Debate / Discussion (FYI)

[reverendjeremiah]

so we are all supposed to act like vulcans or something?

Can I accidentally use the Vulcan Death Grip on some of the morons?

That would be nice. Just a neck pinch and "ack!" down for the count..I win th argument!

Also, Im not trying to be an asshat, but I want to see the logical arguments to support the forum rules below (because the rules state that it is okay to discuss the rules):

Atheist Forums reserves the right to enforce the following rules as the staff see fit. This is so that people cannot use the literal meaning of the rules to defeat the spirit of the rules.

How can the members be held to logic, when the staff has the ability to enforce the rules as they see fit? could you please post the logical formula for this conclusion?

We believe in freedom of speech / expression, which means you can discuss your ideas without fear of censorship or limitation, provided you are not breaking the rules & guidelines below.

Please post the logical formulations that support a "belief" in freedom of speech. I also want to know how the staff can enforce only logical discussion and NOT break the rule of "without fear of censorship or limitation". Logic only sounds like a huge limitation to me.

Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed, as are off-handed comments that do not escalate into flame wars. Staff will take the context of each insult into consideration before taking action.

How is this logical and not emotional? As long as I post something illogical and it doesnt produce a flame war, then it is okay? If that is true then my warning was uncalled for, as there was no flame war between me and mehmet. Then again, the staff can arbitrarily decide what is in compliance and what is not... show me the logical formulas behind this?

Members are not permitted to add any member of staff to their ignore list. Doing so will result in a warning and persistent offenders will be banned.

A long time ago i got into an argument with Tack. I put him on ignore which instantly got me banned. I never received a warning not to put him on ignore. Logic is flawless, if members are to be held to the upper tiers of logical discussion, then why are not the staff also included?

Although we cannot be responsible for private information you choose to reveal in your posts. Members, moderators, and administrators are not allowed to make public the personal information of other member either on this forum or elsewhere. Anyone caught posting another person's private information without proper consent will be banned immediately.

What is the logical formula that backs up this "right to privacy"? Or is it an illogical idealism?

Lets be honest here... logic is something that is inhuman and very difficult for people to follow.

I wonder if my warning level will be rated up again for asking these questions?