Attitudes and behaviour.

[Rhiannon]

We don't allow speculation about the mental health of posters, if it comes to our attention we mod it out.

[BashfulAnthony]

Well, free to act as adults here seems to include vitriol and expletives at will.  Very adult.

Yep - that is how adults can behave if they want to provided they stop short of overt personal abuse; put simply they can say 'fuck' if they want to.

Moderation hardly exists when, in effect, people say what they like in any manner they choose.

Nope - and putting the Mod hat on for just a second, some members do get pulled up/suspended if they go too far - but, as I said, this isn't a nursery. 

Adult debate requires some constraint and consideration for the feelings of others.

Indeed - but not to excess, and not to the extent of avoiding what is reasonable to discuss. If someone doesn't feel comfortable then they know where the door is.

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

If I had time to trawl through the years of posts on here, I'd find them.  If you are asserting that such personal attacks are not made, then you are either naive, or somewhat wrong!

I'm not "asserting" that at all. What I am saying though is that christians here rarely suffer ad hominem attacks, and that criticising the belief rather than the person is perfectly legitimate regardless of how much offence it may cause.

I'm also suggesting that on balance the non-christians here are more sinned against than sinners.

[ProfessorDavey]

You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.

They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus.  Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay.  But I do not specifically object to that:  it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic,"  and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange.  This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people.  It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs.  This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.

And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.

I totally agree.

But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.

I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.

Yet in the OP you only target people who attack religious beliefs, believing them to be somehow beyond reproach. Why didn't you also challenge your fellow religionists who regularly denigrate people because of their sexuality.

Okay, to say again, I 100% disassociate myself from such people.. But, that was not what the OP with about.   Start another thread to make that point.

Nope - it is entirely relevant.

Specifically because in the OP you were making the case for religious belief to be placed in a special position with regard to challenge. And there are plenty of christians who see their views on sexuality as inherently part of those christian beliefs. So if they choose to express those homophobic views in line with your OP we should not challenge them because those views are religious and, in your own words:

'When it comes to religious belief, what one believes is personal to them, it is what they base their lives and actions around, and in many respects defines who they are, based on their understanding and belief of Christianity, and how it pertains to them as individuals. In short: Their belief is an extremely important part in terms of their definition of who they are. In overtly attacking their beliefs, you are also attacking that member.'

So how do you square the circle BA - it seems impossible to me. And indeed your description of the views of some christians in relation to gay people as 'an abhorrence' (reply 33 - note specific attack on the person, not the belief 'any who do are an abhorrence') surely is a perfect example of what you claimed to be unacceptable in your OP.

[BashfulAnthony]

We don't allow speculation about the mental health of posters, if it comes to our attention we mod it out.

Well it happens, and I have seen numerous examples over the years, and they have most certainly not been modded out.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.

The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.

[Gordon]

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

Really!

One person's 'personal attack' may be another person's 'reasonable comment' - but most here seem to be able to approach opposing views without presuming that they are being attacked.

[BashfulAnthony]

You find talk of magic and fairies insulting and denigrating. These are pagan beliefs.

They are insulting and degrading when referring to Jesus.  Perhaps you are one, then, who thinks that is okay.  But I do not specifically object to that:  it is when Christians are "accused" of believing the Christian Gospels to be "magic,"  and that Christians are therefore in some manner weird, or strange.  This is hugely hurtful, and in no sense an acceptable way to address people.  It is only insulting if I refer to you personally as being odd in some way, rather than your beliefs.  This is my whole point, which you have still notappreciated.

And aren't descriptions of gay people as not being normal, or deviant, or sinful, or evil etc etc for their sexuality and their relationships just as bad. Indeed worse because we don't choose our sexuality, but we do choose our beliefs.

I totally agree.

But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.

I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.

Yet in the OP you only target people who attack religious beliefs, believing them to be somehow beyond reproach. Why didn't you also challenge your fellow religionists who regularly denigrate people because of their sexuality.

Okay, to say again, I 100% disassociate myself from such people.. But, that was not what the OP with about.   Start another thread to make that point.

Nope - it is entirely relevant.

Specifically because in the OP you were making the case for religious belief to be placed in a special position with regard to challenge. And there are plenty of christians who see their views on sexuality as inherently part of those christian beliefs. So if they choose to express those homophobic views in line with your OP we should not challenge them because those views are religious and, in your own words:

'When it comes to religious belief, what one believes is personal to them, it is what they base their lives and actions around, and in many respects defines who they are, based on their understanding and belief of Christianity, and how it pertains to them as individuals. In short: Their belief is an extremely important part in terms of their definition of who they are. In overtly attacking their beliefs, you are also attacking that member.'

