PDA

View Full Version : The hate Rant



DoktorSick
November 30th, 2006, 04:24 AM
Some people think hate is bad but hate is not bad but it's how
you use it.And who you use it on and most important is your hate
real and is it true hate.NOt the conspiricies style that false hate they
use to superate and divide and to cause nontroversy.
You see real hate the hate that bob talks is hate for the pinks.
It's hate against the "normal people"that are taking your slack and selling you
false slack.
You see I'm proud to say I hate people not everyone but I don hate a few people.I feel good in saying I would be happy to see bad things happen to them.But we have been brainwashed in this society go around saying he we love everyone and we love the person but we hate what they do and all that other nonsense.Oh yeah don't forget to turn the other cheek so that one can get slapped as well.

Kallisty
November 30th, 2006, 03:49 PM
Some people think hate is bad but hate is not bad but it's how
you use it.And who you use it on and most important is your hate
real and is it true hate.NOt the conspiricies style that false hate they
use to superate and divide and to cause nontroversy.
You see real hate the hate that bob talks is hate for the pinks.
It's hate against the "normal people"that are taking your slack and selling you
false slack.
You see I'm proud to say I hate people not everyone but I don hate a few people.I feel good in saying I would be happy to see bad things happen to them.But we have been brainwashed in this society go around saying he we love everyone and we love the person but we hate what they do and all that other nonsense.Oh yeah don't forget to turn the other cheek so that one can get slapped as well.

And thus we have one of the joyous doctrinal splits between Discordians and Subgenii. The funniest thing was when I went to a Devival a couple years ago at Trinoc-con in North Carolina. The lady there was going on and on about the virtues of giving your $30 out, and I just kinda muttered "Hail Eris".

Yep, distant cousins - family to be sure, but put them in the same room too long and they will go after each other. Never mind that Connie and Eris are shopping two aisles down from the Big Brawl.

Kall

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 10:15 AM
Do you see? Do you see?

This, right here, is an advocation for hate, degradation, and a holier-than-thou disrespect for anyone who is not "in the know".

Don't be fooled about the false division of "subgenii" and "discordain". Same players in different masks, is all.

You can see it it this post: Theirs is a religion of hate, not love.

If you give these people an inch, they will assault you for a mile.

Sabriel MoonStar
December 1st, 2006, 10:22 AM
Many religious people grapple with this issue. It is part of the human condition and hate is something we've all had to wrestle with at some time.

Could this not possibly be the OP grappling with his own feelings concerning hate? I don't see how this is an official Discordian or Subgenii procolamtion. I don't think anything on a message board can be considered the party line.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 10:32 AM
Personally, I see no grappling, I see declarations that he wants bad things to happen to people who are not the same as he (i.e. "the pinks").

And Kallisty aside, I see tacit agreement in every discordian/subgenii who have not spoken up against a post such as this.

Fiamma
December 1st, 2006, 10:43 AM
Personally, I see no grappling, I see declarations that he wants bad things to happen to people who are not the same as he (i.e. "the pinks").

And Kallisty aside, I see tacit agreement in every discordian/subgenii who have not spoken up against a post such as this.

its only been there since three in the morning, I suspect that not many people have even seen it at this point. I would also speculate that at least a few who have have decided to not give it the attention that it seems to be seeking. which both you and I have done.

Also, this person isn't claiming to be speaking for everyone, seems to be pretty proud of it being his personal stance. Being that that's so obvious, I wouldn't be too worried.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 11:01 AM
This, my friends, is where open tolerance and moral relativity gets you: The placid acceptance of hate-filled rants.

Insert the common epithet for African-Americans in DoctorSick's rant, and you'll see to what I am referring.

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 11:05 AM
Ah yes, "Hate the sin but not the sinner", as the Christians say. Which just doesn't go far enough - it doesn't explain why one is good and the other is bad.

Hatred has value when it makes us look more closely at the situation and decide whether the target is actually deserving of such a strong reaction.

