Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by georgegassaway, Jun 8, 2019.
I remember really enjoying Cryptonomicon, although that was many years ago.
A fine distinction, but not too fine I suppose, since we are discussing anti-fact demagoguery. I should have written "religious persons" rather than "religions". I am just some internet bloviator, and only a casual student of comparative religion (I am a fan of Mircea Eliade). I will not even pretend to know if any religious doctrine is explicit (or consistent) in saying that one must believe in order to be moral.
My fav Neal Stephenson is still "In the beginning was...the command line."
This thread has been an interesting read so far and remarkably civil, and somewhat informative.
What book? :-D
And there's some of the irony. In a forum that is supposed to not allow religious posts I often see people posting their religious views, praising god, asking for prayers, etc. I also see people who express alternate viewpoints either be moderated or, like this post, told not to even post their views.
Maybe the guidelines should be changed to state that religious posts are acceptable but anything opposing them are not. It would be more clear. Same with politics I think, one side here seems to be okay up until the other side posts and then the posts are moderated.
Jqavins believes it's acceptable for someone to tell us all that they're confident that god exists and their belief is non-negotiable, as though that somehow makes it more likely to be true, but doesn't believe it's acceptable for me to question that way of thinking. Jqavins is okay telling me what not to post but praises the religious post. Interesting.
I never priased the religious post, and indeed I think it flirted with the line as well. What should be over the line, IMO, is arguments, which rarely avoid becoming heated. Your post seemed to me to already have a slightly heated tone, or at least be on a heading toward one. Thus my advice not to proceed on that heading.
I just had a post blocked by a mod (or a mod bot?) where I was trying to carefully avoid crossing the line. I guess I failed. I'm not perfect.
Personally, I think people should be able to post freely, as long as it is not a direct, personal attack, aimed at a specific person.
Being so worried about "offending" someone or being "triggered" and "having a meltdown" if someone "hurts your feelings" is pure BS.
The real world doesn't "cut you any slack" and the "PC Police" need to step aside and only enforce the rules, as they pertain to profanity, personal attacks, and posting pornography.
We don't need "Nannies" or "Censors" to tell us what we can and can't talk about, unless it involves the use of profanity, personal attacks, or posting pornography.
If someone wants to ask for prayer or talk about their religious beliefs, or their non-belief, so be it. If someone wants to address a political issue, be "civil" but, so be it. If someone want's to talk about "moral issues", be civil but, so be it. If someone want to talk about Illegal Immigration, Islamic Terrorism, etc, be civil but, so be it . . . A "pattern" is emerging here !
It's like watching TV . . . If you don't like the show, change the channel.
This should be all about the "character" of the poster, not the "content" of the post !
Do you ever overdose on sneer quotes?
I merely post my thoughts, Steve.
Separate names with a comma.