Originally posted by FMF I think the two week ban for the genocide thread was sufficient.
You seriously want him banned from the site for being who and how he is and for his inflexibility and nonsense?
I do hope you're posting tongue in cheek. Really.
what did Der Schwarze Ritter get a perma ban for?
I do remember he was a hateful little bundle of hate and bigotry. If a 2 week ban is "sufficient" for advocating a genocide, what will earn you a perma ban? talking at the cinema during a movie?
Originally posted by Zahlanzi neither will it convince you to actually debate with me apparently.
Well I disagree with you, if that's what you mean. I am glad you're not in charge of this site. The site owners have their policies, I accept that. But I certainly don't want you to decide whose ideas I am and am not exposed to. I hope the site does not ban Dasa like you suggest.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi what did Der Schwarze Ritter get a perma ban for?
I do remember he was a hateful little bundle of hate and bigotry. If a 2 week ban is "sufficient" for advocating a genocide, what will earn you a perma ban? talking at the cinema during a movie?
Don't know. I didn't and don't support Der Schwarze Ritter being banned.
Originally posted by FMF Well I disagree with you, if that's what you mean. I am glad you're not in charge of this site. The site owners have their policies, I accept that. But I certainly don't want you to decide whose ideas I am and am not exposed to. I hope the site does not ban Dasa like you suggest.
ok, then. let's agree you have a higher tolerance to crp.
Originally posted by FMF Don't know. I didn't and don't support Der Schwarze Ritter being banned.
you don't know why that "person" was banned? but you don't support it anyway? how come? maybe he drowned kittens. maybe he tried to sell child porn on this site. maybe he is a lawyer!!!
why don't you support his banning if you don't know what he did?
Originally posted by Zahlanzi you don't know why that "person" was banned? but you don't support it anyway? how come? maybe he drowned kittens. maybe he tried to sell child porn on this site. maybe he is a lawyer!!!
You seemed to suggest he was banned for being "a hateful little bundle of hate and bigotry". I don't know exactly what he was banned for, but if it was for the kinds of things he used to post, then I do not agree with the ban.
why don't you support his banning if you don't know what he did?
Why should I support his banning? I support the web site's owners right to ban him. But why should I personally have wanted to see him banned?
Originally posted by Dasa " The Commonwealth will not allow any religion to operate that does not have its roots in the eternal truths of the one true eternal religion, and shall not impose any restrictions to the expression of these truths accept that they shall only be interpreted for the benefit of the community by qualified pure and enlightened men, and in which case these characteristics are described and characterized in those eternal teachings."
Too much fluff. Should be:
"The Commonwealth will not allow any religion to operate except the one as described by Dasa (the one and only)."
Originally posted by sonhouse Yeah but when a non-theist brings up a scripture like the one that says a woman is worth 35 sheckels but a man is worth 50, that kind of scripture is poo poo'd:
Mosaic law was given up 2000 years ago was one reply. So it is more than just using scripture, it has to be the NT only. So they get to cherry pick what scripture to base their delusions on.
You believe in the theory of evolution then why not in the evolution of scripture?
Originally posted by FMF You seemed to suggest he was banned for being "a hateful little bundle of hate and bigotry". I don't know exactly what he was banned for, but if it was for the kinds of things he used to post, then I do not agree with the ban.
[b]why don't you support his banning if you don't know what he did?
Why should I support his banning? I support the web site's owners right to ban him. But why should I personally have wanted to see him banned?[/b]
he kept posting bigotry until someday he went too far. or the sum of this posts became enough to ban him. i don't remember the final straw. i just remember that he seemed to hate a lot of groups (or quite probable, his trolling character hated them)
Why should I support his banning? when someone doesn't contribute anything and simply clutters the forum with garbage, then banning is advised.
i don't want dasa banned because i don't agree with him. there are a lot of people i don't agree with. dasa is simply trolling. he could simply create himself a blog and do exactly what he does here: broadcast his opinions.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi when someone doesn't contribute anything and simply clutters the forum with garbage, then banning is advised.
Ah well there you have it. I disagree with this. I don't want or need you to define "garbage" for me or on my behalf. You should simply ignore stuff that you think "doesn't contribute anything" rather than impose your wishes on me through censorship.
Originally posted by Dasa Instead the law should state that............
" The Commonwealth will not allow any religion to operate that does not have its roots in the eternal truths of the one true eternal religion, and shall not impose any restrictions to the expression of these truths accept that they shall only be interpreted for the benefit of the community by qualified pure and enl ...[text shortened]... which case these characteristics are described and characterized in those eternal teachings."
Bump for dasa. I repeat my question from page 1.
Let's suppose this new law which you propose was in fact in place and you were placed in charge of enforcing it.
If I lived in your country and rejected this law by opening practising my own faith which (for example) included eating meat; how would you deal with me and my group of fellow believers?
Originally posted by FMF Ah well there you have it. I disagree with this. I don't want or need you to define "garbage" for me or on my behalf. You should simply ignore stuff that you think "doesn't contribute anything" rather than impose your wishes on me through censorship.
do you believe creationists should be allowed to teach their "perfectly valid alternate theories" in schools? or do you define that as not suitable for a biology class and tell them to go away?
everyone has the right to an opinion . however everyone has the right to not listen to such opinions. in our concrete case it would mean that we have the right to not see his posts on how his faith is the only valid one. just as a gardening forum has the right to ban someone who only talks about raising cattle.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi do you believe creationists should be allowed to teach their "perfectly valid alternate theories" in schools? or do you define that as not suitable for a biology class and tell them to go away?
I certainly do think that children should be taught about creationism in schools, yes.
everyone has the right to an opinion . however everyone has the right to not listen to such opinions. in our concrete case it would mean that we have the right to not see his posts on how his faith is the only valid one. just as a gardening forum has the right to ban someone who only talks about raising cattle.
I reckon you should exercise your "the right to not listen to such opinions [as Dasa's]" by ignoring them, leaving my right to listen to them, if I want to, unscathed. Although this is hardly a case of great import perhaps, on the face of it, one interesting thing to come out of it is how authoritarian and presumptuous your instincts are in their contribution to how we should police ourselves as a community.
Stupid Law
13 Apr '12 08:16
Back to Top