|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead horses: a free-for-all for vivisection
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
What is exactly being considered "homophobic" here?
It think that word gets used to label any view that departs from a certain general consensus on the subject by people on the (far?) left and if it used this way on the Ship the Ship is bound to become even more of an echo chamber.
I must also say that, in my personal experience of posting as a shipmate, not everybody's personal experience is valued equally.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What is exactly being considered "homophobic" here?
It think that word gets used to label any view that departs from a certain general consensus on the subject by people on the (far?) left and if it used this way on the Ship the Ship is bound to become even more of an echo chamber.
Dislike of homophobia is not a far left thing. For a rough and ready definition, I'd say believing or treating LGBTABCDEFG people as inferior in any way to cishet people, or less deserving of services, legal protections, or rights under the law.
As to the echo chamber, as pointed out above we do not allow people to debate the relative merits of treating POC as questionably non-human, and yet somehow that hasn't caused us to turn into an echo chamber. Adding one more item to a small don't-go-there list isn't going to destroy the Ship. Except maybe for a small handful of people whose only joy here is talking about the inferiority of the LGBTABCDEFG.
quote:
I must also say that, in my personal experience of posting as a shipmate, not everybody's personal experience is valued equally.
Why should it be? The value of a POV is along something of a spectrum. At one end we have "I really enjoy vanilla ice cream" or "I prefer to worship in the Presbyterian Church rather than the Catholic Church because it's less mystical."
At the other end we have "I enjoy beating up black people and don't see that there should be anything wrong, let alone illegal, about it."
Most of us can agree that the former is unobjectionable and the latter is beyond the pale. But there's a whole range in between, and there has to be a line, albeit a fuzzy one, between the okay and the not-okay. And different people will draw that line in different places.
Because the Ship is a predominantly liberal place, the line will be drawn closer to one end of the spectrum than the more conservative members might like. And that's pretty much a take-it-or-leave-it feature of the Ship, unless and until the management turns over in a conservative direction, including Simon Jenkins, or the conservative members can make a really compelling argument that the line should move. (Compelling to the powers that be, not to other conservatives.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What is exactly being considered "homophobic" here?
It think that word gets used to label any view that departs from a certain general consensus on the subject by people on the (far?) left and if it used this way on the Ship the Ship is bound to become even more of an echo chamber.
I must also say that, in my personal experience of posting as a shipmate, not everybody's personal experience is valued equally.
Far be it for me to take up the cudgels for Gays and Lesbians (and others), but I think they can spot homophobia pretty accurately, in the way that Jewish people can detect anti-Semitism.
Moreover they can do this pretty much anywhere, whether on a left(ish) online forum like this, from a pulpit or in a newspaper.
In short, it's their call. Sometimes attempts are made to reduce its importance by describing it as "banter" or "having a laugh" but at the most charitable it is bullying and harassment.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I would suggest that denying gay people to be less than people, and less worthy of civil rights (as defined by the UN UDHR) than straight folk, would be my starting point.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 - I don't think accepting its articles is anything particularly controversial.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I don't think egregious is that easy to draw a line.
Personally, I'm happy to leave it to Admin to draw the jerk line where they like. A bit like the old Supreme Court determinations over pornography. Let them know it when they see it.
That's a better solution than trying to find forms of words. Sometimes you really do benefit from leaving the balance between unrest and jerkdom to the folks who have that general responsibility anyway.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I live in a country where the leader of the right-wing Conservative party is both a church member in good standing and engaged to be married to her same sex partner ( which will probably happen in church). The Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland is gay.
The right-wing, pro-Brexit, pro-Donald Trump, anti-immigrant Conservative party governing the UK has cabinet ministers in same sex relationships and supports gay marriage. Indeed it was its predecessor right-wing government which introduced equal marriage for the UK outside Scotland. In the next door country (Ireland) they have just chosen a very right-wing gay bloke as prime minister.
It's simply not a normal part of the right-left political divide any more in UK politics.
