Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Moderation in Atheism & Agnosticism Thread

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Nodin wrote: »
    Weren't you banned from A&A?

    There was....... "unpleasantness". I can never return. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #63
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,869 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Logically you cannot care absolutely care about your childs upbringing if there are parts you dont care about.
    Absolute is 100%, if there is some percentage that you dont care about, then you cannot care about 100%. Its maths.
    So indeed Cabaal was directly stating that the other poster did not absolutely care about their childs upbringing. Thats basic logic.

    You can't apply mathematical reasoning to arguments about religion or parenting. They are far too subjective. This would be a fascinating topic for the Philosophy forum (objective vs subjective truths, etc) but seems unusually pedantic a stick with which to be beating the A&A forum.


  • Options
    #64
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,585 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Just to add my two cents, as somebody who reads a bit of what goes on in the dispute resolution forum and prison forum, I see, time and time again, posters who are appealing an infraction or ban being told that 'it doesn't matter what other posters have posted on the thread. We're dealing with your posts and nothing else.'

    Given that rationale, I'm surprised to see more than one poster go on about how the thread had to be 'read for context.'

    I would be pretty sure that if Weathering made that argument regarding an infraction or ban, that he was dealing with posters describing him as uneducated and condescending to him, he'd be told that he should report the posts if he has a problem with them, but wasn't relevant to his appeal.


  • Options
    #65
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Logically you cannot care absolutely care about your childs upbringing if there are parts you dont care about.
    Absolute is 100%, if there is some percentage that you dont care about, then you cannot care about 100%. Its maths.
    So indeed Cabaal was directly stating that the other poster did not absolutely care about their childs upbringing. Thats basic logic.

    Can you come up with any other reason for Cabaals post other than to insult the poster regarding their care for their childs upbringing?
    I dont really think you have to look very far or hard to find intention in that post.

    If you start from a false premise then logic doesn't really matter. As I stated before the following is not really relevant.
    Logically you cannot care absolutely care about your childs upbringing if there are parts you dont care about.
    Absolute is 100%, if there is some percentage that you dont care about, then you cannot care about 100%.

    But, I guess I didn't explain why it isn't.

    Let's lay down the foundations first.
    If I state the following
    "Greebo you don't care about your child's upbringing"
    That's entirely unacceptable.
    So too is
    "Greebo you don't care about X of your child's upbringing"

    However, there's a condition where the latter becomes acceptable.
    That's in a thread where the subject matter is children's upbringing and Greebo gives his opinion how a child should be raised referencing his own personal experiences of how he raises kids.

    Now, yes, logically that's staying that Greebo's doesn't absolutely care about this child upbringing's but to use the analogy of calling someone a liar.

    You can't call someone a liar in a post.
    However, if they post a lie, or what you perceive to be lie you can call out the lie. Whether it follows by extension that the person isn't always truthful doesn't really matter. Moderation, or indeed anything, doesn't work in absolutes. I think you misunderstood what I meant by aspects and absolutes.

    There's a fine spectrum between calling someone a idiot and calling their position on the sky being a carpet of marshmallows idiotic. Yet in a discussion those spectra become important.

    Moderation deals with the fine line of those spectra. Hence, why I cannot consider Cabaal's statement, by itself, evidence of an actionable personal attack.

    Regarding the poster above me. Context is important for establishing who's the person responsible and whether sanctioning is fair. A good example being our experiences in the abortion thread. One poster, in a rather lengthy post, made the very subtle implication that another poster should blow up an abortion clinic. This poster sarcastic replied, without quoting anything, that they'd a ak-47 ready for an assault. Naturally a whole load of posters got peeved off and upset by this. The thread ignited at the blaise nature, joking about ak-47s in such a serious thread how dare he? Things got very heated, horses starting getting higher and higher. Posters were no longer sipping tea and chatting. The sarcastic remark should never have been said, but curiously no one got peeved over the remark that triggered everything. They'd either missed it or chosen to ignore, or tacitly agreed with it. Rules, are rules, we get that, but A&A is lenient. We took the time to explain the misunderstanding, calm folks down. Iirc, there was maybe 2 or 3 warning cards. Nothing more. Posters apologised and continued discussing the rather emotional topic of abortion with cordiality again.

