View Full Version : My post on the Sweden thread
I recently recieved a warning from Banquo's Ghost for saying that islam taught hate and imorrality. His reason was:
An entirely offensive generalisation
I would like to know how it is that some people can express similar opinions about Christianity, yet I cannot say the truth about islam. If anyone was of the opinion that it was not the truth, I would have been more than willing to back what I said up with quotes from the koran and muhammed. As I pointed out, I was not saying that all muslims were hateful or imoral, but simply that that is what the koran literally says, and there will always be those that interpret it literally. I do not see how that makes me deserve a warning that takes away all my posting and PM rights.
pevergreen
03-15-2009, 15:20
It is an entirely offensive generalisation.
On the subject of christianity, the crusades and the like were all put forward by men who hoped to gain. Saying that christianity itself made them do it is different.
It is an entirely offensive generalisation.
On the subject of christianity, the crusades and the like were all put forward by men who hoped to gain. Saying that christianity itself made them do it is different.
No, it is not a generalization, because I was talking about ONE thing, the koran. I was not putting all muslims under the umbrella of strict interpreters. As I said though, the koran does teach that stuff. The Crusade analogy is useless, because the Bible never instructed Christians to go on a Crusade, whereas the koran does instruct muslims to murder Christians and Jews (and as a Christian of Jewish blood, surely you can see how uncomfortable the religion makes ME feel), to subjugate women, etc.
If any thought that I was wrong, and the koran didn't say that, I would have been more than happen to quote it and explain that it does. Is the saying the truth about a religion offensive now because the religion is offensive?
Also though, people on this forum make similar ascertains about Christianity all the time, why do they not get banned as I have? It is because of one-sided, politically-correct moderating.
And just so you know, I think people are ignorant a lot of times when they say such things about Christianity (because I has actually read the Bible and know it is not true), but I do not get offended, and I do not report them. I discuss it with them. Looks like you can have discussion of islam though...unless it is about how best to praise it.
It is a religion of hate, misogony, and violence.
What part of this is not a generalization?
pevergreen
03-15-2009, 16:13
I'm 1/4 Jewish, I've attended Lutheran schooling for my entire life, yet it doesnt make me feel uncomfortable. Maybe its because im past the whole "OHMYGOSH ITS A GUY WITH A TURBAN! TERRORIST" that you seem to be at.
Just as Monk said, you generalised.
Would you take everything the Old Testament said to heart? Everything was relevant a long time ago, times change.
If you take the line of anything in print is true, then Christianity supports slavery. It doesnt in reality, but you could say and provide evidence that it does.
What part of this is not a generalization?
You could say the same about ANY statement. If I say that Osama Bin Laden is bad, that is a generalisation. Does that make me wrong though? I believe the obvious point BG was trying to make was that it was an overgeneralization, which it is not.
I'm 1/4 Jewish, I've attended Lutheran schooling for my entire life, yet it doesnt make me feel uncomfortable. Maybe its because im past the whole "OHMYGOSH ITS A GUY WITH A TURBAN! TERRORIST" that you seem to be at.
You are wrong Pever, I never felt that way and do not now. I used to be of the opinion that all religions were the same and that they were all peaceful. What I think of islam comes from reading about muhamed, reading the koran, and studying some of the hadiths. It is a very educated opinion...probably much more so than most/all of the muslims on this board, yours, and the moderators'. The opinion I expressed was not about muslims, but about the koran and muhamed.
Just as Monk said, you generalised.
Would you take everything the Old Testament said to heart? Everything was relevant a long time ago, times change.
If you take the line of anything in print is true, then Christianity supports slavery. It doesnt in reality, but you could say and provide evidence that it does.
This discussion was about islam, not Christianity, but I will answer this one point. It is different with the Old Testament, because what is in the old Testament are rules God gave for that particular people in that particular society. (Things that were later made void with the New Testament) The Old Testament is a history, not a guide on how to live. God does not say "Live like David" (whereas the koran does instruct muslems to live like muhamed, and says that he was perfect). The Bible says that everyone sins, and the only person the Bible tells you to live like is Christ Jesus, who was perfect, God in the flesh.
You actually help my arguement, look at the difference between who Christians are supposed to imitate and who muslims are. Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old girl, and was never supposed to commit a sin...in fact, muslims should strive to be like him. And you say that I am wrong by saying that islam is misogonistic? That is just sick. Muhamed also went on holy wars, murdered, ordered clandestine acts such as assasinations, raped, ordered his followers to treat women like property, etc. This is the guy muslims are ordered to be like. That right there proves my point.
That all aside though, I should not have to be having a religious debate with you here (as this is not the place), the Backroom (which is was banned from as the correct place). Because you do not share my religious views does not mean that you ban me, then discuss religion with me in the watchtower. If you disagreed with my views, why did you not discuss it in the Backroom (that is what it is there for). You know, in a religious debate, you are talking things that people devote their life to and feel strongly about, so in any religious debate people on both sides are going to be offended. If you get rid of 'offending' opinions, you get rid of debate. Do you think that people's anti-Christian arguments do not offend me to some degree? Of course they do, but I make the choice to either ignore them, or to debate it with them.
The difference is that it is politically correct to bash Christianity, but not to have negative opinions of islam. One of the things the Backroom is meant for is religious debate, you cannot selectively censor out people's opinions. My opinon is honest and heartfelt, and I do not think that I should not be allowed to express it on a forum devoted to religious debate. If you do not agree with it, either think less of me and move on, or debate it with me. Do not ban me because you do not agree with me.
Kagemusha
03-15-2009, 17:37
Vuk. Just read the forum rules and think did you broke them or not. Your opinion about whether your stance is right or wrong is irrelevant.
PanzerJaeger
03-17-2009, 10:11
Fighting this is not worth your time, Vuk.
The very nature of the Backroom ensures that it entails the most subjective moderating on the board. The current lineup - unless it has changed significantly in the last few months - shares a very particular viewpoint on discussing Islam and its followers. This is quite obvious, as they were all Backroom posters before becoming moderators and their opinions on such matters are well known. It is not my place to suggest there are double standards or heavy hands in play, but there are unique boundaries in place when criticism of Islam emerges. These exist for a multitude of reasons including everything from the Western-centric culture shared by the majority of moderators and patrons here, which promotes self examination and criticism and discourages the same for other cultures, to the current events revolving around the Middle East since 9/11/01.
None of that is important. What you do need to know is that if you continue down this path, whether by challenging the moderators directly or by continuing to post opinions/facts you know they will not tolerate, you could face permanent expulsion from the backroom.
Sometimes you don't get to choose your battlefield. There's no point in complaining about it, even if it's uphill. ~;)
You could say the same about ANY statement. If I say that Osama Bin Laden is bad, that is a generalisation. Does that make me wrong though? I believe the obvious point BG was trying to make was that it was an overgeneralization, which it is not.
This discussion was about islam, not Christianity, but I will answer this one point. It is different with the Old Testament, because what is in the old Testament are rules God gave for that particular people in that particular society. (Things that were later made void with the New Testament) The Old Testament is a history, not a guide on how to live. God does not say "Live like David" (whereas the koran does instruct muslems to live like muhamed, and says that he was perfect). The Bible says that everyone sins, and the only person the Bible tells you to live like is Christ Jesus, who was perfect, God in the flesh.
You actually help my arguement, look at the difference between who Christians are supposed to imitate and who muslims are. Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old girl, and was never supposed to commit a sin...in fact, muslims should strive to be like him. And you say that I am wrong by saying that islam is misogonistic? That is just sick. Muhamed also went on holy wars, murdered, ordered clandestine acts such as assasinations, raped, ordered his followers to treat women like property, etc. This is the guy muslims are ordered to be like. That right there proves my point..
1)he did not have sex with a nine year old; records are clear on that. he did marry 'aishah when she was nine, but Arab custom demanded he not touch her till she menstruated (since menstruation defined women in the ancient Arab world). hence, he had sex with her as a teenager, so techinacally, he did not commit pedophilia (maybe by today's standards, but we only raised the minimum age in the last century, and a little earlier). besides, didn't europeans have a similar custom until the 19th century? I hear the words :"moral hypocracy" ringing in the air.:no:
2)He ordered no assassinations: he was quite literally offered them. In ancient Arabia, it was not unusal for a person to show loyalty to his tribe/leader/king, by assassinating an enemy. you can read the story of jassas ibn murrah and his murder of kulayb wa'il in 494 AD, or the aftermath of the false haram incident from the 4th century AD. He allowed them to do what they wanted, yes, but he did not obligate them. you can read in detail about the killing of ka3b ibn Ashraf. you will see that he was offered Ashraf's head by muhammad ibn maslamah. the porphet said merely to not do anything until he (ibn maslamah) cunsulted with the tribal elder, sa3d ibn mu3ath.
