|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On January 26 2012 01:33 TheToast wrote:Typical "my beliefs are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot/moron" posts. You can express very different opinions while still being civil. His argument against homosexuality was also completely baseless, you ought to at least make some attempt to form a logical argument. I actually thought his string of posts were unintentionally entertaining, like this tidbit: Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote:
have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? lol.
Male lions have sex with male lions. Just felt like letting everybody know that.
Edit: Also apparently a fuckton of other animals too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
|
On January 26 2012 01:33 TheToast wrote:Typical "my beliefs are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot/moron" posts. You can express very different opinions while still being civil. His argument against homosexuality was also completely baseless, you ought to at least make some attempt to form a logical argument. I actually thought his string of posts were unintentionally entertaining, like this tidbit: Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote:
have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? lol.
Repost since the other thread isn't the place to discuss bans I learned.
Several days ago I was asked to provide "evidence" of the double standards in moderating religious posts. I can think of no better example than Kwarks ban of this guy. Kwark, you don't have to agree with someone's religion, but to shut them up by banning them and then tell them their "truth is based on fairy tales" only shows your hatred and bigotry towards Christianity. Plexa said "People are allowed to have opinions." I feel certain it applies to the guy you banned as well. Understand that just because I believe something is wrong, doesn't mean I hate everybody engaged in it. Edit: The post only contained his personal beliefs on a subject that was being discussed in the thread. The poster was not attacking anyone on a personal level. He did not express hate torwards anything. How can this ban be justified? Because someone expressed an unpopular *opinion?
Kwarks ban explanation, by your logic, is just as baseless as you claim the poster to be. Bottom line from where I am sitting is that some guy posted an unpopular opinion/belief and some other guy had the "authority" to ban him for posting something he didn't like.
Am I to understand that you can talk shit on someone and their beliefs/religion calling them a "biggot" and a believer of only "fairy tales" but say that you believe homosexuality is immoral or wrong and you're toast?
|
On January 26 2012 09:18 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 01:33 TheToast wrote:On January 26 2012 01:14 Joedaddy wrote:I would really love to know why this guy was banned. Thanks <3 Typical "my beliefs are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot/moron" posts. You can express very different opinions while still being civil. His argument against homosexuality was also completely baseless, you ought to at least make some attempt to form a logical argument. I actually thought his string of posts were unintentionally entertaining, like this tidbit: On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote:
have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? lol. Repost since the other thread isn't the place to discuss bans I learned. Show nested quote +Several days ago I was asked to provide "evidence" of the double standards in moderating religious posts. I can think of no better example than Kwarks ban of this guy. Kwark, you don't have to agree with someone's religion, but to shut them up by banning them and then tell them their "truth is based on fairy tales" only shows your hatred and bigotry towards Christianity. Plexa said "People are allowed to have opinions." I feel certain it applies to the guy you banned as well. Understand that just because I believe something is wrong, doesn't mean I hate everybody engaged in it. Edit: The post only contained his personal beliefs on a subject that was being discussed in the thread. The poster was not attacking anyone on a personal level. He did not express hate torwards anything. How can this ban be justified? Because someone expressed an unpopular *opinion? Kwarks ban explanation, by your logic, is just as baseless as you claim the poster to be. Bottom line from where I am sitting is that some guy posted an unpopular opinion/belief and some other guy had the "authority" to ban him for posting something he didn't like. Am I to understand that you can talk shit on someone and their beliefs/religion calling them a "biggot" and a believer of only "fairy tales" but say that you believe homosexuality is immoral or wrong and you're toast?
Because saying homosexuality is immoral is biggoted. Regardless of what you believe, TL is an open community with many different types of people. Posting about how homosexuality is immoral is kinda like posting that black/asian/hispanic people are somehow inferior because of their skin color. It's a baseless belief that attacks other people for being who they are. It's completely understandable for someone to get banned because of that.
