to ban or not to ban – dealing with difficult comments
You’re as thick as a plank. (Mr Marvellous)
Banning other bloggers from my posts is something I’ve never given much thought. I have always had open comments and I try to find to the time to respond appropriately to all the comments people are kind enough to leave.
My posts are generally subject specific, and rarely personal in nature, so it’s easy to have discussions about topics without feeling personally offended.
Recently I’ve had two bloggers who haven’t followed the pattern of comments I generally receive: agreeing or disagreeing with the content of the post and stating why. The first blogger (quoted above) seems intent on critiquing me personally and informing me that the content of my posts is poor quality. The second blogger has recently taken to interpreting all of my posts through an odd racist lens and spitting the straw man content back out in the comments section.
While I don’t particularly enjoy the comments from either of these bloggers (and I definitely wouldn’t miss them if they abandoned my blog for more fertile pastures) I have no thought of banning them – or even moderating their comments. My reasoning is this:
- My posts are opinions. And opinions should be open to scrutiny and comment or what’s the point in even publishing them online?
- Even the oddest comments might have some merit or an angle that is worthy of further consideration.
- If their comments become offensive or silly, it’s a direct reflection on them.
However, it’s come to my attention that other bloggers can get in a habit of banning people or moderating comments that make them feel uncomfortable or unsure of their position. I’ve never personally been banned from any of the many Christian sites I’ve discussed issues with, and I think it is a tribute to the many bloggers with different beliefs that they are confident enough in their stance to withstand scrutiny and respond to challenges.
But let’s look at some bloggers who can shy away from dealing with challenges to their shonky opinions:
- The Isaiah 53:5 Project – My last post pointing out the similarities between the slavery justification and accepting same sex marriage has been ignored by this blog. But, more tellingly, my comment left on the post has yet to make it out of moderation. I understand that several atheist bloggers have also been banned from the site (John Zande, Tildeb and Ark among them). What does this say about the ability of the blog host to process and respond to different points of view? Nothing good.
- Colorstorm – This blogger is infamous for moderating and deleting comments he can’t deal with. In this post, he allows a couple of comments from Arch and John through, and then kills the conversation he can’t handle.
- Insanitybytes – Insanity is usually up for a tussle on any subject but can suddenly and inexplicably disappear from a conversation or, as in the post linked to, refuse to publish one of many comments from someone like the persistent John Zande.
I hope I haven’t misrepresented anyone here, and I’ll be happy to discuss any inaccuracies anyone feels might be presented here. But if you get out of line, don’t be surprised (or oddly offended like a puffed up pufferfish) if I ask you to behave like a respectful adult human.
Part of what makes the blogging world so interesting is the differing views you encounter in the posts and the comments themselves. I don’t like the idea of banning or not allowing certain viewpoints on my own blog, and I hate it when I comment on someone else’s blog and they don’t allow it because I might have a different view.
Your blog is a great example of what I love about blogging. I don’t agree with everything you write, but I like how you write. You make me think about things that I might never think about and question my own views. I think that is healthy, no matter where you stand on an issue. You also allow back and forth discussion, which is great.
I don’t think I would ever ban somebody from commenting on my blog because they had an opposing view. If I had someone who was attacking others personally on a regular basis, I might set their comments up to be moderated before I let them through. Personal attacks don’t further anybody’s understanding of the topic being discussed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the nice comment! I think you make a good point I hadn’t considered. If someone was regularly attacking other blog guests I guess I would consider moderating or even banning them.
LikeLike
My goodness, I’m in all three! Surely Ark has been banned from more than me?
And you’re forgetting Citizen Tom. He can’t handle rational debates, either.
http://citizentom.com/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll never forget that time he took 3 or 4 posts to not answer your question after banning you for repeating it. Oh, those were the days…
LikeLiked by 2 people
If I recall, it went on for six posts…. To say absolutely nothing. But I must admit, it is a frightfully hard subject for evangelical fundamentalists to wrap their heads around. It’s so ingrained in them that Jesus was the greatest human to have ever lived that they just can’t grasp the cold hard reality that he didn’t say or do anything unique, original, or marginally useful. At first glance it appears to be the easiest challenge in the world to answer. Citizen Tom, like others, found out otherwise… and it seems they don’t like me for leading them down that path.
CT also didn’t like it that I showed him Gary North is the Tea Party Economist, and I hurt his feelings, I think, when I showed him what the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer of Australia, Wayne Swan, said about his beloved Tea Party:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“My goodness, I’m in all three! Surely Ark has been banned from more than me?”
Yeah, makes you look really bad! Those were the ones with examples I could find. Ark’s banned from so many places I didn’t know where to start. 😀
LikeLike
Some Christians are not comfortable with dialogue. They would have to consider the possibility that their statements are not entirely correct and that is something their churches would never prepare them for. In which case they must heavily moderate comments or shut down the discussion the very moment they lose control of it. I’ve seen some bloggers delete an entire post rather than allow my comment or begin dialogue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’ve seen some bloggers delete an entire post rather than allow my comment or begin dialogue.” Wow, you must write some pretty impressive comments! I can see it might be unsettling for someone who imagines they are writing for the benefit of like-minds to get challenging feedback. The ones mentioned here engage in debate when they feel like it, then switch if off when they can’t handle it. A bit sad really.
LikeLike
I just wish that they weren’t so afraid to really examine what they believe and it’s implications. I used to be more conservative – the certainty on never being wrong was like a security blanket, so I get it. I get the arrogance and the attitude because I used to be just like that. But my thinking was limited only to what the Bible said and I had no answer for the things that it did not say. It was a scary thing to question my deepest held beliefs, but freeing to find my own answers. I guess the difference is being open to the possibilities. When someone isn’t open, all that matters is that they win others to their way of thinking or control the conversation, sometimes they are unable to do so on others’ blogs so they engage only so far and dissappear rather than admit that you have a point or lose ground when you can’t be convinced to think as they do.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Great comment. I remember being faced with questions I couldn’t answer as a Christian and (cringe) telling people I’d pray about it. Why does the Bible say gay sex is wrong? Ummm. I’ll pray about it.
LikeLike
My weirdest comment recently is a man who decapitates a woman today is seen as holy as Jesus Christ. The man went on in this vein, like Dada. I left some of it in, with a warning: https://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/slut-hate/comment-page-1/#comment-20640 We ended up in dialogue, though his belief that the rape of “chaste” women is more serious than the rape of other women utterly repelled me.
But he goes on other forums, and blokes agree with him.
LikeLike
Is that the kind of post you wish you hadn’t written? A lot of weird conversations there.
LikeLike
I learned a bit from it. A fbfnd wanted her comments deleted- I made them anonymous- because she did not want stalked on facebook. I had not known of incels before, leave alone that the word could be a label one would adopt, rather than an insult.
LikeLike
I’ve even been ‘moderated’ into oblivion by dozens of bloggers including a retired philosophy prof (reason: that I make other commentators feel ‘unsafe’) who says he champions practical philosophy but absolutely refuses to criticize Islam, John Shore (reason: too confrontational), Sabio Lantz (reason: too rude for challenging his woo promotion), scores of Christian bloggers (usually no reasons given) who make negative claims about atheism generally, character attacks against non believers as a general trait, and New Atheists with drive by smearing.
I write in response and in kind to what I read, what is being promoted, in the same tone as what is being claimed as true, and it’s incredible that those who malign me and my character like IB22 and Citizen Tom and Wally and JW Warrick and Wallace and Wintery Knight and so on so freely and with complete smugness (who doesn’t know anything about me other than my non belief in their gods and superstitious claims) hypocritically demand that, unlike them, I must respect their words and not question their motives and hold their characters with assumed esteem or be banned!
I know of very few non believing bloggers who moderate equivalently. Why might that be, I wonder? And why don;t more religious bloggers think on that? Sure, many claim that non believers are just too rude and use impolite tone and are too confrontational but that’s how ANY criticism of woo is usually received. Look at how John Z has been accused of ranting and being rude and too lengthy comments when I have yet to read anything from him that even MILDLY compares to what the bloggers who have banned him do. The urge to create echo chambers on these ‘moderating’ and banning sites is obvious and so these are the folk who most need to be challenged to break into their bubble worlds and offer a bit of stark reality. These people are all dangerous in their attempts to promote their ideas by silencing criticism… a motive I rarely find in the blogging of atheists generally and New Atheists in particular.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s interesting that people even want to create echo chambers on a public blog. Maybe they should just stick to writing letters to close friends.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@john zande
A rational debate with you?