Hatred has value when it makes us think about what we can do to make changes - in ourselves and in the situation, for we cannot change others.



Graud:
Um... what"placid acceptance" is that? In the three other responses to this thread I have not seen that particular response. Are we reading the same thing here?

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 11:35 AM
Kallisty referred to it as a "joyous split".
Sabriel acted as an apologist.
Fiamma implied that it was not important.


In addition, the post had existed for almost 16 hours before I commented on it. Silence implies consent. No other poster here called DoctorSick to account regarding his hate-filled words.


Shall I be the only one who stands up against hate speech?

Zibblsnrt
December 1st, 2006, 11:49 AM
You can see it it this post: Theirs is a religion of hate, not love.

If you give these people an inch, they will assault you for a mile.


3. Racism, sexism, age discrimination, the outright bashing of a path or religion, etc is unacceptable. Debating the tenets of a religion is one thing...calling all Christians evil or saying that all Pagans are going to hell is not allowed. Proselytizing is not allowed in any form. No conversion or 'witnessing' is allowed. We are not here to spread our various religions. We are here to be friends, love and respect each other, and most importantly...learn. Tolerance is key. All religions and Paths are welcome here providing their tenets do not violate any laws or our rules. Calling someones religion "false", no matter how wrong or silly it may seem to you is not allowed.

Like it or not, Discordianism falls under that umbrella as much as Wicca or Roman Catholicism would on this site.

If you're here to "prove" that a given religion is wrong or evil, you are here for the wrong reason.

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 11:50 AM
Kallisty referred to it as a "joyous split".
Sabriel acted as an apologist.
Fiamma implied that it was not important.


In addition, the post had existed for almost 16 hours before I commented on it. Silence implies consent. No other poster here called DoctorSick to account regarding his hate-filled words.


Shall I be the only one who stands up against hate speech?

I'd say we have different perspecitves on the original post as well as the responses. "Hate speech" implies that the words are directed at a particular person or group, and that was not the case in DoktorSick's post. He seemed to be inviting discussion about the topic of hate and some of the "spin" he thinks may have influenced people. And he got a few responses from people who seemed to understand the point of his post as I see it.

I don't know what time it was where you are when this thread was posted, but it was 2:24 AM in this part of the U.S. and there generally aren't a lot of people in here at that time of the morning to read and respond. I think a lot of people here may be leery of getting involved in any threads about the Discordian path because of the dust-up we had here a few months ago - not to mention hesitating to respond to such a belligerent post as yours have been.

~ just saying

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 11:53 AM
Apologies to Zibblesnrt.

What would you suggest, then, as the appropriate action when one disagrees with the tenets and concepts of a person or a particular path? It would appear that I am forbidden to challenge neither the person nor the path.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 11:59 AM
Lunacie,

If you notice, DoctorSick refers to hating and wishing bad things upon the "pinks".

The pinks, in subgenii terms, are basically anybody who is not one of them. That, to the best of my knowlege is not just a group of people, but a [/i]large[/i] group of people.

Also, 16 hours is more than half a day. That would mean that the post, in your time zone, was un-commented on (save for Kallisty) between 2:30 am and 6:30 PM. That is to say, an entire day, for the most part.

Tzhebee
December 1st, 2006, 12:37 PM
If you notice, DoctorSick refers to hating and wishing bad things upon the "pinks".
Um, actually DS refers to bob talking hate for the pinks. He further says that his hate is for people, but not everyone. I've bolded his exact words to make it easy for you to see your error.

Therefore he is implying general hate to "people" not one specific group or person and is therefore (in my mind) not breaking any rules.

If you're going to instigate a person at least do it properly.


