Religion and women.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Jan 12, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,944
    A generic insult. Uncalled-for, empty and unhelpful.
    I can only speak for myself on this, not for anybody else who might fall into your generic "some folks" group.

    I am proud that I have acted with more integrity and honesty in my dealings with Jan Ardena than he has with me. If that makes me morally superior to him, so be it; readers can form their own judgments.

    The "abuse" of Jan that you allege comes, as usual, with no actual examples. It is also a nasty assumption on your part that I, or other "folks" you might be referring to, would enjoy abusing Jan, or anybody else. The fact of the matter here is that Jan has chosen to present himself as a provocateur. His behaviour has been troll-like and dishonest at various times. He has been consistently evasive in most of his time here, not to mention dogmatic, pedantic and annoyingly and needlessly repetitive. I and some other members have engaged with Jan robustly. Speaking personally, I have tried to expose Jan's tactics, along with the flaws in the few arguments he has put in support of his personal brand of theism.

    I should point out that, by and large, it doesn't matter that my discussions with Jan have been about religion. For him, the question of theism vs atheism is like a personal crusade. Just look at the way he constantly stereotypes and misrepresents atheists, as if atheism itself is a monolith. For me, the game has always been about trying to break Jan out of his complacency, to get him to think critically about his own belief system. The thing is, I'm no longer convinced that Jan's heart is in it - if it ever was. These days, what passes for discussion from Jan seems to be mostly about reciting repetitive mantras to comfort himself. That's when he isn't simply acting like a troll.

    I have often said that I do not necessarily expect to "convert" any opponent I have in a debate here to my side of the fence. My posts are not there just for their consumption. People on this forum who are wrong more often double down on the wrong, rather than ever admitting they are wrong. The chances of anybody publically changing their position here probably decreases the longer a particular debate goes on. With that in mind, it would be pointless to go into any debate with the hope of converting one's opponent. The point of engaging in those debates - apart from the fun of it (because, ultimately, none of us would be here if we didn't enjoy something about the forum) - is to put one's own perspectives out there, in the hope that one might persuade some other people to think differently.

    That's always been your position. It is not one that is universally shared.

    It is that, but it's not exclusively that. It never has been.

    It's kind of ironic you mention this, given that "fact checking" is just the sort of thing that one might expect would happen on a "science forum".

    It seems to me - and I think we're in agreement on this - that some people don't like having their "facts" checked too assiduously. They get all upset and uptight when people start requesting facts to go along with opinions and beliefs.

    It sounds like you have another vague accusation being the curtains, waiting to jump out.

    That's another entertaining story, albeit another one that is bereft of any handles we can grab on to.

    Got any specific examples for this one?

    Strange that you're addressing this to Jan, who has a long history of attempting to redefine words to suit himself. What makes you think he'll have the foggiest idea of what your complaint is about?
    There's a can of worms. We could discuss it in a different thread, if you like.

    Got any examples of that, by chance?

    It seems to me that if the theist wants to make the positive claim that his particular version of God exists, it is up to him to define and establish what he is claiming. There's little point in an atheist putting up a straw man. Knocking that down won't do anything to shake the theist's belief in his different version of God.

    But you're talking to Jan here - the man who epitomises the small target and the shifting definitions. Jan's afraid to commit to anything that would peg his God down to specifics that might be testable.
    Tell us what atheists ought to be obliged to know about religion, Tiassa. Is this something you know? Are you willing to share?

    Obviously, Tiassa, you're operating with a clue about the discussions I've had with Jan. Perhaps you should try reading one or two of them through.

    Oh, but maybe you're not thinking of me, but some other atheist? If so, my mistake.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Welcome home James.........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    James R likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    When humans act in the name of God killing evil lineages to stop them from creating any more.

    The practice is called "genocide".

    gen·o·cide , noun
    1. the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
      "a campaign of genocide"

      Similar: racial killing, massacre, wholesale slaughter, mass slaughter
    Do you condone genocide when God orders it, Jan?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,959
    You're right, Bells. I did write that phrase. It is my failure, and I am sorry.

    And people do need to understand: It doesn't really matter that I think your reading lacks nuance; and there is no appealing to the trust of friendship you never actually showed in this matter despite your appeals ... well, there is an occasion that we do need to discuss, but it doesn't change the fact of my formulation.