    Context, for moderation is key.

    DRP is another matter entirely. Context in that sense is mostly referring to the perceived lack of actions towards poster others than the one disputing their case. I'd still wager that in the above situation if we had just read the reported posts and acted on them and the poster was banned. If that poster made their case a DRP would have been more lenient.
    Maybe, maybe not? Point is A&A was. We don't infract/ban unless we absolutely have to.


  • Options
    #66
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,585 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Regarding the poster above me. Context is important for establishing who's the person responsible and whether sanctioning is fair.

    Context, for moderation is key.
    I think there's a lack of consistency between these attitudes to moderation in which context is important for determining responsibility, and DRP/Prison attitudes, where each poster is held responsible for their own posts and the context involved doesn't come into it.

    I can't help but wonder if there isn't the possibility that posts which would otherwise be actionable are being excused based on the 'context' of the thread. Attacking a poster, rather than a post, is against the forum rules. Surely this is the case regardless of the context. Something either is a personal attack, or it isn't.

    What will looking at the context of the thread do to help a moderator determine whether there is an attack on a poster or not?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »

    Let's lay down the foundations first.
    If I state the following
    "Greebo you don't care about your child's upbringing"
    That's entirely unacceptable.
    So too is
    "Greebo you don't care about X of your child's upbringing"

    However, there's a condition where the latter becomes acceptable.
    That's in a thread where the subject matter is children's upbringing and Greebo gives his opinion how a child should be raised referencing his own personal experiences of how he raises kids.

    Now, yes, logically that's staying that Greebo's doesn't absolutely care about this child upbringing's but to use the analogy of calling someone a liar.

    You can't call someone a liar in a post.
    However, if they post a lie, or what you perceive to be lie you can call out the lie. Whether it follows by extension that the person isn't always truthful doesn't really matter. Moderation, or indeed anything, doesn't work in absolutes. I think you misunderstood what I meant by aspects and absolutes.

    And you are still missing the point.



    What about the posters personal experience led you and Cabaal to agree that they don't care about their child's upbringing, all I saw was the fact that they are not worried if their child's is taught multiple religions at school.
    As an atheist you see that as not caring about the child upbringing.

    The reality is that there is nothing the poster has said that means they don't care, but your religious beliefs lead you to think there is abd so you allow a personal attack because it agrees with your beliefs.
    A ridiculous level of pedantic word smithing doesn't change the fact that the poster never said they didn't care about any part of their child's upbringing. Your personal religious views are completely in play here. The only reason there was no mod response to the abuse is because you agree with Cabaal abd hence don't see it as abuse, instead some factual aspect of the posters history. Show me that specific history, not your atheists interpretation of it. I've asked several times and you continue to talk around it.


  • Options
    #68
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I agree with the OP's general take on this.
    There is two problems with the moderation in A&A.

    Firstly, and ironically given the forum itself there is a huge problem of group-think. Outside or different opinions are not as welcome as moderators would have you believe. They of course will deny this and even believe it themselves. Posters who do not adhere to the status quo are regularly ganged up on, harassed and bullied into a) lashing out and getting banned b) just quitting the forum. This type of interaction with outside ideas or views that are not mainstream for the A&A community only re-enforces this group-think and echo chamber. The problem for the moderators is that they do not do enough to stop this type of behavior. In fact some moderators (not all mind) actively participate in ganging up on a poster, treating them in a condescending manner which only inflames situations.

    Then of course a poster does not know if they are debating a user of the forum or moderator. I myself had numerous issues with this where a moderator whom I would be debating would literally treat me like a simpleton in a post, then put on this moderator hat, give me warning and then proceed with treating me like a child. Only when this behavior was brought up in this very forum did this action stop (and guess what no more problems between us!!)

    Anyway, this leads the forum to have an 'us' and 'them' mentality which then leads to a bias in the moderation of the forum. The only reason Cabal didn't get a card here was the fact the he is one the gang, GreeBo is a new comer and does not subscribe to the same belief system that is popular in A&A. It is that simple.

