Zero Tolerance

Just to add in.

I don't know if there is a set rule about signatures, but there is a consensus in the MS.

Sigs are still regulated by the TOS, of course, but they can be more expressive. In basic terms, think of sigs as the bumber stickers of the forums.

They still cannot attack whole groups of people, or use objectional language, but they can be based on personal feelings.

For example, as something that recently came up:

I think that "God bless George Bush" is ok, but so would "atheists are the only rational thinkers," as long as it didn't say something like "atheists are the only rational thinkers because theists are stupid."

But with anything, sigatures are dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

TripleB, despite disagreeing with your beliefs, I do respect them, even the blanked out stuff.

I of course don't feel that way ( ), but I understand why you feel justified in arguing so strongly for your viewpoints, as religious faith is one of the most powerful motivators of the human spirit in existence.

All that I and the other mods ask is that you don't try and a) blatantly behave as if your beliefs are superior to others (even if you feel that way) and b) act as if this gives you the right to talk down to other members. More simply stated, you can feel however you'd like (obviously ); it's how you are expressing that feeling that has caused angst around here at times.

If you try and define liberalism in the terms you stated, you will discover that those who disagree will come back just as strongly, and a fight will ensue. You can phrase things in such a way that your strong beliefs are still conveyed, but that other posters are not instantly offended by them, that's all.

As far as your views on gay marriage go, you are simply being consistent with the conservative political philosophy to which you prescribe. Your viewpoint here doesn't suprise me at all; lack of consistency has never been one of your weaknesses.

Hope that helps .

EDIT: As an addition to Mr44's post, signatures can be more colorful, but they cannot bait, flame, or inflame. That will get you banned as surely as an inappropriate post will.

Peace,

V-03

 

Unlike Vaderize, TripleB, I do not respect your beliefs one iota.

However, I do respect you as a person and your right to hold those beliefs.

 

Mr44, that's a very reasonable standard for signatures, one with which I can easily agree and with which I already agree. That is why, even though I've called McCartney on a factually inaccurate signature or two, I've never complained about other athiest sigs -- from the ones that say that they reject all gods for the same reasons theists reject all but one (like JediFlyer's signature above), to even the rest of Cyprus's sig:

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh
God is only a great imaginative experience"

I think the rest of his sig is foolish, but not objectionable in the same way.

I believe his "all thinking men are atheists" does indeed attack whole groups of people. All one has to do is follow the idea to its logically necessary conclusion.

"All thinking men are atheists"
is exactly equivalent to
"No thinking men are non-atheists (i.e., theists)."

And that is exactly equivalent to
"All theists are non-thinking men."

One doesn't need to be an expert in set theory or prepositional logic to see this.

I think that "God bless George Bush" is ok, but so would "atheists are the only rational thinkers," as long as it didn't say something like "atheists are the only rational thinkers because theists are stupid."

I see very little difference between the two statments, because "atheists are the only rational thinkers" necessarily implies that theists are irrational. And "irrational" is just a stone's throw from "stupid."


I'll make myself quite clear. Out of all the atheist sig's I have seen on the Senate Floor, the first line in Cyprus's sig is the only one I think crosses the line because it contains as a logically necessary conclusion an insult to an entire group.

(Even a signature like "all atheists are thinking men" -- which is superficially similar to "all thinking men are atheists" -- doesn't insult another group. It leaves open the possibility that some, many, or all theists are likewise thinking men.)

Content-wise, that one line is equivalent to saying that all theists are non-thinking. I think the content matters far more than the semantics. It doesn't matter to me how subtle or clever an insult is. An insult that is not overt is still an insult.


Let's move the issue away from religion for a moment.

"All intelligent people are white, heterosexual men."

Would that nugget of intolerance pass muster as a signature on the Senate Floor?

 

Being white and heterosexual isn't a belief.

Being religous is a belief.

Being against somebody's beliefs is not intolerance. Being against somebody because of the way they were created without regard to their beliefs is intolerance.

