Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[opinterph]

Does the Code of Conduct actually mention any special protection for mere religious beliefs? It would seem somewhat bizarre if it did, especially on a gay forum. Ludicrous belief systems and ridiculous 'holy' books deserve no exemption from being laughed at.

There are many shades of grey and there are many types of humor.

Humor plays an important role in our socialization.

Code of Conduct:

8. Please do not use language that sounds like, stands for, hints at, abbreviates, or insinuates hate speech (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious slurs) or illegal activities.

11. Please do not create a screen name or chat name that is intended to aggravate or incite other members, or that references controversial religious topics, notorious people or organizations, or current or historical events that may be considered inflammatory or inappropriate. JustUsBoys.com reserves the right to change any username that is deemed inappropriate for any reason. If in doubt, please ask first.

Terms of Service:

6. MEMBER CONDUCT

You agree to not use the Service to:

a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

 

[Kulindahr]

I continue to hold the assertion I originally did, at the beginning of this conversation: that there is no single corpus of beliefs to which Hindus adhere.

In post 320 you started talking about whether Hinduism is a single religion or not.

I haven't made any claims about that.

Make up shit all you want, you're quite good at it.

You compared Hinduism to multiple religions at once. The only way for that to be valid is if Hinduism is multiple religions.

And you did that to dodge the fact that the three religions you wanted to call one have set, objectively identifiable sets of documents where beliefs are defined, while Hinduism does not.

So your denial here is just obfuscation: I asked the question about a single religion because you brought it up -- you may not have used those words, but it was the concept you were insisting on.

 

[Kulindahr]

I do not make insults -- I make objective statements about what others have said. I know that these days it is popular to call any criticism an insult, but that does not make it so.

Yes you do. This is just one example.

>sigh<

This would get a D in my remedial reading comprehension class I taught for college freshmen.

You just demonstrated that I was right: I make objective statements about what others have said. There is no insult in the statement you quoted, there is an objective conclusion.

I thought you reasoned more carefully than to fall for the fallacy of a negative critique constituting an insult.

 

[Kulindahr]

Does the Code of Conduct actually mention any special protection for mere religious beliefs? It would seem somewhat bizarre if it did, especially on a gay forum. Ludicrous belief systems and ridiculous 'holy' books deserve no exemption from being laughed at.

It bars religious slurs. Attacks on something based on false premises are slurs.

If your approach is valid, then this image is perfectly permissible:

[Image removed by moderator]

 

[Kulindahr]

All comedy is critical. If we applied the Code of Conduct to every percieved slight, then where do we stop so we don't offend your sensitive sensibilities? John Cleese puts it well below.

It has nothing to do with perceived slights, it has to do with basing attacks on evident falsehood.

I do not criticize images based on whether they offend me, I criticize because they are false and/or irrational. For example, I find this extremely offensive, but it is based on facts:

Whereas this one is nothing but a religious slur, and should have been deleted long ago:

It has no critical content, it merely slams two religions for being "Fucked up". It's on par with this:

[Image removed by moderator]



So Cleese isn't even talking about the situation here. Indeed he's on my side of the issue -- he's talking about being critical, and being critical begins with being accurate.

 

[dpnice]

...............................I thought you reasoned more carefully than to fall for the fallacy of a negative critique constituting an insult.

Sorry but it gave every impression of an insult with you belittling my ability to discuss intelligently a subject and equating me to a moronic student incapable of achieving higher than a "D" in the subject matter.

And yes, as I told you, I did feel insulted.

 

[dpnice]

When someone becomes totally obsessive and proves that no form of discussion will change their attitude it is perhaps time to just unsubscribe and find more enjoyable threads with which to participate.

 

[johaninsc]

When someone becomes totally obsessive and proves that no form of discussion will change their attitude it is perhaps time to just unsubscribe and find more enjoyable threads with which to participate.

Why not "unsubscribe" to his posts by putting him on ignore?
...or just simply scrolling by his posts?

