Petition for Intellectual Honesty on Apolyton

[Cort Haus]

Banning Ben because of a combination of prejudice and lack of reasoned argument would be an unwise precedent. There would hardly be anyone left one here if the principle was consistently extended. The regular trolling of nationality on here could, by the sensitive, be construed as racism, for example, and there's a lot of that about.

I used to have Ben on Ignore (the only poster who was) until the new environment arrived, and the old ignore lists were cleared. Since when I couldn't be bothered to find the Ignore button, and haven't really felt the need, because I can ignore him manually quite easily.

As I said on another thread (and others have said too) Ben is influencing no-one here. He may be offending people, but if we start banning posters because they have offended people where will it end? Has not the initiator of the petition offended a person or two in his time? Have not many of us offended someone here with our views?

[Krill]

*shrug* If Ben isn't banned then he is going to get flamed alot.

[Q Classic]

He may be offending people, but if we start banning posters because they have offended people where will it end?

Not to nitpick, but isn't that why people generally get banned? I was banned briefly once for making the very sarcastic comment that maybe non-whites just can't handle democracy when debating the Iraq war...

[Cort Haus]

I'm sure a good flaming would have been sufficient for that if you mean't it, Q. If, OTOH, you were being ironic then you may have been unlucky.

Either way, I'm mindful of the absurdly heavy-handed moderator action at CFC last time I looked, that almost seemed to be a parody of itself. I've not bothered even looking at the CFC OT since.

[Dr Strangelove]

Hmmmm??? How many people here throwing stones at Ben actually live in glass houses? I'm thinking of one person in particular, who was instrumental in the foundation of this thread, who in the past has made some rather prejudicial attacks on me. It seems this particular person has a great deal of difficulty avoiding generalizing about people belonging to a particular religion. In the past he's seemed incapable of recognizing that this religion is divided into an a large number of denominations and that the beliefs of some of them regarding gender identity don't necessarily apply to all.

Sometimes people who are right can be tyrants.

[Asher]

Banning Ben because of a combination of prejudice and lack of reasoned argument would be an unwise precedent. There would hardly be anyone left one here if the principle was consistently extended. The regular trolling of nationality on here could, by the sensitive, be construed as racism, for example, and there's a lot of that about.

I find it a bit cute you're still hurt from my tongue-in-cheek jabs at rotten-tooth Britain. This isn't the first time you've brought it up recently.

[Asher]

Hmmmm??? How many people here throwing stones at Ben actually live in glass houses? I'm thinking of one person in particular, who was instrumental in the foundation of this thread, who in the past has made some rather prejudicial attacks on me. It seems this particular person has a great deal of difficulty avoiding generalizing about people belonging to a particular religion. In the past he's seemed incapable of recognizing that this religion is divided into an a large number of denominations and that the beliefs of some of them regarding gender identity don't necessarily apply to all.

Sometimes people who are right can be tyrants.

I see you do not comprehend the concept of intellectual honesty. Jabs will always be thrown on sites like this, but there's a difference between taking jabs at people and slandering them and pretending like you are doing nothing wrong -- for years on end. The most obnoxious thing about Ben is that he still probably believes he does nothing wrong here. This thread isn't about ending jabs (as I've said before, I'd prefer if Ben was honest with himself and others and was open about that rather than acting like a passive aggressive housewife and thinly veiling his hatred for others behind pretty words and smiley faces).

BTW: How can you blame me for generalizing Christians as opposing gay marriage? Even here you played a squirmy little game, you kept talking about how your church marries gays in other states and dodged the question pertaining to your own personal beliefs. Then you got all upset I was being prejudiced against Christians or whatever. It was certainly one of your most bizarre moments on Apolyton.

[Cort Haus]

I find it a bit cute you're still hurt from my tongue-in-cheek jabs at rotten-tooth Britain. This isn't the first time you've brought it up recently.

Oh, that didn't hurt. My teeth hurt more than that.

There has been, though, something of a list of countries and peoples that you've take a pop at. Now, this might be taken as jovial banter, or it might be taken as something less agreeable. If the offendee were to be routinely awarded the decision as to what is acceptable and what is not, then all sorts of views could be getting shut down.

