(December 2, 2012 at 11:49 pm)Daniel Wrote: Human rights advocates would tell you that a person cannot consent to being harmed.

What about masochists?

(December 2, 2012 at 9:30 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(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.

And are you above accusations of trollery and attempting to incite flaming? Your "Welcome douchebag," post was ignored until you decided to get on your high horse, but I think you've helped make my point for me. Your self righteous reaction to my actions carries less weight now than it might have because you tried to be deliberately provocative yourself. You are in no position to criticise me in this context.

WLB, I can't really sort out what it is that you're calling for--moderation of abusive comments?

I know from experience that everyone fails to live up to that standard at one point or another. I mean, if you're saying, "Stop the abuse," no one will disagree with you, and that's effectively a meaningless point to make. In my view, moderators should only really be alarmed at direct threats--i.e., that the poster will harm another user. In any case, I'm afraid to commit to certain standards of behavior because I'm always skeptical that I can adhere to them in every circumstance. But I can certainly agree that verbal abuse is weak argumentation. I usually scroll past such posts in boredom.

Incidentally, I think the willingness of individuals to consent to abuse may be most strongly demonstrated by some of the theists who troll these message boards.

Z

There are none so blind as those that cannot see. Solution? Tell them they are twats because nothing else worked.

I actually enjoy insulting *some* theists, because their brains are so pickled anyway that you cannot have a reasoned argument. Might as well laugh at them then.

(December 3, 2012 at 12:46 am)Darkstar Wrote: What about masochists?

We don't know what we want, apparently.

(December 3, 2012 at 3:15 am)worldslaziestbusker Wrote: You are in no position to criticise me in this context.

I know of no position, where one person cannot criticise another, live with it douchebag, this is democracy.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words never will" - Somebody

(December 2, 2012 at 11:11 pm)Daniel Wrote: ^ 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.

I have been trying to examine an ethical issue from as near to first principles as possible. Bringing existing legislation to the table is inappropriate because there is no guarantee that it was formulated from a sound ethical footing. If you would conflate morality with ethics, you could claim that slavery was ethical was it was moral in biblical times in the middle east, so your example was off topic and your demands that I examine the failure of the USA to be punished for failing to adhere to that legislation, while valid on its own merits, was a non sequitur in this context.
If you think only material from within this forum can be discussed within this forum, then every example you've brought up from outside is equally invalid.

---

(December 2, 2012 at 11:29 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: 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.

Phil Plait didn't offer any mechanism by which to measure dickishness, allowing people to draw their own lines in the sand and bicker about the matter endlessly. Perhaps he didn't think it through, perhaps it was a dickish move in itself.
I have done my best to articulate what abuse is and why it is always wrong in an attempt to encourage people to think harder about their actions and avoid being assholes as often as possible, partly because hypocrisy takes the wind out of the sails of anyone trying to diminish abuse from religious quarters, partly because abuse is abuse and always wrong.

Abuse is partially subjective, and I find you rather arrogant. People have to draw their own lines. What's required is empathy, not a litmus test. Not a line in the sand.

(December 2, 2012 at 9:11 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: I try to comply with on/off topic parameters

It could be that you are sincere and try, but that you have failed to stay on topic in every context I have encountered you and repeatedly had it pointed out to you by people making a coherent case for that failure makes this statement either a lie or a profession of an inability to comprehend written English effectively.

Quote: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.

If I had no evidence to back my nomeclature for you, it would be slagging off. All I have done is call a spade a spade. If you want to contest my calling you a coward, the only way you will make a convincing case is by being less cowardly. Answer the questions asked of you directly and without throwing shiny things and spurious accusations into ever discussion you have.

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

I'm sure that's the case, but that attention on its own doesn't make a counter to the accusation, for which I have provided evidence.

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

If someone shouted "Leave me the fuck alone," at you in a pub, would you continue to bug them and try to start a conversation? Probably not. On the internet, though, you continue to pursue the conversation ad nauseum. Perhaps you think there are no repurcussions, but that is not true. You cause me distress and you make me think poorly of you that you cannot pull your head in even that much. That arrogance and its knock on effects are why I hold you in such disdain, and only a change in your behaviour can affect a change in the way I think about you. If you don't like what I write about you, LionIRC, either be a better person or show me that I have misinterpreted your actions and come to spurious conclusions about your thinking, writing and mettle.