It is in America - which leads to culture shock when Americans rock up and start posting stuff which to many British ears will sound like someone just walked into a room of people of different races and started going on about inferior races and 'sending them all home' and 'Enoch [Powell] was right'.
I'm not saying you don't get people like that in Britain and British churches, but for example, someone who said to gay people in my workplace the kind of things that get posted on this board to gay shipmates would get disciplined by HR and sacked if they kept it up. Yet I'm meant to tell gay people off for getting personally irate with them!
It's starting to make me feel complicit. I also feel as a straight woman that I absolutely shouldn't be telling gay people what they should or should not put up with from homophobic posters 'for the sake of debate'. I know the American point of view on this is rather different and stronger on freedom of speech than on being against hate speech, but I'm finding it difficult at the moment.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I would suggest that denying gay people to be less than people, and less worthy of civil rights (as defined by the UN UDHR) than straight folk, would be my starting point.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 - I don't think accepting its articles is anything particularly controversial.
...but there would be some who would like to read article 16, for example, as requiring same-sex marriage, medical assistance for same-sex couples to have a child, adoption by same-sex couples and so on, and others who wouldn't.
There's nothing controversial in what might be called a strict, narrow reading of the articles. I don't think that's true about some of the more expansive readings.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Well, certainly a right to family life would include same-sex marriage. IANAL, but it would be a very mild interpretation of the relevant article.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, certainly a right to family life would include same-sex marriage. IANAL, but it would be a very mild interpretation of the relevant article.
...which is where the controversy lies. I'm pretty sure that none of the signatories of the declaration thought that they were coming out in favour of same-sex marriage by signing it.
IANAL either, but I'm sure that the Ls could have a field day over the precise meaning of "men and women" at the start of article 16, and whether it granted those rights exclusively to a man and a woman, or whether "men and women" just means "people".
You see the same argument with the US constitution, between people who want to search for the "original intent" and those who want to interpret it in the light of contemporary mores.
And the thing about both the declaration of human rights and the US constitution is that they don't tell you what the "right" way is.
You and I agree that the right of same-sex couples to marry and have their private lives respected is a human right. But I don't think that you find that right written in the UDHR, and you do.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK! My point was that in the SoF context, what people express are personal opinions on issues, whether they say so or not, or claim a degree of certainty for their opinion which may, or may not, be justified.
Wrangling over opinions is what we do.
I agree - my argument was with the television judge you quoted.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Doesn't my offence matter? I get offended by homophobic comments. One of our very best friends (Mrs B and I) has been very hurt by homophobic behaviour and attitudes. We identify with that, share her hurt, have wept with her.
I have to rein that in, when Hosting or posting. Unless and until a different balance is struck between unrest and jerkdom, (and RuthW spelled out the difficulty), some measure of self restraint may be necessary for all of us. Whether we see it as a personal attack on identity, or the identity of someone we love.
I guess we can all vote with our feet. This place collapses as a place of serious discussion unless we can cope with discomfort, using the Hell outlet if necessary. That applies to this issue and all others.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, certainly a right to family life would include same-sex marriage. IANAL, but it would be a very mild interpretation of the relevant article.
...which is where the controversy lies. I'm pretty sure that none of the signatories of the declaration thought that they were coming out in favour of same-sex marriage by signing it.
Welcome to the world of the legislative drafter.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And the thing about both the declaration of human rights and the US constitution is that they don't tell you what the "right" way is.
No, but the US has a Supreme Court to do that.
As do we on the Ship. And I think, for the sake of clarity, we need a ruling on this, one way or the other.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Nobody should care what I think. But fwiw, I don't believe that in times past things would have to to this stage. I remember many years ago that Erin would make a big show of chomping up recalcitrant posters.
It seems to me that the choice here is either between allowing our brethren to come under constant and consistent attack (in a way that we'd not find acceptable if the issue under discussion was somehow about skin colour) or looking illiberal with regard to free speech and the 10 Cs.
