EDIT:
IcecreamMan: If I argue scientific racism, does that make it NOT bigotry then?
I would only try to point out that UNLIKE human beings, not all beliefs are equal. Nor should they be.
If people have erroneous, harmful, or just downright ridiculous beliefs, at the least we should try to educate, inform, and/or correct them.
A place to do that without the fear of ridicule, mockery, and/or personal insults is a CLASSROOM, not the internet, or even an internet forum. I agree with ECP, this forum is one of the nicest and well moderated I've seen, and I'm not even one of the nicest people who posts here. I have earned my fair share of infractions.
I wouldn't say that B_S and I are friends, but even as much as I have my problems with him, out of the several forums I post on, he is easily one of the top 5 moderators I know of. Believe me, I have to swallow a lot of pride and loathing just to say that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I would only try to point out that UNLIKE human beings, not all beliefs are equal. Nor should they be.
If people have erroneous, harmful, or just downright ridiculous beliefs, at the least we should try to educate, inform, and/or correct them.
A place to do that without the fear of ridicule, mockery, and/or personal insults is a CLASSROOM, not the internet, or even an internet forum. I agree with ECP, this forum is one of the nicest and well moderated I've seen, and I'm not even one of the nicest people who posts here. I have earned my fair share of infractions.
I wouldn't say that B_S and I are friends, but even as much as I have my problems with him, out of the several forums I post on, he is easily one of the top 5 moderators I know of. Believe me, I have to swallow a lot of pride and loathing just to say that.
I do think that the debate forum here is *far* better than others, but I would like to see it even out a bit more. Just to clarify - would you consider the above bigotry, or not?
My problem is that the argument, as related to social issues, then becomes "everything the left believes in is people," and "everything the right believes in are beliefs," which is also insanely unfair.
EDIT: Also, why is the equality of people somehow immune from criticism? That is a moral call, not a scientific one, and science absolutely disagrees.
DokuDokuH, you never answered my question earlier.
If someone came around promoting Scientology, where would you fall on that topic? Would your position be, "I don't believe in Scientology," or would your position be, "Belief in Scientology is stupid and dangerous"?
DokuDokuH, you never answered my question earlier.
If someone came around promoting Scientology, where would you fall on that topic? Would your position be, "I don't believe in Scientology," or would your position be, "Belief in Scientology is stupid and dangerous"?
Sorry, I totally missed it >_<
My PERSONAL belief would be that its stupid and dangerous, but I wouldn't consciously use that as an argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
In order to even HAVE a Debate Forum you need to allow controversial topics.
Now, in saying that, I am sure that a thread which used Religiosity and intelligence as a starting point would likely not be lock, and one that used the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study as a starting point would almost certainly be locked. But, that's because racism has a more visceral reaction with most people than does religion bashing. Or, to put it another way:
"We would very much like to say that any position is open for debate in Debate. However, a few positions are so emotionally charged and taboo in our culture that we cannot realistically expect them not to start flame wars."[1]
And I would just like to echo everything ICM80 said about Blinking Spirit. That man does a great job, and is the very reason the debate forums are what they are.
I get what you're saying, and thats what the problem is here; attacking things that are on the left side of the spectrum seem to be more "off limits", while things that are offensive to people on the right get a pass more often. That is why right-leaning people tend to leave after a while - it just gets to feel oppressive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Hey, Taylor, remember that one Christian site I tried to get you to post on?
Oh ****. I remember that. I actually posted on that board for a while before becoming too tired of stupidity and circular discussions...
As for why the board is perceived as left: because the American idea of the political left is still ridiculously far right for most European countries. That means that basically everyone from Europe will seem left-wing to you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Lol, I'd forgotten you'd tried. To paraphrase Taylors reaction, "I'd rather discuss religion on 4chan than with even the moderators on that site"
My point bringing it up is that the harshest "attack" I've seen from anyone here is kid gloves to what goes onto sites owned and populated by conservative evangelicals.
Oh, and Taylor, ICM was echoing me :p. Credit where credits due
Does anyone think it odd that Blatch started an inflammatory thread where they complain about getting ganged up on ideologically, and that is the most logical conclusion of where this thread is going?
