Banned Permanently From Islamic Forum

RE*AC*TOR

SebtheBum wrote:

Maybe that's why you ain't a mod, mate. You can't say stuff as sweeping as that without backing it up, and in any case you could at least word such statements in less confrontational manner, as Hobbes pointed out. i.e. "In my experience, most Irish ppl I've come across have a drinking problem" or "in my view, Irish society as a whole is unwilling to face up to its drinking problem".

B*llsh*t baffles brains, here just as much as anywhere else.

Irish people do have a drinking problem. Check out A&E at the weekends. Check out the streets of Dublin (or Cork probably) after 10pm Fri/Sat.

I don't see why everyone has to pussy-foot about subjects - we're not running for office!

metrovelvet

Hobbes wrote:

Kindly stop spouting crap. k thx. ].

Thats abusive.

Hobbes wrote:

Or I could just ban you now and be one less muppet I'd have to worry about.].

Abuse again. Calling me a muppet and threatening to ban me for something I havent done.

Hobbes wrote:

Btw Judisim forum didn't get more then 15 people interested in it so it wasn't made. Only reason. As for US centric boards, try www.boards.us.

Yes I know it didnt. You dont get it. I doubt you ever will.

arbeitsscheuer

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Irish people do have a drinking problem. Check out A&E at the weekends. Check out the streets of Dublin (or Cork probably) after 10pm Fri/Sat.

I don't see why everyone has to pussy-foot about subjects - we're not running for office!

I'm Irish.

I don't have a drinking problem.

Ergo your statement is false.

And there are, I would suspect, quite a number of others who are Irish and don't even drink at all...

Zombrex

Hobbes wrote:

Well for starters it isn't true for the whole, but if you backed it up with sources it wouldn't be an issue. Also being confrontational to begin with does nothing to do help the debate.

I'm not saying Freddie59 is correct or incorrect.

I'm saying in a discussion on why the west has problems with Islam his post is valid, not because it is correct but because it exists. It is his view of Islam, it is a view that is very common.

To ignore it because it is offensive is to nullfiy the discussion as having any serious basis in reality in the first place. Which is fine, but then the discussion is pointless and should be removed.

I'm saying it doesn't really work to allow a discussion on something as contraversal as why the west has issues with Islam and then limit response in that discussion to opinions that are either totally one sided (the correct, non-offensive side) or completely non-commitive.

Freddie59 views might be completely wrong but it is a side of the argument that none the less exists, and is quite common.

To a lot of people Islam is restrictive to women (so is pretty much every other western religion). To a lot of people Islam does inspire terrorism (so does pretty much every other western religion). Simply dismissing that as "wrong" is fine, but it makes any discussion pointless.

A discussion on the topic without allowing a distasteful argument, even an incorrect argument, is not really a discussion.

A better solution would to not allow the discussion in the first place.

Hobbes wrote:

Wrong on both counts. He is more then welcome to talk about this in other areas of boards.

Exactly. The original thread belongs in Humanities or Politics, not Islam.

Hobbes wrote:

Try think of the forum more this way. Lets imagine there is a model airplane club with people who share the same interests. Someone may show up one day and say "I heard this was for geeks only". They might be civil and explain why it isn't (they may or may not be wrong). Now another guy shows up and says "You lot are all geeks with no life". Do you think the club will continue to let this person show up week for week disrupting what is going on?

A better example would be this -

Someone posts a discussion in Gay Lesbian forum saying "I've heard that relgions have a major problem with gay people. Is that true? And why?".

After a few posts someone posts "Yes gay people are considered sinners, they are sinning against God and will end up in hell".

Now they are pretty much insulting gays and lesbians. Such comments are probably not wanted in the forum. I would have no problem with the post being removed.

But the original discussion should not have been allowed to take place, because it is impossible to discuss in any realistic fashion the question of homosexuals and the church without view points like the one above being represented. It would be irresponsible to pretend that such view points don't exist.

RE*AC*TOR

SebtheBum wrote:

I'm Irish.

I don't have a drinking problem.

Ergo your statement is false.

And there are, I would suspect, quite a number of others who are Irish and don't even drink at all...

How does that make my statement false?

It is significantly true, whether or not you or other people don't have the problem. I would wager that if you were to do a statistical comparison of Irish people and, for example American people - the statement I made would be statistically significant.

arbeitsscheuer

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

How does that make my statement false?

It is significantly true, whether or not you or other people don't have the problem. I would wager that if you were to do a statistical comparison of Irish people and, for example American people - the statement I made would be statistically significant.

Your statement:
"Irish ppl have a drinking problem"

Proved wrong by the fact that I, and other people who are Irish, do not have a drinking problem.

A correct statement of the state of affairs:
"Most/Some/A-significant-proportion-of Irish ppl have a drinking problem"

Seriously man, it's pretty basic. Tarring an entire demographic with the same brush does you no favours whatsoever, as the Bush administration is finding out to its cost (/me trying desperately to get this in some way on-topic)

Zombrex

SebtheBum wrote:

I'm Irish.

I don't have a drinking problem.

Ergo your statement is false.

Your missing the point.

In a discussion about view points you can't censor view points just because they are false. That makes no sense. After all you are discussion perceptions and viewpoints, not the facts behind them.

Lots of people believe the Irish have a problem with drink. That is a fact, it doesn't matter if these people are all wrong. To censor an expression of that fact is to pretend that no one believes the irish have a problem with drink, and that creates a completely distored discussion if you are talking about why people think the Irish have a problem with drink in the first place

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

A better example would be this -

Someone posts a discussion in Gay Lesbian forum saying "I've heard that relgions have a major problem with gay people. Is that true? And why?".

