Merry Christmas Rick Perry

[Rapscallion]

Yes. If another forumer said "Sorry to all the people who are wrong in this thread" and proceeded to make baseless and non-specific comments about 'claiming victory' then I would have reported them.

I'm interested - on what specific rule?

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

Rule 3 and 8

3. Respect your fellow members. You can take a person's idea to pieces and insult that if you like, but you will not insult or belittle your fellow forumers. "That idea doesn't work because..." is fine. "You're a moron if you believe that" is not. "That's a moronic idea" is borderline. No ad hominem attacks, please. However, insulting politicians and other famous figures - as long as nothing libellous is posted - is acceptable. If it's provable, it's not libel. If you heard it somewhere and there's no proof, you risk harming the site.

8. Content - don't just post "Politician X smells funny, and so do his policies." Which policies? Why?

You provided "Your idea is wrong because." You simply stated people disagreeing with you were wrong. You made a baseless comment about "Claiming victory," something no-one in this thread had done.

In addition, I felt you were violating Rule 14: "Don't be a cock" It says moderators are final arbiters, so I would have put that one as questionable, and asked a moderator to arbitrate if you were being rude there or not.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't accept that; when you've got instructions from a claimed deity telling you to do things, that's not a framework - that's direct commands.

You can refuse to accept it all you like. That doesn't change the facts of the matter.

We are in control of our actions. We are the ones responsible for what we do.

That a person believes that their faith requires that they commit acts that are atrocious on their face, it's not because religion pulled their strings, it's because they chose to follow the direction given to them.

Excuses are just that: excuses. Do you attribute the atrocities committed in the advance of science to science itself? No. Because it's ridiculous. You can't just change the rules "because religion" unless you also allow that the rules are different for religion and science, and therefore pretty much invalidate every other point you're trying to abuse people into accepting.

[Rapscallion]

Rule 3 and 8

You provided "Your idea is wrong because." You simply stated people disagreeing with you were wrong. You made a baseless comment about "Claiming victory," something no-one in this thread had done.

I also said I'd be back to explain why. I was short on time.

Claiming victory?

Hmm, I apologise for that one. I misread things in my haste as I was supposed to be doing work at the time. My bad.

In addition, I felt you were violating Rule 14: "Don't be a cock" It says moderators are final arbiters, so I would have put that one as questionable, and asked a moderator to arbitrate if you were being rude there or not.

Um, which bit of cockery do you refer to? Disagreeing with someone?

I'm fairly certain the worst I can be charged with would be offending the sensibilities of people who want to believe without evidence.

Rapscallion

[Nekojin]

I'm fairly certain the worst I can be charged with would be offending the sensibilities of people who want to believe without evidence.

Right, then. This is evidence that you really want to just run your little tyranny as you see fit, and have no intention of being civil on this matter.

Good day to you, sir.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm fairly certain the worst I can be charged with would be offending the sensibilities of people who want to believe without evidence.

1) You posted without actually reading the posts before you, because you didn't have time.

2) You posted, essentially, "You're wrong, I'll tell you why later." Just tell us why later, instead of poking in to say "Hey, I'm not done derailing the thread"

3) You accused people of claiming victory. I don't care that you didn't have time to properly read what they were saying. If you're going to post a response to someone based on something you ADMIT you didn't actually pay ATTENTION to.

And you even said to Duelist that yes, you WERE being condescending.

You're being a cock, and if this forum is going to go from "Be respectful of other members" to "Be respectful of other members*" then I'm out. Which is a shame. I've met a lot of my best friends through here.

*Unless they're religious.

[Rapscallion]

1) You posted without actually reading the posts before you, because you didn't have time.

I did read them. I read one incorrectly and have apologised as per above.

2) You posted, essentially, "You're wrong, I'll tell you why later." Just tell us why later, instead of poking in to say "Hey, I'm not done derailing the thread"

I was pretty incensed by what I saw. My apologies for acting.

3) You accused people of claiming victory. I don't care that you didn't have time to properly read what they were saying. If you're going to post a response to someone based on something you ADMIT you didn't actually pay ATTENTION to.

The bit I publicly apologised for?

And you even said to Duelist that yes, you WERE being condescending.

You're being a cock, and if this forum is going to go from "Be respectful of other members" to "Be respectful of other members*" then I'm out. Which is a shame. I've met a lot of my best friends through here.