 

When Mr44, speaking seemingly on behalf of the Senate Floor mods, wrote that signatures "cannot attack whole groups of people," I sincerely doubt that he was limiting that to groups that were not formed voluntarily.

For the sake of determining whether a signature is out-of-bounds, I don't think it much matters whether it insults a group like women or Asians (who cannot help being who they are) or whether it insults groups who are bound by religious or political beliefs.

If "being religious is a belief" somehow excuses people who insult religious groups, let's take the next logical step and allow people to insult atheists, liberals, conservatives, etc. with wild abandon.

 

Wouldn't calling a person/group of people "spawns of Satan" be considered flaming. I don't think even making the text hidden or warning that a flame is coming on changes that. All of your comments so far [especially with regards to JediFlyer] have been prime examples of the reason the Zero Tolerance policy is being created.

With all due respect to you and your views TripleB you seem to think one of two things.

1. The rules should not apply to you just because you feel what you are saying is true.
2. You are being asked to change your core values for the sake of the boards and refuse to do so.

If you think the rules don't apply to you then you probably have another think coming, most likely in the form of a ban.

If [as I think you do] you are of the opinion that your right to free speech on the boards [oh, the irony]then I can understand. It is wrong for someone to be asked to change the ideals that define them just to conform to the status quo. I agree with you on that. However, in adult discussion [which we theoretically engage in here] there are rules that make things go more smoothly. Making generalized angry comments derails a conversation and ruins any chances of thoughtful remarks. I might also add that it does not make your position look any better. This is part of the reason why I lurk in the Senate instead of posting. The partisan bickering [which I admit to participating in at times] makes adult debate impossible and participation pointless. No one is asking you to change your views. You can believe that this post is being jotted down by the Liberal Lucifer himself and while I may not agree with you I won't try to argue. However, you don't need to spew out such thoughts here. You seem like a fairly bright individual so I am of the opinion that you probably know the effect such comments have. If you don't know then allow me to add my voice to those that are educating you.

You can still be a crusader of Conservatism, Christianity, and anything else you feel strongly about. The mods are not asking you to change your views [nor should they] they are just asking you to take a look at your behavior. If you and everyone else on the boards does that I think the Senate would be a much happier place.

EDIT: Please note that I have tried to be as nonconfrontational as possible. If I have caused any offense allow me to apologize in advance. I think this is a widespread problem with the senate and with American politics as a whole. While I think TripleB is an example of the problem I do not mean to say that he is the only one, or attack him for his views. My arguments could probably use some closer examination as well.

 

GreatYoda said

With all due respect to you and your views TripleB you seem to think one of two things.

1. The rules should not apply to you just because you feel what you are saying is true.
2. You are being asked to change your core values for the sake of the boards and refuse to do so.

The thing is, I am not asking for either. I am simply letting it be known from where I am coming from. And my commentary's I ahve offered are either my own personal views or they are at a complete subject, but am not in any way singling out anyone with what I am saying directly (which would be against TOS and I know it).

 

"All thinking men are atheists"
is exactly equivalent to
"No thinking men are non-atheists (i.e., theists)."

And that is exactly equivalent to
"All theists are non-thinking men."

I've changed my signature for you....

 

My favorite signature battle that I ever had was with Obi-Wan McCartney.

His sig said "A Conservitive Poster on these boards knows his arguments are so weak, he has to lie to justify them. Just like the GOP"

I retaliated with A Liberal Poster on these boards knows his arguments are so weak, he has to lie to justify them. Just like Bill Clinton!

For some reason, that brought a halt to it.

 

Fair enough, Triple B. I just think that some statements even generalized ones can be pretty darn inflamitory and that you should be careful. Speaking of sigs I have to ask out of morbid cururiosity: What the heck does The Passion of the Christ have to do with the results of the election? I know the movie is about Jesus and therefore related to God [according to many people], but the movie was the word of Mel Gibson not the big guy. Are you saying that your obvious devotion to Christianity means that the satanic democrats will be defeated? Just wondering.

 

I was just about to say the same thing.