    Secondly it's the topics that are actually discussed there. A&A is pretty much AH for the anti-religious. Therefore, posters hid out there, rarely if ever posting in other forums and create cozy environments for themselves where their views are never taken to task in a neutral setting. There is loads of politics being discussed there, yet most of those posters never venture to the actual politics forum on boards.ie. Instead they prefer to back slap each other whenever someone posts something the GOP or some religious nut did in some sly attempt to portray everyone of X holds the same or similar beliefs of Y. If that is the type of discussion that A&A want then fine, but it should not then pretend that its this beacon of fairness, logic and scientific reason which many of its regular posters hold it up as.


  • Options
    #69
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    "Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself"

    It's the self-deception of the whole forum, all of the posters who subscribe to the failed meme of atheism, that is so tragic.

    They need help!


  • Options
    #70
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    jank wrote: »
    The only reason Cabal .....

    meh, I'm back,

    Jank is there a reason why you continue to be childish when it comes to my username?

    I've corrected you on it before and yet you continue to spell it Cabal, given you have likened me to a Cabal in the past its evident that this is very much intentional on your part,

    You are very much aware that Cabal has a very different meaning to my username of Cabaal.

    I'd also point out that you've been doing this intentionally for a number of months
    Here's one from 9 months ago - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87898265&postcount=78

    I misspell your name once by accident and you complain but then you've been acting like a child by intentionally misspelling mine so as to add a different meaning to it,

    Pretty childish behavior as it shows you have an issue with me in some way and again shows bias in this discussion.

    catallus wrote: »
    "Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself"

    It's the self-deception of the whole forum, all of the posters who subscribe to the failed meme of atheism, that is so tragic.

    They need help!

    Coming from a user who has been banned from the AA forum, I'll take that with all the bias it comes with :)


  • Options
    #71
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    More like I have been granted the wondrous liberty of exile :p

    It is a silly place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Can you guys take your personal issues somewhere else please, its diluting the point of this thread.


  • Options
    #73
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Fair enough.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    I feel that the Moderation (and Admin) posting in this thread isnt at all un-biased.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Its the (perceived perhaps) leniency that posters who follow the prevailing viewpoint are afforded that is the problem.
    Can I reiterate that nobody was moderated in that thread bar the poster who called a mod a prick and a corrupt asshole?

    Surely with an accusation of bias some favoritism needs to be shown - and surely for this to demonstrated you'd have to show "non-regular" posters with warnings, infractions and bans? Instead we have posters on both sides occasionally making cheap shots. Why are they getting away with this? Because there's no need for people to rack up a bunch of pointless cards for getting overexcited about a very emotive issue. And we need to remember that it is for a lot of people. Even if we handed out cards like confetti the numerous posters who waded in without reading the thread would find themselves in the book too.

    But now we have one of the contributors in the thick of it on the "other" side seemingly at peace with the locals and posting happily, and given you're still posting in it, clearly the wheels haven't fallen off.


  • Options
    #74
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    jank wrote: »
    I agree with the OP's general take on this.
    There is two problems with the moderation in A&A.

    Firstly, and ironically given the forum itself there is a huge problem of group-think.

    What a great way to start a feedback post with a great big ad hominem against the forum regulars.

    There is no groupthink. We are not part of a group.

    If you think there's a groupthink go and read the "Russian" thread or the Atlas Shrugged thread.

    I think a major problem with posters coming to the forum that are non A&A is that they immediately dismiss the regulars as angry teenagers posting from their parents' basements, going through a "phase".

    Regarding the moderation, in the thread in question, and generally, it's amongst the most patient and thoughtful on boards.

    You yourself would get away with mentioning groupthink in the first line of a post in A&A.

    But here, in Feedback, very unhelpful.


  • Options
    #75
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I'm not sure how the idea of the majority of a forum thinking along a similar line is such a shock to people. If I go on to the Christianity forum or Islam forum and start making comments that go against Islam or Christianity I can hardly complain about "group think" when its me vs everyone else.

