Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[James R]

GeoffP:

What about [Bell's] tacit approval of religious violence against women?

If you're going to make this kind of accusation, you'd better back it up with some supporting argument or evidence.

So, let's hear it.

Or, if you prefer, you can withdraw your comment and apologise.

 

[Bells]

I'm just trying to figure out why you had such a visceral reaction to my completing your list of samples of religious violence.

Visceral? It was a simple and polite answer, to which you again blew all out of proportion. Then again, why am I surprised?

Well, it does make one wonder why you demanded that I leave Catholicism in protest. To what end, that thing?

Demand? I queried why you or anyone else for that matter would want to remain.

Well then, why betray your principles?

I have already reported you. And since you are completely unable to support your claim that I support religious violence against women, I would strongly suggest you retract or apologise for making such a claim. If you do not, I will take it to the higher up's. I find your accusation to be beneath even you. The link you supplied in no way show any such proof of what you have accused me of. You have accused me of something I find deeply offensive on a professional and personal level and you have done it knowing that it would be taken as such. And seeing that this foroum is known by several of my colleagues who know me personally and professionally, it is tantamount to defamation. So either provide evidence that I support violence against women or retract and apologise.

How, exactly? By engaging in polite discussion with other people about issues in which I did not invite your commentary? And this after your - what? fourth or fifth utter disavowal of any discussion with me?

It is an open forum. I commented on what you posted. In no way did it deserve your overblown reaction to it. And your reaction continues, to the point where you attack me personally and professionally and you are attempting to tarnish my personal and professional reputation (real life reputation).

And of course, you did not mention it. Why such strong objection to me simply making your list more comprehensive and representative? What purpose does it serve, this pretended outrage of yours?

You mean like your supposed outrage at crimes committed by those who are not Muslim? I remember when Breivik committed his terrorist acts in the name of Christianity, you did not say boo. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I have never, not once, stated that I find violence of any sort to be acceptable, regardless of its source. I know you have a bug up your anal cavity about Muslims, that is the known agenda you push on this forum, but I can assure you, you would be hard pressed to find anything from me where I supported violence or murders, with the exception maybe to my feelings about people who commit henious crimes.

Please support this statement.

So you need proof of the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans? Of the mass murders and torture of Muslims in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you not read the newspapers?

Excellent. Then let us balance, and move on. Can you do that?

Can you provide evidence of your accusation that I support violence against women or retract and apologise?

 

[Bells]

Please do. I will then also report you for your accusation of the support of religious violence and obsession against myself, which you led off with here. It is a very serious charge and one I find deeply offensive, personally and professionally, not to mention insulting. If you do not retract your statement, I will report you to the administrators of this site. This may seem harsh, but it's what happens when one plays games at putting unsubstantiated opinions into the mouths of others. Sound fair?

Edit to the above post:

You seem to have a small recollection of your words and obsession towards that particular Mosque at that time. You were obsessed with it.

I would strongly suggest you re-read that post Geoff. At no time did I ever say you supported the religious violence or that your messages were violent. Note the words "the violent messages that comes from those protests"... Now unless you were there with a placard spouting hate speech towards Muslims, how exactly can you assume that when I say "the violent messages that comes from those protests" applies to you?

 

[GeoffP]

Tat

GeoffP:

If you're going to make this kind of accusation, you'd better back it up with some supporting argument or evidence.

So, let's hear it.

Or, if you prefer, you can withdraw your comment and apologise.

JamesR:

Let's have her apology for her assertion on the linked post first. She invokes me pretty explicitly therein as supporting or being associated with religious violence. Since it's clear that she's dropped a complaint on my counter-assertion - easily as well-founded as hers against me - then consider this a complaint of equal depth. She can support her stance, or withdraw it and apologize also; I've submitted a PM to that effect as well. Will the system of SF balance this account? I'd like you to have a look at the thread, not merely where Bells' complaint occurred.

Visceral? It was a simple and polite answer, to which you again blew all out of proportion. Then again, why am I surprised?

You can cease your hijacking of my own language here. Yours was no polite answer, although it was a simple one.

The thread progressed as such: you cited some crimes from one religious sect. I cited others. You then invoked your own biased impressions on some of my discussion - quite well-founded, as it turned out - on a socio-political issue as a form of argument terminator in this thread; I add 'malice' as another probable reason. I decided two could play at that game, and gave you one back that refers to your stance on the French law against hijab - an article of clothing which is often forcibly imposed on women. It is as apt and fair a description of your socio-political stance as you insinuate about me.

This, James, is the issue to which I refer obliquely, above, and it is the point at which Bells will feign a great deal of innocence and ignorance. I think the disconnect I invoked to achieve this point against Bells is an apt and quite correct analogy to her biased comment made for the reasons just specified. One is not permitted to make unfounded assertions here. Since we have now both made complaints, the system stands balanced, although I did not fire the first shot.

Demand? I queried why you or anyone else for that matter would want to remain.

