Insinuations, accusations and immorality

Moderator note: This thread was split from another discussion, in which an off-topic matter was introduced. The original thread is here:

Why do people believe in God?

A copy of this post, with the off-topic part removed, remains in the original thread.

Some matters raised in this thread are more than six months old. See the following thread for a little more context:

Moderator makes ad hominem attacks on another moderator

----------------
It's like you're not even paying attention:

Like the part where I said: I recently had occasion to recall an old formulation about "the point where their unsupported beliefs start having detrimental impacts on other people".

And that was 1578. In 2023—

—the bigger problem might be a thing called Christian nationalism, you know, the problem that's going on right now, instead of once upon a time in 1578.

Just for instance.

Meanwhile:

Yeah, but I'm not beefing with the Quakers down the street because of Joseph Kony in Uganda, or the Christian nationalists in ... oh, right.

That's because you only allow religion to be defined in such a preclusive manner. And, let's face it, at some point that becomes bigotry. The reality is that most religious people just aren't as evil as your sixteenth-century nightmares require.

And this is you continuing to insist on your own preclusive definition. The actual fact is that inasmuch as atheism is supposed to be some opposite or counterpoint to religion, your version is inadequate to actually fulfill such a role. The thing is that there are certain behaviors and circumstances that humans seem to need. That some of these occur in a religious context is what it is, but insofar as they can occur outside a religious context, no, atheism simply does not address those, and thus cannot replace them. This is not a new idea around here. Still, in our moment you seem to have missed some stuff: There is a reasonable question of what atheism offers, as such, and the answer is either a lot or not much; what makes that growth and sustainability precarious is the prospect that none of that other stuff has anything to do with atheism; left in the void, like that, atheism offers little existential comfort or fundamental socialization; it's not just the sociality or regularity of church culture.

And compare that last to your huffing: "I see no benefits in religion. You can believe anything you want. Just don't come knocking on my door and tell me that I need religion." It's not necessarily a matter of whether you see any benefit; nor is it simply a question of belief. Like sociality; maybe you missed the part about strength in numbers, comfort in familiarity, and empowerment in solidarity, and that religious people are human in the same way. In fact, that last seems to be what you're trying so hard to deny.

Do you feel better for having said that?

Sure. Whatever. Same goes for Schwann's, Omaha Steaks, Ziply, real estate agents, and homeless folks pitching magazine subscriptions in exchange for shelter.

Again, this is a matter of your peculiar definitions. No, one is not necessarily, as such, "atheist to 2999 gods"; that's just you making it up. Not only is your argument dependent on your own definition of an atheist or being atheist, it also depends on your own definition of God and gods.

This is not an unusual problem. Let me see if I can give you a comparable example. There was a time I was talking to this guy I know about talking to God, and reminded that there was more than one version of talking to God. This point kind of confused him, so I offered a few different examples from different religious outlooks, including one that involves walking down the street to talk to God at His house. And compared to the question of how we know we have the right house, he never did bother asking which God; it didn't matter because he didn't care. His questions didn't reflect the God out there that a believer might be talking about, but his own God, one he carries around, so there wasn't any reason for him to ask which God I was talking about. Do you understand? He imposed a meaning, and anything that did not fit within its boundaries apparently didn't count, or compute, or register, or something. That is, when you talk to that particular atheist about God, there is only one "God" he is capable of discussing; in that way, he's just not so different from the religious people he is so critical of.

Similarly, your critique against religion doesn't really care what religion actually is; you find no benefit in religion because that's how you define it. And once you go down that path, it's not so much disagreement between believers and nonbelievers as disputing between religious zealots.

Whatever it is about believers you're afraid of, just don't pretend you're helping.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sly!
Says the man who misses no opportunity to belittle people he "knows", to make himself proud.
You have not a single clue as to the insult you are heaping on injury.

I guess I must not be a good atheist either. Sometimes you do amuse me, James.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I won't waste my time.

 

Just an outsider I am obviously unaware of the back and forth.

A-C however need addressing. I joined the forum in good faith and different opinions are fine but accusations of this nature are not, they are a record and can be quoted for Defamation of character/legal.
Tiassa should either retract or justify.
A retraction would show a good deal of class, healthy for the site too.

 

I have tried to engage Tiassa in good faith. His behavior is singular: irresponsibility > deflection and reversal > accusation.


I do not know why this behavior is tolerated from a member - let alone from a moderator, who is presumably held to ahigher standard..