I think we should be protecting our brethren, free-speech and the over-literal interpretation of the 10 Cs be damned.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I think I've made clear more than once that my big problem is not people arguing against homosexuality in good faith, as frustrating as it may be.
My big problem is people who accuse ME of bad faith. Who assert that one cannot possibly arrive at a view in favour of homosexual relationships without ignoring the Bible / picking and choosing / not being a Christian / disobeying God.
That is not a recipe for debate. It is a pronouncement of judgement.
And yes, there may well be examples of pronouncement of judgement in the other direction as well. But this is where it starts, with people not coming to Dead Horses to have a debate but to announce a conclusion and to claim God's backing for it. And in doing so, to make pretty direct attacks on my integrity.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
My big problem is people who accuse ME of bad faith. Who assert that one cannot possibly arrive at a view in favour of homosexual relationships without ignoring the Bible / picking and choosing / not being a Christian / disobeying God.
Or, indeed, people who assume that you haven't given some considerable thought over the years to this particular question.
There is a thin line between someone arguing that you must be being a bad Christian and ignoring the bits of the Bible that you don't like, and someone arguing that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and so therefore you have come to the wrong conclusions, and those conclusions are displeasing to God etc.
But the line is there, and I would happily argue for strong policing of that line.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There is a thin line between someone arguing that you must be being a bad Christian and ignoring the bits of the Bible that you don't like, and someone arguing that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and so therefore you have come to the wrong conclusions, and those conclusions are displeasing to God etc.
But the line is there, and I would happily argue for strong policing of that line.
Which side of that line are you saying is acceptable?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
It might help if people gave specific examples of what they think is acceptable and unacceptable.
For example:
a.) Gay sex is morally wrong
b.) Gay sex is morally wrong because it's non-procreative
c.) Gay sex is morally wrong because it's disgusting
d.) Gay people are sinners who should repent
e.) You are a sinner who should repent.
To my mind, (a) and (b) should be acceptable.
(e) is already prohibited.
(d) I think is allowed but probably shouldn't be. (If conservatives object, this is evidence that they are arguing in bad faith because they always say their problem is with the sin, not the sinner.)
(c) looks homophobic to me - it would be a challenge to draft a law that separates it from (b) but we do have lawyers on the ship plus an all-purpose 'don't be a jerk' rule.
Does this seem reasonable? I admit that all of this is easy for me to say as a straight man.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I dunno, how about we try rewording to see if it would work about some other issue. Let's try interracial sex.
a.) Interracial sex is morally wrong
b.) Interracial sex is morally wrong because it mixes genetics
c.) Interracial sex is morally wrong because it's disgusting
d.) Interracial people are sinners who should repent
e.) You are a sinner who should repent.
I'm not sure we'd see any of these as particularly acceptable. (b) sounds a bit reasonable because it contains [an element of] scientific truth, yet is fairly obviously code for racism. (c)(d) and (e) are just opinions that I don't think we'd allow to be constantly repeated.
Possibly we might just look strange at a poster that occasionally wrote something like (a) and consider it to be a weird belief akin to believing that tattoos are morally wrong.
Clearly some people think their identity is tied up with the idea that interracial sex is unChristian. I just don't think that'd get any truck here. I'm not sure why gay sex is much different.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I think if there was a significant body of people who thought interracial sex was wrong, and did so in apparent good faith, then we would not achieve anything by refusing to discuss it.
I'm not aware that anyone has ever suggested it on the Ship though.
(FWIW I do have a slight interest here in that my wife is half-Czech, which counts as a different race if you are a Nazi.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think if there was a significant body of people who thought interracial sex was wrong, and did so in apparent good faith, then we would not achieve anything by refusing to discuss it.
That's an interesting point of view.
I'd say it is fairly clear who is pushing the theology that says interracial sex is a sin, and I think they're fairly obviously people we need to protect (in this example) non-white posters from.
[ 04. June 2017, 15:33: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
ISTM the Ship's rules are pragmatic. There is no a priori reason why some topics are Dead Horses and some are allowed in Purgatory. They are separated by how the Ship has found most effective to manage.
