Demonizing people
- Thread starter Sorcerer
- Start date
This is what I posted: "Just try reason and logic"
What's your problem with that? If you do that you won't be demonising people, right? Or are you siding with the bible-bashers?
Yeah, you left out: "If you try some other scripture you just get into the 'my god is better than your god' 14yro spitting contest, which is what they like."
Might notice where you seem to be making a hasty generalization (i.e. propaganda). Note, this was intended as a polite reminder, but if you really wish to make more of it than that...
Oh, I get it, you're trying to provoke me into saying something so you can ban me, right? Several people have tried that already. What did Kattamuru say: bad attitude.
Regardless whatever provocation you may imagine, I take it that the polite reminder will suffice then. Good.
So that is your agenda then. You're trying to suppress free speech here. Very good on a science forum. Well it won't work.
No one is being demonized. Piss-poor attempt af baiting, Syne.
Stay out of it unless you have something to contribute.
That isn't a generalization. Sorcerer was talking about people who display a specifc behavior. Again, stop abusing your position and stay out of it unless you have something to offer.
No, of course people who "deserve it" cannot possibly be demonized. [sarcasm]
When you assume that all religious people, here (or that you have "encountered"), are without integrity and bigots, that is the definition of demonizing (i.e. portraying as wicked and threatening).
Yes, because "which is what they like" is very specific as to who "they" are. [sarcasm]
They can't, actually. It's a colloquial term that refers to propagnda. What I've said, and what sorc has said, is not propaganda. It's the truth.
Again, no it isn't. I'm not assuming anything; no theist on this forum passes the tests I'm talking about.
It's specifc to how they behave.
Hasty generalizations of whole groups of people are fallacies, which are against the SciForums posting guidelines. It is statistically unlikely that all individuals in any group would adhere to any give characterization of the entire group, and negative characterizations based on group affiliation alone are propaganda. These are all SciForums policies.
I've been a member here for over ten years. There's nothing hasty about it. And I did not characterize an entire group; I specifically said I have not encountered one who did not fit the description I gave. Didn't you criticize people for not recognizing qualifying statements recently?
You're really going out of your way to twist this into something it isn't. Is this based on some directive, or are you just taking out some inadequacy on us again? Nothing anyone has said qualifies as propaganda. Commenting on certain behaviors within a group is not propaganda.
And again we come to the problem with you telling anyone what is or isn't propaganda. This must be setting off irony alarms somewhere, considering your recently regurgitation of rote anti-gay propaganda.
Well, you certainly tried. You just didn't fare very well. You're not saving face by pretending I'm not worthy of discussing policy simply because I've been critical of it. Just admit you bit off more than you can chew and be done with it.
Bells
Staff member
Then by your very own reasoning and argument, you should be questioning Jan about his comments about homosexuality being a choice and comparing homosexuality to rapists and paedophiles when it comes to "choice". Because from where we are sitting, it seems as though that was a gross and offensive generalisation and comparison. Just saying..
Are such opinions about "choice" not permissible (all humans are assumed to exercise choice)? Perhaps you should point out specific posts, as I am unlikely to take action on hearsay. And why have these posts not been reported, if they are so offensive and against posting guidelines?
See, here's a problem I've brought up before: when you agree with it, it's fine; when you don't, it's propaganda. You're quickly becoming a punchline, Syne.
This is why I said you should just stay out of it unless something actually requires moderation, since we're apparently going to allow you to keep the mantle (I'm assuming for the sake of self-parody).
Bells
Staff member
I don't know, Syne. Is it?
People who express their opinions about people who choose to believe in certain religions or who choose to hold certain religious beliefs are being accused of demonising said religious individuals. And yet, here you are saying that deliberately stating that homosexuality is a choice and then comparing 'choice' - in regards to homosexuals - to rapists and paedophiles.. You consider that to be an opinion?
Well seeing that you keep reminding all of us of how pressed you are for time, I am not entirely surprised that you missed such blatant offensive comments...
And "hearsay"? Really Syne? Reaching much?
The most offensive comments come from the previous page. The conversation started earlier than that, but just to make your life a bit easier and to save you your precious time, we'll just keep it short, shall we?
Now, you can perhaps understand why I find your reaction to those who responded to Jan's and the arguments of others about their so called opinions about gays and demonizing gays by comparing them to rapists and paedophiles, that instead of speaking to the individuals actually breaking the rules - you know, the rules about stereotyping and offensive bigotry - you instead decide to mention the rules about those who were actually attempting to correct said stereotyping and offensive bigotry against homosexuals. After all, if Jan is now allowed to compare homosexuals to rapists and paedophiles because he is of the opinion it is a choice, then you have no real right to complain about others who make stereotypes of theists like Jan in response to his offensive comments. TheHun, Sorcerer, Balerion and others are also expressing opinions, Syne.
This may be a subject for PM, but I think our neighbors would like to know the answer as well.
Bells, why do the powers that be put up with someone as blatantly hypocritical and bigoted as Syne? What egregious action would he need to take before his "cape" is stripped? I don't get it, is he married in to the admin or something? I know it's not just me and I think I'm removed enough to see it objectively. Syne is fine as a member (FSM knows we have worse), but, as a moderator? Seriously?
Just my opinion BTW Syne...
That's been a question I've asked for the better part of a year. Syne's case is particularly noteworthy, but there have been others--Bells included--who, had they been "regular" members, been shown the door at least temporarily, yet were not disciplined at all. I've asked James, but he's been noncommittal.
I've recently PM'd Plazma Inferno, in the hopes that the Big Boss can have a look at this travesty, but I'm not holding my breath. I have heard of mods losing their stripes before, but it seems to only happen when a particular nerve is struck. I've heard rumors as to what, but don't have a concrete notion of what that is, outside of it being more a matter of personally pissing James off rather than one of breaking rules. I mean, as we know, if the rules actually applied to these people, almost none of them would still be around.