Dear Atheist Forums

[Cinjin]

Maybe it's my age, maybe it's my background in the school of hard knocks, maybe young people today are such fragile creatures but I really can't see what all the fuss is about!
Is it not natural that in the course of often heated debate a little name-calling will occur? Is it not natural that an atheist will feel exasperated at most of what theists spout in their posts?
Is it not natural that debate about politics between atheists of the left and of the right will become heated and that insults will be tossed around?
I prefer honest exchanges such as we have to an authoritarian approach which will neuter genuine debate.
Calling people names never broke any jaws!
I think the balance here is ok as it is.

What's the fuss about? Really? Have you been reading the nature of the threads for the past few weeks. Yes, many are fine, but some are not.

Maybe Adrian's right - maybe it is time to bail if we can't even be rational about a topic like this. Yes bozo, sometimes the balance is just fine. No one here is saying we have to play with kid gloves, but this bare knuckle beat down we've been dishing out has gotten to be a bit much and we are losing people for it.

Honest exchanges are very important, but I think it's bull shit to use free speech and censorship rhetoric as a way to defend rude behavior. We can all be a little nicer and more respectful without the slightest bit of compromise in our debating.


That's it. I'm done.

You disagree with me....that's fine, I am only offering my opinion, yet you seem to be losing your cool already!
If we were to continue batting this around, how long would it take for you to verbally abuse me do you think?

Ridiculous. I did not insult you in any way shape or form. I pointed out the flaw in your logic and so you're playing the martyr. Please.

Where pray tell, do I lose my cool in that post???

[bozo]

Maybe it's my age, maybe it's my background in the school of hard knocks, maybe young people today are such fragile creatures but I really can't see what all the fuss is about!
Is it not natural that in the course of often heated debate a little name-calling will occur? Is it not natural that an atheist will feel exasperated at most of what theists spout in their posts?
Is it not natural that debate about politics between atheists of the left and of the right will become heated and that insults will be tossed around?
I prefer honest exchanges such as we have to an authoritarian approach which will neuter genuine debate.
Calling people names never broke any jaws!
I think the balance here is ok as it is.

What's the fuss about? Really? Have you been reading the nature of the threads for the past few weeks. Yes, many are fine, but some are not.

Maybe Adrian's right - maybe it is time to bail if we can't even be rational about a topic like this. Yes bozo, sometimes the balance is just fine. No one here is saying we have to play with kid gloves, but this bare knuckle beat down we've been dishing out has gotten to be a bit much and we are losing people for it.

Honest exchanges are very important, but I think it's bull shit to use free speech and censorship rhetoric as a way to defend rude behavior. We can all be a little nicer and more respectful without the slightest bit of compromise in our debating.


That's it. I'm done.

You disagree with me....that's fine, I am only offering my opinion, yet you seem to be losing your cool already!
If we were to continue batting this around, how long would it take for you to verbally abuse me do you think?

Ridiculous. I did not insult you in any way shape or form. I pointed out the flaw in your logic and so you're playing the martyr. Please.

Where pray tell, do I lose my cool in that post???

Did I say you insulted me? No.
In your opinion, you see flaws in my logic. Well that's your opinion again.
Playing the martyr? You will need to explain that.
The last 4 words " that's it, I'm done " convey exasperation to me.

[Cinjin]

Did I say you insulted me? No.
In your opinion, you see flaws in my logic. Well that's your opinion again.
Playing the martyr? You will need to explain that.
The last 4 words " that's it, I'm done " convey exasperation to me.

I see. First of all, I wasn't expressing exasperation (although when I re-read it, that does seem to be implied with, "that's it, I'm done") I was merely saying, "that's it, I'm not going to lecture you further". So no, I wasn't exasperated.

Secondly, exasperation isn't losing one's cool and certainly didn't warrant you making the claim that I was going to verbally insult you.
Nothing about my post was meant in hostility ... and I think you already know that.

[bozo]

Did I say you insulted me? No.
In your opinion, you see flaws in my logic. Well that's your opinion again.
Playing the martyr? You will need to explain that.
The last 4 words " that's it, I'm done " convey exasperation to me.

I see. First of all, I wasn't expressing exasperation (although when I re-read it, that does seem to be implied with, "that's it, I'm done") I was merely saying, "that's it, I'm not going to lecture you further". So no, I wasn't exasperated.

Secondly, exasperation isn't losing one's cool and certainly didn't warrant you making the claim that I was going to verbally insult you.
Nothing about my post was meant in hostility ... and I think you already know that.

