A thought on flaming
Tags flaming, reputation system
Let's get real here people. Flaming, in terms of an internet messageboard, is direct attack on another member. This does not include criticising or making fun of widespread opinions that many people might hold. I'm pointing the finger at you Christians! I'm sick and tired of receiving a little red dot for having a poke at your crazy delusions. And look, having a pop at Christianity isn't having a pop at any ONE person in particular. So it's not flaming. Religion is a choice. It's not something you can't change. If you can't deal with criticism or mockery, I guess your faith just isn't that strong.
PS: To those Christians that can "turn the other cheek", you have my respect. At least you seem to get the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you don't start wetting yourselves anytime someone opens their mouth. And to D-F members in general, whether Christian, atheist, pantheistic or whatever: THIS ISN'T XBOX LIVE! THIS IS AN INTERNATIONAL FORUM WITH MANY DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. THE INTERNET ISN'T THE USA!!
That is all.
PS: To those Christians that can "turn the other cheek", you have my respect. At least you seem to get the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you don't start wetting yourselves anytime someone opens their mouth. And to D-F members in general, whether Christian, atheist, pantheistic or whatever: THIS ISN'T XBOX LIVE! THIS IS AN INTERNATIONAL FORUM WITH MANY DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. THE INTERNET ISN'T THE USA!!
That is all.
Total Comments 13
Comments
-
Fwiw NB, I've never red boxed you over anything, and I believe you are correct that rep should never be used as a tool to punish those who you disagree with. I respect and appreciate the opinions of all the non-believers here; hell I was one myself for quite some time! Furthermore, belief in Christianity is a radical undertaking in its most basic form; if you really believe that the universe was spoken into existence and a dude rose from the dead and seas were parted, then you believe in the supernatural which really puts the onus of proof in your court.Posted 25-10-2009 at 15:27 by Master_Khan 
-
Too many people see religion as "off limits" somehow. We have to respect other people's religion, but we can mock their political stance, or raise the bullshit alarm about anything else they say. Even asking perfectly honest questions (such as, where did Jesus's Y chromosome come from? If he didn't have one, he'd be a woman, so he obviously does, son of god or otherwise) is seen as a bad thing.
It drives me up the freakin' wall!Posted 25-10-2009 at 17:09 by Synchronium
-
Just to add something I noticed in another thread, which doesn't actually have anything to do with religion, two members were warned about flaming even though it was only a lively debate. The forum rules state: Criticize ideas, not people. Flaming will not be tolerated. This includes any material which is vulgar, defamatory, intentional inaccurate information, harassing, hateful, threatening, invading of others privacy or violates any laws. When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone. Flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person. Great minds do not always think alike, and that's where the fun is!
So before anyone dishes out a little red box because they feel offended by a general statement not aimed at anyone in particular, take a deep breath and think for a moment. It's only flaming if some lone individual is being targeted specifically. I'd hate to see D-F became so politically correct that it would contradict the entire mindset of its members by being as hypocritical as the very drug laws it firmly stands against.
Obviously it's better that people avoid personal confrontations but that's not to say people aren't allowed think critically and challenge ideas. There's a big difference between engaging in a debate and flaming or trolling.Posted 25-10-2009 at 17:18 by Nature Boy
-
Agreed.
To me, neg rep is something to be used for blatantly personal insults, extremely negligent and dangerous medical advice, or repeated self incrimination by someone who should know better (not just a bi-monthly or so accidental slip, which we are all prone to making). As far as insults go, there's a difference between "you are stupid" and "you are stupid if you believe ..." One is personal, the other is not. It seems a lot of people just try and find the vaguest pretense to neg rep people who they disagree with, or who is providing information they don't want to believe. Half the neg rep here seems to be about something that should have been addressed in a post as a counter point. At least most of them seem to keep the points taken low though, so I just let it ride. I think one of my problems at least is that people mistake a facetious or light hearted tone of mine as something emotional or malicious.
Some people are just very sensitive to disagreement it seems, no matter how intellect or subject oriented, and see it as flaming.
I also applaud your defense of reason in those heated Christian threads you like to join. It's hard not to be passionate when discussing a theology which, along with Islam, has caused more intolerance, bloodshed and genocide than anything else in the history of the world. Regarding drugs, in the U.S. it was groups of fanatical Christian zealots, the Women's Christian Temperance Union along with others, that were largely responsible for the prohibition of alcohol and drugs (for purely faux-"moral" reasons, not because of an actual significant problem) and thus the rise of superpowerful organized crime syndicates, countless millions of brilliant and productive people destroyed, and the inconceivable amount of purposeless horror, injustice and regression from ~90 years of "The War on Drugs." One percent of our population is fucking in prison for Christ sake, most for not abiding by a prejudicial, largely racist in origin, fanatical set of bullshit laws laid down by turn of the century Christians.Posted 25-10-2009 at 19:16 by dyingtomorrow
Updated 25-10-2009 at 20:21 by dyingtomorrow -
There was a guy once on a forum who swore to Jesus he would smash my face in if I ever posted a christian satire video again.