IOW, as long as interracial marriage remains a purely hypothetical scenario, there is no reason to rule on it.
The other aspect is that if any members of the KKK or the Christian Council of Britain did show up, then either they would have to leave at the door the behaviours that make them dangerous, or else they would be planked for some other reason (trolling, crusading, being a jerk).
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Which side of that line are you saying is acceptable?
The latter, although obviously deeply personal to a gay shipmate, is a discussion about theology, and to my mind is OK. Given that the subject is deeply personal to the gay shipmate, but not nearly so personal to the "gay sex is sin" shipmate, the latter should take extra care to avoid being a jerk.
The former is an accusation of bad faith, and certainly out of line outside Hell.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Maybe the time has come to remove Dead Horse topics from discussion on The Ship.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I would be deeply uncomfortable if we started to have any topic that couldn't be discussed on the Ship. One of the Unrestful things we have always done is to say that even subjects other Christian sites might rule off limits can be discussed here.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
The alternative is to allow Dead Horses to become a cesspool of homophobia with no relief except Hell. This was clear from Louise's recent hosting judgement.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
The problem might be non-homosexuals claiming a uniquely sinful status for gay sex, and on the other hand homosexuals insisting their sexual activities are devoid of any moral overtones. The most consistent theme in Jesus's reported words is that he didn't come to tell people what they thought they wanted to hear. That's as true of strangers as his most intimate followers, who he was happy to cut of at the knees when they thought they had him right. On that basis it's impossible to imagine Jesus saying getting on with it boys (and girls), as it is supporting the condemnation of homophobes. Christ was an equal opportunity saviour or He was nothing.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would be deeply uncomfortable if we started to have any topic that couldn't be discussed on the Ship. One of the Unrestful things we have always done is to say that even subjects other Christian sites might rule off limits can be discussed here.
I have been thinking about this and I think you are wrong. There clearly are legal topics that some Christians believe and/or discuss which we would not tolerate here.
The truth is, I think, that we are a microcosm of people who generally speaking tolerate a range of beliefs within certain unwritten boundaries. We don't usually push those boundaries and I suspect that there would be considerable upset if anyone tried to.
Up to now, we have determined that discussions about the nature of homosexuals is a free hit for discussion. That we don't mind how often someone starts a thread or makes a post that clearly dehumanises and undermines a homosexual person (providing it is in the right place) - in a way that doesn't happen to others. If we had any regular Muslims posting, I don't think we would expect them to constantly be defending themselves on multiple threads that made all kinds of claims about them, their practices and so on. Such a person would contribute in the normal way and would be listened to rather than attacked. Even a person advocating polygamy of free sex would get an easier ride than the homosexual.
I say it is time for this to stop. We don't have to tolerate it. We don't have to pretend that we are a bastion of free speech or that we equally attack all views when the evidence of decades is in the archives.
I say that the poster who sometimes says something intelligent about the issues - but which is a bit offthewall - is fair. But the poster who spends all their time writing things about homosexual brethren which would be unacceptable about anyone else should be shown the door. I don't think there is a fine line, it is a thick and obvious line.
Tl;dr - several decades of these diacussions are enough. If someone wants to continue only posting stuff which undermines our homosexual brethren, they should be told to do it elsewhere.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
It's funny I think the temperature in DH is far cooler than it's ever been. No disrespect to anyone directly affected and their hurt or offence, but we had far more 'conservative' posters in the past, posting more often and arguably the exchanges were more intense. Take a look at the mega-thread in DH.
I suspect that it feels worse because the gap is wider between those posters and society at large, not to mention the 'average' Shipmate. I also wonder whether in such a climate the ones from that "side" of the debate who choose to remain on the Ship are necessarily the more extreme and therefore tactless/deliberately offensive in style?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
I admire anyone whose lifestyle is in direct counterpoint to the teachings of Jesus - which is most of us - and still hangs in there. Most Brits have opted for secularism and fluff. If homosexuals are being singled out for their homosexuality I want to distance myself from it absolutely, I haven't been around long enough to know if that's the case, or people want to put the subject off limits because the circle can't be squared theologically.
