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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A&A Feedback

13567…37

Comments

  • #102
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    gvn wrote: »
    Your response is a paragon of the antithesis of the dialectical method, which robindch discusses above. Ironic, eh?

    If you're going to accuse a person of making gross generalisations — and derogatory, insulting ones at that — then the least you can do is point out where the generalisation has been made.


    Oh please. It's all religious people this and religious people that.

    If you can't see that, i'm sorry but i can't help you..

    As said, i have no interest in dragging up the numerous insulting generalised condescending posts on here. It's silly.

    You're post is a paragon of denial! :)


  • #103
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Holy crap J C is back! :eek:


  • #104
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Holy crap J C is back! :eek:

    Whatever dude..


  • #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Oh please. It's all religious people this and religious people that.

    If you can't see that, i'm sorry but i can't help you..

    Perhaps if you could point out a couple of examples, just a couple, people might take you seriously.
    As said, i have no interest in dragging up the numerous insulting generalised condescending posts on here. It's silly.

    I didn't ask you to do that. I asked you to point out where, in this exact thread, in only two posts, in fact, robindch expressed a generalisation about religious people, which you've claimed he had done. You can't do this because one doesn't exist; be honest.
    You're post is a paragon of denial! :)

    How witty.


  • #106
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Holy crap J C is back! :eek:

    Oh no! But no, I don't think so. Am currently keeping him too busy on the Christian forum. ;)


  • #107
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Whatever dude..

    Allow me to elaborate; your posts have taken a sudden and sharp turn away from dialectical discourse to the point of being eerily like a particular poster who was well known for such things right down to the, "no, you're a" response complete with smiley face. It's quite like deja vu actually.
    Call me a cynic, but I find a lot of posters tend to start doing that when they aren't arsed backing up their points, which is a shame really.


  • #108
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    gvn wrote: »
    I didn't ask you to do that. I asked you to point out where, in this exact thread, in only two posts, in fact, robindch expressed a generalisation about religious people, which you've claimed he had done. You can't do this because one doesn't exist; be honest.

    Robin said: "Lots of people get mixed up all the time between a dialectic discussion (what non-religious people think is happening) and a lecture (what religious people think is happening)."

    Wish you didn't question my recall tbf. Was trying to avoid it.

    Time for you to be honest. Is the above statement a generalisation about religious people or not?

    Yes or No please.


  • #109
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Allow me to elaborate; your posts have taken a sudden and sharp turn away from dialectical discourse to the point of being eerily like a particular poster who was well known for such things right down to the, "no, you're a" response complete with smiley face. It's quite like deja vu actually.
    Call me a cynic, but I find a lot of posters tend to start doing that when they aren't arsed backing up their points, which is a shame really.

    Ok. I've tried to remedy that.


  • #110
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    I'm sorry but i'm not interested in dragging up posts as proof......

    Yes, I'm sure.

    However the rest of us are interested in you "dragging up posts" to prove what you said was true, because coming on a forum and making unsubstantiated claims about things or other posters is frowned upon.

    Or you could retract the remark and apologise.


  • #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Robin said: "Lots of people get mixed up all the time between a dialectic discussion (what non-religious people think is happening) and a lecture (what religious people think is happening)."

    Wish you didn't question my recall tbf. Was trying to avoid it.

    Time for you to be honest. Is the above statement a generalisation about religious people or not?

    Yes or No please.

    On its face, yes, it is, though the point is qualified in his next post — in his experience, he says, on this forum 75% of those getting mixed up between a dialectic and a lecture are religious posters (which I would agree with). Perhaps Robin will clarify himself, but I don't believe he thinks your above, nit-picked quote to be true for all.

    But yes, I'll concede that the above, taken as is, without the context of the latter post, is a generalisation.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yes, I'm sure.

    However the rest of us are interested in you "dragging up posts" to prove what you said was true, because coming on a forum and making unsubstantiated claims about things or other posters is frowned upon.

    Or you could retract the remark and apologise.

    Apologise for what exactly nodin. Am i in the dog house now with Brown Bomber for crimes against the racist police of boards?

    Oh **** off mate.:rolleyes:


  • #113
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    To be fair to Bishop!, I like having a laugh at religion and i'm sure i'm not the only one.

    I'm not a prolific poster here but i think laughing at it is a good thing and if that comes across as exclusionist, then dress me in a, well, erm dress and put me in charge of a faith school.


  • #114
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Apologise for what exactly nodin. Am i in the dog house now with Brown Bomber for crimes against the racist police of boards?

