Hero_In_Instatute

Firstly, it doesn't matter that I agree with the message or logic behind this post.

The fact remains that no religious person is going to be persuaded by reading this, no matter how right you are. It has nothing to do with the quality of the point and everything to do with the delivery itself.

The amount of biases and indoctrination is instinctual in the mind of a religious person, so even if you confront them with a straightforward argument that contradicts their worldview, they'll deliberately misinterpret this post to avoid confronting the unpleasant reality that is their religion by instead accusing you of whatever garbage Rational accused you of. And then justifying whatever reactions they do, as is consistent with an extremist vigilante.

If you disagree with religious people being convinced, then I suggest you present this argument to religious people on different platforms. Perhaps, Reddit or Quora.

Even if that didn't happen, the common counterarguments that Christians would use is that God would never instruct something so morally abominable, so they wouldn't comply with said command because it didn't come from God. They will always deflect and never engage with the direction of the example you're going for.

But there will be a lot of mixed reactions from Christians with a lot of them being morally outraged.

A more effective version of this thread that better illustrates the point of your thread would be to keep the content the same, but to reframe it in a way that engages Christians without directly challenging their beliefs or opinions in a confrontational way.

I'm assuming your goal is to get christians to question their beliefs?

You accomplish that by making it clear that you're not associating them with homicidal extremists or categorizing them as the same, that you understand there is a clear distinction. And then you ask them how they would counter those arguments by a lunatic who actually held those beliefs.

Secondly, I don't want this opinion "censored."

The argument is perfectly valid. But it definitely needs to be rephrased.

A passive response isn't sufficient mod enforcement to an otherwise sensitive subject like this.

If you agree that the points are good, then you acknowledge the immediate urgency this thread demands.

Specifically, the intervention of anti-terrorism agencies, vigilante harassment, and mob-lynching should be everyone's first concern.

That's a call to action that should overrule any objections the other mods raise.

Situations like these are exceptions to the principles and ethics of democracy. What good is a talk with the council going to do when this is a decision that requires firm leadership and a quick reaction?

You've already had to change the title of this thread, so why in the world are you stopping there?

Benjamin is very clearly not a terrorist and I buy that this post is clearly satire for rhetorical reasons, rather than RationalMadman's interpretation that this is an endorsement for genocide and terrorism.

But there is a basis on why this thread shouldn't stand.:

1. Regardless of how obvious the context is to us, you can guarantee that Rational will not be the only one to misinterpret it. This could lead to this site being blacklisted, or an investigation is conducted by anti-terrorism agencies, so there is legitimacy to RationalMadman's claim regardless.

2. This post likely to offend lots of people. Specifically, relatives of victims of such tragedies. This scrutiny can result in vigilantism that takes the form of retaliatory doxxing, or website raiding. Especially with vigilantes or people who believe it's acceptable to make Benjamin the target of their harassment.

I don't have a problem with what is written here, but how can you expect that nobody else will?

3. The incentive has always been to garner publicity for the site, but posts like these are very shock-value and disturbing to read, so if anything. It's just deterring new residents from an already dying population. Removing this post doesn't compromise the integrity of free speech, but a line does need to be drawn somewhere.

4. Moderation Consistency. If FishChaser gets warned for saying things like this to me?: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5413-diet-battle?argument_number=3

https://www.debateart.com/debates/5413-diet-battle?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=2
Why should posts like these be allowed without some measure of moderation scrutiny? The fact that this doesn't invoke some kind of reaction is just an example of moderation inconsistency.

Rational's rage-quitting of the site is such a big exaggeration and overreaction, that it makes it more likely that ANY criticism of this thread will not be taken seriously.
At the very least, this thread should be deleted and reposted, and reworded significantly differently.

me and everyone else did not like what we were seeing with offensive posts from our abusive ex president, so we reported him and got him banned.

while he deals with his clown crisis, i am running for president.

i'll bring him back. watch this

oh military strategy and power

oh god, not this fool brotherd again

i forgot the name of this philosophy

you've never read the bible before, have you

oh god

this feuding seems pretty one-sided if i'm being honest

i will not tolerate this lying and gaslighting from u, so i reported this thread

oh thank god, finally a mod who sees this post for the toxic garbage that it is

u can kiss my ass thinking u have any right to condescend to me when i know you created  this thread specifically to mock and belittle me thinking i was foolish enough to fall for your nonsense. u even talked about it in your round 3 argument https://www.debateart.com/debates/5391-pirating-paid-content-such-as-movies-games-and-music-is-unethical

tigerlord, can you report this too?

i believe wylted was referencing you and doing a subtle callout when he said this quote:

reported

im done with posts like this

this thread is an absolutely vile and disgusting post.

can we please get this taken down?

i cannot believe the audacity someone would have to post such a low-effort thread that disrespects people by treating them as naive and gullible, while mocking people at the expense of their mental health

people seem to be forgetting exactly what kind of beast mike tyson is

jake paul only stands a chance if his opponent is two things.: washed up and not a boxer

the fact that aged non-boxers are holding their own against jake paul while jake paul lost to an actual boxer his own age suggests jake paul is not as good as everyone thinks he is.

logan paul got his shit rocked by a retired floyd mayweather and if that's the case for a 47 year old lightweight against a giant in their prime like logan paul, then a 57 year old mike tyson absolutely destroys jake paul if both are taking the fight seriously.

if tyson wants to win, nothing that jake paul does will stop that.

let's also consider the fact that heavyweight boxers also tend to peak later in their career than lighter fighters. mike tyson is only 15 years past his prime and brute  strength/raw power is always the last to go.

peak tyson is known as one of the boxers for having the most power in boxing.

so when you make it jake paul vs mike tyson, jake loses.

unless the match is staged.

this is not sonny liston vs muhammad ali, this is fucking TYSON vs a wannabe boxer

wait, what genre or category does this post belong in?

any updates?

that is a good question

deal

/ in

do u ever say anything new or do u always recite the same lines from the same boring script

you're a broken record

everyone here is more cultured on the bible than u, quit now while u still have the chance before u embarrass yourself

isnt competition what this whole thing is about anyway?

and expert boxers fight beginners all the time as a teaching method, it's called sparring.

it's not an actual, official fight.

the debate equivalent to sparring are standard matches where elo is untouched

and the feeling that rational is describing is the thrill that comes with struggling and overcoming resistance. the only correct mindset to competition.

anything else is complacency which becomes stagnation

if i wanted easy wins, i would just stick to debating wylted or stephen or brotherdthomas

self-fulfilling prophecy in your case

assuming they haven't died tragically from the brain cancer u gave them by forcing them to read your verbal word vomit when u tagged their names

and fail because u have the IQ of a headless chicken

🐔🐔🐔

save yourself the embarrassment & go back to being a jew-hating conspiracy theorist
leave the debating to the pros

i didnt mean to humiliate u in that debate