Michele Bachmann Creepy Michele Bachmann prayer at anti-gay Christian ministry.

[sailingaway]

Being a senior moderator, are you implying that we are not to disagree with “deep convictions” on this forum, or just not to “make fun” of the convictions? If only the latter, please define “make fun”. Just so you know, lots of people have very deep convictions about lots of things, many of which are quite insane and are disagreed with – and made fun of – quite often on this forum. So I can’t imagine that being a deep conviction is a legitimate reason (or forum expectation/rule) to withhold opposition.

Or are you just implying it for Christian religious beliefs only? Your previous emboldened line, as it stands alone, is a perfect example of item number one on my list of the most common excuses why people claim religious beliefs should not be confronted: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?303565-The-separation-of-religious-message-and-person

No of course I'm not speaking of Christian beliefs only. People were making fun of gays on another thread and I responded essentially the same way. Tolerance does not mean making fun of people for being different than you are.

As Ron Paul said in some speech or other "Liberty means you come to the table exactly the way you are, so long as you aren't hurting anyone else."

Making fun of people can hurt. Attacks at some level pass a line, and I was merely giving a reminder of that.

 

[Dianne]

Well, I heard it; and she creeps me out !!! I think she is a nut case, and should never come close to winning the primary.

I've said this over and over on this forum. I was a democratic and a staunch one at that, before I found Dr. Paul.... so yes I do hang out at democratic sites. Don't exclude me, don't pretend there is a problem with me because I'm a democrat.

Both democrats and republicans need a doctor..... and fast !!!!!

 

[TheDrakeMan]

Some of you people reaaaallly hate Bachmann.

 

[idirtify]

No of course I'm not speaking of Christian beliefs only. People were making fun of gays on another thread and I responded essentially the same way. Tolerance does not mean making fun of people for being different than you are.

As Ron Paul said in some speech or other "Liberty means you come to the table exactly the way you are, so long as you aren't hurting anyone else."

Making fun of people can hurt. Attacks at some level pass a line, and I was merely giving a reminder of that.

Although it looks like you are now confusing the issue and blurring the line between making fun of beliefs and making fun of people (the former is only a humorous disagreement, where the latter is a personal insult), I’m sure it’s because my question was not clear enough. Let’s try again.

“Being a senior moderator, are you implying that we are not to disagree with 'deep convictions' on this forum, or just not to 'make fun' of deep convictions?”

Translation: “Are you differentiating between making fun of and disagreeing with a message?”

Elaboration: It seems you were saying that if you make fun of someone’s deep convictions that it’s the same as insulting their person. I would disagree.

Basically: I’m just trying to figure out exactly what you are warning against.

 

[sailingaway]

You can disagree with anything, making fun can easily pass the line into attacks, which are not ok. The more important a belief is to someone, the more 'a humorous disagreement' to you is making fun of the person who believes in it. If you say it is like something really stupid, you are saying that person is stupid to believe that, no matter how humorous you may find it. And beyond it not being ok to attack people as idiots for their beliefs, imho it isn't good outreach to others who are religious who come here to learn Ron's views, which in fact are religious, just not overbearing on others.

 

[BUSHLIED]

Come on sailing, you think that poster wants people to vote for dr. paul? lol

when it comes to this issue, one must speak the truth, the FED and the CHURCH are one and the same, institutions of corruption. One promotes a false money and the other a false god...

 

[idirtify]

You can disagree with anything, making fun can easily pass the line into attacks, which are not ok. The more important a belief is to someone, the more 'a humorous disagreement' to you is making fun of the person who believes in it. If you say it is like something really stupid, you are saying that person is stupid to believe that, no matter how humorous you may find it. And beyond it not being ok to attack people as idiots for their beliefs, imho it isn't good outreach to others who are religious who come here to learn Ron's views, which in fact are religious, just not overbearing on others.

Thanks for clarifying a lot better. I think you are talking about the act of taking common pejoratives that are typically used in personal attacks such as “stupid” & “idiot” and applying them to the message only. I too dislike when that happens (to MY claim, of course), but there’s really not much to be done about it because it’s not technically directed at the person. And the act isn’t discouraged in any other area. I mean this forum is chocked full of members doing that in other areas of belief. For example, people who have deep convictions in things like socialism & militarism & theocracy & Keynes economics & ad infinitum are constantly having their sacred beliefs called these pejorative names (made fun of). That’s because the critics see these kinds of things as hugely fallacious. So it’s going to continue to be a problem until you decide on universal enforcement (enforce the rule in all areas, or not at all). IOW you’ll continue to have problems appearing to put religion on a special pedestal to place it above reproach; since so many religious beliefs are so obviously fallacious, and since religion has been so notoriously in cahoots with politics throughout history.

So, is this special protection for the area of religion an official forum rule? If so, it would be a new one; and it would be good to clarify absolutely.

 

[sailingaway]

Thanks for clarifying a lot better. I think you are talking about the act of taking common pejoratives that are typically used in personal attacks such as “stupid” & “idiot” and applying them to the message only. I too dislike when that happens (to MY claim, of course), but there’s really not much to be done about it because it’s not technically directed at the person. And the act isn’t discouraged in any other area. I mean this forum is chocked full of members doing that in other areas of belief. For example, people who have deep convictions in things like socialism & militarism & theocracy & Keynes economics & ad infinitum are constantly having their sacred beliefs called these pejorative names (made fun of). That’s because the critics see these kinds of things as hugely fallacious. So it’s going to continue to be a problem until you decide on universal enforcement (enforce the rule in all areas, or not at all). IOW you’ll continue to have problems appearing to put religion on a special pedestal to place it above reproach; since so many religious beliefs are so obviously fallacious, and since religion has been so notoriously in cahoots with politics throughout history.

So, is this special protection for the area of religion an official forum rule? If so, it would be a new one; and it would be good to clarify absolutely.

No, saying somebody's belief is stupid by likening it to idiotic hypothetical beliefs no one anywhere believes in would be a borderline attack in any forum, as I see it. A one off likely wouldn't draw more from me. Worse, I'd delete. It escalates from there.

 

[sailingaway]

Thanks for clarifying a lot better. I think you are talking about the act of taking common pejoratives that are typically used in personal attacks such as “stupid” & “idiot” and applying them to the message only. I too dislike when that happens (to MY claim, of course), but there’s really not much to be done about it because it’s not technically directed at the person. And the act isn’t discouraged in any other area. I mean this forum is chocked full of members doing that in other areas of belief. For example, people who have deep convictions in things like socialism & militarism & theocracy & Keynes economics & ad infinitum are constantly having their sacred beliefs called these pejorative names (made fun of). That’s because the critics see these kinds of things as hugely fallacious. So it’s going to continue to be a problem until you decide on universal enforcement (enforce the rule in all areas, or not at all). IOW you’ll continue to have problems appearing to put religion on a special pedestal to place it above reproach; since so many religious beliefs are so obviously fallacious, and since religion has been so notoriously in cahoots with politics throughout history.

So, is this special protection for the area of religion an official forum rule? If so, it would be a new one; and it would be good to clarify absolutely.

No, saying some forum member's belief is stupid by likening it to idiotic hypothetical beliefs no one anywhere believes in would be a borderline attack in any forum, for any belief, as I see it. A one off likely wouldn't draw more from me, unless others picked it up and it became an attack-fest. Worse, I'd delete. It escalates from there.

I have a suspicion you are really not confused about my objections here, to be honest.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, I heard it; and she creeps me out !!! I think she is a nut case, and should never come close to winning the primary.

I've said this over and over on this forum. I was a democratic and a staunch one at that, before I found Dr. Paul.... so yes I do hang out at democratic sites. Don't exclude me, don't pretend there is a problem with me because I'm a democrat.

Both democrats and republicans need a doctor..... and fast !!!!!

Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But I don't see what this has to do with you being a democrat. A full 79% of American Christians believe in the 2nd coming of Christ.

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=774

Many of those Christians are democrats. A huge number of them are republicans. All I heard in that prayer was someone earnestly wanting young people to be ready for that 2nd coming. I assume you aren't ready to write of 79% of Christians? If you are then you can forget the GOP nomination. If you're not, then what's creepy about someone who believes in Christ's return wanting young people (and everybody for that matter) to be ready for it? There's a lot not to like about Bachmmann. If she had worked in there a "And God help us to stand by Israel through whom you will work your mighty end time miracles" then I would be creeped out. But her prayer in this particular instance is about as mainstream of Christianity as you can get. Really from your thread title I thought there would be something in the prayer about gays. There wasn't. And the so called "anti gay ministry" she was praying for doesn't seem focused on gays either.

 

[Mary Microgram]

He who protesteth loudest...

 

[idirtify]

No, saying some forum member's belief is stupid by likening it to idiotic hypothetical beliefs no one anywhere believes in would be a borderline attack in any forum, for any belief, as I see it. A one off likely wouldn't draw more from me, unless others picked it up and it became an attack-fest. Worse, I'd delete. It escalates from there.

I have a suspicion you are really not confused about my objections here, to be honest.

Your honest suspicion is absolutely incorrect. I was honestly confused about your objectives. And I still may be…because now that you have clarified better, the enforcement would seem to be entirely partial. Sorry to be such a pain, but I must be clear on what a senior moderator is warning against. So let me take your current wording and reiterate my question: If I say a forum member's belief in socialism “is stupid by likening it to idiotic hypothetical beliefs”, would you consider it a “a borderline attack” on the person?