Oh, C'MON, MsRobyn

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheFlame

To me, the crux of this argument is whether the following comment (in post #13) was appropriate for the thread

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

The greatest destroyer of peace today? Religion is responsible for more hatred, torture, mutilation and killing. You want suffering? Just take a look at a holy war.

---

Would this provocative comment be considered acceptable in all Crucible threads pertaining to religion? If not, but it was acceptable in this particular one, why?

---

To me, this is a perfectly valid point, as it directly answers a quote from Theresa, both of which, in turn, were provided in response to chacoguy420's question as to why her behavior wasn't saintly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I think what we have are two different perspectives on what the thread is supposed to be about. Some (including the OP) are thinking that it's a thread about whether or not certain people have met the Catholic criteria for being made a saint. Others think that the question is whether the criteria are appropriate, ethical, morally just, etc. Two different topics, one thread. Makes it tough to have a meaningful conversation.

---

Here, I think, the problem is that if you want to have a single, narrowly focused topic of discussion (as opposed to a wider, more free-ranging one), the onus is on the OP to craft a first post that specifically calls for such. A thread title including the question of who "should" be granted some honor and asking "So, can you make a case for, or against, MT, PJPII, or FJS?" is not a specific call for only posts along the lines of "Does [person X] meet the qualifications" for the honor in question.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

The first post in the thread by mozg (in particular, the bit I responded to) involved her commentary not on the validity of canonization, but on some more abstract theory of who is a good person or not.

My issue is that abstract theories about good people have nothing to do with canonization. Canonization has everything to do with following the strictures of the Catholic Church.

---

And yet, you seemed not to care much about those posts by Excalibre, EJsGirl, chacoguy420, or others who were discussing the same topic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NAF1138

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

Yeah. If this was addressed by TPTB, and it was decided that the latter was always acceptable, I'll slink off and accept a warning. It would make me think that this place is more unfair than the Dope, for what it's worth.

---

Come again?

ETA: It doesn't look like you have actually gotten anything official. I am not sure what official would mean or look like, but I do know that there aren't notes on your profile. I started a topic in The Hive so we can clarify some of this and we don't turn this place into SDMB redux with the lack of clarity in mod actions.

---

Mainly,I was intending that if you folks who decided what happened around here decide that threads should be allowed to be altered (in the manner the one in question was,) I'll take my medicine. I just won't like it.
I really do appreciate the Hive, and I like the way things work here a lot.

Plus, NAF, if you rule against me, I'm totally going to vote you first in every Mafia game we play from now on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

My issue is that abstract theories about good people have nothing to do with canonization. Canonization has everything to do with following the strictures of the Catholic Church.

---

And yet, you seemed not to care much about those posts by Excalibre, EJsGirl, chacoguy420, or others who were discussing the same topic.

---

Excalibre's comments regarded whether or not MT wasted charitable donations. I think a case could be made that the Church's goals in helping the poor were not being met. This is much more in line with the actual discussion than complaining that MT supported abortion, which clearly IS in line with the Church's overall philosophy and goals.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

The first post in the thread by mozg (in particular, the bit I responded to) involved her commentary not on the validity of canonization, but on some more abstract theory of who is a good person or not.

My issue is that abstract theories about good people have nothing to do with canonization. Canonization has everything to do with following the strictures of the Catholic Church.

---

And yet, you seemed not to care much about those posts by Excalibre, EJsGirl, chacoguy420, or others who were discussing the same topic.

---

Yeah. You're right. I found all of those posters to reasonably be discussing the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

Perhaps my entire issue is that I don't really see the difference between the two. Hijacking one debate into another does seem a little threadshitty, especially because the second debate is kinda based on opposition to some of the founding thoughts of the first.

---

Threadshitting in the thread to me would have been Mozg coming in to crap all over the RCC with her initial post. 100% threadshitting would have been to do just that and not had more content. She gave reasons for why she thought MT was not worthy of Sainthood. You gave back a good reason why her complaint was not an appropriate debate point to the discussion. From there the hijack occurs with the the posting between you and Mozg on abortion. I don't think her reasons our immediately obvious as invalid and that is why I do not see it as threadshitting. What happened after that was a very serious hi-jack and the reason why I would hate to moderate The Crucible or Capitol Hill.

Her later points would have been threadshitting if posted cold but she was answering you at that point. I think you should have pulled back and asked her to please start a new thread for her debate.

To Boozahol Squid, P.I.:
Also please note you did not get a warning and nothing was logged against you. No Mod has handed out a warning yet.

