Religion
Related: About this forumAn 11th Commandment is clearly needed.
One specific to the Religion group. One that would reflect the reality of many of the viewpoints and responses here.
The 11th Commandment to read:
Thou shalt not make any positive references to religion, religious beliefs, or theists in this group.
ret5hd
(20,518 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I prefer the almond ones, but any type is good.
flotsam
(3,268 posts)If you posit a skymaster you cannot complain when normal people ask "What?".
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Voltaire2
(13,156 posts)And nobody is stopping you from posting skymaster nonsense.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)You had all the advantages of two engines and props without the disadvantages of asymmetric thrust in the event of an engine failure. Unfortunately the rear engine had cooling problems that were never fully solved.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,337 posts)He had a charter and FBO back in the day he also had a Beech 18.
That's him on the right with his 310 and some other dude
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I'd love to own a twin, but it's hard to justify the exponentially higher cost of ownership. Better to fly them when someone else is paying the bills.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Or, at least the last of them. I used to love that show when I was a kid. He started out with a T-50, and then later moved up to the 310.
I'm so freaking old! Sheesh!
gibraltar72
(7,511 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)She was too old for me, but she played younger. My real crush was on Natalie Wood, though.
longship
(40,416 posts)That's what I'd like to see.
As usual, the gospel according to George tops those in the Bible.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So was Richard Pryor.
And Lenny Bruce.
longship
(40,416 posts)Good for you, Gil.
thucythucy
(8,086 posts)We have footage of what happened--
PJMcK
(22,048 posts)Do you want to be sinner?
Mariana
(14,860 posts)I don't think he's had any of his posts hidden here. He even has a fan club - he's told us several times that he receives numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts to promote religion in this group.
But, that's not good enough for Gil. Unfortunately, people who don't agree with him are allowed to post here, too. That's just so unfair, and it is exactly the same as if he were prohibited from posting all those positive references.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And it is the same for every post that presents religion in a positive light.
As to the rest of your response, it is mis-framing.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)How unspeakably awful that must be for you.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And I understand why.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Including this one I'm responding to.
So you just made another example of why discussions don't happen in this group.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Mariana
(14,860 posts)No such commandment is needed. The Statement of Purpose for this group is clear and it is being followed.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)who seem to attack any positive posts and posters. Almost as if some wish to discourage positive posts and posters.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If you are discouraged by opinions that differ from yours, you should probably not be on the Internet, gilly.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Do what you claim you want to see happen.
Start a dialog and explain exactly what it is you want. Your OP has been interpreted to mean that you don't want people to respond negatively to your posts. Multiple people have explained why this isn't the place for silencing opposing views, and you refuse to explain yourself.
And you have the nerve to bemoan the lack of dialog.
Sheesh.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You clearly don't want anyone disagreeing with you, and anyone who does will only get abuse in response.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2018, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)
Discussion often involves disagreement with ideas. Otherwise, it is of no value.
You simply call things misframing or dismiss them. That is not discussion. It's simply weak argumentation.
What it seems to me that you want is agreement with your positions. In this group, clearly there are people who do not agree with those positions and who will present their reasons for that disagreement. They will also post their own thread starters to open discussions you don't care for.
This group is not for agreement on religious questions. There are plenty of such groups available. This group is an open forum for the discussion of issues about religion. You will never succeed in making it an echo chamber for one point of view, which seems to be your hope. It's not going to happen.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Multiple people have now pointed this out to gil, so I believe he will now pull out his tired old references to a "choir."
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And that's one reason I know you don't want discussion because it's the only thing you do.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Now I will have to recalibrate it, again.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)It's always broken with you around.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)are people required to respond positively to it?
Mariana
(14,860 posts)And if they don't agree, they should just shut up. Otherwise, he'll post yet another self-pitying whine-fest. He just can't stand that there exists this one group wherein people are allowed to post opposing opinions.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)one believes as you do. Many here don't believe as you do, assuming that we have any idea what you believe. What seems positive to you may have a different sense to others.
Accusing people who disagree with you of mis-framing and other negative things doesn't help one bit, either.
But, oh well. We must play the hand we're dealt, I suppose.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Category: Religion & Spirituality
Religion & Spirituality (13)
Ancient Wisdom and Pagan Spirituality
Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing
Atheists & Agnostics
Buddhism
Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity
Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith
Interfaith Group
Jewish Group
Muslim/Islam
Pastafarians
Prayer Circle
Religion
Seekers on Unique Paths
Waaaah the one place that is specifically *not* a safe space, that is *not* a forum, but a group, the one place where the statement of purpose specifically reads Statement of Purpose
Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome......
Not good enough.
