(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.
If that is where you want to draw the line, that's fine and I can respect that. At the same time the difference is so slight as to be insignificant. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between saying (as the OP does) "Religious belief conditions people to literally think and act like children." and "Theists think and act like children from religious conditioning."
(November 14, 2017 at 2:24 pm)LastPoet Wrote: As far as I can, I will not shut down someone from speaking their mind in an open reasoned way.
I wouldn't want to see that either. Personally, that is why I think the prime directive is problematic. I don't have to read or participate on any thread (or the forum on a whole) if I don't want to. I can see banning obscenity, inciting violence, and topics that could subject AF to legal scrutiny, such as child-you-know-what. However, administration is getting into the business of divining the intentions of posters. As a result we are having these kinds of discussions about where to draw the line in censoring members.