And that, my friends, is the real Oedipal conflict: Trying to avert a fate, and causing it instead. (And believe me, some of the **** on the internet will make you want to gouge your eyes out.)
I'm joking a little, but it's a cliché in New Zealand culture to argue that even our extreme-right groups are further left than the American leftists.
I mean, Magic is becoming more of an international game, so maybe there are more non-American forum members and therefore more non-American debaters?
That is a bit of a deal, yes. I wouldn't necessarily say "extreme-right groups" are further left. I mean, looking at a lot of countries, you can find extreme-right groups which aren't really further left.
America also has a history of its leftist party having a few people who don't really strike me as leftist. Dianne Feinstein, for instance, has endorsed racial profiling (wrt: 9/11 "It's not like we're looking for a blonde, blue-eyed Norwegian").
On the rest the internet in general, I'd assume it's because so many religious groups are anti-internet (Bob Jones University, Haredim), or generally most people involved can't afford it (most people living in an Islamic theocracy). Some social networks skew a certain way: Reddit trends toward right-wing attitudes, though interestingly anti-religion. Tumblr, while still not religious, tends toward left-wing attitudes, though it is a hotbed of trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Gawker tends to...Jezebel was still interviewing Schwyzer up to and even shortly after his Twitter meltdown earlier this year.
My only "ban for POV" history tends to be if that POV is bigoted or hold to conspiracy theories and back up nothing that they say. But mostly it's moderate. Say "rice is good for you", I won't care. Say "rice is a detoxifying agent", and I will be on you like, well, white on rice. I'm hungry.
I also stop following people once they get to Time Cube-class wrongness.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
My point bringing it up is that the harshest "attack" I've seen from anyone here is kid gloves to what goes onto sites owned and populated by conservative evangelicals.
...
You think going into the bee's nest and stirring up the place won't cause issues?
Try that here. I've been tempted to start a serious discussion on abortion here because I've recently come across an interesting PoV and information that challenges my previous pro-abortion ideology. One that requires me to actually do research into laws that relate with fetuses and pregnant women and such. Unfortunately don't have time to do something quite that deep, and so I gave up.
I don't really doubt that I'll be eaten alive by all the Liberals here for that thread and the view-points that I would have to present if I managed to do my research.
Bees nest? They had an entire section of the site explicitly to discuss atheism vs theism. Big parts of the site were explicity Christian only.
The insane crude attitudes, by the way, as Rodyle or Taylor could tell you, didn't come from the atheists. It was one of the better Christian sites I found since they hated banning people, unlike plenty of other Christian sites where discussion threads like we have here, in apologetic subfora, lead to swift bans
DokuDokuH, you never answered my question earlier.
If someone came around promoting Scientology, where would you fall on that topic? Would your position be, "I don't believe in Scientology," or would your position be, "Belief in Scientology is stupid and dangerous"?
Sorry, I totally missed it >_<
My PERSONAL belief would be that its stupid and dangerous, but I wouldn't consciously use that as an argument.
If you believe it, why would you not argue it?
The fact of the matter is that Scientology IS a stupid and dangerous institution, with strong emphasis on the dangerous part. It is a cult that uses a false religion made up by a science fiction writer to manipulate and exploit its followers.
The thing is, what makes your religious beliefs better? I'm not saying they aren't better, in fact it'd be difficult to be worse, but that's the question you need to tackle. You have to demonstrate to others (and to yourself. Introspection is always important.) that they are if you want them to agree that your beliefs are justified.
According to the CIA Factbook for 2012, 31.59% of the world is Christian. That leaves the other 68.41% that does not identify as Christian, with 56.91% identifying as a different religion. Keep in mind Christianity is the largest religion in the world. The reason I bring this up is that no matter what your religious beliefs are, the majority of the human race is going to disagree with you.
They had an entire section of the site explicitly to discuss atheism vs theism.