Mmm...no, no, you seemed to insist that I depart it. So: why? Should I conclude that you have an overriding hatred for it, and one which I ironically do not possess for any religion whatsoever (lest it be maybe Kali, which seems to have a lot of unnecessary strangling)? It amuses me when I decry radical reactionary religious philosophies, or the opportunistic evils of the intimacy of the association between extreme conservative religion and state apparatus - which you may notice Catholicism does actually not really have outside the Vatican, despite your apparent hatred for the faith overall. That hatred, unless I misremember, is founded largely in personal history on your part, rather than reasons of overarching socio-political inequality. In short: those do exist, but nowhere are they so well entrenched today as in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and which are growing in North Africa. When Pat Robertson wins the American presidency, you'll have reason to gripe to the extend I do - although one would at least expect global balance in such an eventuality.

I have already reported you.

And I you, posthaste. Moreover, I have also cited the issue to which I refer, above. Now is the time for you either do the same, or retract. If you do not, I will take it, as you, to the higher ups. In fact, I will do so immediately since reporting hereabouts corresponds to the 'first past the post' system in some respects. However, I do not find your accusation to be beneath even you. I find it directly in line with your usual argumentative methods.

The link you supplied in no way show any such proof of what you have accused me of.

You misunderstood that point, and I suspect deliberately so.

You have accused me of something I find deeply offensive on a professional and personal level and you have done it knowing that it would be taken as such. And seeing that this foroum is known by several of my colleagues who know me personally and professionally, it is tantamount to defamation. So either provide evidence that I support violence against women or retract and apologise.

I have no way of knowing whether any colleagues of yours, professional or otherwise, frequent this forum, and so I cannot use your statement as an unadulterated basis for wholesale apology. I can say that some of my professional and personal colleagues do frequent this forum, and that you must either provide evidence of your insinuation of my association with religious violence or retract and apologize. Specious assertions are not a one-way street, Bells. You do not have the liberty to invent personal defamation and then play at innocence. This is no idle issue, Bells: your defamation of me is quite equally legally serious, I assure you. Do you wish to open this can of worms? Really? I thought SF wasn't involved in that.

It is an open forum. I commented on what you posted. In no way did it deserve your overblown reaction to it. And your reaction continues, to the point where you attack me personally and professionally and you are attempting to tarnish my personal and professional reputation (real life reputation).

Ditto: but I did not invite your personal attack on me, in the post cited above:

I would also say that the vapid hatred and obsession of other religions, to the point where one becomes obsessed about their opening a place of worship, say a Mosque, and the violent messages that comes from those protests is also religiously motivated. Wouldn't you agree GeoffP?

The above, at http://www.sciforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2872606, implies religious violence and support for same on my part. This is, indeed, as direct a personal attack as what I wrote in response. I demand either support for your insinuation, or retraction with apology. Thanks.

You mean like your supposed outrage at crimes committed by those who are not Muslim? I remember when Breivik committed his terrorist acts in the name of Christianity, you did not say boo. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I have never, not once, stated that I find violence of any sort to be acceptable, regardless of its source.

I know you have a bug up your anal cavity about Muslims

A lie.

, that is the known agenda you push on this forum,

Another; or cynically-motivated ignorance.

but I can assure you, you would be hard pressed to find anything from me where I supported violence or murders, with the exception maybe to my feelings about people who commit henious crimes.

Why, excepting some of your comments about the French law on religious coverings, of course. I think you begin to see my point about the danger and unfairness of making such assertions; or perhaps not.

So you need proof of the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans? Of the mass murders and torture of Muslims in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you not read the newspapers?

And these newspapers - they provide evidence that?:

the majority of the wars lately have been to murder Muslims in large numbers more than anything.

Really? The object of these wars has been to murder Muslims?

And here I thought it was about the oil. :shrug:

Can you provide evidence of your accusation that I support violence against women or retract and apologise?

Done and done.

Your turn.

 

[kx000]

GeoffP:



If you're going to make this kind of accusation, you'd better back it up with some supporting argument or evidence.

So, let's hear it.

Or, if you prefer, you can withdraw your comment and apologise.

The Catholic church burnt outspoken spiritual women at the cross after Jesus died in order to kill Mary Magdelan, to my knowledge they failed. Mary was Jesus' favorite appostle, and if there was such a thing heir to the church of Christ, but Christ did not call for such a thing, ever.

 

[GeoffP]

Unrelated issue.

 

[kx000]

The church killed women to hunt and kill the wife of Jesus Christ, excuse me if I take every chance to identify the church as the bad guy.

 

[GeoffP]

The church killed women to hunt and kill the wife of Jesus Christ, excuse me if I take every chance to identify the church as the bad guy.

OK, now I have to ask: what's that about? Are you talking about that Magdalene thing, with the Merovingians?

 

[Bells]

You can cease your hijacking of my own language here. Yours was no polite answer, although it was a simple one.

