Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dear Users of the Religion Forum,

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:18:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:12:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
All bow.

Do you have any idea how absolutely stupid it is for a child to be telling adults what to do?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:37:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

We have no problem with Airmax, and now Whiteflame being assigned here. The real moderators of the site are here to protect everyone. We appreciate Airmax and respect him. Who exactly are you? Your language is atrocious. Where is your mother? ;)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:40:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:37:49 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

We have no problem with Airmax, and now Whiteflame being assigned here. The real moderators of the site are here to protect everyone. We appreciate Airmax and respect him. Who exactly are you? Your language is atrocious. Where is your mother? ;)

I L'dOL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written, but how they're applied. At the moment, we seem to be in very good moderator hands. But some of us have been to other forums where the moderators moderate in line with their own personal opinions and the only thing standing between us and that kind of mis-managment appears to be Airmax. It might be appropriate to suggest that you're speaking of things of which you have no experience.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:09:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.

Yes but unfortunately theists think that an attack on their religious beliefs is a personal insult.
MEH
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:16:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:09:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.

Yes but unfortunately theists think that an attack on their religious beliefs is a personal insult.
MEH

Offensive attacks on religion/religious belief are in the TUO as well but that's not specifically what I'm talking about.

Explicit personal attacks (that are not aimed at the religion) are the issue.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:16:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Define "insult". If I tell a fat person that they're "fat", is it an insult, or an honest observation? If I tell a fat person that they're "overweight", is that better or worse? Why? Isn't the message the same?

If someone puts forth an argument which is clearly idiotic (such as being confronted with a verse directly from the Bible, an they respond with, "the Bible doesn't say that"), is it an insult to tell them they're being idiotic? They are, after all. So is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

Tall people are "tall", fat people are "fat", retarded people are "retarded", people of superior athletic ability are "athletic", and people who present idiotic responses are being "idiots". Only when the selected adjective is inaccurate and unsupportable are they insults.

So if someone starts telling me about the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, is it an insult to point out that they're being idiotic on the grounds that the Bible contains not a single word attributable to Jesus?

Things are often not so simple as simple minds would like them to be.

If someone calls me a "godless atheist", have I been insulted? Or shall I simply see it as accurate since atheists don't believe in any gods? But if it's not an insult on the basis of being accurate, then can it be an insult to point out idiocy in claiming the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus?

Maybe people need to grow some skin, recognize that they're entering a debate site regarding an emotionally charged issue, and prepare themselves for blunt observations along with some insults. Or is that asking too much from the emotionally immature?

When you tell people that they can behave in an idiotic manner, present idiotic arguments, or otherwise demonstrate idiocy, and yet maintain the expectation that no one will make reference to their idiocy without utilizing wording which softens the statement, aren't we telling people that they're not allowed to be honest in making negative observations? Why are people so allergic to honest language and honest observations that they actually hold an expectation that no matter what they do, no one should ever be allowed to address their behaviors in honest plain and direct language?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:25:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:16:00 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:09:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.

Yes but unfortunately theists think that an attack on their religious beliefs is a personal insult.
MEH

Offensive attacks on religion/religious belief are in the TUO as well but that's not specifically what I'm talking about.

Explicit personal attacks (that are not aimed at the religion) are the issue.

People like you believe that all attacks on religion/religious belief are offensive, probably because you have no evidence at all to support them.

Explicit personal attacks like the one you quoted elsewhere and neither you nor your white knight could demonstrate was an insult.
Thin skin, much?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:41:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:16:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Define "insult". If I tell a fat person that they're "fat", is it an insult, or an honest observation? If I tell a fat person that they're "overweight", is that better or worse? Why? Isn't the message the same?

If someone puts forth an argument which is clearly idiotic (such as being confronted with a verse directly from the Bible, an they respond with, "the Bible doesn't say that"), is it an insult to tell them they're being idiotic? They are, after all. So is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

Tall people are "tall", fat people are "fat", retarded people are "retarded", people of superior athletic ability are "athletic", and people who present idiotic responses are being "idiots". Only when the selected adjective is inaccurate and unsupportable are they insults.

One can easily look at a dictionary to assertion the definition of "insult". Basically, it's a term generally made with the intent to disrespect or abuse--again, I'll point out that it clearly stated in the TOU that personal attacks are against site rules. Terms such as "retard", "slut", etc. would all count. Stating to someone: "You are a p*ssy who I wouldn't f*ck with a retards cock."

And:

"You used F*ck in kindergarten? Was your mother an uncouth SLUT? It would seem so."

Is offensive *and* non-productive to discussions that take place in the religion forum. If you want to contend religious views, you can do without resorting to that.


So if someone starts telling me about the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, is it an insult to point out that they're being idiotic on the grounds that the Bible contains not a single word attributable to Jesus?

As it classifies as a personal attack, yes.

Things are often not so simple as simple minds would like them to be.

I'm merely pointing out site rules.

If someone calls me a "godless atheist", have I been insulted? Or shall I simply see it as accurate since atheists don't believe in any gods? But if it's not an insult on the basis of being accurate, then can it be an insult to point out idiocy in claiming the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus?

Certainly if someone insulted your intelligence or used terms such as "retard". Neither people defending or contending religion should make their point with personal attacks.

Maybe people need to grow some skin, recognize that they're entering a debate site regarding an emotionally charged issue, and prepare themselves for blunt observations along with some insults. Or is that asking too much from the emotionally immature?

None of this is actually my opinion, if you like can direct you to a link of the TOU and you'll see that insults/personal attacks are explicitly off-limits and can result in a ban.