    But that other occasion, it seems important, and comes with a question that is not irrelevant.

    What you said, two years ago, was, "I am kind of stuck in the middle. And I don't want to be. I do not need to be." And my answer to you was, You're right, I'm sorry. You'll notice that I didn't directly contest your lament.

    But, like I said: I only asked because you've been willing to step up so directly on his behalf. Look, whatever it is between you two, that's fine, but you tell me more about what isn't.

    And you're right; I didn't guard my formulation, and as you're aware, that's what I tell everybody else, that doing so is my responsibility. That's why I accept your anger, Bells.

    But you lamented, "I do not need to be", and that's a harder point to consider, because, most assuredly, while my gaffe made thngs worse, it's not what actually put you in the middle.

    Bells, do you you remember intervening in a dispute between James and myself, and I even pulled a post for you, but it turned out you were confronting me according to an erroneous context? What did you think I meant when I said I only asked because you had been willing to step up so directly on his behalf? And that's the thing about contiguity. I mean, when you said, "On the one hand, there is friendship," two years ago, you brushed the part about why I asked in the first place. And then you wondered, "On the other, what the actual hell?"

    To the one, sure, your interposition on James' behalf was several years ago, now, but it didn't seem like a small thing at the time. Indeed, afterward we continued to discuss related matters up until that catastrophic gaffe, which was part of that larger consideration.

    Did I overestimate your friendship, over the period? That's the thing about whatever it was between you two; after having possibly overestimated your friendship with James because of what you said to me along the way, and given everything else that was on the table in the moment, it's true I didn't stop to think about the implication of an even closer and more significant relationship than I had thought. And, yes, again, that is my failure.

    The point here is not to question your focus on that one sentence; rather, that older interposition, when you got in between James and me several years ago, is actually important for a number of reasons. A surprising number of reasons, even.

    And what I said a couple years ago, that you tell more about what isn't, remains true: If, for instance, you say he's not a white supremacist, then inasmuch as we might accept that's true, it still doesn't explain his behavior at those intersections with white supremacism. And these years later, his behavior has gotten worse, if anything, and the only thing that has changed about his defense is when you outright carry it for him. So when we look back to that occasion when you interposed on James' behalf, at an intersection with white supremacism, it does occur to wonder: Was I wrong to trust you?

    And if you were bullshitting me, then, sure, the reason why would be fascinating, to say the least, but no, Bells, I don't think you were; we both know you weren't. But if you weren't bullshitting, then it's probably long past time to reconsider the occasion, because these years later, Bells, attending your own words, there is a particular aspect, and particularly important to you, in which you might be, approximately, not helping. Again that's a context that is important to you, Bells. And it must necessarily remain important to me, even if it is implicitly directly contested. So, sure, the question of whether you were bullshitting me several years ago seems kind of important in and of itself.

    Even setting aside the obvious questions of geography and practicality, it actually did seem kind of obvious that it wasn't an intimate relationship like the implication you're so angry about. You would have defended him differently, Bells, and you would have lied to him differently. Remember what you told him? "No one is asking you to defend yourself," you said, and come on, that was, to the one, a crock of shit, and, to the other, an interesting priority; indeed, it's explicitly why I asked you to please stop shielding him, because, after all, even now there remain questions about why he needs to be shielded from himself all the time. Moreover, even then you acknowledged history: "This issue has been going on for years now," you told him, right before absolving him of any need to explain his bis behavior.

    So if you look back to late 2016, or the catastrophic gaffe in early 2019, or even an episode last year, the discussion about his behavior seems to just circle around. I wouldn't so much complain that you went easy on him a year ago, but if you didn't↗ happen to observe the fact that he had been making these kinds of excuses several years now, that much is worth considering. Because it's not just the weird intersections with white supremacism; there is a history to his sympathy with antisocial and supremacist behavior, and also of his own persistent disingenuousness.

    I reminded you recently, what James does matters. And like I told you two years ago, his behavior can do harm. And, like I said, then: People gave a lot, here, sometimes years, before giving up because that decent rational discourse couldn't be found, and was it all for naught, or did something happen along the way, because what has emerged over time raises the possibility those colleagues never stood a chance. Passing time has not erased the question. Just like the old question of humoring cranks and racists is answered easily enough by observing the response↗ that "sciforums is not in the business of 'humouring' racists"; basic hindsight can easily suggest it's true we're beyond "humoring".