Not sure if it's my place to make this post, someone can PM me if it's innapropriate.
|
On January 26 2012 09:29 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 09:18 Joedaddy wrote:On January 26 2012 01:33 TheToast wrote:On January 26 2012 01:14 Joedaddy wrote:I would really love to know why this guy was banned. Thanks <3 Typical "my beliefs are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot/moron" posts. You can express very different opinions while still being civil. His argument against homosexuality was also completely baseless, you ought to at least make some attempt to form a logical argument. I actually thought his string of posts were unintentionally entertaining, like this tidbit: On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote:
have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? lol. Repost since the other thread isn't the place to discuss bans I learned. Several days ago I was asked to provide "evidence" of the double standards in moderating religious posts. I can think of no better example than Kwarks ban of this guy. Kwark, you don't have to agree with someone's religion, but to shut them up by banning them and then tell them their "truth is based on fairy tales" only shows your hatred and bigotry towards Christianity. Plexa said "People are allowed to have opinions." I feel certain it applies to the guy you banned as well. Understand that just because I believe something is wrong, doesn't mean I hate everybody engaged in it. Edit: The post only contained his personal beliefs on a subject that was being discussed in the thread. The poster was not attacking anyone on a personal level. He did not express hate torwards anything. How can this ban be justified? Because someone expressed an unpopular *opinion? Kwarks ban explanation, by your logic, is just as baseless as you claim the poster to be. Bottom line from where I am sitting is that some guy posted an unpopular opinion/belief and some other guy had the "authority" to ban him for posting something he didn't like. Am I to understand that you can talk shit on someone and their beliefs/religion calling them a "biggot" and a believer of only "fairy tales" but say that you believe homosexuality is immoral or wrong and you're toast? Because saying homosexuality is immoral is biggoted. Regardless of what you believe, TL is an open community with many different types of people. Posting about how homosexuality is immoral is kinda like posting that black/asian/hispanic people are somehow inferior because of their skin color. It's a baseless belief that attacks other people for being who they are. It's completely understandable for someone to get banned because of that. Not sure if it's my place to make this post, someone can PM me if it's innapropriate.
I can understand why someone who is gay or lesbian might take offense to someone else saying homosexuality is immoral.
Try to understand though that telling someone their religion or beliefs is based on fairy tales is just as offensive to a believer.
Bigot, by definition means "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Just because you believe homosexuality is immoral does not mean that you fall into the category of a bigot. I have had many relationships over the years with homosexuals through school, work, games, mutual friends, etc and I have never once had a confrontation with any of them. In fact, it was quite the opposite. I still keep in touch with an amazing woman who happens to be a lesbian whom I worked with 8 years ago in the military.
I share in the belief that homosexuality is a sin against God, but that doesn't make me a bigot. To me, its not a "baseless belief' because it says very plainly in the Bible that it is so. It can still be a baseless belief in your opinion. Its ok that we have different ideas/beliefs. Understand though, that baseless to one person does not mean baseless to another person.
As a Christian, I have always been taught that you can love the person without loving their choices/lifestyle/etc. I can't stress enough that just because I believe something, doesn't mean I hate everyone who is in conflict with my belief.
In an "open community with many different types of people" religious people should be afforded the same level of respect as homosexuals enjoy. Unfortunately, as evidenced by Kwark's ban, that is not the case.
+ Show Spoiler +I really hope meaningful discussion about this can take place instead of dodging the issue by posting polls about how great a movie is. TL is such an amazing site full of amazing people made possible by a great staff.
|
Okay it's great that you can manage to think that all homosexuals are sinning against god and assuming they don't change will go to hell and still be friends with them/interact with them normally. (btw I'm not phrasing it this way to be provocative I'm doing so because as far as I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong, those are what you actually believe and I think that should be acknowledged) But this person proved that he can't speak respectfully about this group of people, began making baseless arguments, (not the religion part the entire tirade about something being "natural" or not and saying that they spread disease which is in my opinion one line on its own that should get him banned, especially when he doesn't back it up with anything) was frankly offensive and didn't contribute anything useful.
Now I'll admit I don't fully agree with the way the ban was phrased but I will argue 100% that he deserved it and I think it really says something about what you're arguing if to show that TL is bigoted you need to be defending posters like this from bans.
Edit: on second thought, ignore this, I agree with Chill \/\/\/
|
Calgary25996 Posts
That guy's post you linked is retarded. If you post stupid shit that's also offensive to a lot of people with zero evidence and then claim "it's just my opinion!" then you'll get told to leave (banned).
His post and his "one question" are just dumb. When you go into nature do you see gay animals? Yes, sometimes. So by the dictionary definition of normal (Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected), seeing some gay people is normal.
I guess my point is, if you have an opinion that's offensive to people, it's on you to provide evidence to back it up. If you have no evidence, that's fine, keep your opinion to yourself. You can believe whatever the fuck you want to believe, but if you're going to start posting it, you'd better be able to back it up with more than a retarded thought experiment that can be defeated in 2 seconds.