That sounds like a forum I would want nothing to do with just from the name. It does two things that annoy me: (1) lumps all theistic religions together under the broader title of "theism," which while technically true is useless for a debate because different religions believe different things, and (2) lumps all those who identify as non-religious as "atheist."
Lol, I'd forgotten you'd tried. To paraphrase Taylors reaction, "I'd rather discuss religion on 4chan than with even the moderators on that site"
Even worse: I've seen threads on /pol which I'd rather debate in than those on that forum. I still remember some ID-proponent over there who constantly referred to his own articles, throwing ad-hominems at anyone discrediting them.
[/QUOTE]
Bees nest? They had an entire section of the site explicitly to discuss atheism vs theism. Big parts of the site were explicity Christian only.
The insane crude attitudes, by the way, as Rodyle or Taylor could tell you, didn't come from the atheists. It was one of the better Christian sites I found since they hated banning people, unlike plenty of other Christian sites where discussion threads like we have here, in apologetic subfora, lead to swift bans
As for hostile attitudes: I find that my responses and their venomousness depends very much on two things: how many of those threads I've seen the last time, and the wording of the post I'm responding to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
The insane crude attitudes, by the way, as Rodyle or Taylor could tell you, didn't come from the atheists.
I'm not sure it's fair to bring me into this because I'm pretty sure I never even made an account.
I'm also pretty sure that--while 3 rights make a left--2 wrongs don't make a right. There are a lot of crazy places on the web, it does not mean we should react in kind.
Heck, I was banned from the sinfest.net forums for being too conservative.
(you'd love it there, {mikeyG})
Questioning the reasoning behind faith is fine, but I often see posters question the people who have faith or infer consequences from faith.
I don't feel that's an entirely negative thing. Not all people who have faith came by it honestly or represent it well, questioning that is not a bad thing. Attacking that certainly isn't productive, but simply questioning is not the same thing.
I don't think so. I'll try next time I come across it, but I feel that if someone were to insult religious people, they'd be fine.
And I believe you're clearly mistaken and are making assumptions based on your own negative perception of the forum. If a poster insults another, for whatever reason, that falls under the purview of moderator action. So no, I don't think they'd be fine and I'm not sure what Blinking Spirit has done to make you feel as though he'd let that sort of behavior slide.
Also, I really have no intention of becoming the forum's police. This isn't about punishing people who do these things; its about the fact that the environment here allows it in the first place.
Which begs the question of whether or not the environment here actually does allow that sort of behavior. I don't believe it does, but even in instances of it occurring, the staff cannot be everywhere and it's the responsibility of everyone who values the environment here to make the staff aware of those issues as they arise.
You have got to be kidding me. Go to /r/politics and you'll see that a healthy number of links on any given first page go to liberal sites like Mother Jones and Huffington Post. I almost never see front page links that go to conservative sites (Breitbart, The Blaze, National Review, etc.) or libertarian sites (Mises, Reason) because they all get downvoted away.
Reddit on the whole is very left-wing and tends to have a lot of scorn for anyone on the right, no matter if they're conservative or libertarian. Most of the users I've ran into on Reddit hate Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises just as much as they hate Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
DokuDokuH, you never answered my question earlier.
If someone came around promoting Scientology, where would you fall on that topic? Would your position be, "I don't believe in Scientology," or would your position be, "Belief in Scientology is stupid and dangerous"?
Sorry, I totally missed it >_<
My PERSONAL belief would be that its stupid and dangerous, but I wouldn't consciously use that as an argument.
****, dogpile time,
Obviously you wouldn't use that as an argument. That's your conclusion.
@others,
HR, the site had more subfora than mtgs does. The apologetics forum was one of 5 about critical examination. Some of them were belief restricted. While it was loosely defined as a v t, it was for all intents and purposes "whomever vs christianity"
@rodyle,
You could also predict it if their profile mentioned tektonics
Taylor, you did not make an account, no, and I said what you told me did I not?
