Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Napoléon]

I think what Huggie is speaking about is the down right distain Atheists have when a theist has rightfully beaten them into a corner.

When what happens? Never seen that before ?

[robvalue]

No, I've never seen this either. I've seen theists declaring themselves victorious, of course.

[Edwardo Piet]

I, for one, wouldn't vote to nuke Huggy for his usual bullshit. He's harmless, and everyone here sees him as a silly pedant.

Hmmm. I wear "silly pedant" like a badge of honor. I guess I have my own overenthusiastic turtleyness to go along with my silliness and pedantry though.

#makingitallaboutmyself #notoneturtleyexcuse

[Brian37]

I would hate to see that too, but it's down to him of course. The point being that if he does end up getting banned, it would be because of behaviour which breaches the Rules; and not because he happens to identify as a theist.

Would it be considered 'disruptive' if a theist 'sought the last word' in an argument or a civil disagreement? vise versa would an Atheist be considered 'disruptive' in a similar situation?

I think what Huggie is speaking about is the down right distain Atheists have when a theist has rightfully beaten them into a corner. A practice that is completely ignored when an atheist beats a theist into a similar corner. Even if they flame and rage against the theist's personal attributes to get them there.

When? If it is off the god topic it would depend on what they beat us to. But on claiming any god, nobody has beaten atheists, much less people of other religions with other god claims.

Outside that in my years of being on multiple pages I have seen both theists and atheists take it too personally. I think it is mundane human psychology of someone not being used to being a minority. That does not mean that majority is out to get you in every single case depending on the website. I have said before and been witness to as well, this site taking actions against atheists too. If you cannot trust the staff here to be objective then that is your insecurity and you need to consider if you are going to be happy being here. Nobody would want to torture you with something you are uncomfortable, but ultimately you are still not forced to be here.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think what Huggie is speaking about is the down right distain Atheists have when a theist has rightfully beaten them into a corner.

Give me one example. I don't consider fallacious bullshit arguments followed by an atheist's silence and the theist declaring themselves victorious to be the same thing as beating an atheist "into a corner".

I don't think fallacies and obfuscation can beat anyone into a corner.

Fallacies fail.

[robvalue]

Full disclosure, I do now remember this sort of happening on a single occasion. I won't mention names. But there was no animosity following the incident that I was aware of.

[The Valkyrie]

Is that the point where the theist has gone around and around and around in circles repeating the same nonsense, over and over, when it's been clearly discredited and the atheist throws up his arms in disgust and can't be bothered wasting their time arguing anymore?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm "guilty" of throwing my arms up like that on a regular basis these days... years back I would just go on and on and on, I burnt out in the end.

I'm not here to debate anymore, I will debate: but that's not what I'm here for anymore.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I have called "time" on debates on many occasions because I feel it's no longer productive. No one has a duty to continue any given debate endlessly.

[The Valkyrie]

It falls under the old adage about playing chess against pigeons.