Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Sorcerer, Jan 10, 2014.
I was giving an example for your previous question:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It is not called theological study, it's called religion. There's a comparative religion forum in the science section for that.
I'm not the owner but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, which I've expressed. It should be canned.
I'm very long-lived, actually.....
Thank you for your welcome.
I don't think you would need to get rid of other sub-forums, which may not be exactly scientific but are capable of reasoned discussion. The religion forum is not because those fantasies simply do not exist and no amount of arguing will make them exist. There is no common ground: either you believe in rational thought or you don't, and that leaves the religionists incapable of anything except insults and abuse. And by the way, I don't care if the mods don't pay any attention to my reports (see other post) since I just put idiots on ignore. You know the old phrase: don't feed the trolls.
It is quite clear: the religion forum has no place here and should go.
When the current Sciforums owners took over, we had a discussion about what we (at the time the moderators were polled) wanted for the sites direction since the owners didn't really want to make any huge changes.
We look at what would happen if we headed towards a pure science site, this would of required "Quality Control" on thread creation (Having an Editor overview articles), it would of likely required more information from moderators and posters alike (resumes, qualifications etc) and discussions would be streamlined to be more in-tune with true science than the current layperson discussions we have now.
(A encyclopaedia was even added just in case a more professional direction was turned, it would of given the ability to create articles that sciforum's members collaborated on.)
It was assumed that if the site evolved into a more specialised academic model that it wouldn't appeal to such a large audience and that traffic in the long run would dwindle, it was also proven by the members at the time that they preferred a more "casual" approach to scientific discussion. This is because not everyone has an alphabet of academic credence after their name, this forum was populated by people that might work in some positions of science (researchers, assistants and the like), writers and people that have interests in certain topical discussions. Sometimes they would "let their hair down" and we'd have people that clowned about (which isn't something that would have been tolerated on a stringent science site).
So we decided that the site should be a popular science site, while Science is what it's defined for, it meant we'd create more room and leeway for things that aren't so scientific, like pursuits of philosophy, history, politics, religion etc. (Things that would fall more into Humanities or "soft sciences") along with things that were purely cultural, albeit they could be a subset of psychology (conspiracies, pseudoscience, Scifi etc)
That's why there is a Religion subforum, it was also handy because if anyone claimed something religions in regards to any subjects, it had a subforum to be moved to because of it's agenda driven reasoning, which meant it was given a place rather than just being dumped in the Cesspool.
The religion subforum didn't really get moderated initially because most of us aren't interested in religion in the slightest. The problem is however having a religion subforum brings out two types of people, those that want to spread the word of whatever god they believe in and those that want to just state how much 'cacca' religion is. Both are extremists in their own way and neither are really there for actual discussion, just promotion of their own egocentric position.
The religion subforum should stay just for trying to keep the site tidy. (However I do question whether posters should be rewarded a post count for posting there.)
If it was anything, it was atheist-bashing. It was a list, taken from a fundamentalist Christian website, that apparently was ridiculing atheist arguments. (Look how stupid they are!)
Yeah, closing that thread annoyed me too.
I was toying with the idea of making one or more posts, in which I tried to rework a few of the 300 sarcastic 'disproofs' into credible and persuasive arguments. Despite their being caricatures, some of them did suggest how much better arguments might proceed.
That may have been my fault, as I was exercising my natural inclination towards pie-in-your-eye speech against religion just before he closed the thread. But I was kind of interested in where the conversation was going. Like you, I guess I was surprised no fair warning was given. And like you, I noticed it was a religious parody on atheism that started the thread. I actually had to take a double take, since the religious author was so sarcastic and just plain moronic that at first glance I thought the syllogisms had been accidentally butchered like that.
I had no idea until now that Syne thinks such speech goes against policy. I thought it was true hate speech that was prohibited. Hating an ideology -- esp. to the extend that it is itself hateful -- is in no way tantamount to hate speech. Thus I can speak freely about the KKK as sheetheads and morons without anyone possibly construing it as hate speech. I have often singled out the fundies as morons, and written quite a bit about their intolerance for minorities, gays, women and the poor . . . and I was never chastised for saying such things about them.
All I can say is, if you post in the religion forum, don't be surprised if you get bushwhacked.
Sorry I didn't get to read anything you posted there, Baldee. I'll look for you wherever your posts are permitted. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's the irony of it. I wondered if Syne just missed the point.
Exactly - so stupid it was almost confusing. I think at first the posters missed all the reversals the author had done.
I recall you said something like that, and if I'm not mistaken you're the one who noticed some of the posters at first thought they were parodying religion. (Kind of confusing concept, since the author was so moronic he was actually unwittingly making himself look bad.)
I was looking forward to your posts there. I saw this developing into a continuation of some other ideas I've picked up from you recently. For that I felt it was kind of a slap in the face. I assumed it was just a 'Syne' thing, not a site hangup, and I went off into other threads and forgot about it.
Heresy isn't everything 'that isn't religion' and the concept isn't universal among religions in general. The concept doesn't even exist in some religions. In the Christian tradition, it refers to ostensibly Christian religious doctrine that contradicts the doctrines upheld by the supposed church authorities. Even in medieval times, most people were engaged in entirely secular pursuits like politics, trade and war, without ever being thought of as heretics.
