(December 1, 2012 at 9:52 pm)HorribleOffensiveScouser91 Wrote: Also to ban abuse would single handedly destroy the economy, think of all those fans of S&M porn....abuse, a matter of preference

I am not proposing a ban on abuse. I can't afford to tell people how to act to that extent because to do so would negate my right to behave as I see fit.
You can be as racist, sexist and assholish as you like and there's nothing I can or would do to stop you. The only thing I have any control over in the situation is my reaction to your racism, sexism and asshole shenanigans. My reaction to such assholery is generally disdain and a failure to join initiatives kicked off by the asshole in question and a failure to invite them to join projects I am starting or engaged in.
By encouraging people to think about what constitutes abuse, I am hoping they will think harder about their actions before doing or saying something that will make them a big hypocrite when calling for an end to religiously inspired abuse. This would not make their case against religious abuse invalid, but it will make it harder to get an audience to take their ethics seriously. You don't get to claim a right you don't extend to others. That would be having your cake and having my cake and everyone else's cake too, and that's the sort of hypocrisy I like to leave to the theists.


I'll have the cake, please.

---

(December 2, 2012 at 12:44 am)Lion IRC Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm)worldslaziestbusker Wrote: ...I can defend calling LionIRC a coward because I have evidence of his cowardice....

Nice.

Attack me from the comfort of a thread which says...

(December 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm)worldslaziestbusker Wrote: ...Theists can fuck off and leave me alone.

Is that your new M.O.?
...leave me alone so I can whine about you from behind a bullet-proof screen


Call me a coward? Hypocrite!
There's nothing about you I fear.

So you're gonna sit and make gratuitous snipes at me and....

WAIT!

Now I get it.

...if someone intends their comments to cause harm for which the recipient can receive no benefit, that comment is unnecessary.

---

Yep. Unnecessary. You flunked your own litmus test PAL!

This thread clearly isn't cowardly lion proof, so I wouldn't trust it to stop bullets. I know you have Catholicism written through you like a stick of rock and that that probably makes dominionism come naturally to you, but did you really have to butt into a thread explicitly seeking atheist perspectives on abuse? No. You did not have to, but you did so anyway because you are a dominionist to the core.

I don't whine about you, Lion. You whine about being banned and badly wanting to get back into forums where you broke the rules you agreed to when you signed up. I hold you in considerable disdain, but that's not whining.
Would anyone like to see some high grade whining, coupled to some attempts at arm twisting, all drizzled over a big fail cake of cowardice?
Here's LionIRC being offered exactly the opportunity he claims to crave, an opportunity to make his case against an atheist, live and at my expense, and failing to take that offer up. Coward fail.
My user name at RFF was changed to Matthew McArthur after my posting privileges were taken away and without notice. Bravo, RFF, you are all class. Wait, what's that cl doing there?

---

(December 2, 2012 at 1:01 am)Daniel Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm)worldslaziestbusker Wrote: I see abuse as being binary, in that if someone intends their actions or comments to cause harm for which the recipient can receive no benefit, that action or comment is unnecessary.

1. Read this.
2. When can I expect George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Barak Obama, Leon Panetta and dozens of other CIA and Guantanamo Bay staff and let's not forget Politicians to be arrested, put on trial for torture, convicted, and incarcerated?
3. Does the wording in the treaty allow for any other course of action? (No)

You do love your non sequuntur, don't you, Daniel?
Your post, besides being made against my explicit and strongly worded request that theists not post in this thread, has nothing to do with the issue at hand - whether or not abuse is binary.

Please, Daniel and LionIRC, and any other theist who happens to be passing by, do not post in this thread. Your actions are not in question. I am seeking to assess the ethical mien of the forum atheists. You can add no useful information to that assessment. If you have been hard done by by the local atheists, go make noise about it in the thread specific to that incident so you have the evidence to hand to back any claim you might try to make.
I know you aren't good at spotting the boundary between your business and the rest of the world's business, but you have been asked to butt out, failed, and been reminded to butt out. Fail again and I'll test the mien of the moderation on this forum by requesting that you receive official censure for being presumptuous beyond reason.