I don’t make a practice of filtering comments. I don’t have time for people who make up stuff or can’t keep a civil tongue.You make up stuff, and Ark cannot keep a civil tongue. Is what either of you do a big secret? No.
Over they course of the years I have been blogging, I have my comments censored just for supposedly being off topic or just because the blogger did want to deal with an opposing argument. How did I did with it? I just accepted the fact it is not my problem. If someone wants to blog and fantasize they having reasoned debates with other people, that is their problem. There is nothing I can do about it.
The three bloggers above each have their own agendas, and they are quite open about it. No pretense. They are not fantasizing they are doing something else.
LikeLike
So good to see you, CT
I don’t have time for people who make up stuff or can’t keep a civil tongue.You make up stuff
Yes, that’s your narrative, but it’s so very odd that when pressed to present evidence for this “making things up” you go all silent. How many times have I asked you to back that statement up, CT? How many times have you failed to rise to the challenge? Just the other day on SOM’s blog you were embarrassed, again, by being called out on your lying.
Honestly, it is always amusing how easily so-called “Christians” lie.
LikeLike
Yeah, my agenda is to speak truth to power and confront religious bullies who cause harm to the character of others. You are a prime example, CT. You even rewrite history in your quest to lie for Jesus.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Truth to power? Me?
😆
LikeLike
Still having trouble comprehending the written word, I see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, you don’t see.
LikeLike
I sometimes find that telling certain individuals they are nothing but an ignorant,disingenuous fucking idiot is just the wake up call they need.
Being banned from such enlightened, erudite blogs such as yours, CT is such a small price to pay.
LikeLike
Thank you for justifying the fact I banned you from my blog? No, I suppose I should not do that. It is a pity you lack the self control to express yourself properly.
LikeLike
Fuck is a perfectly acceptable piece of vernacular, especially when directed at those, like yourself, who do not have the intellect to recognise that the religious garbage you adhere to and espouse is spurious nonsense built upon presuppositional bullshit.
Such nonsense need to be called out so those who may be unsure and prefer to ‘lurk’ rather than comment
are able to read truth rather than tripe.
Fortunately the days of theological bully boys and crass ignoramuses like you are waning.
And this should elicit a huge fucking smile.
Amen to that right?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Frankly, I don’t see much in debating you. I am just amazed by behavior that so much indicts itself. Don’t you find it odd that I don’t have use anything more than plain and polite English to bully you? I supposed not, but why not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have never debated me, CT. Such is the hallmark of such religious cowardice.
Oh, and you never bully me. Good Lord! What an hilarious suggestion.
No,I am referring primarily to children who are unable to defend themselves against the vile, veiled threats that certain religious people are forced to stoop to ensure they do not have any personal self-esteem issues when such children are able to exercise critical thought and piss on your religious bonfire.
Polite? Ah … you consider the fact you do not use certain types of vernacular as being polite?
Hilarious. What a truly fucking dismal half wit you are.
LikeLike
You are doing it for the children? That language? For the children? When people use the ends to justify the means, the more outrageous the means, the more lofty the end. So you are doing it for the children? How very noble of you.
Well, you are right about one thing. Even though you left 60 comments on my blog, I never debated you. What was there to debate? After all, for the sake of children, what wouldn’t you do or say?
LikeLike
*Smile*
Sixty, really? You counted! How sweet.
As you post on a public (open) forum many people read, and thus, one can hope that a tiny spark make be ignited in one or two.
Not you , obviously. You have made it abundantly clear from the outset you are immune from reason, common-sense and general decency.
However, one only has to read a deconvertee’s blog to realise that they are eternally grateful for travelling the road to enlightenment. And this usually began with asking pertinent questions.
Such as:
If Citizen Tom ( or, insert Dickhead fundamentalist of choice here) and his ilk are bang-to- rights, espouse Ultimate Truth are spot on when it comes to understanding the bible, its history and composition, archaeology, geology, etymology etc and are representative of what Christianity is all about how come he cannot stand criticism?
How come his arguments flounder on a sea of theological double-speak?
How come he bans people?
How come there are at least 30,000 different christian cults that also disagree with Citizen Tom?
Now, when such questions are asked but not effectively and honestly answered there is a good chance this person/s will go off, have a think and ask a few more questions.
When this happens there is every chance that there will be a non-believer in the not too distant future. Not always. But sometimes.
And maybe, just maybe they will sit their kids down and have a talk with them.
And that’s worthwhile, in my book.
Don’t like it? Stick it in your ear. I could give a fuck what you think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a pity you lack the self control to express yourself properly.
It’s a pity you lack the intellectual integrity, and capacity, to be honest. “Cranks and crazies,” CT, “cranks and crazies.”
LikeLike
“I sometimes find that telling certain individuals they are nothing but an ignorant,disingenuous fucking idiot is just the wake up call they need.”
It happened once. Allegedly. Please don’t swear on my blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Meany. 😉
LikeLike
“The three bloggers above each have their own agendas, and they are quite open about it. No pretense. They are not fantasizing they are doing something else.”
Citizen, thanks for stopping by to give your input, and apologies that some of the replies you’ve received haven’t been civil.
In terms of your own blog, what would you think about leaving all comments as they are posted? Surely if they are not worth replying to your readers will be well able to make that judgement themselves. I understand the objection when the language is offensive, but even then, does it not say volumes about the person that uses such poor linguistic tools to leave it there?
LikeLike
Human nature is what it is. We are not perfect, and we don’t know what perfect is. At least, we don’t have a shared definition of perfect. Instead, we see things from our own point of view, and we each process what we see our own way. That’s why it is important to acknowledge those differences and the rights of others to live their own way.
Think about the meaning of the word perfect. Imagine a being perfect in every way. Could you or I even list all the ways required to achieve perfection? Just for a moment imagine that that perfect being created everything, absolutely everything. We cannot even grasp the concept. What is everything? How would a perfect being manage to create everything? How would even manage to perceive a perfect being?
In fact, we don’t have the capacity to judge each other, that is, how close we come each to being perfect. As it is, it doesn’t appear that any of us come very close.
How does that pertain to your question? Because people can put considerable amount of themselves in to a blog, blogs are very personal, and each tends to be unique.
Different bloggers have different ideas about how a blog should be operated. We also differ with respect to what we want to do with our blogs and who we want to read our blogs. Thus, The Isaiah 53:5 Project, Colorstorm, Insanitybytes, your blog and my blog do not look very much like each other. Those differences include the way we handle comments, and I daresay that each of thinks the way we handle comments is best. Otherwise, we would change what we are doing.
One of the things I do is give those who comment on my blog fair warning. I have a
Blog Ethics page. Every now and then someone violates the rules and I point them to that page. When I have had enough, I just kick the troublemaker off my blog. Fortunately, I have only had to do that a few times.
I don’t like kicking someone off my blog, but I don’t regard it as a grave punishment. If someone want to post stuff that violates my rules, I am not stopping them. They can go somewhere else or set up their own blog.
LikeLike
I suppose. Every person’s attitude to their own blog is different. I just can’t imagine feeling good about my opinions if I had to brush objectors under the carpet.
LikeLike
That illustrates my point. From your point of view, you see objectors being brushed under the carpet.
When I refuse to entertain troublemakers, I refuse for the sake of myself and my readers. When people demonstrate a lack of respect for the truth or the language we use to communicate, I think their comments cause more trouble than they are worth.
Do you have a flush toilet? Why? There some things that come people you just don’t want to keep around?
Everything that is filmed, said, or written should not be preserved from the bit-bucket.
Anyway, I have no interest in condemning the way you run your blog. I am more concerned about spreading the Gospel and protecting the rights of my family, friends, and neighbors.
LikeLike
CT referring to the commentators he has banned said, “When people demonstrate a lack of respect for the truth or the language we use to communicate, I think their comments cause more trouble than they are worth.”
Now I’ve a bruised jaw from it dropping on the desk so hard.
If there is one consistent feature from all of the bloggers who ban, it’s that they do not have any respect whatsoever for what’s true… if what’s true draws into question any religious notion or concept they hold as certain. The stuff that seems to offer some support, well… you see how wonderful science and scholarship and academic expertise is? Well, do you?
When questioned on their insistence that some demonstrably factually incorrect religious claim is actually true, they’ll argue that everyone and everything critical or dismissive of these claims is what’s wrong (because… god, because… scripture, because… belief in belief, you see), and that those who dare to question them and point out the compelling evidence that demonstrates why these religiously sanctified claims are factually incorrect must be disreputable people of malicious character and THAT’S why they must be banned.