TripleB, your strict linkage of God to a political party is very disturbing.

 

Great Yoda said

Fair enough, Triple B. I just think that some statements even generalized ones can be pretty darn inflamitory and that you should be careful.

I am going to try to walk the line of say "Liberals are this that and the other thing" but do feel that saying "Liberalism promotes this that and the other thing which is this that and the other thing." Does that make sense?

Speaking of sigs I have to ask out of morbid cururiosity: What the heck does The Passion of the Christ have to do with the results of the election?

If you really want to know, I believe the reason that Fahrenheit 9/11 is not having a big effect on the polls is that the hearts of mankind was strengthened by THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Satan may well have backed Michael Moore, but Jesus and God backed Mel Gibson and beat Moore to the punch with THE PASSION and it has blunted Moore's movie.

I know the movie is about Jesus and therefore related to God [according to many people], but the movie was the word of Mel Gibson not the big guy.

You would have to watch SOUTHPARK to understand.

Are you saying that your obvious devotion to Christianity means that the satanic democrats will be defeated? Just wondering.

Yes.


Jediflyer said

TripleB, your strict linkage of God to a political party is very disturbing

But my perrogative nonetheless. I have posted, back in 2001, that there is evidence to suggest that over 4,000,000 Evangelical Christians sat out of the 2000 Elections because of the DUI story. I imagine the reason this does not get brought up is because in the Left's world vision, Christians and Gun Owners would be barred from voting, if not wiped out from society.

BUt that is just me

 

Cyprus, that change is hardly an improvement. Saying that all thinking men are to be found in one group or another -- either atheists or theists, conservatives or liberals, or any other division -- is an insult to the other group or groups.

That should matter to all of us, but the more important question is whether it matters to the mods.

 

With a one-warning rule, this policy isn't quite advocating "zero tolerance." I demand it be renamed "little tolerance" or "we'll just say it's 'zero tolerance' to scare people."

 

Bubba, If I'm not mistaken, your last signature included a quote from CS Lewis that in fact hinted that the prospect of a person being an atheist being an exercise in futility; so what's the difference between Cyprus making one unquantifiable claim (All thinkingmen are theists) and you using Mr CS Lewis to make another unquantifiable claim that atheism simply is not logical or tenable?

I take your point about the general remark of the statement; for example, there is a quote from JS Mill about how whilst not all conservatives are stupid, most stupid people are conservative. Which I love, as it's true; we do attract some luddite, knuckle-dragging morons to this side of the spectrum, but it's not a broad generalisation that's wholly unfair. Well, it's unfair to stupid people, but that's OK, right?

E_S

 

Ender, I'll get the minutiae out of the way first.

1. Mill died in 1873, so it's a bit of a stretch to apply his statement to modern political divisions. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" in 2004 have very little relation to their use 130 years ago. If you want to use Mill as a standard, I am a liberal.

My position echoes that of Jay Nordlinger: "I like to consider myself a genuine liberal, believing in limited government, equality of opportunity, equality under the law, pluralism, toleration, constitutionalism, colorblindness, a robust, internationalist foreign policy, sound and equal education, a common culture, etc. Nowadays, that makes you a flaming right-winger. But it shouldn't be so." [link]

2. Considering how rarely you and I actually agree, I'm not sure there is a "we" when it comes to political idealogy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and from my limited experience you don't come off as conservative.


That said, here is that Lewis quote which is -- for the record -- in my bio at this forum. It is a sentiment from which I do not distance myself.

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere. . . God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous."

You ask, what is the difference? I think it's a clear difference: it's one thing to assert that atheism is untenable, another thing to assert that atheists are stupid.

A political analogy: I think socialism is idiocy because it ignores basic truths about human nature, including (for instance) the fact that most humans act out of self-interest most of the time. But that doesn't mean that socialists are necessarily idiots because very, very smart people are capable of missing such details.

It is possible to criticize a belief system without insulting those who hold that system to be true.


If you're trying to imply I'm being hypocritical on this issue, I don't think you can succeed.

