Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    There is no objective morality!
    And with that declaration, you have disqualified yourself as someone who is able to determine age appropriate reading material.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

      As you are unprepared to define your terms feel free to leave the thread.
      I think you're going to discover that the mods don't consider "refusal to be interrogated" as a legitimate reason to be tossed from a thread.

      You really need to put this little tactic aside.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        I am now requesting you leave the thread.
        Please note the actual rules pertaining to banning somebody from your thread.

        News: Formal rule on banning people from your thread

        11-09-2015, 01:58 PM
        To all forum members:

        There seems to be some confusion over who can ban - or be banned - from a thread. Please note the following guidelines:
        1. The thread owner can limit who can participate in the first post. They can say "Only Christians" or "Only people who wear blue jeans" "no spamming" or whatever. IF they have a history of problems with certain posters, they may request that those people not participate. But this is not to be taken to extremes and can be denied by moderator decision if we believe it is being abused. In other words, you can't just use this power to keep any critics out of your thread so you can "win".

        2. If the thread owner wishes to remove somebody from the thread because they are being disruptive or breaking the rules, he/she can ask them to stop, or leave the thread.
        If the person who is asked to leave believes the request to be unreasonable, he can report the request for review. Otherwise, he/she should leave the thread.
        If the person does not leave the thread, the thread owner can report the offender for moderator review.

        (The ability to remove somebody from a thread should not be abused. It is for cases where the person is being disruptive, uncivil, trolling, or off topic. This is a debate forum. We want debate. This is not a blog site. All OP rules must apply equally to everyone in a thread. For example, if you say "no spam" and you let everyone spam but try to enforce it on only one person, then that will not be allowed.)

        3. When a thread owner asks someone to leave, that person is entitled to ONE response, for the express purpose of acknowledging they are leaving - no other commentary or argument. If the thread owner mentions them or responds to that post, or even an earlier post by them, then the person banned can respond to that post and is no longer banned.
        If you are caught breaking the rules of a thread ban, you will be moderated, receive infraction points as necessary, and all of your subsequent responses in the thread may be deleted. Of course, you may appeal to a moderator for reconsideration if you can prove your case, but we ask that you do so via private message and not in the thread. You may also start your own thread to respond if you choose.


        Please pay particular attention to the parenthetical statement following 2 and preceding 3.

        Thanks
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

          I think you're going to discover that the mods don't consider "refusal to be interrogated" as a legitimate reason to be tossed from a thread.

          You really need to put this little tactic aside.
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

          Please note the actual rules pertaining to banning somebody from your thread.

          News: Formal rule on banning people from your thread

          11-09-2015, 01:58 PM
          To all forum members:

          There seems to be some confusion over who can ban - or be banned - from a thread. Please note the following guidelines:
          1. The thread owner can limit who can participate in the first post. They can say "Only Christians" or "Only people who wear blue jeans" "no spamming" or whatever. IF they have a history of problems with certain posters, they may request that those people not participate. But this is not to be taken to extremes and can be denied by moderator decision if we believe it is being abused. In other words, you can't just use this power to keep any critics out of your thread so you can "win".

          2. If the thread owner wishes to remove somebody from the thread because they are being disruptive or breaking the rules, he/she can ask them to stop, or leave the thread.
          If the person who is asked to leave believes the request to be unreasonable, he can report the request for review. Otherwise, he/she should leave the thread.
          If the person does not leave the thread, the thread owner can report the offender for moderator review.

          (The ability to remove somebody from a thread should not be abused. It is for cases where the person is being disruptive, uncivil, trolling, or off topic. This is a debate forum. We want debate. This is not a blog site. All OP rules must apply equally to everyone in a thread. For example, if you say "no spam" and you let everyone spam but try to enforce it on only one person, then that will not be allowed.)