It's playground pathology. Like Susy, who says she hates Calvin and his dumb tiger, yet keeps baiting him into giving her attention. It's school girlish.

"Hey Calvin, remember when you hit me with that snowball back in 2017? Well, I've saved that snowball on my shelf of 'Things I Never Let Go'. You've been ignoring me lately, so I'm taking it down and polishing it."

What exactly would this recognition look like? Serious question.

Engaging is wholly and utterly fruitless. I personally have tried, and gotten the exact same behavior.

So, for me, this recognition takes the form of ignoring him. It is the only action I have available. But it's a pretty invisible form of protest.


I guess reporting transgressions is the next best thing but I have found it to be so completely odious that I have no interest in the disjointed stream-of-consciousness thoughts or the self-stroking graphics he likes to lead off his posts with - so it ensures we just never cross paths.

Even if I did cross paths, there's nothing to engage with. Tiassa doesn't converse with other people; Tiassa writes only for his own self pleasure.

 

I don't generally read his posts, since I find them fairly verbose, convoluted and self-absorbed. If he bothers you, don't engage him. There's even an IGNORE feature here you can use if your eye tends to be drawn to his posts.

Yeah, he called me a rape advocate a while back. There's a process that occurs:

1) T says something dumb
2) someone replies and points out that his statement was dumb
3) T calls them a rape advocate, or a racist, or something else to attempt to derail the discussion and move it away from the dumb thing he said.

Best to ignore him.

 

Nope. Not active for site officials.
First thing I tried.

 

Oh, brother.
Okay - alternative view ahead - be warned.

I see nothing wrong with the technical content of what Tiassa wrote (#1 above) that has subsequently been deemed to be off-topic. To me, it most certainly isn't off-topic: it is an example (fictitious or otherwise) being used to further explain his point to Write4U.
There is, of course, a personal side to that content, the perceived insinuations etc, but that doesn't make it off-topic per se. Such things would make it a matter of flaming, or insulting, etc. But that doesn't render the paragraph as a whole off-topic.

So, with that out of the way, I do find this thread itself to be inappropriate. I find it to have been set up by a moderator simply to attack another moderator. I am aware of the friction and dislike between the two, but taking an insinuation in one thread as an excuse to raise yet another whole new thread to try to attack them in response seems wholly inappropriate.

If it was standard MO to split off posts containing insinuations (perceived or otherwise) or personal insults into a new thread so that everyone can then pile in with their view of that person's behaviour, then fair enough. But it isn't. Thank God. So why should it be okay for moderators to do it, to raise yet another thread aimed at denigrating a person when it suits them, when the insinuation is directed at them personally? How many threads is it now that have been raised to address how James R has issues with Tiassa? How many have been raised, and been allowed to remain open, to complain about any other member?

Anyhoo - I understand that there is the on-going issue between the two, the accusations that have been made etc., suported or otherwise. But that doesn't mean that this thread is any less inapproriate, or that the reaction to the original post is no less a heavy-handed overreaction.

And what precedence is this whole reaction of yours creating? That we can't use prior examples involving other members when trying to explain a point to someone? Or is it only Tiassa who can't use examples involving, insinuated or otherwise, James R for that purpose? I'm confused.
Or if it is the matter of the insinuations, what if we see such "sly insinuations" of us by moderators or other members? Should we then be able to censor their post, and/or move it entirely to a new thread so as to bitterly complain about them? I get that you're a moderator, James R, but here you're quite clearly using your moderator-capabilities for personal gain, rather than in the consistent manner you really should be employing. At least that's my view.

As to this...

If they're anything like me then it's because we simply couldn't care enough, James R. It's between the two of you. Deal with it in private. There's nothing we can do about it even if we agreed with you and wanted to do something about it. There's one of them pesky guidelines under "Netiquette" about how you should avoid engaging with members with whom you have a personality clash. Unfortunately your post #2 above shows that you're not helping yourself in this regard. Your subsequent creation of this thread.... sure. That'll help.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I would also suggest that many of us are simply fed up with you airing your grievances in public like this. Repeatedly. At almost every opportunity. You feel hurt. You feel you've been insulted. We get it. You might well be justified in feeling those things (I can't say for sure because I haven't actually read where he's accused you of those things or where he thinks he's supported them). But telling us how bad a person you think he is every chance you get?... yeah, sorry, I'm looking for a **** to give, but I can't find any to hand.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The issue is two staff members that, seemingly, have no control over each other and an owner that, seemingly, doesn't get involved.