The thread progressed as such: you cited some crimes from one religious sect. I cited others. You then invoked your own biased impressions on some of my discussion - quite well-founded, as it turned out - on a socio-political issue as a form of argument terminator in this thread; I add 'malice' as another probable reason. I decided two could play at that game, and gave you one back that refers to your stance on the French law against hijab - an article of clothing which is often forcibly imposed on women. It is as apt and fair a description of your socio-political stance as you insinuate about me.

I cited from a few actually, had you cared to bothered to read it.

I have cited proof of your obsession of the mosque issue.

Now, cite that I approve of violence against women or retract andn apologise.

The greater majority of women choose to wear it (the hijab) of their own accord, sometimes against the personal wishes of their family members. You are well aware of this. I do not support the French law, as you well know, because I find forcing women to dress one way or another is equally demeaning and imposed on women. Women who choose to wear are now being forced to not wear it and under force of arrest. I find that just as deplorable and degrading and violent towards women as the regime in Saudia Arabia or Iran which imposes such dress codes on women. Now, my posts on that matter were clear on what my opinions happens to be on the matter. That you choose to view that as apparent approval of violence towards women shows that you are clutching at straws trying to find some way to justify your defamation of my character and myself on this forum.

I reported your post because I found it personally and professionally insulting and was tantamount to defamation. I am sure that James will have read the exchange in full and not just the reported text. I have not discussed this with him or with anyone else, nor in the back room, as I am sure they wil attest if you ask them. My dealings with you on this matter is as a member who feels you are attacking something I hold fundamentally dear and have spent years and years on this forum fighting against, not to mention the better part of my adult life fighting against. So either retract and apologise or cite your sources. Or as a member of this forum and with precedence on the issue of defamation on this forum, I will request that the rules be applied to you fully.

This, James, is the issue to which I refer obliquely, above, and it is the point at which Bells will feign a great deal of innocence and ignorance. I think the disconnect I invoked to achieve this point against Bells is an apt and quite correct analogy to her biased comment made for the reasons just specified. One is not permitted to make unfounded assertions here. Since we have now both made complaints, the system stands balanced, although I did not fire the first shot.

And as I showed, I provided links to show your level of obsession about all things Muslims on this forum, including your stance on the so called 'Ground Zero Mosque'. At no time did I accuse you of being violent on the issue. My words were clear.. the words used at those protests were violent. "At those protests" means the people who were violent and spouting hate speech outside where that Mosque would have been built. My words were clear. Your response to that was to accuse me of approving of violence towards women and now you attempt to say that because I do not approve of the French ban on the hijab, I apparently support violence towards women?

I repeat, cite your sources that I approve of or support violence towards women or retract and apologise for those statements.

Mmm...no, no, you seemed to insist that I depart it. So: why? Should I conclude that you have an overriding hatred for it, and one which I ironically do not possess for any religion whatsoever (lest it be maybe Kali, which seems to have a lot of unnecessary strangling)? It amuses me when I decry radical reactionary religious philosophies, or the opportunistic evils of the intimacy of the association between extreme conservative religion and state apparatus - which you may notice Catholicism does actually not really have outside the Vatican, despite your apparent hatred for the faith overall. That hatred, unless I misremember, is founded largely in personal history on your part, rather than reasons of overarching socio-political inequality. In short: those do exist, but nowhere are they so well entrenched today as in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and which are growing in North Africa. When Pat Robertson wins the American presidency, you'll have reason to gripe to the extend I do - although one would at least expect global balance in such an eventuality.

I have always been clear. My issues with the Church is because of their open stance towards paedophilia, abortion and homosexuals. You seem to counter this by saying 'well they are just as bad'. And my response to that is the same.. 'And?'. Does not make the Church's attitude any less vial.

And I you, posthaste. Moreover, I have also cited the issue to which I refer, above. Now is the time for you either do the same, or retract. If you do not, I will take it, as you, to the higher ups. In fact, I will do so immediately since reporting hereabouts corresponds to the 'first past the post' system in some respects. However, I do not find your accusation to be beneath even you. I find it directly in line with your usual argumentative methods.

You are free to act as you choose to act, just as I am free to act as I choose to act in the face of your defamation.

You misunderstood that point, and I suspect deliberately so.

No, it was not deliberate.

I requested a link and that was what you provided.

I have no way of knowing whether any colleagues of yours, professional or otherwise, frequent this forum, and so I cannot use your statement as an unadulterated basis for wholesale apology. I can say that some of my professional and personal colleagues do frequent this forum, and that you must either provide evidence of your insinuation of my association with religious violence or retract and apologize. Specious assertions are not a one-way street, Bells. You do not have the liberty to invent personal defamation and then play at innocence. This is no idle issue, Bells: your defamation of me is quite equally legally serious, I assure you. Do you wish to open this can of worms? Really? I thought SF wasn't involved in that.

Tell me where I have invented personal defamation towards you GeoffP? The greater majority of your posts on this site concerns Muslims or Islam. They always have. You accused me of approving of violence towards women. Which you are well aware that I do not. I asked you politely to retract and apologise or provide evidence of your claims. I am still waiting on that score.

