Harassment / bullying in a thread

I'm afraid that I am only a visitor here, so I haven't worked out what is where. But a thread currently in progress appears to be an organised lynch-mob designed to drive someone off the site. This cannot be within the policies of any conceivable forum.

The thread is this:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people/page27

The victim is "Jan". Several of the baiters are in fact moderators of some sort. The subject kept being forced back to homosexuality, regardless of what "Jan" posted, and the posts go on and on at him. It seems to be a coterie of half a dozen posters, all bigoted in favour of the "gay rights" agenda. I suspect that the thread might fall foul of anti-bullying law in some jurisdictions.

I don't say what the policy of this site must be, on matters of controversy. If this site wishes to adopt a policy that only people who endorse gay "marriage" may post, or express their opinions, then of course that is fair enough. The people who pay for the site get to decide that. But ... is that what the site is about? Most people don't endorse this innovation. That's supposed to be a religion forum. None of the world's large religions endorse it and all of them condemn it. Does it mean that no-one belonging to such a religion can express an opinion?

Not my business; but disgusting to witness, and needs action.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aren't you the one who said homosexuality was evil, and that homosexuals weren't really people?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's right: it's none of your business.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about all those who 'make offensive comments about a class or group of people' known as Christians, why are they tolerated? How is what they do any different? It is certainly never backed up by scientific evidence other than the 'evidence' they choose to believe. I beg to differ, this site certainly does tolerate bigotry, it is just selective of the sort of bigotry it chooses to support.

 

I say. Please look back at some of my posts in various threads and the dismissive responses to them. Our mutual friend Mr. Pearse often shows how biased their arguments are though they pretend to be objective.

 

The problem comes where both sides are consistently making snide or rude remarks to the other, ignoring factual evidence, failing to present evidence to back claims, etc... I mean, sure, we could issue infractions to and ban both sides in a case like that, but we would quickly find ourselves without any membership at all, especially in a forum such as religion where facts are in short supply and emotions run dangerously high.

I would, for evidence, submit how certain members claiming homosexuality is "unnatural" or "immoral" or otherwise wrong have been unable to provide any factual evidence to back these claims, aside from a few excerpts from an ancient book that also prescribes the notion that a woman who is raped is now married to said rapist...

 

Jan's been around Sciforums for a long time, likes being the center of attention and posts provocatively in order to become precisely that. Others like arguing with Jan.

It's a little game. Jan will reply to everyone in a thread, often in little posts that just ask a question so the ball's back in the other person's court, and then Jan moves on to the next person. Jan likes to keep all the balls in the air at once and wants all the dogs barking.

I find it kind of inane, but Jan and some of the others seem to enjoy it, so what's the harm?

If that was the policy here, then how could you or Jan continue posting? How could Syne have become a moderator?

You're caricaturizing things and you appear to be doing it in a calculated fashion. Right here in this thread you're trying to push buttons - political buttons, moderation buttons - so that you can divide people against each other while you sit back and chortle, and perhaps even provoke your chosen enemies into being banned. (GIA went yesterday after you'd targeted him.)

You only have 65 posts at this point, most in just the last few days, and you're already playing games. I don't like trolls.

 

This is incorrect. Look at the opening statement of the thread. Quoting one of the mellowest folks here, with this remarkably innocuous opening line:

As you see, the folks posting there have been engaged in the topic question since before you rode up.

There are about as many Bible thumpers who regularly post here, so no huge imbalance is even in play.

That really marks you as troubled person. Two counts:

(1) You can't simply declare a reversal of the meaning of "bigot". That's just ridiculous.

(2) The agenda (policy goal) is human rights, not the agenda (scheme) of any one group. You can test this by trying to form the same kind of exclusion zone around other groups:

...all bigoted in favour of the "Jewish" agenda.
...all bigoted in favour of the "black" agenda.
...all bigoted in favour of the "women's" agenda.
...all bigoted in favour of the "disabled" agenda.

I suppose you could try to prove that each group faced with discrimination has a policy agenda. But if you mean "scheme" then you're admitting to group-based hate which makes you worse than a bigot. Now you're just an out-of-the-closet supremacist.

You have a very naive view of the law.

If you were actually bleeding, someone would render aid. But no one stops for melodrama. Check the site rules and stick to the facts.

Whatever you want it to be about, as you see. You just opened a thread that purports to litigate the legality of defending gay rights in public forum. :bugeye:

And that's a euphemism for . . . abomination? Spit it out, dude. Maybe this is your chance to vent. Go ahead and get all that venom out of your system. We might even do an exorcism, at no cost.

It's supposed to be a drainage basin for all the religious pseudoscience that infiltrates the science forums. Actually neither you nor I get to define what it's supposed to be. This is not a democracy, it's a private enterprise. We are here at the leisure of the owners and their delegates, the mods.

"It" meaning gay marriage, not the religion forum? Well, duh, that's the whole subject of the thread "demonizing people".

