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

Religious Threads in After Hours

Options
1235789

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    K-9 wrote: »
    A lot of the time you mightn't even notice a mod action, so the report was acted on, just not visible. Posts that some type of action wasn't taken would make up a small percentage in my experience. The action could be as little as just taking note of it to keep an eye on, to giving a poster a long ban because of their track record, a lot of this you just wont see.


    K-9 in all fairness, take a look at Paddys earlier post in this thread, and those are just quotes from one thread alone. I don't know how many infractions were made but a Moderator note after the first one should've nipped that behaviour in the bud.

    Instead, in this thread, the posts have been dismissed as "humor" and parody "religions" have been tried to be passed off as legitimate religion. It makes anyone reading this thread, between the dismissive attitudes of some posters, the aggressive attitudes of others, it makes posters think "why bother?".

    The reason I didn't bother reporting the posts is because not alone are they the same tiresome old shìte regurgitated by thanks whores that think they're being original, but because I know there'll be fannyadams done about it.

    I know you might say there's discussions go on in the background (and I can't see infraction cards on the touch site, but when I opened Paddy's link I see the post still wasn't infracted for being uncivil), but if the first post like that had been infracted or a Moderator Warning posted, you wouldn't have had to deal with the stream of dickish posts quoted in Paddy's post that followed the first one; ie- nipping that crap in the bud and making sure posters stuck to the topic at hand, instead of taking snide pot shots at each other and detracting from the discussion.


  • Options
    #123
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »

    Boards IMO seems to have lost it's community ethos, and has gained an image of a hierarchy only interested in making new members a priority, forgetting about the opinions of it's long term members who object to direction it's taken. I think it's time for a Second Vatican Boards Council.


    You seem to be ignoring the opinions of long term members who just don't agree with you.

    "Community ethos"????


    Czarcasm wrote:
    The reason I didn't bother reporting the posts is because not alone are they the same tiresome old shìte regurgitated by thanks whores that think they're being original, but because I know there'll be fannyadams done about it.

    Or - radical idea - maybe they aren't actually worthy of action because they're perfectly fair enough.


  • Options
    #124
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Lets not get too bogged down.

    Should religion threads be allowed on AH? Or should they be modded more?


  • Options
    #125
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Lets not get too bogged down.

    Should religion threads be allowed on AH? Or should they be modded more?

    They should be allowed.

    Moderation is fine as is.


  • Options
    #126
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,431 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Lets not get too bogged down.

    Should religion threads be allowed on AH? Or should they be modded more?

    I think yes of course they should be allowed.
    If something happens with regards to religion and its big news, then of course it should be allowed to be discussed in AH.
    I think that's fine as long as it stays on topic.

    Personally, where I'd draw the line is when a discussion is going on and some posters just ridicule people's beliefs, and make jokes about invisible sky people etc. That's not on, in my opinion. Even if I don't believe in certain things myself, I wouldn't make fun of someone for their beliefs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    "Invisible sky people" + context.

    Depending on the intent I would view "invisible sky people" as an accurate description.

    Calling somebody an idiot for believing in it would seem over the line however. I didn't have an issue with most of the posts Padd quoted.


  • Options
    #128
    darced
    Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #129
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,431 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    "Invisible sky people" + context.

    Depending on the intent I would view "invisible sky people" as an accurate description.

    Calling somebody an idiot for believing in it would seem over the line however. I didn't have an issue with most of the posts Padd quoted.

    Lets be honest, when someone says "invisible sky people" it's meant as a snide remark. There's no way someone could sugar coat that as an accurate description.


  • Options
    #130
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    El Guapo! wrote: »
    Lets be honest, when someone says "invisible sky people" it's meant as a snide remark. There's no way someone could sugar coat that as an accurate description.

    You know it can be part of a post without breaching the charter. One can criticise the belief in a number of ways that are legitimate but may appear to be snide to some. It does not always mean a moderator has to do anything about it.

    The point is it is difficult to know what's fair comment and what is not. It's open and shut obvious in some cases. Insulting or mocking people because of their beliefs is not ok. But that doesn't put a velvet rope around those beliefs that states they are beyond criticism.