When you tell people that they can behave in an idiotic manner, present idiotic arguments, or otherwise demonstrate idiocy, and yet maintain the expectation that no one will make reference to their idiocy without utilizing wording which softens the statement, aren't we telling people that they're not allowed to be honest in making negative observations? Why are people so allergic to honest language and honest observations that they actually hold an expectation that no matter what they do, no one should ever be allowed to address their behaviors in honest plain and direct language?

As I've already said to bulprof, insults do not equate "honesty". One can be honest and express their opinion without using them. In fact, this actually adds more credibility to the arguments being made.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:48:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:25:49 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:16:00 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:09:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.

Yes but unfortunately theists think that an attack on their religious beliefs is a personal insult.
MEH

Offensive attacks on religion/religious belief are in the TUO as well but that's not specifically what I'm talking about.

Explicit personal attacks (that are not aimed at the religion) are the issue.

People like you believe that all attacks on religion/religious belief are offensive, probably because you have no evidence at all to support them.

I can easily direct you to a link of the TOU which validates my statement. I'll reiterate again that *my* point is primarily about personal attacks on character, which is not the same as addressing religious belief or religion.

Explicit personal attacks like the one you quoted elsewhere and neither you nor your white knight could demonstrate was an insult.
Thin skin, much?

So far I've encountered no issues in demonstrating such personal attacks are "insults", because by definition they are. I'd openly invite anyone to contend that words like "retard" or "slut", particularly when directed in a derogatory manner, are not insults.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 5:58:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:41:01 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:16:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Define "insult". If I tell a fat person that they're "fat", is it an insult, or an honest observation? If I tell a fat person that they're "overweight", is that better or worse? Why? Isn't the message the same?

If someone puts forth an argument which is clearly idiotic (such as being confronted with a verse directly from the Bible, an they respond with, "the Bible doesn't say that"), is it an insult to tell them they're being idiotic? They are, after all. So is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

Tall people are "tall", fat people are "fat", retarded people are "retarded", people of superior athletic ability are "athletic", and people who present idiotic responses are being "idiots". Only when the selected adjective is inaccurate and unsupportable are they insults.

One can easily look at a dictionary to assertion the definition of "insult". Basically, it's a term generally made with the intent to disrespect or abuse--again, I'll point out that it clearly stated in the TOU that personal attacks are against site rules. Terms such as "retard", "slut", etc. would all count. Stating to someone: "You are a p*ssy who I wouldn't f*ck with a retards cock."

And:

"You used F*ck in kindergarten? Was your mother an uncouth SLUT? It would seem so."

Is offensive *and* non-productive to discussions that take place in the religion forum. If you want to contend religious views, you can do without resorting to that.


So if someone starts telling me about the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, is it an insult to point out that they're being idiotic on the grounds that the Bible contains not a single word attributable to Jesus?

As it classifies as a personal attack, yes.

Things are often not so simple as simple minds would like them to be.

I'm merely pointing out site rules.

If someone calls me a "godless atheist", have I been insulted? Or shall I simply see it as accurate since atheists don't believe in any gods? But if it's not an insult on the basis of being accurate, then can it be an insult to point out idiocy in claiming the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus?

Certainly if someone insulted your intelligence or used terms such as "retard". Neither people defending or contending religion should make their point with personal attacks.

Maybe people need to grow some skin, recognize that they're entering a debate site regarding an emotionally charged issue, and prepare themselves for blunt observations along with some insults. Or is that asking too much from the emotionally immature?

None of this is actually my opinion, if you like can direct you to a link of the TOU and you'll see that insults/personal attacks are explicitly off-limits and can result in a ban.

When you tell people that they can behave in an idiotic manner, present idiotic arguments, or otherwise demonstrate idiocy, and yet maintain the expectation that no one will make reference to their idiocy without utilizing wording which softens the statement, aren't we telling people that they're not allowed to be honest in making negative observations? Why are people so allergic to honest language and honest observations that they actually hold an expectation that no matter what they do, no one should ever be allowed to address their behaviors in honest plain and direct language?

As I've already said to bulprof, insults do not equate "honesty". One can be honest and express their opinion without using them. In fact, this actually adds more credibility to the arguments being made.

Yes and you have yet to define what an insult is. What makes an insult an insult according to you is intent. Can I see your diploma of mind reading?
As I've said you believe anything that doesn't agree with your narrow view of reality is considered an insult.

BTW madman had claimed that he used the term f*ck in kindergarten, what do you think of a mother who condones that?
Saint I suppose?
And quoting deliberately and falsely out of context is lying, making you yet again a liar.
Going to scream insult when confronted with the truth again?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:10:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:41:01 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:16:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Define "insult". If I tell a fat person that they're "fat", is it an insult, or an honest observation? If I tell a fat person that they're "overweight", is that better or worse? Why? Isn't the message the same?

If someone puts forth an argument which is clearly idiotic (such as being confronted with a verse directly from the Bible, an they respond with, "the Bible doesn't say that"), is it an insult to tell them they're being idiotic? They are, after all. So is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

Tall people are "tall", fat people are "fat", retarded people are "retarded", people of superior athletic ability are "athletic", and people who present idiotic responses are being "idiots". Only when the selected adjective is inaccurate and unsupportable are they insults.

One can easily look at a dictionary to assertion the definition of "insult". Basically, it's a term generally made with the intent to disrespect or abuse--again, I'll point out that it clearly stated in the TOU that personal attacks are against site rules.
Why do you feel you need to repeat that? Did I suggest that it's not in the TOU? See? That's not my argument at all... is it. So why do you think you've answered my questions by repeating that?

My question is this; if the adjective used is accurate, is it an insult? Is it an insult only when it is intended as a derogatory comment, rather than an accurate observation, or just whenever the recipient decides to suggest there was intent to insult?

