15
   

Did something happen to the "atheism" thread?

 
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 06:23 am
@Ionus,
Do you want to discuss Atheism? Seems that you really want to derail another thread.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 06:39 am
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.
argome321
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 06:50 am
@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"?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 06:56 am
@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
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 06:57 am
@Olivier5,
You cant talk you still owe me an apology .
Olivier5
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 07:00 am
@Ionus,
What for? Did i screw your wife?
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 07:02 am
@argome321,
Average, not unusual...
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 07:04 am
@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 .
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 07:10 am
@Ionus,
Oh look! We have a new francophile on the forum!
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 07:13 am
@Olivier5,
Surprise !! Francophile means a supporter of France, dickhead . There are only about 6 billion of us, what are the odds !
NSFW (view)
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 09:50 am
@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.
argome321
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 10:03 am
@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.
layman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 10:10 am
@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.
argome321
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 10:16 am
@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.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 10:20 am
@layman,
Good call.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 10:20 am
@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?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 10:27 am
@layman,
Smile Smile Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
argome321
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 10:31 am
@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

layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 10:47 am
@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....
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
OBVIOUS TROLL - Question by Setanta
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Soon to be world traveler, Dog willing! - Discussion by Stacey the red baron
The Bah! Humbug! Christmas thread. - Discussion by msolga
A good cry on the train - Discussion by Joe Nation
Why all the Decryptonite stuff? - Question by Tes yeux noirs
Oh rest ye, Merry Gentleman - Discussion by jespah
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 07:34:53