Look again at what I wrote earlier:

That is why, even though I've called McCartney on a factually inaccurate signature or two, I've never complained about other athiest sigs -- from the ones that say that they reject all gods for the same reasons theists reject all but one (like JediFlyer's signature above), to even the rest of Cyprus's sig...

Look at what is not catching my ire:

"Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich."

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."

"God is only a great imaginative experience."

In my opinion, these three sentiments and my quote from C.S. Lewis are roughly in the same ballpark. "All thinking men are atheists" stands out as different because it is guilty of attacking -- in Mr44's words -- "whole groups of people."

 

2. Considering how rarely you and I actually agree, I'm not sure there is a "we" when it comes to political idealogy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and from my limited experience you don't come off as conservative.

Thanks for the lecture on Mill, BTW. Given that I've taught the works of Mr Mill at tertiary level, I was up until then utterly unaware of the evolution of modern political thought and have never as such argued that the misuse of liberalism by Americans is, well, a misuse. Never once.

Now, as you claim I'm not conservative, I feel obliged to correct that mistake.

The difference I've noted between what could be called "Commonwealth" conservatism and American conservatism is great, no doubt, but it shouldn't mean one is any less or more on the right side of the spectrum. Because I'm not overreliant on religion and not a fan of Dubya does not make me a damn lefty, and that I'd call myself a moderate rightist, a fence-straddler who'll fall right never left, does not interfer with where I sit.

The more pernicious distinction I'd make would be class v. crass, but I'm not in a nasty mood so I shan't.

E_S

 

If you know Mill so incredibly well, why abuse his statement by misapplying it?

If you dislike the misuse of political terminology so much, why be guilty of such misuse yourself?


I'm sorry, but I'm not simply going to take your word that you're a conservative: you have simply sided too frequently with the "damn lefties" for me to take your claim at face value. Maybe you are a conservative, but you haven't been acting like much of one in this particular venue.

Perhaps if I knew that we agreed on most issues -- or at least, most of the important issues -- I would find your assertion more plausible. There's a good rule in writing fiction, and the rule can be taken and applied here: don't merely tell me, show me.


Finally:

The more pernicious distinction I'd make would be class v. crass, but I'm not in a nasty mood so I shan't.

Should I praise you for your restraint? I see very little difference between a direct insult and the open admission that you'd like to make some specific insult. The gist of your insult still comes across.

But you didn't actually make the insult. Oh, how clever you must be.

 

Guys, this seems to be drifting off-topic. How about we de-personalize it?

Although I think that a hosted E_S/Bubba debate that focuses on Millian values in relation to the political spectrum would be quite legendary..

Alas, it is beyond the scope of this particular forum...

 

Actually, it isn't, Mr44.

Awhile back, we had a focus group on just this very issue, of which E_S and I were a part. One of the things we agreed to try and do was to start hosted debates.

We have never gotten around to it, and now might be a good time to re-evaluate what was discussed. The focus group's discussions were made public, although I don't know if they are still available.

That would be legendary; I might even pay to see it! .

Peace,

V-03

 

I hadn't seen the word "pernicious" until today, and now I've seen it in two separate JC threads on the same day.

 

You would have to watch SOUTHPARK to understand.

You mean Mel Gibson is God? Either that or he's a nut? Those are the two views of him stated on that show.

For is Kerry wins, it will be the first time where FOreign Nations had an impact in changing out our leadership of our country

Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon beg to disagree.

 

MaceWindu said

You mean Mel Gibson is God? Either that or he's a nut? Those are the two views of him stated on that show.

You realize there is such a thing as seeing THE PASSION OF THE JEW episode of SouthPark, laugh at it, love it, and then just adopt what Cartman was saying to a signature, right? As it was, it was only Cartman that embraced Mel Gibson as the Messiah

Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon beg to disagree.

Good point on LBJ, although I disagree on putting Nixon in on that.

 

Not really, as politically damaged LBJ = Nixon not having to run against a popular incumbent.