You should get 10 believers to join you and have Skinner open yet another religion safe space, where you can make whatever restrictions regarding posts and posters you want (just like the interfaith group did, and the prayer circle did, etc). But until then, you are just going to have to deal with the fact that atheists, agnostics, and all other sorts of people you admittedly don't like very much are allowed to post here, to disagree with you, and to disagree with the shit you post.
I am certain this has been explained to you numerous times.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)about the existence of one group where opposing views are permitted.
I'm reminded of a parable from the Bible. I'm paraphrasing, but it goes something like this: There were two men. One was a rich man who had large herds of livestock, and his neighbor was a poor man who had one sheep that was his pet. The rich man wasn't satisfied with his own extensive property, and he coveted his neighbors one sheep. So, when the rich man wanted some meat, he went and took his poor neighbor's pet sheep and killed it and ate it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)First, I said nothing about limiting posts or viewpoints.
Second, my actual point deals with the way positive posts are almost uniformly attacked. And the way the attacks generally question the intelligence of theists.
Third, given the written evidence, I understand why you went off topic to make up something to attack.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)But you did exactly that, G-man. Go reread your OP. In fact, I'll post the relevant part of it here for your convenience:
The 11th Commandment to read:
Thou shalt not make any positive references to religion, religious beliefs, or theists in this group.
That is a statement about limiting posts or viewpoints.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And the point is to highlight the constant attacks on any positive posts.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)It's extremely dishonest to suggest that you are prohibited from posting what you perceive as positive stories. You can post as many of those as you like. People who disagree with you can express their disagreement. If those expressions of disagreement bother you so much, there are multiple groups available to you where such posts are not permitted.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But I wonder why some few atheists seem to feel the need to question the intelligence nd the motives of anyone posting positive news.
And some posters have stated that they refrain from posting in the religion group specifically because of this behavior. Anyone reading the posts and responses here can see that the insulting language is overwhelmingly directed at the theists. There actually is a difference between insults and dialogue.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)It's pretty arrogant for you to act like you represent every theist, but even if you did, my response was to you and not to theists in general. And as I clearly said, you can post what you like. So can the people who disagree with you.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That's rich.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)I'll make sure to let you know the moment I give a shit.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)Waiting on your fan club to give you help with a witty retort?
"Hey Rug...she said she wasn't impressed by my offense...and she used a curse word. What do I say now?"
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)Rug is on permanent FFR and his zombie sock was recently banned as well. Same for Justin's multiple zombie socks, too. And hey, you're the one that constantly brag about your behind the scenes fan club of closeted religionists who send you fan mail at such a furious pace you can't even keep up with the responses....so fearful of the hateful atheists, so afraid to post in this hardly-a-blip-of the internet, that they rely on you, the lone voice in the wilderness, never cowering in your unwavering ability to paint atheists with the broadest brush possible and employ all of the logical fallacies. Yes, Gill, you are the lone warrior of God here in the religion forum. You must fight for our souls. ..and yours....
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I understand your anger at the post. I do.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Don't interfere with forum moderation
Don't post messages about site rules, enforcement, juries, hosts, administration, alerts, alerters, removed posts, appeals, locked threads, or anything else related to how this website is moderated (except in the Ask the Administrators forum).
Why we have this rule: The purpose of Democratic Underground is to discuss politics, issues, and current events. Open discussion of how the website is run tends to distract from our core purpose.
Your post could be taken as a violation of the TOS, given the references you made.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Uh...it's not.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You are attacking people. Why you are doing so only you can answer.
Heddi
(18,312 posts).
I am convinced.
Heddi
(18,312 posts).
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)If you believe a post violates the rules of DU, there is a tool available to send such posts to a jury.
The topic of this open group is Religion, not DU Terms of Service statements.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)To further extend some subthread in an old thread?
Oh, well, do as you please.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)You posted a quote from the site rules that says not to post about site rules.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Legalism. Often the last refuge of those who would restrict freedoms. Legalistic religious denominations are often repressive and abusive. Imagine...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And look at the post that I responded to.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)in which we may consider whether an OP containing a metaphorical literary device may contain a subpost which literally breaks it's own quoted rule that ostensibly resolves into dual ambiguously sarcastic rejoinders. Did the Jesuits teach you about postmodern philosophy? You seem to be a master of it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But consider a far simpler alternative: that my post is merely an observation of what is quite obvious. What happens here in response to any positive posts has been happening here for quite some time.
So this metaphoric tree has fallen, falls, and will continue in future to fall. My reaction to the sound of that falling is a simple matter.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)The people responding either don't think they are good or don't think they are news. I can think of one example like that. You posted about a group of Tennessee clergy that signed a statement against racism prior to an alt-right rally in the state.