          3. When a thread owner asks someone to leave, that person is entitled to ONE response, for the express purpose of acknowledging they are leaving - no other commentary or argument. If the thread owner mentions them or responds to that post, or even an earlier post by them, then the person banned can respond to that post and is no longer banned.
          If you are caught breaking the rules of a thread ban, you will be moderated, receive infraction points as necessary, and all of your subsequent responses in the thread may be deleted. Of course, you may appeal to a moderator for reconsideration if you can prove your case, but we ask that you do so via private message and not in the thread. You may also start your own thread to respond if you choose.


          Please pay particular attention to the parenthetical statement following 2 and preceding 3.

          Thanks
          My other half now owes me 5 euros.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

            And with that declaration, you have disqualified yourself as someone who is able to determine age appropriate reading material.
            On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion? My view of what is or is not age appropriate may not be the same as your own but who is to say that your view is correct and mine is not?
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion? My view of what is or is not age appropriate may not be the same as your own but who is to say that your view is correct and mine is not?
              Again, it's because I am able to defend the existence of objective morality while your beliefs can only lead to moral anarchy. Even your disapproval of book burning disappears in a hypocritical puff of smoke because who is to say that your view is correct, and the view of book burners is not?
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                Again, it's because I am able to defend the existence of objective morality while your beliefs can only lead to moral anarchy.
                On the contrary you "defend" what you deem to be "objective morality". That is not quite the same thing.

                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Even your disapproval of book burning disappears in a hypocritical puff of smoke because who is to say that your view is correct, and the view of book burners is not?
                So you think the Nazis had the right idea?
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post



                  My other half now owes me 5 euros.
                  Hey I can make a deal with you. If you want to kick out CD for refusing to answer to your demand to provide a definition, then you will have to leave every thread where someone demands you answer their questions of you and you ignore or refuse to from now on. Deal?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                    On the contrary you "defend" what you deem to be "objective morality". That is not quite the same thing.

                    So you think the Nazis had the right idea?
                    The point seems to have gone over your head. You're objecting to book burning while hypocritically standing on a flimsy "anything goes" morality. I'm certainly not saying that your countrymen had the right idea, but then I'm standing on a rock solid moral foundation. You, on the other hand, have no grounds to call their actions into question because, as you say, "who is to say that your view is correct, and [theirs] is not?"
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
                      Because the teens are viewing it on-line doesn't mean the libraries should be showing it.
                      Particularly school libraries.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post



                        My other half now owes me 5 euros.
                        Because your other half thinks you should be exempt from the rules?
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          The point seems to have gone over your head. You're objecting to book burning while hypocritically standing on a flimsy "anything goes" morality. I'm certainly not saying that your countrymen had the right idea, but then I'm standing on a rock solid moral foundation. You, on the other hand, have no grounds to call their actions into question because, as you say, "who is to say that your view is correct, and [theirs] is not?"
                          What is it about so many on the left who cannot fathom the logic of their positions? For them virtually everything is an "unforeseen consequence" and the like.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            What is it about so many on the left who cannot fathom the logic of their positions? For them virtually everything is an "unforeseen consequence" and the like.
                            Many a time I've tried to find a workable way to have censorship -

                            Never found one that didn't have the potential to become "cancel culture" within a month.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              You would need to define what you understand by "porn". Like beauty, pornography is usually to be found in the eye of beholder.
                              Explicit sex acts or reference thereof. But you would be OK with that for children. And since porn is in the eye of the beholder the parents in these districts are saying that this stuff is inappropriate. And who are you to argue?



                              Mein Kampf can now be purchased here. Books that deny historical facts are a different topic from novels which are the subject of the OP.
                              No it is not, you are still banning books - full stop, period.
                              Last edited by seer; 11-29-2021, 12:03 PM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                                Many a time I've tried to find a workable way to have censorship -

                                Never found one that didn't have the potential to become "cancel culture" within a month.
                                So you really have a problem with banning pornography from school libraries?
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                121 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                321 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X