(May 6, 2018 at 7:45 pm)Succubus Wrote: Double post.

---

(May 6, 2018 at 7:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Mathilda was telling her trolling story as a comparison to Chad.

Is this a non sequitur I see?

I think a better description was: She missed the point of the analogy. Being a troll and stopping being a troll is just one personal example Mathilda gave for modifying behavior in response to punishment (or as Mathilda said 'cause and effect'... I don't know what word she wants to call non-retributive punishment besides "punishment". For me punishment and retribution aren't necessarily one and the same at all. I believe in consequentalist punishment and it seems to me that is actually what Mathilda is advocating for).

So the point is that Neo can learn from his behavior when we punish him just as she did from being punished for trolling... but that does not mean she was punished or that Neo should be punished because he deserves it, in a retributive way. Just that it's the best way to discourage him being a cunt in future: consequentalist punishment.

Seen as 'punishment' often has retribuitive connotations (although not as much as something as say... 'just deserts').... perhaps someone can suggest a better word here?

(May 7, 2018 at 9:24 am)Hammy Wrote: So the point is that Neo can learn from his behavior when we punish him just as she did from being punished for trolling... but that does not mean she was punished or that Neo should be punished because he deserves it, in a retributive way. Just that it's the best way to discourage him being a cunt in future: consequentalist punishment.

..and they call Christians judgmental and patronizing.

(May 7, 2018 at 9:19 am)Kit Wrote:

(May 7, 2018 at 9:16 am)Drich Wrote: Are you kidding?

I was bann in 2016 abruptly because of something I said in 2008. The morons on that web site could not find cause to ban me for anything current, in fact I remember I was rightfully having my way with a few of the heavy hitters over there including you and next time I signed on I was just got a screen that I was bann, no reason given. I had to sneak on as a guest to find out why I was kicked off. even a few of your members over there spoke out against how badly the mods handled that one. You are were impotently being forced feed and you only recourse was to go back to 20012 or 2008 or when ever I was originally ban, and if you honestly looked at why I was ban then it was for the same thing. You had no way to control me or protect your heavy hitters pride, it was all at my digression because i did indeed follow the rules and had sound theological arguments.

I've never had major issues with this forum, but even I agree with your assessment of TTA.  I was banned from there on bogus charges.  Eventually, I got around to creating a new account that they still haven't associated with me, but I no longer post over there.  TTA has seriously gone downhill.

the big thing is I did not even change my name from 2008 to 2016, same name same sunflower same everything. I think they let me in because they had a few new guys who were supposed to be faith crushing monsters, but after being spanked (while Mathilda claimed a Clinton-esque victory) with no end in sight, they just pulled the plug. They are strictly atheist only like most Christian forums are Christian only so as to protect the indoctrinated from thinking outside the box they represent.

(May 7, 2018 at 9:01 am)alpha male Wrote:

(May 7, 2018 at 8:45 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Is there a point to repeatedly telling us this?

The point in the above post was that, if people miss Christian posters, it might be a good idea for those who want to offend Christians not to be staff members. Wasn't that pretty obvious?

Ya missed it. Why do you keep telling us you'll not be around?

And staff has the right to offend the same as anyone else.

(May 7, 2018 at 9:35 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Ya missed it. Why do you keep telling us you'll not be around?

I don't think I'm telling you that as frequently as you seem to think.

(May 7, 2018 at 9:16 am)Drich Wrote:

(May 5, 2018 at 6:59 am)Mathilda Wrote: https://atheistforums.org/thread-54756-p...pid1748352

Drich said:


He got utterly destroyed when he brought his odious views to TTA. He was given a free voice. Nor do I think he's ever 'won' a debate on AF.

Are you kidding?

I was bann in 2016 abruptly because of something I said in 2008. The morons on that web site could not find cause to ban me for anything current, in fact I remember I was rightfully having my way with a few of the heavy hitters over there including you and next time I signed on I was just got a screen that I was bann, no reason given. I had to sneak on as a guest to find out why I was kicked off. even a few of your members over there spoke out against how badly the mods handled that one. You are were impotently being forced feed and you only recourse was to go back to 20012 or 2008 or when ever I was originally ban, and if you honestly looked at why I was ban then it was for the same thing. You had no way to control me or protect your heavy hitters pride, it was all at my digression because i did indeed follow the rules and had sound theological arguments.

People can see for themselves, You really struggled as I gave you more rope to hang yourself with and the contradictions started piling up. All I did was ask questions.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-questions

(May 7, 2018 at 9:46 am)alpha male Wrote:

(May 7, 2018 at 9:35 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Ya missed it. Why do you keep telling us you'll not be around?

I don't think I'm telling you that as frequently as you seem to think.

I count at least 3 times so far. No me, us.

(May 7, 2018 at 9:33 am)Drich Wrote: They are strictly atheist only like most Christian forums are Christian only so as to protect the indoctrinated from thinking outside the box they represent.

If that was true then you theists wouldn't be referred to by the admin as chew toys and wouldn't be given a chance to debate. From what I can tell, theists get banned once they get repetitive and end up spamming instead of saying anything new.

Basically theists get used and then eventually discarded if all they are wanting is to preach.

(May 7, 2018 at 9:58 am)mh.brewer Wrote: I count at least 3 times so far. No me, us.

I don't think I've said it much outside the Christian-only thread, in which I'm speaking to the other participants.

Regardless...what's it to you?

@ Mathilda Okay fuck it I'll just let Schopenhauer speak for the both of us on what I think you are trying to say by "It's not punishment it's cause and effect" (although Schopenhauer would make the same point, I think, by distinguishing punishment from revenge).

Arthur Schopenhauer from his book The World as Will and Representation Wrote:...the law and its fulfillment, namely punishment, are directed essentially to the future, not to the past. This distinguishes punishment from revenge, for revenge is motivated by what has happened, and hence by the past as such. All retaliation for wrong by inflicting a pain without any object for the future is revenge, and can have no other purpose than consolation for the suffering one has endured by the sight of the suffering one has caused in another. Such a thing is wickedness and cruelty, and cannot be ethically justified. ...the object of punishment...is deterrence from crime.... Object and purpose for the future distinguish punishment from revenge, and punishment has this object only when it is inflicted in fulfillment of a law. Only in this way does it proclaim itself to be inevitable and infallible for every future case; and thus it obtains for the law the power to deter....

Replace 'law' with 'rule' (or 'principle') and 'crime' with 'shitty behavior' and I think that's pretty much what you're saying and what we both agree on.

Semantics and all that jazz.

Or to put it simply myself: We're talking about forward-thinking punishment for the purpose of behavior modification as opposed to past-thinking punishment for the purpose of 'they shouldn't have done that so they deserve to suffer for it'.