If I posted "when you go to nature white dogs are smarter than black dogs. Obviously humans are naturally the same" I'd get banned for being a fucking offensive idiot. It's got nothing to do with religion or Christianity or anything. It's just a fucking stupid, offensive post that lacks basic reasoning. Keep that shit to yourself.
|
United States43746 Posts
On January 26 2012 09:18 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 01:33 TheToast wrote:On January 26 2012 01:14 Joedaddy wrote:I would really love to know why this guy was banned. Thanks <3 Typical "my beliefs are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot/moron" posts. You can express very different opinions while still being civil. His argument against homosexuality was also completely baseless, you ought to at least make some attempt to form a logical argument. I actually thought his string of posts were unintentionally entertaining, like this tidbit: On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote:
have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? lol. Repost since the other thread isn't the place to discuss bans I learned. Show nested quote +Several days ago I was asked to provide "evidence" of the double standards in moderating religious posts. I can think of no better example than Kwarks ban of this guy. Kwark, you don't have to agree with someone's religion, but to shut them up by banning them and then tell them their "truth is based on fairy tales" only shows your hatred and bigotry towards Christianity. Plexa said "People are allowed to have opinions." I feel certain it applies to the guy you banned as well. Understand that just because I believe something is wrong, doesn't mean I hate everybody engaged in it. Edit: The post only contained his personal beliefs on a subject that was being discussed in the thread. The poster was not attacking anyone on a personal level. He did not express hate torwards anything. How can this ban be justified? Because someone expressed an unpopular *opinion? Kwarks ban explanation, by your logic, is just as baseless as you claim the poster to be. Bottom line from where I am sitting is that some guy posted an unpopular opinion/belief and some other guy had the "authority" to ban him for posting something he didn't like. Am I to understand that you can talk shit on someone and their beliefs/religion calling them a "biggot" and a believer of only "fairy tales" but say that you believe homosexuality is immoral or wrong and you're toast?
He took the entire topic on a tangent by bringing up how he felt gay marriage was wrong, then proceeded to spew some ignorance about homosexuality and then didn't even bother with the pretence of debate by falling upon "God said it so it's true". It's not that he's religious, it's that he fucked up the topic. You can be religious and still make rational arguments and you can be an atheist and still make retarded appeals to authority (although atheists generally at least have the decency to appeal to an authority that both sides agree is real). It's not about what he believes in, it's about him being fucking retarded.
In short, don't be fucking retarded.
|
No problem. Staff thinks guy deserves a ban, guy gets ban. I can't tell somebody else what they should or shouldn't be offended by. All I'm asking is that staff and others don't shit on religion while you're doing it. Its offensive, disrespectful, and unnecessary.
+ Show Spoiler +Saying someone's religious beliefs are based on fairy tales and labeling them a bigot because they believe something to be immoral is all of those things.
|
United States43746 Posts
In response to your edit.
If you were to start bringing up how you think homosexuality is immoral in some random topic that wasn't about homosexuality and it wasn't the most amazing and illuminating post ever you'd be a candidate for moderation. Likewise if you attempt to back up your beliefs with "God said so" then you'd be a candidate for moderation because while that may be an argument for why you think something is the case that's not an argument for why something is the case. It's something you explore yourself, not a rational argument for a debate. If you want to make a case then make one, likewise if you want to submit your will to a higher power then go do that, one thing you shouldn't do is bring your submission to a higher power to a debate and act like you've made a point.
I show zero respect to homosexuals on account of their sexual preference.
I show zero respect to Christians on account of their religion.
I honestly do not understand this "you need to respect my personal choices" thing that people cling to as if it somehow makes it more virtuous. I don't defend homosexuality because I feel that the gays are a special group that needs protection whereas Christians are fair game and should be ridiculed, that's part of this absurd victim mentality that seems to have swept up Christianity in recent years. If a gay guy went into a topic and started spouting random bullshit on a random tangent and then when people were respectful enough to engage him with a rational response claimed he was right based on a secret gay revelation he got from swallowing copious amounts of gay semen I'd ban him too. There'd be no "well, he's gay, I guess that's his choice and I'll respect it" bullshit. I'd call him retarded and I'd ban him.
The guy was an idiot and a bad poster. Not because he was a Christian, most Christians realise that personal revelation is not something that can be used in a debate, especially not when the purpose of the debate is telling other people for whom the revelation is entirely irrelevant what they can and cannot do. Christians catch more flak than gays at the moment but that's only because most gays haven't decided that by loving cock they have access to a special truth which gives them permission impose upon the personal freedoms of straight people. Once they start doing that, they'll hear from me too.
Hopefully that clears things up.
