| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Mr ProgFreak 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
 Posted: July 11 2010 at 03:19 |
|
^ Extraterrestrial visitation (or abduction) would be a good example, indeed - particularly because there'll be many religious people who would call a person deluded for holding such beliefs, even though that person might have as much reason to believe as they do (the argument from revelation is incontrovertible).
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 03:20 |
 JLocke wrote:
Apparently, somebody thought JJLehto's chart was somehow offensive, because his post is gone, and my post in response to his is 'pending approval' in my end of things.
Let me me just say that I think this is ridiculous. If Mike and I are allowed to openly state our strong opinions on our non-belief, JJLehto should be able to post a chart that equally sums up all the positions. As stated in my now-invisible post, the chart gave all sides of the argument equal treatment, and no personal bias for or against any of the positions seems evident to me.
Translation: whoever deemed it necessary to block JJLehto's chart is not operating on all thrusters this evening.
EDIT: I know exactly why the image was blocked, now. It's even more ridiculous to me upon this realization.  But hey, I don't make the rules. |
I don't make the rules either, just apply them with what I believe a degree of fairness.
So you may like to reconsider the "not operating on all thrusters" comment too, then please feel free to do so, but no big deal if you don't.
Afterall, I'm not one to bear a grudge.
|
|
What?
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 03:22 |
JLocke wrote:
Apparently, somebody thought JJLehto's chart was somehow offensive, because his post is gone, and my post in response to his is 'pending approval' in my end of things.
Let me me just say that I think this is ridiculous. If Mike and I are allowed to openly state our strong opinions on our non-belief, JJLehto should be able to post a chart that equally sums up all the positions. As stated in my now-invisible post, the chart gave all sides of the argument equal treatment, and no personal bias for or against any of the positions seems evident to me.
Translation: whoever deemed it necessary to block JJLehto's chart is not operating on all thrusters this evening.
EDIT: I know exactly why the image was blocked, now. It's even more ridiculous to me upon this realization. But hey, I don't make the rules. |
I didn't mind the chart either, though I mind that I spent time in vain when I posted a comment about it. Suffice it to say that the definitions for the words "Agnosticism" and "Atheism" are debatable, and often depend on (historical) context.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 03:50 |
Would that mean that posting your contribution to Draw Mohammad Day would also violate forum rules? 
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 03:54 |
Dean wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Apparently, somebody thought JJLehto's chart was somehow offensive, because his post is gone, and my post in response to his is 'pending approval' in my end of things.
Let me me just say that I think this is ridiculous. If Mike and I are allowed to openly state our strong opinions on our non-belief, JJLehto should be able to post a chart that equally sums up all the positions. As stated in my now-invisible post, the chart gave all sides of the argument equal treatment, and no personal bias for or against any of the positions seems evident to me.
Translation: whoever deemed it necessary to block JJLehto's chart is not operating on all thrusters this evening.
EDIT: I know exactly why the image was blocked, now. It's even more ridiculous to me upon this realization. But hey, I don't make the rules. |
I don't make the rules either, just apply them with what I believe a degree of fairness.
So you may like to reconsider the "not operating on all thrusters" comment too, then please feel free to do so, but no big deal if you don't.
Afterall, I'm not one to bear a grudge. |
You've got a drawing of a scantily-clad woman in your signature, yet due to forum policy, just got through deleting a post because it showed a drawing containing a 'potty word'. Tell me you don't see the irony in that. Words are considered more harmful than imagery these days, and I find that simultaneously hilarious and disturbing.
I know you're just doing your job, so it's nothing personal, anyway. Your thrusters were on full, I admit. But there is such a thing as over-working. You don't really believe JJLehto's little cartoon was going to sting more than anything already said in this thread, do you? I'm speaking from a personal perspective, not as a forum moderator.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 04:03 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Would that mean that posting your contribution to Draw Mohammad Day would also violate forum rules? |
If they contained the words "sh*t, f**k and f**king", then yes, that would be in direct violation of forum rules 
here is an unecessarily censored version of the diagram, if people would like to cut and paste this into their hidden posts I will unhide them.
|
|
What?
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 04:08 |
That's alright, Dean. I am against censorship, even within the confines of a public internet forum. I'd rather stay persecuted.
I do thank you for posting a 'family-friendly' version of the chart, though. At least that way, folks can turn the page and see it, so that way a hundred years from now, when somebody comes across this thread, she won't be completely confused as to what Mike and I were reacting to.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 04:13 |
JLocke wrote:
Dean wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Apparently, somebody thought JJLehto's chart was somehow offensive, because his post is gone, and my post in response to his is 'pending approval' in my end of things.
