Question about latest forum rule

[Catholic_Lady]

Your quotes are also not all quotes. For example where did anyone say "They were not properly raised to begin with" ?

Wow, hadn't caught this lol.

Everything was copied and pasted directly from the thread in question. That includes "They were not properly raised to begin with."

[LastPoet]

So I say, if the tone of this forum is to improve it is not up to the 5 or 6 active theists to “call-out” the bigotry or correct the hostile mischaracterizations directed our way. Our respected atheistic members, that are legion, need to step up to the plate and do a little more self-enforcement rather than making apologies for such...bullshit...or giving it a pass just because the offending party is a fellow atheist.

/modOff
Atheists legion? like herding cats. As to your accusations, its something YOU do when you are at the end of your wits. It's your pattern and I see it. Been here long enough that this is your shtick.

As to offending party, I dunno what you mean. Actually the last time we acted on the prime directive, it was an atheist 'fellow' as you say.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

I don't think we should do anything when Mathilda presented her case, open for discussion, to reply back to the points raised by others. It is what a forum should be.

As far as I can, I will not shut down someone from speaking their mind in an open reasoned way.

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?

[vorlon13]

this area is for questions, and answers

additionally, the mods do now have a report on the thread so I'm thinking this discussion needs to wind down and let the mod staff process the report.

thanks everyone

[I_am_not_mafia]

Your quotes are also not all quotes. For example where did anyone say "They were not properly raised to begin with" ?

You did in the OP!

Yes I realised that afterwards. I completely forgot about it and did a search for the phase but did not find it. I did edit my post but then realised that CL had quoted it so put it back in again.

Now that I am back home and have had time to reflect, I do admit that I could have worded the OP better. When I was writing the post I was squinting at a screen that seemed like a glaring sun a week after an eye operation so did not spend as much time as I usually do reflecting on my post.

I've also only now just realised because of CL's thread just how angry I have become at the effect of the infantilising religious indoctrination on my older brother. The stuff he believes in is ludicrous and his cult is slowly becoming his new family.

I do fully and sincerely stand by what I said in the OP and the rest of the thread though. It is what I genuinely believe. But I could have phrased the OP better and for that I apologise. I also apologise to any mods if I have put them in a difficult position.

I did not realise until now how the thread has increased my stress levels, which is definitely something to be avoided now I know that I have MS so I shall partake of the peace pipe   and ease back on replying to the thread unless there is something new to be said.

[LastPoet]

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.

I don't think we should do anything when Mathilda presented her case, open for discussion, to reply back to the points raised by others. It is what a forum should be.

As far as I can, I will not shut down someone from speaking their mind in an open reasoned way.

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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."

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I sincerely apologize for my 'Mr Poopy Head' remark in the thread under discussion. 

Boru

[LastPoet]

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.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.