3)most of his "holy wars" were defensive: Badr, Uhud, khndaq, mustalaq, and hunayn were all defensive, or partly so. you can read their respective accounts elsewhere. also, his offensive operations were often due to hearing news that an enemy tribe was ammassing forces against madinah (khaybar and ta'if), or a tribe breeched peace (makkah)*, or severly breached diplomatic rules (mu'tah and tabuk). his preferred technique of spreading Islam was by sending men out who knew the qur'an and his words, and they would slowly convert friendly tribes (see abu dhar and his convertin ghafar and aslam tribes, abu umamah and the tribe of bahilah, abu musa and the yemenis, etc). in fact, far more tribes went in peacefully than violently, but no, the west just loves to look at the ugly-part of the sick sensationalist aspect that has unfortunately pervaded recently..
so where is the "purely by sword" bulls*** you and your fellow hubul follow?
4)murdured? let me check...nope, there were executions, but no known murdurs, and none of the executions were for false reasons (sedition, treason, murder, more treason). maybe to the 21st century, some of this would be wrong, but not to that time and place. In fact, for a politician, he was surprisingly peaceful for his time and place; he did not tie men by their shoulders, mass murder 30,000 in a stadium, or round people up in a trench for being christian, and slaughter them all...the worst he did was let sa3d ibn m3ath judge that tribe after khandaq; he applied deuteronomy on them, as they were jewish, and demanded that they be tried per jewish law. so the men were killed, the rest scattered..
5)he raped? not even 100 siras show that**. I have seen no evidence (literally none) that he did that. the closest he came was when al-muqawqis sent him a woman as a present. and even then, there is clear evidence that he treated her well, favored her, and even had a son by her-he died as a child. her name is Mariyyah BTW, just so that you can look her up too. also, he explicitly said that females and children should be treated well, and not be harmed, especially in war time. you can read on the Aftermath of khndaq and khaybar.
6)mysogyny? man, go look up pre Islamic Arabia if you want mysogyny. they buried girls alive, and barred inheritance, just for starters..the very worse thing I have seen was that he expected women to dress decently (the veil is actually a abbasid thing), to obey their husbands (i.e be good wives) and they are allowed to inherit and work. oh, wait, that's actually good, isn't it? and if you quote the ar-rijalu qawwamun 3ala an-nisa'i verse, then you need to learn Arabic; while qawwam is often translated as "superior", or "above", it actually means "guardian" or "curator". another arabic word derived from qwm or qym (both mean the same), is qayyim, which is grammatically identical to the above, and is used to refer to a curator or caretaker. in other words to dumb it down, the qur'an says take care of your women, hence husbands must be good to their wives as well. Its also known that he put a strong precedent of NOT exposing girls (well, burying them), of NOT mistreating them, and of NOT degrading them. even his last speech advised men to appreciate women, and to view them well (hajjat al-wada3). you can look that up. and the beating part has some very strict rules to it, again explained in hijjat al-wada3. It is a last resort (and I mean last), and never to the point where a woman is harmed in any way. in fact, the arabic word for "hit", is also the one for "leave", "strike from", or "quit" (or even cite: darab mathalan= he cited an example), so no one is sure if the idribuhunna commandment was reffering to beating. and many sunnahs were written 2-3 centuries after his death, furthur complicating things (many hadths are spurious; problem is: which ones?)
and no, I am not citing some random apologetic (I have nothing to apologize for in that regard). I can recommend you several books, such as the "series of heroes books" (1960's), the various siras (I had one in the library of mine from the early 20th century, you can reda Tabari too), and 5 history books from grandfather's college years-all written and explained in detail, before we had to worry about the recent events (so no, not apologetic). some were in fact very cutting of the prophet.. Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, several explanitory sahihs (none of them perfect), and a good study of the political system from then to the 12th century. that is more than I can say for wherever the heck you got your "facts" from.
I suggest that to read these sources, you need to learn Arabic. I'm not going to sit here and translate every word of these sources. It would take me several liftimes.
*the makkans supported an ally of theirs to raid a tribe allied to Madinah. the attacked tribe sought help, and he responded. once he makkan learned of his reaction, they gave up..well, almost all. one of the three columns for makkah was ambushed by some makkans; 2 muslims and 15 makkans killed. 2 makkans were later executed, but the city was spared sacking.
**like saying none
PS: I know I won't convince you, but I have to post...that way others can read and learn.
I have decided to return, and add some more things, just to furthur illuminate:
1-I forgot to mention that Ka3b ibn ashraf would have eventually become a mortal threat to Madinah; he was known to have begun stockpiling arms (he was a wealthy man), and talking to the makkans to see to see that their was a coalition. assassination was a common solution. In fact, the killers used his weapons stockpiling to lure him into a fake arms deal; again, see the 4th century ka3bah incident*.
2-addition to khandaq: the jewish tribe wanted to be tried by their (jewish) laws, just to clarify the above post. I do not want to disparage any faiths while mentioning this, that way no one can hold it against me.
and if any forum rules were breached I take full responsibility.
*a tribe had attempted to sieze religious hegemony over the makkan ka3bah, by building a hurum of their own. they tried to sell the hurum to the arab tribes, but instead incurred the wrath of the head tribes of makkah (this was before quraysh). one of the dignitaries of makkah led a force that surprised and massacred the enemy tribe, although survivors managed to flee. then the dignitary killed an enemy man over the "hurum" in a special ritual, ruining it.
seeing that he was a threat, and he was indeed out to finish them off, the offending tribe was offered his head by a famous thug, and the man snuck on the dignitary and gutted him. tragically for the tribe, the dignitary somehow survived, and led another army to finish the tribe's strength off.
that's what I remember; I have not read over the account in 2 years+, and hence I forgot the names:embarassed:
if you can find a blue green schoolbook from Kuwait(?) over 30 years in age, you can read about it there. the suject is early arab history (before islam to c.900AD).
as for jassas ibn murrah, he offered to kill kulayb wa'il for hoarding the water in his territory (an Arab no-no), and used the camel of al-basus (an old woman) as an excuse to kill kulayb. again, I cite the same book as above. the immediate cause was of course a bloody camel:wall:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-18-2009, 06:12
Recent posters have made what could be called "offensive generalizations" against the Catholic recently. I am not offended - on the contrary, I welcome the opportunity to debase their assumptions. The point being, whether Vuk has a correct or incorrect opinion of Islam, it is his right to make his case in the same way that individuals can make their cases against Catholicism or Christianity. In both cases, the individuals have made a case against the religion, not the followers of that religion.
Ban both or ban neither. My opinion is that the latter is the better option.
Recent posters have made what could be called "offensive generalizations" against the Catholic recently. I am not offended - on the contrary, I welcome the opportunity to debase their assumptions. The point being, whether Vuk has a correct or incorrect opinion of Islam, it is his right to make his case in the same way that individuals can make their cases against Catholicism or Christianity. In both cases, the individuals have made a case against the religion, not the followers of that religion.
Ban both or ban neither. My opinion is that the latter is the better option.
Thank you Evil Maniac From Mars, that was my point exactly. The Backroom mods are very hypocrytical when dealing with the subject. What Ibrahim has just presented is a counter argument (which I will be glad to answer in the Backroom). That is the reponse a discussion on religion is supposed to get, not a ban.
No offense Evil Maniac From Mars, but I have made arguments against the Catholic church as well, and not gotten in trouble for them. If I try to make them about Islam though, it results in an instant ban. I am still waiting of Tosa or BG to answer me as to why this is. I am not going to say the words "unfair censorship" until I recieve an answer.
Adrian II
03-18-2009, 08:18
So far this is a perfectly good and reasonable discussion, albeit in Backroom style. I fail to see why we can't have it in the Backroom itself.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-18-2009, 09:18
The attack on Catholicism received the same warning as your post :coffeenews:
The attack on Catholicism received the same warning as your post :coffeenews:
Attack CK? As in singular?
The thing is that attacks are made against Christianity all the time in the Backroom. People constantly mentioning the crusades with comments about how warlike and evil Christianity is. People making comments about how oppresive it is. Heck, just look at what people were saying about Christianity on the Satanism thread. A small example, but one that comes easily to my mind, as I was debating some of them there. (note, debating, not reporting their posts and calling for them to be banned)
The moderation is completely hypocrytical, as it is perfectly acceptable for people to constantly make derrogatory remarks about Christianity, yet one cannot give their opinion on islam if it is not politically correct and in agreement with the opinions of the moderators. :thumbsdown:
Why a Christian would need Christianity defended in an internet forum and Islam criticised? Why a Christian would want any religion other than his own for that matter criticised?
With all due respect, this is hypocritical because it shows that you regard religion as a matter of contest of impressions that is decided by public opinion. It is not. It is something very personal that should never be subjected to the *my dad/school/party/company/country/culture is better than yours* internal process.
Such a process is known as pride and in the Christian spiritual tradition is regarded as a sin.
There is no room for politics in religion. There is only room for politics between religious institutions.
LittleGrizzly
03-18-2009, 11:50
The same people who seem find it easy to make grossly wrong generalisations about Islam seem to be incredibly sensitive to any criticism of Christianity, i second gollum... hypocrites!
On the contrary, I am not sensitive to critism of Christianity, but instead regard it as an opportunitty to help someone understand it better. I never said that there should not be critism of Christianity, I just said that as long as there is, there should also be allowed critism of islam. I believe that God wants us to test Him and His Religion as thouroughly as possible, so debate is necassary to truely have a firm understanding and belief in your religion. After all, how do you know that it is right if you never put it to the test?
As for your ridiculous thing about "My religion is better than yours", if you are religious, you believe that. That is what makes muslims muslims, because they truelly believe that it is right way, and not Christianity or any other religion. Likewise Christians are Christians because they believe it is the only true way. It is the very nature of religion, and it is not a bad thing. And gollum, it has nothing to do with pride. Christianity is not a Christians pride, but both his shame and hope. It is his shame because it reveals to himself how pathetic he like other men is (and he more than other men, because he knows what is right and STILL sins), and hope because it offers redemption. I remember your hotheaded and biting posting style from previous debates BTW gollum, please do not subject me to it here.
Beefy187
03-18-2009, 12:40
What ever you say, "Islam taught hate and immorality" is a generalization.
I have muslim friends and they are everything but "hate and immoral"
Your opinion is fair but this line is debatable. I think you should reword it a bit and try it from a different approach
And Sasaki said people who criticized Christianity got warned so...
Originally posted by Vuk
On the contrary, I am not sensitive to critism of Christianity, but instead regard it as an opportunitty to help someone understand it better. I never said that there should not be critism of Christianity, I just said that as long as there is, there should also be allowed critism of islam.
In order to help someone understand it better you first have to understand it your self. That does not mean reciting the doctrine. It means becoming a living example of the doctrine. Someone who thinks that helps others understand religion better through an internet forum while conceiling his pride is delluding himself.
I believe that God wants us to test Him and His Religion as thouroughly as possible, so debate is necassary to truely have a firm understanding and belief in your religion. After all, how do you know that it is right if you never put it to the test?
If *test* means internet forum debates then it shows how little you understand of your own spiritual tradition. Go to a monastery and see how hard the ascetic life is. Then you will have an idea of what *test* means.
As for your ridiculous thing about "My religion is better than yours", if you are religious, you believe that. That is what makes muslims muslims, because they truelly believe that it is right way, and not Christianity or any other religion. Likewise Christians are Christians because they believe it is the only true way. It is the very nature of religion, and it is not a bad thing. And gollum, it has nothing to do with pride. Christianity is not a Christians pride, but both his shame and hope. It is his shame because it reveals to himself how pathetic he like other men is (and he more than other men, because he knows what is right and STILL sins), and hope because it offers redemption. I remember your hotheaded and biting posting style from previous debates BTW gollum, please do not subject me to it here.
Right, let me count; *ridiculous* one, *hothead* two, *biting* three.
How does it say it in the Bible; *You shall not judge*.
As for what is the true way there is a certain thing called comparative religion and another called perennialist thought in Theology. Whenever you decide to see God as something more than a matter of black and white opinion, go check them out.
The statement "[Islam] is a religion of hate, misogony, and violence" is a generalisation and it is offensive.
As such, the reason given for the warning is correct. As far as the warning you received goes, I don't see why it should be reversed.
As for your more general query about Org policy, if you encounter offensive posts, you can always use the "report post" function and staff will deal with them.
I can assure you that a similar post about Christianity will be treated the same way.
As you are well aware, warnings are given in private. It's not because member X did not open a thread complaining about a warning received for e.g. Catholics-bashing, that such warning did not occur.
PershsNhpios
03-18-2009, 12:59
Vuk, remember the time when I made a comment about ONE thing; America?
Well, as it turns out that was also a generalisation.
Because when you pick on America, you pick on Americans and Freedom (TM).
Just as when you pick on Islam, you pick on most of central Asia and the Middle East (TM).
I will not turn this into a discussion about my warning, but I will say that I can find examples of hate and immoralism being employed in many apparently virtuous areas.
Do I need to make a list, or can you simply keep an open mind?
To read through each of your posts I find the same hostility which I was reprimanded for in my own posts on America.
In fact, we are both accusing our seperate antagonists of the self same things, for the most part.
----------
I do not want to involve myself anymore, but I must add;
You are entirely deserving of a warning for your post, and still more so for the posts you have given here - which have been more personalised and aggressive toward actual members than mine ever were.
Yes Vuk! You are putting forth your opinion like a true American!
Adrian II
03-18-2009, 16:14
I have seen much more strongly worded statements from Navaros in the Backroom about homosexuals, women, people on the political left, American soldiers in Iraq or free choice advocates, to name a few categories. He was answered by other members in no uncertain terms, but his posts and views were allowed to stand.
Rhyfelwyr
03-18-2009, 16:36
I'm not sure if the anti-Catholic post referred to was my 'church of Revelation' comment (well I didn't get a warning as one mod said so it could have been something else). In any case, both the Lutheran and Calvinist branches of Protestantism were also attacked, however I have no problem with this. I'm glad I can criticise Catholicism as a religion, and that people can criticise my beliefs in a similar manner. It's always good to get new perspectives on our views and to learn to question them, even if the comments made against them seem extreme.
I'm not here to argue about whether Vuk was right or not, but crucially, he did talk about Islam as a religion and not Muslims as people. Just as several Christians attacked their own denominations in another thread at the same time, without attacking each other or the followers of those denominations as a whole.
So, I think that if Vuk got a warning, myself and others would also deserve one. Of course, I would prefer it if nobody got a warning in such situations.
Now I'll feel like an idiot if I get a belated warning. :embarassed:
In order to help someone understand it better you first have to understand it your self. That does not mean reciting the doctrine. It means becoming a living example of the doctrine. Someone who thinks that helps others understand religion better through an internet forum while conceiling his pride is delluding himself.
If *test* means internet forum debates then it shows how little you understand of your own spiritual tradition. Go to a monastery and see how hard the ascetic life is. Then you will have an idea of what
Sorry, I would consider that more a test of myself than of a relgion. A religion is not physical, it is the meaning of the words written on a book...it is intellectual. You test a religion by examining criticsm of it, and seeing if you religion holds up to them. I am not talking about making excuses for your religion and trying to word its way out of things, but truely and fairly putting it to the test in your own mind. I just cannot imaging how anyone could devote themselves to a religion without doing that.
Right, let me count; *ridiculous* one, *hothead* two, *biting* three.
How does it say it in the Bible; *You shall not judge*.
I am not judging you, I am observing facts about you. I simply do not want to try to talk to you if you behave like you did in the Parliament forums.
The statement "[Islam] is a religion of hate, misogony, and violence" is a generalisation and it is offensive.
As such, the reason given for the warning is correct. As far as the warning you received goes, I don't see why it should be reversed.
If that is how the rules are interpreted, and I deserve the warning, then hundreds of posts that have gone by just fine deserve the same warning. If that is what the rules are, then you cannot be selective about enforcing them.
As for your more general query about Org policy, if you encounter offensive posts, you can always use the "report post" function and staff will deal with them.
I can assure you that a similar post about Christianity will be treated the same way.
*cough* BS *cough*
Sorry Andres, but you know that is not true. Many similar post have been made about Christianity, and a lively debate followed without removal of content or thread locking or anything. I may not have been around as long as you, but I have been around the Org long enough to witness that that is simply not true.
As you are well aware, warnings are given in private. It's not because member X did not open a thread complaining about a warning received for e.g. Catholics-bashing, that such warning did not occur. Fair enough, but my signature was taken away, I could only make one post every few hours and only in the watchtower, I could not PM, etc. Where my membership status is nothing was displayed. I have been in debates where people have said similar and NONE of that occured. Instead, moderators took place in the debates. That is why I asked Tosa to remove my Backroom membership for a year or so, because the hypocrisy was killing me.
Vuk, remember the time when I made a comment about ONE thing; America?
Well, as it turns out that was also a generalisation.
Because when you pick on America, you pick on Americans and Freedom (TM).
Just as when you pick on Islam, you pick on most of central Asia and the Middle East (TM).
That is wrong for two reasons. First of all, when you say that America is evil, things Americans do is evil, and Americans are stupid and evil, you are talking about Americans. I was not talking about muslims, or the way that many people practice islam today. Nor was I referring to any countries or ethnicities. I was talking about a guy and his book, and what the literal meaning of that book is.
I will not turn this into a discussion about my warning, but I will say that I can find examples of hate and immoralism being employed in many apparently virtuous areas.
Do I need to make a list, or can you simply keep an open mind?
I was not talking about corrupt muslims though, I was talking about a corrupt book.
To read through each of your posts I find the same hostility which I was reprimanded for in my own posts on America.
In fact, we are both accusing our seperate antagonists of the self same things, for the most part.
Hostility? The only thing you could come halfway to construing as 'hostility' is asking gollum to refrain from his usual and generally offensive posting style.
----------
I do not want to involve myself anymore, but I must add;
You are entirely deserving of a warning for your post, and still more so for the posts you have given here - which have been more personalised and aggressive toward actual members than mine ever were.
umm...ok, sure.
Yes Vuk! You are putting forth your opinion like a true American!
And here you go insulting Americans more! Before you try to word your way out of it, let me explain so as to save myself another post. First you ridicule my post and say it is offensive, horrible, etc. Then you say it characteristic of Americans. That means that being offensive, horrible, etc is a trait of Americans. THAT sir, deserves a warning.
