Then you should certainly pursue that.
The correct answer was; “it’s wrong to lump all theists together as if they all support raping little boys”.
But I get it, cognitive dissonance is a pain in the neck.
Atheists are cowards.
Posts
Total:
203
@Polytheist-Witch
BTW, if you’re going to respond to me what’s the point of blocking me?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Thats great, something we can agree on, when people call other people mentally ill as an insult its disgusting and ableist. When people treat an entire group as one that's kinda sucky, like saying "you people" when referring to atheists... I've recounted my experiences that I, and a lot of other (not just atheists) non-specific theists share, but never have I grouped all religious people as apart of this problem. In fact I've specifically ensured that I don't.
If you aren't going to share the same regard, then you aren't helping the problem, you're part of it.
Come on you whingers.
Just take it on the chin and come back fighting.
Don't be cowards.
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't find atheists so much into exploring ideas as they are in destroying ideas.
If the idea contains flaws, mistakes and contradictions in the first place then the idea can be "destroyed" by it's own content, as does the bible on a regular basis.. You are just too thick to understand never mind accept this fact.
And ridiculing people along the way. If they had something better to offer it might assist.
Well this certainly goes some way in "assisting" any debate an conversation, doesn't it you fkn hypocrite??? Here are some of your own "better offerings" >>
Tradesecret wrote: the serpent, satan, whatever - he is the accuser and you follow after him. you are his disciple. From my point of view - he is slime. You know like the stuff we find after a snail has passed by. creepy. disgusting. Ugly. \ #24
Tradsecret wrote: After all, you are the swine and the dogs that trample over the pearls.#36
Tradsecret wrote: Stupid man. Dumb as fuck. Just continue to repeat your ignorance. #161
Tradsecret wrote: Obviously you are an idiot. #186
If you wanted any sort of serious debate you would have taken up at least one of the many offers that have been made to you to do just that, but bottled every time at every given opportunity offered. And you have the brass balls to call atheist " cowards". You'r a two bit fly by night holy roller that doesn't even know - never mind understand - his own scriptures.
You , Reverend Munchausen, made the mistake of joining religion forum that you took to be a religious forum that you believed could be used as your pulpit and as often as you are, you were wrong ...AGAIN.
Tradesecret wrote: " I have memorised the bible from a very young age, I know it backwards and in many languages.", my arse!😂#52
Tradsecret wrote: They get to prove how cool they are in the world of philosophy.
For a alleged "defence lawyer", you just love opening that gate for the prosecution, don't you, Reverend Munchausen? Would you like me to explain?
Tradesecret wrote: I am a lawyer. I often want judgment that says my client is innocent. #231
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm fine with that.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
And I think if I put someone on ban they shouldn't be able to read my posts.
3RU7AL has proposed this very measure. Something to think about during the next election.
-->
@Athias
@Poly
So measures hey, Big Bro and Big Sis.
Measures to curb freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of information.
If you're not interested in alternative opinions and contentious discourse, then don't bother to read it.
Though better still, why bother to subscribe to a debate and discussion website in the first place.
Just go to church, if all you want to do is whisper sweet religious nothings in each others ears.
-->
@Double_R
Polystyrene wrote:
-->@Double_RThen you should certainly pursue that. Honestly if you approach the mods they probably would actually consider it. I mean there was at some point a policy being thrown out that people should be able to be shadowbanned by the site and nobody would be able to read any of their posts and they wouldn't know that so you should probably talk to someone about that and try to get that policy instituted that would be a great idea.#89
Indeed and this would suite the likes of the Witch down to the ground. She could never be called out for her double standards and hypocrisy if the banned member is unable to see her comments. She wants free rein to say what she wants, claim what she wants without challenge.
Example on request.
-->
@zedvictor4
@PolySo measures hey, Big Bro and Big Sis.Measures to curb freedom of speech,
You speak of "freedom of speech" knowing full well that this is a privately owned website which has a "code of conduct"?
freedom of expression
The site already allows members to block other members. How does removing one's posts from the view of those whom one blocks affect your "freedom of expression" any more than it does now?
and freedom of information.
Please delineate the rule or stipulation which inform any member's claim on the "information" of another.
If you're not interested in alternative opinions and contentious discourse, then don't bother to read it.