Edit: If you don't like your story about how the magic man healed people and walked on water and died and returned being called a fairy tale then I suggest you grow thicker skin. If it makes you feel any better they're all fairy tales. If a gay guy told me that a big gay in the sky sent his only son to earth and he hung around with twelve gay dudes but they didn't tell anyone because they were all in the closet and then one of them outed the son of the magic gay guy and he went away for a few days to come to terms with the betrayal and then came back and they were all really happy and then they realised that by being outed he had sacrificed himself for the group and by seeing how he was persecuted for being gay it gave them all the strength to embrace their own sexuality and they all went out to spread the word about how being gay was okay and he had accomplished his task so his big gay dad took him back up to his big gay house in the sky you know what I'd call that? A fucking fairy tale.
Edit 2: No issues are being dodged here by discussing how fucking awesome Underworld is. I can do both. Like this post post edit.
|
United States43746 Posts
There's some joke here about gay Jesus riding an ass.
And something with fairy tale.
|
So in response to a request to not shit on people's beliefs you post this? Only this time it isn't even wearing the disguise of moderation? I tell you something is offensive and you tell me to "grow thicker skin?"
Kwark, what you just posted is much like your ban comment: offensive, disrespectful, and unnecessary. But thats ok because you're somebody important on TL, right?
|
On January 26 2012 09:47 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 09:29 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:On January 26 2012 09:18 Joedaddy wrote:On January 26 2012 01:33 TheToast wrote:On January 26 2012 01:14 Joedaddy wrote:I would really love to know why this guy was banned. Thanks <3 Typical "my beliefs are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot/moron" posts. You can express very different opinions while still being civil. His argument against homosexuality was also completely baseless, you ought to at least make some attempt to form a logical argument. I actually thought his string of posts were unintentionally entertaining, like this tidbit: On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote:
have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? lol. Repost since the other thread isn't the place to discuss bans I learned. Several days ago I was asked to provide "evidence" of the double standards in moderating religious posts. I can think of no better example than Kwarks ban of this guy. Kwark, you don't have to agree with someone's religion, but to shut them up by banning them and then tell them their "truth is based on fairy tales" only shows your hatred and bigotry towards Christianity. Plexa said "People are allowed to have opinions." I feel certain it applies to the guy you banned as well. Understand that just because I believe something is wrong, doesn't mean I hate everybody engaged in it. Edit: The post only contained his personal beliefs on a subject that was being discussed in the thread. The poster was not attacking anyone on a personal level. He did not express hate torwards anything. How can this ban be justified? Because someone expressed an unpopular *opinion? Kwarks ban explanation, by your logic, is just as baseless as you claim the poster to be. Bottom line from where I am sitting is that some guy posted an unpopular opinion/belief and some other guy had the "authority" to ban him for posting something he didn't like. Am I to understand that you can talk shit on someone and their beliefs/religion calling them a "biggot" and a believer of only "fairy tales" but say that you believe homosexuality is immoral or wrong and you're toast? Because saying homosexuality is immoral is biggoted. Regardless of what you believe, TL is an open community with many different types of people. Posting about how homosexuality is immoral is kinda like posting that black/asian/hispanic people are somehow inferior because of their skin color. It's a baseless belief that attacks other people for being who they are. It's completely understandable for someone to get banned because of that. Not sure if it's my place to make this post, someone can PM me if it's innapropriate. I can understand why someone who is gay or lesbian might take offense to someone else saying homosexuality is immoral. Try to understand though that telling someone their religion or beliefs is based on fairy tales is just as offensive to a believer. Bigot, by definition means "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Just because you believe homosexuality is immoral does not mean that you fall into the category of a bigot. I have had many relationships over the years with homosexuals through school, work, games, mutual friends, etc and I have never once had a confrontation with any of them. In fact, it was quite the opposite. I still keep in touch with an amazing woman who happens to be a lesbian whom I worked with 8 years ago in the military. I share in the belief that homosexuality is a sin against God, but that doesn't make me a bigot. To me, its not a "baseless belief' because it says very plainly in the Bible that it is so. It can still be a baseless belief in your opinion. Its ok that we have different ideas/beliefs. Understand though, that baseless to one person does not mean baseless to another person. As a Christian, I have always been taught that you can love the person without loving their choices/lifestyle/etc. I can't stress enough that just because I believe something, doesn't mean I hate everyone who is in conflict with my belief. In an "open community with many different types of people" religious people should be afforded the same level of respect as homosexuals enjoy. Unfortunately, as evidenced by Kwark's ban, that is not the case. I really hope meaningful discussion about this can take place instead of dodging the issue by posting polls about how great a movie is. TL is such an amazing site full of amazing people made possible by a great staff.