Terms such as "retard", "slut", etc. would all count. Stating to someone: "You are a p*ssy who I wouldn't f*ck with a retards cock."
And yet, I didn't make references to any of those words. So you're evading the questions I've asked, presumably because you don't have an answer you can support. So instead you evade my questions and substitute them with your own. That's known as a 'strawman" argument and it's a fallacious form of debate. Are you trying to insult my intellect in hoping I won't realize you're answering your own questions rather than mine?

See the slippery slope?

And:

"You used F*ck in kindergarten? Was your mother an uncouth SLUT? It would seem so."
Again, I didn't ask for clarification on either of the terms you've written as examples. So once again, if I say someone is "fat" and they 're over-weight, am I insulting them? My late fiance told me that her sister once changed doctors because her physician told her she was "obese". She was about 80-pounds over-weight. Was he insulting her? She certainly took it as an insult. But a doctor's profession places him in the position of being honest with patients about health concerns. So is he doing his job of making a proper objective observation? Or was he insulting her?

See? It's not so clearly or sharply defined as you wish to suggest. And you've not answered a single question I asked of you. So why are you evading my questions? If it's not with the intent of suggesting that I'm too stupid to notice, then why?

Is offensive *and* non-productive to discussions that take place in the religion forum. If you want to contend religious views, you can do without resorting to that.
Once again; if I post a quoted verse from the Bible, and I receive the response, "the Bible doesn't say that", it's an idiotic response. So if I tell them their response is idiotic, am I insulting them, or simply providing an objective observation regarding their behavior?


So if someone starts telling me about the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, is it an insult to point out that they're being idiotic on the grounds that the Bible contains not a single word attributable to Jesus?

As it classifies as a personal attack, yes
But unless it's a personal attack to mention that a handicapped person is crippled, how can it be a personal attack to make an accurate observation? Shall we ban all accurate observations, or only those where the recipient claims offense?

Things are often not so simple as simple minds would like them to be.

I'm merely pointing out site rules.
And evading the questions to which those rules lead. They're ambiguous.

If someone calls me a "godless atheist", have I been insulted? Or shall I simply see it as accurate since atheists don't believe in any gods? But if it's not an insult on the basis of being accurate, then can it be an insult to point out idiocy in claiming the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus?

Certainly if someone insulted your intelligence or used terms such as "retard". Neither people defending or contending religion should make their point with personal attacks.
ONCE again... are all objective observations "personal attacks", or only when the recipient decides that they are?

Maybe people need to grow some skin, recognize that they're entering a debate site regarding an emotionally charged issue, and prepare themselves for blunt observations along with some insults. Or is that asking too much from the emotionally immature?

None of this is actually my opinion, if you like can direct you to a link of the TOU and you'll see that insults/personal attacks are explicitly off-limits and can result in a ban
I know my way to the TOU. They're ambiguous. Since you suggested that you understand where the lines are drawn, I'm calling on you to illustrate that you actually know.

When you tell people that they can behave in an idiotic manner, present idiotic arguments, or otherwise demonstrate idiocy, and yet maintain the expectation that no one will make reference to their idiocy without utilizing wording which softens the statement, aren't we telling people that they're not allowed to be honest in making negative observations? Why are people so allergic to honest language and honest observations that they actually hold an expectation that no matter what they do, no one should ever be allowed to address their behaviors in honest plain and direct language?

As I've already said to bulprof, insults do not equate "honesty". One can be honest and express their opinion without using them. In fact, this actually adds more credibility to the arguments being made.
There are many here who demonstrate less than average intelligence. Is it an insult to make that honest observation? Or is it only an insult if I tell them they're displaying idiocy?

I'm thinking you don't know the answers, but won't admit it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:17:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:58:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:41:01 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:16:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Define "insult". If I tell a fat person that they're "fat", is it an insult, or an honest observation? If I tell a fat person that they're "overweight", is that better or worse? Why? Isn't the message the same?

If someone puts forth an argument which is clearly idiotic (such as being confronted with a verse directly from the Bible, an they respond with, "the Bible doesn't say that"), is it an insult to tell them they're being idiotic? They are, after all. So is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

Tall people are "tall", fat people are "fat", retarded people are "retarded", people of superior athletic ability are "athletic", and people who present idiotic responses are being "idiots". Only when the selected adjective is inaccurate and unsupportable are they insults.

One can easily look at a dictionary to assertion the definition of "insult". Basically, it's a term generally made with the intent to disrespect or abuse--again, I'll point out that it clearly stated in the TOU that personal attacks are against site rules. Terms such as "retard", "slut", etc. would all count. Stating to someone: "You are a p*ssy who I wouldn't f*ck with a retards cock."

And:

"You used F*ck in kindergarten? Was your mother an uncouth SLUT? It would seem so."

Is offensive *and* non-productive to discussions that take place in the religion forum. If you want to contend religious views, you can do without resorting to that.


So if someone starts telling me about the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, is it an insult to point out that they're being idiotic on the grounds that the Bible contains not a single word attributable to Jesus?

As it classifies as a personal attack, yes.

Things are often not so simple as simple minds would like them to be.

I'm merely pointing out site rules.

If someone calls me a "godless atheist", have I been insulted? Or shall I simply see it as accurate since atheists don't believe in any gods? But if it's not an insult on the basis of being accurate, then can it be an insult to point out idiocy in claiming the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus?

Certainly if someone insulted your intelligence or used terms such as "retard". Neither people defending or contending religion should make their point with personal attacks.

Maybe people need to grow some skin, recognize that they're entering a debate site regarding an emotionally charged issue, and prepare themselves for blunt observations along with some insults. Or is that asking too much from the emotionally immature?