Here is what I did. I don't know that it's the perfect solution, but it's better than the way I first handled it.

• I split the initial thread into two. The original now deals solely with the process of canonization with respect to the Catholic church. The new thread deals with the morality and ethics of candidates for sainthood, and I changed the title to reflect that. It should be crystal clear which posts go in which thread.[/*:m:2vubz7xq]
• I modified my comments to Boozahol Squid, PI, and I apologized to him. I came down on him harder than he really deserved. All the same, calling someone a troll in The Crucible is not appropriate. That has nothing to do with SDMB policy and everything to do with good manners. I hope we're clear on that, as well.[/*:m:2vubz7xq]
• The OP of any thread is always welcome to clarify the terms of the discussion therein if it gets too far afield from the OP's original intent. I know that discussions (good ones, anyway) meander, and tangents get wandered into. However, we've all seen threads that started out as good, interesting debates turn ugly. This isn't a specific dig at Julie or anyone else, just a general recommendation.[/*:m:2vubz7xq]

I will post a sticky in TC with some general guidelines. They don't have the force of policy, but I think we'd all do well to remember the lessons from this experience. I would, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Threadshitting in the thread to me would have been Mozg coming in to crap all over the RCC with her initial post. 100% threadshitting would have been to do just that and not had more content. She gave reasons for why she thought MT was not worthy of Sainthood. You gave back a good reason why her complaint was not an appropriate debate point to the discussion. From there the hijack occurs with the the posting between you and Mozg on abortion. I don't think her reasons our immediately obvious as invalid and that is why I do not see it as threadshitting.

---

Perhaps I hold posters to too high a standard. I rember catsix from the SDMB. I really doubt that she has any question about the thoughts of the RCC on abortion. If she really does, than I'm happy to have fought her ignorance (or informed her dome, as some poster amusingly put it in the thread in question, which sentiment I thought rocked.) If mozg thought MT was not worthy of sainthood based upon any aspect of sainthood which applies (those being the ones installed by Rome, the group that decides these things), she failed to mention them. That's why I saw it as threadshitting/trolling/not-being-a-good-neighbor.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit

Also please note you did not get a warning and nothing was logged against you. I don't think any Mod has handed out a warning yet.

---

Thanks. I appreciate that, but my original complaint was intended not to get a clarification on my own actions, but on mozg's. It was the response to that clarification that's gotten me upset, not some sort of worry about the dangers between a mod-note and a warning. I assume that if I get too close to being kicked out, you guys will just restrict me to the Game Room place, where I'm happy to post endlessly on Mafia games, Diplomacy manuevers, and Cleveland's chances of winning any sort of title in professional sports before I'm dead.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MsRobyn

• I split the initial thread into two. The original now deals solely with the process of canonization with respect to the Catholic church. The new thread deals with the morality and ethics of candidates for sainthood, and I changed the title to reflect that. It should be crystal clear which posts go in which thread.

---

• [/*:m:tllrk2ce]

Yay!

Quote:

---

• I modified my comments to Boozahol Squid, PI, and I apologized to him. I came down on him harder than he really deserved. All the same, calling someone a troll in The Crucible is not appropriate. That has nothing to do with SDMB policy and everything to do with good manners. I hope we're clear on that, as well.[/*:m:tllrk2ce]

---

Yay! I'll not do that again.

Please, make an addendum to the rules about calling someone a troll outside of the Thunderdome.

Quote:

---

• The OP of any thread is always welcome to clarify the terms of the discussion therein if it gets too far afield from the OP's original intent. I know that discussions (good ones, anyway) meander, and tangents get wandered into. However, we've all seen threads that started out as good, interesting debates turn ugly. This isn't a specific dig at Julie or anyone else, just a general recommendation.[/*:m:tllrk2ce]

---

I try not to make many OPs. So... good stuff.

When I start a thread, I don't want to own it, but I do want the replies to bear at least a tangential relationship to the topic. That can mean that the topic simply dies because it's not that interesting to others (my tastes are odd), but I'd hate to see every thread on religious matters devolve into "religion is evil!" "Is not!" "Is too!"

Even though I'm generally in the camp that regards religion as silly, I like talking about religion. I like talking about religion with the religion's followers. There's no way to do that if namecalling right at the outset becomes acceptable.

But, here's the thing, I don't really want this to be something moderators do. Moderators can't make hateful people nice, or mean people kind, or argumentative people conciliatory, and I don't want them to try. I'd like the community to try to keep discussions going by ignoring hijacks (except in other threads like this one or mine in Thunderdome) and generally policing ourselves.