    Oh **** off mate.:rolleyes:

    What on Earth are you talking about?


  • #115
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Apologise for what exactly nodin. Am i in the dog house now with Brown Bomber for crimes against the racist police of boards?

    Oh **** off mate.:rolleyes:

    Ah. I gave my youngest a week off the computer for saying something similar to me earlier.


  • #116
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Apologise for what exactly nodin. Am i in the dog house now with Brown Bomber for crimes against the racist police of boards?

    Oh **** off mate.:rolleyes:

    Oh wow, haven't seen the race card get pulled out in a while.

    129077972875498445.jpg


  • #117
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    gvn wrote: »
    On its face, yes, it is, though the point is qualified in his next post — in his experience, he says, on this forum 75% of those getting mixed up between a dialectic and a lecture are religious posters (which I would agree with). Perhaps Robin will clarify himself, but I don't believe he thinks your above, nit-picked quote to be true for all.

    But yes, I'll concede that the above, taken as is, without the context of the latter post, is a generalisation.

    As said, i really like most everyone on here. Robin included!

    It's just a bit ferocious sometimes. I'm not making any judgement or climbing on a high horse. It just seems to me there is a bit of condescending anti-religion apparent. It's silly to deny it.

    So sue me for observing that. I'm not saying it should be stamped out or changed or anything. Just saying that from the outside looking in, it comes across as biased sometimes. That's all. Sorry. No sweat like. I'm not interested in painting anyone into a corner about this.

    Actually.. you're all evil monsters! The lot of you!:pac:


  • #118
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    For some reason I can't take a poster seriously if they tell another poster to feck off. Seems entirely unnecessary. If a religious poster discusses rather than evangelising they get on fine tbh. A good proportion of religious posters seem to come around to the forum to say 'What if you're wrong?' or complaining about arrogant atheists. But then we've had other religious posters that don't behave like such, one thread that comes to mind is this.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056675649

    He was happy to discuss why he is religious but did not come out with rubbish about how we can't be in any way critical of religion etc. As a result, forum regulars got on far better with him. He didn't make the post for the purpose of irritating and wanted to actually discuss the topic at hand.


  • #119
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Just to clarify things a bit ladies and gents. I feel i owe nobody an apology for expressing my opinions about the tone or intention of certain posts.

    If you're too wrapped up in backing each other up to not see the blatantly obvious theme on here by some posters that religious people are constantly denigrated by some as being substandard critical thinkers, then that's for you to think about.

    I'm not saying it about all atheists here, so the boards anti-discrimination police squad should maybe back off a bit there.

    Believe me the evidence is there. I just couldn't be bothered going down that road. Let's leave it at that instead of demanding apologies for character slurs and the like..


  • #120
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    For some reason I can't take a poster seriously if they tell another poster to feck off. Seems entirely unnecessary. If a religious poster discusses rather than evangelising they get on fine tbh. A good proportion of religious posters seem to come around to the forum to say 'What if you're wrong?' or complaining about arrogant atheists. But then we've had other religious posters that don't behave like such, one thread that comes to mind is this.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056675649

    He was happy to discuss why he is religious but did not come out with rubbish about how we can't be in any way critical of religion etc. As a result, forum regulars got on far better with him. He didn't make the post for the purpose of irritating and wanted to actually discuss the topic at hand.

    Oh butter wouldn't melt.:rolleyes:


  • #122
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    I don't think religious people are dim and actually the one's that frequent their respective forums on boards at least tend to be people who have made a personal effort to research their faith and I respect that. It's amazing to think you listed two posters form the "other side" but Jank is actually one of our own I believe, a non-believer with just opposite views on practically everything else. Now on the issue of one sidedness, this forum is more open to alternative views than any other under the religious section. The christian forum expects most topics bar 1 or 2 megathreads to be answered in a christian light and the islam forum is even more closed off to opposing opinion. That's not running them down, it's simply the style of forum they choose to be. Here for obvious reasons opposing points of view are not only welcome but needed as we don't exactly have interpretations of religious passages to debate amongst ourselves.


  • #123
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    As said, i really like most everyone on here. Robin included!

    It's just a bit ferocious sometimes. I'm not making any judgement or climbing on a high horse. It just seems to me there is a bit of condescending anti-religion apparent. It's silly to deny it.

    So sue me for observing that. I'm not saying it should be stamped out or changed or anything. Just saying that from the outside looking in, it comes across as biased sometimes. That's all. Sorry. No sweat like. I'm not interested in painting anyone into a corner about this.