It means that anyone expressing an opinion that shocks the conscience of other thoughtful people needs to take the heat or get out of the kitchen. Do you expect gays and liberal heteros to wash the feet of Victorian era fundamentalists? That's taking the naivete a bit to the extreme, don't you think?

For your one ounce of disgust, let me raise you 20 tons of public disgust with demonization of any group whether based on race, creed, color, national origin, gender, gender identity or sexual preference, or disability. We're disgusted with religiosity parading as the benchmark for ethical conduct. And we're disgusted with religious quacks manipulating public policy to the detriment of little people who are largely under-represented in their governments.

Yes, action is being taken. The laws of the free world countries are gradually pulling us up out of the peat bogs of Victorian religiosity.

 

The sad fact is that the few rotten apples of Christianity have spoiled the basket, in the eyes of non-Christians. This is especially true in the US which suffered several decades of patronizing televangelism, perennial scandals--first with the televangelists and then the pedophile priests; absurd hate speech in which prominent Christian leaders have publicly announced God's condemnation (of Haitians, of raped women . . .); an unending bickering over the teaching of evolution; picket lines, bombings and murders at abortion clinics; the infiltration of scientific and academic institutions with the express purpose of influencing curricula and R&D funding; an outright war on climate scientists; and relentless attacks on the public policies designed to protect underdogs.

As you see, Christianity is not what it's cracked up to be.

It's entirely different because it stands on the side of social justice, not the facade that people get to abuse other people because God wants them to.

Your proclamations about science are invalidated by a lack of scientific training.

As evident in any post by any person purporting to have a knowledge of God which permits them to condone any infringement on the rights of any group.

All you've done here is to usurp the meaning of "bigot". Stick to objective speech and you can avoid such pitfalls.

 

Yep, exactly right! From the time I became a member this back and forth with the likes of LG, Jan and now Roger has been a mainstay and I like you see nothing but one big circle jerk. Rarely is anything of educational value learned except maybe what a strawman, ad hominem, baiting or trolling are. Their trick is to never REALLY take a firm position on any subject. Start asking direct questions about their beliefs and most the time they choose not to answer, especially the likes of LG and Jan. Continuing to ask LG or Jan direct questions about their position and beliefs tends to shut them up, at least in my experience.

 

Since Christianity itself isn't backed up by any reliable evidence, we don't need evidence to discount it.

 

Let's forget for a moment the offensive comments towards atheists from Christians and focus on what drives the intolerance towards them. Christianity as a doctrine is intolerant towards other people's beliefs. If one doesn't accept Jesus as his lord and savior, they will roast for an eternity. Christians consider these people evil spawns of Satan and are completely intolerant towards them. The intolerance you are observing is the intolerance towards the intolerance of Christianity.

Christians are the original bullies and everyone else is just standing up to them.

 

Thank you for telling me what I believe, and not in a prejudiced, bigoted fashion either. :/
It's hilarious that you admit to being intolerant.

 

And, so it should not be, however you should provide some evidence there is in fact an organized lynch-mob and that their agenda is to drive someone off the site, if you can. It appears though, that you just made it up.

Jan is the protagonist, first of all. Secondly, you placed the word "bullying" in the title of thread, perhaps you should actually read the definition and then explain to us how it aligns with Jan's case.

"Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively impose domination over others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power. Behaviors used to assert such domination can include verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion, and such acts may be directed repeatedly towards particular targets. "

As well, you should have a look at the definition of "bigotry" as it does not appear you're familiar with that term, either:

"Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

You would be dead wrong. Jan's homophobic remarks would be first and foremost an issue with legal precedence if such precedence were introduced.

On the contrary, your opinions on the matter are welcome for discussion. So far though, anyone who has not endorsed it has done so dishonestly, immorally and hypocritically.

Yes, those "world's largest religions" do indeed condemn it, that is just one of the many reasons why the "world's largest religions" need to be condemned themselves. They are and have been a blight to humanity for centuries and continue to this day as they have always done, to make good people do bad things.

 

There is a huge difference between critiquing a person's religion or philosophy and condemning a person for something they can't help being. I am living proof that a person can learn in life and reject their former religious beliefs. OTHO I am gay also, and have found that becoming heterosexual is quite impossible for me. Condemning a person for being gay is morally equivalent to condemning a person for their race, their gender, their age, or any other physical trait. It is holding a person morally accountable for something they never chose and can never change. Condemning a religion otoh is condemning something that CAN be changed, that is freely chosen, and is not a permanent trait of a person. See the difference? People can be held morally accountable for their beliefs, but NOT for their sexual orientation.

 

It's what your Holy Book teaches. If you don't believe your own Holy Book, then maybe you should rethink calling yourself a Christian... Just sayin'.

 

I sometimes ask people who comment on my post if they have even read them. In your case, I have to ask, do you even read your own posts? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and this is just the sort of dissmissive prejudice and bigotry against Christians that I am talking about. I am reporting your last post.