On Hal Bidlack's Comment

[Christian]

I want to give my phylosophical opinion on Mr. Bidlack's comment (I have never exchanged any words with him so I am hesitant to call him Hal).

I think central to a human being well being is limits and authority.

Throught my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority. What has most value for them is personal freedom.

That choice has a price, as we can clearly see from Mr. Bidlack's comments.

 

[Virgil]

well if we get shutdown while I'm at work...I'll miss you all.


meeow and purrr
Virgil the Tiger

 

[Upchurch]

Actually, in the back of my head, I've been thinking about bringing this up as a philosophical (maybe political) topic for a while now.

What we have here is an atempt to balance two ideological forces. On the one hand, like Christian points out is the need for personal freedom. On the other, is the need for order and law. Neither one can be allowed to completely dominate because they have unacceptable consequences.

At one point on this forum, we had what I would considered almost entirely unrestricted freedom to write, say, and do what ever we wanted. The result was that the JREF website was banned from some school libraries. Alternatively, if absolute law and order were imposed by the moderators we would have something along the lines of believer boards where only the "company line" can be freely expressed. Either way, the goals of the JREF are hindered rather than helped.

So, the key is to find balance. Doable in princible, but in practice has been difficult. Everytime someone the line and tries to gain more personal freedom on the board, the pendelum swings the other way and the mods impose more restrictions in order to compinsate for the imbalance. This, in turn, causes various posters to push the limits even harder, starting the cycle over again.

Essentially, we're going through the growing pains of creating a society. Either it will become stable and we will survive or it will become unstable and fall apart. Sort of social evolution in action.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Which is why the mods should establish clear rules about what is and is not permitted, and then enforce them.

If the rules were written correctly (that is, adequately reflecting the desired standards of the moderators and administrators) there would be no need to constantly write new rules.

 

[hgc]

...
Throught my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority. What has most value for them is personal freedom.

...

I suspect that you picked up this notion from some anti-atheist rant from the pulpit at your church, rather than from anyone around here.

What I value is this: rationality.

I consider it irrational to believe that limits and authority are provided from an imaginary being in the sky, as articulated in ancient books of suspect provenence, and not out of the mere necessity of organized, civilized society.

 

[Upchurch]

Which is why the mods should establish clear rules about what is and is not permitted, and then enforce them.

If the rules were written correctly (that is, adequately reflecting the desired standards of the moderators and administrators) there would be no need to constantly write new rules.

All of which is just as important for the posters to follow the rules and not to expect the mods to "get back" at other posters in the forum that they don't like or agree with.

 

[Christian]

Re: Re: On Hal Bidlack's Comment

I suspect that you picked up this notion from some anti-atheist rant from the pulpit at your church, rather than from anyone around here.

What I value is this: rationality.

I consider it irrational to believe that limits and authority are provided from an imaginary being in the sky, as articulated in ancient books of suspect provenence, and not out of the mere necessity of organized, civilized society.

You suspect wrong. I picked it up right here, from personal experience, at the JREF.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Throught my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority. What has most value for them is personal freedom.

We have discussed this before..

If this were true, then there should be a lot more professed Atheists in jails and prisons that there are Christians..

Guess what? It ain't so...

 

[Dymanic]

I picked it up right here, from personal experience, at the JREF.

Originally posted by Christian

Throught my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority. What has most value for them is personal freedom.

I would echo what hgc said.

I picked it up right here, from personal experience, at the JREF.

You are projecting your own values on to others.

Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with limits or authority, one way or the other. If it can be demonstrated that an authority actually exists, an atheist would be no more (or less) likely to defy (or obey) it than anyone else.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

All of which is just as important for the posters to follow the rules and not to expect the mods to "get back" at other posters in the forum that they don't like or agree with.

Since the rules require moderator interpretation, there's no way the posters can determine whether any behavior is against the rules or not. They see harmless posts censored or removed for trivial reasons, and posts that are grossly detrimental to reasoned debate be passed over because they "didn't violate forum rules".

Bull. You people don't care about whether posts forward the JREF mission or not. You're just concerned about whether certain actions make you look bad or mean.

This isn't rules enforcement, it's a public relations game.

 

[Samus]

Christian: Throughout my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority. What has most value for them is personal freedom.

