The compromise thread

We have been through some ups and downs during our tenure at EvC. We have had some heated debates. As a result, many adverse reactions have come about this last week.Although these problems have been festering for years, I will take the brunt of the punishment and say that what has transpired was because of me, and me alone.It started when there were three consecutive threads involving homosexuality in some capacity. People became enraged when I mentioned social ills next to homosexuality. Many, many people were deeply offended. They believed that I was equivocating the act of homosexuality with certain social ills (Taz, MBG, Crashfrog, nator, Subbie, Rrhain, Berberry, etc). Others (Purple Dawn, Modulous, Jazzns, Arach, Holmes, etc) seemed to understand my premise, that it was more an argument against how one can defend the premise of homosexuality from a moral, legal, or natural aspect, without contradicting why they were preferring one thing over another.Regardless, it offended each and every one of them to some degree -- even those that agreed that I was using reasoned argumentation.As a direct result Admin has stated, at the request of others, that I be banned or barred from carrying on divisive discussions since the thread tends to devolve. I am not happy at the prospect that my God-given right to free speech be taken away. As a result, I staged a protest and offered myself as a martyr for the deeper cause. I don't think its right to take away someone's speech, just because it could be construed as offensive.After listening to the pleas of others in chat, I have decided that I will, of my own volition, bar myself from engaging in any such future discussions for the sake of propriety and for the feelings of others. It is never my intention to offend people, only to make others understand my view. But regardless of my intent, I have deeply offended many people in the process, and right now that is the only thing I am operating under.So with that, I sincerely apologize to all the people out there that I have offended. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I could have been a lot more tactful in my approach. That is my fault, and I take full responsibility for my actions.As a token of my sincerity, I will no longer engage in threads concerning homosexuality. Other threads that illicit similar emotions, such as abortion and such, I will tread lightly for the time being. If I see that emotions are running high, I will opt to disengage from the thread, as I have done with the Gay Marriage thread as a gesture of good faith.But it should be known that something like this should be reciprocal. It has been lost on some people that they themselves say deeply offensive things about other people of differing views. Christians and creationists are routinely slammed, vilified, demonized, and harangued with an intense ferocity. No one seems to bat an eyelash at that.Although I can handle such things about my faith, others aren't able to put it in to perspective. Others can be deeply offended by those things, especially since it is the core of who they are. So I ask others to attempt to be as sensitive to others in this area as well.And maybe this is where the rubber meets the road: The Golden Rule.With all of this, I hope that some people will not use the Politically Correct card just to advantage themselves in an argument. In other words, don't abuse it. At some point, people will need to develop some thicker skin. This is a debate forum, after all, not a place where we fish for compliments. If we were so worried about hurting everyone's feelings, we'd never debate. Please do not use this as a bartering tool to disadvantage your opponent, while enhancing your own position.This forum, with all of its members, have some soul searching to do. We are losing the heart of this forum more and more, day by day. We must evolve or die.I hope we all can make some compromises for each other. Even though you guys piss me off, I still love you all. Thank you for listening and thanks for all the memories -- the good with the bad.Lets try something cathartic: Is there any area in your debate style at EvC where you could do better in? Don't be shy. I'm sure we'll all be hugging by the end of it. At least until the next heated argument Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

We reach a certain age and hope to have discovered that we have as much right to our experiences as the next guy, and the same right to expound on them. In other words, he is not more worthy to hold an opinion than I am, you are. When that phenom manifests itself, and in a place such as this it does and rather quickly so, I am never confused about whether or not it is right to hurt someone's feelings, when that someone is not confused about hurting mine. In fact, play nice didn't work in kindergarten when some grubby kid took a swing at me and reflexes swung right back.You have a right to your opinion about homosexuality and your observations about it and you are under no mandate to change your opinion and you should under no circumstances apologize for how you think on it.A relative has a homosexual son and is determined that, regardless of scriptural admonishments, he will go to heaven when he dies. I told her there will be no a.. or s... f...... in heaven and she had an apoplectic fit and was ready to go for my throat. At any other time, I personally do not care what people do to make themselves happy, since all people are certainly prepared to reap the harvest. That harvests resulting from certain behaviors become a burden to all of us, regardless of direct participation, is evident and brutally true.I understand that frequenting certain message boards does establish a rhythm in us we hate leave behind to go elsewhere. But, in this you may trust me, such a rhythm is easily established again and there are bright people in other places.Don't beat yourself over something that has absolutely nothing to do with you, not by yourself, anyways.

