why is it against forum rules to call someone bigot when they push biogtry

Eh. Call a spade a spade. Not a shovel.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.

well, maybe you can't say bogot, but you can say f*k *o, lol and *********.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because what they push is bigotry only in your estimation, not in the estimation of other objective observers. Often (and this is especially prevalent on sciforums) people will immediately assign bigotry to any dissenting opinions and ideas that concern an issue they feel sensitive about, even when those opinions and ideas are entirely rational. That is form of bigotry of itself: you have intolerance for outside opinions.

If the people you attack were indeed bigots, you should easily be able to discredit them by simply arguing the points. When you opt to resort to ad homs instead, your argument becomes suspect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can't accuse someone of something b4 you prove it.

Plus It is all in how you word things..

Example.

The wrong way.

You're a fucking bigot...

The right way.

So I assume you support bigotry from your ideas?

One your straight out calling them one, the other one shows you think they are one but you are not actually calling them one.

 

In his defense, we are asked to run to the moderators instead of lashing out at our opponent. Please don't characterize this as "crying".

 

Talking about supporting claims why don't you try and prove your libelious lies against me. You won't though because You what you posted here is a lie. I have told you my reason and yet you still persist in your belief you know my reasons better than I do. You have been out to get me since I called you a shitty administrator for your defense of strings complete lack of action on Buffalo's attacks involving my mother.

when I try and defend my self YOU tell me to go to the mods. when I do go to the mods I am crying to you guys because I can't support my argument. Seems to me your problem isn't with what I do its that I am here. If I am not supposed to defend my self and I'm not supposed to report anything what am I supposed to do.

 

I don't have a problem with different opinions in general just ones founded one having different standards for different people. and if that's not bigotry than nothing is.

I do. and when I do I have people say I want people to die or say the only reason I support the palestinians is because I'm muslim or arab.(note I'm neither)

??? tecnically it wouldn't be ad hominum that's a logical fallacy involving in attempt to discredit an argument or position by attacking the person which is what James is doing here; saying we should ignore the opinion basiclly because its mine. Not a personal attack or insult you could make the case for.

 

please don't ask James to do something out of character. Remember he agrees with string claim that Bufallo's attacks against me using my mother were a response to me attacking him and not the other way around. HE also agrees with the fact that 7 month's of such attacks don't warrant a ban.

 

That is because a lot of people don't believe you there, pj.

 

Nothing unusual about that

A little from Column A, a little from Column B. We should remember that the virtual personalities tend toward the cynical.

 

Let's not be so petty. I think the occasional insult should be allowed when things are heated. Just so slightly.

Getting a warning for calling someone "Buffy" should be anathema. I seem to recall such a thing happening once upon a time.

 

We're accommodating the not-so-bright side of the moon

That used to be the case. In fact, ferocious disputes were allowed to carry out until the participants exhausted themselves as long as threats and outright libel weren't involved. Over time, though, people who either refused or could not perceive distinctive details of circumstance felt confused and even betrayed, so we've been in a long process of reining in the hostility in order to accommodate our lowest common fragility.

It's really been quite a tragic and stupid process to witness, and even gotten to the point where we have to start protecting celebrity. Once upon a time, for instance, it was okay to call Hillary Clinton a retarded bitch. But then some folks started complaining about all sorts of nasty names aimed at public ideas, like Dubya and Teabaggers, so we had to start scaling back. Palintology was struck, as was addressing President Obama according to his middle name, or inventing a fake messiah complex to attribute to him in order to feel persecuted and therefore justified in one's hatred. Basically, we've had to acknowledge and deal with the fact that there are enough people around here who don't understand that there is a time for pretty much everything, and thus want to be vicious morons all the time. And then, of course, they bawl when other people treat them accordingly. The whole thing has become a mess.

Once upon a time, moderators would discuss among themselves a culling of the herd, something we never undertook, or were willing to seriously advocate. These days, we don't say much about it because the situation has degraded so much that culling the herd might reduce this place to a virtual ghost town.

And there were some political quotas involved that didn't help at all, and some really strange coincidences of circumstance that are hard to explain.

The bottom line, though, is that we have to set some rules that might seem pretty stupid; the alternative is effectively shutting this place down—one way or another—because enough people just aren't smart enough to understand when to say when.

It's a controversial standard of impartiality that moderators have argued furiously with one another over before.

 

.

lol, then i can tell you anything now?
ok buffy, weaky weaky, uuh, :spank:hole, hahaha
just kidding

 

Thank you for your reply!

Where does libel apply to anonymous individuals using assumed identities? Unless you were referring to something else.

Mmmm. Hussein.

So when Palintology was struck, did it produce water? Oil?

Are those figureheads really a huge concern to this forum? Is that where libel comes in?

 

I would also just add that there probably is a lot of bigotry against the Arabs and Palestinians, and at least some of those people use Hamas and terrorism as cover to allow them to express their bigotry.

 

You can tell me anything, but...
Did you just call me a nig ... errr?

I think you did.

:blbl:

Oh, and what does it mean, "weaky weaky"?

Something about my hole?

:scratchin:

 

Oh, the dear President's unfortunate middle name, yer talkin?

I think it has more to do overall with a sense of foreignness in many cases, rather than bigotry.

And you seem to be very much pleased to point the finger at Middle Eastern/Islamic bogeymen, come to think of it.

Does that same anti-terrorist fear not spur on an allergic reaction to names like "Hussein"?

Get em!