|
Post by Jim on Apr 11, 2014 8:59:23 GMT -6
I suppose that Mama Cass/Historian will return sooner or later in some guise or another. What an unpleasant jerk! It appears he exists merely to play every insult-based card in the troll's deck while diligently avoiding any real discussion. It is kind of amusing at first (for me at least), but then after a while.... (I am assuming that Cass/Historian is a dude by the way, my bias is such that I can't imagine a woman behaving that way)
I think this type of troll/boorishness is a price society pays for having much internet dialog and commentary delivered completely anonymously. Of course, I'm well aware that I went to same fairly uncivil places recently, so I can't complain too much, but Flitz and I know each other somewhat, so there are genuine human costs to boorish behavior. Not so with Cass/Historian. There is no price, just sow discord, spout hateful cliches and disappear.
I'm not suggesting that general forum anonymity should be changed... I certainly would not want Cass to know who I am in real life since there seems to be a reasonable chance that he is a genuinely unhinged sort who might be dangerous. I'm only saying that this phenomenon of anonymous trolling is a shame.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 11, 2014 9:08:30 GMT -6
I think he liked me.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 11, 2014 11:48:11 GMT -6
Being female, I on the other hand can indeed imagine a woman behaving that way. In fact, the anonymity of message boards is precisely the type of cover a woman who doesn't want to seem unfeminine by expressing overt hostility in real life might choose.
This person, however, seemed to me to have something personal against specific members of this forum. That suggests to me it's someone with a prior acquaintance.
Anyway, not worth wasting more speculation upon.
:::::: chanting the online mantra::::: "It's oooonnnly a message board. It's oooonnnly a message board. It's oooonnnly a message board."
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 11, 2014 12:22:08 GMT -6
He liked me bestest, so there !!!
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 14, 2014 16:42:54 GMT -6
I suppose that Mama Cass/Historian will return sooner or later in some guise or another. What an unpleasant jerk! It appears he exists merely to play every insult-based card in the troll's deck while diligently avoiding any real discussion. It is kind of amusing at first (for me at least), but then after a while.... (I am assuming that Cass/Historian is a dude by the way, my bias is such that I can't imagine a woman behaving that way) I think this type of troll/boorishness is a price society pays for having much internet dialog and commentary delivered completely anonymously. Of course, I'm well aware that I went to same fairly uncivil places recently, so I can't complain too much, but Flitz and I know each other somewhat, so there are genuine human costs to boorish behavior. Not so with Cass/Historian. There is no price, just sow discord, spout hateful cliches and disappear. I'm not suggesting that general forum anonymity should be changed... I certainly would not want Cass to know who I am in real life since there seems to be a reasonable chance that he is a genuinely unhinged sort who might be dangerous. I'm only saying that this phenomenon of anonymous trolling is a shame. Jim I thought I would read some amusing commentary if I dropped in again. Little did I know that the one member with whom I have not interacted and who claims to be a Christian (yeah, right) likely leaves the light on at night lest he be attacked by unhinged bits and bytes. Really? Holding opinions held by most of humanity throughout all history up to the present day makes me unhinged? Oh brother. You have some growing up to do. You just aren't that interesting to me. I avoided no discussion. You are right though. There was an amazing amount of boorishness and insults-- not to mention bad, off-topic arguments and attempts to steer the conversation away from the matter at hand. Problem is, it all came from you and the atheist pack. There isn't one insulting or boorish statement you can find in any message of mine. Disagreement with your opinions does not make me a troll or a boor. Can you understand that? I bet you can't. If we have some fool student at Harvard claiming that free speech needs to die because only progressive opinions are valid, it is easy to see that you and your ilk find disagreement with homosexual marriage to be beyond the pale. Good luck with that. If you ever emerge from your bubble, you are going to find that many more people agree with me than with you.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 14, 2014 16:46:45 GMT -6
See Jim--I knew you were an atheist. You just haven't noticed yet.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 14, 2014 17:24:56 GMT -6
Ah, for you that is a good thing. For a Christian such a charge ought to be cause for serious soul searching and reflection.
