We’re here. We’ve been here for a while. So when someone comes along and disagrees with moderating styles and the kind of questions Cecil answers and what we look at online and what we should be allowed to see, yeah. Some of us are going to get a little more than pissed. Some of su are also going to think to ourselves "here we go again . . . "
We’re teasing him because, among other things, we think he’s a bit silly.
If he’s going to try to get the SDMB to assume his moral and religious beliefs, then damn straight we’re going to react. He can do whatever he likes by himself, so long as he’s not hurting anyone, IMO. But when he tries to say “you shouldn’t be able to look at medical stuff online; that should onyl be for people in the medical profession” you’re darn tooting he’s going to get some strong reactions to that.
You can quote the Bible all you like . . . you’re quoting one line out of context. The Bible also tells us that in certain circumstances we’re to stone people. Do you hold to that as well?
The whole line, with a bit more context, is “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.”
IMO these lines mean, basically, be a living testimony to God. Part of that means not judging people. I don’t see, in that passage, “Tell other people what to do. Nevermind if you’ve only been there a few days.”
I have absolutely no problem with, for example, Polycarp saying “Might it be better to do X thing?” because he’s been here a while and knows his stuff, biblically and otherwise. What I do have a problem with is someone coming along and telling us how we should run things. I see a bit of vanity and a lack of respect in that.
I don’t know why I’m getting into an argument about the Bible . . . the rules of the SDMB stand. No rules were broken when Cecil posted his column. Rules were broken when Righteous posted in COCC and tried to debate. I believe he did that twice. Now he’s posted in ATMB and it’s created a debate, which is not what ATMB is for. If he had simply read the rules he’d be all set.
Jenkinsfan, I think you do not understand the reason for the Pit. It is here so that posters can mock, insult and otherwise rip to shreds things, posts and posters. Satire has always been an acceptable way to voice opposition to a viewpoint, person or idea.
IMO, this thread is the least personally insulting to Righteous than the other Pit thread and even the one in ATMB. It was mocking his proselytizing. And was doing it in a damn funny way, too.
Well, at least you’re not taking it upon yourself to pretend this is an open-minded thing to do.
His “proselytizing” happens to be his lifestyle. I expected it would be respected here. I’ve heard several jokes mocking the homosexual lifestyle but I never condoned them just because they were funny. My logic is consistent with my lifestyle.
Just a note, jenkinsfan. Whether or not you like wording used by another doper, you don’t exactly have the right to misquote them. If I were going to quote someone who used what I consider offensive language I’d be ****ed sure I got it in there. It’s sort of . . . not proper etiquette to misquote someone.
I appreciate the advice, iampunha. But first you will have to prove to me why it’s not proper, who made this age old rule, what the consequences are of ignoring this, and also explain the silly superstitions behind this commonly excepted theory. You see, I’m interested in using consistent logic.
imapunha, I don’t mind his censoring of my post. I understand if jenkinsfan did not want to use the offending term in his (or her) post. At least it wasn’t taken out ot context.
Not here, in the Pit. This forum was created to keep this sort of thing out of the other fora. If your lifestyle consists of trying to foster your ideas onto people who do not agree with you, then prepare to be mocked.
That said, I feel a little sorry for Righteous. I do not agree with him, but I know Dopers can be hard on a person with a different viewpoint than the rest of us and he has been getting absolutely battered. Keep fighting the good fight Righteous!
I find proselytizing of any type (religous or otherwise) to be rude, presumptious, and offensive. Discussion is fine, but I find discussion with the intent of converting someone for his or her “own good” to be insulting. Anyone who comes here with the purpose of “converting” people is by definition not respectful of other’s beliefs, so why should his or her proselytizing be respected?
Because he’s a human being. Besides, it’s not consistent with open-minded logic dedicated to fighting ignorance to not respectfully show someone the errors of his/her way.
But I’m tired of discussing this. My point has been made that it’s Ok to pick on religious folks and still be open-minded. :rolleyes: Justify it however you want.
jenkinsfan
So according to you it’s ok for the proselytizer to be disrespectful of others (by virtue of the fact the he or she is trying to convert others), but it’s not ok for the people who are the target of the conversion to be disrespectful of the conversion attempt?
I think it leads to more misinterpretion of the actual post being quoted. Anyone who saw your quote before s/he read the actual post from which the quote was taken sees a different sentence.
It’s not proper because technically that’s not what was said. You see “damn” and replace it with “****”. Technically you’re misquoting, and I think the rules about that probably predate the internet by a pretty hefty margin, though I have no cite to back that up.
[nitpick]You probably want accepted theory, not excepted theory, unless I’m reading your meaning wrong. I don’t think it is a silly superstition but common courtesy. I wouldn’t, if I quoted you, say “G-d” in place of God if I were Jewish. That would be misrepresenting you.
I too would be interisted to see where Jesus said this. I just assumed the phrase was made up by selfrightous homophobes to try to make their hatred look (to themselves) like love.
That may be the context, but why the gratitutous references to her partners’ endowment? Pornography is pornography. Please don’t say because it refers to a wicked woman that makes it somehow OK. A lot of women in pornography are wicked.
