If the question was “Was Jesus divine?” or “Are Ghosts real?” then the question could have been answered with a resounding NO! without any repercusions. I have already pointed out that one could deny the validity of the question, as long as one couched it in terms of the question’s point of reference.
Dio hammers away with his personal beliefs regarding Moses and the Exodus, the divinity of Jesus, and any number of other topics all the time with no repercussions, (until he begins posting his personal beliefs as unassailable facts–and even then he tends to be allowed a lot of latitude). However, when the question is placed within a particular frame of reference, simply shouting “IT’S FALSE!” serves no purpose but to slam the door shut on the actual point of discussion.
We already went through this with threads on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. When questions were raised regarding the internal beliefs of the church, a number of posters felt duty bound to hijack the threads with cries of “SMITH WAS A FRAUD!” I am, personally, quite willing to believe that Smith may have been either a fraud or deluded, I certainly do not believe in sixth century B.C.E. submarines carrying whole nations across the Atlantic, and I am quite sure that no indigenous American peoples descended from the “lost tribes” of Israel, but the charges against Smith have nothing to do with learning about what, in fact, his followers believe today, (as opposed to the stories their opponents make up about them).
I do not expect you to accept my arguments because you seem prefer that the SDMB preach your belief system over others’. [ ::: shrug ::: ] I have already noted that pointing out errors, in context of the discussion, would be fine. The prohibition is simply against shouting down ideas instead of shooting down ideas.
I doubt that you “see” anything–at least clearly–and I really don’t know what you are trying to claim. There are more religious themes in that area than not. There are discussions of ghosts, perhaps fairies, a bit of homeopathy, and nearly all the rest is, coincidentally, religious in nature. Chi/Qi, auras, all those sort of things tend to fall near the boundaries of religion. I certainly have never spent any considerable time defending my own beliefs. I simply recognize that we used to have informative discussions about a lot more topics ten years ago before it became a reflexive act for a certain group of posters to prevent any discussion of things they do not believe.
I have never interfered in any thread that was denying the foundations of any belief system when the system, itself, was the topic. I am only saying that we should permit discussions based on the internal logic of any belief system to allow greater knowledge of that system–that is fighting ignorance. (Heck, we let people argue over Economics all the time and that appears to be an entirely imaginary system of beliefs.) I have also not said that no one should ever be permitted to express disbelief in such a discussion, only that the mindless shouts of “THE SYSTEM IS FALSE” are counterproductive.
The prohibition in GQ is nonexistent, because wiser heads than yours moved the thread to a more appropriate forum. You should try to learn something from this episode. Your seeming obsession with verbal politness over truth, except when someone disagrees with you, is not your most charming trait.
PS, am I now a rabid athiest in your eyes? What is this belief system you find so eminently worthy of attacking me for from behind the shield of your moderatorial immunity.
I enjoy GQ. I don’t like people fucking with it by tacking on crazy new ad hoc rulings as they rush out the door.
That’s neither complicated, nor a bid for world dominance on my part.
Are you familar with Occam?
If not, you should read up.
I noted long ago that my decision to send the thread to GQ was hasty and flawed.
I have no idea what your beliefs are and I am not accusing you of being rabid; I simply note that we have had a herd of posters who have insisted on imposing their world views on the SDMB and you have now raised your voice with theirs. It is not “truth” to shout down discussions on topics with which you disagree.
Did you guys realize that there are no X-Wing fighters? That Star Wars is actually a, you know, movie thingy? Where is the outrage?? Dio? tap tap tap Is this thing on??
Condescend much, Tom? I suggested the move to IMHO before it ever happened, and was a little surprised a person of your moderatorial experience didn’t see that for yourself in the first place. It ain’t rocket science, but you didn’t. Now you’re getting all huffy with anyone who disagreed with your original decision. It seems you’re doing your best to convert your mea culpa into a non-mea culpa mea culpa. So what if Dio rags on you a little bit? You’re a big boy. Show some grace, and you’ll convince some of the rest of us that you actually meant it when you admitted error, and have learned from the experience. This endless nitpickery you’ve engaged in here is not very convincing.
I moved the thread without seeing any reported posts. I just stumbled on the thread, myself, in a quick review of the forum before I left for work. I am not getting huffy with anyone who criticized my original decision, although I have pointed out that a few odd claims made about me later in this thread (“rabid atheist”) have been false.
It does not appear to me that you are even reading this thread. One segment of the TM asserts that any threads dealing with the spiritual, paranormal, or otherwise non-material should be open to dismissal, regardless of the specifics or the context in which they are posted. I have argued against that position. Beyond that, my first post indicated that my decision was flawed and, until you decided to harp on it, I have not even addressed that issue throughout the thread. The original thread was moved a long time ago and I am comfortable with its new home. Since the topic of this thread appeared to be whether such topics should be subject to open dismissal, regardless of context, that is the issue I have addressed throughout this thread.
I’m so glad you are comfortable with the thread’s new home. Will you also pledge to not try pulling that shit in the future? I like the way Sam and the gang handle GQ, and it doesn’t need your help.
I really could care less what sort of word salad you and Dio et al can froth up, but when you engage as you do here, you make your grudging admission of error seem less than sincere. Why are you doing that? It’s disturbing.
Sorry. I seem to be out of grovel at the moment.
I have noted that my decision was flawed and I have addressed the larger issue that is the actual topic of this thread, (not to your satisfaction, although a number of other posters seem to be in agreement with me).
Beyond that we will simply have to agree to disagree.
*you *discussed two fictional charcters *as if they were real. *
We do this all the time here.
Finally, this is the SDMB, where Cecil is the Master, and he thinks it’s OK to discuss killing vampires and the like as if they are not purely mythical.
For the record, I did not think that tomndebb’s action was particularly wrong, even though I thought the thread would be served better in IMHO. I think the main difficulty was that tom’s moderator instruction was not phrased specifically enough (he has noted he made it in haste). As I noted above, it would have been legitimate to restrict discussion in that thread to folkloric remedies against ghosts; in that context assertions of their non-existence would be largely pointless.
I can see myself issuing a similar instruction in another thread in the future; I don’t want to see you and some of the others take this as some kind of precedent in determining the framework under which questions about the supernatural must be discussed.
Why the heck would I do that? I simply don’t want to see Tom’s GD ruling which values decorum over truth imported wholesale, or even piecemeal, to GQ.
That’d be bad for the board, and unlike your notional concern that I might make fun of the woo in GQ, has actually happened at least once; hence my concern.
You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. There’s been zero suggestion that tom’s instruction was intended to create any general policy for GQ. I have clarified repeatedly what the actual standard that I would apply might be; however, that is only marginally different from what tom said in his instruction. So your “concern” is misplaced.
Have any mods suggested a policy of shouting down the woo in GQ?
I didn’t think so, yet we see endless misplaced concern over that possibility, don’t we?
Is it always a mountain out of a molehill when a poster expresses concern over mod actions, yet perfectly reasonable when a mod expresses a concern in the form of a hasty ruling? I think not, and you know very well that this isn’t tom’s first ill thought out action. My concern is justified.
Uh-huh. Earlier in the thread you were praising my handling of the situation; now that I point out that your assessment of the situation is in error you say I am being defensive. Given that you agree that it was a minor error, your criticism here has been pretty over the top. (In any case, I consider the phrase “circling the wagons” to be the ATMB equivalent of Godwin’s law: Anyone who uses it loses any credibility that they are engaging in serious discussion.)
If you call describing my views on GQ policy and pointing out that most of your criticisms are unwarranted a “siege mentality,” like tom I will suggest that you need to cut back on the caffeine.