Believe me, I am taking this very very seriously. More than you can possibly know or understand. I have copped a fair spray of abuse from you, just as you have from me. But this.. this has gone beyond what is acceptable to me. You could have called me a plethora of names and I would not have cared. But on this subject, you went too far. I have advised you of that many times now. So please, retract and apologise or cite your evidence.

Ditto: but I did not invite your personal attack on me, in the post cited above:

Tell me, how exactly was that a personal attack on you? How exactly does my saying that the protests against the Mosque (which I again clarified meant the protests at the mosque with the violent hate speech and placards) is somehow connected to you.

You do have a Muslim and Islam problem. Something you have even been banned for from this forum. Or are you going to claim that you do not have a problem with the religion? You don't think saying the religious system is on par with the Nazi's is you not having a problem with the religion?

The above, at http://www.sciforums.com/newreply.ph...eply&p=2872606, implies religious violence and support for same on my part. This is, indeed, as direct a personal attack as what I wrote in response. I demand either support for your insinuation, or retraction with apology. Thanks.

Which you openly and clearly misrepresented.

A lie.

Actually no, not a lie. The only post you ever made in regards to Breivik was to defend Robert Spencer. Google is our friend.

Another; or cynically-motivated ignorance.

I beg to differ.

Why, excepting some of your comments about the French law on religious coverings, of course. I think you begin to see my point about the danger and unfairness of making such assertions; or perhaps not.

Oh you mean my disagreement with the law because I feel it is forcing women to dress in a certain manner or not dress as they may choose to do so and how that is just as bad as forcing women to wear the hijab? Those comments?

Cite your evidence that I support or approve of violence against women or retract and apologise.

Last chance.

Really? The object of these wars has been to murder Muslims?

And here I thought it was about the oil.

You don't think the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Balkans was to murder Muslims? You don't think bombing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan murders Muslims? Okay then...:shrug:

You don't think when your former President claims that the attacked Iraq because God told him to.. Where are those silly WMD's by the way? Your country and mine are at war with two Muslim countries. Those countries never attacked us. One had a terrorist leader living within its borders. Apparently that justifies the war and the crimes committed within said war. When American soldiers commit war crimes, when they rape and murder Muslim families, that isn't murder to you? What about Bravo Company and their 'Kill Team' [Warning, contains some graphic images as posted in Rolling Stone magazine]?

The photos, obtained by Rolling Stone, portray a front-line culture among U.S. troops in which killing Afghan civilians is less a reason for concern than a cause for celebration. "Most people within the unit disliked the Afghan people, whether it was the Afghan National Police, the Afghan National Army or locals," one soldier explained to investigators. "Everyone would say they're savages."

[Source]
​

This is not murdering Muslims to you?

“Racism was rampant,” recalls vet Michael Prysner, who served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 as part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. “All of command, everywhere, it was completely ingrained in the consciousness of every soldier. I’ve heard top generals refer to the Iraq people as ‘hajjis.’ The anti-Arab racism came from the brass. It came from the top. And everything was justified because they weren’t considered people.”

[Source]
​

You don't think that attitude promotes murders and war crimes?

Done and done.

Your turn.

Hmm.. No.

My point is clear.

Now, cite your proof that I approve of and support violence against women or retract and apologise.

 

[wynn]

It's very simple:violence committed in the name of a spiritual philosophy is not invalidated by the existence of that spiritual philosophy.

Violence committed in the name of a spiritual (or religius) philosophy
is not the same as violence motivated by a spiritual (or religius) philosophy.

If you think the two are the same, then please explain.

Well, it is certain from your direction that they did this for no political reason. Not so?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

I think the reasons for the Fascists desiring that women would not work were political/economical.

Actually, because they hated them for it.

And per you, that makes the violence that the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews to be religiously motivated violence?

Neither is intellectual disconnect.

What are you referring this to?

 

[GeoffP]

I cited from a few actually, had you cared to bothered to read it.

Yes, and all from a single religion. I thought that was a bit one-sided, so I helped out. And you freaked out.

I have cited proof of your obsession of the mosque issue.

Uh oh. See below. Incidentally, how would this support your assertion against me in any way?

Now, cite that I approve of violence against women or retract andn apologise.

Already cited. My assertion is as precisely well-founded as yours. Perhaps you can now see why your - frequent - references to your miscomprehensions are unfair and inaccurate?

The greater majority of women choose to wear it (the hijab) of their own accord, sometimes against the personal wishes of their family members. You are well aware of this.

Actually, this is another misstatement, in that you have cited no support of the above, and I have seen none. Nor, I might lightly add, would that change much for those forced into it. Frankly, with the developments of recent date including the Arab Spring - which I think you cannot be ignorant of - I'd say your assertion is slipping into question here too. This is potentially quite a bad thing.

I reported your post because I found it personally and professionally insulting and was tantamount to defamation. I am sure that James will have read the exchange in full and not just the reported text. I have not discussed this with him or with anyone else, nor in the back room, as I am sure they wil attest if you ask them. My dealings with you on this matter is as a member who feels you are attacking something I hold fundamentally dear and have spent years and years on this forum fighting against, not to mention the better part of my adult life fighting against. So either retract and apologise or cite your sources. Or as a member of this forum and with precedence on the issue of defamation on this forum, I will request that the rules be applied to you fully.

Back at'cha. You know full well my objections to the '9/11 Mosque', and my stipulations on a stance whereby it would have had greater political and moral respectability. Soo - you will retract and apologize or cite your sources. I will, similarly, request that the rules be applied to you fully: and the situation is worse in your case since you started this atrocious nonsense. I mean, you're a moderator.

And as I showed, I provided links to show your level of obsession about all things Muslims on this forum, including your stance on the so called 'Ground Zero Mosque'. At no time did I accuse you of being violent on the issue.

You implicated my opinion as supporting that violence. Your words were quite clear.

I would also say that the vapid hatred and obsession of other religions, to the point where one becomes obsessed about their opening a place of worship, say a Mosque, and the violent messages that comes from those protests is also religiously motivated. Wouldn't you agree GeoffP?

In other words, you tied my opinions to religiously motivated violence; this is the implication of support, and quite a snide one also. Now, there is a way out of this, of course: retract and apologize.

I have always been clear. My issues with the Church is because of their open stance towards paedophilia, abortion and homosexuals. You seem to counter this by saying 'well they are just as bad'. And my response to that is the same.. 'And?'. Does not make the Church's attitude any less vial.

Dear Bells, I'm afraid that you have rather stepped into it here. Since you like to play the 'defamation game' as rigorously as anyone I've ever seen, I'm afraid I now must call you out for, unbelievably, a second instance. Please cite evidence of my equivocation on the allegedly open stance of the Catholic church towards paedophilia. (And exactly how one could call their stance on abortion and homosexuals 'open' escapes me.) Remember, you are now looking for evidence of my equivocation on this issue. I wish you the best of luck.

No, it was not deliberate.

I requested a link and that was what you provided.

No. Go back. You were responding to the wrong point. Let it go, because it's not helping.

Tell me where I have invented personal defamation towards you GeoffP?

See above, in this post, where you admit to it.

The greater majority of your posts on this site concerns Muslims or Islam.

Actually, this is also incorrect. It's not a subtle issue, Bells. The distinction should be obvious.

Believe me, I am taking this very very seriously. More than you can possibly know or understand.

Another insult, despite my polite approach to you.

I have copped a fair spray of abuse from you, just as you have from me. But this.. this has gone beyond what is acceptable to me. You could have called me a plethora of names and I would not have cared.

Dubious, given your reporting. But as you say.

But on this subject, you went too far. I have advised you of that many times now. So please, retract and apologise or cite your evidence.

And the same to you. You have gone too far. Cease demonizing your opponents - constantly - and apologize or retract. It's amazing you keep pretending not to see the parallel here. It's just not tenable.

Tell me, how exactly was that a personal attack on you? How exactly does my saying that the protests against the Mosque (which I again clarified meant the protests at the mosque with the violent hate speech and placards) is somehow connected to you.

Then why snidely drag my name into it, Bells? Stop playing the neophyte. You involved me in that sentiment to make a point. It wasn't supportable, and anyone reading it can see so immediately. Retract or apologize.

You do have a Muslim and Islam problem. Something you have even been banned for from this forum.

A banning which was unfounded, and instigated by someone who does not understand what an "if...then" statement means. Nor are you privy to much of that, frankly.

Or are you going to claim that you do not have a problem with the religion? You don't think saying the religious system is on par with the Nazi's is you not having a problem with the religion?

So religious law and its application is equivalent to that religion, itself? I think you have some research to do.

Actually no, not a lie. The only post you ever made in regards to Breivik was to defend Robert Spencer. Google is our friend.

Not yours, seemingly. Google answers are not sufficient in this case, Bells, because the issue is your own personal biases. You said I had a bug about Muslims. This is an allegation of religious hatred, and an unsupported one. This is defamation, by your own standards, and your response above does not support your contention. You are in grave violation here.

I beg to differ.

Fine. I differ with your differing.

Oh you mean my disagreement with the law because I feel it is forcing women to dress in a certain manner or not dress as they may choose to do so and how that is just as bad as forcing women to wear the hijab? Those comments?

Cite your evidence that I support or approve of violence against women or retract and apologise.

Last chance.

And again, back at you.

Nonetheless, I do feel a certain trepidation at what I suspect is a weakened mental state (IMHO) and I do have a family to protect. I'd like to say that I don't think you'd try anything crazy or immoral, but I don't really believe myself when I say that: your attitudes strike me as definitely litigious. So, for strictly legal purposes: I am so, so sorry I said those mean things about you.

Now, back onto the site-specific issue: I've already notified the higher-ups about your defamation of my character. This is your last chance to apologize before I make a much bigger deal out of it. But hey: maybe they'll just go ahead and back you, because you're a mod. I'd like to think not, but I have no idea.

You don't think the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Balkans was to murder Muslims?