The whole subject of human sexuality is fascinating and borderline impossible to adhere to according to tradition, but we keep trying, and for that alone you can all have a gold star. Nevertheless, if Jesus came to make people feel better about their choices he'd have ended up in the Senate, not nailed to a tree. Forgive us our trespasses.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
I admire anyone whose lifestyle is in direct counterpoint to the teachings of Jesus - which is most of us - and still hangs in there.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]
Can you elaborate?
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
No. Styx is a place to discuss board policy not your personal pet theology.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No. Styx is a place to discuss board policy not your personal pet theology.
Hang on a tick, you launched into a diatribe which attempted to remove human sexuality from the discourse because it had lead to bullying. I posted to distance myself from any personal sexual attacks, and you post a roll eye emoticon. I ask why and you say I'm promoting a pet theology. Nothing I've said is personal (I have no idea of your sexuality, nor care) neither is it "pet" by any interpretation of that term.
If the topic is boring because it's been done to death and the moderator wants it off the menu, I'll conform 100%, but so far all you've done is make a bunch of accusations none of which you've backed up. I'll ask you once again to elaborate, more in hope than expectation.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
It's funny I think the temperature in DH is far cooler than it's ever been. No disrespect to anyone directly affected and their hurt or offence, but we had far more 'conservative' posters in the past, posting more often and arguably the exchanges were more intense. Take a look at the mega-thread in DH.
True. Louise's unexceptional Hostly post, which triggered this thread, was I thought a timely response to a bit of temperature raising, which now appears to have calmed down.
And I repeat, it is good that we have Admin who regulate the application of Commandment 1, and oversee the application of Commandments 3 and 4, to balance unrest and acceptability. I'm sure they have noted what has been said here.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
[x-post re romanesque]
Respecting the hosts here, I am not replying. I think protecting my homosexual brethren on these boards is a different thing to launching into a diatribe about what is or isn't a "direct counterpoint to the teachings of Jesus".
The point of this discussion is not to assess what is or isn't the teaching of Jesus.
[ 06. June 2017, 14:04: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[x-post re romanesque]
Respecting the hosts here, I am not replying. I think protecting my homosexual brethren on these boards is a different thing to launching into a diatribe about what is or isn't a "direct counterpoint to the teachings of Jesus".
The point of this discussion is not to assess what is or isn't the teaching of Jesus.
Fair enough and I agree, I'm insufficiently familiar with forum taxonomy to know what goes where. I would like more meat on the bones of the other thread which accused my interpretation as being disgusting and shallow.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
romanesque, you may learn about what is appropriate for each board by reading the headers and the guidelines. Dead Horses is the only board where you may discuss the morality of homosexuality. Please cease to do so here.
RuthW
Admin
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
... The most consistent theme in Jesus's reported words is that he didn't come to tell people what they thought they wanted to hear. ...
Which, of course, cuts both ways.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
Just a thought, but it might save a lot of time, sweat and misunderstanding if there was a symbol that denoted where people were at. If we're arguing a nuanced position on St. Paul, Leviticus, Revelations or whatever with someone from a different Christian persuasion, to find ten pages later the individual thinks the whole idea of the bible is flawed on the basis Jesus was actually a Klingon, the effort might deserve a different focus.
Others people might think it takes the fun out of the enterprise (sic), but something along the lines of Christian, other faith, agnostic, atheist, not-saying, don't know, with an appropriate symbol, would save time by offering a few simple assumptions, however tentative the building block.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Just a thought, but it might save a lot of time, sweat and misunderstanding if there was a symbol that denoted where people were at. If we're arguing a nuanced position on St. Paul, Leviticus, Revelations or whatever with someone from a different Christian persuasion, to find ten pages later the individual thinks the whole idea of the bible is flawed on the basis Jesus was actually a Klingon, the effort might deserve a different focus.