I agree with most of that. I think the thing to keep in mind is that if you are going to say something that is going to offend or upset people, you best be sure that it is on-topic and necessary to your argument. No-one has the right to not be offended, but where offense is caused, it should not be gratuitous.
Part of the problem that people had with NJ's comments in the notorious gay marriage thread (and please let's not argue that whole thing over again in this thread, we will only get shut down), was not so much that folks didn't like what NJ had to say, but that it didn't seem relevant to the argument at hand. It seemed to some like gratuitous controversy. That is what we all have to avoid. If you are going to be controversial, you have to make absolutely sure that you can justify what you are saying, link it to the topic and back it up with some evidence or compelling argument. Otherwise you are just going to cause strife.
I have only been here a couple of months, but the events of the past couple of days have upset me somewhat. Things have gone too far. I think that everyone needs to temper their language and remember that we are debating what are often deeply held beliefs. Even if we might think that those beliefs are nonsense, we still need to show due respect for the person. Remember; intelligent people can hold stupid beliefs. That may include you.
We also need to show a bit more respect for the moderation procedure. The admin team (whatever that might end up as) cannot be expected to display the wisdom of Solomon. Responsible members should be self-moderating wherever possible. If you have a problem, take it to the admin. If you don't get satisfaction, tough. Take it like a grown up. Don't sulk and don't try to pester admins into letting you have your way. It's just not fair.
I don't want to see anyone else barred. I would also like to see most of those currently suspended be allowed back. If we are to make this place work though, we all need to show a bit of maturity.

---

Mutate and Survive

nem, just because i understand what you're trying to say doesn't mean that i agree. i do not see homosexuality as a social ill; but i understand that many christians do. i think that instead of simply getting offended, your position should be argued against thoughtfully and rationally.now, i've had my share of gay friends. i can't pretend to speak for them, but one of the things they were always intimately aware of was that most of the world does not, and will not accept them, and they will run into certain kinds of discrimination (intentional and unintentional) for their entire lives. it doesn't make it right, but it is a fact of life.so far as debate is civil, i see no reason to protect any subgroup of members from being offended by their opponents arguments. your posts are, in my opinion, a bit misguided, and the implication may be somewhat offensive -- but you did not outright attack anyone, or intend to. your position is merely one that deserves to be spoken and argued against properly.i feel that freedom of expression is one of the things that makes any place truly great, and fair. it is one of the aspects that i have always enjoyed about this site, and was greatly worried when percy began declaring that certain topics shall not be discussed. i see he's reversed that -- but one thing we must understand is that freedom of expression does not also grant freedom from being offended. a certain degree of moderation is needed to keep things civil, i agree, when we start policing everything that could potentially offend... discussion effectively ends.

---

I think that's right and it is a very fine balancing act between keeping things civil and stifling debate. I do not envy Percy his task in drawing that line.
Part of what attracted me to this site was that the debate was quite fierce but not too acrimonious. If we want to keep things that way, I think that we should all ask ourselves "Is this necessary to my argument? Is it justified?" before launching into some argument which we know is going to cause upset. If the answer to those questions is no, perhaps better not to post.

---

Mutate and Survive

And you think this move will make it better how?I'm having trouble understanding the mental process that goes through your mind when you think matyring yourself will somehow make your victims feel better.Have a good life persecuting other people.I guess I shouldn't mind people sharing their opinions. I'm just upset that's all. This type of issue, and specifically your type of argument, hit a sensitive nerve in me. Carry on.Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.

no, i don't either. i provided my suggestion for where i thought the line was during my share of the fight that seems to have caused this. and it was the same place as the line is drawn in american law -- expressing generalized bigotry is protected under freedom of speech, but specific attacks (ie: libel/slander, threats) are not. right? sounds like a good standard for me, ans has worked quite well for the USA. why not EvC? and then the onus is on the moderators to police people who simply do not understand or do not agree with that line. for instance, rrhain clearly did not comprehend the difference between a generally (mildly) offensive argument, and a personal attack on one's reputation, and insisted on his supposed right to verbally abuse the enemy because he felt the enemy was verbally abusing people himself.these calls are tough, but i don't think that quite justifies what happened. and i don't think it means that NJ should have to keep his mouth shut just because his opinion offends some people.