No one is dodging that issue. In fact I commented on it in the last page. I also brought up a similar issue concerning DrTyrant's for some political discourse ban some pages back, read here please: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95875¤tpage=768#15355
The problem with bdair2002, as I said in my previous post, is not his ideas but how he expressed them. That thread had nothing to do with homosexuality, the issue was not being debated in the thread; this guy chose to bring it up. He accused the west of hosting some kind of conspiracy involving Islamic dress rules (don't understand this one at all), claimed homosexuality is "creating disease", he has previously said that GW Bush made millions off the war on terror due to some kind of conspiracy involving oil stocks. It's pretty clear this guy is interested in stirring up controversy and anti-US anti-western hatred.
It's quite possible to express these ideas with civility. In an appropriate topic, one can say "hey, here is what I believe and this is what my culture has taught me is right and wrong. This is the religious basis for this, and we believe this is wrong. So I disagree with you about this issue". If you present something as a sociological fact in a respectful, logical manor you are not going to get banned on TL. bdair2002 said that people were "arguing without knowledge" in that thread, something I would not disagree with. But instead of providing a unique and interesting perspective on the issue from someone who has live in and been to (as he claimed) conservative Islamic states and thus enlightening the conversation; he decided to lecture and and make crazy claims such as saying homosexuality"creates a lot of diseases" which has NO basis in medical fact. It's actually unfortunate, had he conducted himself appropriately he probably could have added a lot to the conversation, given his unique background.
Did everyone else in that thread conduct themselves perfectly? No, but bdair2002 was the most visible with his misconduct. Sometimes that's the way things go.
-edit: gaaahh ninja'ed
On January 26 2012 10:13 KwarK wrote:
In short, don't be fucking retarded.
|
United States43746 Posts
On January 26 2012 10:51 Joedaddy wrote:
So in response to a request to not shit on people's beliefs you post this? Only this time it isn't even wearing the disguise of moderation? I tell you something is offensive and you tell me to "grow thicker skin?"
Kwark, what you just posted is much like your ban comment: offensive, disrespectful, and unnecessary. But thats ok because you're somebody important on TL, right?
My personal belief is that what you believe is silly. Feel free to call that a fairy tale if you like.
|
On January 26 2012 11:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 10:51 Joedaddy wrote:
So in response to a request to not shit on people's beliefs you post this? Only this time it isn't even wearing the disguise of moderation? I tell you something is offensive and you tell me to "grow thicker skin?"
Kwark, what you just posted is much like your ban comment: offensive, disrespectful, and unnecessary. But thats ok because you're somebody important on TL, right? My personal belief is that what you believe is silly. Feel free to call that a fairy tale if you like.
I didn't come here to bicker back and forth. You can believe whatever you like and that's ok. But if I have learned anything from this thread, its that:
if you have an opinion that's offensive to people, it's on you to provide evidence to back it up. If you have no evidence, that's fine, keep your opinion to yourself.
Now I'm sure that you can link plenty of scientific evidence intended to disprove what I believe, but your previous post wasn't about presenting a logical argument disproving my beliefs. I would suggest that we could have such a discussion but we both know religion threads are not allowed on TL, so that won't happen either. So what do we do now?
I'd suggest a good starting place would be to stop posting utter crap intended to mock and make fun of my religious beliefs. I will stop asking you to leave out the offensive, disrespectful, and unnecessary comments because that is something you seem incapable of. Deal?
|
United States43746 Posts
As long as we're agreed it's not about special treatment of gays and repression of Christians I'm happy.
|
On January 26 2012 11:22 KwarK wrote:
As long as we're agreed it's not about special treatment of gays and repression of Christians I'm happy.
Of course. Your most recent posts illustrates that perfectly...........
|
Calgary25996 Posts
Okay. This isn't the place for this. Stop posting about it please.
Take it to PMs.
If you want to discuss what happened here and TL's policies on moderation as it relates to religion or Kwark's actions, PM an administrator.
|
On January 26 2012 10:51 Joedaddy wrote:
So in response to a request to not shit on people's beliefs you post this? Only this time it isn't even wearing the disguise of moderation? I tell you something is offensive and you tell me to "grow thicker skin?"
Kwark, what you just posted is much like your ban comment: offensive, disrespectful, and unnecessary. But thats ok because you're somebody important on TL, right?
Yes. Deal with it, this is TL.
User was warned for this post
|
Second time I've seen Joedaddy go a bit beyond the boundaries.
User was warned for this post
|
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
I need to start posting in this thread again. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