None of this is actually my opinion, if you like can direct you to a link of the TOU and you'll see that insults/personal attacks are explicitly off-limits and can result in a ban.

When you tell people that they can behave in an idiotic manner, present idiotic arguments, or otherwise demonstrate idiocy, and yet maintain the expectation that no one will make reference to their idiocy without utilizing wording which softens the statement, aren't we telling people that they're not allowed to be honest in making negative observations? Why are people so allergic to honest language and honest observations that they actually hold an expectation that no matter what they do, no one should ever be allowed to address their behaviors in honest plain and direct language?

As I've already said to bulprof, insults do not equate "honesty". One can be honest and express their opinion without using them. In fact, this actually adds more credibility to the arguments being made.

Yes and you have yet to define what an insult is. What makes an insult an insult according to you is intent. Can I see your diploma of mind reading?
As I've said you believe anything that doesn't agree with your narrow view of reality is considered an insult.

A dictionary definition of the term states:

1.

a) "To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence or contenptious rudeness".

b) "To affront or demean."

2.

"To make an attack on."

"An insulting remark or act".

Definitions established, it is again evidence that you have used insults.

"
BTW madman had claimed that he used the term f*ck in kindergarten, what do you think of a mother who condones that?
Saint I suppose?
And quoting deliberately and falsely out of context is lying, making you yet again a liar.
Going to scream insult when confronted with the truth again?

Because of context it would still be categorized as an insult. What would be the justification for using terms like "retard", "slut" and "p*ssy"?

Again, posting direct comments from you and highlighting that they violate TOU does not make me a "liar", a term that you obviously use to everyone that you disagree with.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:24:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:17:56 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:58:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:41:01 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:16:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Define "insult". If I tell a fat person that they're "fat", is it an insult, or an honest observation? If I tell a fat person that they're "overweight", is that better or worse? Why? Isn't the message the same?

If someone puts forth an argument which is clearly idiotic (such as being confronted with a verse directly from the Bible, an they respond with, "the Bible doesn't say that"), is it an insult to tell them they're being idiotic? They are, after all. So is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

Tall people are "tall", fat people are "fat", retarded people are "retarded", people of superior athletic ability are "athletic", and people who present idiotic responses are being "idiots". Only when the selected adjective is inaccurate and unsupportable are they insults.

One can easily look at a dictionary to assertion the definition of "insult". Basically, it's a term generally made with the intent to disrespect or abuse--again, I'll point out that it clearly stated in the TOU that personal attacks are against site rules. Terms such as "retard", "slut", etc. would all count. Stating to someone: "You are a p*ssy who I wouldn't f*ck with a retards cock."

And:

"You used F*ck in kindergarten? Was your mother an uncouth SLUT? It would seem so."

Is offensive *and* non-productive to discussions that take place in the religion forum. If you want to contend religious views, you can do without resorting to that.


So if someone starts telling me about the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, is it an insult to point out that they're being idiotic on the grounds that the Bible contains not a single word attributable to Jesus?

As it classifies as a personal attack, yes.

Things are often not so simple as simple minds would like them to be.

I'm merely pointing out site rules.

If someone calls me a "godless atheist", have I been insulted? Or shall I simply see it as accurate since atheists don't believe in any gods? But if it's not an insult on the basis of being accurate, then can it be an insult to point out idiocy in claiming the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus?

Certainly if someone insulted your intelligence or used terms such as "retard". Neither people defending or contending religion should make their point with personal attacks.

Maybe people need to grow some skin, recognize that they're entering a debate site regarding an emotionally charged issue, and prepare themselves for blunt observations along with some insults. Or is that asking too much from the emotionally immature?

None of this is actually my opinion, if you like can direct you to a link of the TOU and you'll see that insults/personal attacks are explicitly off-limits and can result in a ban.

When you tell people that they can behave in an idiotic manner, present idiotic arguments, or otherwise demonstrate idiocy, and yet maintain the expectation that no one will make reference to their idiocy without utilizing wording which softens the statement, aren't we telling people that they're not allowed to be honest in making negative observations? Why are people so allergic to honest language and honest observations that they actually hold an expectation that no matter what they do, no one should ever be allowed to address their behaviors in honest plain and direct language?

As I've already said to bulprof, insults do not equate "honesty". One can be honest and express their opinion without using them. In fact, this actually adds more credibility to the arguments being made.

Yes and you have yet to define what an insult is. What makes an insult an insult according to you is intent. Can I see your diploma of mind reading?
As I've said you believe anything that doesn't agree with your narrow view of reality is considered an insult.

A dictionary definition of the term states:

1.

a) "To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence or contenptious rudeness".

b) "To affront or demean."

2.

"To make an attack on."

"An insulting remark or act".
According to whom, the person issuing the comment, the recipient of the comment or the moderator the recipient cries to after reading the response? Does the dictionary tell you who is the authority on whether the remark is intended as an attack? Do the TOS define that? Can you define that and by what authority?

Definitions established, it is again evidence that you have used insults.

"
BTW madman had claimed that he used the term f*ck in kindergarten, what do you think of a mother who condones that?
Saint I suppose?
And quoting deliberately and falsely out of context is lying, making you yet again a liar.
Going to scream insult when confronted with the truth again?

Because of context it would still be categorized as an insult. What would be the justification for using terms like "retard", "slut" and "p*ssy"?
Why do you keep resorting to examples which aren't being used in the questions you're professing to answer? Is every reference to one's intellect automatically an "insult"?