We have here a Christian Fundamentalist whose views are objectionable to many/most of us. Some of us will ignore those views, some of us will argue against them. There are plenty of examples in the world of religious fundamentalists who themselves take offence at anyone who opposes or criticises them. Many think it good and proper that Salman Rushdie should be banned for what they consider to be offensive views. What if Ben started complaining that his religious freedom was being oppressed if restrictions were placed on his ability to spout his bollox?

Ultimately, Ben is not addressing the Nuremburg rallies here. He is addressing himself*, and those few who pay sufficient attention to get wound up by what is basically his trolling.

*And that Norwegian bloke with the fish

[Asher]

Oh, that didn't hurt. My teeth hurt more than that.

There has been, though, something of a list of countries and peoples that you've take a pop at. Now, this might be taken as jovial banter, or it might be taken as something less agreeable. If the offendee were to be routinely awarded the decision as to what is acceptable and what is not, then all sorts of views could be getting shut down.

If people can't figure out tongue-in-cheek comments aimed at nationalities versus comments meant seriously to degrade an entire minority group, then that's their problem. Especially considering my heritage traces back to (mostly) the UK, including my surname, it should be especially obvious.

When I say the people from the UK are befuddled when confronted with toothpaste in a thread intended to play up UK stereotypes, it's a very different thing from saying "gay people can't practice monogamy" in a thread context debating the issue of gay marriage.

PS: I'm not going to say this again. This thread isn't about his retarded, backwards, and insulting viewpoints -- it's about his conduct in how he enters and conducts any and all discussions. It's about intentionally lying with great frequency, it's about citing absurd "facts" he can never substantiate. It's about publicly misrepresenting the viewpoints of others to form strawmen while simultaneously slandering them. All with a toothy smile and warm, welcoming Christian arms.

[Cort Haus]

I had hoped that I'd established that odontocentric quips were of no concern here (btw, I didn't realise that you had a UK surname). More generally, if you insist that your point here is nothing to do with how offensive or insulting a point is, then I'll leave it there.

WRT the example of "gay people can't practice monogamy", I'd certainly agree that this a spectacular piece of bollocks, and one I'd equate with "atheists can have no morality", which is one that has got my back up in the past. I wouldn't call for a ban for that view, though, but if your key point here is lying, use of unsubstantiated facts, misrepresentation and strawmen, then I can see practical difficulties with getting this implemented as moderator policy. It's the kind of thing that gets established in court, rather than as a judgement from someone who doesn't have the time to stage the fact-checking and detail-analysis of a trial.

Don't get me wrong, Asher, I fully understand why you are annoyed at Ben, I just don't think your solution is the right one. Perhaps if you can goad him into a full-on personal attack....

[Theben]

Well I've spoken with Gramps already who had similar observations. I've had quite a few changes in my life in the last while.

Yes, I'm more outspoken about my own opinions, then I have been in the past, and I've also posted more here then I have in quite some time. It used to be I would go out of my way not to stir trouble. I still don't start threads, but I have been attacked considerably more (this thread is the second attack thread in less then a month).

Perhaps you haven't changed per se but your outspokenness has caught more people's attention. That is certainly possible.

As far as I can see people don't agree with me and like to pick fights when I post more often. It's not really that the people I have been friends with for a long time who have changed their opinion, but really the same people, over and over again who have always had issues. I mean Asher and I have never got along, but I don't believe it's because I'm the evil ogre. The banlogs are enough of an argument for me.

You really need to step back and refocus on the whole picture. It's not just Asher who has been attacking you, and several other people have made the same or similar comments as I've made (and Asher's as well).

You and I have had issues from well before last year. I find it rather amusing you are claiming this is a recent phenemenon. I'm not sure why you've changed your opinion on me, but it's not a recent thing, at least from my understanding.

My "issues" with you started and ended with your view towards homosexuals and lasted as long as the thread they were in (along with a few odd political threads). there are plenty of other people who post here who I am usually at odds with but I don't bear ill-will towards anyone here- including you. I'd like to get along with you still but your recent posting style comes across as extremely condescending and I can't condone that.

[DaShi]

My issues with Ben started when he began slandering me.

[Theben]

What'd he say?

[DaShi]

He said that I said something that I didn't say and when it was pointed out that I didn't say that, he kept on saying that I did say it.

[Cort Haus]

Yes, but what did he say you said that you didn't say? :stir: