Latest round of posts on this issue:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2038708/posts?page=175#175
To: tacticalogic
But in order to get the same kind of protection from religious zealotry that other religions get by opening caucus and ecumenical threads, you have to acknowledge that it is a religion. I, for one, don’t have any problem with scientism being called a religion and treated as such — it might put an end to the continuous flamewars on the crevo threads. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and isn’t a goose, it’s probably a duck — so it might as well enjoy the benefits of a duck’s life by calling itself a duck.
164 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 2:46:47 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
But in order to get the same kind of protection from religious zealotry that other religions get by opening caucus and ecumenical threads, you have to acknowledge that it is a religion. I, for one, don’t have any problem with scientism being called a religion and treated as such — it might put an end to the continuous flamewars on the crevo threads. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and isn’t a goose, it’s probably a duck — so it might as well enjoy the benefits of a duck’s life by calling itself a duck.
Why? If the reasons for limiting what is considered acceptable civil debate in discussing theology over in the Religion forum are valid and reasonable then you should be willing to adhere to them in any forum if you are discussing what you perceive to be religion, regardless of whether anyone else does or not. If you aren’t willing to accept that as reasonable here, what reason is there to believe you’ll accept it somewhere else? Moving the “crevo” threads to the Religion forum won’t stop the flame wars, it’ll just move it over there and the Religion mods don’t seem to want it. I can’t say I blame them.
165 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:03:18 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tacticalogic
Why? If the reasons for limiting what is considered acceptable civil debate in discussing theology over in the Religion forum are valid and reasonable then you should be willing to adhere to them in any forum if you are discussing what you perceive to be religion, regardless of whether anyone else does or not.
***You’d think that was true of any religion, but it’s not. Hence, the ecumenical and caucus threads. The religion of scientism would be no different in that regard.
If you aren’t willing to accept that as reasonable here, what reason is there to believe you’ll accept it somewhere else?
***Because the rules for ecumenical and caucus threads are very clear, and the kinds of comments that the evolutionists don’t like to see would be thrown out by such rules. See, they would get what they want. All they gotta do is admit it’s a religion.
Moving the “crevo” threads to the Religion forum won’t stop the flame wars, it’ll just move it over there and the Religion mods don’t seem to want it. I can’t say I blame them.
***The religious flame wars do not continue on caucus threads. They continue on the open threads, which is how things oughtta be.
166 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:08:34 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
Are there any tactics or forms of attack that are not permitted (”mind reading”, attributing motivation, etc.) on “open” threads in the Religion forum that aren’t particularly restricted here?
167 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:12:07 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tacticalogic
Yes. That’s what the caucus threads are for.
168 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:13:00 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
There are no restrictions about engaging in those kinds of tactics or personal attacks in the Religion forum, except on the caucus threads?
169 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:15:39 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tacticalogic
Something like that, you might want to read through the rules about caucus & ecumenical threads. It’s probably one of the adminlecture series.
170 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:23:50 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
Something like that, you might want to read through the rules about caucus & ecumenical threads. It’s probably one of the adminlecture series.
Don’t worry about the caucus and ecumencial threads.
Are there any rules about what’s considered acceptable civil debate in the Religion formum in general that are more stringent that what’s generally applied outside of that forum?
171 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:30:49 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tacticalogic
I have no idea.
172 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:33:37 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
Get one. The RM’s don’t want it over there because they don’t want the flame war. You come in to “crevo” threads, call everything you disagree with a “religion” and then attack it and the other posters with terms and tactics that aren’t considered civil in a serious theological discussion. If you don’t understand and respect the limits they’ve put on theological discussion in that forum, I doubt you’d adhere to them over there any better than you do here.
173 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:42:42 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tacticalogic
What are you talking about? Is this thread an example? Where does it call itself a crevo thread? It’s about religion.
You come in to “crevo” threads, call everything you disagree with a “religion”
***Baloney. And maybe you should get an idea.
and then attack it and the other posters with terms and tactics that aren’t considered civil in a serious theological discussion.
***If they’re open threads, then your kind of tactics are allowed. If they’re not open threads, your kind of tactics are not allowed. You are engaging in projection here, kiddo. Interestingly enough, such tactics would not be allowed on a caucus thread.
If you don’t understand and respect the limits they’ve put on theological discussion in that forum, I doubt you’d adhere to them over there any better than you do here.
***You are the one who doesn’t understand the limits that have been put on theo discussions, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking such basic questions.
Hasta la vista, you may have the last word.
174 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:53:29 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
What are you talking about?
I think you know exactly what I’m talking about.
175 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:56:14 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
Religion Moderator’s home page,
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
How the threads are sectioned:
Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
If you do not specify the type of thread, it will be considered “open.”