After a few posts someone posts "Yes gay people are considered sinners, they are sinning against God and will end up in hell".

Now they are pretty much insulting gays and lesbians. Such comments are probably not wanted in the forum. I would have no problem with the post being removed.

Except that your example in no way indicates that the poster of that statement considers them sinners and will go to hell. The passive verb form exempts them from that responsibility. So gays and lesbians are considered sinners but not by the poster but by many religions. Thats true isnt it?

Gays and lesbians know that many religions consider them sinners. They arent going to be insulted of someone else points it out.

Hobbes didnt move the thread to politics because it was posted originally by a muslim and hes scared of offending them. Thats what it comes down too. He only wants answers to that question which will illustrate western neurosis.

I cant see how facts and point proving have any place in a religion forum when religion is all about belief.

eg:

poster: Jesus is the son of god poster: Mohammad is the main prophet of Allah

mod: Back it up. mod: link?

RE*AC*TOR

SebtheBum wrote:

Your statement:
"Irish ppl have a drinking problem"

Proved wrong by the fact that I, and other people who are Irish, do not have a drinking problem.

A correct statement of the state of affairs:
"Most/Some/A-significant-proportion-of Irish ppl have a drinking problem"

Seriously man, it's pretty basic. Tarring an entire demographic with the same brush does you no favours whatsoever, as the Bush administration is finding out to its cost (/me trying desperately to get this in some way on-topic)

"Seriously man", I agree its pretty basic.

You are confusing my statement:

"Irish people have a drinking problem"

with

"All Irish people have a drinking problem".

There is a difference. My statement is significantly true, without needing qualification with most/some/etc.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Except that your example in no way indicates that the poster of that statement considers them sinners and will go to hell. The passive verb form exempts them from that responsibility.

Well techinically Christians don't hold their own opinions on the matter, the believe in Gods.

But even then I meant the example to be the opinion of the original poster, the "they are sinners against God and will end up in hell" is his opinion.

And as i said to Hobbes you get into a rather ridiculous situation where anyone can post an negative opinion so long as it isn't really their opinon or they stick a "I've heard" in front of it.

So it becomes ok to say "I've heard gays are evil, sinners and spred AIDS, and that they are all going to hell" but not ok to say "Gays are evil, sinners and spread AIDS and they are all going to hell"

If the person doesn't hold that view themselves, and no one in the discussion is allowed to hold that view, then it would be rather hard to properly discuss or hear or even understand that view point in the first place. The "discussion" becomes pointless. Which is fine, but it should be moved to somewhere where it can actually be properly discussed.

metrovelvet

WK- Im not being difficult here - I really dont understand your first sentence. Christians dont hold their opinions? What else is religion but an opinion?

If I say "gays and lesbians are considered evil" that doesnt mean I think they are evil it means Im observing someone else does. And someone else does think that what they do is evil. Thats not a lie/

In general I agree with what you are saying.

What it comes down to is linguistic games in the end in order to satiate Hobbes hypersensitivity.

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

WK- Im not being difficult here - I really dont understand your first sentence. Christians dont hold their opinions? What else is religion but an opinion?

The truth, reality, the word of God, the truth of God.

Religion isn't opinion if you are really religious. It is reality. To a christian its isn't their opinion that homosexuals are sinners, it is Gods opinion and therefore the truth.

So techically there is no difference from a devote Christian saying

"In my opinion, gays are sinners"

"Gays are sinners"

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

If I say "gays and lesbians are considered evil" that doesnt mean I think they are evil

No, it means God considers them evil, which is what I meant.

Sorry I didn't phrase it very well. I meant that sentence to be the belief of the poster.

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

No Judaism forum? Hmmmmmmm - didn't realise that!:eek:

Simple case of lack of interest, I'm afraid. And the proposer was a bit of a lunatic.

Wicknight wrote:

So it becomes ok to say "I've heard gays are evil, sinners and spred AIDS, and that they are all going to hell" but not ok to say "Gays are evil, sinners and spread AIDS and they are all going to hell"

In some ancient societies, it was considered an acceptable way to get around libel to say you had a dream about someone being a thief, or whatever.

Hobbes

Wicknight wrote:

I'm saying in a discussion on why the west has problems with Islam his post is valid, not because it is correct but because it exists. It is his view of Islam, it is a view that is very common.

It could of been kept easy within the context of the forum no problem. In fact points they go on about are in the thread and have even been discussed in detail before this. There was nothing ignored, there is no vendetta to "silence the truth" nor was the thread to be made one sided, he was banned because he was offensive and brought nothing to the forum based on posts over a period of time. If the post didn't exist he would of just of found another post to latch onto.

Exactly. The original thread belongs in Humanities or Politics, not Islam.

If it remains within the confines of the forums charter there is no reason why it shouldn't stay there. If he wants to go off on a tangent about how Iraq/Afganistan+AQ = Muslims then it is not suited for the forum and certainly wasn't suited for the thread.

A better example would be this -

No a better example would be someone going into GLB forum and saying "You are all sickos and sleep with Children and spread disease", then when it is pointed out while there are instances of people like this is it no way reflective of the whole he would then go on and continue to respond in the same theme no matter what was discussed.

How long do you think such a person would live in that forum?

The original discussion should not have been allowed to take place.

Threads routinely get moved out of the forum if it is believed they are straight off the bat going to cause contention, but this thread wasn't the case.

DeVore

This thread is done. I've given my feelings on it and taken what actions are needed.

Btw, its also pretty clear that you are not interested in Islam as a religion and ARE interested in debating its impact on western society. Might I kindly refer you to the humanities or politics forums. However, unsupported allegations of alcoholism and the like will result in similar results and are to be avoided imho.

DeV.