Only when there are no witnesses.Do trolls get a free pass across their own bridges?
When there are such witnesses, it is for them, lest they become enables / accomplices / you name it.
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!
Only when there are no witnesses.Do trolls get a free pass across their own bridges?
I trolled you so.Only when there are no witnesses.
They there are, it is for the witnesses to pay, lest they become enables / accomplices / you name it.
The safest way to avoid 'trolls' of this variety is to post in DIRs where 'trolls' can't go.
But when someone makes a post in the debate forums, and then goes about spreading misinformation about another religion, what are you to expect but some actual debate and discussion? Yes, it's far more comfortable to have nobody oppose your views.
Care to elaborate on that bit about being a non-naturalist?
This post triggered me in a way that isn't good for me. I mean, let's say a few people are trolls. It happens. But at what point do we draw the line on what is and isn't a troll? What if a person is being themselves and does have some complex behavior, but is being honest?
Anyways, I'll try not to let the opening comments get to me. This could be a good discussion. This forum has been very nice and tolerant of me, I want to say staff included (no sarcasm intended), but I have said things that can be taken the wrong way on the forum. I once outlined how I had these experiences on ghosts and even a form of astral projection or something throughout my life, but these days, I take my post as evidence that I used to believe in superstition. If anyone ever comes across said post, it will show them the progress I've made.
No pressure though, right?
I've made a ton of mistakes in my life. Most of them more than once...
I am here to learn about all different kind's of pov's in the spirit of illumination.
I expect to be chastised and corrected..
I have anti Christian, Islam, and Judaism views. However I have Christian friends. I don't hate on them, just the religion itself.
I am not a troll. And I don't gaslight.
I'm not against naturalism but I oppose that to. I find it fascinating. Yet I don't need any conversion demands and censorship of my non naturalist leanings.
The safest way to avoid 'trolls' of this variety is to post in DIRs where 'trolls' can't go. But when someone makes a post in the debate forums, and then goes about spreading misinformation about another religion, what are you to expect but some actual debate and discussion? Yes, it's far more comfortable to have nobody oppose your views.
All true enough but what I wrote was that the troll posts in order to stir up discord, rather than to express ideas in good faith.Some Christians would say division (discord) is good (Luke 12:51-53).
Forums thrive on (good, healthy) division, that's what drives conversations. It's boring if everyone agrees! An over-moderated forum that knocks down dissenting opinion as "trolling" will decline. I've learned a lot from people who came into a discussion with a paradigm-shattering idea that left some scrambling but everyone energized.
Note I said good, healthy division. There's definitely bad, unhealthy division out there too.
Maybe the people posting those comments don't consider them negative and don't feel the answers offered so far are reasonable. Maybe they consider the same repeated answers being offered over and over, despite them being followed up and queried, the actual "trolling". Maybe the problem is one-sided flawed perceptions rather than anything real.What I am seeing is the repeated postings of negitive comments, that have previously on many occasions been given a fair an reasonable answer.
I take it that you see the dychotomy as justified and necessary, then?I have come to understand what naturalism means much, much better then I did before I came to RF.
I watched the movie Master & Commander and there was a close friendship between the religious captain, and the naturalist doctor. I thought that was great.
I have seen people that really desire to rip up people's differing convictions on both sides of the coin. Vehement opposers who want to banish the other side from humanity if they don't conform.
But as long as nature keeps making humans you will always have religion and naturalism. Might as well agree to disagree, and move on forward.
The attempt to eradicate either side is neverending futility.
People regardless will make up their own minds in a free society.
I personally don't want to eradicate evolution science. But I am also fine with ID people having their own separate scientific pursuit.
I really just want a free society where different convictions are not censored.
Maybe the people posting those comments don't consider them negative and don't feel the answers offered so far are reasonable. Maybe they consider the same repeated answers being offered over and over, despite them being followed up and queried, the actual "trolling". Maybe the problem is one-sided flawed perceptions rather than anything real.
This thing about repetitive posting touches on a point about trolling that I forgot to mention in my initial attempt at defining it. In addition to the ones looking for a fight, or trying to start a fight that they can enjoy watching, there are people with a one-track agenda who try to divert all discussions onto it, regardless of relevance. I would see this too as a form of trolling, showing as it does a basic lack of respect for other participants.That could be so. That would be a choice one would have to consider.
Regards Tony
You have used an example that is good. Many posters that though that Krishna was the founder of a Faith called Hinduism, now because of what you posted, know better and apart from an unintentional slip, would never use that thought again. We have you to thank for that.
And herein lies the challenges. Firstly, as far as I know it wasn't many, but just Baha'i and perhaps some readers who only read the Baha'i stuff. Nearly everyone else knows Krishna isn't the founder of Hinduism.
Secondly, it's not an unintentional slip, but rather what Bahai's believe. If it were an unintentional slip, it wouldn't happen with such frequency. It was pointed out about 3 days back, apologised for, but then repeated the very next day. What can I say?
Not here to debate you on what you believe, but rather to offer the Hindu story line about Hinduism.
Yes, that was the original reason I entered the foray. For Vaishnavites, Krishna is God, period. The founder thing, they invented later. If you speak to the more liberal Baha'i here, they admit that Baha'ullah said very little at all about dharmic faiths, as he came out of the totally Abrahamic (Islam, specifically) paradigm. That's a far more logical approach, in my view ... to say nothing, or very little. The challenge for Baha'i is that they have the doctrine of progressive revelation within their founder's teachings. Most religions don't have comments about other religions right within their own teachings. There is nothing about Hinduism within the Christian bible for instance. So therefore, there is no such challenge.It just doesn't make sense for Baha'is to call Krishna a manifestation of God when Hinduism has lots of gods, does it?