(November 14, 2017 at 2:47 pm)LastPoet Wrote:(November 14, 2017 at 2:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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.
I don't see why/how that thread is not provocative, and you're not really explaing why. Every theist here felt provoked by it. As I carefully described on the OP, it seems to fit all 3 criteria that would make a thread be against the rules. If I made a thread titled "atheism is childish" and went on to make rash, unflattering generalizations about all atheist people without asking for clarification, or specifying that this is merely my personal observation, you better believe it would be plenty provocative.
When the rule was first made, I specifically pointed out that whether or not a thread is provocative depends on who it's targeting, because a thread here against liberals is going to be much more provocative than one against conservatives, for example. I was assured that this would not change anything.
Anyway, I'm not trying to argue, but the thing is you're not really answering the question I'm asking on this thread. You're merely saying "I don't think it's provocative" but not explaining why or addressing my points.
"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