So how do you square the circle BA - it seems impossible to me. And indeed your description of the views of some christians in relation to gay people as 'an abhorrence' (reply 33 - note specific attack on the person, not the belief 'any who do are an abhorrence') surely is a perfect example of what you claimed to be unacceptable in your OP.

My OP was specifically aimed at the personal attacks on Christians;  at no point have I said it doesn't happen to others.  That can be debated on a separate thread, if it bothers you.  Don't blur the issue.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.

The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.

The latter is used frequently, and always, it seems, goes unchecked.  I see no reason to use the despicable word at all, as it happens.

[BeRational]

BA,

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.

The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.

The latter is used frequently, and always, it seems, goes unchecked.

And your list of examples is?

[ProfessorDavey]

My OP was specifically aimed at the personal attacks on Christians;  at no point have I said it doesn't happen to others.  That can be debated on a separate thread, if it bothers you.  Don't blur the issue.

But you have just described christians who have a particular view on homosexuality as 'an abhorrence'. So it doesn't seem that you practice what you preach, even on a thread that you started complaining about people making personal attacks on christians. You just did!

[Andy]

BA,

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.

The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.

The latter is used frequently, and always, it seems, goes unchecked.

And your list of examples is?

I've said it at least once.

[BashfulAnthony]

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.

You totally miss the point.  I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them.  Do you not understand?  I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.

The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.

The latter is used frequently, and always, it seems, goes unchecked.

And your list of examples is?

As I've said, I have not the time nor the  inclination to trawl through to make a list.   If you are denying such happenings, then I can onlyvput it down to a failure to read posts properly.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.

You totally miss the point.  I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them.  Do you not understand?  I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.

Wrong BA:

In response to me saying:

'But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.'

You replied:

'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.

But anyhow in your OP you claimed not to be able to detach the person from the belief when the belief is religious.

[BeRational]

BA,

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.

The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.

The latter is used frequently, and always, it seems, goes unchecked.

And your list of examples is?

As I've said, I have not the time nor the  inclination to trawl through to make a list.   If you are denying such happenings, then I can onlyvput it down to a failure to read posts properly.

But if you cannot bother to look for the evidence why should I believe you.
My memory of the posts on here differs from yours.

I think you are wrong

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm off.  I hope I've given some food for thought, and hopefully some cause to re-think, just a little.

[Gordon]

Cheerio then - that was fun while it lasted

[BeRational]

I'm off.  I hope I've given some food for thought, and hopefully some cause to re-think, just a little.

I do not think that will be the outcome of this thread!

[SusanDoris]

Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made  -  the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals.  I experience this here:  the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace.  Others come in for similar treatment.  Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs?  The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.

Several things:
1. I nod in agreement with the rational responses to your OP.
2. If you do not like your beliefs being robustly challenged, then why post here? As was said above, if you cannot stand the heat in the kitchen, then stay away from it. Those who are so prone to infer direct insults, ridicule etc from posts need only produce one fact to end any, well almost all, disagreement.
3. You might like to have a look at my topic on Ship of Fools on what top theologians know, really know, about God!
4. Your OP does go on rather, doesn't it?   Was there anything cheerful or positive about it?
I did not notice, but will now go back and re-read and edit here if necessary.

[jeremyp]

Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made  -  the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals.

Some of your forbears were crucified, others thrown to lions. Some were burned to death (by other Christians) or hung drawn and quartered (by other Christians) but you find robust debate unbearable.

I experience this here:  the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace.

That Sassy's experience, not yours.

The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.

Could you point out some examples please.

[Shaker]

No, he's gone.

Or so he claims.

[jeremyp]

So ... basically, after weeks and weeks away, not posting here but posting somewhere you regard as better, you've fetched up here again just to bleat and whine about this place.

Why didn't you stay with your 'sensible' people?

They probably banned him. After all he was completely unable to live up to the standards that his new friends required while he was here.

[jeremyp]

BA,

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

You shouldn't. Using a phrase like, "So fucking what?" is not a personal attack; "fuck off" is.

The former is acceptable here, the latter isn't.

Actually, telling somebody to go away in a forceful manner is not a personal attack. In fact I have used it here without moderation at least twice - both against BA, in fact.