How Christian of him... although he wouldn't have felt God was with him once he realized he was trying to smash the face in of an experienced cagefighter.Posted 26-10-2009 at 01:01 by Cuberun
-
Well put nature boy, on the terms of religion if one has the right to post about their religion you have just as much right to post how you think they're religion is complete BS. Both are purely expressions of ones opinion.
Posted 27-10-2009 at 02:58 by Chronix
-
*Waaaa waaah!!* You don't like my point of view!! *waaah waaah* I'm offended!!!
There's my impression of a Christian. I think it was pretty spot on.Posted 29-10-2009 at 09:10 by guldenat
-
I remember seeing a post by Nature Boy that earned negative reputation that was trashing the christianity. But in that case it was given because the post was about one-liner and the thread had nothing to do about religion.
Posted 29-10-2009 at 09:27 by psyche
-
O contraire. In a thread (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=685476) of no value other than bad-mouthing alcohol, the individual's opinion was heavily influenced by Christianity:
He bad-mouths alcohol, I bad-mouth Christianity. Neither constitutes the bad rep: "deliberately inflammatory and adds nothing to the discussion. You should know better"Quote:Originally Posted by ownedinpwnsauce
This has been on SWIMs mind forever.. and has to get it out. Since SWIM is 18 and still in highschool, all his friends drink. SWIM used to also until he realized alcohol is hands down the worst drug out there. and think its actually legal!
Alcohol is one of the most addicting substances out there
SWIM used to drink probably 2-3 times a week with friends.. and he has had in 1 year soooo many bad experiences with it.. such as:
Totaled his car, drunk. After promising himself he would never drink and drive
Cheated on his girlfriend who honestly was the highschool girl of his dreams.. (she smoked with him, partied with him, chilled with him, she was up for anything).. and lost her because of that
Fucked multiple times without a condom
Has had soooo many nights that he has woken up with not the slightest idea of what happened the night before
Caused so many pointless sinns, for him trying to be an avid Christian
And many other things that just get on his mind.. SWIM takes a lot of other drugs and had a reputation for being a major pot head but just shakes his head at the drunken idiots he sees at parties fighting or something. SWIM is rambling for being on a lot of adderall and needs to do some homework. Just thought id see what yalls opinions were i guess
Should I know better? Inflammatory comments are aimed at people, not at opinions and it certainly added something to the discussion for whoever decided to issue bad rep over it. Though one-liners may be frowned upon, they're not against forum rules either.Posted 29-10-2009 at 14:34 by Nature Boy
-
Oh yes, the comment bolded was a bit funny. He takes it way too seriously. But there are numerous really irresponsible things he has done under the influence, totaling a car not being the least one of them.
Ofcourse people should take responsibility for their actions and not blame drugs for it, but some drugs have a higher propability for causing irresponsible behaviour. When people at the recovery and addiction section bad-mouth addictive drugs, you don't go there finding the root problems for their addiction. Bad-mouthing certain drugs over others is a form of harm-reduction, and that was the aim of the thread.Posted 29-10-2009 at 17:11 by psyche
-
Or at least discussing horrible things people have done under the influence of alcohol, anyway, serving possibly as harm-reduction.
Posted 29-10-2009 at 17:14 by psyche
-
I was pretty upset with that thread, as with many of the anti-alcohol threads that show up here. People take the actions of highly irresponsible individuals and blame them on alcohol. I drink all the time, sometimes more then I should, yet I never get into fights, sleep with people I shouldn't have, cause accidents, woken up from a black out... Why? Because I acknowledge the dangers inherent in what I am doing and make sure I simply don't do those things! It really is THAT SIMPLE!
What I see in this thread, is the same problem with religion, that a person can not take personal responsibility for their actions, and so place the blame on the drug/god, of which they partake irresponsibly.
I love the opening paragraph "I'm 18 and in high school, so all my friends drink." Funny cause I never had any friends who drank at that age. I wonder if it ever crossed his mind to find some responsible friends. Of course we could point out, alcohol isn't legal until the age of 21 in the US...
sigh...Posted 30-10-2009 at 00:06 by Potter
-
I saw statement from some official in Scotland. He said that over 50% of crimes were committed by drunks. Then he went on to say that the three "D"s were to blame-- "Deprivation, Drugs, Drink".
I am glad he fingered the right drug, but there is only one real "D"-- deprivation. Take that away and the other two "D"s become insignificant.
Christians, or some varieties of them, love to find 'demons' to fight. It makes them feel so superior to everyone else!
Dammit, fancy staring to drink at 18. Such a lot of wasted opportunities!
Posted 30-10-2009 at 06:24 by enquirewithin