I (personally) agree. But shouldn't members retain some discretion in determining those with whom they intend to associate, even if that results in a more effective measure of ostracization?
Why subscribe to a website that ALREADY restricts your speech, expression, and capacity to disseminate information if the concepts you previously mentioned ought not be "curbed"?
Just go to church, if all you want to do is whisper sweet religious nothings in each others ears.
We don't need church for that. But before I would even contemplate what you're suggesting, Poly would have to meet my parents, my siblings, and my former pastor--who would bless our courting each other. Then we would, under the supervision of both our families, have exactly five dinners--three of which where my mother performs acoustic renditions of her favorite hymnals on her ukulele. After we ritually sacrifice a Capybara, or a Pembroke Welsh Corgi, which Poly's family will be required to provide, then--any only then--will I consider uttering a frivolous, yet well-mannered religious statement in Poly's ear.
-->
@Athias
Yeah I know that's what I said and it's also why I didn't vote for him why don't you go back and read some posts before you make your stupid comments.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yeah I know that's what I said and it's also why I didn't vote for him
Oh, there's more to it than that.
why don't you go back and read some posts
I did.
before you make your stupid comments.
Was it stupid or spot-on? I suspect that you'd express no issue with 3RU7AL's proposal if it wasn't coming from 3RU7AL. Nevertheless, you know yourself better than anyone.
-->
@Athias
Again that's why your post is stupid.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Again that's why your post is stupid.
Okay, enjoy your day, sir.
the name of this thread is true.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
-->@Double_R
Polystyrene wrote:
-->@Double_RThen you should certainly pursue that. Honestly if you approach the mods they probably would actually consider it. I mean there was at some point a policy being thrown out that people should be able to be shadowbanned by the site and nobody would be able to read any of their posts and they wouldn't know that so you should probably talk to someone about that and try to get that policy instituted that would be a great idea.#89
Indeed and this would suite the likes of the Witch down to the ground. She could never be called out for her double standards and hypocrisy if the banned member is unable to see her comments. She wants free rein to say what she wants, claim what she wants without challenge.
Example on request.
@3RU7AL
PS I don't agree with blind posts, But;
If you are contemplating going down the blind post solution rout , it would be a better imo to hide the posts of the person that is blocked from the person that has blocked them, so she that has blocked a member cannot see the posts of the person that they have chosen to block.
Thereby having nothing to complain about.... ever!
-->
@Stephen
If you are contemplating going down the blind post solution rout , it would be a better imo to hide the posts of the person that is blocked from the person that has blocked them, so she that has blocked a member cannot see the posts of the person that they have chosen to block.Thereby having nothing to complain about.... ever!
that's the original idea
i can't figure out how so many people can't understand
MUTUAL MUTE = (when you block someone, you AND ONLY YOU can't see that persons posts) (AND) (the blocked person also can't see your posts)
anyone else, everyone else, who has not blocked or has not been blocked can still see all posts by everyone
-->
@3RU7AL
(AND) (the blocked person also can't see your posts)
Poly has blocked me and I can see all her posts.
-->
@FLRW
Poly has blocked me and I can see all her posts.
that is correct
my proposal (MUTUAL-MUTE) has not yet been implemented
-->
@3RU7AL
10-4
-->
@3RU7AL
@FLRW
(AND) (the blocked person also can't see your posts)Poly has blocked me and I can see all her posts.
Yes silly isn't it. She is the one to complains about just about everyone so she shouldn't be allowed to see your posts while you should be allowed to see hers considering that you haven't blocked her, imo.
Like I have said. I don't agree with blind posts but if someone has you on block it should mean that they want nothing to do with you, but oddly it doesn't stop them responding to your posts although they block you and want nothing to do with you!?
@ 3RU7AL
MUTUAL MUTE = (when you block someone, you AND ONLY YOU can't see that persons posts) (AND) (the blocked person also can't see your posts)
That would be unfair imo. I don't have the Witch on block so should be allowed to see her posts. I have nothing against her while she seems to have a gripe against almost everyone that refuses to agree with her and accept her double standards. She is the one doing all the complaining simply because she wants to hide her posts from scrutiny and questioning.
