You hate Religion. I get it.

Sparks

To be fair, Sarah Palin does continually convince people that she has some serious learning difficulties and/or low intelligence...

Ickle Magoo

Personal rationale or not, last time I looked calling someone retarded is as offensive a term as any that you are complaining about - as one the posts on the quickly locked thread you link to shows. After all, people calling to task those still supporting the catholic church have their rationale as well...what's good for the goose, etc, etc.

dr.bollocko

That's still just deflecting Overheal's original point. I personally don't have a problem with any of the posts I've seen linked here, particularly not that one you linked above overheal, but then I'm biased on this argument. It's very hard to see the other side when you're convinced they're entirely wrong so I don't know if there is a problem or not.

Overheal

The difference is I never judged Sarah based on the actions of Billy Bob. I also don't pick a demographic and call them all retarded. I dont say Fcuk all you Catholics. Or Fcuk all you Evangelical Bible Thumpers. Or Fcuk the Muslims.

Believe me, and again, you can look back to the day she was announced as the VP to now: I judged the woman based purely on her merit. On day one I thought she was an impressive choice. Then Katie Courich. Ohhh Katie..

When you say Fcuk all you Catholics, you are telling Mary, Paul, John, Jacob, Tom, Pat, Michael, Connor, Seamus, Cathy, Jill, Steve, etc. to Fcuk off.

Well lets see. Maybe Mary and Paul are choosing to ignore current events. Maybe Paul and John and Jacob have chosen to boycott the church but still believe in the tenets of Catholicism, and maybe Tom Pat Michael Connor Seamus Cathy Jill and Steve believe their Parish has been impartial from these incidents; wish for the Guilty Clergymen to brought to justice, and continue to go to Church to pray for their souls.

But you've all Tarred them with the same brush. Well done.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That's still just deflecting Overheal's original point. I personally don't have a problem with any of the posts I've seen linked here, particularly not that one you linked above overheal, but then I'm biased on this argument. It's very hard to see the other side when you're convinced they're entirely wrong so I don't know if there is a problem or not.

I can respect that and I can understand that when you're on the center stage of the issue, you aren't seeing the same thing as someone else who may be in the Third Person.

I guess what I'm beginning to understand is just how many people here are emotionally invested in the issue, and maybe all I can do is wait till the April showers wash away the bloodshed here.. like a lonely Mr. Data when the whole ship contracts a psychoactive virus.

Dr Galen

Correct me if I'm wrong here Overheal but what your saying is that there is a line, where justified critiscm takes a nasty turn?

I think that different people might have a different view of where that line should be. Like I said before, and using another current anaology, routinely posts are made on this site, claiming that public servants are lazy shower of wasters. Much like what your talking about, a whole group of people are being tarred with one brush. I don't see special protection for those guys and thus I don't think it should exist for those who chose to associate themselves with the Roman Catholic church. Don't forget that many of the people your talking about above (Mary, Steve, Conor et al) knew what was going down, or at the least had an inkling, and chose to say nothing. "For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing" comes to mind tbh.

This is in danger though of turning into a thread more suited to A&A. I do agree with you that there has to be a line on the sand, I just think that line is in the same place as everyone elses.

Ickle Magoo

Overheal wrote: »

The difference is I never judged Sarah based on the actions of Billy Bob. I also don't pick a demographic and call them all retarded. I dont say Fcuk all you Catholics. Or Fcuk all you Evangelical Bible Thumpers. Or Fcuk the Muslims.

But you offend anyone who doesn't like the term retarded or who supports Palin (a minuscule demographic, I grant you!) even though you think you have a sound rationale for using the term. I just don't see much difference between that and people who don't like terms like deluded or nonsense, or are offended when it is suggested they are knowingly supporting an organisation which protects and supports child abusers, which would make them complicit in protecting and supporting child abusers.

I don't think it's a very nice accusation to make but I can see their rationale.

deadhead13

We have had the Ferns report, CICA reported and now the Murphy. All of which the Catholic Church fought at every turn. Even now, the Church's hierarchy chief concern appears to be clinging onto power. The Catholic Church wielded far too much influence in this country for a long, long time.

Yes, there is a blacklash and perhaps some of the anger is misdirected. but I think that is understandable. It is all part of the process.

metrovelvet

I can understand why people are angry at those who are still even attending church because it shows support for the institution at large. AS long as the flock keep showing up the shepherds arent going to change anything. Im a catholic [although a very casual practicing/non practicing one] myself and yes it makes sense to have at least a one sunday universal protest no show across the country to let them know people are pissed.