*Unless they're religious.

I regard the right of people to hold what views they have over faith, as long as it harms no other. However, I also regard rather highly the right to ridicule the ridiculous parts of those views. I certainly didn't think I was attacking Duelist in that part, and I was trying to point out that I could have been really insulting.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Pointing out a person's view is objectively ridiculous can be done without asshattery. Not only was it not done without asshattery, but it wasn't actually done at all; the only part posted was the asshattery without any of the supporting evidence of wrongness.

Also, just because a person could have been a bigger asshat doesn't mean that they weren't an asshat at all.

[Panacea]

You know something, Raps? I've enjoyed my time on CS and Fratching in the past, but your behavior in this thread is seriously making me consider the possibility that time is done. Your behavior in this thread has been disrespectful at a minimum, and you wouldn't tolerate this from anyone else on any other topic.

Nekojin, I really hope you don't do that. While we don't always agree, you do a good job of presenting your point of view, which adds to the overall discussions. I enjoy reading your posts.

Raps: this is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about in my last post. I've never seen you get so agitated when discussion religion before. In the past, you are usually the voice of reason when things get heated, even when defending your own point of view.

I never said I had found the answers.

I'm not saying you said you did.

What's really got my goat here is that I'm being accused of the same tricks that theists do - by the theists.

I'm not accusing you of any tricks. I do think there are fallacies in your arguments, which I've discussed in some detail. I have no issue with the fact you are atheist. I have issue with the one sided scope of your arguments; focusing on the failings of religion while denying the benefits. So I and several others here are correcting those fallacies.

What I will say in the interim is that the context for this for me is important. Right now, the religious right is deliberately interfering in peoples' lives through politics. Transvaginal ultrasounds? Attempting to pretty much regulate women's bodies? I'm not going to let some arsehole pander to the religious right by allowing them to inflict religion on them in schools legally without comment.

OK! So comment on the asshattery of pushing religion in an improper (and probably illegal way). That's really the topic at hand, anyway. But what you did was to write a lengthy thesis on the overall failings of religion rather than address the specific failings of this bill. I think you know enough about the Establishment Clause to make a persuasive argument on that basis.

Pretty much everyone here, theists and atheists alike agree (as far as I can see) that the actions of the Texas Legislature are improper.

That's why I'm so angry about this issue. I don't care if someone wishes me well in whatever religious sense they mean it. Up to them and whether or not they think it will do any good. It's about as effective as saying I'll go to hell.

It's a shame you don't care. I'm not so sure I'd reject or ignore well wishes from anyone if I thought they were genuinely given.

So, is your comment just because I run the board or because you can't debate the points? If I was another former who was coming up with these points, would your reaction be different?

Why wouldn't I accept it from others? In what way have I gone against the board rules?

I disagree with Hyena Daddy. I don't think you've broken Forum rules. While you have been heated in your words, you haven't actually descended to the level of an ad hominem attack. At worst, you could be perceived as arguing from authority since you say you will address the reasons why you are right, but have yet to do so. But even that's thin.

Rather it is the evident agitation in the tone of what you write that is disturbing to others here, in particular because you are so often (as I've mentioned) the voice of calm and reason. It's unsettling to people. The issue isn't with what you believe, but how you present it.

Prime example: you've allowed the goal posts to shift by focusing more attention on this current flap over your attitude rather than saying, "OK. I know I promised to address these points. So here it is . . . ."

I don't have a burden of proof. I am not claiming something exists, and to try to present to children that a religious option is legally allowed and thus it is accepted as a factually accurate state of affairs is not, in my view, acceptable.

Actually, you do have a burden of proof. This discussion isn't about whether or not God exists. It's about whether or not religion offers anything of value. You've proclaimed quite strong that religion has NOTHING of value to offer, and does great harm. You've offered some examples. However, others have refuted those arguments and you continue to claim religion has nothing of value to offer without addressing those refutations. You need to do so. You made the original claim; you must prove your point, sir! Or you can concede that religion does have something to offer (and to so concede would not affect your belief there is no God).

It's a debate forum. Rule 2 is the pertinent one, if a cursory glance of the rules suffices. By the way, I find religion's intrusion into the secular life to be offensive. Where does that leave us?

Here in the Forum. We can't apply the Forum's rules to life, as much as we might like to.

