Did Jesus ever have unintentional boners and wet drems etc., or were his genitals pretty much non-functional?

[ZEE]

I simply don't see what the problem is here, or with this site. The [civil] tag is a good idea if not misused, like it was in this thrade.

[MrFun]

I would be fine with a return to "discuss the post, not the poster" rule. Still, that would not go far enough in the case of obvious lying and bigotry and repeated and repeated and repeated posting of the same lies and bigotry.

That alone would return the OT to the somewhat civil environment that made it our home. I always enjoyed that the OT always walked the gray line there, but effective moderation kept the line from being crossed.

Some posters cross it daily now and the place is no where near as enjoyable. The topics of the threads have even gone downhill as poster after poster has chosen the loinburger option of just giving up and jumping ship.

I think that a healthy OT forum where issues are hotly debated, but jerks are moderated is an important part of being able to attract On-topic posters as well. If I came to this site and looked through the OT, I would not start posting here today. The only reason I stay is because of a good number of people who can coherently present opposing views from different parts of the world. I think the wild west OT has probably discouraged many more from staying.

I agree

[loinburger]

Yep, just like others feel personally attacked when someone says that homosexuals are deviants/etc.

JM

I know I said that I'd stay out of all of this until it was resolved, but, whatever.

1. I don't think that talking about Jesus's boners and poops is analogous to saying that homosexuals are deviant. Saying that Christians are deviant is analogous to saying that homosexuals are deviant. I am neither a Christian nor a homosexual and so I think that I'm objective on this issue, but maybe I'm not, whatever.
2. More importantly, I don't think that this is a matter of "nobody should ever post anything remotely offensive to anybody else." That would make for a really awful forum - even my thread on computer security would get locked because a Mac or Linux enthusiast would object to my Windows-centricity. Instead, this is a matter of: if somebody says "these posts offend me, please don't make more of them," then either the offending poster will comply or else we can have an adult discussion about whether the posts are really all that offensive; currently Kidicious or some other douchebag can just say "it's my right to offend people and so I'm going to offend people" and that's the end of it. So in this case, if somebody was legitimately offended (or could feign offense to) my talking about Jesus's boners and poops then they could raise an objection and I could either comply or have an adult discussion with them about the topic of Jesus's boners and poops; currently I could just say "suck it" and continue to post about Jesus's boners and poops without any regard for anybody else.

[MrFun]

Exactly. Just as if someone wanted to make a thread that was derogatory toward veterans, they should be able to do so - no one has the right to be free from being offended.

[Proteus_MST]

I agree ...
unless there is a total ban on religious topics (both pro and contra) it wouldn´t be a good idea to interfere with critical or satirical threads/postings towards religions. It would be hard to draw a boundary ... some people might already get offended when one pointed out bogus examples of science in the bible ... or (in case of muslims) if one talked critical about the underaged bride of Muhammed.

Different case of course when someone posted directly insulting postings towards followers of certain religions (like "all christians are idiots" or "all muslims are barbarians")

[Kidlicious]

I know I said that I'd stay out of all of this until it was resolved, but, whatever.

1. I don't think that talking about Jesus's boners and poops is analogous to saying that homosexuals are deviant. Saying that Christians are deviant is analogous to saying that homosexuals are deviant. I am neither a Christian nor a homosexual and so I think that I'm objective on this issue, but maybe I'm not, whatever.
2. More importantly, I don't think that this is a matter of "nobody should ever post anything remotely offensive to anybody else." That would make for a really awful forum - even my thread on computer security would get locked because a Mac or Linux enthusiast would object to my Windows-centricity. Instead, this is a matter of: if somebody says "these posts offend me, please don't make more of them," then either the offending poster will comply or else we can have an adult discussion about whether the posts are really all that offensive; currently Kidicious or some other douchebag can just say "it's my right to offend people and so I'm going to offend people" and that's the end of it. So in this case, if somebody was legitimately offended (or could feign offense to) my talking about Jesus's boners and poops then they could raise an objection and I could either comply or have an adult discussion with them about the topic of Jesus's boners and poops; currently I could just say "suck it" and continue to post about Jesus's boners and poops without any regard for anybody else.

What?

[Kidlicious]

I think an important point is being missed here. This thread is a failure. No one was offended, and no one pretended to be offended. That's not stopping people from continuing to be ridiculous.

[loinburger]

This thread is a failure. No one was offended, and no one pretended to be offended.

Do you believe that the only successful threads are offensive ones, or are you doing a really poor job at explaining yourself again?

[Kidlicious]

Do you believe that the only successful threads are offensive ones, or are you doing a really poor job at explaining yourself again?

They should be offensive. Or what good are they?

[The Mad Monk]

Well that seemed pretty clear.

[giblets]

Kidicious has basically admitted to being a troll.

[Kidlicious]

Kidicious has basically admitted to being a troll.

A troll is a post that is ONLY intended to offend people. Learn what words mean.

[rah]

Anyone that read the thread title and didn't assume it was a troll/parody depending on your point of view, really should not be visiting forums on the internet.

I even thought the tag was funny. But I gotta agree that it's part of the parody and really can't be defended. So fair game.

just my opinion,

[Kidlicious]

Anyone that read the thread title and didn't assume it was a troll/parody depending on your point of view, really should not be visiting forums on the internet.

I even thought the tag was funny. But I gotta agree that it's part of the parody and really can't be defended. So fair game.

just my opinion,

Oh I thought it was funny, but I just wasn't offended. That said, Aeson is right not to allow the tag. I hope the tag rule works actually.

[rah]

I would expect almost every thread starter expects that protection. You shouldn't have to ask for it.