There's a saying in the southern part of the US. "I'm so mad I could lose my religion!"

Its enough to make you turn protestant.

Handsome Bob

That's no excuse to be personally abusive towards people. As I said, attack the religion, but don't treat their followers with contempt if they don't deserve it.

Overheal

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But you offend anyone who doesn't like the term retarded or who supports Palin (a minuscule demographic, I grant you!) even though you think you have a sound rationale for using the term. I just don't see much difference between that and people who don't like terms like deluded or nonsense, or are offended when it is suggested they are knowingly supporting an organisation which protects and supports child abusers, which would make them complicit in protecting and supporting child abusers.

I don't think it's a very nice accusation to make but I can see their rationale.

Theres a difference to offense and to attack. I think you'd agree that calling the woman retarded - though potentially offensive to her supporters, is not in the same league as saying that All supporters of Palin are Retarded.

No more could I discriminate against Jews for the actions of Israel.

Ickle Magoo

Overheal wrote: »

Theres a difference to offense and to attack. I think you'd agree that calling the woman retarded - though potentially offensive to her supporters, is not in the same league as saying that All supporters of Palin are Retarded.

No more could I discriminate against Jews for the actions of Israel.

I think it's a pretty awful word to use regardless of whom you aim it at.

That's the point, isn't it. Calling supporters of the RC church supporters of child abusers is going to offend some - others would find it perfectly justified. What is offensive when discussing supporting an organisation that upholds protecting child abusers is going to be rather subjective...by definition.

Joey the lips

Personally I am sick of the whole thing. I dont even allow notification in threads I answer. Granted I am carrying it on. I am catholic and I attend mass. I am not stupid. I understand whats been going on and I understand its wrong but some of the comments are a disgrace.

and not justified.

What will the outcome be...

Overheal

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055860687

Speaking of the justifiably foolish...

bonkey

Maybe I'm missing something, but the boards guidelines already tell people:

Don't be a dick

It seems to me that most, if not all, of the stuff that gives rise to this thread falls under that category.

tallaght01

Overheal wrote: »

Theres a difference to offense and to attack. I think you'd agree that calling the woman retarded - though potentially offensive to her supporters, is not in the same league as saying that All supporters of Palin are Retarded.

No more could I discriminate against Jews for the actions of Israel.

I think if you knew how offensive the use of the term "retard" or "retarded", as a term of derision, is to the families and carers of those with special needs, then you'd reconsider.

The term literally brings some families to tears.

metrovelvet

"Retarded" has become something of slang. Its one of those words like bitch and ****** that is debatable.

However, given that Palin has a child with learning disabilities, I think its a bit not nice to be calling the child's mother retarded. Its just about crossing a line.

Wibbs

bonkey wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something, but the boards guidelines already tell people:

Don't be a dick

It seems to me that most, if not all, of the stuff that gives rise to this thread falls under that category.

^^ this

Maximilian

Maximilian wrote: »

To a real atheist, it's nothing short of astonishing that anybody can believe in religion at all.

Of course the converse is true to the real Christian.

To those who now come to question and thereafter reject the beliefs drilled into them since childhood, anger is a perfectly natural response.

Anger at what?
Anger at abuse cover up's is entirely justified.
Anger at parent's trying to pass on their beliefs[regardless of what they are] isn't.
The latter has been how the world has worked since if you pardon the pun God was a boy.

On topic-What in Gods name [again please pardon the pun..] are the mods of games doing allowing discussion of the RC in their fora?
[If they are I haven't looked ]

Dades

LZ5by5 wrote: »

There was a recent thread in A&A which sums up my feelings on this. A number of posters had ganged up on a certain poster, some of the posts crossed the line to personally abusive in my humble opinion. Here's the thread;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055852556

It should be noted the thread was titled "What made you stop believing in God?", which of course does not apply to [The Poster], who waded in regardless - knowing exactly what he was in for. He's no newborn lamb to the slaughter. In A&A we respect his persistence rather than his religion.

Jumpy

LZ5by5 wrote: »

That's no excuse to be personally abusive towards people. As I said, attack the religion, but don't treat their followers with contempt if they don't deserve it.

The more you react though, the more they will push.

turn the other cheek if you will.

