This I understand and completely agree with. Of course it is still a judgement call for the Mods.
Jim
Quite correct. It is of a piece with the rest of his behavior - he is here only to annoy Christians. Which is why he targetted Polycarp and now tomndebb.
Show of hands - is there anyone who, considering all of his behavior to date, thinks he should not be banned?
Regards,
Shodan
Hmm, trying to taunt prr into posting? 
I gotta start posting more again. I coulda beena contendah!
My motivation for calling Jesus a cunt, stems from my belief that Jesus is a cunt (meaning a contemptible person in this context). In my book any god that intends to torture/kill people for not worshiping it is a cunt. Any god that intends to torture/kill people for sins he predestinates them to make is a first order cunt. YMMV, but my insult is sincere.
I don’t think he should be banned for being here only to confront Christians. If we eliminated everybody whose love of this place came at least partly from scoring points off their enemies (or imagining they have done so), we’d be left with nothing but traffic- and weather-based Pittings. And I think it’s important to be restrictive in banning zealots because they might be trolls. A lot of people might be trolls. You, for example, Shodan. Are you really sure you, of all people, want to call for a popular vote on troll-bans? I’m not saying you are one – I don’t know or care – but I know that your fringe perspective and confrontative personality make you a ripe target for the accusation.
However, I think they should make a no stalking rule. If there is already one, I don’t know why he hasn’t been banned, because the Polycarp Incident was outfuckingrageous and overt.
Along the lines of Zoe’s observation, I heard this in the voice of a radio announcer.
"This is The Pit Asshole, reporting live from the site of the Hindenberg disaster. I’m currently watching a bunch of people run around on fire. It looks like a herd of giant camp marshmallows with legs. Oh, the hilarity. Over by the blockhouse, I can see one man, on his knees, praying. How foolish, wasting his time begging for mercy from a cunty spirit who doesn’t even exist. Now for a word from Powdermilk Biscuits. Heavens, they’re tasty, and they make you fart too. Yeah, smell that Holy Spirit, coming right out of my ass. What? Fuck you, this is my microphone. This is my microphone and I’m using it! Fuck! Fuck!" <sounds of struggle>
I find the choice of words here interesting. Not “I am not a troll” but “I never admitted to being a troll.” Well, I’ve got news for you, sunshine. Whatever you may or may not have admitted to, we all know exactly what you are.
And so do you, you bovine asswrinkle. So. Do. You.
Just ban the fucker already.
Poor badchad. The lad is mad. What a sad day badchad has had.
This sap doesn’t require banning – did you kick the kids out of the house when they started measuring your reaction to naughty words?
I swear, I’ve rarely seen a poster with so many handicaps. I mean, the name alone – yeesh. “Bad Leroy Brown,” now, that’s tough. “bad chad,” well, that’s a kid who wrote on the wallpaper with crayon just a little too long after he became too old for it to be cute anymore.*
Other than the tediously repetitive insults and obscenities, s/he’s just another kid who tripped over a tautology (in this case, that a miracle violates natural laws) and thinks him/herself the discoverer of a Great Truth. It’s the kind of stupidity people routinely grow out of.
No, the tragedy of this poster isn’t that the worst s/he can dish out is intolerable, because here we are, tolerating it – the tragedy is that her/his best efforts aren’t exactly worth the price of admission either. A blind pig will occasionally find a truffle, but a truly obtuse disputant will just keep pushing the same pile of dirt around until it finally disappears somewhere into his head. And that’s the case here (if anyone can find the jewel of insight, the flash of humor, the glimmer of intelligence in the badchad archives, please bring it here: it will help my argument against banning the sap).
I endorse Mtgman’s theory that some posters write for the benefit of some real or imagined hidden audience (I’ll bet I might make his list too), and that frequently a persistently wrongheaded and fact-abuse-and-ridicule-resistant member is using the SDMB not to advance any debate but simply to advertise him/herself as the local leading exponent of this or that repellent idiocy. In the past, I’ve advanced that theory myself about some posters. I’m not sure that’s the case here, though, mostly because even the most militant atheists are unlikely to be attracted to the kind of simpleminded, abusive drivel constituting badchad’s entire stock in trade. But s/he might be as insensitive to that subtlety as s/he is to everything else that may obtrude upon his/her consciousness.