Again, posting direct comments from you and highlighting that they violate TOU does not make me a "liar", a term that you obviously use to everyone that you disagree with.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
kjw47
Posts: 1,624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:26:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

The hearts lead by the spirit of antichrist--have turned religion itself into what you termed a cluster----/ 1Cor 1:10-------- God has use for---one religion, one truth, one faith.---not a disunified mass of confusion( definition of cluster----)

99% are under this maggot filled tent--2Cor 4:4--- blinding their hearts.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:28:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:17:56 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:58:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:41:01 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:16:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Define "insult". If I tell a fat person that they're "fat", is it an insult, or an honest observation? If I tell a fat person that they're "overweight", is that better or worse? Why? Isn't the message the same?

If someone puts forth an argument which is clearly idiotic (such as being confronted with a verse directly from the Bible, an they respond with, "the Bible doesn't say that"), is it an insult to tell them they're being idiotic? They are, after all. So is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

Tall people are "tall", fat people are "fat", retarded people are "retarded", people of superior athletic ability are "athletic", and people who present idiotic responses are being "idiots". Only when the selected adjective is inaccurate and unsupportable are they insults.

One can easily look at a dictionary to assertion the definition of "insult". Basically, it's a term generally made with the intent to disrespect or abuse--again, I'll point out that it clearly stated in the TOU that personal attacks are against site rules. Terms such as "retard", "slut", etc. would all count. Stating to someone: "You are a p*ssy who I wouldn't f*ck with a retards cock."

And:

"You used F*ck in kindergarten? Was your mother an uncouth SLUT? It would seem so."

Is offensive *and* non-productive to discussions that take place in the religion forum. If you want to contend religious views, you can do without resorting to that.


So if someone starts telling me about the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, is it an insult to point out that they're being idiotic on the grounds that the Bible contains not a single word attributable to Jesus?

As it classifies as a personal attack, yes.

Things are often not so simple as simple minds would like them to be.

I'm merely pointing out site rules.

If someone calls me a "godless atheist", have I been insulted? Or shall I simply see it as accurate since atheists don't believe in any gods? But if it's not an insult on the basis of being accurate, then can it be an insult to point out idiocy in claiming the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus?

Certainly if someone insulted your intelligence or used terms such as "retard". Neither people defending or contending religion should make their point with personal attacks.

Maybe people need to grow some skin, recognize that they're entering a debate site regarding an emotionally charged issue, and prepare themselves for blunt observations along with some insults. Or is that asking too much from the emotionally immature?

None of this is actually my opinion, if you like can direct you to a link of the TOU and you'll see that insults/personal attacks are explicitly off-limits and can result in a ban.

When you tell people that they can behave in an idiotic manner, present idiotic arguments, or otherwise demonstrate idiocy, and yet maintain the expectation that no one will make reference to their idiocy without utilizing wording which softens the statement, aren't we telling people that they're not allowed to be honest in making negative observations? Why are people so allergic to honest language and honest observations that they actually hold an expectation that no matter what they do, no one should ever be allowed to address their behaviors in honest plain and direct language?

As I've already said to bulprof, insults do not equate "honesty". One can be honest and express their opinion without using them. In fact, this actually adds more credibility to the arguments being made.

Yes and you have yet to define what an insult is. What makes an insult an insult according to you is intent. Can I see your diploma of mind reading?
As I've said you believe anything that doesn't agree with your narrow view of reality is considered an insult.

A dictionary definition of the term states:

1.

a) "To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence or contenptious rudeness".

b) "To affront or demean."

2.

"To make an attack on."

"An insulting remark or act".

Definitions established, it is again evidence that you have used insults.

"
BTW madman had claimed that he used the term f*ck in kindergarten, what do you think of a mother who condones that?
Saint I suppose?
And quoting deliberately and falsely out of context is lying, making you yet again a liar.
Going to scream insult when confronted with the truth again?

Because of context it would still be categorized as an insult. What would be the justification for using terms like "retard", "slut" and "p*ssy"?

Again, posting direct comments from you and highlighting that they violate TOU does not make me a "liar", a term that you obviously use to everyone that you disagree with.

I didn't see your diploma of mind reading that is absolutely necessary for you to confirm whether or not something said is in fact an insult, according to the definition you supplied.
Yes of course you won't respond, because you can't............ooh insult!!!
Deliberately quote mining most definitely makes you a liar just as I mentioned, and in every case that I've called you a liar I've provided the evidence of your lie, that you don't possess the wherewithal to recognise the lie you are telling is something that you need to address.
Maybe you will if you ever grow up.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:31:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:26:49 AM, kjw47 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.


The hearts lead by the spirit of antichrist--have turned religion itself into what you termed a cluster----/ 1Cor 1:10-------- God has use for---one religion, one truth, one faith.---not a disunified mass of confusion( definition of cluster----)

99% are under this maggot filled tent--2Cor 4:4--- blinding their hearts.

A perfect example of unadulterated insulting senseless drivel.
Yea theists to the rescue.
hahahahahahahaha
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:41:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:24:46 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 6:17:56 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:58:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:41:01 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:16:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Define "insult". If I tell a fat person that they're "fat", is it an insult, or an honest observation? If I tell a fat person that they're "overweight", is that better or worse? Why? Isn't the message the same?

If someone puts forth an argument which is clearly idiotic (such as being confronted with a verse directly from the Bible, an they respond with, "the Bible doesn't say that"), is it an insult to tell them they're being idiotic? They are, after all. So is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

Tall people are "tall", fat people are "fat", retarded people are "retarded", people of superior athletic ability are "athletic", and people who present idiotic responses are being "idiots". Only when the selected adjective is inaccurate and unsupportable are they insults.

One can easily look at a dictionary to assertion the definition of "insult". Basically, it's a term generally made with the intent to disrespect or abuse--again, I'll point out that it clearly stated in the TOU that personal attacks are against site rules. Terms such as "retard", "slut", etc. would all count. Stating to someone: "You are a p*ssy who I wouldn't f*ck with a retards cock."