Some people think hate is bad but hate is not bad but it's how
you use it.And who you use it on and most important is your hate
real and is it true hate.NOt the conspiricies style that false hate they
use to superate and divide and to cause nontroversy.
You see real hate the hate that bob talks is hate for the pinks.
It's hate against the "normal people"that are taking your slack and selling you
false slack.
You see I'm proud to say I hate people not everyone but I don hate a few people.I feel good in saying I would be happy to see bad things happen to them.But we have been brainwashed in this society go around saying he we love everyone and we love the person but we hate what they do and all that other nonsense.Oh yeah don't forget to turn the other cheek so that one can get slapped as well.
(bolded text is for emphasis purposes only)

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 12:40 PM
Lunacie,

If you notice, DoctorSick refers to hating and wishing bad things upon the "pinks".

The pinks, in subgenii terms, are basically anybody who is not one of them. That, to the best of my knowlege is not just a group of people, but a [/i]large[/i] group of people.

Also, 16 hours is more than half a day. That would mean that the post, in your time zone, was un-commented on (save for Kallisty) between 2:30 am and 6:30 PM. That is to say, an entire day, for the most part.

And during that particular part of the day - those 4 hours which are hardly an entire day the way I recon day and night - most people in my part of the world were sleeping, and the few who weren't sleeping were probably working. I think it's ridiculous that you feel we're slacking off because we didn't wake ourselves up in the middle of the night and come and dispute this post - whether we agree or disagree with it - simply because you have an issue with Discordianism.

And as far as Discordianism being a religion of hate rather than love - I don't believe there have been any such criteria posted in the FAQ here saying that only those who practice or preach love can post here. And as far as Discordians being "given an inch and assaulting us for a mile", we have several Admins who are not afraid to ban anyone who is found guilty of "assault" according to the FAQ. Vigilantism is not necessary here.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 12:45 PM
I was going to repost that quote, only replacing the words "Jews" and "hasidic people" in the relevant lines.


But then I realized that it could be taken out of context, and I could be banned for that. So I leave it as an exercise for the concerned reader.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 12:47 PM
Lunacie... when do you wake up?

Myself, I wake up around 8:00 or 9:00 am.

let's see... that's still about nine hours. I'm not sure from where you're getting four hours.

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 12:52 PM
Apologies to Zibblesnrt.

What would you suggest, then, as the appropriate action when one disagrees with the tenets and concepts of a person or a particular path? It would appear that I am forbidden to challenge neither the person nor the path.

When one "disagrees with the tenets and concepts of a person or a particular path", you can use the Ignore function or not go into the Discordian threads at all.

If by "challenge" you mean to ask honest open questions, then do just that. If by "challenge" you mean to "prove wrong", then that's against the respect rule and you aren't allowed.

Pretty cut and dry.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 12:57 PM
What happens if I ask honest open questions, and it turns out that they are wrong and I am right?

Also, Lunacie implied that MysticWicks would be open and welcoming to an anti-Semitic religion. Is this true?

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 01:01 PM
Lunacie,

Also, 16 hours is more than half a day. That would mean that the post, in your time zone, was un-commented on (save for Kallisty) between 2:30 am and 6:30 PM. That is to say, an entire day, for the most part.


Lunacie... when do you wake up?

Myself, I wake up around 8:00 or 9:00 am.

let's see... that's still about nine hours. I'm not sure from where you're getting four hours.

I thought you wrote "between 2:30 am and 6:30 am". http://mysticwicks.com/images/icons/icon11.gif I didn't see this thread until this morning so I thought it had been posted at 2:30 am today. I posted my first response at 9 am (my time).

I actually get up at 7 am and walk my granddaughter to the school bus stop at 8 am. Today when I got home I needed to clear the snow from my vehicle, my porch and steps and ramp, and with my knee bothering me I wasn't moving really fast. So it was about 8:30 when I came inside. I fixed breakfast for the other grandchild and myself, and then settled down here at the computer. Most days, MysticWicks is NOT the first thing I check when I log on to the internet - I check MSN front page for world news, I check my local news especially for weather reports, and sometimes I actually check my email before visiting any discussion forums.