  • Options
    #131
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    You seem to be ignoring the opinions of long term members who just don't agree with you.

    "Community ethos"????


    No Nodin I just tend to ignore your posts because I'm not a fan of your particular posting style. You posted the same question in the rational discussion about abortion thread 20 odd times and even directed your question at the wrong poster until Sarky pulled you up on it.

    If I were to engage your posting style I'd ask you where in this thread if you could point it out to me please did I ignore any poster who disagreed with me?

    I try to give comprehensive answers to all posters who would only pick up on one or two points in my whole posts (as you have just done), but I don't mind as long as they're civil about it (as you have just been).

    As to my use of the expression "community ethos", that is how Boards.ie chooses to identify itself. Look under Dav's title in his earlier post- "Community Manager". Boards has for as long as I can remember anyway (circa 2002 was when I first encountered Boards.ie), identified and portrayed itself as a community built by it's members, for it's members.

    Members back then were able to show each other respect and didn't have to be told when a post might cross the line. They used their common sense and had a bit of tact (and this was at a time when there was even more anonymity afforded people than there is now!). I know you mentioned earlier that if a person felt that a post crossed the line that they should report it, but why does it even have to go that far? Can the person making the post not just be respectful and civil in expressing their opinions?

    Remember the cartoon that went around a while ago about the angelic American kid + Xbox Live + Internet connection = foul mouthed little piss ant? That's the way it feels on Boards sometimes nowadays, and it doesn't make for pleasant participation for anyone that uses Boards as it now chooses to identify themselves as a Social Media website as a medium with which to interact and communicate with people.

    I don't mind someone disagreeing with me (as I've posted before, my own mother has disagreed with me from the moment I dropped from between her thighs, my father wasn't much easier to live with soon after, so I'm WELL used to people disagreeing with me!), but for me personally, it's HOW they express their disagreement that matters.

    If they cannot express their disagreement in a proper, respectful, civil, and mature manner, then why should I, why should anyone, feel obliged to engage with them?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    AH isn't that much of a respectful forum on most things, politicians, celebrities, the church, all up for derision. If somebody doesn't want to show much respect to Cardinal Brady, Enda Kenny, Bertie, well, they should have room to show that derision. If they don't believe in religion and think it's about as believable as the spaghetti monster, well that's a valid belief, same as RC posters believe in the Holy Trinity.

    On a general point, Atheism and religions have their own fora for more informed discussion about faith, politics the same as regards political matters. There has to be a bit of leeway and appreciation that you are posting in a non-specialist forum, Boards has a quite young membership and the majority probably don't believe in religion, then you have a minority trying to defend an unpopular view, not an easy task.

    Abortion threads would highlight that, the RC position is very much a minority opinion. A majority of posters don't particularly care what the RC thinks about abortion, it's irrelevant to them, it's part of an attitude from a bygone era when what the church thought mattered. I do think the church gets a hard time but I don't know if we can meet the critics half way on this one.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #133
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Lets not get too bogged down.

    Should religion threads be allowed on AH? Or should they be modded more?


    I would say no religion threads be allowed to be posted on AH as religion is as personal to a person as what football team they support. It's far too contentious an issue and far too much work for Moderators.

    In saying that, should current affairs with a religious perspective be allowed in After Hours? Absolutely. And by that I mean that the current ongoing scandals in the RCC should be discussed, I would fully encourage people to talk about it, because these are issues that affects the greater society, not just Catholics.

    The only thing I object to, is posters using a discussion topic to wedge in their disdain for the RCC, not just the hierarchy, but also the beliefs of the followers of that faith. At best it's just off topic nonsense, as in "We've heard it all before already, have you any opinion on the actual subject of the thread now?".

    Take the rational discussion on abortion thread- posters weren't long posting the usual nonsense about sky fairies and kiddie fiddlers, etc. They weren't interested in discussing the topic at hand at all, they were more interested in using the thread as an opportunity to take pot shots at the RCC rather than post their actual own opinion on the issue. There was deliberate baiting going on from both sides, so I think the only fairest solution is to ask posters, those who follow a deity, and those who do not, to leave their prejudices outside the door on their way in.

