PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
How about an "Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Going To Hell DIR"?
I got a better one. The DIR DIR, when one DIR in the name and the limits on disagreement, just isn't enough.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How about an "Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Going To Hell DIR"?
As to the poll questions, you offer ...
Not an easy task. But as a suggestion:I'm curious how you would re-word it?
What about saying "a certain user said so and so", "there was a user who said x"?. b) Never talk behind other peoples back
Make use of the "@" function when talking about other users. [Description on how to]
Good question. You could use that when the message is important and the source is not, especially when you can't find the source. It's somewhat like "A wise man once said". Generally you should always give credit when using quotes but that's for academic writing in general and doesn't need to be included in the forum rules.What about saying "a certain user said so and so", "there was a user who said x"?
Where is the line to be drawn?Let's consider insults which target groups instead of individuals.
Rule 1 doesn't apply, but I argue that it should because this too
causes hostilities. We see frequent use of the terms "boot lickers",
"whining", "retarded", "trolling", "libtard" etc.
We also see posters criticizing mischievous hypothetical responses
eg, "Inb4 the usual suspects come here MAGA". This is a pre-emptive
attack on any who might disagree. Should they get away with it
simply no individual is named?
Certainly, this raises hackles, & interferes with civil discussion.
I don't remember that thread well at all.Where is the line to be drawn?
The Has Greta studied this? thread is nothing more than an attack on Greta.
I am not presenting an argument.I don't remember that thread well at all.
But a personal attack on someone not a member would be different.
I imagine that there should be a limit on abusing even non-members.
That would require some thought.
Members should be protected more though.
I didn't think you were arguing.I am not presenting an argument.
I am merely wondering where the line should be drawn.
I see a need to treat members with greater respect.And I agree that attacking someone who is not a member is different.
Mainly because they are not able to defend themselves.
And I only used that particular thread because I had just looked in on it right before that particular post of mine.
I have to wonder how much of the disrespect transfers.I didn't think you were arguing.
It was an interesting question.
I see a need to treat members with greater respect.
Insulting outsiders has far less deleterious of an effect on civil discourse here.
But of course, too much hatred for outsiders can also adversely affect things here.
Limits on outsiders....I don't know how to define what would be appropriate.
Regarding figures that posters like, eg, politicians, religious figures,I have to wonder how much of the disrespect transfers.
I mean, if we are allowed to say whatever we want about nonmembers how much of that spills over onto members?
don't get me wrong, I am not saying that members should not be allowed to voice their opinions about celebrities, politicians, etc.Regarding figures that posters like, eg, politicians, religious figures,
it does create some animosity. There is an ad hoc rule against
posting drawings of the Prophet Muhammed with a bomb on his head.
I know.don't get me wrong, I am not saying that members should not be allowed to voice their opinions about celebrities, politicians, etc.
It would be difficult.I just can not help but wonder where the line should be drawn.
Though I suspect that there should be more than one line.
with loop holes and previsions and quid pro quos....
Accusations of it on a discussion forum are more so.Gaslighting is devious.