1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    01 Mar '05 02:35
    Suppose tomorrow a radical Islamic Fundamental joined RHP. Suppose he started to barge into virtually every thread in the Debate Forum posting "Allah Akbar" and how Allah is the only true God? Suppose he told every poster who disagreed with him or indicated some doubt that Allah was the one true God, that the other person was going to Hell forever? Suppose he posted that Allah thought it was OK to kill in his name so long as the people killed were "evil" i.e. non-believers?

    Do people think that our hypothetical Islamic Fundamentalist would be allowed to continue to post? Do people think he should be?
  2. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    01 Mar '05 02:39
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Suppose tomorrow a radical Islamic Fundamental joined RHP. Suppose he started to barge into virtually every thread in the Debate Forum posting "Allah Akbar" and how Allah is the only true God? Suppose he told every poster who disagreed with him or indicated some doubt that Allah was the one true God, that the other person was going to Hell forever? Sup ...[text shortened]... tical Islamic Fundamentalist would be allowed to continue to post? Do people think he should be?
    Sphin kters ay swhat!

    P
  3. Not Kansas
    Joined
    10 Jul '04
    Moves
    6405
    01 Mar '05 02:42
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Suppose tomorrow a radical Islamic Fundamental joined RHP. Suppose he started to barge into virtually every thread in the Debate Forum posting "Allah Akbar" and how Allah is the only true God? Suppose he told every poster who disagreed with him or indicated some doubt that Allah was the one true God, that the other person was going to Hell forever? Sup ...[text shortened]... tical Islamic Fundamentalist would be allowed to continue to post? Do people think he should be?
    This has happened already but with another religion. I suspect the Islamist whacko would be given less tolerance than the Jesus Freaks because of political opinions-eg most RHP posters seem to be Westerners and many westerners still tolerate biblical nonsense.
  4. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    01 Mar '05 03:45
    Originally posted by KneverKnight
    This has happened already but with another religion. I suspect the Islamist whacko would be given less tolerance than the Jesus Freaks because of political opinions-eg most RHP posters seem to be Westerners and many westerners still tolerate biblical nonsense.
    Yes, and most Westerners are at least familiar with the Christian paradigm. They may tolerate biblical nonsense because it's at least familiar, and they are pretty much aware that it's not the whole of Christianity. But a lot of Westerners, I think, believe it may be the whole of Islam, because that's pretty much all they see on the TV. I wonder if there are any non-radical, non-fundamentalist Muslims on RHP...
  5. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    01 Mar '05 04:40
    Originally posted by no1marauder


    Do people think that our hypothetical Islamic Fundamentalist would be allowed to continue to post? Do people think he should be?
    He would not be allowed to continue to post. I can think of one particular example of a controversial member who was banned primarily because other users grew uncomfortable with his ideas, even though he expressed them within the boundaries of the ToS to a more compliant extent than many other users who have not been banned. It is this precedent upon which I base my prediction.

    He should be allowed to post so long as other religious ideas are allowed to be expressed, and so long as he does not otherwise violate the ToS, as the ToS does not forbid religious expression. A clause in the ToS specifically forbidding expression of ideas of Islamic faith would be an abomination.

    Dr. S
  6. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    01 Mar '05 04:44
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    He would not be allowed to continue to post.
    Sadly, I believe that would come true.

    Nemesio
  7. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    01 Mar '05 04:56
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    He would not be allowed to continue to post. I can think of one particular example of a controversial member who was banned primarily because other users grew uncomfortable with his ideas, even though he expressed them within the boundaries of the ToS to a more compliant extent than many other users who have not been banned. It is this precedent u ...[text shortened]... specifically forbidding expression of ideas of Islamic faith would be an abomination.

    Dr. S
    So you think, say, a Muslim "Darfius" would be banned?
  8. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    01 Mar '05 05:02
    Originally posted by vistesd
    So you think, say, a Muslim "Darfius" would be banned?
    Yes. Because our squeaky wheels here happen to be Christian, that's a result that I would expect. If our squeaky wheels here happened to be Muslim, the current Darfius would be long gone.
  9. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    01 Mar '05 05:04
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Yes. Because our squeaky wheels here happen to be Christian, that's a result that I would expect. If our squeaky wheels here happened to be Muslim, the current Darfius would be long gone.
    Again, I wish I could honestly say that I disagree, but I cannot.

    Nemesio
  10. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    01 Mar '05 05:12
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Yes. Because our squeaky wheels here happen to be Christian, that's a result that I would expect. If our squeaky wheels here happened to be Muslim, the current Darfius would be long gone.
    I hate to belabor this, but I'm just trying to get the picture here. How about a Muslim who argued, let's say, civilly but aggressively--someone who didn't condemn others to hell (or even suggest it), but who bluntly argued that their religion was wrong where it disagreed with Islam? How tightly do you think the line would be drawn for a Muslim?
  11. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    01 Mar '05 05:23
    Originally posted by vistesd
    How tightly do you think the line would be drawn for a Muslim?
    It depends how soundly he argued. The sounder the argument, the quicker the others would grow uncomfortable and seek easy remedy and relief via complaints to the administration. If he presented his views in the same unpersuasive manner as RBHILL, he might have a good chance of survival, as the squeaky wheels get most upset when shortcomings within their set of beliefs are exposed and challenged in a worthy manner.

    Dr. S
  12. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23684
    01 Mar '05 05:38
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Suppose tomorrow a radical Islamic Fundamental joined RHP. Suppose he started to barge into virtually every thread in the Debate Forum posting "Allah Akbar" and how Allah is the only true God? Suppose he told every poster who disagreed with him or indicated some doubt that Allah was the one true God, that the other person was going to Hell forever? Sup ...[text shortened]... tical Islamic Fundamentalist would be allowed to continue to post? Do people think he should be?

    You are the one who is taking the "anything goes" stance on the "Freedom of Speech" issue.
  13. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23684
    01 Mar '05 05:41

    Suppose there were people on the site who would agree with killing not based on religious ideas, but on secular beliefs ...
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    01 Mar '05 05:44
    Originally posted by ivanhoe

    You are the one who is taking the "anything goes" stance on the "Freedom of Speech" issue.
    I'm not taking a position, just asking a hypothetical question. And I've never said that "anything goes" on RHP as you well know.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    01 Mar '05 05:46
    Originally posted by ivanhoe

    Suppose there were people on the site who would agree with killing not based on religious ideas, but on secular beliefs ...
    Since you do not agree with "anything goes" as far as speech, do you think people who favor mass murder of other people on religious grounds should be allowed to post on RHP?
Back to Top