    Remember, you did not absolutely need to interpose on James' behalf in this thread. And that's the thing, even several years ago, you didn't really need to. Except it really did seem important to you, even after we moved past the part that involved contextual questions. Really, he was ostensibly ready to have that discussion about his behavior vis à vis white supremacism, and your intervention was significant enough to forestall it in the moment. And no, this isn't to rehash your immediately catalyzing context, but, rather, even after we cleared that part up it really did seem important to you. Were you bullshitting me? I honestly don't think so. But do you even remember?

    As I have said before, there are pathways by which there is much to discuss, and then there are other routes by which there isn't.
     
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,480
    A low traffic site, with 3 moderators, none of which get along. The above reads like a personal pathology, obsessive, overly sensitive, not able to function with actual realities. and in public for no public reason.
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,101
    Lousy title for a movie

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,357
    Maple has an app where I can take a picture of my math and it can tell me if I'm dumb or not...

    If I could display may math works in text here would people be wanting to look at it?
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,148
    That's to the one, to the other...............

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,480
    Sorry, 'twas in a hurry just 'twixt you and I. To the one, this is a low traffic site, to the other, there are 3 moderators, none of which get along. There may be some gaslighting and anti-social behavior going on. The above reads like a personal pathology, obsessive, overly sensitive, not able to function with actual realities, and in public for no public reason, ya'know? No, really!
     
    exchemist likes this.
  13. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    I still remember a discussion from like a decade ago in which he insisted with a straight face that "before time existed" was a sensical concept.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,944
    That's not true.
    Tiassa was wrong to bring his personal gripes about me into this public thread. Having made that choice, you and others will judge the situation, even though you're not privy to other discussions being held in private that touch on the same issues that Tiassa is having. It's unfortunate that he is making this poor choice once again.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,944
    Tiassa,

    Much of your most recent post is directed to Bells, which she can respond to as she sees fit, but I will comment on certain parts that pertain to me.
    With all due respect, you're barking mad if you think I'm a white supremacist. Get a grip, man! Seriously.
    My "behaviour" has remained fairly consistent in my time on this forum. I think you should take time to think about yourself and how your behaviour has affected your relationships here over recent years.

    Your obsessive fixation on past wrongs that are largely imagined or at least overblown is not healthy, Tiassa. You've lost perspective, and currently it seems to me that you've become a bit paranoid. Now you're constructing straight-out paranoid fantasies, apparently with me featuring as the bad guy.

    I don't know what has landed you in this place you're in right now, but I can tell that it's not a good place. I think that maybe the best thing you could do would be to step back, take some time out from the forum and connect more with the real world for a while. Deal with any issues you're having away from the forum. Then come back when you're more stable and happier in yourself.

    I realise, of course, that in your current state, you're very unlikely to amenable to listening to anything I have to say, so probably this post is a waste of time in its entirety, insofar as it is directed to you. But it is what it is.

    I honestly hope that, in regards to this forum, you can move on from where you are now, which is stuck in a sort of semi-imagined past in which you imagine a semi-demonic form of me lurking and trying to do evil things to the forum and to you. I'm not the fantasy figure you've built up in your mind, I assure you.

    I have addressed your "questions" about my actions as a moderator here extensively in the Moderators subforum, as you are aware. The problem is that, for whatever reason, no answers are ever sufficient to satisfy you. You seem completely incapable of letting past issues die. You will drag things up from a decade in the past, almost at random, and try to rehash old discussions about them, to no real purpose. Mostly you allude to your gripes rather than stating them clearly. You never offer solutions; you only make complaints. You talk about me a lot, but almost never talk to me. All I see from you is ongoing resentment about nebulous matters that must seem crystal clear to you but which are obscure to the rest of us.

    This nonsense about me needing to be shielded from myself - seriously, what's are you on about? Do you imagine that I'm in danger of harming myself in some way, so other people need to coddle me for some reason? Where does that idea even come from? You're not in touch with reality, Tiassa. I'm not trying to be nasty here. I actually think you might need some help.

    The "issue" being referred to is your issue, first and foremost. None of your resentment is really about me, as far as I can tell. Your ongoing attempts to alienate those around you are all about you. It's time you realised that. Again, understand that I'm not trying to be mean.

