Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

One of the main reason people have a beef with religion is because religion has, through it's history, generally not allowed discussion or critiques to be made that could in any way harm the reputation of the sect. In short, the authorities tried to control thought.

By reacting to that post the way he did, Frazz wasn't acting, in the view of most people, as an offended person of faith. He acted like a person that was trying to control though. He was, for lack of a better, the religious authority that all free thinkers fear.

As for "attacking your faith," can you be more emo? Wow, jerks on the internet like to mock religion. I'll call ripleys!

This is a board about little toy soldiers. If you want to attack religion how about posting on boards about religion?

Otherwise it violates Dakka rule #1: Be polite. Guess what, you have to be polite about religions, or inversely the lack thereof, as well here. its a simple concept. Don't attack religions. Don't attack atheists. Don't attack people based on race, or sex, or nationality. If you don't like those strictures, mayhaps you should restrict yourself to speaking about toy soldiers.

Frazzled wrote:This is a board about little toy soldiers. If you want to attack religion how about posting on boards about religion?

Otherwise it violates Dakka rule #1: Be polite. Guess what, you have to be polite about religions, or inversely the lack thereof, as well here. its a simple concept. Don't attack religions. Don't attack atheists. Don't attack people based on race, or sex, or nationality. If you don't like those strictures, mayhaps you should restrict yourself to speaking about toy soldiers.

Alright, I'm off to talkorigins.net to start a flame war about the fifth edition 40K rules.

Well there's a thread attacking Islam and Frazzled, you don't seem to mind statements like "The swiss see Islam as a threat. They are right." Perhaps you view this as factually correct and not an attack a religion?

Frazzled wrote:This is a board about little toy soldiers. If you want to attack religion how about posting on boards about religion?

Otherwise it violates Dakka rule #1: Be polite. Guess what, you have to be polite about religions, or inversely the lack thereof, as well here. its a simple concept. Don't attack religions. Don't attack atheists. Don't attack people based on race, or sex, or nationality. If you don't like those strictures, mayhaps you should restrict yourself to speaking about toy soldiers.

I think that there is a certain level of snippiness that goes along with all discussions. You could shut down every thread for simply being impolite. A certain amount of thick skin doesn't hurt a person.

olympia wrote:Well there's a thread attacking Islam and Frazzled, you don't seem to mind statements like "The swiss see Islam as a threat. They are right." Perhaps you view this as factually correct and not an attack a religion?

My apologies I was off on a tangent on that thread about German boy scouts, scotch, Cuban cigars, and whether or not Hitler would have tried to conquer France had he been a cake lover. I'll look at.

Agreed with Polonius, also worth noting that such behavior really only comes from a particular mod and the tone/attitude he conveys is often times on the same level as the one he has beef with.

Also in the forum community I've noticed there are an interesting amount of double standards. Say anything remotely negative about Christianity and its going to be locked until a poster asks another mod to open it. Also the comments made about religion particularly in this thread are incredibly mild compared to conduct seen in threads where Obama bashing and other politically related discussion takes place. Also whenever scientology is brought up its quickly ridiculed and arguably another double standard despite it being an established religion in the USA. EDIT[b]: Things said about GW and its staff is also on a whole other level than all this combined.

Another problem is that whenever a thread based around science comes up, a religious person will mention god even though such action is nearly troll-baiting by nature in that context. Notably generalgrog did this in his first post of the "Life Beyond Earth" thread even though posters including a religious one stated "lets not bring god into this" to avoid the topic being potentially trolled.

I've had a post basically deleted that said children need education in a world where they can be molested by figureheads such as priests and school teachers; and since then 2 or so threads have popped on the very subject.

Cane wrote:Another problem is that whenever a thread based around science comes up, a religious person will mention god even though such action is nearly troll-baiting by nature in that context. Notably generalgrog did this in his first post of the "Life Beyond Earth" thread even though posters including a religious one stated "lets not bring god into this" to avoid the topic being potentially trolled.

Oh yeah I forgot the mere mention of God was offensive.

I'm sorry if I tried to expand the conversation, to allow people to look at the topic in a different light.

GG

In that context it can be perceived as such and users before and after your post interpreted it as possible troll baiting into degenerating another thread entirely. I did not comment on that in the thread either.

You win. Everyone blast away. I'll not mod this stuff anymore. Go for it. Do what you want. But remember everything in life has consequences.

Frazzled wrote:You win. Everyone blast away. I'll not mod this stuff anymore. Go for it. Do what you want. But remember everything in life has consequences.

This is a credible decision and I salute you for it. I'm sure other mods will be able to ensure rule #1 is applied.

Or close the OT.

No, what would be best if there were clear-cut guidelines on conduct. The stuff said about Obama, politics in general, GW, GW staff, religion etc all have different standards it seems and further complicated when biases are revealed by mods.

Frazzled wrote:You win. Everyone blast away. I'll not mod this stuff anymore. Go for it. Do what you want. But remember everything in life has consequences.

With all due respect, it is possible that some of the difficulties you have modding the OT is due more to your own personality, biases, and attitude than the posters being jerks.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You win. Everyone blast away. I'll not mod this stuff anymore. Go for it. Do what you want. But remember everything in life has consequences.

With all due respect, it is possible that some of the difficulties you have modding the OT is due more to your own personality, biases, and attitude than the posters being jerks.

You said jerks, not I. I'd happily blast away at the rest of you on this topic.

You are making a bigger deal out of it than anyone on that thread did. If you recall it didn't spiral out of control.

GG

edit:got ninjad many times( was directed at Cane)

I'll take it to PM's.