Let me me just say that I think this is ridiculous. If Mike and I are allowed to openly state our strong opinions on our non-belief, JJLehto should be able to post a chart that equally sums up all the positions. As stated in my now-invisible post, the chart gave all sides of the argument equal treatment, and no personal bias for or against any of the positions seems evident to me.
Translation: whoever deemed it necessary to block JJLehto's chart is not operating on all thrusters this evening.
EDIT: I know exactly why the image was blocked, now. It's even more ridiculous to me upon this realization. But hey, I don't make the rules. |
I don't make the rules either, just apply them with what I believe a degree of fairness.
So you may like to reconsider the "not operating on all thrusters" comment too, then please feel free to do so, but no big deal if you don't.
Afterall, I'm not one to bear a grudge. |
You've got a drawing of a scantily-clad woman in your signature, yet due to forum policy, just got through deleting a post because it showed a drawing containing a 'potty word'. Tell me you don't see the irony in that. Words are considered more harmful than imagery these days, and I find that simultaneously hilarious and disturbing.
I know you're just doing your job, so it's nothing personal, anyway. Your thrusters were on full, I admit. But there is such a thing as over-working. You don't really believe JJLehto's little cartoon was going to sting more than anything already said in this thread, do you? I'm speaking from a personal perspective, not as a forum moderator. |
For a personal perspective I find censorship of swearing to be unnecessary and openly support the removal of the "no swearing" rule. However, as an Admin I am "obliged" to enforce the rule at all times.
Also on a personal level I find the gratuitous swearing in the cartoon to be denigrating and terribly biased. Theists swear all the time and can use language just as strongly and emotionally as a non-theist, in fact they have a greater pool of blasphemous oaths to call upon than I do ... "you can go to the singularity at the beginning of the Universe" doesn't have much of a sting does it?
Also I feel, on a personal level, that the swearing phrases used in the agnostic, agnostic atheist and explicit atheist are unrepresentative and maligning of the viewpoints and opinions of those people. But that's just my opinion and not the reason the cartoon was "censored"
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 04:15 |
|
ps: you are the first person (hence the only person) who has commented on my sig-pic. If you find it offensive or degrading of cartoon women then I will remove it.
|
|
What?
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 04:42 |
Dean wrote:
For a personal perspective I find censorship of swearing to be unnecessary and openly support the removal of the "no swearing" rule. However, as an Admin I am "obliged" to enforce the rule at all times. |
I completely understand that. I just happened to think you would personally find it just as pointless as I, aside from what you may be duty-bound to do as a staff member. In other words, I know you're an intelligent person who can most likely see right through this dribble.  Good to know my assumptions seem to be correct.
| Also on a personal level I find the gratuitous swearing in the cartoon to be denigrating and terribly biased. Theists swear all the time and can use language just as strongly and emotionally as a non-theist, in fact they have a greater pool of blasphemous oaths to call upon than I do ... "you can go to the singularity at the beginning of the Universe" doesn't have much of a sting does it? Also I feel, on a personal level, that the swearing phrases used in the agnostic, agnostic atheist and explicit atheist are unrepresentative and maligning of the viewpoints and opinions of those people. But that's just my opinion and not the reason the cartoon was "censored" |
Well see, that just shows how little I care about 'swearing' in everyday speech. I didn't even really notice or care that the religious side was comparatively clean-mouthed. Since I don't hold colorful metaphors in any special regard to any other words, I didn't even think to make those types of comparisons. To be fair, though, the good Christian guy DID sport a nice hand-gesture that often serves as a satisfying equivalent. 
| ps: you are the first person (hence the only person) who has commented on my sig-pic. If you find it offensive or degrading of cartoon women then I will remove it. |
Absolutely not. I hate censorship, remember?  I was merely making a point that partial nudity (animated, or otherwise) is no more or less potentially offensive than a four letter word to most logical human beings, yet words seem to always be the focus of all this outcry and the imagery is often given a pass (Of course, I'm speaking from a US citizen's point of view, here. We seem to always have the censorship standards which make the least amount of sense.) I personally don't find ANY of it offensive, and would say that the only type of imagery worth objecting to would be something gratuitously violent or slanderous. But I'm weird.