On preview: I love splitting the topic, especially right now when we're not overwhelming the Crucible with traffic. Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

those being the ones installed by Rome, the group that decides these things

---

And here I was thinking that Rome was a city in Italy, and that the Vatican City was the capital of the Catholic church. Or do you view the Catholic church as having total authority over the city of Rome, as it is a party of the nation state of Italy?

Because quite frankly this kind of muddying of the lines is exactly why I have a problem with the idea that only Catholic opinions should matter when we talk about sainthood.

Does the pope rule Rome, or are you deliberately conflating the Catholic church and the Vatican City with another entity that is outside its authority?

I'm well aware of the Catholic church's position on abortion. I still think that Mother Teresa is abhorrent in part because she parroted the party line when the poor she supposedly served would have been better off with access to birth control and abortion.

If they're going to hold her up as ideal, and I think they will, why should we not criticize them for it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

And here I was thinking that Rome was a city in Italy, and that the Vatican City was the capital of the Catholic church. Or do you view the Catholic church as having total authority over the city of Rome, as it is a party of the nation state of Italy?

Because quite frankly this kind of muddying of the lines is exactly why I have a problem with the idea that only Catholic opinions should matter when we talk about sainthood.

Does the pope rule Rome, or are you deliberately conflating the Catholic church and the Vatican City with another entity that is outside its authority?

---

I'm sorry you have an issue with metaphors. This is an issue for you to discuss with your therapist. Or your 8th grade English teacher.

Quote:

---

I'm well aware of the Catholic church's position on abortion. I still think that Mother Teresa is abhorrent in part because she parroted the party line when the poor she supposedly served would have been better off with access to birth control and abortion.

If they're going to hold her up as ideal, and I think they will, why should we not criticize them for it?

---

As I've said (and others) before, please do. Just in the appropriate forum. If you can't find the precisely correct one, just make a new thread. I promise, we Papists will follow and debate you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

and Cleveland's chances of winning any sort of title in professional sports before I'm dead.

---

(Cut for clarity)

Everyone deserves a dream. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

those being the ones installed by Rome, the group that decides these things

---

And here I was thinking that Rome was a city in Italy, and that the Vatican City was the capital of the Catholic church. Or do you view the Catholic church as having total authority over the city of Rome, as it is a party of the nation state of Italy?

---

Look up metonymy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

I'm sorry you have an issue with metaphors. This is an issue for you to discuss with your therapist. Or your 8th grade English teacher.

---

What you did is not a metaphor. Rome and Vatican City are two separate governmental entities. While the city of Rome completely surrounds Vatican City, the latter is itself an independent country with the pope as its head of state. While Catholics may be fond of calling the pope and the rest of their church's leadership 'Rome', it's not really factually accurate.

Of course there are a lot of facts that aren't accurate in religion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

As I've said (and others) before, please do. Just in the appropriate forum. If you can't find the precisely correct one, just make a new thread. I promise, we Papists will follow and debate you.

---

After many, many years of having religion stick its head in, uninvited, into matters of government and law, I really don't think they have any room to suggest that secular criticism of their practices are unwelcome in their halls.

Religious people have shoved god into the courtroom, and now I'm shoving back. When religion stops entering the halls of secular government uninvited to tell everyone what they're doing wrong, I'll consider not going into their web forum threads to tell them what I think is wrong with them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

What you did is not a metaphor. Rome and Vatican City are two separate governmental entities. While the city of Rome completely surrounds Vatican City, the latter is itself an independent country with the pope as its head of state. While Catholics may be fond of calling the pope and the rest of their church's leadership 'Rome', it's not really factually accurate.

---

Okay, but try as I might, I can't come up with a reason why this Rome thing matters at all.

Quote:

---

Religious people have shoved god into the courtroom, and now I'm shoving back. When religion stops entering the halls of secular government uninvited to tell everyone what they're doing wrong, I'll consider not going into their web forum threads to tell them what I think is wrong with them.

---

Well, and not that this is the place to discuss this, but Catholics are probably not the biggest concern if your issue is with the encroachment of religion into the realm of law.

It seems to me that mozg is plenty interested in discussing how and why certain people are canonized, and you, OP, just don't want to hear from people who disagree with you. Put on your big girl panties and get over it. Or post a rejoinder in the thread. Or ignore it completely.