    In term of the bias of mods, I would be very surprised if mods werent somewhat biased. Are mods not chosen from regular posters in the forums they are wanted to mod?


  • Options
    #76
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Dades wrote: »
    Fair enough.

    Can I reiterate that nobody was moderated in that thread bar the poster who called a mod a prick and a corrupt asshole?

    Is this not moderation?
    robindch wrote: »
    Please read the post which immediately precedes yours.

    - robin.

    Why was weathering singled out like this?
    He hadnt called anyone a prick at this stage.
    Dades wrote: »
    Surely with an accusation of bias some favoritism needs to be shown - and surely for this to demonstrated you'd have to show "non-regular" posters with warnings, infractions and bans? Instead we have posters on both sides occasionally making cheap shots. Why are they getting away with this? Because there's no need for people to rack up a bunch of pointless cards for getting overexcited about a very emotive issue. And we need to remember that it is for a lot of people. Even if we handed out cards like confetti the numerous posters who waded in without reading the thread would find themselves in the book too.
    Do you disagree that Cabaals post (referenced several times above) is personal abuse?
    Do you think regulars should be treated with less leniency than new posters?
    Do you think admins should be treated with less leniency than new posers?
    Dades wrote: »
    But now we have one of the contributors in the thick of it on the "other" side seemingly at peace with the locals and posting happily, and given you're still posting in it, clearly the wheels haven't fallen off.

    I'm not sure how thats relevant to the topic of biased moderation?
    Just because the thread is still running doesnt mean its being moderated well (or badly) or evenly.
    A person still being alive doesnt mean they are not sick.


  • Options
    #77
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I'm not sure how the idea of the majority of a forum thinking along a similar line is such a shock to people. If I go on to the Christianity forum or Islam forum and start making comments that go against Islam or Christianity I can hardly complain about "group think" when its me vs everyone else.

    In term of the bias of mods, I would be very surprised if mods werent somewhat biased. Are mods not chosen from regular posters in the forums they are wanted to mod?

    No shock in the group think, the issue is with biased moderation. No problem with a mod having a personal opinion, but it shouldn't colour how they moderate or treat posters with a differing view.


  • Options
    #78
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #79
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Dades wrote: »
    Surely with an accusation of bias some favoritism needs to be shown - and surely for this to demonstrated you'd have to show "non-regular" posters with warnings, infractions and bans? Instead we have posters on both sides occasionally making cheap shots. Why are they getting away with this? Because there's no need for people to rack up a bunch of pointless cards for getting overexcited about a very emotive issue. And we need to remember that it is for a lot of people. Even if we handed out cards like confetti the numerous posters who waded in without reading the thread would find themselves in the book too.

    Why is this ok? it is a very emotive issue but the OP themselves basically opened it up as such as he wanted to discuss his family in public.

    How is cheapshots about other posters family or parenting styles who havent entered into this discussion ok?

    Why also then is it acceptable that on thread warnings were ignored?

    I am not participating in this discussion anymore just observing and i am alarmed the principle of attack the post not the poster has been blatantly ignored.

    Why is it being ignored? is it because there are a huge amount of mod's involve in the argument or an admin that looks to be condoning it because its an emotional topic?

    There is a danger that or perception that the rules only need apply to forums where the powers at be dont have a vested interest.


  • Options
    #80
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Cabaal wrote: »
    meh, I'm back,

    Jank ....
    My typo was intentional (up to you to believe that) and where did I complain about your typo?
    Anyway, this thread is not about you, so you can PM me if you have any outstanding questions where we can discuss typo's


  • Options
    #81
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    What a great way to start a feedback post with a great big ad hominem against the forum regulars.

    There is no groupthink. We are not part of a group.

    Of course there is. People who subscribe to a belief (or non-belief in this case) are part of a group. Its a no brainer. Atheists are no different than other groups even if this truth is hard to swallow.
    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I think a major problem with posters coming to the forum that are non A&A is that they immediately dismiss the regulars as angry teenagers posting from their parents' basements, going through a "phase".

