(November 14, 2017 at 2:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(November 14, 2017 at 2:24 pm)LastPoet Wrote: The Thread in question does not fall within the Prime directive IMO. We have recently acted on one that did. Why?
The thread adresses theism per se and the OP has posited a thorough case, that albeit offensive to some theists, has the merit of being a discussion starter. If it offends one, one should retort. Its the thing of this forum.
I don't think we should do anything when Mathilda presented her case, open for discussion, to reply back to the points raised by others. It is what a forum should be.
As far as I can, I will not shut down someone from speaking their mind in an open reasoned way.
My bold.
The thread makes generalized assertions about theist people. I have copied and pasted these assertions on the OP of this thread.
Example: "They are taught that the consequences of their actions are irrelevant", "They were not raised properly to begin with."
So I am no closer to understanding why this doesn't break the rule about generalizations and provocation.
As for the rest of your post, are you saying then that it's ok to make wild generalizations about entire groups of people so long as the author explains (without facts to back it up) why the people are what they are claiming them to be? I don't remember that as being a caveat to the rule, can you point that out?
There is no caveat. You just don't understand the rule. We act on those that do. And I see no provocation. If the topic fitted you as a cinderella shoe, it is your problem.
It didn't seem like provocation to me so yeah.
The rule is not there to silence people's opinions. Its to stop those that just want to create a thread for the sake of provocation. This is not one of them.
You disagree with the OP? Grab your wits and reason it as to why is wrong.