To turn this around, if I were to start a thread asking, "What should be the criteria for a same-sex marriage?", and somebody came in and said, "I'm curious as to how they figure this out, but for what it's worth, I think gay mariage has no place in society", I'd like to think I wouldn't run crying to the mods about it. It's just an opinion. Everyone has them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

I think that a thread that's a question on whether or not X person meets the qualifications of Z should be a conversation on X, not on Z. That's all.

---

So you want people to be banned from debating Z? That's not fair; any question of X will call Z into question, too. If there was evidence that the World Series was rigged, discussion of that very problem would be quite relevant to a thread about predicting the winner of the World Series.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ulfhjorr

Sure, her comments weren't all happy and loving toward religion, but what the fuck does that matter?

---

Some people around here get a serious case of the vapors if anyone criticizes their particular godfest, and believe that their feelings on the Holy Trinity should shape public policy here at DoMeBo, like it does in supposedly secular governments.

I want to third Excalibre's comments on moderating here, BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

So you want people to be banned from debating Z? That's not fair; any question of X will call Z into question, too...

---

I don't think its unreasonable that people should be able to start debates on specific aspects of a religion and have them take place within the bounds set out in the OP, and be protected from sweeping, thread-derailing attacks on that religion (or religion in general).

Similarly, if someone were to start a thread in Capitol Hill on a particular aspect of one political party's policies.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

So you want people to be banned from debating Z?

---

Hardly. He specifically says he'd be interested in debating that in another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

I'd like to think I wouldn't run crying to the mods about it.

---

I didn't run crying to any mods. I disagreed with a mod's decision in that thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Okay, but try as I might, I can't come up with a reason why this Rome thing matters at all.

---

You can't think of a reason why separating leadership of a particular religion with the government of a separate city is an important distinction to make?

Would you object if every time Donald Wuerl (archbishop in Washington, DC) spoke, someone referred to that as the pronouncement of Washington?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Well, and not that this is the place to discuss this, but Catholics are probably not the biggest concern if your issue is with the encroachment of religion into the realm of law.

---

I oppose all religion in the realm of law. All of it, all the time. If that thread were about Islam or Presbyterians, I'd have tailored my response to them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

Some people around here get a serious case of the vapors if anyone criticizes their particular godfest, and believe that their feelings on the Holy Trinity should shape public policy here at DoMeBo, like it does in supposedly secular governments.

---

And I think religion should never be immune to criticism, anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Okay, but try as I might, I can't come up with a reason why this Rome thing matters at all.

---

You can't think of a reason why separating leadership of a particular religion with the government of a separate city is an important distinction to make?

---

I can't think of why the common tendency to refer to the leadership of the RCC, which is located in Rome, as "Rome", matters at all. Is it equally offensive to refer to the workings of the US federal government as "Washington"? After all, the capitol and White House may be in Washington, but they're not the same thing as Washington.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Hardly. He specifically says he'd be interested in debating that in another thread.

---

Sorry, I meant to imply "in that thread" after the end of that sentence (i.e., "So you want people to be banned from debating Z in that thread?"). I don't think that's a defensible position either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

I didn't run crying to any mods. I disagreed with a mod's decision in that thread.

---

In other words, you think MsRobyn should have strapped on her jackboots and kicked mozg and her anti-Catholic viewpoint right out of that thread. Distinction without difference (at best).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

And I think religion should never be immune to criticism, anywhere.

---

Right. Some of this board's particularly whiny members think their religion should be protected from criticism by force. And that's just silly. It's something nobody else asks for, but we're supposed to give them special leeway because they have Faith.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

I didn't run crying to any mods. I disagreed with a mod's decision in that thread.

---

In other words, you think MsRobyn should have strapped on her jackboots and kicked mozg and her anti-Catholic viewpoint right out of that thread. Distinction without difference (at best).

---

You are free to point to where I said that or something similar.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

<snip>
But, here's the thing, I don't really want this to be something moderators do. Moderators can't make hateful people nice, or mean people kind, or argumentative people conciliatory, and I don't want them to try. I'd like the community to try to keep discussions going by ignoring hijacks (except in other threads like this one or mine in Thunderdome) and generally policing ourselves.<snip>

---

Eggzackly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

You are free to point to where I said that or something similar.

---

Right in the post I quoted. You said you disagreed with MsRobyn's decision. I guess there's a communication breakdown here. What, exactly, would you rather she do?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

You are free to point to where I said that or something similar.

---

Right in the post I quoted. You said you disagreed with MsRobyn's decision. I guess there's a communication breakdown here. What, exactly, would you rather she do?

