Did something happen to the "atheism" thread?

@Ionus,

Do you want to discuss Atheism? Seems that you really want to derail another thread.

The killing of an entire thread seems absurd to me, especially that one which was quite 'normal' as far as the level of insults was concerned.

But to be fair, it seems the gerbils also killed the "white victims of black crime" thread, which was just utterly disgusting. I had reported it several times then gave up... So one can't say they are totally inconsistent. I also agree that they need to manage and moderate this site better. Not saying "leave us alone"...

Still, i wish these decisions would be explained transparently. Also, individual posters who dish out the largest amount of insults should be disbarred, even if they are long term members. That would work much better than shutting down threads, if the idea is to instill some accountability and clear the air for genuine conversation.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The killing of an entire thread seems absurd to me, especially that one which was quite 'normal' as far as the level of insults was concerned.

What do you consider a "Normal level of insults"?

1 Reply

@FOUND SOUL,

Quote:

Seems that you really want to derail another thread.

So how many threads do you blame me for derailing ?

Quote:

Do you want to discuss Atheism?

Wouldnt it have made more sense to just continue rather than derail a thread with yet more stupid asides ?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You cant talk you still owe me an apology .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

What for? Did i screw your wife?

1 Reply

@argome321,

Average, not unusual...

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You're French . You only think a sex life, you dont actually have one . Anyone who makes such a noise about sex is clearly not getting any . Dont you have someone you can surrender to, or isnt there a USA policy you can do the opposite to, you know as revenge for having your cheese eating arse saved in two world wars .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Oh look! We have a new francophile on the forum!

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Surprise !! Francophile means a supporter of France, dickhead . There are only about 6 billion of us, what are the odds !

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Indeed, I see right through your pretense. People like you who keep talking about us French generally LOOOOVES the French, but they can't admit it, so they express their love in bizarre ways. Like closet homosexuals say they hate gays while in fact secretly longing for them, your type keeps dreaming about big fat French cocks, all the while pretending to hate them...

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

The one thing that I have discovered about the Supreme court that through history when deciding issues that it seldom makes definitive pronouncements

I think your memory is selective here, Arg. I would guess that the court makes "definitive pronouncements," whether for better or worse, in at least 99% of all the cases it hears.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I think your memory is selective here, Arg. I would guess that the court makes "definitive pronouncements," whether for better or worse, in at least 99% of all the cases it hears.

Yeah your correct. I was thinking of the Dred Scott decision and the decision that allowed states to continue to keep their slaves which seems to be a in direct violation of human rights; though so called inalienable rights, the pursuit of happiness etc.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

... I was thinking of the Dred Scott decision...

A very unfortunately ruling, to be sure, but, from a legal standpoint, the "correct" one. Again, the court is not there to "legislate" (even though it sometimes does, in effect). It's there to interpret the constitution. At the time of that ruling, I think it was pretty clear that our constitution did not prohibit slavery.

This kinda goes back to the difference between positive law and natural law, Arg. In this instance you seem to be advocating the implementation of natural law over positive law.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

A very unfortunately ruling, to be sure, but, from a legal standpoint, the "correct" one. Again, the court is not there to "legislate" (even though it sometimes does, in effect). It's there to interpret the constitution. At the time of that ruling, I think it was pretty clear that our constitution did not prohibit slavery.

This kinda goes back to the difference between positive law and natural law, Arg. In this instance you seem to be advocating the implementation of natural law over positive law.

I'm not naive to think that our laws are always morally based, but sometimes I think we should try.

1 Reply

@layman,

Good call.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

morally based

That sounds good, but what does it mean? You have already said, as I recall, that morals are subjective. So, if that's true, the Dred Scott decision may be seen as a HIGHLY moral one, which did not serve to deprive honest, law-abiding citizens of their hard-earned property, eh?

2 Replies

@layman,

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

That sounds good, but what does it mean? You have already said, as I recall, that morals are subjective. So, if that's true, the Dred Scott decision may be seen as a HIGHLY moral one, which did not serve to deprive honest, law-abiding citizens of their hard-earned property, eh?

It means that I am well aware that moral ideologies clashes. It is why in this country we have a democracy. It is why I am apolitical. It is why, though I know that it is not realistic, that I would prefer a benevolent dictator; meaning me. Very Happy

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

a benevolent dictator; meaning me

Well, if you are somehow unwilling or unable to serve, I'm always here. I may need to consult Tonya Harding here....

2 Replies

Did something happen to the "atheism" thread?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know