Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Tiberius]

Huggy is correct, and there is no legitimate debate over whether Denmark is a secular nation. It's not. Not by any reasonable definition of the word "secular".

The Oxford Dictionary defines secular as "Not connected with religious or spiritual matters" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...sh/secular). Thus, a "secular government" is a government "not connected with religious or spiritual matters".

The government of Denmark has a Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_f...Denmark%29)

The Church of Denmark is the state church. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Denmark)

Section 4 of the Constitution of Denmark establishes the Evangelical Lutheran Church (which is what the Church of Denmark was formerly known as) as "the people's church". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti...k#Religion)

Secularism has absolutely nothing to do with how religious a country's population is, it has everything to do with whether the government of the country supports or is somehow bound to a specific religion.

The government of the United States is a secular government, despite being made up almost entirely of Christians, because the actual government as a single entity doesn't support any one religion (and this is written into the constitution).

[Drich]

Okay, now you're simply trying to incite paranoia. Please list the names of every member 'disappeared' under the new rule.

No, what I was saying is the staff informed us so as to not incite paranoia.

This was in response to Rob's reassurance that just because we were informed of this new power/rule we have nothing to fear from it.

I was pointing out informing the membership is just a responsible act of any leadership, otherwise paranoia would form.. However at the same time I point to Flint, Mi and the mayor's decision to switch to a new 'lead laced' water source and his 'informing the public' as proof of an instance of a responsible act of a leader, but a terrible consequence of the actual decision/policy that was enacted.

either way the point is moot, we are all being piped water from the flint river. I just need to know where or not to buy bottle water or not.

[Tiberius]

I get where there can be disagreement over secularism though, because it can be used to describe multiple things. For instance, although Denmark's government is not secular, it's people are. The same thing applies to the UK, where the government is undeniably not secular (state church, mandatory bishops in the House of Lords, head of state is head of church) but its people are for the most part either not religious or don't really care about religion too much.

So saying "Denmark is a secular country" is a weird ambiguous statement because it really depends on how you classify a country, by it's government or by it's people. When describing a country however, I would say most of the time you are talking about the government, or how the government runs things. For example, "North Korea is a fascist country" is a description more of the government of North Korea than its citizens.

[Drich]

[...] I push past that out come the personal insults, and in a few cases attacks on my wife's past. This is my experience in just about every topic I have ever posted here. My question was, as a theist can we do the same without reprisal? [...]

You certainly have.  When I corrected you on your claimed "uncle's" military experience, and belittled your loathsome attempt to wrap yourself in the honor accorded veterans when you wouldn't enlist yourself (because the money wasn't there!), you launched personal attacks against me included alleging that I lied about my service, both publicly and via PM. You were never warned, and certainly never banned.

You need to pull on your big boy pants and appreciate that we here don't do what Christian sites do every minute to atheists, which is ban you for who you are and nothing else.

Quit whining.  If you don't like it here --

If you remember correctly the argument was over the idea that if the 'in the rear with the gear guys' had the right to pretend or represent themselves as front line troops. (to steal the glory of those who truly put it on the line) I referenced my cousin because he (Having served on the front line) feels very strongly against the idea that the in the rear personnel should try come off as one of the guys being shot at. I also agree that a guy who fuels a plane (or holds the fire extinguisher pointed at the guy who fuels the plane) should NOT try and come off as a fighter pilot. Let alone try and "pull rank/pull the I am a war hero card" just because 'someone' (if this does not describe you then know I am not speaking to you) had some douche bag job and just so happens to wear the same uniform as real heroes wear.

That said my question was not about what could take place on this web site, but what is now allowed to take place given this new rule and how me being confrontational to stimbo specifically could result in my ban.

[Angrboda]

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you remember correctly the argument was over the idea that if the 'in the rear with the gear guys' had the right to pretend or represent themselves as front line troops. (to steal the glory of those who truly put it on the line) I referenced my cousin because he (Having served on the front line) feels very strongly against the idea that the in the rear personnel should try come off as one of the guys being shot at. I also agree that a guy who fuels a plane (or holds the fire extinguisher pointed at the guy who fuels the plane) should NOT try and come off as a fighter pilot. Let alone try and "pull rank/pull the I am a war hero card" just because 'someone' (if this does not describe you then know I am not speaking to you) had some douche bag job and just so happens to wear the same uniform as real heroes wear.

Sorry, that wasn't what you were pointing at in your posts and especially PMs to me. Trying to add "liar" to your resume, I see.

For the record, to the membership: I never claimed to be a combat veteran, as Drich is trying to insinuate. I've never claimed to have come under fire. I was a firefighter in the Air Force (not a fuelie, though this idiot doesn't know the difference), and I've never claimed to be a fighter pilot. I've never claimed to be a war hero.

Then again, I've never gone onto a forum and claimed "there are no atheists in foxholes" when I was too much the greedy coward to serve my country myself.

Yes, I'm looking square at you, Drich.

That said my question was not about what could take place on this web site, but what is now allowed to take place given this new rule and how me being confrontational to stimbo specifically could result in my ban.

Don't worry, you can still be a cunt.

[Cyberman]

That said my question was not about what could take place on this web site, but what is now allowed to take place given this new rule and how me being confrontational to stimbo specifically could result in my ban.

And the answer is a deafening and resounding "no". Sorry if this leaves anybody's martyr chip frustrated.

[Angrboda]

Well, now we're just revisiting old grievances. The question was asked as to whether or not these kind of protracted disputes would be actionable under the new rule or not. Let's not get bogged down into who killed who, regardless of your side in these matters, the question is not about who was right or wrong in any specific instance, but rather to give examples in order to feel out the new rule. Further bickering over who was right and who was wrong can only serve to derail the thread and prevent the question being answered.

[Tiberius]

That said my question was not about what could take place on this web site, but what is now allowed to take place given this new rule and how me being confrontational to stimbo specifically could result in my ban.

Being confrontational is not against any current rule, nor is it likely to ever be.

There are two measures in the new rule which prevent action from being taken just by being confrontational to a member:

1) The rule specifically requires that the member be an "overwhelmingly negative influence on the forums as a whole". Being confrontational to one member doesn't even come close to that.

2) The rule specifically states "there are no points of view that a member can hold which would be considered a negative influence". So if you are being confrontational because of a disagreement over an opinion, the rule specifically protects you.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't care if it's already "T in minus 7 seconds" at this point Thumpy, I'm telling you: Drich would make a crap astronaut!