Banning is simply an avoidance technique that has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the questioner or his or her character – and all the negative attributes suddenly assigned by these believers to them – and everything to do with the fear and loathing and anger these bloggers hold for those who actually respect what’s true and knowable. What’s true doesn’t matter a tinker’s damn to them; what matters is that respect be shown to these factually incorrect and sanctified claims (revealed by the ‘correction’ that impolite tone will not be tolerated) followed closely by smearing of critics in the name of piety by such ‘loving’ and ‘gentle’ intolerant bloggers as Citizen Tom and his religious compatriots.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@tildeb
Jesus Christ is rightly famed for His willingness to love sinners. Some consider the standards Jesus set impossible for us to achieve, and they point to The Sermon on the Mount. Nevertheless, this verse resides within the passage on judging others.
We have some leeway, a considerable amount, actually. When people make it clear they desire nothing more than to tear us apart or trample us underfoot, we have no obligation to them. We should pray for them. We should love them, but until they reform we don’t have to have anything to do with them.
Consider your own behavior. You continued to visit my blog after I banned a couple of troublemakers. Since you did not habitually misrepresent facts or used vulgar language, I did not ban you.
Nevertheless, you habitually insult people and their beliefs. Even though I put up with it, I don’t know why anyone else has to do so.
If you respect people enough to want to dialogue with them, what is the point of insulting them? If you don’t respect people, why talk to them at all? Why bother with the insults? What is the point of making people needlessly angry? They going to think more clearly?
Does the mere fact somebody disagrees with you justify insulting them? Can’t you stand to have your own beliefs challenged? Then act like it. Speak softly.
LikeLike
CT continues to have comprehension problems. In his mind, legitimate criticism of him maintaining and utilizing incorrect facts and relying on misrepresentations and promoting character attacks is synonymous with the commentator actually trying “to tear us apart or trample us underfoot”. This is the same ‘reasoning’ (that is to say rationalization) used by CS.
Thanks for demonstrating your standard technique I criticized above. Love the advice at the end, by the way. Nice touch telling me how to articulate my criticisms as if by changing my tone I would be more persuasive. That’s funny!
LikeLike
tildeb
Consider what you said here => https://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/to-ban-or-not-to-ban-dealing-with-difficult-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-22131.
You go on to explain how it is the fault of all those bloggers. No apologies for your own behavior.
I don’t think you an idiot, but I don’t understand how you can be so blind. You espouse your views with adamant resolution. Yet it never occurs to you that others can and do exercise the same right. Is everyone else so wrong you have a right to insult them?
We are each different. If I cannot see what I did to provoke it, I react to insults calmly. Others get their feelings hurt. So they turn you off. Why shouldn’t they? If we find being insulted no good reason hurtful, what is wrong with removing ourselves from the source? Are you so wise you have a right to insult anyone who dares to disagree with you? Does everyone else have an obligation to hear your words of profound wisdom — interlaced of explanations of their own idiocy and stupidity?
What I worry about are the people you hurt who don’t have the sense to turn you off. Some people are what we call sensitive. When you really don’t know how or why another is going to react to harsh words, it is irresponsible to use them.
LikeLike
CT, the ‘insult’ you think I am making is in fact criticism of bad ideas and incorrect information using reality.
How terrible of me.
That’s all it takes for many religious bloggers to ban me. That’s the first salvo, so to speak. I dare to criticize their belief claims using reality in support of my contrary position.
Such insulting tone, I know.
In response, I get this kind of disingenuous drivel, that it is my commenting that is intentionally ‘hurtful’. Yes, reality is a hard teacher (apparently with a liberal bias) on such special snowflakes as you who demand it accords to their religious beliefs and who then whine about hurt feelings when reality begs to differ.
Toughen up, Champ.
It is not my problem or concern if correcting your mangling of US history, for example, causes your feelings to be hurt. Your feelings – any more than your religious beliefs – do not determine historical veracity. Substituting religious apologetics and calling it history as you do is disingenuous; criticizing your apologetic claims is not ‘hurtful’ in intent but mandatory for anyone who cares about what’s true. Obviously, that’s not you.
Banning me isn’t a solution to your problem, your willingness to craft history to meet your religious beliefs; as I said, it’s merely an avoidance technique rationalized to shift blame and responsibility away from you and imposed on others in your mind. Using the ‘hurt feelings’ gambit demonstrates your lack of intellectual integrity to defend ideas with good reasons supported by reality (the hurt feelings response is an immature manipulative tool you feel comfortable using in this context), and undermines any independent merit you assume informs your claims about it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
tildeb
I have seen you do what you do to anybody who disagrees with you. Anybody. Everybody. So I don’t take it personally.
Am I perfect? Am I right about everything? No. Could you find something wrong with me? Even a serious character flaw? Perhaps. Could you fix that flaw? No.
We each have enough trouble trying to understand ourselves. So if you want to save the world — even from all those preachy religious bloggers — you might want to begin work first on your self. That is where saving the world begins. That is just about the only part of this world you have any real hope of changing for the better.
We begin by accepting our own failings. Then we do our best to set an example for others.
Have you done that? It doesn’t look like it. Your own words indict you. You have told us how much you anger people, and it is obvious you are upset about things you cannot change.
Anyway, I suppose I ought to take my own advice. For the most part I hope I do. I have learned more from blogging — writing my blog — than anyone else.
One thing I have learned is that I have little reason to hope I will change you or anyone else. I suppose that is because you don’t exist to fulfill my designs. Even if you don’t believe in Him, you are somebody else’s project.
Do people change? For the better? Yes and no. But why do people change for the better? There are a number of reasons, but I think the main reason is the realization we are broken. Then we are most likely to turn to someone who can help. However, by saying such a thing, in your eyes I suppose I am trying to bully you. The things we angry about can be quite strange.
Why my belief in Jesus Christ threatens you is a puzzle. It is quite difficult to convince another person they are broken or to look to our Creator for salvation. Since you spend so much time trying point folks in another direction, you should know that. How many have you convinced to your way of thinking? Therefore, I suggest you look at yourself? What is not working? Who can help? Nobody? Well, if that is what you want to believe, nobody except you can change your mind.
LikeLike
“Why my belief in Jesus Christ threatens you is a puzzle.”
If I may interject, Tom, I don’t think it’s the belief in itself that’s the problem (although it’s a bit weird). I think you’ll find the problem is the agendas that believers then attempt to push on society in general, based on their interpretation of what this invisible god wants. Things like forcing women to be birthing machines, by trying to ban abortion and contraception. Things like telling kids they’re bad on the inside and if they don’t behave correctly they’ll burn in hell for eternity. Things like telling gay people they don’t have the right to express their love or form relationships. Christianity is still pushing a lot of harmful agendas, not all Christianity, but certainly most of it to some extent. I think there are better ways to believe in the god you say is benevolent, if his existence seems so obvious to you. Have you looked at the Quakers at all? If not, there is also the possibility of recognising that invisible gods probably don’t actually exist.
LikeLike
@violetwisp and @archaeopteryx1
The Apostle Paul was quite clear about the fact that some would find the Gospel quite weird.
When I we are broken, think about what that means. The greatest sin is pride. Because we are proud, we impose our own agendas on each other and everything about us.
Does the Bible condone turning women into birthing machines? No. Did you know God told Jeremiah not to marry, not to have any sons and daughters (Jeremiah 16:2)? There are times when one can multiply, but still not be fruitful.
Does the Bible directly address the subject of abortion? No. Yet abortion looks like murder to me. I wrote about what the Bible says in this series => http://citizentom.com/2012/11/24/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion-part-1/.
Does the Bible tell kids “they’re bad on the inside and if they don’t behave correctly they’ll burn in hell for eternity?” No. The Bible does say “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” We really do have to learn to behave ourselves. Without discipline, we never learn self-discipline.
God calls us His children. Did you ever rebel against your parents? Did you ever proclaim they were unreasonable? Well, I don’t know your parents. They may have been kooks, but until they acquire sufficient wisdom, most children think their parents are unreasonable. That’s like calling the Bible a bit weird.
What is hell? There various theories as to what the Bible is telling us. Many people, I think, have, for the sake of effect, inferred too much. John 3:16 says that if we believe in Him we shall not perish. Other passages speak of a second death. Most theologicians think of that second death as eternal separation from God and something we choose of our own volition. So why the suffering, the flames? The suffering of Hell comes from the realization of a very bad choice. However, eternal death just means you are not coming back. As the that commercial suggests, some go for the gusto! Some believe you only live once. So why should anyone who does not believe in God or eternal life be frightened?
Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Yes. See http://citizentom.com/2015/08/15/everything-is-a-miracle-reblogged-part-3/.