    Can we have examples of this, as I have not seen any allegation of this in A&A (AH is a little different.)
    Regarding the moderation, in the thread in question, and generally, it's amongst the most patient and thoughtful on boards.
    Pherekydes wrote: »
    You yourself would get away with mentioning groupthink in the first line of a post in A&A.

    But here, in Feedback, very unhelpful.

    This is why its called Feedback..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,869 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    I can't take you seriously at all with that sig under your posts.


  • Options
    #83
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    If you bothered to read the posts of others you'd recognise that there are regulars of the forum who subscribe to and support Rand's position. If groupthink was in action we all would.

    Or would not, as the case may be.


  • Options
    #84
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    jank wrote: »
    Of course there is. People who subscribe to a belief (or non-belief in this case) are part of a group. Its a no brainer. Atheists are no different than other groups even if this truth is hard to swallow.

    I am not part of any group. I simply do not believe in any god.
    Regarding the moderation, in the thread in question, and generally, it's amongst the most patient and thoughtful on boards.

    Agree 100%.


  • Options
    #85
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    GreeBo wrote: »

    The reality is that there is nothing the poster has said that means they don't care, but your religious beliefs lead you to think there is abd so you allow a personal attack because it agrees with your beliefs.

    Can you leave my religious belief out of it? I've none by the way but that's surely irrelevant to the discussion. I don't even know how my opinions or Cabaal's line up in general.

    He did say that the poster didn't care. You made that inference. I'm not making it. He said "it would appear from what you said that you yourself don't care about certain aspects either." That is a wholly different statement from saying you don't care about your kids. "It would appear from you said that yourself have idiotic views on carpentry." Is a lot different from saying someone is an idiot. Moderation wise the line in sand for A&A can't be illustrated any better. If you don't understand it, maybe I'm not explaining it good enough but to be absolutely clear.
    You made the inference of what he said, he did not say the poster was a careless parent.

    To use the simplistic example.
    In a thread about immigration if a poster tells of their ordinary personal actions that one could suspect are racist. Someone is perfectly entitled to make that accusations with regard to those actions. A poster cannot have it both ways. Express their viewpoints and then have those viewpoints free from criticism.

    Whether I agree or disagree with that someone is irrelevant. With the fora topic being what it is I cannot censor a critique an expressed viewpoint.

    Otherwise a poster can go onto the forum.
    "I'm the best parent in the world. Here's how you should raise kids:
    a)
    b)
    c)
    ...
    "
    And nobody can call that person's parenting out as bad or careless.

    That's not a discussion that's censorship.



    - - - --


    As has been discussed to the death on the feedback forum. Permabear, jank et al. and robindch don't see eye to eye. That's unfortunate. We can probably do something about that. What cannot we do is do something about the demographics of Irish society. In Ireland Scientology is a cult. Simply because that's the way the demographic breaks down. Similarly, Libertarianism, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as the nutty America "is not selfish enough" view of society. We cannot change the demographics of Irish society and the general populace of boards. Where ever the libs go they're not exactly going to be welcome anywhere on this site without people thinking it's bonkers. In A&A no ideology is sacred. So you can't expect protection for the sake of it. We can only interfere if there's blatant baiting, soapboxing, inflaming etc going on. All that being said there are indeed many posters with sympathies for libs views.

    Btw, scientology was an analogy in terms of population. I'm not equivocating the two. In the same way that a geyser can be compared to a volcano for purposes of illustration and comparison - they both erupt. Everyone still knows that they're very different things one's got lava, the other has water.


  • Options
    #86
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I am not part of any group. I simply do not believe in any god.

    That then makes part of the 'Atheist group'. I understand your frustration but when you have Atheist Ireland pretending so speak and represent Atheists views then confusion will naturally occur.


  • Options
    #87
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Can you leave my religious belief out of it? I've none by the way but that's surely irrelevant to the discussion. I don't even know how my opinions or Cabaal's line up in general.

