouraged, by the staff. Especially when it's coming from a staff member.

    And, yeah, that does present a conflict with good-faith relations with the community. But if that's your concern, Fraggle should be way down on your list. The people you are calling on to place him on administrative leave, are themselves much more egregious, serial offenders at that.

    Except there quite clearly is.
     
  16. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,877
    Simple - you can destroy all the people that believe in an idea that you desire. You can kill them, crush them, torture them all you want - it won't destroy the idea. The only way to destroy an idea is to show/prove it wrong, and even then there are crazy people that will cling to it like driftwood in an ocean.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    The only problem I have with Fraggle's post is the calling SAM an asshole part. Even if she is, it's not appropriate for a moderator. The problem is that if somebody reported a post from a non-mod member wherein somebody was called an asshole then the member posting the "asshole" insult would probably be given a warning or ban. In this regard, moderators should be held to the same standard.

    I'd really rather not have to go around handing out warnings to moderators. And if it comes to bans, then demotion seems a better option. So, my advice to moderators would be to avoid the naughty language.
     
  18. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Sam was being an asshole in that thread, and Fraggle called her on it. She was attempting to use the subject of the OP to further her cause of hatred to the US. That's just calling a spade a spade. IMHO.
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Can you provide any evidence that this 1. is possible, and 2. has been accomplished anywhere?

    Without such evidence, a view like Fraggle's should not be promoted.
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Bull, just because something hasn't yet happened doesn't mean one can't wish for it to eventually happen.

    There is no evidence that eradicating cancer is possible and eradication of cancer hasn't been accomplished anywhere, but that view is still worth promoting.

    Arthur
     
  21. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    1 Is it possible to eliminate crime 2 Has crime been eliminated anywhere? Then why work towards a world free of crime?

    Ideals are just that. Fraggle may be overly optimistic in thinking that it's possible for superstitious thinking to be eradicated, but optimism is generally considered a virtue rather than a vice. To take what he said and distort it onto a call for genocide against theists is quite ridiculous.
     
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    You need to be precise:

    The method suggested was -

    the crucial elements are:

    1. peacefully
    2. convert
    3. all
    4. believers
    5. enlightened
    6. atheists
    7. friendly
    8. intellectual
    9. persuasion

    We have no evidence that
    1. such persuasion takes place (ie. peaceful, conversive, applied to all believers, in a friendly and intellectual manner),
    and that
    2. its result are enlightened atheists.


    We do have testimonial evidence that forceful, haphazard, disrespectful attempts are taking place to convert believers, and the result are not enlightened atheists, but people with anger issues and others.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2011
  23. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    No, not disrespectful attempts!

    -- H L Mencken
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page