[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[Docfeelgood]

I propose that DFG be banned from using the lol smilie. Or any other smilie.

I PROPOSE? what? is this a ****ing committee now?

[Docfeelgood]

Then why argue with him? Why not recognize and acknowledge that it's just healthy for him to rant? You think that I don't get tired of Drake, DaShi and Mobius?
Believe me, I do. But...freedom of speech and all that. It's one of the protections over which I served in the military. I might not like it, but they have the right.

[Docfeelgood]

You guys are really a sorry bunch. Celebrating over a person getting banned.

[Tupac Shakur]

You're next.

[giblets]

You guys are really a sorry bunch. Celebrating over a person getting banned.

What is sorry about that? You're sorry if you think Ben's presence was a good thing.

[SlowwHand]

You're next.

I was here first.

[Tupac Shakur]

I was here first.

Is this an accidental admission that DFG is a Sloww DL? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that turned out to be the case, but it's probably the same old illiteracy we've come to expect from Sloww.

[Docfeelgood]

Is this an accidental admission that DFG is a Sloww DL? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that turned out to be the case, but it's probably the same old illiteracy we've come to expect from Sloww.

Go play with your toys.

[Docfeelgood]

What is sorry about that? You're sorry if you think Ben's presence was a good thing.

Ban him just because people don't agree with what he thinks?
That is not right.

[giblets]

He was banned for threats of physical violence.

[MikeH]

I was here first.

You've never done anything vaguely banworthy that I can remember.

[MikeH]

Ban him just because people don't agree with what he thinks?
That is not right.

That wouldn't be right. Lucky that isn't what happened.

[notyoueither]

Ban him just because people don't agree with what he thinks?
That is not right.

When a large part of what he thinks is an assault on a group of people who have no choce about it, then yeah that would be banworthy on it's own.

The fact is that he issued threats and then admitted that he was trolling with said threats.

I'd ban his ass for the eternity that he has in his future.

[Jon Miller]

The problem with Ben and this forum with respect to homosexuality was/is not what he thinks, but how he expresses it.

Thinking that homosexuality is a sin/etc is not banworthy/etc on this forum. It is even less an assault on homosexuals, than those who think that theists are misguided/irrational/stupid/etc is an assault on theists.

What is not OK on this forum is attacking homosexuals (or other groups) repeatedly. If you think something, and can't express it without attacking a group, then don't express it.

JM
(Well, the problem with the forum moderators and I do recognize that Ben's thoughts are not even just 'traditional' Christian thoughts but special.)

[MikeH]

Thinking that homosexuality is a sin/etc is not banworthy/etc on this forum. It is even less an assault on homosexuals, than those who think that theists are misguided/irrational/stupid/etc is an assault on theists.

Well. We disagree then.

I think calling someone stupid when you disagree with their beliefs whether it be religion or economic theory or whether archery is accurate at long range is not really very bad at all, saying that someone is somehow 'wrong'/'worse' because of some genetic issue they have no control over whether it be sexuality, disability, gender or race is extremely bad and certainly much worse than the first example.

What is not OK on this forum is attacking homosexuals (or other groups) repeatedly. If you think something, and can't express it without attacking a group, then don't express it.

Not just repeatedly attacking that group, but attacking that group in virtually every thread that came up, whether it was about that originally or not.