Edited by JLocke - July 11 2010 at 04:46
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 04:57 |
JLocke wrote:
Dean wrote:
For a personal perspective I find censorship of swearing to be unnecessary and openly support the removal of the "no swearing" rule. However, as an Admin I am "obliged" to enforce the rule at all times.
|
I completely understand that. I just happened to think you would personally find it just as pointless as I, aside from what you may be duty-bound to do as a staff member. In other words, I know you're an intelligent person who can most likely see right through this dribble. Good to know my assumptions seem to be correct. |
Then why jump on my back when I first hid the posts and then edit your post when you realised the real reason without removing the false assumption?
Of course you did not know it was me who hid it, but it would have been a fair bet.
JLocke wrote:
|
Also on a personal level I find the gratuitous swearing in the cartoon to be denigrating and terribly biased. Theists swear all the time and can use language just as strongly and emotionally as a non-theist, in fact they have a greater pool of blasphemous oaths to call upon than I do ... "you can go to the singularity at the beginning of the Universe" doesn't have much of a sting does it?
Also I feel, on a personal level, that the swearing phrases used in the agnostic, agnostic atheist and explicit atheist are unrepresentative and maligning of the viewpoints and opinions of those people. But that's just my opinion and not the reason the cartoon was "censored"
|
Well see, that just shows how little I care about 'swearing' in everyday speech. I didn't even really notice or care that the religious side was comparatively clean-mouthed. Since I don't hold colorful metaphors in any special regard to any other words, I didn't even think to make those types of comparisons. To be fair, though, the good Christian guy DID sport a nice hand-gesture that often serves as a satisfying equivalent. |
I considered removing the hand jesture, but felt it was a little ambiguous (ie poorly drawn).
JLocke wrote:
| ps: you are the first person (hence the only person) who has commented on my sig-pic. If you find it offensive or degrading of cartoon women then I will remove it. |
Absolutely not. I hate censorship, remember? I was merely making a point that partial nudity (animated, or otherwise) is no more or less potentially offensive than a four letter word to most logical human beings, yet words seem to always be the focus of all this outcry and the imagery is often given a pass (Of course, I'm speaking from a US citizen's point of view, here. We seem to always have the censorship standards which make the least amount of sense.) I personally don't find ANY of it offensive, and would say that the only type of imagery worth objecting to would be something gratuitously violent or slanderous. But I'm weird. |
there is no partial nudity in the sig-cartoon - scantily clad would be more accurate - and the image was carefully chosen for that reason, and yes I did produce it to make an ironic and humorous point regarding the retro 50s look of the new logo and to make a sly comment on censorship on this board.
|
|
What?
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 11:13 |
Dean wrote:
ps: you are the first person (hence the only person) who has commented on my sig-pic. If you find it offensive or degrading of cartoon women then I will remove it. |
Don't change it bro...!! it's the best signature of this site. Why we don't have t-shirts with that logo, good be nice...
So, page 24, isn't settled right...?
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 11:52 |
Dean wrote:
Then why jump on my back when I first hid the posts and then edit your post when you realised the real reason without removing the false assumption? |
Because what was said was already said, and I figured whoever did it would have already read it by the time I got to editing it. I would much rather straighten something out after the fact than backtrack on my words and pretend it never happened. I figured you may have thought I was backpedalling.
| there is no partial nudity in the sig-cartoon - scantily clad would be more accurate - and the image was carefully chosen for that reason, and yes I did produce it to make an ironic and humorous point regarding the retro 50s look of the new logo and to make a sly comment on censorship on this board. |
Partial nudity, scantily clad. Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to. Bottom line: we both agree censorship is often backwards and self-defeating. Somebody with an attitude could easily come on here and 'claim' that your sig contains partial nudity, but you could just give the same points to them that you gave to me. Since it all comes down to personal opinion, I again don't see the need for such bland, no-tolerance rules. It's like high school. Somebody IS going to be offended by many aspects of this message board, and indeed this thread, but only certain things are deemed worthy of censorship. It's amusing to me that the least-harmful aspect of human behavior by far (the words we speak) is always the first thing cracked down on. I guess in a place like this where words are indeed the main focus and means of communication, such importance given to them is a little more understandable than in other, real-life scenarios. Still, I find it goes a little overboard. If somebody gets offended by a mere word, online or otherwise, he or she needs to reevaluate his or her priorities.
Anyway, I don't want to keep such a conversation going for too long, here. We're getting way off-topic. I meant nothing personal by my comments, and that's all I have to say.
