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

World Atheist Convention hypocrisy.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    I don't think it's quite the same thing. The RCC talks out of both sides of it's mouth and has done for centuries. For an organisation that sets out to criticise religion to then engages in something of the same tactics is hypocritical. Campaigning (or claiming to be) for freedom of speech and then deleting anything awkward or mildly difficult to deal is also a case of talking of both sides of the same mouth whether on Facebook or anywhere else.

    This forum is one of the most anti-religion groups in the country I would say.

    But if anyone here demanded that the RCC stop a mass service so that they could stand up in church and start listing off what they don't like about Catholics, crying "CENSORSHIP" if they weren't allowed, then the vast majority of rest of us on this forum would call that person out for being a tit.

    You are confusing moderation with censorship, and confusing a non-existent right to be facilitated by others at all stages of free speech, with the real right to free speech. You have the right to start a newspaper/podcast/blog etc complaining about AI. You don't have the right to demand that you can use my newspaper/podcast/blog to complain about AI. Right to free speech does not translate to the right to be facilitated by anyone you choose in exercising free speech.

    The post in the image you linked to had nothing to do with the conference, contained no question or query about the conference, and had no specifics or facts stated in it, and had no discussion point.

    It was just a general "You guys suck" comment. Why exactly would the mod of the AI Facebook not delete that post, considering it served no purpose other than to disrupt the flow of discussion from people genuinely interested in the conference?

    If you want to criticize AI start a blog. That is free speech. Demanding that AI let you post how much you think they suck on their own Facebook page is just ig'nat, as Chris Rock would say.


  • Options
    #33
    Arcus Arrow
    Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Arcus Arrow


    pH wrote: »
    No because as you see on many internet forums, trying to get folks to stay on topic is a major hassle. If their FB post is an announcement, your "missing post" can be viewed as an attempt to derail the whole thing into some sort of flame war.

    As I said, if they attempt to stop you publishing anything anywhere, then fine, cry censorship and you'll get a lot of support here.

    What you can't do (and cry censorship) is ride on the coattails of their audience and use them.

    The FB audience belongs to Facebook. There were two previous comments which were even replied to that were deleted (along with the replies of course) before I captured them but they were both about the WAC. When I was sent the first link there was one comment but that got deleted seconds later. One asked something like how the tickets were selling (I think) and the other questioned if it was worth paying €100. It would seem atheism might be an improvement on religion but atheist organisations (the Irish version) can carry all the same impulses as a religion.

    If a critical comment of the WAC was posted it ought to be an opportunity to make the argument as to why people should attend. That's what happened with the first reply which was pretty good at arguing for attending but that got wiped with the one it was replying to.

    It's not going to do atheism any good if the WAC goes badly but it may well shaping up to be a minor disaster if the organisers are already so touchy.


  • Options
    #34
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    The FB audience belongs to Facebook. There were two previous comments which were even replied to that were deleted (along with the replies of course) before I captured them but they were both about the WAC. When I was sent the first link there was one comment but that got deleted seconds later. One asked something like how the tickets were selling (I think) and the other questioned if it was worth paying €100. It would seem atheism might be an improvement on religion but atheist organisations (the Irish version) can carry all the same impulses as a religion.

    If a critical comment of the WAC was posted it ought to be an opportunity to make the argument as to why people should attend. That's what happened with the first reply which was pretty good at arguing for attending but that got wiped with the one it was replying to.

    It's not going to do atheism any good if the WAC goes badly but it may well shaping up to be a minor disaster if the organisers are already so touchy.

    It's amazing how you're constructing this reality of yours to justify your agenda.


  • Options
    #35
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Arcus Arrow wrote: »
    The FB audience belongs to Facebook. There were two previous comments which were even replied to that were deleted (along with the replies of course) before I captured them but they were both about the WAC. When I was sent the first link there was one comment but that got deleted seconds later. One asked something like how the tickets were selling (I think) and the other questioned if it was worth paying €100. It would seem atheism might be an improvement on religion but atheist organisations (the Irish version) can carry all the same impulses as a religion.

    If a critical comment of the WAC was posted it ought to be an opportunity to make the argument as to why people should attend. That's what happened with the first reply which was pretty good at arguing for attending but that got wiped with the one it was replying to.

    It's not going to do atheism any good if the WAC goes badly but it may well shaping up to be a minor disaster if the organisers are already so touchy.

    You still haven't given us your Facebook log in details so we can start posting how much you suck on your Facebook page.

    STOP CENSORING US!


  • Options
    #36
    Arcus Arrow
    Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Arcus Arrow


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You still haven't given us your Facebook log in details so we can start posting how much you suck on your Facebook page.

    STOP CENSORING US!

    I don't have one. But if you and whoever else makes up the "us" you referred to then you'll have no problem posting your details I presume or are you just blowing hot air?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Wicknight wrote: »
    STOP CENSORING US!
    I think this thread has run as far as it needs to!


  • Options
    #38
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Don't you have to click fb.like.light.png before you can post on a facebook page?

    Just sayin'.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement