Moderation dispute from "Do humans look like God"

Feedback and site usage questions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Post #1

Post by bluegreenearth »

Zzyzx wrote: .
Willum wrote:
God could breed with Mary.
I assume at least some parts were compatible.
He obviously didn't scare her off, and we didn't hear any complaints.

Of course, what would she say?

It's god, no one's going to complain about stamina or good looks, I suppose.

So, it is safe to say, he looks human, since Mary didn't say he looked like Kang or Kodos.
:warning: Moderator Final Warning

This post goes well beyond the limits of civility, is offensive, demeans unnecessarily.


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
I must disagree with the moderator's judgement in this case. Willum was obviously and clearly responding to someone's question about God's physical characteristics including reproductive capabilities given the Biblical claim that humans were created in God's image and the Biblical claim that God impregnated Mary. Since the precise purpose of this forum is to debate such legitimate speculations, restricting that capability will only render the forum unproductive at best and as a Christian echo chamber at worst. If the moderator's decision to penalize Willum is based on a personal opinion rather than an unbiased assessment of the post's content, then the moderator should be obligated to refund Willum any penalties which were imposed upon him.

If moderators are permitted to penalize specific contributors to the forum because the content of a post happens to unintentionally offend their personal worldview, then everyone's ability to collaborate towards an intellectually honest pursuit of the truth is being unjustly inhibited. Nothing in Willum's post can be considered a direct personal attack on another member of the forum or unnecessarily demeaning. While it is true that real people deserve dignity and respect, their ideas and beliefs do not. There can be no sacred claims lest we abandon logic and reason for undeserved obedience.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Post #11

Post by otseng »

Danmark wrote: If not here, where does one appropriately discuss policy issues re: moderation?
The post was originally posted in the debate thread. I've moved it here so that we can discuss it. See:
viewtopic.php?p=976434#976434
We are not even allowed to criticize public figures on this forum. If this forum existed in 1930's Germany and I stood up and told the truth, that der Führer was a liar, a mass murderer and a racist, I would risk getting banned for doing the right thing.
I would not ban anyone for saying the truth. But, it needs to have supporting evidence. If a case can be made to demonstrate a public figure is wrong, then I would not act on the post.
I'm fully aware that this is a private forum and that the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not the final authority, but we should make exceptions for exactly what Bluethread is saying and for criticizing public figures. When we can irrefutably establish that Drumpf is an inveterate liar and even doctors weather reports, we should be allowed to call hm a liar.
It's best to call him by his real name.
benchwarmer wrote: As far as I know, there are no rules in this forum against listing facts and supporting them with evidence. i.e. President Trump claimed X and here is a link to the tweet. Here is a link to the actual facts about X from source Y.
This would be the ideal way to do it.

Post Reply