    If they want to discuss an issue from one of the many religious perspectives, or an atheist perspective, then the forums for that are provided under Religion and Spirituality; only that they'll have to up their game to post in those forums because the kind of muppetry that's tolerated in AH, isn't tolerated there.


  • Options
    #134
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    K-9 wrote: »
    AH isn't that much of a respectful forum on most things, politicians, celebrities, the church, all up for derision. If somebody doesn't want to show much respect to Cardinal Brady, Enda Kenny, Bertie, well, they should have room to show that derision. If they don't believe in religion and think it's about as believable as the spaghetti monster, well that's a valid belief, same as RC posters believe in the Holy Trinity.

    But AH has shifted its line to be more (I hate to use this word) PC on a lot of things so its not really applicable to say that its a free for all type forum, because I'm not sure if there's any other group in irish society (with the possible exception of people who vote for the healy-rae's) where the type of posts padd b1975 highlighted would be tolerated or thought to be a valid criticism.

    Its about being having to argue in a fairly civilised manner in relation to all social groupings or tolerating flaming style posts with little content in relation to all social groupings

    e.g If i can say
    murraykil wrote: »
    I think what the clergy did was really sick also, but each to their own. :rolleyes:

    Implying that the (whole) RC clergy are pedo's, I should also be able to say "travellers are thieves" or "Fat unattractive irish woman" without being sanctioned.

    Its not directly comparable as an AH thread isn't discrimination or hate speech however this list in relation to equality law in Ireland highlights my point,

    Gender
    Marital status
    Family status
    Sexual orientation
    Religion
    Age
    Disability
    Race
    Membership of the Traveller community

    of these groupings IMO, only in relation to religion is this type of posting tolerated.

    I would also like to point out that in other cases where "harsh" posting was found to have a negative effect for a minority of posters it was considered to be a problem worth investigating and resolving


  • Options
    #135
    darced
    Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #136
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    No (....)pulled you up on it.

    Irrelevant.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    If I were to engage your posting style I'd ask you where in this thread if you could point it out to me please did I ignore any poster who disagreed with me?)..

    You stated
    forgetting about the opinions of it's long term members who object to direction
    it's taken

    I'm a long term member. I've no problem with it the way it is.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    As to my use of the expression "community ethos", that is how Boards.ie chooses to identify itself...

    A nonsense. This isn't some cosy little village out of a Sunday night ITV Drama.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Members back then (...........)their opinions? ...

    Yes, the golden age, when all was rosy. AH was far rougher than it is now, fyinfo.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    If they cannot express their disagreement in a proper, respectful, civil, and mature manner, then why should I, why should anyone, feel obliged to engage with them?


    A compromise is required in a shared space. Thats why the rules that are there are there. I'd suggest that if this isn't to your liking, perhaps its you and others who need to disengage?


  • Options
    #137
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,718 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Should religion threads be allowed on AH?
    Yes they should, but only for big ticket topics, pope resigning, major changes in church policy.

    For anything else thats ongoing I propose a superthread.
    There's an ongoing thread in A&A about church scandals which seems to work well for the regulars there, I see no reason why something similar, although broader based cannot work in AH.
    This will make the workload of the Mods a lot easier and tidy the forum somewhat.

    Or should they be modded more?
    Yes, but not at the expense of mods real lives and other business.

    I feel the over reliance on reported posts (while it is a help to mods) is simply too much.
    It is flawed to the extent that a poster can post up an actionable post but if there is no mod available to read the post, this poster can continue to post which may cause some resentment among the better behaved posters and lead to sniping/back seat moderation on thread.

    I think it may be apparent the the number of mods currently servicing AH may not be enough.
    I fully accept good mods are hard to come by.

    As regards myself and my fellow posters, I think we have a massive obligation to behave and work with the mods to the best of our abilities.

    Quit the flaming, the insults, the sound bites, the dragging of religion/ aethisim into threads where its off topic!

    This goes for everyone.

    We need to report posts, I am probably one of the most guilty of not doing this. In almost 4 years, I would guess I have reported about 20 posts across the whole site:(, Its just not something I am in the habit of doing.

    This needs to change.


    Big thanks to all mods and posters who contributed to this thread.


  • Options
    #138
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I would say no religion threads be allowed to be posted on AH as religion is as personal to a person as what football team they support. It's far too contentious an issue and far too much work for Moderators.

    In saying that, should current affairs with a religious perspective be allowed in After Hours? Absolutely. And by that I mean that the current ongoing scandals in the RCC should be discussed, I would fully encourage people to talk about it, because these are issues that affects the greater society, not just Catholics.

    The only thing I object to, is posters using a discussion topic to wedge in their disdain for the RCC, not just the hierarchy, but also the beliefs of the followers of that faith. At best it's just off topic nonsense, as in "We've heard it all before already, have you any opinion on the actual subject of the thread now?".

    Take the rational discussion on abortion thread- posters weren't long posting the usual nonsense about sky fairies and kiddie fiddlers, etc. They weren't interested in discussing the topic at hand at all, they were more interested in using the thread as an opportunity to take pot shots at the RCC rather than post their actual own opinion on the issue. There was deliberate baiting going on from both sides, so I think the only fairest solution is to ask posters, those who follow a deity, and those who do not, to leave their prejudices outside the door on their way in.

    If they want to discuss an issue from one of the many religious perspectives, or an atheist perspective, then the forums for that are provided under Religion and Spirituality; only that they'll have to up their game to post in those forums because the kind of muppetry that's tolerated in AH, isn't tolerated there.

    Yes it can be a personal matter however in Ireland the RCC ensure it is not and instead want it pushed on even non RCC citizens of this country.

    Examples:
    - Majority church running of our state funded schools
    - Current and previous church and religious people's interference in such matters as abortion, divorce, condoms, stem cell research
    - The whole church fight against equal rights for gay marriage,
    - How burials are performed in this country

    Its nice and fine to package it up as a personal matter and claim because it is a person belief that it should not be open to being discussed but it affects how people's lives even when they are none religious.

    Last time I checked football doesn't interfere with how a family's are educated, how they can get married regardless of their sexuality, how they can reproduce.

    Its a major bone of contention that the RCC should have any say in this country and yet it does, so without a doubt the RCC's belief structure will come into discussion because it is the reason why these different controls and restrictions exist in this country.

    Sure in more recent times we have moved on (condoms below allowed in Ireland), but the RCC belief structure still causes the needless death of millions worldwide due to its religious stance on condoms and this should of course be open to full debate.

    If we look at a recent issue though we can see that the church effectively tried to bully TD's by saying they won't give communion to TD's who support abortion, this removes it from being a personal matter and turns it into a lobbying, interference with Irish government and bulling issue and should be widely discussed.

    You can't talk about the RCC without talking about its belief structure I'm afraid, they can't be separated.

    padd b1975, a megathread sounds all fine and well but given the issues presented by the RCC interference in Ireland I can't help but feel that you'd prefer for many of the discussions to be hidden away and almost brushed under the carpet.

    It's important that people can clearly see the new issues when the RCC tries to interfere with how the Irish state is run, this should not be hidden.

    Also given its the RCC and its lobby groups that are most against gay marriage does this mean gay marriage topics go into your suggested mega-thread or are they separate?, remember that once again the RCC belief structure has to be part of such a discussion because its the RCC belief's that are the cause for this restriction.

    The issues are too many to simply lump into a megathread.


  • Options
    #139
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,718 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Cabaal wrote: »

    padd b1975, a megathread sounds all fine and well but given the issues
    presented by the RCC interference in Ireland I can't help but feel that you'd
    prefer for many of the discussions to be hidden away and almost brushed under
    the carpet.





    It's important that people can clearly see the new issues when the RCC tries
    to interfere with how the Irish state is run, this should not be hidden.
    No, thats not my intention. I don't think anything should be hidden, far to much of that in our nation's history.

    RCC will still be discussed warts and all but in a more stramlined and tidier context.
    With one ongoing thread I feel it will make mods jobs easier to keep tabs on any misbehaviour that arises.