If it doesn't quack like a duck, chances are, it isn't a duck. Jim needs to work on his quacking.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 14, 2014 17:38:05 GMT -6
Some Christian quack like a Christian and some act like a Christian. I am very far from being a Christian and will never return to Christianity, but I do like Christians that act like Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 14, 2014 20:18:57 GMT -6
Ah, for you that is a good thing. For a Christian such a charge ought to be cause for serious soul searching and reflection. If it doesn't quack like a duck, chances are, it isn't a duck. Jim needs to work on his quacking. Rumor has it that I am the one around here with a chip on the shoulder about Christians, but really the only the sort of Christians that bother me are: 1. Those who believe to the exclusion of thought. 2. Those whose use their faith as a stick with which to beat people. Jim is neither of those, and neither are my friends, the vast majority of whom are still (inexplicably, to me) people of great faith.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 14, 2014 21:14:30 GMT -6
But do you allow them to hold opinions other than the ones you espouse? Do you call them hateful, or whatever ugly label comes to mind when they insist on arguing for their own opinions? That is the one constant of all atheist forums. They cannot see disagreement as intellectual; it is always hateful. The holders of disfavored opinions are not allowed to make their arguments-- no, they are ganged up on and called names, the goal posts are shifted and voila! you have shut down any possibility of discussion. You see, today's intellectuals know that only progressive opinions are valid. Free speech and discussion of varied viewpoints is so ... 19th century.
It really wouldn't hurt for you to have a conversation with the gang here about what viewpoints are and are not allowed. Then you could post them and there would be no further surprises.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 14, 2014 21:17:39 GMT -6
I thought I would read some amusing commentary if I dropped in again. Little did I know that the one member with whom I have not interacted and who claims to be a Christian (yeah, right) likely leaves the light on at night lest he be attacked by unhinged bits and bytes. Really? Holding opinions held by most of humanity throughout all history up to the present day makes me unhinged? Oh brother. You have some growing up to do. You just aren't that interesting to me. I avoided no discussion. You are right though. There was an amazing amount of boorishness and insults-- not to mention bad, off-topic arguments and attempts to steer the conversation away from the matter at hand. Problem is, it all came from you and the atheist pack. There isn't one insulting or boorish statement you can find in any message of mine. Disagreement with your opinions does not make me a troll or a boor. Can you understand that? I bet you can't. If we have some fool student at Harvard claiming that free speech needs to die because only progressive opinions are valid, it is easy to see that you and your ilk find disagreement with homosexual marriage to be beyond the pale. Good luck with that. If you ever emerge from your bubble, you are going to find that many more people agree with me than with you.Actually H, you did avoid my contribution to the discussion. You avoided it completely. You might recall that I challenged you to explain why the legal rights and benefits of civil marriage should not be extended to gay couples. You fled. Earlier when you charged that I was re-writing the history of civil marriage you dodged. (Well, you did post a Wiki link that unfortunately for you supported my points, which I admit was amusing). Your rudeness to Dot, Steve and Eric is still up in the other thread for all to see. Final point - I'm pretty sure that the majority agree with me with respect to the propriety of extending the rights and privileges of civil marriage to gays - although this is a fairly recent development and you might have missed it. linkJim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 14, 2014 21:25:46 GMT -6
But do you allow them to hold opinions other than the ones you espouse? Do you call them hateful, or whatever ugly label comes to mind when they insist on arguing for their own opinions? That is the one constant of all atheist forums. They cannot see disagreement as intellectual; it is always hateful. The holders of disfavored opinions are not allowed to make their arguments-- no, they are ganged up on and called names, the goal posts are shifted and voila! you have shut down any possibility of discussion. You see, today's intellectuals know that only progressive opinions are valid. Free speech and discussion of varied viewpoints is so ... 