Are the Quakers good people? The Bible saids none us are good. Only God is holy. Even though we are sinners, He loves us. That’s saying our Creator cares about us. That is not a put down. It just is.
Christianity is not about a particular sect or a special interpretation of the Bible. Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus. The Bible tells us about Him. Like any other Christian group, the Quakers tell us about Jesus and the book that is about Him, the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God, not the Quakers, and they know that.
Is there a God. Is what the Bible says true? There was a time I would have said I did know if God existed. I did not believe the Bible. Since then I have studied science, married, had children, worked in various professions, and read the Bible. Since then I have learned how little we know. I have learned how hard it is to love — and how rewarding. I have seen my children grow and marveled. I have been gifted with an interesting and rewarding life. I have been astonished by the Bible — and the fact I now believe.
The Apostle Paul was quite clear about the fact that some would find the Gospel quite weird (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). Still, many believed.
LikeLike
“How many have you convinced to your way of thinking?” – I can’t speak for Tildeb, but for myself, I can honestly say, several:
LikeLiked by 1 person
many times I agree with you but I take exception to this. There is a fellow called Som, I honestly can’t stand him. So maybe it is something to do with me but many people think he is a pain.
LikeLike
Just to be clear (there may some confusion about whom I am speaking of here). I’m saying that when Mak is banned from commenting, Mak’s character is not the reason; having to address his comment is and producing an answer can be avoided if he is banned.
SOM is banned (I presume) because he’s a troll. It’s not his character (I don’t think) that drives his behaviour; it’s his religious beliefs. And it lives on the border of Crazy Town. I suspect in real life he’s probably a very nice person as far as his character is concerned but I have little doubt he still has opinions based on his religious beliefs that we may, and most reasonable people should, find reprehensible.
Of course, I may be wrong… but I think allowing SOM’s reprehensible opinions to stand exposed to public scrutiny does more to influence others away from claiming kindred religious beliefs than simply banning him… although I understand why many bloggers do. Again, if banned, SOM’s commentary doesn’t have to be addressed at all.
What I have found is that addressing his commentary has no effect. He just repeats himself and so I don’t bother but others may want to take a stab at it and who am I to determine who should and shouldn’t have that opportunity? After all, should his opinions ever change then I don’t think we can claim it’s his character that has undergone some magical transformation; SOM finally recognizing good reasons of merit probably has everything to do with it. (Then all of us can agree we have good evidence for a miracle!)
LikeLike
Another two people who just don’t get SOM. You’re missing some beautiful work. You have to let the insults go over your head to get to the gems.
LikeLike
“SOM is banned (I presume) because he’s a troll.”
Careful, tildeb, who you call a troll on this blog, that’s what got my ass chewed.
LikeLike
And SOM gets upset when he’s called a troll. I got my ass chewed.
LikeLike
Wanna compare bitemarks?
LikeLike
I’ve just got thicker skin… 😉
LikeLike
I knew an alligator like that once.
LikeLike
I have thought about Som and his comments and having come to the conclusion there was nothing to learn from him, I felt it was best not to interact with him anywhere, my blog or elsewhere.
There are those who think listening to his garbage is a form of entertainment, I don’t so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Careful, Mak, lest ye offend our hostess – not an enviable position in which to find oneself, as I can testify – as she seems to have found something in Silliness of Mind that the less perceptive of us appear to have overlooked, and by her own words, is leaning toward a similar opinion regarding the ever-lovable Colorstorm. There’s really no accounting for taste, but I suppose that’s why Baskin-Robbins makes 31 flavors.
LikeLike
As Makagutu is one of my oldest blogging buddies, he is exempt. He also very rarely goes for personal insults, and it’s always in the context of an ongoing discussion.
I’m so sorry you don’t like polite request to be polite. It’s clearly damaged you deeply. Anti-bitter pill, anyone? 😉
LikeLike
I don’t understand whatever CS says, I stopped bothering.
Our good blog hostess is a whisperer for some of the crazies. This could explain why CS thinks she is coming closer to his god
LikeLike
It should be interesting to see how that plays out.
But for now, CS and Wally seem to have tucked tail and run – that’s what they do best. If you promote a god for which you have no evidence, and you’re challenged to produce some, what option is left for you?
LikeLike
I don’t interact with Wally much and I observe CS from a distance lest I get soiled with his silly statements and I have to get water and soap
LikeLike
Hehe, everyone has their own charm. 😉
LikeLike
The Troll Whisperer – it has a nice ring to it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It sure does. SOM is the troll, CS is just dumb
LikeLike
@ Citizen Tom
We most certainly do have the capacity to judge others and, in fact, a duty, especially where behaviour is harmful to themselves or others, and it is but a moment to consider numerous actions that would qualify worthy of being judged.
Indoctrinating children with superstitious religious nonsense has the potential to be extremely harmful.
Our host will tell you that.
One only has to look at ISIS or Boko Haram. Or how about the Catholic Church and some of its heinous doctrine?
Are you truly suggesting that teaching Creationism is not potentially harmful?
How about the nonsensical and fallacious doctrine of Hell?
Such action needs to be judged. Judged and condemned.
LikeLike
We have the capacity to judge each others behavior. We cannot properly judge each other.
There is an old poem by John Donne. Donne said no man is an island. True enough in the context of his poem, but everyone is an individual, separated from every other individual. We can live with another person for a life time, love them and have children with them, and still there would be a part of us closed off — and part of them we do not know.
How do we judge anothers behavior? Relative to what? What rules do we use? What rules do you use, Arkenaten. Would everyone approve? Why should they? When you demand the right to tell others what to believe, indoctrinate the children they brought into this world, love, feed, cloth, and shelter. Why should they let you decide how to mold the character of their children? To all the world, are you not just another nosy stranger?
You did not give anyone life, Arkenaten. Perhaps you are a father. Even so, another created the spark that came from you. It is to that One, the Creator, we owe a debt. It is that perfect One who can rightly judge. It is from that One I desire mercy. It is that One who gives us the wisdom to know right from wrong.
You say you don’t believe in a Creator? Pity. Perhaps that is why you sound as if you think all creation is centered about you. It isn’t, but may seem that way. When we don’t consider the point of view of others, we must function with a very limited perspective.
LikeLike
How do we judge anothers behavior? Relative to what?
That you need to ask such a question vindicates my assertion.
You’re simply an indoctrinated fool: a Dickhead.
LikeLike
“a Dickhead” – As tempted as I am to perform my usual jackassery (thank you, Rough Seas!), I must remember whose blog I’m on – must…remember…
LikeLike
“or just because the blogger did want to deal with an opposing argument.” = “or just because the blogger did NOT want to deal with an opposing argument.”
I wish I had a better editor. Maybe in the next life. Time for break, I guess.
LikeLike
so why didn’t SOM make the list?
-mike
LikeLiked by 1 person
SilenceOfMind has never banned me; I just find that his never-ending diatribe against atheists never changes regardless of anything I might write. As far as I can determine, he’s just a troll.
LikeLike
SOM operates on a unique level 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Radio Ga-Ga
LikeLiked by 3 people
Does SOM ban or censor people? I didn’t realise. He’s a special case, like John says, his gems are worth holding out for.
LikeLike
Hasn’t banned me but I’ve recently been on the receiving end of his christian hospiality
LikeLike
If you hang in for the long haul he becomes something close to hilarious (but you have to weed out the occasional unforgivably offensive remark).
LikeLike
At first I didn’t want to actually have to pay attention to comments enough to ban people or moderate them. However, I get a lot of traffic from deconverts who need a safe space. I think that sometimes it’s appropriate to control comments in places where the subject matter might warrant it. That said, I think that controlling comments should have clearly posted rules and humane enforcement.
LikeLike
Indeed, and different blogs cover a range of different types of subjects. I think the people listed here are banning on non-sensitive and non-personal issues, issues where it’s a simple matter of opinion that should be (in a useful world) open to discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve only been banned twice, once by the Conservative Party of Canada and once by a Liberal Party evangelical. Both for mainly challenging their stances on Voter and Electoral Equality. I can be quite persistent on the subject, but was banned without so much as a warning in both cases. Religion is definitely a tricky topic, but it’s a shame that politics are so difficult to discuss and break-down into the reality behind the messages.
LikeLike
Those are very interesting places to be banned from! And shocking that they would do so on such a general issue, and without warning. I think John tends to get banned for his persistence. People behave oddly when they can’t answer questions to their own satisfaction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bahahaha! Oh dear, Violet. You people don’t get out much, do you? I cannot think of 4 gentler bloggers, which is exactly why some of you try to run roughshod over us. I see none of you are trying to get banned from hostile Muslim sites or tangling with an actual politician who has some power, are you?