I don't accept that; when you've got instructions from a claimed deity telling you to do things, that's not a framework - that's direct commands.

Sure. God does give some direct commands. How those commands are to be interpreted are open to discussion and debate. The early Christian theologian Origen (1st Century) wrote that Scripture was to be taken metaphorically, and this was the approach of the Church for many years. It wasn't until after the Protestant Reformation that folks went "Sola Scriptura" (only Scripture) and started interpreting things literally, and often narrowly. That's created some problems with misinterpretation. But it's also allowed a broader dialouge of what faith means, which in the long run is better. Pope John XXIII when he convened Vatican II called for a breath of fresh air in the Church, and that's what we got when we moved away from the Latin Rite.

I'd actually suspect that we wouldn't have survived as a species without being some of the most efficient survivors around. I think it used to be useful in less socially enlightened times, but I also think we've evolved to a point where we can discard it.

OK. That's a matter of opinion, of course, but a point from which we can discuss things.

I believe I actually asked the question as to whether or not the good done by religion outweighed the evils it caused. I'm still waiting on the answer. I certainly didn't in that state that there was no good.

The question is too broad for a forum like this, Raps. It would require post graduate level research to prove, something no one here has the time for. Since you asked the question, you should answer it or rather answer the converse since you have proclaimed that religion is good for nothing. The burden of proof is on you.

I'll leave you with one thought for now. I'm quite happy for people to have a religion, but they've been overstepping the bounds of reasonable behaviour for far too long. They've started affecting others - whether it be the Christian right in the US (you sneeze, we catch a cold) or the muslims in the UK etc. This whole issue of protecting a religiously inspired ritual phrase in schools is imparting far more legitimacy to a faith than is reasonable.

I agree there are asshats in religion: WBC for example.

The legitimacy of a faith is an issue for believers, and is respected as a matter of US law via the Establishment Clause. Legitimacy in this respect refers to its right to exist and be pursued; the validity of a religion is another issue entirely.

Would the same protection be afforded if a muslim child wished his classmates happy eid? I'd like to think so. I can't accept that it would be. Can anyone who has studied the law in question tell me if it just covers one religious festival, or all festivals for all religions?

It covers all winter festivals. It mentions Hanukkah and Christmas by name, but could extend to Yule very easily. Eid would be covered if it occurred in winter.

However, nothing in the language of the law suggests a student would be disciplined for wishing happy Eid to anyone at any time of year.

The intent of the law is to allow for Christmas displays on school grounds. The real test will be if other displays are not allowed or discouraged.

[SongsOfDragons]

Oh god. I'm watching something I really love - this forum - descend into madness ... I hope it doesn't escalate into something worse.

[siead_lietrathua]

wow.

well, to the original topic: i don't think the bill is that bad. sure it might mean a few more religious icons than usual in a school, but it's also the southern states so i'm sure it wasn't that left out to begin with. i remember singing secular and non secular carols in grade school (20 years ago now.... *cries*) and we ended up fine. plus since it has the whole part about other religions or non-religious seasonal sentiments are to also be included, it removes the drama from it unless people go intentionally stirring it up.

which is kinda what happened in this thread. i mean, a slippery slope to forcing christianity into school... ok, i could kinda see debating that. but this doesnt seem like a thread that has a reason to derail so hard into theists VS athiests when it was originally over what my kin call "dumbass laws" or "we're making this so idiots stop suing eachother" laws.

[Nekojin]

Nekojin, I really hope you don't do that. While we don't always agree, you do a good job of presenting your point of view, which adds to the overall discussions. I enjoy reading your posts.

Andara notified me that you'd posted this a few days ago. I'm still not participating in Fratching at this time, for the same reasons, but you do deserve a response.

I will not participate in any forum where the owner of the site - the person who created the rules that we're all expected to abide by - completely flouts those very same rules. I don't expect Moderators to correct the owner's bad behavior; doing so is risking being fired. While I do actually enjoy a workplace where I can tell the bosses that they're wrong and out of line, I also know from experience that this is a rarity, not the standard. I don't hold any of the moderators here at all responsible for not moderating Rapscallion's reprehensible behavior. The only person to look to here is Raps himself.

Raps, if you bother to read this: Reread the thread, and remove your ego from the equation while you do so. You stepped over the line between advocacy and zealotry. Way, way over the line. You deserve to lose membership in the fora over this. I'm not going to tell other people that they need to leave; that's their own call to make. And I've made mine.