The only guideline we need is to be polite. Bashing God, obama, heck hello kitty is ok, so long as there is a valid point pretaining to the topic
example: (Gawd aint here man, he aint monitoring the posts and he dont go in for the direct reply to any post against his hairy arse. if he aint here yellin, the buck toothed megalomanic is fair game) . ok borderline but still not attacking anyone specificaly well no one thats ever been seen except by Moses.
Bashing each other though because of our belifes or the side we take is a big no no. i cant Bash you Cane for what you belive to be true, i can only disagree and thru dispute attemp to sway you to another way of thinking as rare a long shot as that is.
Example:
(ya like thats ever gonna happen, Cane will be caught in a helloo kitty porn first). clearly not being polite.

I dont think standards can come into it. every topic has a level of intesity, and people bring there own acceptable limit as well.
Its up to the mods to see that it doent get out of hand, i see nothing wrong with warnings. heck weve been issued what? 3 ? let the Mods do the job and concider why they give the warnings in the first place. with no restraints this topic in perticular will have people suspended in no time. and can and will create hard feelings in the long run. Oh and Mods are people too, they make mistakes just like all of us. so cut some slack and dont attack

back on topic

Wrexasaur wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I will also say that I believe that sexual abuse is a dark part of the human soul that is not isolated to religious organizations.

The majority of abuse comes from within families, hence the 'pervo uncle' concept/meme. This in itself really sheds what some would consider to be light on the situation. I am of the frame of mind that this should be dealt with on an even block, not a skewed representation of what some would like to present.

There has been a 'horrendous' amount of coverage over this whole issue because of it's association with a relatively prominent authority figure. The main issue with all of this, is the steps that seemed to have been taken by the Vatican; to cover their own ass (to put it bluntly).

It is completely true that the majority of cases occur with a family member or a close family friend, but the catholic church scandals are seen as far worse as for the most part there is only 2 people covering up the crime in a family setting, the pedo and the victim (unwillingly), while in the church setting there were multiple people covering up the crime, people who aided and abetted the pedos (moving them to other areas) and hid evidence from investigators. i feel it is not horrendous to show such coverage because only under a bright light like this that the rotten, corrupt parts of the organisation can be removed, allowing a positive move forward for the catholic church (this covers any large, powerful and corrupt in parts organisation)

What would be everyones thoughts on screening priests when they move to a new area? i know the states has a open policy in some states regarding suspected sex offenders, and public warnings hae been given out. what do you all think about a list of suspected pedo priests?
That way just like non priests, the comunity knows there is a danger, and the more strongly willed can get out the clippers.

Hawkins wrote:What would be everyones thoughts on screening priests when they move to a new area? i know the states has a open policy in some states regarding suspected sex offenders, and public warnings hae been given out. what do you all think about a list of suspected pedo priests?
That way just like non priests, the comunity knows there is a danger, and the more strongly willed can get out the clippers.

If you are talking government sponsored....
A list of suspected? NO
A list of proven? Absolutely.

If your talking grassroots then suspected would be fine. I would be surprised if something like this isn't allready out there. Although I suppose a site like that could be open to slander suits, if the situation hasn't gone beyond allegations.

GG

ok i see where suspected is the wrong word. Proven then.

The UK already screens everyone who has more than a passing contact with other people's children. You even have to be screened if you take your child to a weekend sports club and regularly give a lift to friend's child. I would assume it also applies to priests.

It remains to be seen whether this will have any effect on paedophilia. As has been pointed out above, the great majority of paedophilia cases happen within the family, who aren't screened.

The problem with the screening process as regards the Irish situation is that the Church and State seem to have colluded to shield the errant priests from exposure and punishment. In this situation, a screening programme obviously would be no use.

Exactly. There needs to be political reform, serious political reform as much as Church reform. I feel the Irish authorities get too little of the heat in this, possibly because the Church is a nicer punching bag that people know more about. Down with Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael!
*froths incoherantly*

Frazzled wrote:To be clear, I am speaking for my diocese. the safety rules/training/etc. applies to everyone who interacts with children or youth. Not everyone has the background tests, but the procedures themselves apply to everyone.

My home diocese, the Diocese of Texas, is just as strict with its look into volunteers. But that is because my home church has an Episcopal school attached to the church. I don't recall if the priests themselves had a background check, but I think it is a likely possibility.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Frazzled wrote:To be clear, I am speaking for my diocese. the safety rules/training/etc. applies to everyone who interacts with children or youth. Not everyone has the background tests, but the procedures themselves apply to everyone.

My home diocese, the Diocese of Texas, is just as strict with its look into volunteers. But that is because my home church has an Episcopal school attached to the church. I don't recall if the priests themselves had a background check, but I think it is a likely possibility.

Oh my I think we're talking the same diocese rules then. I'd bet the ministers are checked as well as a condition of employ.

Seb i followed your advice mate, i asked the Discovey Institute if they think Marneus Calgar should be allowed an extra attack for having matched weapons and they emailed me back saying that they had no idea about the real science behind power weapons but they were definately the result of an intelligent designer.

And it begins

I thought it had maintained some civility. But then he did that....Not only did he just totally bash people's faith, but he also called out another poster in a true naming-of-names. -2 for him....

hey if you can't beat em join em, but of course the emails came out that it was a total fraud anyway so who cares? none of this impacts the essential essence of CAKE.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:I thought it had maintained some civility. But then he did that....Not only did he just totally bash people's faith, but he also called out another poster in a true naming-of-names. -2 for him....

Wait? what?