It is quite simple. S/he that blocks cannot see the blocked persons posts thereby having absolutely nothing to complain about, ever. There are a few here that have me on block only to unblock me when they want to reply to my comments and then block me again immediately after. It is a cowardly practice that would be immediately solved if my idea was to be put into practice.
-->
@Stephen
That would be unfair imo.
here's the thing
each author owns their words
if i don't want a particular person reading my words
i should be able to block that specific person from reading my words
nobody has "a right" to read every single one of my words
-->
@3RU7AL
That would be unfair imo.here's the thingeach author owns their wordsif i don't want a particular person reading my wordsi should be able to block that specific person from reading my wordsnobody has "a right" to read every single one of my words
I think you are wrong.
The author posted what s/he posts on the WWW therefore it is in the public domain. The author has a right to delete or withdraw after a reasonable amount of time.
This forum is not for invited guests only. It is to my knowledge a public forum. It is not even a Limited Public Forum to my knowledge.
And the idea of "owning" your words that you voluntarily and without provocation and or persuasion decided to put on a public forum for everyone to read but decide at a later date that you want only the few to read is, in reality preposterous.
Still. I am sure the mods and the owners of the forum will iron it out one way or another.
-->
@Stephen
not every person here is ready to have their thoughts engraved in stone
I never found the original post but I did find where it was discussed. 3RU7AL suggested it would be easy to do a list of banned members, both me and RM were to definitely be on that list, where we would be basically blocked no one could see our post and that in order for people to see those posts they'd have to opt out. It was also discussed that this list would be secret and that we would just have to figure out that's what was going on. It was basically a list of members disliked or mods hate. As long as the mods are going to allow people to make disgusting comments then I'm going to use the block function especially so I don't get messages from those people. That said those functions only work when you're logged in anyway log out and you can see everything.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I never found the original post but I did find where it was discussed. 3RU7AL suggested it would be easy to do a list of banned members, both me and RM were to definitely be on that list, where we would be basically blocked no one could see our post and that in order for people to see those posts they'd have to opt out. It was also discussed that this list would be secret and that we would just have to figure out that's what was going on. It was basically a list of members disliked or mods hate. As long as the mods are going to allow people to make disgusting comments then I'm going to use the block function especially so I don't get messages from those people. That said those functions only work when you're logged in anyway log out and you can see everything.
100% FALSE
-->
@3RU7AL
not every person here is ready to have their thoughts engraved in stone
But we are speaking of the written word, 3RU7AL . If one decides to put their thoughts down in writing on a public forum on the WWW then it is they that engrave their own thoughts and words in stone.
What you appear to be advocating is for those that block other members should be allowed to put in print anything about anyone they don't agree with or simply outright hate and make unsupported claims about anything while displaying out-right double standards and allowing intentional misquotation and misrepresentation while not allowing the blocked member any sort of response.
As I have said, those that decide to block other members because of something they have "written in stone" and disagree with should be the very same people that have no direct contact with those they have decided to block. After all, they are the ones that have taken offence and offence has to be taken doesn't it?: there is a choice involved.
-->
@Stephen
But we are speaking of the written word, 3RU7AL . If one decides to put their thoughts down in writing on a public forum on the WWW then it is they that engrave their own thoughts and words in stone.
The right to be forgotten (RTBF[1]) is the right to have private information about a person be removed from Internet searches and other directories under some circumstances. The concept has been discussed and put into practice in several jurisdictions, including Argentina,[2][3] the European Union (EU), and the Philippines.[4] The issue has arisen from desires of individuals to "determine the development of their life in an autonomous way, without being perpetually or periodically stigmatized as a consequence of a specific action performed in the past."[5]: 231
-->
@Stephen
What you appear to be advocating is for those that block other members should be allowed to put in print anything about anyone they don't agree with or simply outright hate and make unsupported claims about anything while displaying out-right double standards and allowing intentional misquotation and misrepresentation while not allowing the blocked member any sort of response.
what you're describing already happens in the private chat function
are you suggesting we remove the private chat function ?
-->
@Stephen
As I have said, those that decide to block other members because of something they have "written in stone" and disagree with should be the very same people that have no direct contact with those they have decided to block. After all, they are the ones that have taken offence and offence has to be taken doesn't it?: there is a choice involved.
I AGREE