As to the reasoning, it was threefold
First, to argue that our forum is better than others
Second, that other balances of viewpoint don't neccesarily lead to better situations than we have
Third, as an example for anyone remembers to remind what actual dickish behavior in religious conversations looks like
MTGS doesn't respond in kind and yet for reasons that elude me, DokuDoku seems to think if I started a thread about how I think anyone who professes a religious belief is a paste eating ****** then blinking wouldn't infract me and that other forum members wouldn't call me on going overboard
Taylor, you did not make an account, no, and I said what you told me did I not?
Sounded about right, I'm just not sure of the relevance.
Now I kinda want to make a thread here based on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study just to see what would happen. DokuDokuH has essentially said that would make conservatives feel more at home, of nothing else.
Speaking of relevance, when the hell did we get MLP smileys?
When the liberalness of MLP was confirmed, of course.
Back on topic, I'm afraid with out a response from the topic starter this thing might as well fizzle because I'm not sure how this would be fixed or what the perceived motivation is for fixing it.
Either conservatives want to post here or they don't, but aside from reporting bad behavior I don't think there's anything else that should be done.
As a person whose received multiple cards in the past, I can attest that even mildly insulting a conservative is a cardable-offense.
4 infractions/warnings from this year relate to what I said to or about a conservative. 3 of them are to the same guy, who is currently, IIRC, suspended for violating forum decency rules even more than I do (2 in July, 2 in November, and a warning for something I said in this thread) and while I don't go around keeping track of other peoples infractions, I think that's pretty high for someone with as much experience as I do on the forum.
I agree though, unless bLatch comes back or DokuDoku wants to make an actual argument there isn't much for us to do here other than start a giant liberal/mlp wank fest and have the ghost busters fight our giant reanimated "marshmellow" giant
It should be, but it seems like at least one person in this thread thinks that the topic being discussed or the idealogy being discussed has bearing
I believe the "undercurrent" of the forum is what is really being discussed.
A--certain--level of snark and condensation IS allowed. I can attest to that. Thus, I believe THAT is what he(DokuDokuH) is talking about. Not what you can get an infraction for, but what you don't get an infraction for and do anyway.
But--really--bLatch's starting point for the thread is just a "why is everyone here so liberal?" Which--I think--has already been answered:
''right/left'' spectrum has moved to the right. The difference is Magic players are usually smart people and they make use of their common sense, so our spectrum doesn't move that way.
I keep seeing something like this pop up.
Why do you folks think MTG players are usually smart people?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would only try to point out that UNLIKE human beings, not all beliefs are equal. Nor should they be.
If people have erroneous, harmful, or just downright ridiculous beliefs, at the least we should try to educate, inform, and/or correct them.
A place to do that without the fear of ridicule, mockery, and/or personal insults is a CLASSROOM, not the internet, or even an internet forum. I agree with ECP, this forum is one of the nicest and well moderated I've seen, and I'm not even one of the nicest people who posts here. I have earned my fair share of infractions.
I wouldn't say that B_S and I are friends, but even as much as I have my problems with him, out of the several forums I post on, he is easily one of the top 5 moderators I know of. Believe me, I have to swallow a lot of pride and loathing just to say that.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I do think that the debate forum here is *far* better than others, but I would like to see it even out a bit more. Just to clarify - would you consider the above bigotry, or not?
My problem is that the argument, as related to social issues, then becomes "everything the left believes in is people," and "everything the right believes in are beliefs," which is also insanely unfair.
EDIT: Also, why is the equality of people somehow immune from criticism? That is a moral call, not a scientific one, and science absolutely disagrees.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
If someone came around promoting Scientology, where would you fall on that topic? Would your position be, "I don't believe in Scientology," or would your position be, "Belief in Scientology is stupid and dangerous"?
Sorry, I totally missed it >_<
My PERSONAL belief would be that its stupid and dangerous, but I wouldn't consciously use that as an argument.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Now, in saying that, I am sure that a thread which used Religiosity and intelligence as a starting point would likely not be lock, and one that used the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study as a starting point would almost certainly be locked. But, that's because racism has a more visceral reaction with most people than does religion bashing. Or, to put it another way:
"We would very much like to say that any position is open for debate in Debate. However, a few positions are so emotionally charged and taboo in our culture that we cannot realistically expect them not to start flame wars."[1]
And I would just like to echo everything ICM80 said about Blinking Spirit. That man does a great job, and is the very reason the debate forums are what they are.