Sheesh, Violet. I have been banned from a dozen sites, been doxxed, bullied, threatened, had the cops called on me twice, had some crazy woman calling child protective services, had my words taken out of context and quoted in the local paper, been threatened with a lawsuit, and no doubt there are probably several alphabet people keeping an eye on me. It’s an ugly world and there. Trust me, having a blogger mod your personal insults doesn’t even rate on the offense scale. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
The police called on you twice? Do tell, that sounds interesting 🙂
LikeLike
And here’s IB22 right on schedule to spout her lovely brand of aggressive and negative innuendo to justify a further lie (“I see none of you are trying to get banned from hostile Muslim sites…). Although it’s true I don’t write to get banned (gee, ya figure?) it’s not true that I don’t write on sites where the blogger is Muslim. Of course, IB22 has no means to find out what sites I visit nor has any clue which ones I comment on but her she she is stating as if true another lie.
IB22 simply doesn’t care about what’s true and she demonstrates it all the time; she cares about creating an echo chamber to suit her tastes and she doesn’t care about mistreating others to obtain the right ambiance. She seems to enjoy maligning non believers in particular and perhaps that’s why she pretends to be knowledgeable when she obviously isn’t… to sway the gullible with these kinds of transparent lies. She also seems to get quite irate only when she’s challenged directly and to effect… not because she is ever wrong but seems worried that others who effectively point this out may have sway over these gullible parroting supporters. That, she won’t tolerate. And that is why I know she’s such a piece of work. Getting banned by her is a badge of integrity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When somebody gets under your skin, its only because you want them there.
LikeLike
Is that some sort of amateur psychoanalysis?
CT, I see you won’t front up and stand behind your narrative, once again. What, CT, did I “make up”?
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone is trying to get banned from anywhere. They are just challenging ideas they believe are wrong and harmful. And the moderation isn’t offensive, it’s just curious they (you) can’t defend your ideas more confidently and appropriately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, no offense Violet, but I think all the bloggers listed manage to defend their ideas quite confidently and appropriately.
There is also the issue of you automatically declaring our ideas to be “wrong and harmful” and in need of defending.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What do we know Insanity? Apparently we’re both thick as two planks and uneducated imbeciles. Now if only we had Pink’s intellectual prowess, imagine what we could achieve in Blogland …
LikeLiked by 2 people
Somehow, I/B, I don’t doubt any of that for a second.
LikeLike
I try not to ban. I find it far more effective to let someone have a go – and then destroy them with the flaws in their own argument. That our blogs are public, if they wish to make themselves look stupid on a public forum, I am more than willing to assist them in that goal.
I did actually ban one person, and it was a woman who, deriding trans and genderqueer people, boasted that she had told one trans woman “You can’t give birth, I can. That’s why you’ll never be a woman.” When I asked her if she would do the same to a cis woman who cannot have children, she more or less admitted she didn’t consider “barren” (her word, not mine) women to be ‘true’ women either.
That was enough for me. I have no time for bigotry of any kind, and an extremely low tolerance of stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At ColorStorm’s abode Oh no it is the infidels again!
LikeLiked by 5 people
Sorry xandrad, incompetent person that I am, I put my pictorial tribute to ColorStorm under your comment rather than under his comment.
No doubt ColorStorm would conclude that he would expect nothing less from a person such as myself who comes from the cesspool and is a representative of darkness.
But them again, perhaps I am fulfilling what you noted in your comment and showing everyone publicly just how stupid I am. I wonder, a Freudian slip maybe?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“That our blogs are public, if they wish to make themselves look stupid on a public forum, I am more than willing to assist them in that goal.”
Exactly! I’m probably not as effective as you on this score, but I do like to give it a try. I can understand why people ban on certain occasions, but I hope I don’t ever have to go there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
makes two of us
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tkx violet for the honorable mention, and especially for your associating me with the fine people you are chastising, but your slip is showing, and here’s why.
You linked to ‘don’t insult the ape,’ but pay attention. Did you read WHY in my first comment I acted such, and why your defense is lame?
The commenter that you esteem had embarrassed himself by posting a remark 7 seconds after I published…………meaning, there was zero time to read the post, meaning my hours of work was ignored, meaning, the commenter had lost all credibility, because of a pre-planned agenda. Surely you would agree.
Secondly, you are relying on hearsay as to WHAT is moderated, for have YOU ever been moderated? Of course not.
Apparently WP agrees moderation is useful…………and I, like a few others, are not ignorant of the devices of many.
For God’s sake, look at the cesspool of commenters who are regulars at certain sites, and yes, many come my way also, and I am happy to send them to the dump.
It has nothing to do with your laughable assertion that certain dialog can not be handled………….
If you were familiar with light versus darkness, you would say I am pretty darn generous in what is allowed to see print.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah … Colorstorm. I cherish your incomprehensible words. In an theological ocean awash with infantile diatribe designed and written by liars, and lunatics, your abject prose, bereft of meaning but replete with meaningless nuance that overflows the cup of Yahwehian. Yeshuan metaphysical directionless tripe leaves me astounded and open-mouthed in awe. Such insight has your followers bubbling with almost orgasmic rapturous smiles. In fact , ’tis a wonder you have never written your own holy book.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The commenter that you esteem had embarrassed himself by posting a remark 7 seconds after I published”
Oh I know! He’s a very fast reader. And a skim reader at that. He doesn’t often take in all the details but he always has interesting comments. Don’t you like to see where the conversation might go? Do you think there is anything you could learn in terms of facts about the world from someone who doesn’t worship your particular invisible god? I’m sure most the facts would be compatible with your world view, you needn’t be so scared.
LikeLike
It would not kill you to agree with me; you know the point is valid.
Look at this thread now, it makes me look like a moderating genius, but no amount of hoop jumping
LikeLike
CS, you couldn’t look like a genius in a room full of morons!
LikeLike
— sorry, meant to say in a roomful of brain-deads –!
LikeLike
Sorry, didn’t finish-
…no amount of hoop jumping could transform an ape into a human…….never did, never will, .but good try at mending fences.
But this is not the spirit of your post here is it now….
LikeLike
“…no amount of hoop jumping could transform an ape into a human…….” – Humans ARE apes, read a book that isn’t the Bible!
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Look at this thread now, it makes me look like a moderating genius”
I guess we all have our own preferences. I think it’s interesting the different directions this comments have gone on in this post. I’d be dismayed and bored if everyone agreed with what I wrote and commented blandly about the content. Don’t you like your thinking to be challenged?
I think you haven’t spent enough time with apes. Seriously. Or dogs.
LikeLike
I’m with you violet on ‘different directions.’
I am aware of Fossey and Lassie, but Diane’s friends can’t sew a button, and Timmy’s friend can’t tie his shoes.
But I’m not aware of the named genealogy of your planet of the ape heroes.
Whereas man, ahem, humans, have clear ancestry going to Adam….such is the value of records, which apes could care less.
LikeLike
A Joke
A little girl asked her Mom, “Where do humans come from?” Her Mom answered, “God made Adam and Eve and they had children and that’s who we all descend from.”
A few days later the girl asked her Dad the same question. Her Dad answered, “Many years ago there were monkeys from which people evolved.”
The confused girl returned to her mother and said, “Mom, how is it possible that you told me the people were created by God, and Dad said people evolved from monkeys?” Her Mom answered, “Well, dear, it’s very simple: I told you about my side of the family, and your father told you about his.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
A wee smile and a big groan. 😉
LikeLike
CS demonstrates no interest in what’s true yet again with “Whereas man, ahem, humans, have clear ancestry going to Adam….such is the value of records…”
By ‘clear’ ancestry, CS means his belief in the historical accuracy of a figurative myth. Again, he confuses his belief with reality and then expects reality to comport with it.
Do we have clear ancestry going to Adam?
Unequivocally we DO NOT. That’s a fact demonstrable in CS’s DNA… not that he cares one whit about his actual ancestry laid out in it (which, by the way, shows we share A COMMON ANCESTOR with other great apes). He is armed by his factually incorrect belief and that’s all he needs to assume he knows what’s true, what’s the actual case, what comports wholly with his religious beliefs.
He doesn’t know and he doesn’t care he doesn’t know. Trying to point out what’s true is what he calls ‘spiritual darkness’ and ‘trash’ worthy of being banned. That shows us how much intellectual integrity and concern for what’s true ColorStorm actually brings to the table of rational discussion: absolutely none.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And while you talk AT me, I will kindly point out sir, that you will hardly find a man who keeps records for jackals.