Yes, this is a flounce. But it's not an, "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and you're being mean to me," flounce. I wasn't even on the receiving end of the bad behavior. But that shouldn't matter.

[Ree]

I don't expect Moderators to correct the owner's bad behavior; doing so is risking being fired. While I do actually enjoy a workplace where I can tell the bosses that they're wrong and out of line, I also know from experience that this is a rarity, not the standard. I don't hold any of the moderators here at all responsible for not moderating Rapscallion's reprehensible behavior.

You really do not understand how Raps runs the moderating team at all.

I have never felt at risk of being fired for disagreeing with him, or any topic he may have debated.
In fact, we have had several disagreements over the years, and look...I am still a mod! We are still friends.

Personally, I wasn't paying attention to this thread because I really wasn't around fratching much at the time, and it didn't really pique my interest.

I didn't however, see a single report or PM from you regarding this matter, so it's a little hard to moderate when a person isn't even aware of a problem.
So, it's lovely that you hold no ill will that a mod didn't step in, since, you know, you never asked us to.

Personally, I do not share Raps' views on the issue, and I think he knows that.
His views here are no different than he has expressed numerous times, however.

I think what got everyone upset was his rather tongue-in-cheek tone claiming victory.

I have the advantage of having met Raps and as such, am aware of his warped sense of humor.
In this case, it fell flat for some reason.

Still, I doubt you will see him back down on his views about religion, although, if I'm not mistaken, despite a lot of claims to the contrary, he apologized for misreading a post...twice

Hmm, I apologise for that one. I misread things in my haste as I was supposed to be doing work at the time. My bad.

I did read them. I read one incorrectly and have apologised as per above.

<snip>

I was pretty incensed by what I saw. My apologies for acting.

[Andara Bledin]

although, if I'm not mistaken, despite a lot of claims to the contrary, he apologized for misreading a post...twice

He apologized for misreading a single post. But that doesn't explain the rest of it.

[Nekojin]

You really do not understand how Raps runs the moderating team at all.

I have never felt at risk of being fired for disagreeing with him, or any topic he may have debated.
In fact, we have had several disagreements over the years, and look...I am still a mod! We are still friends.

Personally, I wasn't paying attention to this thread because I really wasn't around fratching much at the time, and it didn't really pique my interest.

I didn't however, see a single report or PM from you regarding this matter, so it's a little hard to moderate when a person isn't even aware of a problem.
So, it's lovely that you hold no ill will that a mod didn't step in, since, you know, you never asked us to.

Personally, I do not share Raps' views on the issue, and I think he knows that.
His views here are no different than he has expressed numerous times, however.

I think what got everyone upset was his rather tongue-in-cheek tone claiming victory.

Actually, no. Raps went off the rails from Post 14 and Post 16, going way off topic to rail against religion in general, completely without any sense of connection to the topic at hand. I didn't bother to report because, as the owner, I did not expect Moderators to rein him in - would you have if I'd reported it? Can you give me an example of some time that a Moderator has slapped Raps' hand for violating his own rules?

As I posted, I think his entire framing of the matter is dishonest and, at the minimum, insulting to the other people participating in the thread. I called him out on it, and was blown off.

Ultimately, Raps can do what he wants; it's his money footing the bills here. But if he can't abide by the same standards he expects of other people, how can we trust him to be fair in moderation?

I have the advantage of having met Raps and as such, am aware of his warped sense of humor.
In this case, it fell flat for some reason.

Still, I doubt you will see him back down on his views about religion, although, if I'm not mistaken, despite a lot of claims to the contrary, he apologized for misreading a post...twice

You're correct that I don't have any idea of how Raps runs things here. You're correct that I'm not familiar with his sense of humor, but I don't generally consider being a condescending jerk to be funny. And yes, he apologized for misreading posts... long after he'd gone off on declaring how horrible religion was, completely out of context with topic of the thread. His posts were so disruptive to the discussion of the actual matter, that it spawned an entirely separate thread.

Perhaps the only rule he broke was #14, and as a non-moderator, I don't truly have a right to judge that. But it's enough to make me consider whether I want to be a part of the site after all... something that I'm still considering.

And, for the record, I actually agree with a lot of what he said. I just think that 1.) This was the wrong place for it, and 2.) he was being an utter cock (Rule 14) about it*.