• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

ACLU... I hate you.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Susan said:
As long as the rules aren't broken, anyone can post their opinions in any thread they want.
Click to expand...
Did you see the poke'em guy at the end of my post?
Here it is :poke:
What it means is that what was written previously was written in jest, like a joke, like haha, a joke, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. No "broken rules" there.
 
I have never understood why people feel that evolutionary theory and religious faith cannot line up together... that you can't believe in both, only one or the other.

Evolution, simply put, is the idea that organisms change over time.

I suppose there are truly people who believe that EVERY plant, fungi, animal, protist and any other life form on the planet exist in exactly the same way and image as they existed hundreds of thousands of years ago. I can't imagine being that... deluded? Ignorant? Willfully in denial? But I guess it does exist....

In any event, as a HS science teacher, the day they tell me I have to teach "creationism" as a valid theory in my science class is the day I will quit and find a new job. Faith is faith... believing in something WITHOUT proof. Science is the generation of theories based on solid factual evidence and then trying your damndest to prove those theories wrong. There is a big difference between the two. Both are equally worthy... but in different arenas.
 
There is some quote, by some smart person, something about, "Evolution does not prove that God does not exist, but merely makes it possible to be a fulfilled atheist."

Total paraphrasing there... :D
 
Hypancistrus said:
In any event, as a HS science teacher, the day they tell me I have to teach "creationism" as a valid theory in my science class is the day I will quit and find a new job. Faith is faith... believing in something WITHOUT proof. Science is the generation of theories based on solid factual evidence and then trying your damndest to prove those theories wrong. There is a big difference between the two. Both are equally worthy... but in different arenas.
Click to expand...

"The purpose of science is to find the age of the rocks. The purpose of religion is to find The Rock Of Ages."

-- Stephen Jay Gould

:)
 
Susan said:
As long as the rules aren't broken, anyone can post their opinions in any thread they want.
Click to expand...

So...once those of us still wishing to post REAL replies in this topic finally convince the 15 year old kid to stop posting ridiculous garbage posts that interfere with the real conversations going on...we have a moderator come in and pat another kid on the back for doing the exact same thing?

So...when your childish behavior is supported and publicly condoned by a moderator...what does that say about your ridiculous garbage post? More importantly, what does it say about the moderator?

I'm just saying...And I'll be sure to quote you on this, the next time I decide to pick random threads and post ridiculous garbage in them simply to disrupt the flow of those threads. Remember that you, specifically, told us it was perfectly acceptable to do...
 
tyflier, I just have to say Bravo to you! Seriously! I've read so many times "This isn't the place, etc." from moderators before and yet that statement just contradicted every other. So now that I know it's acceptable to post my opinion in any thread,then I will feel free to do so.
 
ForkedTung said:
Did you see the poke'em guy at the end of my post?
Here it is :poke:
What it means is that what was written previously was written in jest, like a joke, like haha, a joke, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. No "broken rules" there.
Click to expand...


:poke: POKE!!! Hahaha! I poked you!
 
tyflier said:
So...once those of us still wishing to post REAL replies in this topic finally convince the 15 year old kid to stop posting ridiculous garbage posts that interfere with the real conversations going on...we have a moderator come in and pat another kid on the back for doing the exact same thing?

So...when your childish behavior is supported and publicly condoned by a moderator...what does that say about your ridiculous garbage post? More importantly, what does it say about the moderator?

I'm just saying...And I'll be sure to quote you on this, the next time I decide to pick random threads and post ridiculous garbage in them simply to disrupt the flow of those threads. Remember that you, specifically, told us it was perfectly acceptable to do...
Click to expand...

Wow, I never thought I'd be on this side of the argument, but guess what?

The viewpoint of that 15 year old kid, with its limitations and (in my opinion) inaccuracies is NO LESS REAL to him than yours is to you, or mine is to me.

Am I defending said teens in terms of accuracy, scholarship, and erudition? NOT IN THE LEAST. But I'm defending his right to say it, and our right to critique it. (For the record, I WILL NEVER support creation stories to be part of a science curriculum - but I would have NO issue with said stories as a part of a comparative religion/world religions course.)

Is it annoying? Sure. Is it "disruptive"? For those of us who don't agree with him, certainly. Will I ever request that his voice be stifled, by either "shunning" or by administrative/moderator action? NEVER, unless I want to risk MY 1st Amendment rights being taking from me because of someone who may disagree with what I have to day.

You over-reached on this one, Chris. My $0.02.


Dale
 
Susan said:
As long as the rules aren't broken, anyone can post their opinions in any thread they want.
Click to expand...
Did you click on the link in that thread? What it is in reference to? Is it OK to link to offensive acts and put down members in a thread ( basically calling them losers) when we were all having a pretty intense and mostly respectful conversation until members ( some repeatedly) exhibiting trollish behavior showed up?
 
jazzgeek said:
Wow, I never thought I'd be on this side of the argument, but guess what?

The viewpoint of that 15 year old kid, with its limitations and (in my opinion) inaccuracies is NO LESS REAL to him than yours is to you, or mine is to me.

Am I defending said teens in terms of accuracy, scholarship, and erudition? NOT IN THE LEAST. But I'm defending his right to say it, and our right to critique it. (For the record, I WILL NEVER support creation stories to be part of a science curriculum - but I would have NO issue with said stories as a part of a comparative religion/world religions course.)

