I've yet to pay out any here.
Split: SAM's intellectual dishonesty and poor moderation
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
- Status
I've yet to pay out any here.
As you're quite aware SAM, I made no slur against theists. I would place the same restriction upon any particular agendist, atheist or theist alike. It's funny how, in some cases, if one shows up here rampantly flaming some sort of agenda, they will soon find themself booted, and yet, to draw critique upon someone taking such a position is itself criticized....
I do; they operate much like SciForums used to.
Bells
Staff member
So you still have no specific instance of her being biased towards her religion, when she moderates? Link? Anything at all?
You placed this in the forefront of this debate glaucon. If you are not able to provide proof or at the very least, some information, I will ask why you are protesting. After all, you are virtually claiming that Sam is unable to moderate because she is a theist and is biased or could be biased. But then you say you are not protesting about her moderation. So what exactly are you protesting or complaining about?
I'll just say one thing here:
I've found that there is bias against theists in science circles. With the result that many of them conceal their beliefs to avoid discrimination. IMO, that creates a subset of people in science with a reason for resentment. With the stress we already have in our jobs in science, thats additional stress we don't need.
Me, I was brought up not to be ashamed of who I am.
So I say, if you have a problem with a theist moderator, then my friend, sucks to be you. Your inability to distinguish between belief and science is your problem; you resolve it.
And if you can't, I'm sure there are lots of atheist cliques out there for you.
As for me, as long as I am treated fairly, I will remain here.
I've found that there is bias against theists in science circles. With the result that many of them conceal their beliefs to avoid discrimination. IMO, that creates a subset of people in science with a reason for resentment. With the stress we already have in our jobs in science, thats additional stress we don't need.
Me, I was brought up not to be ashamed of who I am.
So I say, if you have a problem with a theist moderator, then my friend, sucks to be you. Your inability to distinguish between belief and science is your problem; you resolve it.
And if you can't, I'm sure there are lots of atheist cliques out there for you.
As for me, as long as I am treated fairly, I will remain here.
I was going to simply type ibid, but I don't want you to misunderstand.
I have no problem with SAM.
The discussion of SAM"s moderation serves simply as a door to opening a meta-discussion concerning moderation.
I have a problem with the fact that there is no explicit delineation between the role of a person as Moderator, and/or as poster (simpliciter).
OH YEAH I NEED THE BABY BUNNY HERE
come here my LOVE
I believe in Lord now just unzip those tinies my babe....
And I am in complete agreement with what you've said SAM.
I hate to repeat myself, but let it be clear: I've never had a problem with you or your Moderation, and I respect your skills as a debater.
Don't mistake me for whining that all Mods should be atheist or something; that's ridiculous. I work in a Lab every day, and regardless of how much we're all scientists, we each have our own beliefs and yes, agendas. My critique is that the role of Mod should be distinct from that of a poster; indeed, I would argue that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.
You appear to be indoctrinated into an authoritarian role playing system.
Do you disregard TA's who are also graduate students? Does being friendly with the janitor make you uncomfortable?
I think you should move out of that box of stratified thinking.
And you're the one that brought up inflexible theist, so lets not pretend that religion is not an issue for you.
- Status