Yes, that was. But you said:

the majority of the wars lately have been to murder Muslims in large numbers more than anything.

This is false. So essentially you're admitting that your opinion on this has been completely invalidated, and yet you're holding to your position. Isn't this a violation of site rules also?

Looking forward to your apology and retraction.

 

[GeoffP]

Violence committed in the name of a spiritual (or religius) philosophy
is not the same as violence motivated by a spiritual (or religius) philosophy.

If you think the two are the same, then please explain.

I have a better idea: explain how they're different, since I don't see it. In what way does commission in the name of differ from motivated by?

And per you, that makes the violence that the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews to be religiously motivated violence?

Very well: it's a bad example.

 

[GeoffP]

How now?

Edit to the above post:

You seem to have a small recollection of your words and obsession towards that particular Mosque at that time. You were obsessed with it.

None of those links provide any support as to this 'obsession' with the '9/11 Mosque'. Cite the actual posts that prove this 'obsession', please. I would expect that this, too, is a defamation issue.

I would strongly suggest you re-read that post Geoff. At no time did I ever say you supported the religious violence or that your messages were violent. Note the words "the violent messages that comes from those protests"... Now unless you were there with a placard spouting hate speech towards Muslims, how exactly can you assume that when I say "the violent messages that comes from those protests" applies to you?

Because you involved me directly in your point, to make a point. Otherwise, why the italicized emphasis? Not really sure how you can pretend otherwise now, given that post:

I would also say that the vapid hatred and obsession of other religions, to the point where one becomes obsessed about their opening a place of worship, say a Mosque, and the violent messages that comes from those protests is also religiously motivated. Wouldn't you agree GeoffP?

So is this now a retraction?

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Just as long as it doesn't involve a rejection of gods since that touches on issues of existence

Of course it doesn't, to reject a thing you must first have knowledge of or a belief in said thing.

If you don't know what the term means in different contexts, how can you say that?

Because belief does not come into the equation, my head is spinning with this going round in circles.

then you have over stepped your original intro to this post by touching on issues of existence

Of course as an individual I can do that, but core atheism has nothing to with it.

Its dead set clear that newborn infants are apolitical ... at least as much as they are atheist

Agreed your point being.

Even some notable atheists agree it is hogwash

Then feel free to posit up some notable atheist who say the all atheist have the same set of beliefs,and are not just connected but the lack of belief in the claims of gods.

As opposed to what?
The dogmatic narrow minded approach?

No!. No approach whatsoever.

Ironically enough sunshine its the philosophical approach that has established events, individuals and justifications for atheism .....

Sorry wrong core atheism just is. It needs no BS to get to that point, you’re already there from the start.

err ... no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

Ok I stand corrected though never heard of it until today, so you could say that implicit atheism is similar to the core position, as it needs no belief, to be in that position. In regard to explicit atheist, I know of no one who is, as atheists simply reject the claims of the theist, that god's exist. Whether god/gods exist cannot be known. Without us humans being able to travel the entire universe and to look under every nook and cranny for said god/gods. So you can't knowingly reject god/gods it would be infantile to do so.

that in no way suggests that there aren't beliefs intrinsic and necessary to explicit atheism

Irrelevant and considering I know of no atheist who are a explicit atheist. it is doubly irrelevant.

If you rate reading a few paragraphs from wiki about belief and atheism as rocket science, I don't think discussing this topic is your forte

Well considering there is no need to read a few paragraphs, because core atheism needs no belief. it would be foolish to discuss belief.

Feel free to indicate those atheists that don't subscribe to a physical ontology ...

Me! I don't know or care whether other atheist act or feel the same, that is there personal prerogative

actually I am just referencing what other people have said about it ... which is certainly more than your effort

But you’re not!

It doesn't appear that you even know what is the difference between implicit and explicit atheism

Well true as I had never heard of it, but I do now and implicit may apply but explicit doesn't appear too.

 

[Bells]

GeoffP

Since it seems you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever that I approve of or support violence against women, this conversation is at an end and it will be up to the administrators and owners of this site to decide where it goes from here. I have provided ample proof of your issues with Islam. Since using your name when asking you a question about something or stating your name in a post made to you is suddenly about you, it would seem you are somewhat clutching at straws. You have even been banned for your attitude towards Muslims and Islam on this site, which you seem to believe that the ban was unfounded. I can assure you, I was privy to what led to that ban.. explicitly privy to it. And I can assure you, your attitude in that regard is well known on this site. I won't retract my statement since the greater majority of it was not even directed at you personally. Since using your name in a thread now appears to be a personal attack upon your character, I think you have lost the plot somewhat and are looking for any way to counter your very serious breach of this site's rules.


I have had you attack me personally as a member and a moderator on this forum, go to ridiculous lengths to have me removed as a moderator, I have seen you first hand make fun of things that happened to me which were quite horrific, I have seen you make comments about my husband and my professional life. I didn't report any of those things. This time you went too far and you know it. Your accusation is unfounded as it is defamatory. It is a very serious accusation as far as I am concerned. And I have made you aware of it. You have yet to provide a single link which supports your accusation. I have requested this many times now, an administrator of this site has also requested it and your response is to file a complaint against me for something that was clearly not a personal attack on you or your character without actually being able to comply to those requests. Them's straws must be clutched I suppose.