Again, sorry for not being Johnny-on-the-spot to respond to something that plainly bothers you more than it does anyone else here.

Not.

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 01:02 PM
What happens if I ask honest open questions, and it turns out that they are wrong and I am right?

Also, Lunacie implied that MysticWicks would be open and welcoming to an anti-Semitic religion. Is this true?

Well, to the first question, I highly doubt anything you'd say would really make somebody give up their faith. As long as the questions aren't insulting, give it a try and see how that works out for you. Generally, few people on this board like to be told their faith/religion are "wrong", so again I doubt you are gonna get a lot of smilies with that but again, good luck with that.

For the second question, we have a lot of people here are anti-something. You can be anti-anything here as long as you use tact and respect. Would a lot of folks share your views insofar as anti-semetisism go? Doubtful, but hey, whatever works for ya.

The whole thing boils down to respect. Everybody here is allowed to think whatever they want, as long as it's not blatantly disrespectfull to someone else.

Fiamma
December 1st, 2006, 01:02 PM
Lunacie,

If you notice, DoctorSick refers to hating and wishing bad things upon the "pinks".

The pinks, in subgenii terms, are basically anybody who is not one of them. That, to the best of my knowlege is not just a group of people, but a [/i]large[/i] group of people.

Also, 16 hours is more than half a day. That would mean that the post, in your time zone, was un-commented on (save for Kallisty) between 2:30 am and 6:30 PM. That is to say, an entire day, for the most part.


I don't know about other folks, but I only really look at the discordian threads when one shows up as the most recent thread under "paths" and catches my attention, they usually don't interest me much. this one didn't show up as such on my view til this morning...I never would have seen it at all if it didn't.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 01:13 PM
Again, sorry for not being Johnny-on-the-spot to respond to something that plainly bothers you more than it does anyone else here.

Not.




I find your use of sarcasm offensive.

I also noticed that although you admitted a mistake on your part, you did not apologize in regards to your calling the timeframe issue "ridiculous".

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 01:16 PM
I find your use of sarcasm offensive.

I also noticed that although you admitted a mistake on your part, you did not apologize in regards to your calling the timeframe issue "ridiculous".

It's interesting that you find sarcasm "offensive", yet you seem completely oblivious to the fact that "proving" someone's faith "wrong" can be offensive.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 01:21 PM
I feel I am being misrepresented.

I used the word "challenge".

You offered two definitions in this case: "asking open and honest questions" and "proving wrong". I chose the former.

You are clearly using the other definition, the one I did not use, to characterize my position.

Please do not do this in the future.

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 01:23 PM
I find your use of sarcasm offensive.

I also noticed that although you admitted a mistake on your part, you did not apologize in regards to your calling the timeframe issue "ridiculous".

Hmm, I guess it's true that I seem to have a problem with apologizing to belligerent people.

Perhaps if you apologized for berating us for not jumping down DoktorSick's throat the moment he posted this thread, I'd consider apologizing for calling your impatience "ridiculous".

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 01:28 PM
Again, I appear to be misrepresented.

I said there was a 16 hour window in which to address the issue.

Please do not thrust your misrepresentations upon me. Thank you.

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 01:35 PM
Again, I appear to be misrepresented.

I said there was a 16 hour window in which to address the issue.

Please do not thrust your misrepresentations upon me. Thank you.

Ok, so there was a "16 hour window". So what? Maybe during that "16 hour window" people had lives and weren't online. Maybe they were online and didn't feel the need to respond. Who cares? Why is this coming down to timelines?

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 01:37 PM
Since Fiamma brought it up as an issue as to why the original post should be dismissed out of hand.

Sabriel MoonStar
December 1st, 2006, 01:41 PM
I don't see how pointing out the obvious can be seen as being an apologist.

Are you trying to say that if I said something that may be a little left field that you would take that as Wiccan law and start a crusade against all Wiccans? I don't think that you would. Just as my opinion and occasoinal rants should not be taken as the "official Wiccan stance", DoktorSick's opinion and rants should not be taken as such either. People can and do have opinions that have nothing to do with what thier religion preaches.

