Fraggle:Conduct Unbecoming

[Gustav]

We are free to insult religion because it is antiscience. I did not single out her religion but clearly lumped it in with all the other Abrahamic faiths.

As for "stalking," SciForums is a small world and we all run into each other periodically. I have engaged in polite conversation with Sam, even collegial, on a number of occasions. But when she behaves like an asshole I call her an asshole. Intellectual dishonesty is her schtick--especially regarding America (among other topics)--and we cannot allow it to stand without comment.

Yes, I know you're a Muslim, and you can identify some very subtle differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism that the rest of us simply can't see. They're all bullshit, they all want to return us to the happy days before the Industrial Revolution, and the sooner we're rid of them all, the better.

As for photos of mutilated corpses, I don't ever want to see shit like that. If I were not a Moderator I would put you on my ignore list in case you pull a stupid stunt like that again. Don't try it on one of my boards or your worthless ass will be banned for as long as I can get away with it.

Reread the sentence in which I spoke specifically about Muslims and you'll realize that it was an insult to Sam, not anyone else.

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.

Hmm...

Depends what you mean by "insulting religion". It is one thing to say you don't believe in religion X, Y or Z. That's fine. Then there's stating that religion X is a load of silly nonsense (in your opinion), which is also probably ok but borderline. Then there's saying that in your opinion all members of religion X are offensive personal insult Y, which is absolutely unacceptable.

Insulting 3 or 20 religions is no better than insulting one if you cross the line. In fact, if your post can fairly be described as an insult, it's probably questionable, to say the least.

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

 

[adoucette]

the implied genocide of religious practitioners is extremely disturbing.

Except no implied genocide of religious pratitioners was made.

 

[birch]

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!!!

 

[Gustav]

Except no implied genocide of religious pratitioners was made.

naturally you are free to construe frag's...

...we're rid of them all,....

...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.

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!!!

what do you have in mind? what actions are you prepared to pursue once the determination....."their luck has run out"....has been made?

 

[adoucette]

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.

 

[Kittamaru]

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?

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?

 

[birch]

what do you have in mind? what actions are you prepared to pursue once the determination....."their luck has run out"....has been made?

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.

 

[Gustav]

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.

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

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?

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

 

[adoucette]

actually it would behoove you to read with diligence and attempt to comprehend that no such accusation was made.

BS

the implied genocide of religious practitioners is extremely disturbing

Is clearly an accusation, else what is extremely disturbing?

 

[SciWriter]

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.

 

[Emil]

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.)

 

[quadraphonics]

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?

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.

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.

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.

there is no 1% in sciforums

Except there quite clearly is.

 

[Kittamaru]

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

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.

 

[James R]

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.

 

[MacGyver1968]

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.

 

[wynn]

Peacefully convert all believers into enlightened atheists through friendly, intellectual persuasion?

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.

 

[adoucette]

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.

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

Cancers are all bullshit, they put us in our grave much sooner than we should, and the sooner we're rid of them all, the better.

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

 

[Repo Man]

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.

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.

 

[wynn]

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.

You need to be precise:

The method suggested was -

Peacefully convert all believers into enlightened atheists through friendly, intellectual persuasion

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.

 

[Repo Man]

No, not disrespectful attempts!

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.

-- H L Mencken