Therefore, seemingly, there is nothing that can be done. That being the case, why even discuss this?

Everyone on here has been accused of being a racist and of being a troll at one time or another. If "we" need to get over it, the same should apply to staff members. No one reads this forum anyway so what's the issue?

There is no reading of the rules that govern this site that would allow any member to continually call another "that hateful little man" so nothing that is being discussed in this thread is rational in the least.

If neither of you can do anything about the other, then why keep bringing this subject up?

 

James R:
I've picked out the main points, just to keep letter-count down:

It was on-topic, clearly, albeit with a thinly veiled dig at you. That doesn't make it off-topic. I've already explained why it was on-topic. You could disagree but you would be wrong.

You mean if he accused me of being a bigot, or immoral, perhaps? I'd have issue with it at the time. I'd ask for an apology, but no doubt he'd start any apology with "I did not call you a bigot" etc. But, after a while, if I'm not getting anywhere with making the person realise how reprehensible their actions were, and I have no recourse to sanctions etc, and I still want to post here, I just put it to the back of my mind and carry on.
I mean, I could turn every dig by the person into another thread to attack them and to rehash the same issues that weren't resolved to my satisfaction the first time, and keep beating my head against that wall. But what would be the point?

I guess it would be like when they make a false accusation of bigotry, or keep making insinuations about being immoral? Hmmm. What happens to those members, I wonder. Any idea?

If you don't want to deal with him, and can't resolve the issue in private, then ignore him. Simples. Your appealing to the audience is, well, boring. Especially if you don't quite get the echo-chamber you were hoping for.

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/moderator-makes-ad-hominem-attacks-on-another-moderator.166009/
Note how in post #3 of this thread your immediately bring up those same 3 accusations.
There may well be others that have been derailed as a result of the same issue, but I'm not hunting for any.

And maybe he'll start any apology with "I did not do those things..."? That would be acceptable to you, right?

I'm not referencing the initial accusations you think he may have made, or did make. I'm talking specifically about what he wrote in his post to Write4U, you picking up on the fact that the example he was using was about you, and you overreacting to it as you clearly have done, to the point that you are looking to rehash the whole issue.

For sure I know of one. You. It's similarly different from the norm because you're a moderator, and we have no power to sanction you.
I can't comment on Tiassa's accusations of you because I don't know that he did actually accuse you of those things. Point me to where you think he did and I'll happily review them. And if he did accuse, unjustifiably, then that would take the count to two, I guess. Both moderators. Go figure.

Is that what you think Tiassa's paragraph to W4U was doing? Please do point to where you think Tiassa used those accusations to explain a point to W4U?

Well, based on your own behaviour I would suggest you think it is. I mean, you do know you're being hypocritical with this, right?

Yes. That is the alternative. That is what we would have to do, and what some actually do. That is what you should do.

Until I realised that nothing would come of it, I guess, and that if I want to post here I'll just have to live with who they are and what they've done, no matter how wrong their behaviour.

Beyond telling you both to keep your issues in private, no. But then he's not the one creating threads to attack you, is he. He's not the one redacting your posts because of a perceived slight.

Yes. And I'm referring only to this overreaction, your redacting of part of his post to W4U, and you setting up this thread to attack him. That is all on you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyhoo...

FYI, following your clear advice about how to handle such insinuations, I have reported your post for these two comments above, both clearly insinuating that I am not acting morally, both harking back to your nonsense accusations of such about cryptocurrency. But, hey, at least I'm not starting a thread about it to attack you, and bringing up that you also falsely accused me of bigotry and haven't apologised for it. I mean, that would be petty, childish, and against forum rules, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, the irony of it all.


And FYI - I am not, nor have any intention of, revisiting your false accusations, despite your ongoing insinuations. I am merely using the fact that you are guilty of making them as an example to make a point.

Also for the record: I own no Tiassa, I don't work for Tiassa, nor am I sponsored by Tiassa.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

All this is not boding well for the Sciforums Christmas Eve carols and mince pies in the "Free Thoughts" forum later this month. I suppose that be off now.

 

Christmas is cancelled this year at Sciforums.

 

How about replacing it with a secular wish of : "Peace on Earth and goodwill toward mankind".

We can have all the trappings. After all, we can't celebrate anything without spending lots of money, now can we?

 

Nooo! I even bought a "hate-filled little man" costume.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's 2 holidays ago...