Yes?
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
Oh ****. I remember that. I actually posted on that board for a while before becoming too tired of stupidity and circular discussions...
As for why the board is perceived as left: because the American idea of the political left is still ridiculously far right for most European countries. That means that basically everyone from Europe will seem left-wing to you.
My point bringing it up is that the harshest "attack" I've seen from anyone here is kid gloves to what goes onto sites owned and populated by conservative evangelicals.
Oh, and Taylor, ICM was echoing me :p. Credit where credits due
And that, my friends, is the real Oedipal conflict: Trying to avert a fate, and causing it instead. (And believe me, some of the **** on the internet will make you want to gouge your eyes out.)
That is a bit of a deal, yes. I wouldn't necessarily say "extreme-right groups" are further left. I mean, looking at a lot of countries, you can find extreme-right groups which aren't really further left.
America also has a history of its leftist party having a few people who don't really strike me as leftist. Dianne Feinstein, for instance, has endorsed racial profiling (wrt: 9/11 "It's not like we're looking for a blonde, blue-eyed Norwegian").
On the rest the internet in general, I'd assume it's because so many religious groups are anti-internet (Bob Jones University, Haredim), or generally most people involved can't afford it (most people living in an Islamic theocracy). Some social networks skew a certain way: Reddit trends toward right-wing attitudes, though interestingly anti-religion. Tumblr, while still not religious, tends toward left-wing attitudes, though it is a hotbed of trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Gawker tends to...Jezebel was still interviewing Schwyzer up to and even shortly after his Twitter meltdown earlier this year.
My only "ban for POV" history tends to be if that POV is bigoted or hold to conspiracy theories and back up nothing that they say. But mostly it's moderate. Say "rice is good for you", I won't care. Say "rice is a detoxifying agent", and I will be on you like, well, white on rice. I'm hungry.
I also stop following people once they get to Time Cube-class wrongness.
On phasing:
...
You think going into the bee's nest and stirring up the place won't cause issues?
Try that here. I've been tempted to start a serious discussion on abortion here because I've recently come across an interesting PoV and information that challenges my previous pro-abortion ideology. One that requires me to actually do research into laws that relate with fetuses and pregnant women and such. Unfortunately don't have time to do something quite that deep, and so I gave up.
I don't really doubt that I'll be eaten alive by all the Liberals here for that thread and the view-points that I would have to present if I managed to do my research.
The insane crude attitudes, by the way, as Rodyle or Taylor could tell you, didn't come from the atheists. It was one of the better Christian sites I found since they hated banning people, unlike plenty of other Christian sites where discussion threads like we have here, in apologetic subfora, lead to swift bans
If you believe it, why would you not argue it?
The fact of the matter is that Scientology IS a stupid and dangerous institution, with strong emphasis on the dangerous part. It is a cult that uses a false religion made up by a science fiction writer to manipulate and exploit its followers.
The thing is, what makes your religious beliefs better? I'm not saying they aren't better, in fact it'd be difficult to be worse, but that's the question you need to tackle. You have to demonstrate to others (and to yourself. Introspection is always important.) that they are if you want them to agree that your beliefs are justified.
According to the CIA Factbook for 2012, 31.59% of the world is Christian. That leaves the other 68.41% that does not identify as Christian, with 56.91% identifying as a different religion. Keep in mind Christianity is the largest religion in the world. The reason I bring this up is that no matter what your religious beliefs are, the majority of the human race is going to disagree with you.
That sounds like a forum I would want nothing to do with just from the name. It does two things that annoy me: (1) lumps all theistic religions together under the broader title of "theism," which while technically true is useless for a debate because different religions believe different things, and (2) lumps all those who identify as non-religious as "atheist."
Even worse: I've seen threads on /pol which I'd rather debate in than those on that forum. I still remember some ID-proponent over there who constantly referred to his own articles, throwing ad-hominems at anyone discrediting them.