The genealogy of man is verifiable, undeniable, and truthful, much to your chagrin. Eve is the mother of all living.
But banned? Uh, that would be a big fat untruth. I have yet to ban one soul, yet by the way, some of your ‘friends’ have banned my harmless and relevant comments entirely.
LikeLike
“The genealogy of man is verifiable” – So verify it, not using fiction from the Bible —
I’ll wait.
LikeLike
Tooban or not Tuban, this is the question….
You would chastise a judge in his courtroom for pronouncing a man guilty for a clearly presented case.
Is there no limit to your embarrassment?
LikeLike
My meaning of ‘banned’ is the same as the OED – meaing that my commentary was prohibited by you. That you prefer to accomplish this same goal by ‘moderating’ and ‘editing’ amounts to the same thing: my comments were not allowed to stand on your blog. That is not an ‘untruth’ and you know that perfectly well.
As for your religiously inspired claim about ‘Eve’ in place of ‘Adam’ I’m going to presume that you speak about what we call mitochondrial Eve (who according to YOUR DNA lived some 50,000 to 70,000 years before any X chromosome Adam came along… again, not that you care about what’s actually the case. And this ‘Eve’ is the oldest human link we have… but then we can continue the ‘oldest living’ ancestor DNA evidence through her ancestors… again, not that you even care to understand this science as long as you can make hand waving motions towards it if it appears to support any of your religious claims. You do so not to seek what is actually the case, nor respect what reality has to say in this matter, but to give the appearance of considering compelling evidence contrary to your religious beliefs. If you stay true to form, you will now try to vilify me and my character for pointing out what is the case – both with genetics that do not comport to your religious beliefs and your hand waving to cover up your vast ignorance on this subject – by invoking religious language about the ‘spiritual darkness’ I represent and then if within your power, moderate my comment into oblivion or edit it with your rewrite so that it doesn’t mean what I wrote it to mean, which you then use for fodder to misrepresent what is actually the case and reassert your contrary claims. You’ve got nothing on your side, CS, except you willingness to believe as you do, an intention not to respect what’s actually the case, and the gullibility of your commenting crew who praise you for lying for Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm – sounds like he knows you, CS —
LikeLike
Your complaints are tired tildeb.
But the ruling on the field stands: Eve is the mother of all living.
LikeLike
Colourstorm, please answer:
Are you married?
Have you ever been married?
LikeLike
Just because you grew tired of being concerned with what’s actually the case, don’t project that tiredness on to me.
And although the common ancestor of all living humans TODAY are linked to mitochondrial Eve, you (conveniently and probably by ignorance) forget about all the other human females living at that time and for many generations thereafter whose line died out. This means Eve is not the original mother of all humans but the ancestor of all living today. There is a difference… if you can wrap your head around it but why bother when you’re just so darned tired of what reality has to say about your beliefs?
And I apologize to any of the scientifically literate out there who immediately recognize my previous mistake: I meant to say Y chromosome Adam, of course and not X. Sloppy, I know. CS missed an opportunity to correct me gleefully, so I take some solace from at least recognizing my error and now correcting it. I really do like to represent reality fairly and honestly and, if I make a mistake, have someone considerate enough to correct me.
LikeLike
I doubt that CS knew the difference, or for that matter, even read your comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Still waiting on your non-biblical evidence, and tapping my toe —
LikeLike
Yeah archx, like you need evidence there is a sun at night.
The strength of scripture does not need me to attest to the truth, and your petty unbelief simply confirms the written word perfectly:
‘shun profane and vain babblings……….’ which by the way, if I may bring back the subject, is a gem in the field of moderation.
LikeLike
“Yeah archx, like you need evidence there is a sun at night.” – Actually, there is scientific proof of that, but none for your Bible or your god, and from the rest of your comment, clearly you haven’t any either.
“shun profane and vain babblings” is one of your signature comments, profusely repeated, yet your every blogpost is filled with vain babblings – amazing.
LikeLike
“The strength of scripture does not need me to attest to the truth” – If, CS, I interpret your vain babbling correctly, you seem to be saying that your Bible is it’s own evidence. I could say the same of a Superman comic book and it even contains pictures of him, so he MUST be real – your Bible doesn’t even have that!
Of course Supie has his weakness – Kryptonite – but your god has his weakness too – daylight!. Remember in Gen 32, when he was wrestling with 100-year old Jacob (and lost!)? Yahweh begged Jake to release him (Gen 32:26), saying, “Let me go, for the day breaketh.” Why do you suppose that was, CS? Does your god have little Vampire thing going on that we don’t know about? Or UV allergies?
Now you can stay and explain, or you can tuck your tail between your legs and run back to your own blog, where you can hide from the truth behind your veto power – which will it be?
LikeLike
Which will it be?
Hmmm, tough one. I suppose I will just have to borrow from the words of a dear woman and ‘moderate myself,’ while you seethe in your ignorance as you try to convince yourself that darkness is light..
LikeLike
“…as you try to convince yourself that darkness is light.” – Would this be the same light your god fears (Gen 32:26)? Or is this just some more of the vain babblings you shun unless they’re uttered by you? Your Momma should have named you ‘Brook’.
So, tuck tail it is, back to the comfort of your delusions —
LikeLike
From your first irrelevant comment here on ‘banning,’ you have proved the need to moderate.
Thank you.
But by the way, ‘the entrance of thy word giveth light…………’ but kind of hard to penetrate a stone heart that bans the Creator.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the program core of so many religios… if only those legitimately critical of your woo-laden claims would just moderate themselves and not cause so much ‘offense’ to you delicate snowflakes so cocooned in your own delusions that they dare to hold your claims to the arbitration of reality.
Some of us might respond favourably to your unreasonable request to moderate ourselves but not those of us who actually care to respect reality’s right to have some say over the factually incorrect claims you make about it. And when respecting reality is seen to cause so much offense to you fragile snowflakes, one really has to wonder about the intention of those fence-sitters who care more about respecting the fragile egos and identity of the deluded by remaining either silent or neutral when reality is assaulted by the claims of those like you who promote faith-based beliefs than they do about respecting what’s true and challenging those like you who warp reality to fit their beliefs about it. And you are legion.
The challenging IS important because to sit back and moderate one’s self isn’t nice, isn’t respectful, isn’t tolerant of differences at all; all moderating one’s self does in fact is appease the invasion of woo into the public domain and meet it with silence.. a silence framed by the woo-masters as ‘respectful tolerance’ that in practice is acts as accomplice that permits and even fosters the continuance of introducing real harm to real people in real life in the name of respecting these delicate snowflakes and their pernicious piety.
More of us need to wake up, come alive in public debate, and challenge these faith promoters, these deniers of what’s true, these woo-addled soldiers of the divine willing and capable of reducing all of us (by dismantling our rights in the name of faux-‘tolerance’ and faux-‘respect’) to becoming nothing more than sinful and mewling slave chattel of their religiously inspired Dear Leader.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow tildeb,
I must be really significant for you to spend so much effort to try to silence the voice of scripture on my behalf.
But I suppose that you would think a trolling comment on paper airplanes should be well received on a post dealing with tuna fish.
Some people do not care what goes into the recipe, but some comments just plain stink, and are in fact like a fish out of water. You can keep them, I’ll throw them back.
LikeLike
CS, is that heap of gibberish your way of saying you don’t believe in Superman? He MUST be real, I have a book about him!
Interesting stunt you’re pulling over on your site – hiding my comments so that Wally will think I’m ignoring him and so that I believe he’s dodging my challenge. I call that game, “Let’s You and Him Fight. [Eric Berne, “Games People Play“]
LikeLiked by 1 person
I sent a copy to Wally too, CS – I just thought others should know what kind of mind games you’re playing, you little Christian, you —
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’d better hope, CS, that your Jesus never comes back – if he does, you’re in BIG trouble!
LikeLike
Once more arch, your uninvited petulance in the home of another blogger, totally off topic, proves you need to find a gossip columnist that appreciates your antics.
My site is no doubt not conducive to your theatrics.
Six year kids play your games, but I’m guessing many of your friends may suggest that I use a shorter leash………….
LikeLike
And I’m guessing that most of my friends would prefer to see you come out from behind your moderation shield and discuss religion openly and honestly, providing evidence to back up your claims, rather than just flinging scripture like monkeys fling poo.
LikeLike
Hi ColorStorm, speaking as someone you now doubt see as coming from the cesspool and representing darkness, I accept your right to moderate. However I would suggest you refrain from editing comments. Rather it would be better in my, darkened (cesspool), opinion if you left the comment as written and instead added your editorial opinion in a response immediately below the comment you find objectionable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pete-
Fyi, the ‘editing’ is a note of courtesy, and used as needed.. The content has been removed, usually it is spiritual pornography, or senseless words designed to steer a conversation into oblivion.