    Actually.. you're all evil monsters! The lot of you!:pac:

    Yeah- I will accept that you have a point , but only up to a point. When the majority of posters here have similar views on religion it is only to be expected that there appears to be an occassional smug air about us. But that it being unfair to the forum for a number of reasons.

    Firstly the number of religious people willing to post on here is very limited and that is their choice . I would love to have a free for all discussion on religion but as I said before most of them will only do so with home court advantage. Therefore in their absence the homogeneity of views is to be expected.

    But I would say as a group this is about the only thing we agree on , we would have divergent views on every other subject , but that rarely shows here . For example I enjoy Nodin's pithy interventions , but when I disagree with her/him I find them simply infuriating . That just dos'nt happen on this forum but I would say we would disagree very much on economics politics israel and less so on civil liberties. But you won't see that here.

    So if you want more of the cut and trust of debate get more of the religious folk to take a chance and take that ferry across the Styx and they will find it is really not that hot in here .

    We are quite willing to take our chances in the other direction.

    P.S the forum is great the moderation is great - don't change a thing. Just get more Christians for the Lions .


  • #124
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    If you're too wrapped up in backing each other up to not see the blatantly obvious theme on here by some posters that religious people are constantly denigrated by some as being substandard critical thinkers, then that's for you to think about.
    So am I right in thinking that either you reckon that religious people are not substandard critical thinkers, or if they substandard critical thinkers, then nobody should ever point it out?


  • #125
    Mae Crashing Beer
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Mae Crashing Beer


    I suddenly feel unsafe and demand everyone be banned except me


  • #126
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    to try and make bluewolf feel safe I'm willing to be called a Potential Troll :P:pac:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #127
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    robindch wrote: »
    So am I right in thinking that either you reckon that religious people are not substandard critical thinkers, or if they substandard critical thinkers, then nobody should ever point it out?

    I don't think that they are particularly bad critical thinkers in general just because they're religious no. It's up to them what they believe as regards faith; each to his own and all that.
    Am sure they're perfectly capable of day to day critical thinking just as much as any given atheist, and for that matter performing other complex cognitive tasks like debating etc.

    And you should be free to point out anything you want when you want.


  • #128
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    I don't think that they are particularly bad critical thinkers in general just because they're religious [...]
    And I don't think so either. I do, however, think that people who are poor critical thinkers have a tendency to be religious and that people who are good critical thinkers, tend not to be religious. This is widely supported by formal sociological research, as well as anecdotally from this forum and elsewhere.
    The Bishop! wrote: »
    It's up to them what they believe as regards faith; each to his own and all that.
    People can believe what they want, but they shouldn't claim to be good critical thinkers, if they aren't, since that's dishonest; nor should they believe themselves good critical thinkers, if they're not, since that's delusional.


  • #129
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Just to try and calm things down a bit, I want to go back to The Bishop!'s suggestion that there aren't enough religious people coming to the forum to offer contrary views.

    Firstly, all types of (non) believers are welcome, and frankly the place would be boring without them. Secondly, the nature of the discussions, once you really get into it, demands that people stick to some manner of discipline in what they posit. Otherwise we might as well be a yard full of yapping dogs for all the substance the conversation would have.

    The problem, however, with putting certain rules on a discussion about religion, is that it doesn't suit religion.

    I have a theory (born of experience) that any properly structured discussion about God will inevitably end with the religious person invoking some form of the *mysterious ways* argument. I think a lot of religious folks know this, and tend to not try their luck.

    When it happens, it results in (a) an argument where people are sidestepping and avoiding points, or (b) someone invoking the mysterious ways argument. Fireworks and mirth ensue. :)

    But hey, it's the journey and not the destination!


  • #130
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    .....

    Believe me the evidence is there. ..

    Why?
    The Bishop! wrote: »
    .....
    Let's leave it at that instead of demanding apologies for character slurs and the like..


    Jaysus forbid we do that....


  • #131
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Nodin wrote: »
    Why?




    Jaysus forbid we do that....

    Not interested.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Not interested.

    Keeps posting.