The best way to deal with internet know-it-alls is to simply shut them out; giving them nothing.

He can't play catch if no one throws him the ball...

easy peasy

 

[zoltanspawn]

^I'm out.

 

[HoodedRat]

^
Me too.

 

[star-warrior]

Whereas this one is nothing but a religious slur, and should have been deleted long ago:

It has no critical content, it merely slams two religions for being "Fucked up".

You yourself have already addressed the content earlier, which was why it was not removed. Here it is earlier in this thread.

Hmm.

Except the former of those was founded by a man who fought in battles and consummated a marriage with a girl when she was 9 or 10, while the other was begun by one who said to turn the other cheek and do good to your enemies, it's evident that one can not unreasonably be called "fucked up" while the other is something society is still struggling to live up to.

 

[Kulindahr]

Somebody skipped most of the book.

 

[Kulindahr]

Superb example of lying with a little bit of truth.

Yes, we have some eight thousand manuscripts of the New Testament, and yes, none of them are alike.

The biggest difference between them? Since practically none are complete, they don't all have the same content to begin with.

The second biggest difference? Spelling -- even the best scriptoria didn't flunk a copy for spelling errors or differences.

The number of differences that change any meaning: none.


As for making a translation that made the kind and Parliament happy, yeah -- and that's how homosexuality got into the Bible, because it wasn't there earlier. That, and they included a verse or two they darned well knew wasn't original because the king or someone liked it being there.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sadly, they used the wrong word there, those King James people, and the error has stuck with us. German scholars at the time knew that the Hebrew word there is best rendered as "murder", but either that knowledge hadn't gotten to England or they ignored it. The term is really "kill without cause", and the same set of books give more than a few reasons that killing is okay.

"Annoying neighbors" isn't one, though someone attacking your village is.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sorry but it gave every impression of an insult with you belittling my ability to discuss intelligently a subject and equating me to a moronic student incapable of achieving higher than a "D" in the subject matter.

And yes, as I told you, I did feel insulted.

Sorry.

Most of my remedial reading students weren't moronic, so I find that a bit offensive as an assumption -- most of them had just never had the practice, or what they'd been given to read was not such as to inspire caring. In fact I can only think of two who had any actual difficulty, and they turned out to have what we today would call disorders that were the actual problem, not understanding. in the end, I never had to fail a student, though I gave some a lot of extra attention (and I wish that back then there had been material on those disorders so I didn't have to experiment!).

I got abused by some faculty when I tossed the official materials and instead fashioned a book list of things that were fun to read, mostly novels, but the department stood by me when before the first midterms it became clear that my students were actually enjoying reading, because the moment a student begins to enjoy something, learning it becomes easy.

 

[Kulindahr]

You yourself have already addressed the content earlier, which was why it was not removed. Here it is earlier in this thread.

Ah -- so it an image contrary to the Code gets commented on, it gets left alone?.

But as it stands in the other thread, it's still a slur -- which is why the decision removing discussion from one thread in a forum that says it's for discussion is silly.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Last edited by star-warrior; March 14th, 2017 at 03:57 PM. Reason: Please do not post such content on JUB. "


Yet images just as offensive and just as inaccurate and just as irrational constantly got a pass in the FARIP thread.

So at best the mods have been inconsistent.

 

[medic1]

All this going round in circles is making me dizzy. I too am out.

 

[Kulindahr]

Or as Arab atheists like to say among them: "a radical muslim wants to behead you, and a moderate muslim wants a radical muslim to behead you."

The problem is of course that the Bible does not support such things.

"Love your enemy", "Do good to those who hate you", "Turn the other cheat", "If a man asks for your coat, give him your shirt, too", "Consider others as more important than yourselves", and so on don't encourage anything like what is listed.

Society has far to go to get close to what the Bible does encourage.

 

[Kulindahr]

All this going round in circles is making me dizzy. I too am out.

There are circles only because those who want to post multiple slurs against religion refuse to pay any attention to what the religion actually teaches.