I am well aware how threads degenerate quickly to the ‘cesspool,’ and I have no desire to put logs on the fire. One need not travel far to read the comments of certain whose chatter proves my point.
There are plenty of sites where ‘everything’ is acceptable, and my place is not a welcome mat for profane and vain babblings, as i clearly assert in my comment policy.
But ‘leave a comment as written?’ That’s the point of moderation which has proved to be a gem..Only the worst of artists would not care as to what goes on his canvas. But for the most part, most people are mannered enough as to how to act in the home of another.
But tkx for the input.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Our perspectives on the same issue can at times be quite different. Those of a differing world view may see it this way:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sorry Violet I might be getting out of line here. I seem to be in a mischievous mood.
LikeLike
No problem, I’m a fan of mischief. 😉
LikeLike
I’m sorry if my criticism upset you.
My view is that blogging about certain issues is a political act. It has an impact. Sometimes big, sometimes small, but an impact. With that comes a degree of responsibility- it’s not just about the blogger, it’s also about the people the issues affect.
I don’t think my criticism of your method is an ‘offence’. I think you could use better structure, and I think if you’re trying to make a particular point (as in the case of religion/feminism/civil rights) you can be a more constructive activist by doing so.
Perhaps you just blog for fun, in which case, my criticism is moot- if that’s the case just ignore me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There, that’s good. Thank you, Pink. Now, Violet, Pink has opened up… Is there anything you feel like saying to him. Remember, this is a safe space 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL I suppose I grew up in a very different environment to Violet. At my school being called a failed abortion would have been practically a nicety.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahaha!
LikeLike
Maybe she grew up in a community with that American mindset where every child gets a prize- even the one who kicked the football into his own face and knocked himself out 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks for mediating, John. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I accept your apology Pink. I think it’s obvious to everyone I blog for fun, so I can now safely ignore you.
LikeLike
If that wasn’t a joke, spend 5 minutes in the corner
LikeLike
You’ve gotten rid of me, VW, with your criticism, and now you’re going after Pink? When you’ve finally eliminated everyone with the courage to disagree with you, you’ll be left with only your acolytes, but then, how will I distinguish you from Colorstorm –?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, I wasn’t aware I’d got rid of you. I just assume people are busy or find more interesting blogs to read when I don’t see them for a while. What happened?
You’ve missed the context for the spat with Pink. I asked him politely not to call Insanity a failed abortion attempt on another post. He flew off the handle telling me I was stupid and my posts are rubbish, and moaning that I insulted him a few years back (refusing to post the context, in spite of being able to track down my comment).
People are more than welcome to disagree with me, I only request they refrain from personally and mindlessly insulting other blog guests.
I don’t have any acolytes – do you see any? Everyone who posts here disagrees with me on something, and are happy to have adult discussions about the differences in opinion. Even John – he thinks theism isn’t natural.
LikeLike
Careful 😉
Did you like how I argued the opposite in the book?
LikeLike
I’m sure I will! I still don’t have any book reading windows in my life – plan to start reading it in October.
LikeLike
As I was writing that part i was giggling thinking of you reading it.
LikeLike
I’m truly honoured! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I gave you the exact context. Are you now going to deny the fact that a number of times you referred to my comments (and posts) as snobbery? Grow up, Violet, and take responsibility for yourself. I’m not going to post anything more so you can embark on one of your prolonged and exhausting semantic discussions. (Which inevitably end with an annoying ‘challenge’)
I, an adult, called another adult a failed abortion. That’s it. There’s no need for tears or dramatics. I doubt IB needs you or anyone else to act as her substitute-mother-hen. When people choose to make public statements they open themselves up to public criticism. There’s no such thing as the right ‘not’ to be insulted or offended. You’re not just whining about what I said to IB, you’re whining about me having said your posts weren’t well formulated. So not only do you want to tell people what they can and can’t say, you want to tell people what to think as well. How very religious of you.
Just so we’re clear, I’m sorry you’re hurt, but what I said is my perspective. I don’t see that this formula of quote + semantic discussion + challenge serves any purpose. No one learns anything. Nothing is actually gained. Religious extremists get to post their vapid comments and people argue over commas. Should I applaud?
LikeLike
Em, well I find if I don’t get anything of value from a blogger I just, well, avoid their blog. You must be a glutton for punishment.
No surprise we’re not getting the context.
LikeLike
When I have time I have a look at everything in the reader under the atheist tag. Unfortunately you’re there often, even though you are to scepticism what paint-by-numbers is to art.
There’s nothing insightful, new or interesting. In fact you don’t even seem to be a genuine sceptic. You’ve simply gone from accepting one form of authority to accepting another. You still don’t question, you conform and run with pre-packaged notions.
LikeLike
Oooh, ouch! 😉
LikeLike
I, an adult, called another adult a failed abortion. That’s it.
I think we can all agree that, stand alone, that’s a classic line 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Use it as inspiration for a new book! 🙂 A study on the over-sensitivity of the ginger population of Scotland’s West Central Lowlands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah yes, because this obsessional ranting about my alleged shortcomings reveals an over-sensitivity on *my* part. 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course it does. You’re too ‘sensitive’ to let people communicate as they choose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In fact, feel free to make comments like that on everyone else’s blogs, and see how many people let you hang around to continuing flinging mud. I think you’ll find I’m letting you communicate just as you choose (probably against all reason), I simply requested you refrain from personal attacks. I’m sorry it’s upset you to this extent.
LikeLike
I make comments like that all the time. Anywhere and everywhere.
And no, you’re not letting me communicate as I choose. You’re deciding for other people what they must find offensive or not and based on that you’re censoring the conversation.
I’m not upset, I’m telling you to back-off and let people interact freely. People don’t need nannies or this sort of moralist monitoring.
Do you think there’s a single person who read what I wrote about IB and thought it was a statement of fact?
LikeLiked by 2 people
[Hand raised] The thought did pass through my head that Inanity had divulged something to that effect in the past, and I just hadn’t heard it. From everything she’s written, she utterly despises her upbringing, and I suspect her parents as well, so i wouldn’t have been surprised if she’d also created some “My-mother-wanted-abort-me” myth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I stopped reading what IB had to say long ago. If you take a step back to have a look at her ‘process’, it’s simply one cycle after another of someone trying to affirm their co-dependent belief system.
She goes through right wing x-tian talking points randomly, regurgitating information that was handed to her without consideration. Her hope/intent is simply to receive confirmation that that information is valid and that by repeating it she remains a member of that socio-cultural group.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I/B began by withholding some of my comments, a la Colorstorm, and graduated to withholding ALL of them. Sweet lady!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some people know the difference between coherent words and spittle……………
A Ferrari dealership hardly needs to display a Ford Pinto to appear generous.
And some people recognize cut and pasted nonsense a mile away, while others can see instantly regurgitated excuses that even the weakest of dairy cows would reject.
And some people actually care what their blog promotes.
LikeLike
John, if that’s true, it’s tragic and shame on you for even bringing it up. If it’s not true, it’s offensive, and shame on you for bringing it up.
LikeLike
I don’t know if its true or not. I said, it was possible Inanity might have said something along those lines, given her hatred for her parents and her upbringing.
LikeLike
mr marvel
arch
You are doing many people an unexpected favor.
A person is thirsty. There are two available taps.
One is yours, which spigot pours forth rancid water, colorless, looks harmless, but is full of bitterness which the dumbest of bears would avoid.
Then there is pure water, full of vitality, which all God’s creatures fully and freely avail themselves of.
A casual look at your comments on this thread alone gives a clue as to who brings the better water………..perhaps you drink of the water of jealousy seeing the beauty of the tap of she in the blue dress.
LikeLike
Great comment CS, one of your finest. I’m beginning to think you’re an acquired taste along the lines of SOM.
LikeLike
Glad to see Violet you have a soft spot for the finer things in life….
I’m thinking God’s word is becoming more comfortable with you, and not all believers are cut from the same cloth.
LikeLike
Aw, you keep thinking that! 🙂
LikeLike
Don’t forget to take your medication or the psych nurse will put you back in the padded room!
LikeLike
“Then there is pure water,” spiked with delusion.
LikeLike
“I make comments like that all the time. Anywhere and everywhere.”
That sounds interesting. Could you point me to a few?
“And no, you’re not letting me communicate as I choose. You’re deciding for other people what they must find offensive or not and based on that you’re censoring the conversation.”