Your hatred of Islam is proven by the over 1000 posts you have made about Muslims on this site, none of which was positive. Quite the contrary. As for Islam, over 1300 posts, all of which derogatory in some way. But hey, you apparently don't have a problem with the religion. I bow to you sir and sincerely apologise for daring to assume that your constant posting about said religion in such a negative and derogatory manner means that you do not adore the religion and all that goes with it, even when you called it as "cleverly sculpted shit"... terms of endearment?

As for your comments about the Church... What? Are you saying the Church now openly supports the right to choose and homosexuality? Did I miss the memo? And since when is my saying that the Church's stance on abortion and homosexuality defamatory to you exactly? Are you the Pope? God? The Holy Spirit?

Again, those straws must be clutched I suppose.

And as for this:

And again, back at you.

Nonetheless, I do feel a certain trepidation at what I suspect is a weakened mental state (IMHO) and I do have a family to protect. I'd like to say that I don't think you'd try anything crazy or immoral, but I don't really believe myself when I say that: your attitudes strike me as definitely litigious. So, for strictly legal purposes: I am so, so sorry I said those mean things about you.

Now, back onto the site-specific issue: I've already notified the higher-ups about your defamation of my character. This is your last chance to apologize before I make a much bigger deal out of it. But hey: maybe they'll just go ahead and back you, because you're a mod. I'd like to think not, but I have no idea.

My weakened mental state? This is supposed to be an apology? That is not an apology or a retraction. And your attempt to claim bias from the owners of this site because I am a moderator, really, again, a new low for you. And as for protecting your family.. Really? Can you be more insulting and defamatory against me? What the hell does your family have to do with this? I mean really? You're sinking this low as to suggest that I pose some sort of threat to your family that you need to protect them from me, after suggesting that I am crazy and immoral.. and this is after you accused me of supporting and approving of violence towards women? Really? Can you get much lower?

We're done. Your time and chance just ran out.

 

[GeoffP]

GeoffP

Since it seems you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever that I approve of or support violence against women

Excepting that the evidence I provided of your opinions was in precisely the same proportion as the now-routine accusations you make against me. It's unpleasant, isn't it? Unfair. It's vicious to be judged wrongly.

, this conversation is at an end and it will be up to the administrators and owners of this site to decide where it goes from here.

Good. I encourage this outcome.

I have provided ample proof of your issues with Islam. Since using your name when asking you a question about something or stating your name in a post made to you is suddenly about you, it would seem you are somewhat clutching at straws.

You now pretend that was not directed at me? Please. Can we just stop all that nonsense?

You have even been banned for your attitude towards Muslims and Islam on this site, which you seem to believe that the ban was unfounded.

Classically, sadly wrong. Unless you somehow feel that religious law in application equates to a religion. It doesn't. Canon law, while curious, is similarly a pack of "cleverly sculpted shit". This does not mean that Catholics, or Catholicism, is so constructed. Learn the difference.

I can assure you, I was privy to what led to that ban.. explicitly privy to it. And I can assure you, your attitude in that regard is well known on this site. I won't retract my statement since the greater majority of it was not even directed at you personally.

Ahh - so now part of it was directed at me. Good admission, though accidental. I'll pass on your additional inferences; I've learned from other sources not to credit them too strongly.

I have had you attack me personally as a member and a moderator on this forum, go to ridiculous lengths to have me removed as a moderator

Oh, lord. No. I've told a variety of mods in our long-standing flame-outs that you were not a good mod. This does not correspond to any kind of ridiculous length. I think you are unsuitable. That's it. The supposed personal attacks, as you full well know, are taken by you completely out of context. By writing and responding to you, I apparently offend you.

Your hatred of Islam is proven by the over posts you have made about Muslims on this site, none of which was positive.

This is yet another lie; actually, several. You do not follow the difference, although I suspect many of the mods do. Shall we stick with the demand for apology and retraction? Enough, already.

As for your comments about the Church... What? Are you saying the Church now openly supports the right to choose and homosexuality? Did I miss the memo?

Your error of language again, Bells.

And since when is my saying that the Church's stance on abortion and homosexuality defamatory to you exactly? Are you the Pope? God? The Holy Spirit?

?? Sorry: where again did I make such a connection?

Here's your comment:

My issues with the Church is because of their open stance towards paedophilia, abortion and homosexuals. You seem to counter this by saying 'well they are just as bad'. And my response to that is the same.. 'And?'. Does not make the Church's attitude any less vial.

First, it's vile, and second: none of your response above deals with this apparent "open stance" towards paedophilia. It might well be so, but what I asked for was evidence thereof - of almost any kind would be fine - and didn't get that. This is a violation of SF rules.

Again, those straws must be clutched I suppose.

Yes, it certainly seems they must.