---

I stated very clearly in the OP that I disagreed with her calling mozg's posts "not threadshitting" and that, in addition, I wasn't sure there should be a rule against threadshitting in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Julie

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I.

those being the ones installed by Rome, the group that decides these things

---

And here I was thinking that Rome was a city in Italy, and that the Vatican City was the capital of the Catholic church. Or do you view the Catholic church as having total authority over the city of Rome, as it is a party of the nation state of Italy?

---

Look up metonymy.

---

Wasn't it more a synecdoche? Either way, it's hardly a new one, so I don't know why mozg feels she has to be a dick about it.

are all threads like this or did you guys just bring this particular brand of asinine debate over to THUNDERDOME specially

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacandra

Either way, it's hardly a new one, so I don't know why mozg feels she has to be a dick about it.

---

That you've been wrong for a long time is no excuse to continue being wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hostile Dialect

Right. Some of this board's particularly whiny members think their religion should be protected from criticism by force. And that's just silly. It's something nobody else asks for, but we're supposed to give them special leeway because they have Faith.

---

Oh, that's ridiculous. Anyone who couldn't stand to hear their religon criticized wouldn't come within a mile of this place. It would just be nice if a discussion could be had about a certain topic without the topic being changed.

What if the thread were about baseball...let's say, who's going to be MVP this year. People are discussing various players' stats and such, and I came into the thread yelling about how sports are so stupid, and they shouldn't even honor someone for being able to hit a ball with a stick because it's just so wrong to teach children that this is an acceptable skill to practice, and money in schools shouldn't be spent on sports, and really, how can anyone admire baseball players because sports teach the wrong values and blah blah blah? It would be annoying, to say the least. What is wrong with asking that person to just start a new thread, and leave the people interested in the topic to discuss it?

Can someone attempt to explain what the hell Hostile Dialect is going on about?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

are all threads like this or did you guys just bring this particular brand of asinine debate over to THUNDERDOME specially

---

Nah, it's not all threads -- just those touching on religion, because that particular human foible tends to make everything it comes into contact with asinine.

Guys lets derail the fuck out of this thread.

Does anybody know a good boardgame for me to try? I was looking at Agricola, Puerto Rico, or maybe Cathedral. We've played RISK and Trivial Pursuit and now we need something new. Not all of them are hard core about boardgames, most of them are pretty casual about it. Recommendations if you please.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Can someone attempt to explain what the hell Hostile Dialect is going on about?

---

Not really though it looks like:

Religion is bad so all threads about religion should be fair game for non-believers.

I hope I am wrong. I think a good solution was found in the end this time.

I see mozg and Hostile Dialect arguing that religion should never be exempt from criticism anywhere.

I respectfully disagree.

There is a time and a place for that criticism, and isn't dropping it like a stinking turd in the middle of someone else's discussion of particular aspects of their religion or beliefs. The only way any society, either as a whole or as a subset such as a message board, is going to be able to engage in productive dialog and discussion of issues is when people are willing to respect the rights of others to discuss such issues free from harassment and assault by those who disagree with or are outright hostile to their beliefs.

You don't walk into a church in the middle of a sermon and spit on the cross, you don't walk up to a priest or rabbi and verbally assault them while they're drinking coffee at Starbucks, or you get arrested for trespassing and disturbing the peace, if not for assault. What that has to do with anything is to recognize that there is a time and a place for expressing one's hostility to their beliefs, and there are limits in a civil society on how you can express such things.

It should not be any different here, and it is not a violation of your rights or a trampling on logic or truth in order for you to be asked not to engage in practices which are disrespectful of the beliefs and opinions of others.

Frankly, in my opinion, holding such forceful hostility to religion or belief - to the point where you feel that you can express it any time and any place and are within your rights to engage further anger if someone asks you to stop - is a sign of a serious character defect and a lot of anger management issues that need to be dealt with. It isn't up to the rest of the world to coddle YOUR beliefs and allow you to express your (unreasoning) anger whenever you desire to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mozg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacandra

Either way, it's hardly a new one, so I don't know why mozg feels she has to be a dick about it.

---

That you've been wrong for a long time is no excuse to continue being wrong.

---

Your avatar picture is your actual brain, isn't it? Ask them to put it back in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

You don't walk into a church in the middle of a sermon and spit on the cross, you don't walk up to a priest or rabbi and verbally assault them while they're drinking coffee at Starbucks, or you get arrested for trespassing and disturbing the peace, if not for assault. What that has to do with anything is to recognize that there is a time and a place for expressing one's hostility to their beliefs, and there are limits in a civil society on how you can express such things.

