Too much moderation on these boards?

when one has an argument taken on faith in authority, what use is debate? i'm right, you're wrong, end of story. questioning is only useful to one side of this debate; it is dangerous to the other.

---

haha touche.

quote:

---

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

---

quote:

---

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

​

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

---

iano, and every other fundamentalist christian on this board: don't go around saying that other members are not christians. it's not for you to decide, and people take personal offense at that sort of charge. wouldn't you, if someone told you that you were lying about that sort of thing? religion is a very touchy and personal and sensitive issue -- and telling people they're not saved isn't very christian either. remember, we are all saved by grace and grace alone.jar: stop portraying fundamentalists as mentally handicapped. it's not exactly nice either, and hopefully not accurate.now play nice guys. oh, and with the accusations of wolves in sheep's clothing, i leave you with the latest from my favourite comic strip, "the perry bible fellowship," entitled "woolves."
http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/stilltemporary/Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

if the facts point the west as agressors towards the east, then the position is valid. what you are doing is approaching it from your own personal bias -- and interpretting a factual discussion as an ideological attack. seeing this as an attack, some members (like iano) turned to personally attack jar.most reasonable people read the title of that thread, i think, in the way that jar probably intended it: walking a mile in someone else's shoes. the idea, i think, was to promote understanding of the issues, beyond "they hate us for our freedom!" history extends beyond our own personal memories, and indeed affects the course of events in the present. maybe -- maybe -- the united states, or christendom, or the west, or whomever, HAS done some things in the past that have hurt and angered islam. but faith certainly jumped the gun:understandable, and even justified anger, does not excuse the violence. and to paint the opponent as saying any such thing is nothing but a strawman, and horrifyingly sick one at that. i can think of a number of threads you have posted that operated in a similar manner. you have your ideology, and you want to talk about how that frame of mind affects something else -- and you never want to hear evidence to the contrary, or reasons why your ideology might be wrong.if the discussion is factual, or reasoned, it's usually allowed here. if you approached by debating and discussing the facts of whether or not certain historical events effect current events, or even posted something like i said -- that justifiable annoyance is no excuse for violence -- that certainly would have been allowed. attacking other members and their personal faith is not, ever. many parts of the islamic world feel that christianity is the agressor. and in some cases, it definitally was. the crusades are a pretty good example of that.it's sort of like a thread explaining black resentment of whites over slavery. that implies that white was the race of the slave masters, yet the supply end of the african slave trade was all black. but guess who the resentment is against? it's not to say that ALL oppression is white, or even that such feeling is the majority (or even common), or even very valid at all today. it's just explaining the view point of another -- and it doesn't work very well if attempt to exchange everyone else's viewpoints with conservative talking points.if you have a factual objection -- such as instances where it was NOT the christian west -- that would have been a good way to frame your argument.

---

making gross generalizations about an entire ethnic group, religion, country, or people, and claiming they are all murderous, evil, (and from another debate) following demons is basically the definition of bigotry.bigotry should not be the beliefs of bible-believing christians. it saddens me greatly when it is. from what part of "love your neighbor" or "love your enemy" do you get this kind of attitude? what part of "saved by grace" and "no man is justified by the law alone" and "judge not" do you derive the authority to condemn others? the title says "why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West."might. it say why the islamic world MIGHT be annoyed. it in no way implies that annoyance is justification of violence, or that we somehow deserve terrorism. you are jumping to conclusions, and eager to paint strawmen of your opponents as evil and bloodthirsty for trying to explain why matters are complicated.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

quote:

---

...only Christians will be accepted as Moderators and Admins for the forum.

---

since i'm apparently the local "wolf in sheep's clothing" maybe i should go cause problems? it'd be funny if i could get in as a moderator, especially since, as per the rules, no one is allowed to complain about moderation...Edited by arachnophilia, : tag

---

yes, yes, of course. as i am often here. it would involve some acting skills, first. i would imagine that sticking to a strictly literal interpretation (something i'm very good at), and only biblical topics, would help.(although, honestly, that site gave me the heebeejeebees after reading a moderated thread or two...)

---

the word "or" is inclusive. look at it again:

quote:

---

making gross generalizations about an entire ethnic group, religion, country, or people, and claiming they are all murderous, evil, (and from another debate) following demons is basically the definition of bigotry.

---

maybe you're reading too much into this. it does sound like a bit of sarcastic understatement, yes, but the implication it is pregnant with is not "so we all deserve to die in terrorist attacks, and everything they say is right and holy."

---

the post in question:

quote:

---

Yeah, you're right, the piling on is bad since everyone wants to take a swing at the home run ball, but we have to remember that turnover means there's always a new audience. Still, you make a good point.

​

Hey, all evolutionists, I'd like to request that you all refrain from further replies unless PianoPrincess asks for clarification.

​

I think any further replies should come from IDists.

---

his post was a reply to mine, which said:

quote:

---

i think this was a bad idea

​

i mean. promoting a two line topic? and one that's basic t.o faq material and very very tired fallacy that's been beaten to death here? that's just asking for the pile-on. which, as we can see, is happening.

---

that topic was a bad choice for promotion -- and i'm surpised it got through. i've seen much, much better topics fail to meet standards, or get rejected. but percy tries to do the best he can with what he's given, and keep things as fair as realistically possible.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo, added percy's post

---

yes, quite so. i have, myself, often argued for a kind of creationist affirmitive action around here, if not outright pro-creo bias, just to keep the debate going. there have been points when there were so few creationists here that it got kind of boring.

---

yes. i seem to recall now that she was quite young. another good reason to stop the pile-on.there are no real hard-and-fast rules for how to moderate effective. i would imagine you have to take each situation as it arises. generally, percy and the rest of the moderation staff seem be very fair, or at least fair to the best of their abilities regarding the individual considerations each thread requires.the question is, is equality or even mild pro-creo bias good enough for the creationists?

---

there are both science AND religion fora here.

---

yes, and no. when the same standards that evolutionists are held to are applied to the creationists, they tend to whine that it's not fair. indeed, it isn't fair, really. one of the rules here is that you must back up your points with evidence. what evidence can there be for matters of faith?the problem is that equality isn't actually possible in the real world, because the two parties themselves have competing standards of what is acceptable.besides which, creationists are under represented here. there was a time in not too distant history here that the creationists WERE held to the same standards, and we had next to no creationist participation. it was just plain boring.

---

right, but that's a science debate. it is also quite possible to debate creationism of religious terms, as i know you are well aware. we both do it quite regularly.it's not just a side interest, it's actually integral to the argument, and a very important part of the debate. well, this is kind of what i was saying in my previous post. the two sides have competing standards -- and so to be FAIR, they have to be held to different standards. if we hold the creationists to the "evolutionist" standards of evidence, their point disappears. and vice versa. i really don't think it's as simple as that at all. there is so much more that goes on here than just "is it science? no." the board has grown beyond its original purpose.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

exactly. different standards of evidence.(though creationist posts often lack logic, reason or observation.) no, so that the debate keeps happening. if force our rules on the creationist -- and our standards of evidence -- they all disappear very quickly. very many (unfortunately) seem to disappear for other reasons, like behaviour. we can't call the board "EvC" if only the "E" is present, now can we?

---