Handsome Bob

Dades wrote: »

It should be noted the thread was titled "What made you stop believing in God?", which of course does not apply to [The Poster], who waded in regardless - knowing exactly what he was in for. He's no newborn lamb to the slaughter. In A&A we respect his persistence rather than his religion.

I respect you and the work you do for that forum so I won't make a public spectacle of this issue, but if you felt that he was trying to get a rise out of people then perhaps he should have been told not to post in the thread again.

Overheal

They werent really. The OP asked about the availability of religious games, and it spooled apart from there.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think if you knew how offensive the use of the term "retard" or "retarded", as a term of derision, is to the families and carers of those with special needs, then you'd reconsider.

The term literally brings some families to tears.

Then I was wrong to do it.

If you want to outlaw the use of Retard as a term of Derision I'm sure it can be done - same way iirc Gay is no longer tolerated as a derisive term on these here boards. ie. "Thats gay" or "Thats retarded" etc.

tallaght01

Overheal wrote: »

They werent really. The OP asked about the availability of religious games, and it spooled apart from there.
Then I was wrong to do it.

If you want to outlaw the use of Retard as a term of Derision I'm sure it can be done - same way iirc Gay is no longer tolerated as a derisive term on these here boards. ie. "Thats gay" or "Thats retarded" etc.

It's still in your sig though :P

Nevyn

Overheal wrote: »

They werent really. The OP asked about the availability of religious games, and it spooled apart from there.
Then I was wrong to do it.

If you want to outlaw the use of Retard as a term of Derision I'm sure it can be done - same way iirc Gay is no longer tolerated as a derisive term on these here boards. ie. "Thats gay" or "Thats retarded" etc.

That has already stared, http://www.r-word.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE_5_BbZlbI

Overheal

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's still in your sig though :P

To cater to the minority who feel I am guilty of back peddling and coverups, I chose to leave it up for the purposes of this discussion.

Oversig wrote:

Megaman 10 coming March 2010!
(Wiiware, PSN, XBLA)
Sarah Palin is Fcuking Unbelievably Retarded

dr.bollocko

MegaPERSON 10.
Sexist.

DeVore

Strikes me that we have all the guidelines we need to cover this scenario at the site-wide level. If an issue exists, it exists that some Moderators may have a higher tolerance (or a different "line" drawn) for abuse then you are comfortable with.

I dont think we need to be copying the Blasphemy approach here... that would be f*cking ret.... dumb.

DeV.

My name is URL

The same rule applies to every denonimation of user on the site does it not?.. If someone posts about why being gay isn't good, natural, acceptable or whatever else; they'd be reprimanded for doing so in many cases, even if the level of vitriol in the posts was a lot less apparent

I have no time for religion and even less for those dedicated to attacking it with such credence. It's personal abuse if a member feels offended imo.. and not about thought-crime or blasphemy

dr.bollocko

But then what if you say all scientologists are idiots.
Should that not be allowed?

My name is URL

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But then what if you say all scientologists are idiots.
Should that not be allowed?

If a Scientologist is taking part in a discussion then any form of personal abuse against them shouldn't be tolerated.. it implies favoritism towards different groups and whatever beliefs they hold; if abuse towards them is tolerated..

that might be alright on an individual level.. but I never see boards.ie flying the flag of intolerance in any of its press releases

bonkey

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But then what if you say all scientologists are idiots.
Should that not be allowed?

I wouldn't be in favour of it.

I wouldn't have an issue with someone saying that they found Scientology idiotic, though.

The difference (which I wouldn't even consider nuanced) is all-too-often lost, unfortunately.

dr.bollocko

See that's how I think on it. So many of these problems where people get offended by things on here seem to come to semantics rather than intent. Which is why if you were to try and put some hardfast rules in place on exactly how anti-religious posts it'd be a nightmare.

Stercus Accidit

All ideas should be open to ridicule, just like the idea that religion should be protected on boards.ie.

Forums have charters, threads have topics, personal abuse and flaming are banable offences, any problems that could arise are well covered.

Mods can deal with a poster who breaks the charter, goes off topic, insults another user directly and so on and so on.

There may not be free speech on boards.ie, but mollycoddling the superstitions of the religious isn't in its remit either.


BTW that religious games thread was never going to go anyway but the way it went, or absolutely nowhere at all, lol's were inevitable.