And really, if you insert "Jew" instead of Discordian or Subgenii into any of your posts they don't come up smelling like roses either. If you truely don't agree with Discordians then why don't you just wander to another part of the board and chat with people you actually may like?

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 01:55 PM
What happens if I ask honest open questions, and it turns out that they are wrong and I am right?

Also, Lunacie implied that MysticWicks would be open and welcoming to an anti-Semitic religion. Is this true?

My words appear to have been misrepresented.
Please do not thrust your misrepresentations upon me. Thank you.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 02:00 PM
Apologies.

What sort of non-love-based religions were you referring to, if I may ask?

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 02:06 PM
Apologies.

What sort of non-love-based religions were you referring to, if I may ask?

Please quote here, as I can't find the post you are referring to from her.

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 02:08 PM
Do you see? Do you see?

You can see it it this post: Theirs is a religion of hate, not love.






And as far as Discordianism being a religion of hate rather than love - I don't believe there have been any such criteria posted in the FAQ here saying that only those who practice or preach love can post here.




Also, Lunacie implied that MysticWicks would be open and welcoming to an anti-Semitic religion. Is this true?


Apologies.

What sort of non-love-based religions were you referring to, if I may ask?


Where did I refer to any "non-love-based religions"? :huh:

The point I was making is that one doesn't have to be a member of a "love-based-religion" in order to be a member and post here on MysticWicks.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 02:15 PM
"I don't believe there have been any such criteria posted in the FAQ here saying that only those who practice or preach love can post here."


This implies that those who do not practice or preach love can post here.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 02:18 PM
"I don't believe there have been any such criteria posted in the FAQ here saying that only those who practice or preach love can post here."


This implies that those who do not practice or preach love can post here.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Well, I know you are probably talking to Lunacie at this point, but I already told you that anybody can post here. It's how and what you post that decides if you are allowed to remain.

This thread is turning into a really really bad after-school special.

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 02:23 PM
Well, I know you are probably talking to Lunacie at this point, but I already told you that anybody can post here. It's how and what you post that decides if you are allowed to remain.

This thread is turning into a really really bad after-school special.

Yep, exactly right. Even Anti-Semites can post here ~ as long as they are not insulting or bashing the Jewish faith (or ANY faith). Questions and challenges are certainly allowed as long as they are done respectfully of the fact that we don't all share the same beliefs or opinions. Of course, such questions and challenges may well be met by counter-questions and -challenges rather than instanteous agreement.

LacyRoze
December 1st, 2006, 02:28 PM
Taken from " Please Read Before Posting in Paths"......

"These threads are not for debate. We have a theology forum. These threads are to provide information and share information. I suggest if you are questioning another Path's principles then you do it in a more proper environment, such as the theology forum. We will not tolerate any abuse of any religion nor will we let this forum turn into a flame fest of people disagreeing with principles."

Maybe this will help clear up any misunderstanding..

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 02:28 PM
Yep, exactly right. Even Anti-Semites can post here ~ as long as they are not insulting or bashing the Jewish faith (or ANY faith). Questions and challenges are certainly allowed as long as they are done respectfully of the fact that we don't all share the same beliefs or opinions. Of course, such questions and challenges may well be met by counter-questions and -challenges rather than instanteous agreement.

I thought the OP was simply stating his personal views on hatred in a very general manner so I didn't take it personally. I also don't think he's all that alone in his thought process either. Shoot, would I like to admit that I hate somebody? Not really, though truthfully there are a few folks I wouldn't mind seeing under the full weight of a bus. Do I like that I feel that way? No, but there it is.

Just in case the horse isn't dead enough (despite all the beatings), it's not what ya say, it's how ya say it.

You and I agree on this one, Lunacie (and nice to see you again, BTW!).