    As virtually any honest member here will confirm, I have never endorsed antisocial or supremacist behaviours on this forum. The "history" you refer to is therefore imaginary, as is my supposed "disingenuousness" about such matters. What you have there reads to me like a kind of paranoid delusion. Your fantasy version of me is required to tell lies and try to deceive you, because that's the character you've built up in your mind. That's not me. That's your twisted version of me. The problem is not at my end. Please get a grip.

    No more than what you do (here) matters.

    And what have you done as a moderator for the past several years? The truth is, you've done very little. That's on you, not me. I have not stood in your way or questioned your choices.

    As can yours. We are all human beings posting on this forum, Tiassa. To the extent that our words can harm other people, we can all do harm, potentially.

    But notice, again, the vague nature of the accusation. You can't really point to any specific harm that I've done, can you?
    The reality is that people "give up" on this forum for all kinds of different reasons. To imagine that it's somehow all my fault is to construct a delusional fantasy. Seriously, you need to get a grip.

    This forum is, in the end, what its members make it. I'm just one person. I'm not a god ruling over things and controlling people. It's not my job to magically provide "decent rational discourse". That's your job, and the job of every other member who chooses to post here.

    Tell me what you are doing to promote "decent rational discussion" on sciforums, Tiassa. Is there anything? Why won't you look at yourself, rather than blaming other people all the time? Maybe you're part of the problem. Maybe you're not above it all.

    If this is such a major issue for you, what are you doing about it? Where are your solutions? You're a moderator of this forum, just like me. Why are you just sitting there fuming away to yourself and grumbling about old disagreements?

    Probably you haven't noticed, but this thread has a topic, and Bells has been posting on the thread topic, quite apart from responding to your whinging, as have I.

    The simple and obvious fact of the matter is that I essentially haven't been on the forum over the past month (at least). My silence is not because I've delegated a minion to "interpose on my behalf". It's because I have work, family and other commitments outside this forum, and limited time. I am not obliged to be at your beck and call. I am not, in fact, obliged to respond to anything here unless I want to. I have no paid work here.

    You should stop trying to bully Bells, and you should not consider her some kind of proxy for me, because she very much is not.

    Please get some help, if you need it. Or at least take a breather and try to get some perspective. You're on an internet forum. Nothing that happens here is life and death. Try to let the paranoid fantasies go. Let the past be the past.

    I sincerely hope you can get past this funk you're in, Tiassa. I mean it.
     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,480
    Why is the elephant in the room never acknowledged? Tiassa has always been delusional and it hasn't been hidden in the least. Most of his threads aren't threads at all but rather his ramblings, out of the blue, in the form of a personal blog.

    The delusion, footnotes and all, seems to be that he has an eager waiting audience for each long-winded blog as if he was been asked to write a literary piece for The Atlantic or whatever publication. It reminds me of the late William Buckley's long, obtuse writings but at least Buckley was well known and did in fact have an audience for his pretensive writings.

    Tiassa could best be described as a delusional basement dweller and yet rather than suggest that he get some help (until today) he is made a moderator, allowed to rant and turn threads into his personal blogs. It's bizarre actually.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,944
    I did not intend to extend a general invitation to people to have a go at Tiassa. I responded because he chose to have this conversation here, and he called me out by name. You're doing something a bit different.
     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,480
    True, but when he or you responded publicly on a discussion forum...it can't be a surprise that you get comments from others. This is a public discussion forum and his behavior that is being discussed is and has been public.

    When the subject matter was me, it was fair game. He should be treated no differently.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,944
    Oh, I agree about that. He has invited commentary and opinion forming.
     
  20. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,357
    I don't read Tiassa's posts.
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,431
    Please, children, can you move all this nonsense into private messages, rather than air it in public?
    One of you, please, take that grown-up step.

    Thank you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Write4U likes this.
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,573
    So why read him?

    He gets his jollies by writing long impenetrable screeds on whatever twigged him that day while reading Daily Kos or whatever. Just skip over his posts.
     
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,480
    I don't generally read him. I just find it odd that he is a moderator. Why not make RainbowSingularity or Dennis Tate a moderator?

    I find it interesting that the moderators suddenly find Tiassa to be acting oddly. He has been like that for 20 years.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page