    Also given its the RCC and its lobby groups that are most against gay
    marriage does this mean gay marriage topics go into your suggested mega-thread
    or are they separate?, remember that once again the RCC belief structure has to
    be part of such a discussion because its the RCC belief's that are the cause for
    this restriction.


    The issues are too many to simply lump into a megathread.[/
    No, RCC is against many things, murder theft etc. Do discussions about a major murder case belong in a religious superthread? Of course they don't.

    Gay marriage more than deserves its own topic, along with adoption, abortion and other major social issues.

    If posters wish to discuss these from a religious angle they should do it on the appropriate forum as an another poster suggested earlier or they could bring it up in the superthread if one is created.


  • Options
    #140
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Gay marriage more than deserves its own topic, along with adoption, abortion and other major social issues.

    If posters wish to discuss these from a religious angle they should do it on the appropriate forum as an another poster suggested earlier or they could bring it up in the superthread if one is created.


    We will not be disallowing criticism of the religious reasons for opposing abortion, gay marriage etc.


  • Options
    #141
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    why not simply have 3 megathreads as where the majority of these topics would be at home, unique issues having there own threads,

    something like

    Abortion megathread

    Sexuality and the Church (which would include Gay rights and the RC)

    Ongoing religious scandals (if thats good enough for A&A it should be good enough for AH :) )

    It would also be nice if it was explained by a mod why broad generalizations are allowed about religion but not any other grouping covered by equality/discrimination as I pointed out earlier


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Gay marriage more than deserves its own topic, along with adoption, abortion and other major social issues.

    If posters wish to discuss these from a religious angle they should do it on the appropriate forum as an another poster suggested earlier or they could bring it up in the superthread if one is created.

    This would effectively neuter any discussion of the gay marriage or abortion topic and make any discussion next to useless.

    As I've said above...you can't have a discussion about the RCC trying to control government policy and laws without discussing the RCC's beliefs.

    They can't separated them as the the beliefs are the RCC,


  • Options
    #143
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,382 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    It would also be nice if it was explained by a mod why broad generalizations are allowed about religion but not any other grouping covered by equality/discrimination as I pointed out earlier
    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Gender - Can't choose your gender
    Marital status - Not sure what you mean by this. I presume you mean marriage equality rather than marital status which falls under Sexual Orientation
    Family status - Again, not entirely sure what you mean, though I presume you mean in terms of same-sex couples adopting, which again falls under Sexual Orientation
    Sexual orientation - Can't choose your sexuality
    Religion - I'll expand on below
    Age - Can't choose your age
    Disability - Can't choose whether or not you have a disability
    Race - Again, can't choose it
    Membership of the Traveller community - Can't really choose it either, though criticism of the travelling community is usually a case of the whole travelling community being generally blamed for the perceived actions of a few

    Pretty much all the examples you listed above are stuff you're born as or have no say in. It's who you are. Religion on the other hand, isn't. We're born into religion, rather than being born religious. While I would be of the opinion that we can't choose what we believe in (I'm an atheist. Even if I wanted to believe in God, I can't, because I simply don't believe it), at the same time it's not part of your actual being, and the level by which you do believe can vary wildly from person to person even with identical upbringings. The main problem people have is when posters are using religion to try and force other people to live by those beliefs (which obviously will arise in threads regarding same-sex marriage, abortion etc). That because something is not permissible by their religion, that it shouldn't be permissible at all even to people who don't follow that religion.

    I've said it recently elsewhere and I'll say it here, I think people should be able to attack the religion, but not the religious. Attack/question/mock the beliefs themselves, but not attack/mock/insult people for holding those beliefs, as that veers towards personal abuse.


  • Options
    #144
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    It would also be nice if it was explained by a mod why broad generalizations are allowed about religion but not any other grouping covered by equality/discrimination as I pointed out earlier

    I'm not a mod in AA and as such I'm a general user same as yourself, but my own personal view is, you can't compare the two like for like,

    No ethnic group dictates policy's and laws that very much affect the majority of the Irish population on a day to day basis regardless of if they are part of this group or not.