Edited by JLocke - July 11 2010 at 11:56
|
|
Ronnie Pilgrim
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 09 2010
Location: The South of TX
Status: Offline
Points: 771
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 11:53 |
Dean wrote:
|
That's just wrong. As every color theorist knows, the subtractive color formed by green and blue is cyan, not sea foam.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 11:57 |
Ronnie Pilgrim wrote:
Dean wrote:
|
That's just wrong. As every color theorist knows, the subtractive color formed by green and blue is cyan, not sea foam.
|
Inaccurate representation! I'm offended! Censor it!!!
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 12:33 |
JLocke wrote:
Since it all comes down to personal opinion, I again don't see the need for such bland, no-tolerance rules. It's like high school. Somebody IS going to be offended by many aspects of this message board, and indeed this thread, but only certain things are deemed worthy of censorship. It's amusing to me that the least-harmful aspect of human behavior by far (the words we speak) is always the first thing cracked down on. I guess in a place like this where words are indeed the main focus and means of communication, such importance given to them is a little more understandable than in other, real-life scenarios. Still, I find it goes a little overboard. If somebody gets offended by a mere word, online or otherwise, he or she needs to reevaluate his or her priorities.
Anyway, I don't want to keep such a conversation going for too long, here. We're getting way off-topic. I meant nothing personal by my comments, and that's all I have to say. |
I understand the logic behind it. If cuss words can be used to cause offence, then take them away. Therein lies the problem. People still want to offend others so they use less offensive words in a more offensive way. Once those words become euphemistically associated with causing offence then their use in an inoffensive way becomes difficult. Hence the brouhaha over "ignorance" - a perfectly inoffensive word that happens to be associated to similar word that can be offensive, ie "ignorant" (and I've just got the homophone between "ignorance" and "ignorants" ... doh!)
Edited by Dean - July 11 2010 at 12:36
|
|
What?
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 12:37 |
Thanks for the...support (?) guys Dean PM'd me about it, which is all I really ask anyway. He said it was for the swearing which is against the rules, I've seen it in pics before but suppose I got caught . Anyway, that doesn't detract from the point which was, of course, to stereotype and group everyone together simply  Just to make sure no one will miss it And while I'm in here  
Edited by JJLehto - July 11 2010 at 12:43
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 12:38 |
Dean wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Since it all comes down to personal opinion, I again don't see the need for such bland, no-tolerance rules. It's like high school. Somebody IS going to be offended by many aspects of this message board, and indeed this thread, but only certain things are deemed worthy of censorship. It's amusing to me that the least-harmful aspect of human behavior by far (the words we speak) is always the first thing cracked down on. I guess in a place like this where words are indeed the main focus and means of communication, such importance given to them is a little more understandable than in other, real-life scenarios. Still, I find it goes a little overboard. If somebody gets offended by a mere word, online or otherwise, he or she needs to reevaluate his or her priorities.
Anyway, I don't want to keep such a conversation going for too long, here. We're getting way off-topic. I meant nothing personal by my comments, and that's all I have to say. |
I understand the logic behind it. If cuss words can be used to cause offence, then take them away. Therein lies the problem. People still want to offend others so they use less offensive words in a more offensive way. Once those words become euphemistically associated with causing offence then their use in an inoffensive way becomes difficult. Hence the brouhaha over "ignorance" - a perfectly inoffensive word that happens to be associated to similar word that can be offensive, ie "ignorant" (and I've just got the homophone between "ignorance" and "ignorants" ... doh!)
|
Yeah . . . if only the english language weren't so complex.
|
|
Ronnie Pilgrim
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 09 2010
Location: The South of TX
Status: Offline
Points: 771
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 12:55 |
Dean wrote:
I understand the logic behind it. If cuss words can be used to cause offence, then take them away. Therein lies the problem. People still want to offend others so they use less offensive words in a more offensive way. Once those words become euphemistically associated with causing offence then their use in an inoffensive way becomes difficult. Hence the brouhaha over "ignorance" - a perfectly inoffensive word that happens to be associated to similar word that can be offensive, ie "ignorant" (and I've just got the homophone between "ignorance" and "ignorants" ... doh!)
|
Wasn't taking a swipe at you, Dean. Just making light of this very heavy subject matter. Keep on truckin'
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 13:02 |
Ronnie Pilgrim wrote:
Wasn't taking a swipe at you, Dean. Just making light of this very heavy subject matter.
Keep on truckin' |
Eww, this has all gotten very messy and confused. The cartoon venn diagram isn't mine and has nothing to do with me, I re-posted it from a previously hidden post by JJLehto because it originally contained swear-words, which I hope everybody knows by now, are not permitted on this site.
|
|
What?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