And:

"You used F*ck in kindergarten? Was your mother an uncouth SLUT? It would seem so."

Is offensive *and* non-productive to discussions that take place in the religion forum. If you want to contend religious views, you can do without resorting to that.


So if someone starts telling me about the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, is it an insult to point out that they're being idiotic on the grounds that the Bible contains not a single word attributable to Jesus?

As it classifies as a personal attack, yes.

Things are often not so simple as simple minds would like them to be.

I'm merely pointing out site rules.

If someone calls me a "godless atheist", have I been insulted? Or shall I simply see it as accurate since atheists don't believe in any gods? But if it's not an insult on the basis of being accurate, then can it be an insult to point out idiocy in claiming the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus?

Certainly if someone insulted your intelligence or used terms such as "retard". Neither people defending or contending religion should make their point with personal attacks.

Maybe people need to grow some skin, recognize that they're entering a debate site regarding an emotionally charged issue, and prepare themselves for blunt observations along with some insults. Or is that asking too much from the emotionally immature?

None of this is actually my opinion, if you like can direct you to a link of the TOU and you'll see that insults/personal attacks are explicitly off-limits and can result in a ban.

When you tell people that they can behave in an idiotic manner, present idiotic arguments, or otherwise demonstrate idiocy, and yet maintain the expectation that no one will make reference to their idiocy without utilizing wording which softens the statement, aren't we telling people that they're not allowed to be honest in making negative observations? Why are people so allergic to honest language and honest observations that they actually hold an expectation that no matter what they do, no one should ever be allowed to address their behaviors in honest plain and direct language?

As I've already said to bulprof, insults do not equate "honesty". One can be honest and express their opinion without using them. In fact, this actually adds more credibility to the arguments being made.

Yes and you have yet to define what an insult is. What makes an insult an insult according to you is intent. Can I see your diploma of mind reading?
As I've said you believe anything that doesn't agree with your narrow view of reality is considered an insult.

A dictionary definition of the term states:

1.

a) "To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence or contenptious rudeness".

b) "To affront or demean."

2.

"To make an attack on."

"An insulting remark or act".
According to whom, the person issuing the comment, the recipient of the comment or the moderator the recipient cries to after reading the response? Does the dictionary tell you who is the authority on whether the remark is intended as an attack? Do the TOS define that? Can you define that and by what authority?

According to the definition itself. Likewise, the TOU is explicit that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules. Essentially you're contending that the following terms are not insults:

(1.) "retard."

(2.) "slut."

(3.) "p*ssy."


Definitions established, it is again evidence that you have used insults.

"
BTW madman had claimed that he used the term f*ck in kindergarten, what do you think of a mother who condones that?
Saint I suppose?
And quoting deliberately and falsely out of context is lying, making you yet again a liar.
Going to scream insult when confronted with the truth again?

Because of context it would still be categorized as an insult. What would be the justification for using terms like "retard", "slut" and "p*ssy"?
Why do you keep resorting to examples which aren't being used in the questions you're professing to answer? Is every reference to one's intellect automatically an "insult"?


I am using examples of clearly stated derogatory terms and personal attacks.

Again, posting direct comments from you and highlighting that they violate TOU does not make me a "liar", a term that you obviously use to everyone that you disagree with.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:49:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:28:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 6:17:56 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:58:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:41:01 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:16:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Define "insult". If I tell a fat person that they're "fat", is it an insult, or an honest observation? If I tell a fat person that they're "overweight", is that better or worse? Why? Isn't the message the same?

If someone puts forth an argument which is clearly idiotic (such as being confronted with a verse directly from the Bible, an they respond with, "the Bible doesn't say that"), is it an insult to tell them they're being idiotic? They are, after all. So is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

Tall people are "tall", fat people are "fat", retarded people are "retarded", people of superior athletic ability are "athletic", and people who present idiotic responses are being "idiots". Only when the selected adjective is inaccurate and unsupportable are they insults.

One can easily look at a dictionary to assertion the definition of "insult". Basically, it's a term generally made with the intent to disrespect or abuse--again, I'll point out that it clearly stated in the TOU that personal attacks are against site rules. Terms such as "retard", "slut", etc. would all count. Stating to someone: "You are a p*ssy who I wouldn't f*ck with a retards cock."

And:

"You used F*ck in kindergarten? Was your mother an uncouth SLUT? It would seem so."

Is offensive *and* non-productive to discussions that take place in the religion forum. If you want to contend religious views, you can do without resorting to that.


So if someone starts telling me about the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, is it an insult to point out that they're being idiotic on the grounds that the Bible contains not a single word attributable to Jesus?

As it classifies as a personal attack, yes.

Things are often not so simple as simple minds would like them to be.

I'm merely pointing out site rules.

If someone calls me a "godless atheist", have I been insulted? Or shall I simply see it as accurate since atheists don't believe in any gods? But if it's not an insult on the basis of being accurate, then can it be an insult to point out idiocy in claiming the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus?

Certainly if someone insulted your intelligence or used terms such as "retard". Neither people defending or contending religion should make their point with personal attacks.

Maybe people need to grow some skin, recognize that they're entering a debate site regarding an emotionally charged issue, and prepare themselves for blunt observations along with some insults. Or is that asking too much from the emotionally immature?

None of this is actually my opinion, if you like can direct you to a link of the TOU and you'll see that insults/personal attacks are explicitly off-limits and can result in a ban.