I will refrain from using that lovely report button though, as it is not even worth my time.
Originally posted by Vuk
Sorry, I would consider that more a test of myself than of a relgion.
Precisely - true religion starts when one is stop examining others and starts examining oneself.
A religion is not physical, it is the meaning of the words written on a book...it is intellectual.
Words are boats to the spiritual shore they are a means not an end. The end is the transformation of the person to the spiritual self and that is a living physical reality in the same manner that Christ was one. Christs seal of proof is that he wasnt a mere theoretical theologian, but a living incarnation of the divine law. All Christian denominations irrespective of doctrine follow his example exactly because he married the spiritual and the physical.
You test a religion by examining criticsm of it, and seeing if you religion holds up to them. I am not talking about making excuses for your religion and trying to word its way out of things, but truely and fairly putting it to the test in your own mind. I just cannot imaging how anyone could devote themselves to a religion without doing that.
You test religion by the effect it has on you. The testing you describe applies to philosophy and humanistic sciences not to religion. The reason you cannot imagine how anyone could devote him/herself otherwise is because you make the common mistake to think that spiritual truths that religions deal with are open to discussion and debate. They are not - they are there to guide in a personal way - not to be the object of intellectual curiosity and scrutiny. If they were they would be subject to change and if they were subject to change they wouldnt be truths.
I am not judging you, I am observing facts about you. I simply do not want to try to talk to you if you behave like you did in the Parliament forums.
You are free to observe anything you like - but using adjectives in your syntax confers a judjement - you have just called me, my opinions and posting style respectively *hotheaded*, *ridiculous* and *biting*. Going by your definitionm, that is also a *fact* but notice that in this thread as then in the Parliament i havent used any adjective towards your person.
Reenk Roink
03-18-2009, 18:09
I have seen much more strongly worded statements from Navaros in the Backroom about homosexuals, women, people on the political left, American soldiers in Iraq or free choice advocates, to name a few categories. He was answered by other members in no uncertain terms, but his posts and views were allowed to stand.
I remember Navaros being publicly warned (which does suggest a warning point) by Ser Clegane for saying that the Catholic Church was an "apostate" church.
I've seen ShambleS publicly warned and junior member'd many a time for criticizing America, some of which were really mild.
Cases like these really bring out the whiny, victim cries of "repression" and "hypocrisy" of the Backroom patrons. :rolleyes:
The fact is Vuk, it is absolutely untrue that Islam (or other things that are repulsing to people of a certain political leaning) gets some kind of a "free pass" (I hear this not only on the Org Backroom either). Go read through the history of Backroom threads and you will see point by point criticisms of Islam, actually on exactly the same charges that you have made.
The difference? The people who made those posts did it in a way that was a lot more tactful. Yeah, they essentially were saying the same thing, but presentation matters.
This is why some criticisms of Islam don't get warned, and others (like yours do). Same thing with Christianity and America (and don't give me the hypocrisy crap again, the history of the Backroom is plain to see).
LittleGrizzly
03-18-2009, 18:42
I think Reenk pretty much nailed it, criticism is fine... well over the top generalisations are not... i can make plenty of criticisms of christianity and islam but as soon as i just start hurling insults at an entire religion the warning points start flooding in...
Im almost tempted to go out say something eqaully silly but perhaps based in truth about christianity just so i can get a warning point to prove you wrong... it feels a little childish though...
and will someone at least do a little research before they make gross over generalisatons about a religion... at least when i have a criticism of christianity i now what im talking about... im fed up of idiots taking some right wingers word for it when he translates to make it sound completely wacky... you'll often find with a little effort that surprisingly much like the bible... context, interpratation and the translation are essential. When you ignore those 3 and go off on some rant about evil islam you just make yourself look a little foolish...
Thank you Evil Maniac From Mars, that was my point exactly. The Backroom mods are very hypocrytical when dealing with the subject. What Ibrahim has just presented is a counter argument (which I will be glad to answer in the Backroom). That is the reponse a discussion on religion is supposed to get, not a ban.
No offense Evil Maniac From Mars, but I have made arguments against the Catholic church as well, and not gotten in trouble for them. If I try to make them about Islam though, it results in an instant ban. I am still waiting of Tosa or BG to answer me as to why this is. I am not going to say the words "unfair censorship" until I recieve an answer.
one you WON'T win (nor have exaclty 258* other victims..uh deabters):clown:
anyways, I would truly love to debate on this, as I have others before me. but I have no permit to go to the backroom, nor do I intend to get one; the TWcenter was too much for me to handle (WAY too many people to prove all wrong, and way too immature). hence, I took an oath not to visit the backroom here, or the political mudpit at the TWcenter again. perhaps some other arrangement? *inserts 18th century officer smiley giving a bow*
*ok, so I keep a headcount
LittleGrizzly
03-18-2009, 19:00
The backroom has a decent level of maturity... i would say this topic represents the lower levels of maturity... i wouldn't say we have all that many people to prove wrong... well on islam at least theres not too many topics...
If your a fiscal conservative you may have quite a few disagreements though... ~;)
I wish to also add: my grandfather was an Imam when he was alive, and he followed the prophet's sunnah to the letter-everything that was consistent with, and related to the Qur'an (that way he avoided doing the wrong things), as well as the good book itself. and he wasn't exactly "evil and hypocritical", but the very opposite. he never raised voice, attacked anyone, and he treated his wife very very well by all accounts. so where in this does Islam teach doing evil, if all proper applications are the exact opposite? and none of the sahabah exhibited evil tendencies (sternes, yeah, not evil)
this is to show you what kind of person islam is theoretically supposed to make. and so far, all good muslims I have met have been the very oppoite of what you predict, and all are very clear that they follow his example. I have yet to see one person who truly did, and ended up a terrorrist or criminal...
no this is not an appeal to consequence-just citing examples of what proper following of Islam does:2thumbsup:
wait one second: this was in a thread about Sweden? I see now....:no: (no I have nothing against Sweden-just what I heard about the immigrents there)
PanzerJaeger
03-18-2009, 22:25
I wish to also add: my grandfather was an Imam when he was alive, and he followed the prophet's sunnah to the letter-everything that was consistent with, and related to the Qur'an (that way he avoided doing the wrong things), as well as the good book itself. and he wasn't exactly "evil and hypocritical", but the very opposite. he never raised voice, attacked anyone, and he treated his wife very very well by all accounts. so where in this does Islam teach doing evil, if all proper applications are the exact opposite? and none of the sahabah exhibited evil tendencies (sternes, yeah, not evil)
this is to show you what kind of person islam is theoretically supposed to make. and so far, all good muslims I have met have been the very oppoite of what you predict, and all are very clear that they follow his example. I have yet to see one person who truly did, and ended up a terrorrist or criminal...
no this is not an appeal to consequence-just citing examples of what proper following of Islam does:2thumbsup:
wait one second: this was in a thread about Sweden? I see now....:no: (no I have nothing against Sweden-just what I heard about the immigrents there)
Well, we can all move along now. Your grandfather was a good guy, there are no homosexuals in Iran, and women are treated very very well by all accounts.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm relieved. For a minute there, I was sure there were incredible human rights abuses and a dangerous fomentation of terrorism within the islamic world. Silly me.
Are such insightful anecdotes how you won all those 258 debates?
seireikhaan
03-19-2009, 00:06
Well, we can all move along now. Your grandfather was a good guy, there are no homosexuals in Iran, and women are treated very very well by all accounts.
A very much uncalled for personal attack.
LittleGrizzly
03-19-2009, 00:36
Well, we can all move along now. Your grandfather was a good guy, there are no homosexuals in Iran, and women are treated very very well by all accounts.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm relieved. For a minute there, I was sure there were incredible human rights abuses and a dangerous fomentation of terrorism within the islamic world. Silly me.
Well thanks for that example PJ, If i were the kind of person to make generalisations like vuk and pj this is the point where i might generalise off the last 2 responses. We had a muslim make a perfectly sensible argument whilst maintaining the hieght of good conduct... then we have a christian who just opens his mouth and dives straight in there with a personal attack...
If i was the kind of person to make generalisations.... the things i would say...
Adrian II
03-19-2009, 01:06
Backroom discussions are getting bland lately, particularly because some very colourful members have left us for one reason or another. The result is a lot of middle of the road discussion instead of sharp debate. Personally I would appreciate a firmer tone as long as racial slurs or personal attacks are left out. With the foxman (temporarily?) absent and Louis dropping only the occasional provocative gem, there is little to get excited about. I blame myself (and a busy stage in my life) as much as the next member. But please, can we have a good old barnfight for once. Sigh.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-19-2009, 01:37
I don't think this debate really belongs here - I think a thread should be started on the topic of Islam in the Backroom instead. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is entirely for debating Vuk's complaint. You all know my opinion already.
PanzerJaeger
03-19-2009, 02:57
A very much uncalled for personal attack.
I'm wondering how simply repeating what he already stated for the purpose of highlighting the weakness of anecdotal substantiation is a personal attack... :shrug:
Regardless, EMFM is of course right. This isn't the place. You guys should kick this around in the Backroom.
seireikhaan
03-19-2009, 03:53
I'm wondering how simply repeating what he already stated for the purpose of highlighting the weakness of anecdotal substantiation is a personal attack... :shrug:
Don't play dumb, that was an attack on a person's grandfather and you know it.
Well, we can all move along now. Your grandfather was a good guy, there are no homosexuals in Iran, and women are treated very very well by all accounts.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm relieved. For a minute there, I was sure there were incredible human rights abuses and a dangerous fomentation of terrorism within the islamic world. Silly me.
Are such insightful anecdotes how you won all those 258 debates?
Ad hominum attacks do not constitute clear debate. Anecdotal evidence, while not perfect, can..(consult Lincoln vs. Douglass) there is s diff. Anecdotal, if used correclty, cites examples of a theory or argument; incorrectly, its old wive' tales
look, I am not saying there are no problems in the muslim world (to think I am saying that proves you think I am and idiot, and that you are a jacka**)-just the opposite, there are no shortages in that regrad; the oner/misinterpretation of what is presented to us, the dogmatic grip of the clerics for the past 500 years, the triumph of traditionalist vs. Logical interpretations (which used to be the norm), etc, etc, etc. this is the main idea behind what I am saying.:shame:
I do not want to fight with anyone on this, as EMFM and others have said. i merely wish o correct, explain, and make sense of this confusion
PS: do not pin the acts of fanatical shi3a on a sunni. I do not perfectly understand the shi3a, or their interpreation of the law, so Iran sould be mentioned to someone else...
also, I usually convinced the others not with anecdotal evidence, but in the manner I talked to Vuk: I cited the records, and used facts from the sources I have at ready. In fact, if you read the poscrit to that post, you would releize that I hade already made my case, and was citing an example of what ideally things should be.
or should I talk to you like I talk to 1 year olds?
also, I usually convinced the others not with anecdotal evidence, but in the manner I talked to Vuk: I cited the records, and used facts from the sources I have at ready. In fact, if you read the poscrit to that post, you would releize that I hade already made my case, and was citing an example of what ideally things should be.
or should I talk to you like I talk to 1 year olds?
and if you are having trouble finding the postcript, I will quote it here:
this is to show you what kind of person islam is theoretically supposed to make. and so far, all good muslims I have met have been the very oppoite of what you predict, and all are very clear that they follow his example. I have yet to see one person who truly did, and ended up a terrorrist or criminal...
again, If you guys have problems/issues/trouble/touchings: go to the backroom.
PanzerJaeger
03-19-2009, 04:39
Don't play dumb, that was an attack on a person's grandfather and you know it.
Actually, it was not. It had very little if anything to do with his grandfather at all, and more to do with his use of his grandfather as some sort of anecdotal evidence of muslim behavior - a segway into my broader point. Since I wrote it I know this to be true.
I do appreciate you giving me the opportunity to make clear any misunderstandings though. ~;)
also, I usually convinced the others not with anecdotal evidence, but in the manner I talked to Vuk: I cited the records, and used facts from the sources I have at ready. In fact, if you read the poscrit to that post, you would releize that I hade already made my case, and was citing an example of what ideally things should be.
The thing is, dear Ibrahim, you didn't make much of a case at all. I, and I believe most people who have issues with Islam, do not really care what the good prophet did or did not do with little girls or whether your grandfather was a stand up guy or not. We care about the here and now. I'm glad you've acknowledged all is not well in the land of Mohammed. I'm perfectly willing to say the same about Western the Western World.
(to think I am saying that proves you think I am and idiot, and that you are a jacka**)
or should I talk to you like I talk to 1 year olds?
Excellent. Your temper is most delicious indeed, but don’t go and get yourself in trouble over me. It’s really not worth it. ~:)
PershsNhpios
03-19-2009, 06:29
I suppose that the men pictured inside the armour in your signature would not have bothered wasting time with baiting people as you have Hunter..
What shame that you dishonour them, by wearing them digitally like a badge.
When you click on, "The Guild", and see the rows of Gaming forums, with people shouting about being flogged with mortars and about how the Greeks pronounced their names - you must wonder why it is necessary to have such a nasty dark side to the forum like the Backroom.
People who go in seldom come out, and if you do not go insane for frustration of the vanity that is breathed like poison therein, you are certain to become one of the self-satisfied and properly opinionated group who are completely convinced that they know what needs to be done in order to correct all the problems in this world.
Outback, Australian mine-workers, though more ignorant, are far more sensible and reserved when they are asked of their opinion!
And they have some of the worst manners I have ever witnessed!
Can another forum not be found for this to carry on?
Certainly, one can avoid the backroom, no doubt as one can avoid drugs or a blackhole (And it seems many Backroomers have difficulty avoiding the former..) - but lately it has burst out into lighter places like the Frontroom and quite blemished the atmosphere of the Org.
And I freely admit that I was one of those who brought political mischief out of it's place.
Political differences only ever bring bitterness.
Here on the forum, where no one can reach another's throat, it simply makes for horrible doses of sarcasm and generally brings out the worst in all - even those who have popular and accepted theories.
In reality, where one can reach another's throat, it is still the case that people who have opinions never intend to let them be converted to that of their opponent's.
The arguments are instead solved with violence.
Not because people are terrible, but because if one is committed to force his opinion on another - nowadays the average person feels too informed and content with themselves to be persuaded - scepticism is rife, the man who wishes to force his opinion must in all cases do so by violence for he loses his patience.
Most sadly, orators are disbelieved and mistrusted, and rhetoric is deemed misleading and deceitful for it has too many times been used as a weapon for evil purposes.
---
What place has any of this on a Gaming forum? I realise to myself, that it is unworthy of the lowest dignity to be debating like a serious suiter of one's nation - whilst on a forum for strategy video-games!
Off to the district representatives to you! Off to the parks, and the town halls, where you can make your speeches and perhaps get some fresh air!
PershsNhpios
03-19-2009, 06:35
(Perhaps I should leave this alone now - but it is interesting to watch Vuk come back and put little bold comments under my paragraphs!
I can just picture him flapping his hands like a mouth and rolling his eyes if we were all in a room talking!)
God Bless America! Home of the Free! Home of the Most Beautiful and Intelligent people in the Whole Wide World!
Da-da da-da da Daa da DAA da-da - da-da da-da DAA! Daa da-da!
I have to say I am very disappointed in this thread. What began as one member's complaints over his temporary suspension has now turned into a place where members are quite comfortable with taking sniping shots at one another, while at the same time pleading ignorance they ever fired those shots.
Perhaps all involved should take this opportunity to walk away instead of indulging themselves with sarcastic baiting and ad hominem attacks.
Strike For The South
03-19-2009, 07:04
I think PJ is right and ya'll are playing right into his hands.
As for the actual thread. It really is all presentation.
Togakure
03-19-2009, 07:24
Yes. I strayed into this thread and am having distasteful flashbacks of the Backroom. I for one would certainly appreciate it if threads like this never strayed into the Org proper. My vow to never return to that place would maintain its proven value.
PershsNhpios
03-19-2009, 09:10
As if from a trance, I stare back on my posts and wonder why I bothered putting the time into it!
ARRCH!
I entirely agree with your sentiment, Masamune - I was simply more aggressive and overbearing in giving my version of it.
Walking away...
Would the moderators do me the favour of warning me every time a post of mine appears outside the MTW section?
LittleGrizzly
03-19-2009, 10:41
I think PJ is right and ya'll are playing right into his hands.
I think Ibrahim is right and a few of you are showing us that muslims are far more civilised than christians... wow hang on this isn't an insult... im working from the anecdotal evidence! :wall:
Edit just to clarify i don't put muslims or christians above one or the other...
Alot of the differences can be put down to socio economic reasons... some of the rest can attributed to various foriegn interventions
Yes. I strayed into this thread and am having distasteful flashbacks of the Backroom. I for one would certainly appreciate it if threads like this never strayed into the Org proper. My vow to never return to that place would maintain its proven value.
It is not in the Org proper, it is in the Backroom Watchertower, which is the correct place for it, and a place that anyone who does not want to go to the Backroom should avoid.
I think Ibrahim is right and a few of you are showing us that muslims are far more civilised than christians... wow hang on this isn't an insult... im working from the anecdotal evidence! :wall:
Edit just to clarify i don't put muslims or christians above one or the other...
Alot of the differences can be put down to socio economic reasons... some of the rest can attributed to various foriegn interventions
That is the most bigotted statement I have seen in a long time. Here I got a warning for speaking about a holy book, while making a point to say that I did not believe it reflected on those who practice the religion (or think that they do). Here you are making judgements (and offensive ones at that) about individual people, and massive groups of people! How about judging people as individuals? What makes you think that it is the religion of the posters that make them post the way they do? Maybe we should blame race next. How about judging people as individuals and not being a bigot. There is your sniping shot Monk, and one that I think is darned accurate and well deserved at that. I think posts like LittleGrizzly's are the one that should be resulting in bans, not mine.