Just a thought: but if you bothered to read the thread you're posting on and bothered to engage with the people who are also contributing, you might actually know what they thought on the topic without needing symbols.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Just a thought, but it might save a lot of time, sweat and misunderstanding if there was a symbol that denoted where people were at.
Aside from the fact that many people may not wish to declare their allegiance in such a way (there's already a section in the profile that I usually find is not filled in when I bother to check), there's the practical matter of how to implement it. You may have noticed that the board software is ancient and creaky. It's not getting updated any time soon. So if something's not possible in the current software it's almost certainly not happening.
FWIW I think it's a shame that you were wrong-footed by your misperceptions of the nature of this site. I hope you stick around. It is a good place to debate ideas.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just a thought: but if you bothered to read the thread you're posting on and bothered to engage with the people who are also contributing, you might actually know what they thought on the topic without needing symbols. [/QB]
I don't see how. As a newbie all I see is an avatar and an attitude. If someone is arguing the textual and historic underpinnings of Leviticus, and their interlocutor announces they don't believe the bible holds any moral weight or divine inspiration, it promotes parsimony and people can politely agree to differ. If on the other hand they're getting increasingly wound up, making accusations and generally behaving erratically, it might takes pages to reach the same conclusion, with moderators all over it. I'm not yet sure what the purpose of the board is, exegesis, entertainment or spleen venting, and the vying strands and conflicting advice tweak my latent OCD tendencies.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanesque
Shipmate
# 18785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Aside from the fact that many people may not wish to declare their allegiance in such a way (there's already a section in the profile that I usually find is not filled in when I bother to check), there's the practical matter of how to implement it. You may have noticed that the board software is ancient and creaky. It's not getting updated any time soon. So if something's not possible in the current software it's almost certainly not happening.
Like I said, just an idea and I did include don't know and not saying as essential to any such taxonomy. Thanks for the heads up re. the software, I'll keep it in mind.
Posts: 119 | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It's basic manners. Most of us have been here for a long time, blustering in and flinging around wild and generalised claims about what we believe - which is easily established if you bother to take the time to read what any given contributor here has actually written on the thread - is plain rude.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
If I'm not sure where someone is coming from, I either refrain from commenting or comment very specifically on something they've posted. I don't make any assumptions.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Just a thought, but it might save a lot of time, sweat and misunderstanding if there was a symbol that denoted where people were at.
I am not sure why. A person of a particular view does not inherently know more about that view than someone who might disagree or have no opinion of the veracity of that view.
One can discuss the structure of a frame whether or not one believe the frame is viable.
To put it yet another way, one does not need to believe in the possibility of a perpetual motion machine to argue that including entropy is contra purpose.
pedantic note/
[sic] is used when quoting. /pedantic note
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
In real life, in person to person interactions, people do not generally wear tags identifying their viewpoints. One usually has to get to know them and learn what they believe. Why expect on-line interactions to be any different? Granted, real life interactions give more clues as to what the person is like, but it isn't infallible.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
But adding tags also tends to ignore the individual variations in views. Basically you'd have to assume that all Christians think alike, or, in finer groupings, all Baptists, all Catholics, all Anglicans, all Russian Orthodox, all Coptics, all Korean Presbyterians, all Malaysian Lutherans, all Evangelical Quakers, all Nawar Buddhists, etc. It doesn't require much investigation into any such group to discover conflicting schools of thought therein. Then, of course, you'd have to know where each of those groups stood on the issues you wanted to discuss to make any sense of the tags - it is totally impractical.
So you have to read what others write if you want to understand their perspective.
Part of the ethos of this site that keeps me interested is the high standard of debate: you can't just make a claim and expect everyone to agree with you. Shipmates hold a wide range of beliefs and perspectives, and will question, probe and provide counterexamples from many different directions. It's a wonderful place to learn, but a difficult place to make blanket statements and expect others to agree with them.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