Is it annoying? Sure. Is it "disruptive"? For those of us who don't agree with him, certainly. Will I ever request that his voice be stifled, by either "shunning" or by administrative/moderator action? NEVER, unless I want to risk MY 1st Amendment rights being taking from me because of someone who may disagree with what I have to day.

You over-reached on this one, Chris. My $0.02.


Dale
Click to expand...

Weren't you the guy that was feeding the troll a few pages back?
 
jazzgeek said:
Wow, I never thought I'd be on this side of the argument, but guess what?

The viewpoint of that 15 year old kid, with its limitations and (in my opinion) inaccuracies is NO LESS REAL to him than yours is to you, or mine is to me.

Am I defending said teens in terms of accuracy, scholarship, and erudition? NOT IN THE LEAST. But I'm defending his right to say it, and our right to critique it. (For the record, I WILL NEVER support creation stories to be part of a science curriculum - but I would have NO issue with said stories as a part of a comparative religion/world religions course.)

Is it annoying? Sure. Is it "disruptive"? For those of us who don't agree with him, certainly. Will I ever request that his voice be stifled, by either "shunning" or by administrative/moderator action? NEVER, unless I want to risk MY 1st Amendment rights being taking from me because of someone who may disagree with what I have to day.

You over-reached on this one, Chris. My $0.02.


Dale
Click to expand...

Yea, of course you're right, Dale. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to be forced to keep their opinion to themselves on a public forum.

It would be nice if people had enough respect for others to keep that sort of garbage to themselves, though... Especially from those that are so sensitive about respect as it pertains to what one posts on a forum, and all...
 
ForkedTung said:
Weren't you the guy that was feeding the troll a few pages back?
Click to expand...
Define your terms.

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". One man's "feeding the troll" is another's "ball of yarn for the kitty". :D

But did I rail against a volunteer who moderates this forum simply because I didn't agree with someone else's POV? (Here's a clue: I have never, with the exception of pornographic spam, reported a post as "offensive" or have lit into a mod because they happened to defend someone's right to say stupid things.

Dale
 
And just to clarify...I was not nearly as bothered by Brent's post as I was by Susan's response. I have been reprimanded, and have seen others reprimanded, by her for posting in the exact same manner in the past. I guess it often boils down to who you are, not what you post...

But still...this is no place for censorship...
 
And for the record, I have nothing but apathy towards Brent's post. :shrugs:

Meanwhile, I've previously been accused of posting nothing of merit on this forum.

:grin01:


Dale
 
Personally, I wasn't bothered by Brent's post either, Brent does what he does and I do what I do. I also have been warned by Susan for something that I think about no-one would even consider offensive, I've even seen it posted since and disregarded.PM me if you'd like to know what it was. To top it off my original response to Brent's post was to take it for what it was and move on, then the moderator showed up making something of what I thought was nothing?

I apologize Dale, in hindsight I mistook the yarn for kibbles, or kibbles for yarn, or... you know what I mean.
 
Either way, I think the topic has been successfully derailed, unless someone comes in with another good post soon...

Shame, too, in my opinion. I thought it was decent and relevant conversation for a while there...
 
tyflier said:
Either way, I think the topic has been successfully derailed, unless someone comes in with another good post soon...

Shame, too, in my opinion. I thought it was decent and relevant conversation for a while there...
Click to expand...

I'll get us back on track....

For those who claim that "we're a Christian nation founded on Christian principles", I'd like you to peruse these links; each of the two is a page of quotations and writings of:

  1. The "Father" of the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson)
  2. The "Father" of the Constitution (James Madison)
Granted, the links are on a site called "Positive Atheism"; however, it doesn't negate the validity of the words of either Jefferson or Madison.

Discuss.


Dale

(See? That's what a teacher should do. Provide information and ideas for discussion.)
 
jazzgeek said:
Wow, I never thought I'd be on this side of the argument, but guess what?

The viewpoint of that 15 year old kid, with its limitations and (in my opinion) inaccuracies is NO LESS REAL to him than yours is to you, or mine is to me.

Am I defending said teens in terms of accuracy, scholarship, and erudition? NOT IN THE LEAST. But I'm defending his right to say it, and our right to critique it. (For the record, I WILL NEVER support creation stories to be part of a science curriculum - but I would have NO issue with said stories as a part of a comparative religion/world religions course.)

Is it annoying? Sure. Is it "disruptive"? For those of us who don't agree with him, certainly. Will I ever request that his voice be stifled, by either "shunning" or by administrative/moderator action? NEVER, unless I want to risk MY 1st Amendment rights being taking from me because of someone who may disagree with what I have to day.

You over-reached on this one, Chris. My $0.02.


Dale
Click to expand...
I didn't think his bunny with a pancake was overstepping the boundaries, or the RIP thread one was, or the Great Thread--You Fail one was. Those were all just increasingly irritating. But the one where he called the people participating in the thread "losers" for doing so was, I think. Still, I did not seek to stifle him, but civilly asked him take it upon himself to desist. And, he did. For that I respect him. He could have gone the other direction, but instead he acted more or less like an agreeable, mostly mature person. However, I WOULD have sought to stifle him had he continued AFTER being civilly asked to desist. And since he had progressed to name-calling of thread participants, I don't think that would have been unreasonable.

Really, I don't see any particular reason most of the time to report posts that were over the line until you give someone the chance to step back and apologize. But if he or she refuses such a chance and continues, I DO think there are reasons for which a person should be stifled. Recent hateful posts about Iraqis, for example, are on my list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top