When you tell people that they can behave in an idiotic manner, present idiotic arguments, or otherwise demonstrate idiocy, and yet maintain the expectation that no one will make reference to their idiocy without utilizing wording which softens the statement, aren't we telling people that they're not allowed to be honest in making negative observations? Why are people so allergic to honest language and honest observations that they actually hold an expectation that no matter what they do, no one should ever be allowed to address their behaviors in honest plain and direct language?

As I've already said to bulprof, insults do not equate "honesty". One can be honest and express their opinion without using them. In fact, this actually adds more credibility to the arguments being made.

Yes and you have yet to define what an insult is. What makes an insult an insult according to you is intent. Can I see your diploma of mind reading?
As I've said you believe anything that doesn't agree with your narrow view of reality is considered an insult.

A dictionary definition of the term states:

1.

a) "To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence or contenptious rudeness".

b) "To affront or demean."

2.

"To make an attack on."

"An insulting remark or act".

Definitions established, it is again evidence that you have used insults.

"
BTW madman had claimed that he used the term f*ck in kindergarten, what do you think of a mother who condones that?
Saint I suppose?
And quoting deliberately and falsely out of context is lying, making you yet again a liar.
Going to scream insult when confronted with the truth again?

Because of context it would still be categorized as an insult. What would be the justification for using terms like "retard", "slut" and "p*ssy"?

Again, posting direct comments from you and highlighting that they violate TOU does not make me a "liar", a term that you obviously use to everyone that you disagree with.

I didn't see your diploma of mind reading that is absolutely necessary for you to confirm whether or not something said is in fact an insult, according to the definition you supplied.
Yes of course you won't respond, because you can't............ooh insult!!!
Deliberately quote mining most definitely makes you a liar just as I mentioned, and in every case that I've called you a liar I've provided the evidence of your lie, that you don't possess the wherewithal to recognise the lie you are telling is something that you need to address.
Maybe you will if you ever grow up.

Mind reading? I don't see how directly quoting insults and pointing out that they violate TOU makes you reach that conclusion.

Perhaps you could explicitly highlight where I've lied. My only actions include: displaying terms used, reiterating site rules, and clarifying definitions. Suggesting I am not "grown up" is also non-productive.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:58:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:49:30 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 6:28:30 AM, bulproof wrote:

I didn't see your diploma of mind reading that is absolutely necessary for you to confirm whether or not something said is in fact an insult, according to the definition you supplied.
Yes of course you won't respond, because you can't............ooh insult!!!
Deliberately quote mining most definitely makes you a liar just as I mentioned, and in every case that I've called you a liar I've provided the evidence of your lie, that you don't possess the wherewithal to recognise the lie you are telling is something that you need to address.
Maybe you will if you ever grow up.

Mind reading? I don't see how directly quoting insults and pointing out that they violate TOU makes you reach that conclusion.
Well of course you wouldn't, that would require the exercise of an intelligence you don't seem to possess.
As Beastt and I have pointed out, your definition relies on intent and you are incapable of determining that. I know you won't understand, but that is because it will shatter your worldview if you do.
Perhaps you could explicitly highlight where I've lied. My only actions include: displaying terms used, reiterating site rules, and clarifying definitions. Suggesting I am not "grown up" is also non-productive.
Done and done and as usual you lack the wherewithal to recognise such.
There is nothing more I'm prepared to help you with until you make the effort of helping yourself.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 7:17:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

I think it seems like Airmaxx has done a good job.
But your statement is ridiculous.... He's just a guy, albeit seemingly a good guy.

His being the moderator =/= he's the best/most-qualified possible moderator.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 7:46:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:18:51 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:12:45 AM, bulproof wrote:
All bow.

Do you have any idea how absolutely stupid it is for a child to be telling adults what to do?

Do you know how childish it is for adults to go around and call everybody idiots?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 7:48:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:09:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.

Yes but unfortunately theists think that an attack on their religious beliefs is a personal insult.
MEH

This is actually an insult. You lump them altogether as if they're the same person and attack this strawman. The "meh" at the end was also pointless and immature.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 7:50:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:58:12 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 6:49:30 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 6:28:30 AM, bulproof wrote:

I didn't see your diploma of mind reading that is absolutely necessary for you to confirm whether or not something said is in fact an insult, according to the definition you supplied.
Yes of course you won't respond, because you can't............ooh insult!!!
Deliberately quote mining most definitely makes you a liar just as I mentioned, and in every case that I've called you a liar I've provided the evidence of your lie, that you don't possess the wherewithal to recognise the lie you are telling is something that you need to address.
Maybe you will if you ever grow up.

Mind reading? I don't see how directly quoting insults and pointing out that they violate TOU makes you reach that conclusion.
Well of course you wouldn't, that would require the exercise of an intelligence you don't seem to possess.
As Beastt and I have pointed out, your definition relies on intent and you are incapable of determining that. I know you won't understand, but that is because it will shatter your worldview if you do.

The definition, which is a dictionary one, makes it clear exactly what an "insult" is.
Regardless of your own personal opinion, words like "retard" explicitly constitute an insult.

Perhaps you could explicitly highlight where I've lied. My only actions include: displaying terms used, reiterating site rules, and clarifying definitions. Suggesting I am not "grown up" is also non-productive.
Done and done and as usual you lack the wherewithal to recognise such.
There is nothing more I'm prepared to help you with until you make the effort of helping yourself.

Thus proving that I have not lied. Otherwise you'd have no difficulties in providing the evidence for it.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 7:51:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 5:58:52 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:41:01 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 5:16:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 4:55:51 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:00:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.

There is no problem with when the terms of service are written

Then there shouldn't be an issue. Terms of agreement state that insults and personal attacks are violations of site rules, that is literally all that's being applied here.
Define "insult". If I tell a fat person that they're "fat", is it an insult, or an honest observation? If I tell a fat person that they're "overweight", is that better or worse? Why? Isn't the message the same?