19th century. It really wouldn't hurt for you to have a conversation with the gang here about what viewpoints are and are not allowed. Then you could post them and there would be no further surprises. H: I'm still interested in your justification for denying one class of citizens (gays) the rights and privileges of civil marriage if the members of this class are willing to make a life long commitment, enforceable by law, to care for each other 'till death do they part. I hinted earlier that platonic roommates do not get these legal benefits and that this is discrimination. I'll move the conversation forward by hinting that platonic roommates are justly discriminated against under the marriage laws because they do not make a legally binding life-long commitment to care for each other - in other words, there is nothing in it for the state. In that context, or any context, how would you justify continued legal discrimination against committed gay couples? J
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 14, 2014 21:40:20 GMT -6
Ah, for you that is a good thing. For a Christian such a charge ought to be cause for serious soul searching and reflection. If it doesn't quack like a duck, chances are, it isn't a duck. Jim needs to work on his quacking. I'm confused. Is H agreeing with FB? If H is challenging the sincerity of my own faith, that seems to be something Jesus would not do. (WWJND)? FB on the other hand is engaging in friendly banter - obviously. In any case, I reject the suggestion that Christians must reject gay marriage. The scripture on this point is ambiguous or silent. The OT portions cited to support an anti-gay-marriage stance are selectively culled from arcane Leviticus-type rules which have been discarded (or finessed) by all present day Christians. (for example compare this link with this link) That type of cherry picking to support prejudice is quite annoying. Also, I am pleased to see that Catholics are more tolerant of gay marriage than Protestants according to the Gallup poll I linked to earlier. Score one for the home team. (The players anyway, if not the coaches.) H ought to note that I have been pretty careful to only argue the civil marriage aspects of the gay marriage debate. I think that under civil law, continued discrimination is unsupported. This is an easy argument to win if one has the legal tools, which is why the civil gay marriage war is being won faster and more completely than I predicted maybe 10 years ago. Personally, I would be proud if my Church endorsed sacramental gay marriage and equality in general. I'm not expecting those types of changes in my lifetime, but I might be surprised. J
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 14, 2014 22:43:41 GMT -6
But do you allow them to hold opinions other than the ones you espouse? Do you call them hateful, or whatever ugly label comes to mind when they insist on arguing for their own opinions? That is the one constant of all atheist forums. They cannot see disagreement as intellectual; it is always hateful. The holders of disfavored opinions are not allowed to make their arguments-- no, they are ganged up on and called names, the goal posts are shifted and voila! you have shut down any possibility of discussion. You see, today's intellectuals know that only progressive opinions are valid. Free speech and discussion of varied viewpoints is so ... 19th century. It really wouldn't hurt for you to have a conversation with the gang here about what viewpoints are and are not allowed. Then you could post them and there would be no further surprises. No one wants people of faith here more than I do, and no idea is unallowed. I do not censor. That said, some ideas are more worth arguing than others. "potbelly pigs are cuddly" is not an idea I share, but not one I would argue either. Too much "eye of the beholder" going on there. On the other hand, "pot belly pigs are covered with lush fur" or worse, "people who like potbelly pigs should not be able to bequeath property tax free to their loved ones" are, incrementally, worth a scrap. So it is with ideas in a forum. It is quite true that a lot of religious people burn out on religion discussion forums. Your thesis is that this is because atheists are ruthless and offensive, and yet you are easily the nastiest piece of work to show up here in a long time, nevertheless obviously quite religious. I have a competing thesis: there are nice and nasty people on either side of the aisle. Atheists tend to outlast the religious on discussion boards because the process of questioning is harmless to them, while the process of being questioned is relatively more damaging to (some) theists.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 14, 2014 23:54:29 GMT -6
I found 4 insulting/boorish statements in your opening paragraph. What a poor loser. That's okay, you and people who think like you are going to become an ugly footnote in history. That will be your legacy, and of course your weird fascination with cat excrement/urine.
|
|