Moderators are clearly using thier power as mods to shut down debates that they are losing.

Right, we can openly discuss it, except and until the side favored by the mods is getting trounced in the debate, at which point the opposing side must wait days to post.

Well, that’s just not true.

I’m assuming - as indicated above - that you’re talking about Tom. But I can assure you that Tom and I have had no contact about the thread at all.

“I’d like to have an argument, please.”

No. I’m going to guess what happened here because IANAM.
Several months ago there was a thread that went sideways and turned into a trainwreck. The mods tried to tame the participants to no avail and warnings flew. Of course, an ATMB thread followed where many people opined that it would be better to close threads, let the participants refocus on the debate, and then reopen it when emotions were not so high.

It appears to me that what JC did was try a little proactive modding designed to get the thread back within the rules instead of spending his mod time babysitting a thread. YMMV of course.

Closing threads for the purpose of stifling debate stifle is bad form, and it is terrible moderation.

The latest thread that was closed is one in which the side favored by the moderators clearly lost.

These are the precise methods used by Stormfront.org to cultivate an image that they allow open debate by those who oppose their views, while still “proving” that the Holocaust did not happen and “proving” that blacks are inferior to them. It’s the same lopsided governance, and they pour out the same style of stupid jokey self-congratulatory nonsense when the discussions are limited and shut down, as they are here. The similarities are quite telling.

OK, fair enough. Then why exactly are you closing the threads?

That was an 18-month-old zombie thread you bumped in order to continue the debate in the closed threads.

It remains unclear to me what relevance Muhammad’s personal life has, let alone how it can win or lose anything of importance.

No, it is a different debate. I came across the article that I posted to it recently, but refrained from adding it because there were, at the time, already two active threads about Islam in the forum. That is why you don’t seethis story posted in either of the other, now closed, threads. Once those discussions were terminated, that reason no longer existed. But it is now clear that the desired limit on the number of ongoing discussions containing strong, informed criticism of Islam is not one, or two, or three, but zero.

Censorship?

I must say I’m very disappointed at the quality of the current mod-villains. I mean I know they are afraid of dissenting views: that’s the only motivation I can conceive of for closing a thread that had gone on for 30 pages. That’s 1459 posts for those keeping count.

Oh and we’re suppose to be fair now? Tyranny!

That just shows the strength of their delusion that their positions could be supported using reason. I guess that much longer threads on Stormfront “debating” whether or not the Holocaust actually happened would convince you of their mod-villain’s tolerance for dissenting views…

I didn’t realize Stormfront considered the matter debatable. Are the threads just an endless litany of variations on “of course not!” ?

You know, I tried to join a debate on Islam in the Great Debates forum: thread closed.

I tried to have a discussion about that thread closing in this forum: thread closed.

I joined another debate on Islam in the Great Debates forum: thread closed.

I felt the moderators deserved insulting for such intolerance of the open discussion of ideas, so I went to the Pit, the one forum designated for insults: thread closed.

Back to Great Debates to continue an old debate, since the other threads discussing similar topics were no more: thread closed.

And here we are.

Hank, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but it seems like you have a serious hard-on for Islam. You’re talking about arguments and threads that were started 2 years ago. I’m not Muslim, and I don’t claim to know a lot about it, but it seems like you’re obsessed with trying to get other people to agree with you on this, and you can’t handle someone having a differing opinion.

No, they are very similar to the threads on Islam here. They put a great deal of effort into cultivatnig an image of being open to debate, and of being able to defend their views. They allow a certain degree of discussion, but use their power to close threads and give warnings about “staying on topic” and “refusing to respond to the actual topic and only repeating yourself” when robust refutations of their denialist rhetoric are consistently provided.

This brings to mind an observation I once had about Elizabeth Taylor: if you’ve been married and divorced 8 times, it’s you. It’s not the other person.

If you post in threads that are active about Islam, and all of them end up getting locked after you post, then the obvious deduction is that you’re the reason they’re getting closed. Perhaps you should take a good look at your posting style.

Uh-Huh. Well, I’d ask how a bunch of cites of a historical case of what we’d now consider to be statutory rape proves anything about the modern practice of Islam, but that runs the risk of you telling me.

If the mods wanted to stifle debate, why would they let the thread run for thirty pages before closing it?

I read this message board a lot, but do not post on a lot of topics. This is because there is not usually much that I could add that is not being provided by others. One exception is when the subject of Islam comes up, where the level of ignorance and apology is typically, with exceptions, sky high. Once the SDMB gets an ex-Muslim versed in classical Arabic as a regular poster, I will be glad to go back to lurking while she makes this place look like a room full of pre-schoolers. I am not holding my breath, however, as these people have there hands full liberating themselves and trying to find ways to help their counterparts avoid suicide and escape states where they could be killed or imprisoned for their beliefs.

No that’s not an obvious deduction at all. Another one, and the one that is obvious in this case, is that some people are just not tolerant of robust criticism of Islam. Like, if you think about it, this chain of logic you are using could be used to claim some pretty ridiculous stuff.