I'm confident that there will be no major policy changes on boards to protect religion, and I'm sure the current mods are more than capable of dealing with flaming, wild off-topicness and charter breaches on a case by case basis.

And so life goes on.

TequilaMockingBird

Off Topic but... HURRRAH!! Finally.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think if you knew how offensive the use of the term "retard" or "retarded", as a term of derision, is to the families and carers of those with special needs, then you'd reconsider.

The term literally brings some families to tears.

ShooterSF

My name is URL wrote: »

The same rule applies to every denonimation of user on the site does it not?.. If someone posts about why being gay isn't good, natural, acceptable or whatever else; they'd be reprimanded for doing so in many cases, even if the level of vitriol in the posts was a lot less apparent

I have no time for religion and even less for those dedicated to attacking it with such credence. It's personal abuse if a member feels offended imo.. and not about thought-crime or blasphemy

I find that idea offensive.

ScumLord

bonkey wrote: »

I wouldn't be in favour of it.

I wouldn't have an issue with someone saying that they found Scientology idiotic, though.

The difference (which I wouldn't even consider nuanced) is all-too-often lost, unfortunately.

I don't see a difference, if someone does something idiotic then they're an idiot.

randylonghorn

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see a difference, if someone does something idiotic then they're an idiot.

Or drunk.

Or off their heads on something else.

Or brainwashed.

Or unable to think clearly as a result of lack of sleep, or illness, or bereavement, or stress.

Or they don't have the necessary facts / experience at their disposal to allow them to see the snakeoil salesman for what he is.

Or maybe they're in love!

Or ... or ... or ...

There are many reasons why people do idiotic things.

In fact, we all do idiotic things on a regular basis, and most of us even have the cop-on to admit it, at least to ourselves.

Doesn't mean we're idiots.

ScumLord

randylonghorn wrote: »

Or drunk.

Or off their heads on something else.

Or brainwashed.

Or unable to think clearly as a result of lack of sleep, or illness, or bereavement, or stress.

Or they don't have the necessary facts / experience at their disposal to allow them to see the snakeoil salesman for what he is.

Or maybe they're in love!

Or ... or ... or ...

There are many reasons why people do idiotic things.

In fact, we all do idiotic things on a regular basis, and most of us even have the cop-on to admit it, at least to ourselves.

Doesn't mean we're idiots.

At that particular moment of idiotic behavior I think it's valid to call someone an idiot. It's not like a title that you get to keep.

bonkey

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see a difference, if someone does something idiotic then they're an idiot.

If that's how you see things, then I'd agree that you don't see a difference.

Me...I find that perspective somewhat simplistic.

See what I did there? I didn't call you simplistic or a simpleton, nor did I necessarily imply it. I merely passed comment on your perspective. I haven't expressed any judgement about you as an individual at all.

In fact, I haven't made any judgement about you as an individual...which is why I'm limiting my comment to your offered perspective, rather than saying something about you.

Still think there's no difference?

metrovelvet

But isnt that just a linguistic game? Doesnt it amount to the same thing?

Buford T Justice

metrovelvet wrote: »

But isnt that just a linguistic game? Doesnt it amount to the same thing?

No. Bonkey's example is making a judgment about the opinion that an individual has expressed with nothing cast against the individual, whereas Scumlord's example is making a judgment on the individual that expressed their opinion based on what the opinion was

Two very different things

randylonghorn

ScumLord wrote: »

At that particular moment of idiotic behavior I think it's valid to call someone an idiot. It's not like a title that you get to keep.

If it's a friend, you'll get away with it.

Anyone else will interpret it as an assessment of their overall mental capacity ... or in your own words, as a title they get to keep.

ScumLord

bonkey wrote: »

If that's how you see things, then I'd agree that you don't see a difference.

Me...I find that perspective somewhat simplistic.

See what I did there? I didn't call you simplistic or a simpleton, nor did I necessarily imply it. I merely passed comment on your perspective. I haven't expressed any judgement about you as an individual at all.

In fact, I haven't made any judgement about you as an individual...which is why I'm limiting my comment to your offered perspective, rather than saying something about you.

Still think there's no difference?

NO! I'm highly insulted!! :mad:




















:pac:

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

Condemnation for the Catholic Priesthood is one thing; Sectarian outrage toward everyone who practices a belief in God is quite another. It needs clamping down on before it grows wildly out of control.

Im very against anyone telling anyone what to do so agree with OP re those two posts. If people chose to practice their faith let them.