But banning? Phooey. That’s for actual problems with the board, not nuisances with delusions of grandeur. Does anyone think either Polycarp or Tomndebb feels anything but pity and maybe a molecule of impatience at the willful ignorance and impotent spitting that’s on display? As Shodan says, show of hands?
*And no, renaming him/herself “Korg, the implacable sodomizer of chocolate bunnies” is not going to help at this point.
Are you sure? That might actually help. He should seriously consider your sujestion.
I find it interesting that you use the present tense in this phrase. “Jesus is a cunt.” So what you’re saying is that you believe that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ DID rise from the grave, DID ascend into Heaven, and WILL come again to reign in glory from on high! Halleluijah!
Because, you know, otherwise I would’ve expected you to use the past tense. YMMV.
So you haven’t really been following along have you Cervaise?
Tom made the specific claim that I was a self admitted troll. I denied that. Problem? I also said that my statements were not consistent with the definition of trolling as per the SDMB. The latter part pretty much means I don’t think I’m a troll either. I’m sorry that these finer points confuse you.
I think badchad can maybe be defended on the “Jesus is a cunt” thing. He’s an asshole for saying it but maybe not a troll.
The thing is that he’s baited people in much more obvious ways, for which he should be held accountable. He was obviously trying to bait Monty in this thread, but it’s the pit so it’s probably allowed.
He also has baited people in other forums- I’d say he was trying to provoke Tom in the linked thread. In the past when debates haven’t gone the way he wanted them to he’d start saying “you’re just being greedy”, or else he’d pull out non-sequitor insults of Christianity.
If you think I am a troll in the same way as the poster in question is, I honestly think your judgement is skewed.
Especially since I was careful to post “considering all of his behavior to date”. And, “considering all of his behavior to date”, you agree that he should be banned.
I wasn’t asking for a popular vote on bans. I was pointing out that it is excruciatingly obvious to practically everyone that he is a troll. Even you.
So - what was your point?
Regards,
Shodan
Directly in the username. Can you honestly look me in the username and tell me you don’t understand that there is a difference between conceding that a particular concept exists and giving that concept any validity whatsoever?
Saying that insulting a person’s god is like insulting a person’s leader implies to me that there is a fundamental refusal or inability to recognize that there are magnitudes of difference between the concept of “god” and the concept of “human leader”. Note that I am neither arguing nor demanding that the concept be given any respect whatsoever by you or by anyone; rather, I am pointing out that as a concept (even a fallacious one) it is obviously quantitatively different than the concept of “leader” or “mother,” to the extent that, in the eyes of a believer, insulting their god is not like insulting their mother or their leader. It’s worse. It’s way worse, obviously. Does that mean we should prohibit it? No. I’m not much of a fan of blanket prohibitions on types of speech.
I’m not even that interested in changing hearts and minds. But ISTM self-evident that if you want to discourse with someone for any reason, be it to change them or to educate yourself or just to engage in a spirited debate, then it would behoove you to be at least minimally civil to them. Because if you are not, they aren’t going to talk to you, they’re going to walk away. Maybe they tell you to fuck off as they go, or maybe not, but go they will. Because very few people are invested enough in any debate to stand in a shit-storm to engage in it. So the question becomes: What is it you want to do? Talk? Learn? Teach? Or just fling poo? IMO, badchad is a prime example of a person who is so obviously intentionally outrageously offensive that his larger point – assuming he has one – may be dismissd out of hand. Because if he was actually interested in making a point and being heard, he wouldn’t be intentionally offending the people he professes to wish to talk to.
Actually, this is not true. Civility is highly valued in the courtroom, depictions on TV notwithstanding. Attorneys are officers of the court and they are expected to conduct themselves with propriety and to treat the court, staff, opposing counsel, and all witnesses with civility and respect. They are subject to being held in contempt of court if they fail to do so.
If what he is looking for is an opportunity to declaim without opposition, then he should get a blog. ISTM obvious that he intentionally alienates anyone who might challenge his rather facile positions, thus making himself the “winner” by virtue of being the only one left on the field. But what kind of Phyrric victory is that? If you’ve procured others’ silence not through the force and persuasion of your argument but only through outrageous offensiveness, what exactly have you won?
