RE: Question about latest forum rule
November 14, 2017 at 3:21 pm
(This post was last modified: November 14, 2017 at 3:22 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(November 14, 2017 at 3:08 pm)LastPoet Wrote:(November 14, 2017 at 2:54 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: 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.
It is not divining. Any member here (including you and me) does generalizations. From time to time, even without noticing. If the OP said that, it is up to you and other theists to prove her wrong, and pointing out that faulty generalization would do just the trick.
There is a difference between "theism is literally childish" and "theists are retarded". The OP did made a case and it offended you. I also get offended by many things, to witch I retort or go somewhere else. not bothering.
About the issue, the staff is thinking about it, despite your casual ribbing at our attempt to remain objective.
Right. We're not retarded, we just weren't "raised properly", among many other things. :eyeroll:
No one is objecting the thread title. It's the content. The content is all unflattering generalized claims about all thesists.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