---

{Edited - click on peek to read my rant} Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Taz, I wrote a response to your message but deleted it without posting since I see you hid yours. It was to the effect that your message appeared to contain more hate than anything I've read of NJ.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Right, right, pointing out how unjust you christians have been to a whole group of people for centuries is called hate speech now.

hey guys, let's not start this.

You're the boss. Communication terminated.Added by edit.I'd like to add that I object to the title itself. A human right is a human right. It's not up for debate. It's not up for compromise. And it's certainly not up for christians using christian doctrine to decide. Otherwise, we'd end up with something as stupid as the 3/5 compromise again. If you have any sense of decency, you'd realize that human right comes from GOD, not evangelical christians. This is one area I will not give any ground. Absolutely no compromise from this end. Take it or leave it.Added by edit last time, I swear.I've fixed my profile so that my email is not visible and people can't send me messages via this board. If you want my email, ask me. Stop evangelizing through email. It's annoying as hell.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Yeah, but this is just wide-eyed trolling, isn't it?Suppose I was to start a thread asking Christians to explain the difference between their beliefs and various forms of mental illness.I know the difference perfectly well.You know the difference between homosexuality and other "social ills" you compared it to.You know what your opponents' views are, and it's just wide-eyed trolling for people to go around saying: "So, I merely ask in the humble spirit of one seeking instruction ... what is the difference between being gay and eating babies?" Since the people who ask such questions do in fact know the answer, this is just a way of being snide.

hello dr a. you would be more than welcome to participate in the bicamerality thread in which hoot mon essentially asserts that all religion is a mental illness on par with schizophrenia.

---

Oh, I so wanted to stay out of this...and it is my responsibility that I am not....arachnophilia accuses:

quote:

---

for instance, rrhain clearly did not comprehend the difference between a generally (mildly) offensive argument, and a personal attack on one's reputation, and insisted on his supposed right to verbally abuse the enemy because he felt the enemy was verbally abusing people himself.

---

Incorrect. There is so much wrong here that it's hard to know where to begin.First, what I said was not a personal attack but rather a simple observation. At no point did I ever state, hint, or imply that NJ wanted to engage in any activity, enjoyed such activity whether it be an abstract concept or a direct example, or ever gave any impression that it would be anything other than horrible.All I said was that he thought about it and that his thought of it had a specific trigger. This is simply proven by inspection. Nobody ever brought up the subject except NJ. No other person ever mentions it so it cannot be that NJ was responding to someone else. In fact, people would actively avoid the activity and NJ would go out of his way to bring it up.Therefore, it is clear that NJ thinks about it. He wouldn't bring it up unless he thought about it...unless we're going to say that NJ is somehow possessed by an outside force and he is incapable of controlling himself.And again, by simple inspection, we notice that the subject only comes up with the topic turns to homosexuality. He never seems to bring up this thought of his when the subject is heterosexuality, for example.Therefore, there is nothing "attacking" about my statement. It is mere observation: Thinking about X makes NJ think about Y.And at no point did I ever say that I had the right to verbally abuse somebody, especially not because he was verbally abusive, himself. What I did say was that if you found my reasoning to be disingenuous, then there is another line of reasoning that is just as disingenuous that you need to pay attention to. In other words, the two lines of argumentation converge together: If one is not a personal attack, then neither is the other. If one is a personal attack, then so is the other.That does not excuse any personal attack I might have made. However, it introduces a second topic regarding the response to personal attacks. Since the two arguments converge together, to treat one as a personal attack while the other is deemed not to be so is confusing, to say the least.But none of this has any real relevance to NJ's opinion of how he will conduct himself in the future. I simply wished to correct your misconception.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.