  • #133
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Any thoughts on correct usage of smilies? :confused: What is :pac: for (it has been suggested "Taking the mickey") and to my mind :( looks more tragically miserable than frowning. And I would like the option of two :p, but only if one indicates "flipping the bird" and the other is more "yah, boo, sucks". Am I in the wrong place with this burning question ?:eek: If so, :o


  • #134
    Mae Crashing Beer
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Mae Crashing Beer


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I suddenly feel unsafe and demand everyone be banned except me
    Obliq wrote: »
    Any thoughts on correct usage of smilies? :confused: What is :pac: for (it has been suggested "Taking the mickey") and to my mind :( looks more tragically miserable than frowning. And I would like the option of two :p, but only if one indicates "flipping the bird" and the other is more "yah, boo, sucks". Am I in the wrong place with this burning question ?:eek: If so, :o

    smilies are also banned due to JC flashbacks


  • #135
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Surely J C made everyone feel safe? I mean, safe that they weren't the most clueless person on the planet..?


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


    Obliq wrote: »
    Any thoughts on correct usage of smilies? :confused: What is :pac: for (it has been suggested "Taking the mickey") and to my mind :( looks more tragically miserable than frowning. And I would like the option of two :p, but only if one indicates "flipping the bird" and the other is more "yah, boo, sucks". Am I in the wrong place with this burning question ?:eek: If so, :o


    We actually need the pop-corn eating smiley.


  • #137
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Nodin wrote: »
    We actually need the pop-corn eating smiley.

    Here here!

    I demand a popcorn smiley.


  • #138
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    I want gc-wall.gif for dealing with trolls, creep.gif for tiptoeing around things. Don't expect to use that one much here, but it could come in handy for other forums :D. This one ht_bow.gif just because.

    Anyway, on original topic. Not much to needs to be changed really. The whole point of having multiple forii is that each one cannot be all things to all men (and women <<).
    Some people are going to find posting here intimidating, others frustrating. That's just the way it is.


  • #139
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    Some people are going to find posting here intimidating, others frustrating. That's just the way it is.

    Only some - dammit. We simply must up our game.


    Liking the smilies btw.


  • #140
    Mae Crashing Beer
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Mae Crashing Beer


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Here here!

    I demand a popcorn smiley.

    There there?


  • #141
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Here here!

    I demand a popcorn smiley.

    tumblr_lxjm4n4umw1rn1xxfo1_400.gif

    We'll have to make do with gifs for now.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,207 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    scary_popcorn.gif


  • #143
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I'd like this guy slaphead.gif, this guy popcorn.gif and this guy ouch.gif please.


  • #144
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I'd like this guy slaphead.gif, this guy popcorn.gif and this guy ouch.gif please.

    You found one! I want one too. popcorn.gif
    There. I hope.


  • #145
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    I'm having Hotmail flashbacks.


  • #146
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    .gifs >>>>>> smilies.


  • #147
    Aenaes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,677 ✭✭✭Aenaes


    But gifs make me feel so stupid :(
    I watch them like 3 times in a row, just to make sure I know which bit is the start.


  • #148
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    gvn wrote: »
    Feedback. Hmmm ...

    Don't change anything. A&A is probably one of the best (if not the best) run forums on the site. It has the perfect mix: extremely light-hearted at times, with great use of wit, sarcasm and humour by its members; great debate and argument at other times, matching any forum on the site for its quality of discussion. It's not too dry, nor too light-hearted; discussion standards aren't rigid to the point of suffocating discussion, nor is discussion allowed to descend to drivel. A great mix, and one which I'm sure most (if not all) of the regulars appreciate.

    Agreed.

    So much so that I would actually prefer to post something here when looking for intellectual feedback as opposed to posting somewhere else. Perhaps we should change the forum name to Atheism, Agnosticism & Intellectualism. :P

    To give an example, I was contemplating creating a thread on here regarding Matthew Woods' imprisonment. I'm aware there is a thread on After Hours (that place is just vile), and Humanities, however I feel the real intellects on boards.ie hang out here.


  • #149
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Ooh la-de-da.:D

    Wish i hadn't read that with a mouthful of coffee.


  • #150
    legspin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Agreed.

    So much so that I would actually prefer to post something here when looking for intellectual feedback as opposed to posting somewhere else. Perhaps we should change the forum name to Atheism, Agnosticism & Intellectualism. :P

    To give an example, I was contemplating creating a thread on here regarding Matthew Woods' imprisonment. I'm aware there is a thread on After Hours (that place is just vile), and Humanities, however I feel the real intellects on boards.ie hang out here.

    Well like, duh.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Wish i hadn't read that with a mouthful of coffee.
    Bish -- no need to feel inadequate -- A+A welcomes people of all levels of smartipantness.


Advertisement