Sorry, but on this forum no one has the right to dictate who can and cannot post in a thread. Feel free to request that certain people abstain from posting in your thread, but no one is under any obligation to grant you that request.

Quote:3. Does the wording in the treaty allow for any other course of action?

The US did not sign the treaty.

We should have but then BULLSHIT is our motto.

(December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The US did not sign the treaty.

We should have but then BULLSHIT is our motto.

Wikipedia says they did... then again getting facts from Wikipedia is pretty fucking stupid of me.

UN website reveals they USA has signed and ratified the agreement under Article 21. In other words, not Article 22, but that doesn't exempt the State (or anyone else) from the law - all the people I mentioned are criminals and need to be arrested, put on trial, and incarcerated for their crimes.

So in other words, they don't want their citizens to torture arabs in their basements, but it's fine if they do it in their basement.

---

(December 2, 2012 at 7:12 am)worldslaziestbusker Wrote: You do love your non sequuntur, don't you, Daniel?
Your post, besides being made against my explicit and strongly worded request that theists not post in this thread, has nothing to do with the issue at hand - whether or not abuse is binary.

Um yes it does. Did you read the link? Specifically Article 2:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
   
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
   
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Doesn’t that specifically see torture as binary - black and white - no room for compromise.

Quote:

---

Please, Daniel and LionIRC, and any other theist who happens to be passing by, do not post in this thread. Your actions are not in question. I am seeking to assess the ethical mien of the forum atheists. You can add no useful information to that assessment. If you have been hard done by by the local atheists, go make noise about it in the thread specific to that incident so you have the evidence to hand to back any claim you might try to make.
I know you aren't good at spotting the boundary between your business and the rest of the world's business, but you have been asked to butt out, failed, and been reminded to butt out. Fail again and I'll test the mien of the moderation on this forum by requesting that you receive official censure for being presumptuous beyond reason.[/list]

---

(December 2, 2012 at 11:03 am)Faith No More Wrote: Sorry, but on this forum no one has the right to dictate who can and cannot post in a thread. Feel free to request that certain people abstain from posting in your thread, but no one is under any obligation to grant you that request.

I try to comply with on/off topic parameters and I saw the atheists only thing so I wouldnt have posted anything at all if WLB had left his slagging @ my user name out of the thread.

Accusing me of running away from a defense of my theistic (biblical) worldview is the absolute, most certain way of getting my attention.

And doing so from the cowards castle comfort of a thread where you have asked theists not to post is lame.

(December 2, 2012 at 7:12 am)worldslaziestbusker Wrote: Fail again and I'll test the mien of the moderation on this forum by requesting that you receive official censure for being presumptuous beyond reason.

And find how just how quickly dicks who abuse the report system here get their own "official censure." Do yourself a favor and do not use the staff here to make threats. I know from personal experience that they are not fucking marionettes. It irks me that you openly admit to pondering wasting their time to uphold a rule that does not exist. I wonder if you fail again how close to breaking the flaming rule you will come.

^ Yep to both of you. My post was entirely on-topic, if he didn't want to acknowledge it he could have just ignored it as if I hadn't posted. I didn't read Lion's post or WLB's response to him earlier, I totally agree that he baited Lion. I'm not interested in what went on on some other internet forum, none of us are. Why even bother talking about it in this thread WLB? It might be appropriate to link to another forum on an on-topic matter, but I can't see how it is productive linking to your alleged past grievances on another forum in a thread where that would be off-topic! There is a PM function in this forum you know.

First, it sounds like you're giving a less-charming version of Phil Plait's Don't Be a Dick speech. We've been through it before.

Second,

(December 1, 2012 at 9:52 pm)HorribleOffensiveScouser91 Wrote: Also to ban abuse would single handedly destroy the economy, think of all those fans of S&M porn....abuse, a matter of preference

I do believe he was discussing something slightly different. S&M porn, if it's legit, involves consent. The abuse he's discussing does not. If you consent to being humiliated, beaten, whipped, etc. - explicitly consent - then this argument has no bearing.

Human rights advocates would tell you that a person cannot consent to being harmed.

Human rights advocates have their place. Many people are harmed without consent.

None of them belong in my bedroom. Or the bedrooms of other people who indulge in BDSM.