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 02:32 PM
This is understood.


I suppose the reason I feel to be under attack, by non-discordians even, is that my original post was aggressive.

Allow me to rephrase:

DoctorSick, Why do you find it necessary and proper, or even ethical, to hate (and to advocate violence against) those who do not ascribe to the same philosophy as yours, no matter how dubious said philosophy may be?

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 02:37 PM
This is understood.


I suppose the reason I feel to be under attack, by non-discordians even, is that my original post was aggressive.

Allow me to rephrase:

DoctorSick, Why do you find it necessary and proper, or even ethical, to hate (and to advocate violence against) those who do not ascribe to the same philosophy as yours, no matter how dubious said philosophy may be?

This type of phrasing is why you are feeling "under attack". See, you started out asking a normal question while sliding in a jab regarding his faith.

That generally ticks folks off, and again, is against the rules of respect. You can't go around calling somebody's religion "dubious".

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 02:37 PM
Nice try at phrasing it better, but like Deb points out, you're still referring to the Discordian path as "dubious philosophy". Although we haven't a lot of DoktorSick recently... it may be awhile before he returns and sees this. Given your earlier impatience, I thought I'd just let you know.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 02:45 PM
So, the word "may" has no value?

Xirian
December 1st, 2006, 02:46 PM
At this time in my life, I don't feel that I hate anyone, but I certainly have in the past, some to the point of not wanting them to be on this earth anymore.

With that said, I think that emotions, any emotion of an individual person for whatever act has been done, is something that everyone experiences. Hatred is not excluded. It is a human emotion and one should be able to find an outlet for it. I personally feel that is what the OP was trying to state. That he doesn't regret the fact that he allows himself to express his emotion of hatred towards individual people. I think it is when we bottle up our emotions or suppress them that we are doing a real disservice to ourselves and our psyches.

Just my opinion of course, but the more we suppress the more strong that emotion will be later on (in many circumstances), and many times is directed at an unsuspecting person who is undeserving of that particular emotion from us.

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 02:47 PM
So, the word "may" has no value?


What are you talking about?

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 02:52 PM
I "may" be wrong, but it seems to me that you "may" hate Discordianism yourself, eh?

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 02:55 PM
What are you talking about?


With all due respect, it is a word I used in the sentence you bolded.

You must have seen it, you bolded it.

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 02:56 PM
I "may" be wrong, but it seems to me that you "may" hate Discordianism yourself, eh?

I think he hates that he's not allowed to "prove" them wrong.

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 02:56 PM
From the FAQ:


3. Racism, sexism, age discrimination, the outright bashing of a path or religion, etc is unacceptable. Debating the tenets of a religion is one thing...calling all Christians evil or saying that all Pagans are going to hell is not allowed. Proselytizing is not allowed in any form. No conversion or 'witnessing' is allowed. We are not here to spread our various religions. We are here to be friends, love and respect each other, and most importantly...learn. Tolerance is key. All religions and Paths are welcome here providing their tenets do not violate any laws or our rules. Calling someones religion "false", no matter how wrong or silly it may seem to you is not allowed.


(Underlining added by me.) Calling someone's path "dubious philosophy" is not allowed. I'm pretty sure your use of the word "may" to qualify your disdain isn't enough to nullify it.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 02:57 PM
I "may" be wrong, but it seems to me that you "may" hate Discordianism yourself, eh?


I will admit, I am offended by Discordianism. At the risk of creating a disrespectful post, I shall not say any further.

However, I will not go so far as to say I "hate" it, or them.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 03:03 PM
I think he hates that he's not allowed to "prove" them wrong.


Please, it is posts like this that adds to the confusion and instability on these boards.

I have already addressed this false attribution. Please do not perpetuate it. It is akin to spreading lies about me.

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 03:05 PM
Please, it is posts like this that adds to the confusion and instability on these boards.

I have already addressed this false attribution. Please do not perpetuate it. It is akin to spreading lies about me.