You speak only for yourself, obviously. I’m not playing to some gallery, I’m talking to you. Am I aware that others may read this as well? Of course. But that doesn’t mean my chief goal is to talk to them instead of talking to you – or that I am willing to in any way sacrifice my ability to talk to you in order to “play” to them. I don’t see why we should accept some new “paradigm” that accepts talking past each other as some form of communication. In fact, it’s completely through the looking glass: classifying non-communication as communication. If you want a soap-box, get a blog. If you want to discuss, be at least minimally civil in order to foster discussion. And I do mean minimally civil – it’s not like the Pit has high standards, yet people still manage to talk to each other rather than at each other more often than not. badchad is an exception to that general rule, and I believe intentionally so. He is NOT looking to talk to people, he’s looking to talk AT them. That doesn’t put any onus on the “peanut gallery” to listen. I know I don’t.
I haven’t said that any of them deserve protection. But there is no reason for me or for anyone who doesn’t know you well to know that you feel very strongly about TR or AL, to the point of becoming mortally offended if insult is offered to either one. For anyone with a fundamental understand of a what a diety is, OTOH, there is an obviously high probability that insulting the diety to the faces of those whom you know believe in the diety – that will very likely mortally offend them. You can’t say, “Gee, I didnt’ know it was completely offensive to say that!” Heck, even badchad is not so disingenuous as to pretend he wasn’t aware that was what he was doing. So the better analogy, although still not great, is your mother. There is a pretty universal understanding that moms are off-limits for insults as well – which is why a serious insult (not something of the “yo mama” variety) to one’s mother is universally considered very insulting indeed. This doesn’t mean you like the mother in question – you may think she’s the biggest bitch that ever walked the earth – but only that you are minimally respectful enough of the person you’re talking to to avoid insulting something you can safely assume is very important to them. You can’t reasonably expect a person to make that assumption about Teddy Roosevelt; you can reasonably expect a person to make tha assumption about Allah, if they know you are Muslim.
You don’t have to be troll to be banned, although I do find his behavior towards Poly and Tom to be extremely and obviously trollish. But you can be banned for being plain old garden-variety jerk. You admit his behavior is “stupid and immature” and intends to provoke. Doesnt’ that meet your definiton of being a jerk? And isn’t the cardinal rule around here “Don’t be a jerk”?
He’s a jerk (to say the least); he’s a troll; he’s fresh off suspension and the very first thing he does is resume attacking Tom. He’s been here long enough to know the rules but he is incapable of following them. Why the hell he wasn’t banned long ago is beyond me.
Whatever, dude. If that’s the best, most descriptive word you can cull from moldy, twelve page thesaurus in your mind you don’t stand a chance to be anything here but a screaming, blithering idiot. You are the horror movie cliche, straitjacketed loon in the SDMB’s metaphorical basement.
I guess everyone has to have a hobby, though.
So, you are a troll in a different way? Tom! Monty! Another admission of trollery! It’s a dead lock, don’t let him backpedal!
I’ve been following this thread with interest.
badchad Is a twat, I know it, you know it, we all know it…hell even he knows it himself.
Whatever happened to DNFTT.
I’m gone
Why should we assume that religious people feel all that strongly about God? Most don’t go to church or actually pray regularly. If a voice thundered in their head “Renounce your family! Renounce your country! They are obstacles in your worship of me!” how many people would follow the advice, as opposed to getting some nice anti-psychotic drugs? How many would pull and Abraham and unflinchingly kill their child on command?
Yes, I do agree. I also think he should be and will be banned. I was simply debating that it is his overall actions of which the Jesus insult is only one small part that makes him a jerk and not simply the Jesus insult. If the only thing he did was insult Jesus, I would never think he should be banned. It is the stalking, provoking and everything else he seems to do as a complete package.
Heck I personally would forgive him everything but the stalking if he had been making any other contribution to the board. I got grief for defending PRR, but I defended him as he did add a lot to the board in other areas. I will continue to defend Der Trihs and others. I see no reason to defend BC. This is of course just sharing my views, I can hope to persuade other, but I of course expect little success.
Jim
So you are pleading insufficiency of vocabulary? There is a legitimate argument to be made that there are aspects of Christian theology that can lead one to believe that God is not loving, more evil than good, even monstrous. Christians have been having that debate for many centuries. Does the word cunt actually convey what you are trying to convey? It is a strong pejorative, but it is actually rather weak as a conveyor of meaning. I think you know that.