If someone puts forth an argument which is clearly idiotic (such as being confronted with a verse directly from the Bible, an they respond with, "the Bible doesn't say that"), is it an insult to tell them they're being idiotic? They are, after all. So is that an insult, or an accurate observation?

Tall people are "tall", fat people are "fat", retarded people are "retarded", people of superior athletic ability are "athletic", and people who present idiotic responses are being "idiots". Only when the selected adjective is inaccurate and unsupportable are they insults.

One can easily look at a dictionary to assertion the definition of "insult". Basically, it's a term generally made with the intent to disrespect or abuse--again, I'll point out that it clearly stated in the TOU that personal attacks are against site rules. Terms such as "retard", "slut", etc. would all count. Stating to someone: "You are a p*ssy who I wouldn't f*ck with a retards cock."

And:

"You used F*ck in kindergarten? Was your mother an uncouth SLUT? It would seem so."

Is offensive *and* non-productive to discussions that take place in the religion forum. If you want to contend religious views, you can do without resorting to that.


So if someone starts telling me about the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, is it an insult to point out that they're being idiotic on the grounds that the Bible contains not a single word attributable to Jesus?

As it classifies as a personal attack, yes.

Things are often not so simple as simple minds would like them to be.

I'm merely pointing out site rules.

If someone calls me a "godless atheist", have I been insulted? Or shall I simply see it as accurate since atheists don't believe in any gods? But if it's not an insult on the basis of being accurate, then can it be an insult to point out idiocy in claiming the Bible contains the teachings of Jesus?

Certainly if someone insulted your intelligence or used terms such as "retard". Neither people defending or contending religion should make their point with personal attacks.

Maybe people need to grow some skin, recognize that they're entering a debate site regarding an emotionally charged issue, and prepare themselves for blunt observations along with some insults. Or is that asking too much from the emotionally immature?

None of this is actually my opinion, if you like can direct you to a link of the TOU and you'll see that insults/personal attacks are explicitly off-limits and can result in a ban.

When you tell people that they can behave in an idiotic manner, present idiotic arguments, or otherwise demonstrate idiocy, and yet maintain the expectation that no one will make reference to their idiocy without utilizing wording which softens the statement, aren't we telling people that they're not allowed to be honest in making negative observations? Why are people so allergic to honest language and honest observations that they actually hold an expectation that no matter what they do, no one should ever be allowed to address their behaviors in honest plain and direct language?

As I've already said to bulprof, insults do not equate "honesty". One can be honest and express their opinion without using them. In fact, this actually adds more credibility to the arguments being made.

Yes and you have yet to define what an insult is. What makes an insult an insult according to you is intent. Can I see your diploma of mind reading?
As I've said you believe anything that doesn't agree with your narrow view of reality is considered an insult.

BTW madman had claimed that he used the term f*ck in kindergarten, what do you think of a mother who condones that?
Saint I suppose?
And quoting deliberately and falsely out of context is lying, making you yet again a liar.
Going to scream insult when confronted with the truth again?

No that's a reasonable argument but 99% of your posts are insults. The statement is still immature but it would be an upgrade if all your statements look like this.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 7:54:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:31:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 6:26:49 AM, kjw47 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:08:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Your judgement is abysmal. You have, by far, the worst conduct around this site. You should not be telling the f***ing moderator how to moderate the site he moderates and calling him and people around him "idiots" while doing so.

Complaining that the moderation team is stupid, is well...stupid: especially when you may be on the verge of getting the ban hammer.

If the religion forum was in charge of moderating itself, it'd be the definition of a "clusterf***". No matter what you say, the moderator is, and always will be, more qualified to make the decisions in regards to moderating.

You complain, and call it censorship. Ok, well: there's a policy regarding what type of stuff you're allowed and not allowed to say on this site. It's been here for a while: before some of you even joined the site...It did not just show up today: stop acting like it did.


The hearts lead by the spirit of antichrist--have turned religion itself into what you termed a cluster----/ 1Cor 1:10-------- God has use for---one religion, one truth, one faith.---not a disunified mass of confusion( definition of cluster----)

99% are under this maggot filled tent--2Cor 4:4--- blinding their hearts.

A perfect example of unadulterated insulting senseless drivel.
Yea theists to the rescue.
hahahahahahahaha

It doesn't matter if it's senseless drivel. Your insult was unneccesary and rude.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 7:55:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:58:12 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/28/2014 6:49:30 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/28/2014 6:28:30 AM, bulproof wrote:

I didn't see your diploma of mind reading that is absolutely necessary for you to confirm whether or not something said is in fact an insult, according to the definition you supplied.
Yes of course you won't respond, because you can't............ooh insult!!!
Deliberately quote mining most definitely makes you a liar just as I mentioned, and in every case that I've called you a liar I've provided the evidence of your lie, that you don't possess the wherewithal to recognise the lie you are telling is something that you need to address.
Maybe you will if you ever grow up.

Mind reading? I don't see how directly quoting insults and pointing out that they violate TOU makes you reach that conclusion.
Well of course you wouldn't, that would require the exercise of an intelligence you don't seem to possess.
As Beastt and I have pointed out, your definition relies on intent and you are incapable of determining that. I know you won't understand, but that is because it will shatter your worldview if you do.
Perhaps you could explicitly highlight where I've lied. My only actions include: displaying terms used, reiterating site rules, and clarifying definitions. Suggesting I am not "grown up" is also non-productive.
Done and done and as usual you lack the wherewithal to recognise such.
There is nothing more I'm prepared to help you with until you make the effort of helping yourself.

Can you go 3 posts without calling somebody stupid?

It really shows your mentality and intelligence that you can't