Have you read Song of Solomon? Are you aware that this filth has already found its way to the internet? Will congress ban Bible sites too?
Righteous,
First of all, if no one has yet, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board. It seems like everybody has gotten off on the wrong foot, and I hope people can get back on the right one, so to speak. The questions Cecil answers are really diverse…if you’ve browsed the archives, you can see that, and some of them do involve sexual matters, and, of course, it’s up to a parent to decide what’s appropriate for his or her kids to see, both online and off, and I’m sure there are some parents who have decided the Straight Dope isn’t appropriate for their kids. There was actually, some time ago, a thread discussing this very subject. I don’t have the thread in front of me, and maybe somebody could provide the link for me, but it’s a debateable question. That being said, it seems to me that, when talking about sexual matters, there are two ways to go about it. A person can talk about sex educationally, or he can talk about sex in an attempt to titilate. For example, a picture of a breast in a medical textbook is there for a different purpose than that same breast in Playboy. Cecil’s columns are there to inform, which is what he tried to do in the column you took offense to. I think the important thing we all should remember, is to give each other the benefit of the doubt. The moderators are trying to do their jobs, and those jobs are largely thankless. So, lets everybody take a breath and calm down. I’d still like the cite where Jesus says “Hate the sin and love the sinner”
No one said your point could be made without words, AFAIK.
I said you had used a made up word, and a very poor one at that, to make your point. You were making a point with words, but they were stupid words. The fact that you can’t think up an adjective meaning ‘to hate or fear christians’ does not mean common sense is on your side.
And any one who gets aroused reading Cecil’s column about penile stretching could get aroused by anything; by that standard, all pictures of women would have to be stripped from the internet.
I challenged it, I believe on page one. I don’t believe I got a response.
If someone’s point can be made without words it isn’t worth words, IMO. So don’t try to sneak a fake one past us. This is the SDMB; we exist to eradicate ignorance. Trying to make up words in a discussion about something serious (as this has become, I think) is not going to endear you to your fellow posters.
I’m not a Christian, so I’m don’t necessarily consider myself bound to follow Biblical precepts. Righteous, however, has been claiming to be a Christian, and a follower of Biblical morality. So, let’s see just how well he’s been doing.
In this thread, Righteous claims that one of Cecil’s columns, about penis enlargement surgery, is “pornography”. Arnold Winkelreid responded with a couple of posts: the first a purely technical official-Moderator-style “Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment” message about how you should please include a link to Cecil’s column. In AW’s second post, he politely disagreed with Righteous’ characterization of Cecil’s column as “pornography”. I’ll reproduce AW’s entire second post from that thread:
Righteous, in reply, said (in part) “just because you have no moral foundation doesnt mean that you have the right to inflict your filth upon me and my fellow religious americans.”
“A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1
Who is answering softly in this exchange, and who is using grievous words to stir up anger?
Shortly thereafter, AW closed the thread, saying “I think that this thread is not really commenting on a Straight Dope column any more, but rather on a larger issue. A discussion such as this does not really belong in this forum.”
AW is simply enforcing the perfectly sensible Rules of the Road here, which is what Moderators do to earn those coffee cups.
Righteous opened another thread in the same forum. Again, AW closed it, as is his right, duty, and responsibility as a Moderator when he thinks that a thread has been opened in the wrong forum. Again, AW’s tone was perfecly polite and civil, and he tried to gently steer Righteous towards the appropriate forum on the SDMB for discussing the topics he wanted to discuss.
Righteous responded by opening a third thread. In it, he says that “mr. winklereid seems to think pornography on the internet is a good idea”–which if you read what AW actually wrote, is at best a gross distortion.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” – Exodus 20:16
Finally, Righteous seems to have had trouble grasping some fairly elementary facts about this message board, such as where to post what, and the exact nature of the Moderators and their relationship to The Straight Dope/The Chicago Reader.
“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” – Matthew 10:16
In 1 Timothy 3:7, Paul says of those who seek leadership that they must “give good report to those without”, or in other words that they “must have a good reputation with those outside the church”. While Righteous is not (one hopes) a deacon or an elder or a bishop, he has taken it upon himself to serve as something of an “apostle to the SDMB”, which I would think is enough of a leadership position that he would be well advised to heed that particular Scripture.
Righteous has shown himself to be wrathful. He has borne false witness against others. He has been a fool, and a very public fool, and by his foolishness he has brought scandal and disgrace to the faith in the eyes of the unchurched and the unbelievers. Personally, as an atheist, that doesn’t bother me overmuch, but I’d think Christians would be more troubled by it.
I don’t think Righteous is worth spending a whole lot of time on. However, I don’t think jenkinsfan is a complete idiot, or a troll, so perhaps it’s worth spending some time to try to explain matters to him. To him I would say that he ought to choose his battles more wisely.
P.S. Based on the accepted Canon of the Word of Cecil, one can say that the mission of this message board is to eradicate ignorance, yes, but it is also clear that the mission is to eradicate ignorance and to act as a wise-assed smart-aleck, not taking fools gladly while doing so. If you have a problem with this, you probably won’t be very happy with anything Cecilian.