I would phrase this a different way. I would say that there are many people on the forum that value personal freedom, and some (most?) of them just happened to be atheists as well.

Atheism does not imply a lack of respect for authority. However, a strong desire for personal freedom often begets a distaste for undue restrictions, and in the case of the forums, seemingly arbitrary implementation of rules.

I say seemingly, because if a user does not have the same general feelings of what "fair" is (as compared to a moderator), then they will perceive moderator decisions as inconsistent.

 

[uruk]

The problem with writting down rules is that they get interpreted in many different ways. You can try to get specific, but then get several volumes of complex rules and your bound to miss some obscure permutation. And things such as decency and relevancy is by necessity an objective call and subject to debate.

What the FCC finds unacceptable changes day to day. One day you can say @$$ on a show, then it gets bleeped during a rerun.
Whats the criteria?

This is the age old struggle between free speech and saying something simply because you can, even if its irresponsible or offensive to the unwashed masses. It is a necesisary evil if you want to have a "free" society. I say we need to develope a thicker skin and deal with the what we find offensive on an individual basis.

Though I find the pictures of the misstreated Iraqi prisoners embarrasing and offensive, I think people have a right to post them even if it is irresponsible and immaturely done. I, after all, don't have to see them if I don't want too. But the problem here is that JREF wants school children to have access to this forum.
Now you wouldn't want to post a picture of a person pointing to a bound person's genitals on the disney or sesame street web site would you? So what the solution? Take some personal responsibility in your posts. Or should JREF open an adult forum?

This is a private forum. And remember the golden rule folks: Those with the gold makes the rules!

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: On Hal Bidlack's Comment

We have discussed this before..

If this were true, then there should be a lot more professed Atheists in jails and prisons that there are Christians..

Guess what? It ain't so...

Proportionately?

 

[scribble]

I read Hal's comment like this:

"We let people do whatever they want, and they did, and we don't like the result, so we're going to can the whole experiment."

Hal's got every right to be pessimistic. The JREF's got every right to shitcan the Forums. And I've got every right to say, "I told you so."

This place has always been a private club. If you want that private club atmosphere to remain, you've got to run it like a private club. The failure here is on the part of the management. I don't mean Hal - I mean whoever it is that makes the broad, sweeping plans for this forum.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: On Hal Bidlack's Comment

Proportionately?

Not based on Christian's assertion...

If belief in God/s gave one a source of authority, and that authority were followed, then it follows that very few of such people would run afoul of the law..


If they choose not to follow that authority, what makes them any different from an Atheist who has no such authority?

 

[Upchurch]

Bull. You people don't care about whether posts forward the JREF mission or not. You're just concerned about whether certain actions make you look bad or mean.

This isn't rules enforcement, it's a public relations game.

Honestly, Wrath. If that were truly the case, why are all the threads and posts that criticize the mods still there? For that matter, why are many of the posters who criticize the mods still able to post? Do you honestly think we do this for some sort of egotistical boost?

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: On Hal Bidlack's Comment

Not based on Christian's assertion...

If belief in God/s gave one a source of authority, and that authority were followed, then it follows that very few of such people would run afoul of the law..


If they choose not to follow that authority, what makes them any different from an Atheist who has no such authority?

Ah, indeed Christian's assertion was too broad based. I understand your paradigm now.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Honestly, Wrath. If that were truly the case, why are all the threads and posts that criticize the mods still there? For that matter, why are many of the posters who criticize the mods still able to post? Do you honestly think we do this for some sort of egotistical boost?

Not surprisingly, you've completely missed the point.

You don't care very much about people insulting you directly. What your behavior shows you're concerned about is the public perception of these forums - you'll go to great lengths to avoid banning trolls so that they won't go about badmouthing JREF. You don't want to be perceived as harsh or mean, so you'll tolerate utterly outrageous garbage from the posters who have the least to contribute, because those are the people most likely to tarnish your precious collective reputation. Conversely, you have no problems with enforcing ad hoc standards on the most reasonable and conscientious posters, precisely because they're not the type to go around spreading lies.

 

[Upchurch]

Conversely, you have no problems with enforcing ad hoc standards on the most reasonable and conscientious posters, precisely because they're not the type to go around spreading lies.

Reasonable and conscienctious posters like Interesting Ian?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, that would be one of idiots you conveniently never get around to dealing with. That tool should have been banned ten times over by now.