My weakened mental state? This is supposed to be an apology? That is not an apology or a retraction. And your attempt to claim bias from the owners of this site because I am a moderator, really, again, a new low for you.

You have made assertions without evidence and, when evidence was requested, refused to provide it. There are several instances above. And yet you have banned individuals - just did, in fact - for precisely this offense. Can I be more clear? Either you are not aware of this personal hypocrisy, or you simply don't care. I have certainly not implicated the owners; I can only suppose this is being brought up for rhetorical purposes. Still, it's a point not much debated, so far as I can tell, that mods get verbals, and posters get bans. This might be a function of the simple necessity of power management, but I would argue that this integral unbalance in application would be highly unfair in such a strident case as this. Nonetheless, que sera sera. Call my assertion a statement of pessimism, if you like. As for a fuller retraction, it awaits your own. Provide one, and we can have done in fairness.

And as for protecting your family.. Really? Can you be more insulting and defamatory against me? What the hell does your family have to do with this? I mean really?

You're the one hinting at dire consequences, which certainly sounds like litigation to me. You cannot honestly suppose that any outcome on a website could possibly be so dire as the language you employ. However, and very importantly: if you have no such legal intentions, then I sincerely apologize for implying them.

We're done. Your time and chance just ran out.

Very well. Time for the moderation. I go with a clear conscience. Frankly though, I can imagine most of the staff wanting to get as clear of this utterly pointless dust-up as they might avoid a mile-high pile of rotting fish, and no one could blame them. I merely ask that those that do investigate do so fairly.

 

[Bells]

This is the only thing I will address. The rest is in the hands of the administrators of this site..

There are several instances above. And yet you have banned individuals - just did, in fact - for precisely this offense. Can I be more clear?

And can you be more wrong?

Show me where or when exactly, have I banned LeBlanc? Because thus far, I have had you accuse me of several things, all of which are insulting to me personally and professionally and defamatory. Such as:

1) I support and approve of violence towards women.

2) I am crazy and immoral.

3) I pose a threat to your family.

4) I apparently banned LeBlanc for posting a thread and directly quoting from a report, without any citation whatsoever and then claiming that the moon affects the water content in human bodies like it does the tide. Considering how few members (aside from commercial spammers) I have banned from this site, I find your claim that I have banned people for what you deemed "this offense" be laughable at best and down right dishonest.



I will give you a hint GeoffP. I have not banned LeBlanc. What I did was warn him that if he persisted in directly quoting statements from apparent reports without any form of citation or link, and making claims such as the moon affecting the water content in the human body like it affects the tide without any evidence to back it up, then moderator action will be taken against him. Now it seems in GeoffP land, this is a ban? Apparently in your little mind, that public warning is a ban? As you stated "And yet you have banned individuals - just did, in fact - for precisely this offense"... Show me where I have banned people for "precisely this offense"..

Show me where on the ban list is my having banned LeBlanc?


Stop lying GeoffP. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

 

[GeoffP]

And can you be more wrong?

Actually, there's a lot of space left there. Yet, you are indeed correct in this fact: you have indeed not banned him - yet. But you do make the point that he will be banned for failing to support, which is what you've been doing with me. You make unsupported assertions and refuse to provide evidence. Is there much difference between what you're doing and what this LeBlanc fellow - whomever he might be - did?

Because thus far, I have had you accuse me of several things, all of which are insulting to me personally and professionally and defamatory. Such as:

I thought you were only going to address the one thing. Are your unfounded accusations then not insulting to me personally and professionally and defamatory? If not, is it because it's your opinion that they aren't?

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

In that statement, at least, you're quite correct.

 

[wynn]

Violence committed in the name of a spiritual (or religius) philosophy
is not the same as violence motivated by a spiritual (or religius) philosophy.

If you think the two are the same, then please explain.

I have a better idea: explain how they're different, since I don't see it. In what way does commission in the name of differ from motivated by?

If commission in the name of and motivated by would mean the same, then "I killed her because the little grey men told me to do so" would be a reasonable defense in court. But it's not.

One can commit all kinds of actions in the name of anything and everything, but that doesn't mean those actions were in fact motivated by it.

A vigilante US citizen can go and kill some Mexican immigrants, in the name of protecting America or that the US Government instructed him to do so - but that doesn't make it so.


Back to violence that supposedly can be religiously motivated:
For violence to be religiously motivated, it would mean that the person committing the act and those who assess the act as being religiously motivated violence, believe something like -

"God is the Summum Bonum, the Creator, Controller and Maintainer of everyone and everything, and all living beings are His parts and parcels. The highest goal that any human can have is to develop a loving relationship with God. To hurt any individual being, is to hurt God. ... And it is perfectly consistent with this stance to hurt or kill people who don't hold it."

It's absurd.


If you still think that violence can be religiously motivated, do explain how that can be.

 

[spidergoat]

That happens to be your belief system. It's not shared with, for instance, bible-believing Christians who know that stoning and death were the punishments for violating God's laws. Religion is not just abrahamic monotheism, I know that's hard to believe.