Please disallow polical and religious discussion.

[dizekat]

hows about smoth just grows some own discipline and stops reading and participating in religious discussions himself first before asking for those discussions to be disallowed for everyone.

That is btw all what is wrong about religion. Religious people - not all, but some - act like smoth just did. They make this sort of requests, totally unreasonable requests with no real argument and rationale - and when they are a majority and in agreement with each other, you end up in a theocratic state.

[knorke]

too easy.
so, what should subforum be named?

[dizekat]

Discuss anything that doesn't make smoth uncomfortable.

[SinbadEV]

REDACTED

[dizekat]

ok ok i even edited it to be milder before you posted it as quote to smoth-bait yourself.

[KaiserJ]

please disallow moderators from making smarmy little girl comments

[smoth]

hows about smoth just grows some own discipline

making personal attack via ad hominem to strengthen argument.

That is btw all what is wrong about religion. Religious people - not all, but some - act like smoth just did.

you are a fucking asshole. I have no religion.

[TradeMark]

you are a fucking asshole. I have no religion.

There are more appropriate sites for this sort of banter and raging, does it really belong here?

Here we go again... the only guy raging here is you.

[Soul]

hows about smoth just grows some own discipline

making personal attack via ad hominem to strengthen argument.

That is btw all what is wrong about religion. Religious people - not all, but some - act like smoth just did.

you are a fucking asshole. I have no religion.

First of all, he didn't say you had a religion, he said some religious people act like you did.


Secondly and more importently for this thread, i don't like censurship.
To disallow such things as religion or politics on this forum is just plain wrong.

People just need to step back and write their replys without trying to add poorly hidden personal attacks against someone else.

Thirdly, this whole discussion is quite frankly quite unintresting, if someone doesn't want to read political or religious threads, then they'll just have to stop reading them.

Forcing others to stop writing about it seems quite feebleminded and shows lack of character strenght.
If you can't trust yourself not to read those threads then thats your problem, don't push them onto us.

And last of all, i don't like ragefests, so i would want everyone to try to calm themselves before pressing "submit".

[dizekat]

hows about smoth just grows some own discipline

making personal attack via ad hominem to strengthen argument.

That is btw all what is wrong about religion. Religious people - not all, but some - act like smoth just did.

you are a fucking asshole. I have no religion.

Yet you have in you all what can be wrong with religious people - some religious people I must add, not all. The idea that your preferences should be imposed on everyone combined with unwillingness to impose them upon just yourself (i.e. to stop reading and posting in religious and political flamewars yourself. It is not like you can end up reading a religious thread here by accident).
It's entirely fine when religious people don't eat pork (i'm not particularly fond of pork myself) but it is nonsense when some religious people want to ban pork for everyone because they don't want to be tempted at supermarket (precisely the argument those people make).
There is no good word to describe a behaviour of religious nut, but the behaviour exist, and it is not specific to religion.

[smoth]

Sup whiteknight.

Forcing others to stop writing about it seems quite feebleminded and shows lack of character strenght.

Sup, I herd you like to talk shit about someone you don't know, over the internet, anonymously, seems pretty FEEBLE to me :).

And last of all, i don't like ragefests, so i would want everyone to try to calm themselves before pressing "submit".

Neither do I

you seem it mistake a request for a mandate and seem to mistake me for someone you know.

[smoth]

Yet you have in you all what can be wrong with religious people

you don't know me beyond a few internet posts I love how deep your understanding of people goes. I had NO idea you had psychic powers which could reach across continents.

The idea that your preferences should be imposed on everyone combined with unwillingness to impose them upon just yourself

This thread was a suggestion, for something I think would make the forum a somewhat more respectable place. Feel free to call me hypocritical as you continue to assault me based on a handful of conversations on the internet.

There is no good word to describe a behavior of religious nut, but the behavior exist, and it is not specific to religion.

that is what I was trying to tell you in the other thread but you seemed absolutely ADAMANT that it was the other way all while raging at me for not understanding my own language?

[maackey]

I wouldn't support a complete ban of all political and religious discussion, as much as I dislike sifting through pages and pages trying to quell trolls and unnecessary bickering.

We really should have a separate sub-forum though. "Politics and Religion"

[smoth]

TAU used to have a pit erm I mean subforum called thoughts and discussion, people could throw poo at each other all day there.

[knorke]

it just has a different name on spring

[smoth]

*snicker* *snicker* *snicker*

[Gota]

LOL...
I think these 2 existing threads and the uber mega huge posts in the other ongoing religion thread will quench the thirs for religious discussions for some time..
I'm just said i didnt think of making a "lets ban religious discussion" thread first and let Smoth start this nice juicy thread.

P.S
Its funny that the ongoing religious rage thread was actually started by an admin XD

[dizekat]

Yet you have in you all what can be wrong with religious people

you don't know me beyond a few internet posts I love how deep your understanding of people goes. I had NO idea you had psychic powers which could reach across continents.

The idea that your preferences should be imposed on everyone combined with unwillingness to impose them upon just yourself

This thread was a suggestion, for something I think would make the forum a somewhat more respectable place.

Ohh, come on. Of course just about every Muslim who tells us we should use Sharia law tells that it is a suggestion that would make West be more respectable place.

Feel free to call me hypocritical as you continue to assault me based on a handful of conversations on the internet.

a handful of conversations can be enough unless you are terribly inconsistent.

There is no good word to describe a behavior of religious nut, but the behavior exist, and it is not specific to religion.

that is what I was trying to tell you in the other thread but you seemed absolutely ADAMANT that it was the other way all while raging at me for not understanding my own language?

ohh really? Yes I see it now. Whenever I say something that you agree with - not even talking to you, this is a public forum - perhaps even telling in my words something that you may have said, you see it as something you need to reply to anyway to make a point that you're the originally right one and I'm using language wrongly or I am not clear enough or something (which actually is an attack and unless you can actually show i used my language wrongly, i am not going to backpedal). Just 'cause there cannot be two people who made a valid point, you want to be the only one who's right. I seen that happen in several threads. (And you always see that it is one way or other way, you don't understand that it is initially neither way)

Why is it that when I post something that you agree with, NOT as response to you, you feel need to make a strawman out of what I said and then tear this strawman down? Why can't you understand that this leads, to put it mildly, to misunderstanding of what you believe?

[dizekat]

To clarify:
Smoth, why with you it is always like:
A: What is blue?
[a few responses from other people]
B: Blue is the colour of the sky
[a few more responses from other people]
C: Blue is a colour, the perception of which is evoked by light having a spectrum dominated by energy with a wavelength of roughly 440ÔÇô490 nm
B takes C's statement as direct challenge, quotes C responding with "You're wrong! the blue is the colour of the sky!" and criticizing it on other points e.g. for use of scientific terminology etc.
(note: B is you, smoth. Look, you're always the first to quote me and post something disagreeing, e.g. make a strawman and tear it down, and you seem to do it even if you agree with what I have said. Since that point, I am merely responding)

[Machete234]

Why "political and religious" discussions, somebody tries to sneak in a point that doesnt belong there.

A bit like your president bush and the patriot act ...