    For example, last time I checked, being black, asian or a traveling etc does not affect:
    - How our schools are run (catholic ethos)
    - Who can marry who (no gay marriages)
    - The governments policy's on contraception sales and use
    - Abortion

    Also, you are not born with a faith in a set religion, this instead is pushed/given to you by the society you grow up in.

    This along with the sexual abuse cover-ups etc makes many people upset about the control that the likes of the RCC have in Ireland, many people feel repulsed bu such an organization.

    Lets not forget that unlike a government or political party the RCC wasn't voted in by the average joe and the average joe can't get them out of power as easy as it could with a political party.

    As such they are very different animals,


  • Options
    #145
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    There is a fine line between abuse and critaism. I would agree that members if the RCC have taken more abuse then is acceptable. It is something we as a mod team are actively discussing.

    For the record, I am not a catholic but do hold Christian belief.


  • Options
    #146
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Penn wrote: »
    ...
    I've said it recently elsewhere and I'll say it here, I think people should be able to attack the religion, but not the religious. Attack/question/mock the beliefs themselves, but not attack/mock/insult people for holding those beliefs, as that veers towards personal abuse.
    It's not quite as simple as that - but it almost is.

    I see no problem in challenging or rejecting a religious belief. The tricky area is mocking it.

    The complication is that those who adhere to a religion have internalised a set of beliefs and values that are associated with that religion. So if you mock their belief, you are by implication mocking them for holding that belief.

    I don't want to imply that nobody should ever mock a religion or a church. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do it, and a right place and a wrong place to do it.

    I think, for example, that it is wrong to shoehorn a simplistic attack on a church into a thread where the topic is not religion. I also think it is very wrong to suggest that all priests are sexual abusers of children.


  • Options
    #147
    Dav
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,840 ✭✭✭Dav


    Mocking a religion is mocking those that practise it. No idea why anything thinks they have the right to mock any religion anyway, it is at best poor manners and at worst incitement of hatred.


  • Options
    #148
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Dav wrote: »
    Mocking a religion is mocking those that practise it. No idea why anything thinks they have the right to mock any religion anyway, it is at best poor manners and at worst incitement of hatred.

    We go back to banning the life of Brian then?


  • Options
    #149
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Dav wrote: »
    Mocking a religion is mocking those that practise it. No idea why anything thinks they have the right to mock any religion anyway, it is at best poor manners and at worst incitement of hatred.

    That's a far too simplistic way of looking at it. You're saying mocking is not OK but that's like a single catch-all that doesn't have any useful applications when it comes to specific comments. For example the church of the FSM is surely set up to ape other belief systems. In a sense that's mocking but it makes a valid point (to some).

    Then look at the likes of the life of Brian. It's viewed as mocking so is it "at best poor manners and at worst incitement to hatred"?

    Sweeping statements without specific examples don't help much when the actual application of a viewpoint is hinged in specifics that aren't themselves simple at all.


  • Options
    #150
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Dav wrote: »
    Mocking a religion is mocking those that practise it. No idea why anything thinks they have the right to mock any religion anyway, it is at best poor manners and at worst incitement of hatred.

    I completely disagree with that Dav.
    Scientology deserves to be mocked for example.
    A politician who believes something completely stupid deserves to have that belief mocked.

    If someone holds a belief based on nothing but 'what they think' without any basis in fact, then that belief is open to question and ridicule. Be it religion or that fairies live at the bottom of their garden.

    I firmly believe that everyone has the right to hold whatever opinion they wish, but also, I believe that I have the right to question and even mock that opinion if I fundamentally disagree with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Dav
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,840 ✭✭✭Dav


    Well if you want specifics, the list at the end of this post by Padd makes a perfect example of what I mean. A satirical film poking fun at the origins of Christ and inviting the viewer to re-think why they might be a Christian hardly falls within the same league as the comments padd linked to.

    [edit]
    So Beruthiel, you're saying that you think that it's ok to mock based on what you think about them? Well there are a lot of scum bags in the world who think women are inferior to men - we don't allow that sort of mockery here. There are a lot of scum bags in the world who think that the colour of one's skin is grounds to be mocked - again we don't allow that sort of mockery here.

    So why is this particular issue allowable?


Advertisement