    He did say that the poster didn't care. You made that inference. I'm not making it. He said "it would appear from what you said that you yourself don't care about certain aspects either." That is a wholly different statement from saying you don't care about your kids. "It would appear from you said that yourself have idiotic views on carpentry." Is a lot different from saying someone is an idiot. Moderation wise the line in sand for A&A can't be illustrated any better. If you don't understand it, maybe I'm not explaining it good enough but to be absolutely clear.
    You made the inference of what he said, he did not say the poster was a careless parent.

    To use the simplistic example.
    In a thread about immigration if a poster tells of their ordinary personal actions that one could suspect are racist. Someone is perfectly entitled to make that accusations with regard to those actions. A poster cannot have it both ways. Express their viewpoints and then have those viewpoints free from criticism.

    Whether I agree or disagree with that someone is irrelevant. With the fora topic being what it is I cannot censor a critique an expressed viewpoint.

    Otherwise a poster can go onto the forum.
    "I'm the best parent in the world. Here's how you should raise kids:
    a)
    b)
    c)
    ...
    "
    And nobody can call that person's parenting out as bad or careless.

    That's not a discussion that's censorship.



    - - - --


    As has been discussed to the death on the feedback forum. Permabear, jank et al. and robindch don't see eye to eye. That's unfortunate. We can probably do something about that. What cannot we do is do something about the demographics of Irish society. In Ireland Scientology is a cult. Simply because that's the way the demographic breaks down. Similarly, Libertarianism, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as the nutty America "is not selfish enough" view of society. We cannot change the demographics of Irish society and the general populace of boards. Where ever the libs go they're not exactly going to be welcome anywhere on this site without people thinking it's bonkers. In A&A no ideology is sacred. So you can't expect protection for the sake of it. We can only interfere if there's blatant baiting, soapboxing, inflaming etc going on. All that being said there are indeed many posters with sympathies for libs views.

    Btw, scientology was an analogy in terms of population. I'm not equivocating the two. In the same way that a geyser can be compared to a volcano for purposes of illustration and comparison - they both erupt. Everyone still knows that they're very different things one's got lava, the other has water.


    Last time.
    Please show the posts that you are saying justify Cabaal making the statement that Mary365 doesnt care about aspects of her child's upbringing.

    I think its completely out of left field and a personal attack.
    You state that its not based on the posters previous posts.
    Hence those posts form the basis of your defense.
    Please demonstrate this evidence that you are relying.


  • Options
    #88
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    jank wrote: »
    That then makes part of the 'Atheist group'. I understand your frustration but when you have Atheist Ireland pretending so speak and represent Atheists views then confusion will naturally occur.

    You have various organizations that speak and publish stuff on behalf of Catholics.

    Catholic Comment and Alive Magazine come to mind, do they represent the views of all Catholics?...no of course not.

    Its the exact same with Atheist Ireland, you'd be very foolish to think they represent all Atheists.


  • Options
    #89
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,123 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Guys, please leave that discussion to the A&A forum, this is specifically feedback on that forum.


  • Options
    #90
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,132 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    jank wrote: »
    That then makes part of the 'Atheist group'. I understand your frustration but when you have Atheist Ireland pretending so speak and represent Atheists views then confusion will naturally occur.

    I am not part of any group. It is people like you who like to group people for your own convenience who say that I am. But I am not, and it is you who are confused.

    Atheist Ireland do not speak for me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    jank wrote: »
    That then makes part of the 'Atheist group'. I understand your frustration but when you have Atheist Ireland pretending so speak and represent Atheists views then confusion will naturally occur.

    Indeed, and there are many posters on A&A who also espouse the views that atheism most mean a specific thing. (Personally, that grinds my gears :p) At a last head count that's still a minority view. Though it's very fervent at times. Especially in emotive threads.

    We've also had several threads critique Atheist Ireland. Some, simply for their choice of name. Yet, that said, again a general head count, most posters still think AI are doing some very good work.

    Contrary to the perception of the stereotypical internet atheist, that some like to jump into the forum with presumptions. There's actually some very diverse beliefs on certain matters. The general overriding theme is that folks don't believe in God and because it's a Irish community tend to be lefty in their political and economic views. In fact, according a census type thread we did. It's pretty much all lefty political views but there is a bit diversion with economic views.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement