Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
The argument is about the agreement. If using the words drunk, insane, or comparing someone with a 7 year old is not belittling, then say so. If they are belittling, and I believe they are, then the agreement is being broken by those accusing others of breaking it.
Promoters of intelligent design have been have been testifying that ID is not a religion, all over the country, for the last ten years. By this argument, whatever I say about ID, it cannot be construed as an attack on religion.
You can't have it both ways. You can't demand that ID be given the respect afforded to a religion and then claim it's a scientific theory. If the desigenr is God, then it's a religion. If the designer is some unknown entity, then we can criticize the designer's handiwork without criticizing religion.
Why are you using uppercase 'D'? I didn't.
Identify the person I called insane or drunk.
That being said, why do you think I told A2k to cool it? It wasn't because he was being too nice.
What gives anybody any enforcing power? Is it not belittling to act as has been pointed out? I have pointed out his hypocrisy. That is allowed here, or do you wish to silence others?
5 Language Restraint We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster or whatever that poster believes;
I can freely assert that much of the outdoor sculpture on my campus looks like it was designed by either a madman or a drunkard. No one would raise an eyebrow at that; it's harsh but legitimate criticism. So why can't I argue the human genome, if it were designed, looks like it was designed by a madman or drunkard, because large parts of it make no sense at all?
You and Gore3000 are stuck in a trap of you're own making. You can't claim the protection of religion for ID, because according to you it isn't a religion.
Which is no excuse for hurling insults. As to the above - promoters of evolution have been claiming it is not a religion yet it is clearly atheism under the guise of science.
Identify the person I insulted.
And you are?
If we accuse a complying poster of violating this agreement we will ping that poster when making the accusation and we will specify the violation."
Yes. I signed the agreement, and where it was pointed out to me I could be in contravention, I've retracted the remark. In this case, i'm afraid there's nothing to back off from. 'Don't offend AndrewC' wasn't part of the agreement.
Let's say I think Kobe Bryant raped a woman in Colorado. I might then post that Kobe Bryant is a rapist. 'Rapist' is about as bad an insult as I can come up with. Another poster mght believe that KB is innocent. Am I, by saying that he is a rapist, insulting or belittling what the other poster believes? Of course not.
We're not getting a whole lot from this exercise in self-restraint.
You accused me of not complying with the agreement and had no justification as required in the agreement.
I know. But doing so doesn't involve the agreement. Pointing out design flaws seems a legitimate scientific topic. Dragging the agreement into it is a red herring. ID theory is outside of theology, or so its proponents claim. There is no hint of blasphemy in claiming that the "designer" in ID theory isn't doing quality work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.