. . .

Frankly, in my opinion, holding such forceful hostility to religion or belief - to the point where you feel that you can express it any time and any place and are within your rights to engage further anger if someone asks you to stop - is a sign of a serious character defect and a lot of anger management issues that need to be dealt with. It isn't up to the rest of the world to coddle YOUR beliefs and allow you to express your (unreasoning) anger whenever you desire to do so.

---

Uh, wow. That's, uh, kind of a disproportionate response but okay.

"Disproportionate response" seems to be par for the course in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

"Disproportionate response" seems to be par for the course in this thread.

---

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

Allah protects me from you infidels.

ALSO I found some Jesus fanfic action for you guys

When Hitler stepped through the portal he saw a beautiful man with blue eyes and a long beard. “Greetings, my son,” he said. Hitler looked around. “Where am I?” “In Israel, my son. Come, have lunch with me. My name is Jesus Christ.” Hitler was instantly amazed. He had been a devout Christian all his life and he was honored to eat dinner with Jesus. During lunch Hitler explained the tenets of National Socialism to the Messiah. To his delight, Jesus loved it! Within an hour Jesus was won over to National Socialism. Hitler felt joy in his heart. National Socialism would live again!

While they were talking Hitler found himself checking out Jesus' tight bod. If he wasn't Furor of Germany... But he wasn't Furor anymore,was he? That night when Hitler and Jesus were in bed together Hitler said “Jesus, what do you think of... love between men?” “What do you mean, Hitler?” Jesus asked. Hitler took a deep breath. He would have to be bold. “This is what I mean.” He leaned over and started Frenching with the Lord. At the same time he reached down and started tugging on his already turgid member

Well, that seems to be what is being argued here. "I have a right to attack religion whereever I see it because it's stupid".

What isn't being seen is that allowing that path is a defacto censorship of any and all religious belief, because expressing it subjects any thread to derailment down that path.

You misspelled "Führer", heathen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

"Disproportionate response" seems to be par for the course in this thread.

---

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

---

You couldn't afford it, sugar.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

Allah protects me from you infidels.

---

Perhaps it's your triviality which protects you.

I just can't stop thinking about you NinetyWt. I try every night when I lie down in bed but you won't go away. You won't leave my thoughts in peace. I know Allah says its wrong but how can I feel this way unless its so right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

I just can't stop thinking about you NinetyWt. I try every night when I lie down in bed but you won't go away. You won't leave my thoughts in peace. I know Allah says its wrong but how can I feel this way unless its so right.

---

How delightful! I always wanted a pet ferret with a red sweater cap.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chimera

Well, that seems to be what is being argued here. "I have a right to attack religion whereever I see it because it's stupid".

What isn't being seen is that allowing that path is a defacto censorship of any and all religious belief, because expressing it subjects any thread to derailment down that path.

---

Yes, it would be just as bad as if one jumped into a secular thread and started witnessing. That's probably my preference for orderliness showing.

Look; I personally hold a lot of opinions that are hostile to the main religions. I was born and raised very conservative Baptist, yet I no longer hold those beliefs. I have made some pretty damning statements on SDMB about the Christian God and some of the core tenants of various Christian sects. I've made some pretty strong statements about the sillyness and offensiveness of some Islamic beliefs.

But again, we are talking about a basic right to hold Civil Discourse on such matters.

Having the "right" to jump into any conversation involving beliefs different from your own and derail them is not condusive to Civil Discourse, or to the rights of other people to freely discuss such matters.

If anyone comes back at that and says "BUT I DO HAVE THAT RIGHT! I HATES THEM! THEY'RE SO STUPID!", then hell yes, it IS a matter of their own character and anger management issues that are interfering with their internal logic and social skills.

If this has been explained inside and upside down so many times by so many people and there are still people that are screaming that religion should not be exempt to their criticism, then it isn't a matter of being right or wrong or any reason at all, but of unreasoning anger toward religion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

I just can't stop thinking about you NinetyWt. I try every night when I lie down in bed but you won't go away. You won't leave my thoughts in peace. I know Allah says its wrong but how can I feel this way unless its so right.

---

[modhat:3tivdgnj]hatesfreedom, you seem determined to get banned. You&#39;ve already been approached by a mod in PM. This is now a formal warning. Do not troll the boards.[/modhat:3tivdgnj]

Ooh, our first troll. How exciting!