Instability on the boards? I'm confused.....

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 03:05 PM
From the FAQ:


(Underlining added by me.) Calling someone's path "dubious philosophy" is not allowed. I'm pretty sure your use of the word "may" to qualify your disdain isn't enough to nullify it.



Question: Does this rule apply in the "Theology" forum, as well?


Additional question: Could I get a clarification from an admin about the use of the word "may"?

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 03:15 PM
Instability on the boards? I'm confused.....


Quite simply, when an erroneous statement, since corrected, is them perpetuated in a seemingly snarky comment, it draws the conversation away from the topic at hand, and the erroneous comment must be corrected again. However, by that time, it starts to appear that the person correcting the error is "protesting too much", and then the entire conversation devolves into s/he said s/he said.

This leads to bad blood, disrespect, and as such the board suffers.

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 03:20 PM
Question: Does this rule apply in the "Theology" forum, as well?

The respect rule applies on every thread



Additional question: Could I get a clarification from an admin about the use of the word "may"?

Just pm an admin--they can't read every post in every thread.

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 03:21 PM
Question: Does this rule apply in the "Theology" forum, as well?


Additional question: Could I get a clarification from an admin about the use of the word "may"?

All you have to do is look at the bottom of each post to find the little "report" button. Click that and add a short message asking for admin input or clarification. Or send a PM (PrivateMessage) to any of the Admins asking your questions.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 03:25 PM
The respect rule applies on every thread




Just pm an admin--they can't read every post in every thread.



Just curious: How does one debate different religions and philosophies (which is what I'm told the Theology forum is for) if you are not allowed to point out possible fallicies and errors in thinking (which would be disrespectful)?

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 03:29 PM
Just curious: How does one debate different religions and philosophies (which is what I'm told the Theology forum is for) if you are not allowed to point out possible fallicies and errors in thinking (which would be disrespectful)?

I will grant that it's a fine line, but coming out and calling someone's philosophy "dubious" is (IMO) crossing that line.

You seem to pretty well educated, so I'd think diplomacy isn't that far a stretch. If you see something "in error", then ask the person in question something along the lines of "well, how do you explain....." or "then how does this not conflict with........" instead of just blurting out they are "wrong".

You can debate anything you want, as long as you don't attach a negative label onto it (i.e. "stupid" "wrong" "ridiculous" etc).

ETA: You have already stated before that you feel it's your "duty" to let folks know they are "wrong". That right there will set a tone, and probably put people on the defensive whenever you post anything. As I've said before, few folks on this board will appreciate your sense of "duty" when it comes to their faiths and beliefs.

HetHert
December 1st, 2006, 03:32 PM
What happens if I ask honest open questions, and it turns out that they are wrong and I am right?


You get a cookie. _cookie_

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 03:34 PM
Understood.

I may have to set some time out to explore that forum in depth.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 03:35 PM
You get a cookie. _cookie_


And what shall I do with this cookie?

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 03:36 PM
And what shall I do with this cookie?

Got Milk?

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 03:40 PM
Ironic, isn't it?

The "hate rant" became such the Kumbayah moment.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 03:40 PM
How does any of this relate to the topic at hand?

HetHert
December 1st, 2006, 03:41 PM
And what shall I do with this cookie?

You will count the crumbs until you reach enlightenment.

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 03:41 PM
How does any of this relate to the topic at hand?

Timelines aside, I believe it was because you wanted to effectively debate this particular OP's idealogy w/out being disrespectful.

HetHert
December 1st, 2006, 03:41 PM
How does any of this relate to the topic at hand?

It doesn't, why do you ask obvious questions?

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 03:45 PM
Personally, I don't know much about discordians or subgenii or any of that stuff (although Vincent said if you don't get it then you really do, so maybe I do...........).

Anyway, I still don't think the OP was advocating any type of violence against anybody in particular (I'm not sure about the "pinks" reference, but it could mean a whole bunch of stuff, depending on your thought process), he was as the title read just "ranting".