[/QUOTE]
As for hostile attitudes: I find that my responses and their venomousness depends very much on two things: how many of those threads I've seen the last time, and the wording of the post I'm responding to.
I'm not sure it's fair to bring me into this because I'm pretty sure I never even made an account.
I'm also pretty sure that--while 3 rights make a left--2 wrongs don't make a right. There are a lot of crazy places on the web, it does not mean we should react in kind.
Heck, I was banned from the sinfest.net forums for being too conservative.
(you'd love it there, {mikeyG})
I don't feel that's an entirely negative thing. Not all people who have faith came by it honestly or represent it well, questioning that is not a bad thing. Attacking that certainly isn't productive, but simply questioning is not the same thing.
And I believe you're clearly mistaken and are making assumptions based on your own negative perception of the forum. If a poster insults another, for whatever reason, that falls under the purview of moderator action. So no, I don't think they'd be fine and I'm not sure what Blinking Spirit has done to make you feel as though he'd let that sort of behavior slide.
Which begs the question of whether or not the environment here actually does allow that sort of behavior. I don't believe it does, but even in instances of it occurring, the staff cannot be everywhere and it's the responsibility of everyone who values the environment here to make the staff aware of those issues as they arise.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
You have got to be kidding me. Go to /r/politics and you'll see that a healthy number of links on any given first page go to liberal sites like Mother Jones and Huffington Post. I almost never see front page links that go to conservative sites (Breitbart, The Blaze, National Review, etc.) or libertarian sites (Mises, Reason) because they all get downvoted away.
Reddit on the whole is very left-wing and tends to have a lot of scorn for anyone on the right, no matter if they're conservative or libertarian. Most of the users I've ran into on Reddit hate Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises just as much as they hate Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Don't be absurd! Mises is a much better parallel to Limbaugh than to Hannity.
****, dogpile time,
Obviously you wouldn't use that as an argument. That's your conclusion.
@others,
HR, the site had more subfora than mtgs does. The apologetics forum was one of 5 about critical examination. Some of them were belief restricted. While it was loosely defined as a v t, it was for all intents and purposes "whomever vs christianity"
@rodyle,
You could also predict it if their profile mentioned tektonics
Taylor, you did not make an account, no, and I said what you told me did I not?
As to the reasoning, it was threefold
First, to argue that our forum is better than others
Second, that other balances of viewpoint don't neccesarily lead to better situations than we have
Third, as an example for anyone remembers to remind what actual dickish behavior in religious conversations looks like
MTGS doesn't respond in kind and yet for reasons that elude me, DokuDoku seems to think if I started a thread about how I think anyone who professes a religious belief is a paste eating ****** then blinking wouldn't infract me and that other forum members wouldn't call me on going overboard
Sounded about right, I'm just not sure of the relevance.
Now I kinda want to make a thread here based on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study just to see what would happen. DokuDokuH has essentially said that would make conservatives feel more at home, of nothing else.
But, I won't
4 infractions/warnings from this year relate to what I said to or about a conservative. 3 of them are to the same guy, who is currently, IIRC, suspended for violating forum decency rules even more than I do (2 in July, 2 in November, and a warning for something I said in this thread) and while I don't go around keeping track of other peoples infractions, I think that's pretty high for someone with as much experience as I do on the forum.
I agree though, unless bLatch comes back or DokuDoku wants to make an actual argument there isn't much for us to do here other than start a giant liberal/mlp wank fest and have the ghost busters fight our giant reanimated "marshmellow" giant
Them being conservative or not is incidental.
It should be, but it seems like at least one person in this thread thinks that the topic being discussed or the idealogy being discussed has bearing
A--certain--level of snark and condensation IS allowed. I can attest to that. Thus, I believe THAT is what he(DokuDokuH) is talking about. Not what you can get an infraction for, but what you don't get an infraction for and do anyway.
But--really--bLatch's starting point for the thread is just a "why is everyone here so liberal?" Which--I think--has already been answered:
Youth & Europe
I keep seeing something like this pop up.
Why do you folks think MTG players are usually smart people?