I’ve let you communicate as you choose. I asked you not to use personal insults. It’s actually pretty standard in adult discussions – there’s a fancy Latin term, very obscure, very few people have heard of it because so few people think it’s important … what is it? Oh yes, ad hominem. You didn’t address anything she said, just attempted to belittle her.
“I’m not upset, I’m telling you to back-off and let people interact freely.”
You were upset. You rambled angrily about things I wrote ages ago that apparently hurt your feelings and then went on several disjointed rants about what a bad blogger I am (more ad hominem, odd that).
“People don’t need nannies or this sort of moralist monitoring.”
Apparently they do. Where I come from it’s not okay to personally insult someone having a discussion just because you don’t like their point of view; it’s not okay to make childish throwaway insults based around learning disabilities; and it’s not okay to laugh about abortions, especially on a post making serious points about abortion.
“Do you think there’s a single person who read what I wrote about IB and thought it was a statement of fact?” I don’t care. Irrelevant.
I’m very disappointed in you. (And John Zande and Arch for supporting you)
If you want to become a more effective campaigner and blogger, you should follow the example of someone like Raut. He uses his vast knowledge in an engaging manner, discusses topics fully and with kind respect for everyone. Have a look through some of his conversations. Honestly, you could really learn something.
LikeLike
Do you seriously think you’re in a position to be giving anyone lessons on anything? You’re going to teach me how to campaign or blog? Seriously? You?
Have you’ve ever read any of my comments anywhere? At Askthebigot, perhaps? Where I use the term fraudsters and much worse?
And btw, I don’t ramble angrily (and just out of curiosity, how is saying that not offensive according to YOUR OWN standards?) What I’m saying is BACK OFF. Let each person’s comments and positions speak for themselves. Adults are capable of reading and deciding the value of what is said and the merit of who says it. No one needs the intermediation of a middle-aged Scottish nanny. What you think is interesting or funny is probably not shared by the next person and vice-versa.
You know Roughseas? We met accidentally in internetland even though we were neighbours. She was being very blunt on a blog and someone was threatening to ban her. I thought her tone, her bluntness and her humour were superb. So that’s a lesson for you. You don’t get to dictate to the rest of us, because we’re not subjects of your theocracy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s fine. If you can’t admit that adult discussion is no place for personal insults, bad ‘jokes’ about people with learning disabilities and ‘comedy’ references to failed abortions, I’ll remain disappointed in you.
The only lesson I’ve learned is that you seem to be quite an angry young man which some sort chip on your shoulder.
Next time a post of mine comes up on the atheist tag, you don’t have to click if you don’t want to. But I’ll be delighted to receive any comments you have on the topic of the post whenever you want to drop by. 😉
LikeLike
You DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE. How hard is that for you to understand? Each individual has the right to decide for themselves what is interesting or funny.
As for the chip on the shoulder, you kind of stole my line about you. That’s akin to a child’s “I’m rubber, you’re glue”. I’m not the one who went around calling other people snobs, or criticizing them for being successful. You did that. Own it.
LikeLike
Again, if you’d like to provide the context I’m sure it would be informative. Keep it to yourself if you must.
I forgot to mention, YOU DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE how I interact with people on my blog. I know it’s shocking and crazy, but I just don’t think personal insults and poor taste jokes have a place in adult discussion. Obviously in your elevated circles the rules are different.
YOU DO GET TO CHOOSE which blogs you frequent. 😀
LikeLike
How amusing! Is there an ‘acceptable’ context for insults? Is that somewhere in the VW handbook? You get to decide unilaterally what is or isn’t insulting and then dictate that to the world? What’s your ‘elevated circles’ comment about? The chip on your shoulder where you decided that because I was born to a different world than you that means I think I’m better than you? No, my dear. I don’t think I’m better than you or should have more rights than you.
I do however know I’m more educated than you and am capable of making better arguments. That’s all.
Just so we’re clear, I do get to fight back against censorship and authoritarianism. Wherever it may come from.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hehe, you’re funny.
LikeLike
Yes. Always funny when people fail to recognize their hypocrisy, oh master and decider of the tasteful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raut is a Fin… They’re superhuman.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, well, I called a troll a troll and got a similar comeuppance – that was the third time, and I have a 3-strike rule.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ironically, all three times, I honestly believed I was defending VW. Imagine my surprise.
LikeLike
Oooh, poor Arch! What was your comeuppance? Did I ask you to stop being rude to people? Ouch! Really starting to feel for you people. 🙂
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t get how people want to be in the public sphere and be coddled at the same time. That’s just not how it works.
I especially don’t get why VW thinks adults are incapable of speaking openly and honestly and hashing things out. No, we need a Victorian nanny acting as monitor lest someone faint from hearing a four letter word.
LikeLike
Perhaps it is est no to start from the assumption that people are logical. I suspect we often don’t understand even our own motivations. Speaking for myself, I was upset some time back when tiribulus (who has now gone into hiding) questioned my integrity. I did not mind him questioning my ideas but was not comfortable when he questioned my motives.
LikeLike
Can I ask why? Motives can be an important factor in any debate. Just consider vested interests or conflicts of interest.
I’ll give you an example in my own field. If I price an object for an auction house, it’s expected that I then don’t participate in the auction and bid on it 😉
LikeLike
Some of us have a thicker skin than others, It is part of our make-up.
It is a bit like the interchange between an introvert and an extrovert. An extrovert will often make a derogatory statement as a way of letting off a bit of steam and think nothing further of it. Not realizing that the introvert will reflect on the comment and stew over it for a long period of time. The extrovert will say, “just get over it”.
But overall I concede you are correct it is pointless to delve into these forums unless we are prepared to accept the rough and tumble that goes with it. This is especially the case when one challenges the beliefs of others. Whilst the person challenging the beliefs most likely sees it as an attack on ideas not on the person, but because the belief is part of the persons identity they can see it as an attack on them.
I suppose I like to think my motives are ‘pure’ like a search for the truth, but I do wonder at times whether this is really the case.
LikeLike
Ah, Sir Percival, the Pure – only the truly pure would question his own motivations! You’re a good man, Charly Brown – even if you do tell the corniest jokes —
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be phased by anything TB had to say. He’s an idiot (a sick, demented, dangerous idiot) on a monumental scale. If his geography was different, I have no doubt whatsoever that he’d be a front line ISIS wanker cutting off heads because it pleased Allah.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks John, as I said above I need to develop a tougher hide that no doubt you have had to develop to survive these forums if one is going to challenge the dearly held views of others.
LikeLike
Just in case anyone missed the context for your ongoing strawman rant:
—–
insanitybytes22 on August 19, 2015 at 10:40 pm said: Edit
So I take it you still cannot answer my question, Violet? You are still trying to point fingers at God, a god you claim to not even believe in, as if you are involved in some kind of moral plea bargain arrangement or something. God is not the issue here, I was hoping for a secular argument against women using their bodies for the purpose of fetal tissue donation, but you’ve simply validated what I already knew to be true. There simply isn’t one.
That doesn’t bode well for women in the 3rd world or poor women, not when the “shipping costs” of a few stem cells begin at 24,000 US dollars.
—–
Mr. Merveilleux on August 19, 2015 at 11:40 pm said: Edit
You’re just angry your mother’s abortion attempt went wrong and caused you permanent damage.
——
violetwisp on August 20, 2015 at 1:57 pm said: Edit
Pink, please refrain from stupid insults. Jokes about abortions aren’t funny, it is a serious issue. And such mindless personal attacks should be beneath you.
LikeLike
So, feel free to make comments like that on your own blog. I wouldn’t dream of interfering. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank so much for your permission, VW!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Violet and Pink.
All that’s missing from this fight are the childrens’ toys to beat each other over the head with.
”But Muuuum he called me a poo poo head!”
”Only ‘cos she said I drink wee.”
Ah, yes. Them were the days!
😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
There’s something else missing, Ark. A little (not) surprise to be unveiled in my next post called New Blog Rules. 😀
LikeLike
Groan…WTF! Here we go ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s OK, Ark – you and I have been thrown out of MUCH nicer places than this —
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now, now…
I think this would likely be the nicest blog I’ve been ejected from.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh come on – Chialphagirl had a MUCH sweeter personality!
LikeLike
I’m sweet! 😎
LikeLike
On what, Tuesdays?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re just jealous, Ark, because she liked me best! (She said I was the good one!)
LikeLike
I’m sorry, Ark, I’m a little slow on the uptake today – clearly you’re using the old, “suck up to the bloghost” ploy! Unaccustomed as I am to using such tactics, it went right over my head. But I won’t tell anyone. Promise.
LikeLike