Litmus test

[worldslaziestbusker]

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

I want people to be aware of the ethical implications of what they write. As I mentioned earlier, our scratchings in the dust such as these will likely last beyond the life of the author, so having people state that theist X deserves to be tortured for action Y and go unchallenged by the forum population is disheartening. Either no-one is thinking about the issues or no-one cares enough to speak up against the majority for fear of making themselves unpopular.
The forum already has rules about abuse, but I would like to see the atheist members of forums such as this pull each other up when abuse occurs. Without such individual concern and will to defend against injustice, what right do any of us have to call for injustices against us to be brought to an end?

I know from experience that everyone fails to live up to that standard at one point or another.

You can't know that from experience because that would require you to know everything about everyone. Big assumptions afoot. Take care with your superlatives.

I mean, if you're saying, "Stop the abuse," no one will disagree with you, and that's effectively a meaningless point to make.

It is a meaningless point you make, in turn, if abuse occurs and no-one speaks up about it.

But I can certainly agree that verbal abuse is weak argumentation. I usually scroll past such posts in boredom.

If you ignore abuse in that form, why not ignore it altogether. Where do you draw your line in the sand and how do you defend that decision? What, to you, is minimum intent to harm at which something warrants comment or action? Waiting until someone is making credible threats of physical violence seems to be a bit of a gate after the horse has bolted situation.

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.

And if their intent is to source evidence that atheists are abusive assholes with not ethical leg to stand on, what merit has the abuse they receive?

---

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.

Criticism and abuse are not the same thing.

Logic doesn't care about democracy, only about whether or not a conclusion follows from the premises. If you choose to accept abuse of forum members because the majority of members are okay with it, you have created a moral construct, but not an ethical one.
Theists have created moral constructs and enforced them by arguments from popularity and I'm not impressed by their efforts. Or yours.

---

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.

It's not a line in the sand, it's an axis about which you can choose to swing. Failing to acknowledge that abuse is binary requires that you draw a line in the sand somewhere along the spectrum of harm that abuse causes, which is both arbitrary and requires that harm be the measure, leaving intent to cause harm out of the equation.

I don't care if you find me arrogant. If there is a flaw in my case, point it out to me and I'll be forced to change. Simply calling me arrogant and not backing it up with a coherent case is, in itself, arrogant.
Think of the number of times you've read theists ranting about the arrogance of atheism and ponder whether simply labelling someone arrogant actually makes that the case. Arrogance has definitonal parameters and unless I fit them, the taxonomy is flawed. Willingness to change my ideas in the face of compelling evidence is my key evidence that I am not arrogant, but you have to provide that evidence before I am compelled to change. Names alone won't do the job.

---

Finally, you suggest that we should determine abuse by intent. Good luck with that. Intent is extremely difficult to determine even in court cases, and it's often completely subjective (based on a heartfelt testimony or, worse, jailhouse conversions to evangelical Christianity or Islam).

Since my primary concern in this thread is that people assess their own intentions and avoid being an asshole at every opportunity, a court is not required.

---

If you want to knock my argument for six and show that unnecessary suffering is not abuse, please provide me with an example of intended harm with no benefit to the victim which you would defend as ethical. If you can do this without falling into the ethical pitfalls of negating your own rights, I will have to rescind my point.