I accept your explanation over your choice of words and how I construed them.
Now can I respectfully ask that you properly READ my posts before knee-jerking into reaction?
I did not claim outright that you were about to verbally abuse me. Rather I was attempting to show how verbal abuse is always a possibility in a prolonged debate.

[Cinjin]

I accept your explanation over your choice of words and how I construed them.
Now can I respectfully ask that you properly READ my posts before knee-jerking into reaction?
I did not claim outright that you were about to verbally abuse me. Rather I was attempting to show how verbal abuse is always a possibility in a prolonged debate.

There was no knee-jerk. Reading and comprehension was a strong suit of mine in grades school so there is also no need to be condescending to me - as if I cannot understand simple sentences. Your point was not lost on me, it was just blatantly unnecessary. You made a point about verbal abuse to a guy who had just posted on the necessity to show a little more restraint and kindness. I felt at that moment like saying, "thank you Captain Obvious, but I am trying to make that point without you implying that I am the very perpetrator of said actions."

that being said - THIS is the kind of debates we should all be having on this site -- and that was my whole point. Kids gloves are not necessary, nor is censorship or moderation if everyone simply respects the other person --- not the beliefs or ideas of the other person --- just the other person.

We're just trying to see if we can get everyone to ease up on each other and new members a bit. It's not life changing, it doesn't threaten free speech, it doesn't hamper debate, and it sure doesn't make debating on this forum any less legitimate.

cheers

[Napoléon]

Right on Cinjie, I fucking love you man!

[thesummerqueen]

By the way, everyone -

if you really want to take the gloves off and have a "real" discussion with someone, we have a subforum for that. This way, you can say whatever you want to that person without subjecting anyone else to the crossfire. I'm sure mods would be more than happy to split off discussions in that way and send them to the pit.

[bozo]

I accept your explanation over your choice of words and how I construed them.
Now can I respectfully ask that you properly READ my posts before knee-jerking into reaction?
I did not claim outright that you were about to verbally abuse me. Rather I was attempting to show how verbal abuse is always a possibility in a prolonged debate.

There was no knee-jerk. Reading and comprehension was a strong suit of mine in grades school so there is also no need to be condescending to me - as if I cannot understand simple sentences. Your point was not lost on me, it was just blatantly unnecessary. You made a point about verbal abuse to a guy who had just posted on the necessity to show a little more restraint and kindness. I felt at that moment like saying, "thank you Captain Obvious, but I am trying to make that point without you implying that I am the very perpetrator of said actions."

that being said - THIS is the kind of debates we should all be having on this site -- and that was my whole point. Kids gloves are not necessary, nor is censorship or moderation if everyone simply respects the other person --- not the beliefs or ideas of the other person --- just the other person.

We're just trying to see if we can get everyone to ease up on each other and new members a bit. It's not life changing, it doesn't threaten free speech, it doesn't hamper debate, and it sure doesn't make debating on this forum any less legitimate.

cheers

I agree about having a debate like this. However, if you started calling me names, it wouldn't worry or upset me in the slightest and you would, no doubt, expect me to reply in kind.
So, what's the problem?

[Cinjin]

I agree about having a debate like this. However, if you started calling me names, it wouldn't worry or upset me in the slightest and you would, no doubt, expect me to reply in kind.
So, what's the problem?

the occasional burn between two willing participants is fine in my opinion. In the recent past, Frodo and I have often jabbed at each other, even insulting each other's intelligence, but we seem to have a mutual understanding of what is acceptable. Name calling and the gang-up mentality however is damaging the reputation of these forums and it is creating an environment of hostility that leads members and future members to find other venues of debate and conversation.

[bozo]

I agree about having a debate like this. However, if you started calling me names, it wouldn't worry or upset me in the slightest and you would, no doubt, expect me to reply in kind.
So, what's the problem?

the occasional burn between two willing participants is fine in my opinion. In the recent past, Frodo and I have often jabbed at each other, even insulting each other's intelligence, but we seem to have a mutual understanding of what is acceptable. Name calling and the gang-up mentality however is damaging the reputation of these forums and it is creating an environment of hostility that leads members and future members to find other venues of debate and conversation.

What you ( and possibly Frodo ) find acceptable is subjective to you both.
I have been a member here pretty much from when it started and I left for a while because I felt it was becoming authoritarian. I returned and found it less so and all the better for it.
I might choose to leave again, who knows? You take a wrong path, in my opinion, if you seek to control how debate is conducted here.