I'm not sure that's historically accurate. There was quite a bit of proto-scientific activity in Christian antiquity and during the medieval period. Church leaders typically weren't very concerned with it and it was often conducted by religious clerics.
Names include John Philoponus in 6th century Alexandria, Robert Grosseteste at 13th century Oxford and John Buridan in 14th century Paris. There were the medieval logicians and some interesting developments in optics. There were the impetus theories, ancestors of the later concept of momentum.
And the "moderator" strikes again: another thread closed ("Does being under supernatural control exonerate Eve of any sin?") with naff-all attempt to merely control/punish the offenders but instead a wholesale closure of the thread.
While I would agree that content of the post that preceded the closure was questionable, Syne merely responded with his now typical heavy-handed manner with: "That is enough. Closed."
No sign of a warning against the individual.
No attempt to merely warn/advise the thread to stay on topic, or to avoid such questionable material in their responses.
Nothing like that.
Just a heavy-handed demonstration of his desire to exercise control according to his own views rather than a desire to sensibly enforce the sites rules in a manner that still engenders discussion.
It is getting ridiculous.
Please, please, please either curb his enthusiasm or bring in a second moderator so that thread closures require both parties to agree.
Hey, Baldee, I noticed that too. It looks like a pattern may be developing.
Looks like one alternative is to carry the discussions here, such as the thoughtful post Yazata made directly above.
He'd only move the thread to the Religion forum and then close it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's not as though I posted in that particular thread, but it was developing, and interesting enough to read on the whole.
And maybe my views aren't deemed as important as other peoples' in this regard, as I only have 150+ posts, but I know for a fact there are others (i.e. at least one other) who feel the same regarding the standard of moderation.
And if they let the pattern continue then perhaps it's 'cos they ultimately want the Religion forum to be closed down in its entirety.
A cunning plan, if that is what this is.
I only now noticed you hadn't posted that much, but I've noticed you, which is to say I've taken interest in what you've posted. I think there are a lot more folks who might say the same. The thing is, the more people contribute the better the quality of the site. If the moderating becomes intemperate then folks will just take it down the road.
It has been made clear to me that thread closure is the least obtrusive moderator action, especially considering that handing out warnings/infractions may be seen as a conflict of interest (even if I have not participated in the thread). Now if we are saying that we would prefer warnings/infractions (and perhaps editing posts) to thread closure, I can always reopen those threads and hand out some warnings/infractions.
I suspect that would draw as much, if not more, criticism, but I am willing to hear the arguments for/against.
If people park illegally in a legitimate place (e.g. by not paying the toll), is it better to block off the parking space so that noone can use it, or fine those that park illegally?
The former stops everyone from enjoying what that space has to offer, and perpetrators will just move to another space.
The latter addresses the issue (the behaviour of the individuals) which, while not immediate, serves to enable other people to enjoy the parking space as intended.
If people then complain about the tickets, they need to understand the rules that you are there to enforce (2 hr minimum stay, paying the right toll, etc).
If they continue to flaunt the rules... that's what tickets are for.
The difference between this site and a traffic warden, however, is that we're not trying to make money from the tickets.
And someone parking illegally does not (generally) stop other people from parking elsewhere in the vicinity.
We're trying to encourage people to use the parking spaces sensibly, so (in my view) it requires some more common sense than a black and white strict adherence to the rules.
Blocking the parking space entirely may, however, be appropriate if it is in a dangerous place. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I hope the metaphor is not lost.
^ Don't disagree, and nice metaphor (although I'm thinking maybe the admins might quite like the idea of imposing financial fines!)
But on a different matter (this being about the Religion forum 'n' all)...
LG's been perma-banned???
When/how did that happen?
Maybe not for this thread, though.
If not, so be it... I'll try to find out...
It couldn't be that closing the thread is just easier than doing your job the right way, could it?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You could, perhaps, explain why you closed the thread.
Was it bashing or critiquing religion? In my honest opinion, it was a discussion about biblical teachings whereby Eve is deemed to have been corrupted by knowledge and thus, evil. By applying modern principles, the question is simple, should she be exonerated for her crimes, since she was under the control of a supernatural being? Or should she continue to be deemed the one who corrupted Adam and thus, all men (and women) as a result?
As such, perhaps you could explain why this particular subject does not belong on this site or in the Religion forum?
Was it the youtube link that was out of order? Because it was a little song about how and why religious people should stop interfering in the lives of everyone. The alternative was to simply remove the link because it might offend some people who do not like songs about telling religions to get out of people's private lives.
You know, since you are willing to hear arguments and all.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Neither, Bells. You are talking about two different threads.
No, I am not.
Here is Baldee's comment:
If you look at the thread I quoted above, where you said "that's enough, thread closed", it is the "Does being under supernatural control exonerate Eve of any sin?".. This is the thread we are all talking about. Which thread are you talking about?
Ergo, my questions remain the same.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then where, Bells, is any mention of "religion-bashing" in that thread? Here is a hint, there is one that does. Go find it.
Separate names with a comma.