*walks away to cool down after being subjected to such a hateful, disgusting, and bigotted post*
LittleGrizzly
03-19-2009, 13:16
That is the most bigotted statement I have seen in a long time.
As i clarified below i don't put christians above or below muslims
*walks away to cool down after being subjected to such a hateful, disgusting, and bigotted post*
Well im glad you at least understood that generalisations are hateful disgusting and bigotted... now see if you can stop being a hypocrite and follow through with it...
There is your sniping shot Monk, and one that I think is darned accurate and well deserved at that. I think posts like LittleGrizzly's are the one that should be resulting in bans, not mine.
I calrified my intentions perfectly well with the smiley and my clarification below... i was simply showing you the dangers of your generalisations... maybe now your so annoyed you understand why you got your warning ?
Togakure
03-19-2009, 13:43
It is not in the Org proper, it is in the Backroom Watchertower, which is the correct place for it, and a place that anyone who does not want to go to the Backroom should avoid.
My, my. Mr. Pissed Off is gonna snarl at anyone and everyone who annoys him or doesn't take his side, hmm? You are unhappy, so you're gonna try and make everyone else unhappy. Ok, here's an additional two koku's worth of compassionate toughness, just for you:
The main page of the forum is definitely the "Org proper." For that matter, anywhere outside of the Backroom is. The most recent post in the Watchtower can be seen on the main page (which I'm sure you know, as you're a lot smarter than your behavior here suggests). This dubious thread has been visible for some time now on the main page, and out of sheer boredom I made the mistake of looking at it. After reading enough to get the gist of what was going on, I posted my comment--not to annoy you, but to get the attention of staff so that maybe something would be done to settle this or move it out of site from those of us who want absolutely nothing to do with the Backroom.
No, the correct place for your complaint would have been in PMs to the staff involved. People who make public threads like this--filled with complaints focused on their warning and how "unfair" it was--have one intention in my book: drawing attention to themselves in hopes of garnering support from their buddies and like-minders. In my opinion, patrons have no business injecting their opinions about disciplinary matters between staff and an offending patron. And please, don't tell me that you're just trying to affect Org policy for the better in regard to fairness, because that's a load of bull-honky made very clear once this thread is reviewed. Even the title of the thread indicates that your gripe is about a specific judgment that went against you, and not about policy. You're just using policy and previous questionable behavior as leverage to try and overturn your warning. Never gonna happen. The bottom line is, staff is judge and jury. I think they are overly magnanimous in putting up with threads like these in the Watchtower.
If you really want to change policy, consider the example from Saving Private Ryan, where the grunts are complaining about their mission, about it being "fubar." The Catholic sniper presents his case from a seemingly selfless angle, focusing on benefit and not his crappy situation, and the captain says something to the effect of, "listen up, this is how you gripe." Anyone with a gripe over a disciplinary action posting publicly in the Watchtower would do well to take this kind of approach if they want to be taken seriously.
How about accepting responsibility for poor judgment and lack of self-control, accepting the consequences of your actions, and moving on. As it is you're making a fool out of and alienating yourself. Trust me, I know all about that, and it's not a stigma you want here as it can take a very long time to earn back the respect of patrons and staff once you've made an arse out of yourself.
***
Staff: Since getting rid of the Backroom won't be a popular idea, is there any way to seclude the Backroom Watchtower with permissions like the Backroom, so that patrons who don't want to participate and don't want to see any of this can enjoy the rest of the board in relative peace?
My, my. Mr. Pissed Off is gonna snarl at anyone and everyone who annoys him or doesn't take his side, hmm? You are unhappy, so you're gonna try and make everyone else unhappy. Ok, here's an additional two koku's worth of compassionate toughness, just for you:
The main page of the forum is definitely the "Org proper." For that matter, anywhere outside of the Backroom is. The most recent post in the Watchtower can be seen on the main page (which I'm sure you know, as you're a lot smarter than your behavior here suggests). This dubious thread has been visible for some time now on the main page, and out of sheer boredom I made the mistake of looking at it. After reading enough to get the gist of what was going on, I posted my comment--not to annoy you, but to get the attention of staff so that maybe something would be done to settle this or move it out of site from those of us who want absolutely nothing to do with the Backroom.
No, the correct place for your complaint would have been in PMs to the staff involved. People who make public threads like this--filled with complaints focused on their warning and how "unfair" it was--have one intention in my book: drawing attention to themselves in hopes of garnering support from their buddies and like-minders. In my opinion, patrons have no business injecting their opinions about disciplinary matters between staff and an offending patron. And please, don't tell me that you're just trying to affect Org policy for the better in regard to fairness, because that's a load of bull-honky made very clear once this thread is reviewed. Even the title of the thread indicates that your gripe is about a specific judgment that went against you, and not about policy. You're just using policy and previous questionable behavior as leverage to try and overturn your warning. Never gonna happen. The bottom line is, staff is judge and jury. I think they are overly magnanimous in putting up with threads like these in the Watchtower.
If you really want to change policy, consider the example from Saving Private Ryan, where the grunts are complaining about their mission, about it being "fubar." The Catholic sniper presents his case from a seemingly selfless angle, focusing on benefit and not his crappy situation, and the captain says something to the effect of, "listen up, this is how you gripe." Anyone with a gripe over a disciplinary action posting publicly in the Watchtower would do well to take this kind of approach if they want to be taken seriously.
How about accepting responsibility for poor judgment and lack of self-control, accepting the consequences of your actions, and moving on. As it is you're making a fool out of and alienating yourself. Trust me, I know all about that, and it's not a stigma you want here as it can take a very long time to earn back the respect of patrons and staff once you've made an arse out of yourself.
***
Staff: Since getting rid of the Backroom won't be a popular idea, is there any way to seclude the Backroom Watchtower with permissions like the Backroom, so that patrons who don't want to participate and don't want to see any of this can enjoy the rest of the board in relative peace?
A: My complaint is public because my emails went unanswered, and I was not able to send PMs, as well as to draw attention to the unfair standards enforced by the Backroom moderators. I really do not see you problem (or the reason that you are in a thread you detest so)
B: If you do not want to participate in or see the content of Backroom Watchtower threads (listen up, this is really complicated) DON'T CLICK ON THEM!
I for one do not enjoy drunken revelry, but instead of complaining about bars being visible to the public, I simply do not enter the bars. As long as the revelry does not spill out onto the street, why do I care if the building is visible? It is not my concern.
Again, if you do not like Backroom threads, DO NOT ENTER THEM! It is as simple as can be.
PanzerJaeger
03-19-2009, 15:23
:laugh4: @ the innocence abused. Something must be done to keep such disturbing posts away from our more fragile members!
This thread is incredibly, terribly, horribly.... tame. We all know Vuk isn't going to have his warning reversed, and this thread is headed for an unceremonious lock. The only person I know of to ever achieve any level of success with a Backroom Watchtower(..or was it still just the Watchtower?) post was Prole. Its all about the transparency of the staff's decisions, and quite frankly a little bit of cathartic venting. Enjoy the high drama, as he will probably be embarrassed about it later. I know I'm not particularly proud of the time's I've jumped in here to whine about a warning. Sometimes I can't comprehend some of the delicate sensibilities prevalent here. How do you guys survive the internet?
Togakure
03-19-2009, 15:27
Hmmm, ok. I return to this thread because I've now invested in it. Snide responses directed at me will receive a rebuttal from me until the tone turns civil, or until (hopefully) staff shuts this down. This thread serves no useful purpose that I can see. If you and others are going to be permitted to relieve themselves in it, well, my bladder's full at the moment too. If the stink reaches an intolerable level, it will likely be closed. This serves my purpose (though not yours ...).
" ... (listen up this is really complicated) ..."
You crave respect, want to be heard and vindicated, yet snipe in juvenile fashion like this--on top of all the preceding ballyhoo. I don't need advice from you, Vuk. I explained how I ended up in this thread. I'd like to see Backroom diatribe and anything related to it kept out of sight--completely. Your tirade has spilled out onto the main page of the forum. I had no way of knowing what your thread--link visible from the main page--was about until I entered, and once I did and saw what was there, I posted my two-line comment because I really didn't want to see that. You didn't have to respond to it as it wasn't directed at you, yet in your current state you chose to spit venom in my direction. I don't take kindly to that.
It seems to me that your self-control needs some work if you have to respond in acidic fashion to every comment that isn't in your best interest. It also appears that your judgment is impaired if you think it's in your best interest to support such ludicrous "advice" with a fallacious anecdote. I can see why you would have a tough time in the Backroom, and can only conclude that your suspension is an appropriate consequence.
Prove me wrong: let this go, and take your issues private, with patience.
Hmmm, ok. I return to this thread because I've now invested in it. Snide responses directed at me will receive a rebuttal from me until the tone turns civil, or until (hopefully) staff shuts this down. This thread serves no useful purpose that I can see. If you and others are going to be permitted to relieve themselves in it, well, my bladder's full at the moment too. If the stink reaches an intolerable level, it will likely be closed. This serves my purpose (though not yours ...).