About 165 clergy signed. Some thought this wasn't news because it was only 165 out of thousands of clergy in Tennessee. Some thought it wasn't good because it implied that those thousands of others were in fact racist or at least just not all that concerned about it.
Now, I can understand why you might disagree on those points. But likewise can you understand why a group of atheists might not be all that impressed?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)which reads:
1) the first objection makes the good the enemy of the perfect. Not in my view a valid objection given that there is no perfection in human behavior.
2) the second objection assumes evidence not shown.
Thus, in my view, neither is a valid objection, raising the issue that the stated reasons might be pre-textual.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But the mere fact of disagreement does not mean such disagreement is "pretextual."
Rather you and they are coming at the issue with a very different set of assumptions and so see the same thing through different filters. This is a simple fact of the human condition.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)That way, Gil never has to actually discuss or defend his positions. Isn't that convenient?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)opposing views exist.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)And yet, he appears to be attracted to them and feels he must respond to them.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Sort of odd paradox though. Why post topics you know will generate controversy, then complain when the controversy occurs?
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)So I believe, anyhow. The complaints extend the argument and attract more controversy.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)You and everyone else are completely free to make any such references you wish. You are not free to do so without comment, though. This is a discussion group, where everyone is free to post.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I understand.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)and some with insult.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)criticism of a post to the opposition of having such posts at all?
Interesting.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Internet forum, I suppose. Then one could establish one's own rules.
That's a lot of work, though, and no audience is guaranteed. Awkward, that.
Failing that, one copes with what one has, I guess.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Perhaps some equate the two, of perhaps some equate insult and attack with dialogue.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)Here it is, as told in the Gospel of Matthew:
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You have insulted, and continue to insult, every atheist here by insisting that you get to define atheism for them. You've proven you don't give a shit about that, either. So why should anyone give a shit about what offends you?
edhopper
(33,615 posts)Only 4 or 5 of the 10 are worth the stone they are written on.
Voltaire2
(13,156 posts)And I thought the whole book of gibberish was not supposed to be interpreted literally anyway. So when it says dont kill people that really means eat more spinach.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)and insulting a particular theist who is always asking for it.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and not just you whining that people who don't agree with you get to post on the same forum.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'm very sorry that upsets you, but you don't get to decide for everyone else.
I'm sure it's frustrating that you can't burn the heretics anymore, but you need to get over that. Pick any one of the many safe haven groups for believers if you don't like to see "bad news" about religion. Or else quit whining.
nil desperandum
(654 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)And then there's the threatening of an eternity burning in Hell if we don't believe. Of course, that's an empty threat to atheists.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I understand.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Instead of whining about everyone else "misreading" you and "misframing" what you said, try explaining yourself more clearly. You know, engage in this "dialog" that you constantly moan about being lacking here.
I've tried. When are you going to?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It's tedious and boring, especially from people who have nothing to complain about. If you don't like having your beliefs challenged, feel free to seek camaraderie in any of the many safe havens here where such questioning is not allowed.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)where he can enjoy his religious privilege to the fullest. But no, there are people on a message board saying things he doesn't like, so he needs to stop that.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)Do you think he's receiving numerous personal messages from his throng of admirers, praising him for this pathetic temper tantrum?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Seems to work for Trump.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)ExciteBike66
(2,374 posts)EDIT: It sucks sometimes, but this website is all about airing our various opinions on stuff. If you write a post about religion, you invite said opinions to be aired, and subject yourself to the dictum concerning opinions and a**holes...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Unless the person explicitly reveals them, and even then, they could be lying. But appeal to motive is a logical fallacy suggesting that if the speaker's motives are questionable, then their statements must be untrue.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and often with very similar wording, that does reveal things. Motive is frequently asserted in proceedings of all types. And absent an explicit confession, or assertion, or other direct evidence, it is left to the Judge/Arbitrator/jury or audience to decide as to the validity of the observation.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)motive is determined based on careful objective weighing of all available evidence by neutral third parties, typically through the review of documents, testimony of witnesses and opportunity of the accused to present their side through legal counsel.
An internet debate is about as far from a court room as it is from a surgery center.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)of providing people a place to post about religion that do not tolerate any posts expressing disagreement, criticism, or awkward questions. So, Gil doesn't have to invite said opinions to be aired when he writes a post about religion. He can avoid it very easily, by posting it in one of those groups instead of this one.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)argument, so they can recursively maintain that argument indefinitely through continued provocations. Such people find no arguments in protected groups.
Others promote arguments by creating subthread that derail the original discussion and turn it to a new topic. These strategies are common on many discussion forums.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I see it constantly in this group, and generally by the same few posters.