Fair enough.

I think he is simply throwing out there that he doesn't always feel this big urge to hug folks and sometimes, frankly, he hates their guts. Fair enough again.

It was a rant. He said it, now it's kinda over.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 03:50 PM
It doesn't, why do you ask obvious questions?


I just needed to know if this constituted a threadjack.

Which, I believe, is against the rules.

Lunacie
December 1st, 2006, 03:58 PM
I just needed to know if this constituted a threadjack.

Which, I believe, is against the rules.

Actually, I don't remember seeing any rules about that here at MW.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 04:04 PM
You appear to be right. How could they have missed such an important rule?

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 04:07 PM
You appear to be right. How could they have missed such an important rule?

If you are that concerned about hijacking, then stop doing it.

If you want to discuss the topic (now that you've got an idea of the respect rule), then go ahead.

Rev. Incognito
December 1st, 2006, 04:11 PM
Personally, I don't know much about discordians or subgenii or any of that stuff (although Vincent said if you don't get it then you really do, so maybe I do...........).

Anyway, I still don't think the OP was advocating any type of violence against anybody in particular (I'm not sure about the "pinks" reference, but it could mean a whole bunch of stuff, depending on your thought process), he was as the title read just "ranting".

Fair enough.

I think he is simply throwing out there that he doesn't always feel this big urge to hug folks and sometimes, frankly, he hates their guts. Fair enough again.

It was a rant. He said it, now it's kinda over.

I quite often hate people's guts. But, I feel okay with that. Though a good thwack to the side of the head of a "pink" might not be such a bad thing.

Graud
December 1st, 2006, 04:12 PM
I have.

DoctorSick is obviously not around to reply.


That being the case, I shall withdraw.

debnmike
December 1st, 2006, 04:15 PM
I have.

DoctorSick is obviously not around to reply.


That being the case, I shall withdraw.

He may not be on for a while--he drops in and out, from what I understand. Be that the case why don't you debate with someone else here? There seem to be a lot of people reading this thread.

Tzhebee
December 1st, 2006, 04:57 PM
DoctorSick, Why do you find it necessary and proper, or even ethical, to hate (and to advocate violence against) those who do not ascribe to the same philosophy as yours, no matter how dubious said philosophy may be?
Coming from someone appears to get upset when people make assumptions about them and misinterpret your words you seem to be doing that quite a bit yourself; which by definition makes you a hypocrite.

Allow me to explain. Again, bold in the quotes are my emphasis.

You claim, by use of your question that at some point in time DS said he hated or advocated violence to people who do not hold the same philosophy as he does. When in fact the ONLY thing he ACTUALLY said was that he hates people. period. Allow me to once again bold that sentance for you:


Some people think hate is bad but hate is not bad but it's how
you use it.And who you use it on and most important is your hate
real and is it true hate.NOt the conspiricies style that false hate they
use to superate and divide and to cause nontroversy.
You see real hate the hate that bob talks is hate for the pinks.
It's hate against the "normal people"that are taking your slack and selling you
false slack.
You see I'm proud to say I hate people not everyone but I don hate a few people.I feel good in saying I would be happy to see bad things happen to them.But we have been brainwashed in this society go around saying he we love everyone and we love the person but we hate what they do and all that other nonsense.Oh yeah don't forget to turn the other cheek so that one can get slapped as well.

At NO point in time does he claim that HE hates people who do not follow his philosophy that is quite plainly an assumption that you have made.

Phoenix Blue
December 1st, 2006, 07:00 PM
Coming from someone appears to get upset when people make assumptions about them and misinterpret your words you seem to be doing that quite a bit yourself; which by definition makes you a hypocrite.
ADMIN MODE

• Debate the post, don't attack the poster.

On that note, I'm seeing (feeling?) a lot more heat than light in this thread. Doesn't seem much to be gained by letting it stay open.

Thread closed.