You crave respect, want to be heard and vindicated, yet snipe in juvenile fashion like this--on top of all the preceding ballyhoo. I don't need advice from you, Vuk. I explained how I ended up in this thread. I'd like to see Backroom diatribe and anything related to it kept out of sight--completely. Your tirade has spilled out onto the main page of the forum. I had no way of knowing what your thread--link visible from the main page--was about until I entered, and once I did and saw what was there, I posted my two-line comment because I really didn't want to see that. You didn't have to respond to it as it wasn't directed at you, yet in your current state you chose to spit venom in my direction. I don't take kindly to that.
It seems to me that your self-control needs some work if you have to respond in acidic fashion to every comment that isn't in your best interest. It also appears that your judgment is impaired if you think it's in your best interest to support such ludicrous "advice" with a fallacious anecdote. I can see why you would have a tough time in the Backroom, and can only conclude that your suspension is an appropriate consequence.
Prove me wrong: let this go, and take your issues private, with patience.
Masamune, get a life. If you saw that the thread was from the Backroom watchtower you could have clicked back and not read the first sentence. I made this thread to try to get something done about an extremely unfair warning (not that the idea of getting a warning hurts me that much, but because it is an immoral abuse of power and stifles fair discussion). The only thing you are doing is distracting from my grievance and trying to get my legitamite thread locked by flame baiting. You do not like threads like this, so please do everyone a favor and get out.
Please guys, are these personal attacks and aggressive posts really necessary?
Togakure
03-19-2009, 16:18
Masamune, get a life. If you saw that the thread was from the Backroom watchtower you could have clicked back and not read the first sentence. I made this thread to try to get something done about an extremely unfair warning (not that the idea of getting a warning hurts me that much, but because it is an immoral abuse of power and stifles fair discussion). The only thing you are doing is distracting from my grievance and trying to get my legitamite thread locked by flame baiting. You do not like threads like this, so please do everyone a favor and get out.
Flame baiting in my previous posts? Where? I edited the crap out of them, trying to keep them relatively civil under the circumstances.
Everyone a favor? You flatter me. There are many patrons who feel as I do about the Backroom this kind of nonsense. I'm involved by choice now, and I think I'll stick around despite your kind invitation, thank you. Besides, I figured you the type to enjoy a good row. Certainly you are not afraid of what innocent, fragile lil me might say, are ya? ~;p Get a life? You might wanna consider your own advice ~;).
(not that the idea of getting a warning hurts me that much, but because it is an immoral abuse of power and stifles fair discussion)
Feeling the need to convince yourself of noble purpose while writing your response to me ~;p? If such was your purpose you would be focused on it and wouldn't have taken my two-liner personally, nor would you continue to engage me. But you just can't resist having the last word (we share that unfortunate proclivity). Ok ... en garde :evilgrin:.
Ok, ok ... now I've been baiting you. Kinda fun, it's been a while. But you started it with me ....
Yeah, I could have clicked back. I chose not to because this is the second time recently that this kind of thing has gone on, and it's getting on my nerves. I'm a patron too, been here quite a bit longer than you. Us (hardly) innocent, (hardly) fragile (oxymoron!) patrons have a right to voice our opinions too. This thread is a perfect example of the problem, so no need to create another thread to complain about it.
Togakure
03-19-2009, 16:26
Please guys, are these personal attacks and aggressive posts really necessary?
The entire thread is unnecessary, Andres. I'm not proud of my current behavior, but I'm not so noble as some to walk away when being harangued. Why isn't this closed? Can the Back Room Watch Tower be made so it's not visible to those of us who don't have a need to--and don't want to--see it? That'd guarantee that I--for one--would never be in here again. One less hothead to worry about etc.
If Vuk stops engaging me, or offers something conciliatory, I'll remain silent.
If Vuk stops engaging me, or offers something conciliatory, I'll remain silent.
I would just like to say that despite what he would lead you to believe, we are NOT engaged! (and I can safely promise you that we never will be ~;) :yes: :cool4: :wiseguy:)
Togakure
03-19-2009, 17:49
I would just like to say that despite what he would lead you to believe, we are NOT engaged! (and I can safely promise you that we never will be ~;) :yes: :cool4: :wiseguy:)
I'll take that as conciliatory. Peace, Vuk.
The entire thread is unnecessary, Andres. I'm not proud of my current behavior, but I'm not so noble as some to walk away when being harangued. Why isn't this closed? Can the Back Room Watch Tower be made so it's not visible to those of us who don't have a need to--and don't want to--see it? That'd guarantee that I--for one--would never be in here again. One less hothead to worry about etc.
If Vuk stops engaging me, or offers something conciliatory, I'll remain silent.
That's not the way it works on the internet. You either walk away or you feed the fire, becoming just as guilty as those baiting you.
Togakure
03-19-2009, 18:27
I just accepted what I chose to interpret as a conciliatory statement (humor is a good thing) from Vuk. Though we went on for a bit, it went full circle, and the issue between us resolved itself.
There is no one "way it works" on the internet. What you described is the ideal, sure, but hardly the norm. Honestly, I find your comment rather patronizing, and unnecessary considering Vuk and I had concluded our little drama. I frequent many boards, and do just fine with the majority of patrons and staff, on all of them. What is the purpose of your post? To teach me something? To make me feel guilty? To highlight me as a bad example to other patrons?
Feel free to PM me or continue here. Your choice will suggest much in regard to these questions.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-19-2009, 18:42
*walks away to cool down after being subjected to such a hateful, disgusting, and bigotted post*
Well im glad you at least understood that generalisations are hateful disgusting and bigotted... now see if you can stop being a hypocrite and follow through with it...
You've completely taken what Vuk said out of context. I think everyone here needs to understand that Vuk is discussing the nature of the faith itself and what it says in the Koran and Hadith, not the nature of the individuals practicing that faith.
You've completely taken what Vuk said out of context. I think everyone here needs to understand that Vuk is discussing the nature of the faith itself and what it says in the Koran and Hadith, not the nature of the individuals practicing that faith.
Thank you EMFM, I am glad to see at least one person who understands that. I think many of the people objecting know this though, but they do not want it to be discussed, so they instead continually take what I say out of context after I continually explain to them what I meant. I would like to see what BG and Tosa have to say. I email Tosa about it, but have not recieved a reply yet.
The thing is, dear Ibrahim, you didn't make much of a case at all. I, and I believe most people who have issues with Islam, do not really care what the good prophet did or did not do with little girls or whether your grandfather was a stand up guy or not. We care about the here and now. I'm glad you've acknowledged all is not well in the land of Mohammed. I'm perfectly willing to say the same about Western the Western World.
1-I am well aware that the problem is here and now. but I fear you misunderstood the original intent of my first post. my post was to refute beliefs and misconception about a particular person..hence my objective was to refute a case. this I did. my goal was to rebut what Vuk said about the prophet's person, nothing more or less. I did, and cited the evidence, so I made my case, and made it well. I did not post to discuss to cater to whoever else, but t a specific situation. sorry If I show too much focus.
2-if its about the here and now, why the heck did Vuk (and many others) attack the prophet? I know that the history before today is important, but you can't attack the begining just yet. its not as if Islam jumped the c.1400 years from 610 to 2009. In fact, the period in the middle matters to understand todays situation.
3-If you want my case however about Islam today, let me make it here:
the here and now (since you claim the problem is today): people have taken things out of context, taken advantage of beliefs and practices, and played with them to suite their own ends, or in reaction to the situation round them, and this has led to the mess we are in (this is my case; quite generalized, but I'm not focusing on any one thing, unlike my post to Vuk). the first step in adressing the problem is to point that out(obviously); and what better way of explaining that than citing the prophet? afterall, doesn't everyboby who professes Islam say they are out to emulate him? now you understand why I cite him the most in an argument-because to understand what he did allows one to understand Islam, and by extension, understand what is wrong with its practitioners today. you cannot understand the state of Islam today, unless you understand its origins, just like you cannot understand Europe or America today without understanding their history and beginings. I figured this was simple enough of a start. that is step one: you following? now go up there to my first post, and read that for the origins, and find other links regarding that (wikipedia is actually an excellent source-a rarity in wikipedia). also, you can try to somehow find the blue-green book-it was a good book.(assuming someone somehow moved some from Kuwait to the place you live in).
step two: there are other factors for the current situation, aside from the original religion itself, which I hope you already knew (afterall, aren't they in the news?!): the tumultuous situation in the middle east (the holy Land, Iran, etc), that has flamed fundamentalistic and nationalistic movements; cultural changes in the past 1400 years (again, see the part regarding the traditionalists taking over Islamic thought, and the resulting stagnation, as starters), the way the laws and interpretations were codified and interpreted, etc. not many people look at those to understand what is going on, and tie that into the factors leading to terrorrism and backwardness, and from there to Islam; Instead I see a tendancy of assuming tht this religion has jumped the past 1400 years. also, the rise of movements such as wahhabism, qutbism, and salafi approaches, must be put into context of the original application of this religion, and also in context of their time and place. hence the past is the key to the present in this situation.. I can recomend several articles for your eyes, as explaining the past few centuries (and this century in particular), and hence Islam's problem today, will take me ages:
first off, I only recommend the wikipedia articles as a starter. you are free to follow the links, and look up the citations, and I in fact encourage you to:
http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/farrokh7.htm (pan Arabism; many will be surprised about its role really in today's world. I know this was against the evil it inflicted on Iran, but its the pre 1980's stuff in it that is of interest)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd-al-Wahhab (wahhabism's founder)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutbism (qutbism; also, i suggest you try to find info on th man who founded it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Iranian_Revolution (I figured you would want to understand Iran's recent predicament, no? I highly recommend that you move out from it and to read that one in detail)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_revival (islamic revivalism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi (the mahdi concept; again, this figures into some movements today)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Islamic_philosophy#Falsafa (pre 1500 thought)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Nafis (look up his religious beliefs; they will discuss aspects of traditionalist and logical; gives you an idea of pre 1500 conflicts of interpretation)
as you have seen(if you bothered reading), the movements that are endemic to today (and hence the issues today) did not all start in the early 7th century, but later on. also, I have not posted links, but you must take into account the conflict between shia and sunnis, and also the khawarij (Islam's first fundamentalistic sect, late 7th century AD- present (in the form of ibadiyyah; note though that the current strain has been watered down and mellowed); this is critical for Iraq and Iran today. there are also other factors (western* culture going into these lands, the secularist movements in many muslim countries before the 1970's, etc)I ask that you look at the situation recently as a web of intertwined factors, and not as a simple begat model of cause and effect. also, I recommend that you understand the period between 632 (the propht's death), and today, and not focus only on 610-632, and 1970-today.
and as for my temper-I never claimed to have a temper...If you are offended, just know that I am sorry that I have to be you spiegel.
*I refer to the western sciences, the attitudes on various social issues, etc, that do not match what is in the Islamic world; they lead to culture conflict. I personally find western science a good thing. the rest I have only this to say: this is what is done in a different country, hence not good or bad; its just another way of doing things, and another viewpoint...
anyways, I am going to leave now, as this thread has run its course, and in fact should never have happened..so do not reply in any way, as I won't respond. I will let you read through all this info instead, and enjoy thyself. afterall, we all learn stuff everyday, no?:yes:
and have a good day.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-20-2009, 15:46
Moderating the Backroom is always a judgement call, and a constant learning process.
How much is too much?
What comments are meant in jest? Or meant as a sardonic comment? Which are trolling efforts?
We have some few patrons who would truly prefer a forum where they could use **** in every part of speech in the same paragraph.
For moderating, the real point is "HOW" you present it. Is the fact that a phrase was meant in jest clear to any reasonable reader? Is your potentially offensive comment posed as an exemplar to encourage discussion, or a summary with which to damn some position/idea/group you oppose?
Adrian wants a barnfight (we'd say barfight here) -- nothing prevents it. A little care to how you present it and virtually any topic can be brought out for discussion.
LittleGrizzly
03-20-2009, 19:35
You've completely taken what Vuk said out of context. I think everyone here needs to understand that Vuk is discussing the nature of the faith itself and what it says in the Koran and Hadith, not the nature of the individuals practicing that faith.
I disagree, all this criticism of islam has become popular in the last few years after the terrorist attacks in various places, vuk seems to know very little of the koran and what he does know seems to be innaccurate right wing propaganda, this leaves two possiblities, he was duped by right wing propaganda, he is using it as an excuse to insult muslims. I strongly believe the latter though i guess theres no way to prove such a thing...
You've completely taken what Vuk said out of context. I think everyone here needs to understand that Vuk is discussing the nature of the faith itself and what it says in the Koran and Hadith, not the nature of the individuals practicing that faith.
I disagree, all this criticism of islam has become popular in the last few years after the terrorist attacks in various places, vuk seems to know very little of the koran and what he does know seems to be innaccurate right wing propaganda, this leaves two possiblities, he was duped by right wing propaganda, he is using it as an excuse to insult muslims. I strongly believe the latter though i guess theres no way to prove such a thing...
Your post is nothing more than a personal attack on my character Little Grizzly, and as such, does not deserve answering. For the sake of the mods and the community though, I will condescend to do so.
First of all, it has nothing to do with being "popular" to criticise islam. I used to be a mindless defender of the religion. (I say mindless because I knew very little about it, and defended it on a faulty assumption (which was/is popular now adays) that all religions are good and peaceful (except Christianity of course, it is still ok to demonize it). My opinion of islam was formed from a study I did of the religion in my attempts to justify it. Sorry for being crude, but I could not give a rat's ass what is popular, or what the heck other people think of my opinions. I say what I think to be true, and am not afraid of being politically incorrect. (which is not to say that I try to offend people, I do not. I simply am not afraid to tell the truth. The world would be a much better place if more people would do that) I usually surprise people who know me with how I can be what is considered hardcore rightwing on some issues, and hardcore leftwing on others. It is because I am neither. I think for myself and have my own opinions, not tied to any party or ideology.
If you want to criticise me, do so by criticising my individual ideas, not by trying to tie me to stupid trends, parties, or ideologies. Such things are completely inaccurate, do not represent people fairly, and their definition changes all the time. :P
Seamus Fermanagh
03-21-2009, 11:53
Grizz, Vuk:
This is not my forum, but my friendly advice would be to cool this off a bit. I would prefer not to have Tosa hammering eithe rof you with warning points, and you certainly could head that way if this heats up more.
rasoforos
03-21-2009, 12:45
I wonder how many people got warnings for posting inappropriate comments in this thread.
My 2 euro cents:
Moderators change and the forum's character changes with them. Sometimes in a way that we like it and sometimes in a way that we do not. I 've been in these forums for 6.5 years now and have seen this a multitude of times.
The last time I took a great leave of absence was when a patron of this forum launched a disgusting and racist personal attack against my family and the moderator let it pass. I did not want to be part of such a forum so I took my custom elsewhere (so to speak).
When I returned, to see how things are, one of the first things that happened was that I got a warning from Banquo's Ghost in a religious related post. I felt it was unfair (and still do) but I also saw that the backroom was in general a much much improved place than the place I left. Justice was also served concerning my personal matter.
To make a long story short, I will never agree with some decisions of the backroom mods but I acknowledge that their work is, by definition and not through their own choice, subjective. Therefore I will sometimes fail to see their point and maybe react angrily...
...What I know is that I returned to a much better place.
In the future things will change (the way they always do) but for the moment the positive effects of moderation far outweigh the negative ones. Let us not see the tree and miss the forest. If the price for a civilized backroom is a slight restriction on what I can say about religion then it is a price that I am happy to pay. :2thumbsup:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-21-2009, 16:07
If Vuk got a warning for this then I hope warnings have been given in the ''Ratzinger condemns condoms'' thread as well. I am not going to point out any specific posts, but if you read through I think everyone will know exactly what I am talking about.
:bow:
KukriKhan
03-21-2009, 17:47
Just so everyone is clear: org staff does not reveal the details of (or even the existence of) any warnings issued to Members, as a matter of privacy. Members who have received warnings are, of course, free to reveal such details, at their pleasure.
Aemilius Paulus
03-21-2009, 21:51
I hope warnings have been given in the ''Ratzinger condemns condoms'' thread as well. I am not going to point out any specific posts, but if you read through I think everyone will know exactly what I am talking about.
What are you talking about?? I just read the whole thread, and everyone has been on their best behaviour. If things that people say on the thread are disapproved of in .Org, then this is helluva totalitarian entity. I saw nothing even remotely offensive there, and I have read the thread carefully. Now, I believe one person did call Catholicism stupid, but that is his opinion, and he is entitled to it.
Do we have a digging a hole fetish in the Org?
Aemilius Paulus
03-22-2009, 03:09
Do we have a digging a hole fetish in the Org?
Were you referring to my post, or Vuk's efforts?
Were you referring to my post, or Vuk's efforts?
No one in particular.
I don't suppose you could tell me about when you came back to the backroom?
I cancelled my backroom membership a while back because things were getting pretty bad. It might be worth taking a look again if they've improved.
To make a long story short, I will never agree with some decisions of the backroom mods but I acknowledge that their work is, by definition and not through their own choice, subjective. Therefore I will sometimes fail to see their point and maybe react angrily...
...What I know is that I returned to a much better place.
rasoforos
03-22-2009, 13:11
I was probably away (apart from small stints) before you registered. I might be getting a warning a month regular (I am late for my next one, I hope I am not pregnant!!!) but it is much better than older times when it comes to abuse and personal insults.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-22-2009, 16:32
What are you talking about?? I just read the whole thread, and everyone has been on their best behaviour. If things that people say on the thread are disapproved of in .Org, then this is helluva totalitarian entity. I saw nothing even remotely offensive there, and I have read the thread carefully. Now, I believe one person did call Catholicism stupid, but that is his opinion, and he is entitled to it.
There was one post that was at least as bad or worse than what Vuk posted. You may want to check again, because I will not link to the individual post.
I'll have to do some reading to catch up on this one. I'll close this topic now.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.