ELIMINATING INSULT FOR INSULT'S SAKE

[1John2_26]

It is apparent that Woody does not understand the concept of rational and reasonable debate between members of all religions and world views. I am sure that he would be much more comfortable where everyone agrees with him and no one challenges him to defend his views.

Is it rational to let pure insulting response go? It doesn't require a warning from a moderator, it just needs to be highlighted and condemned for what it is.

Under "Who collected the ransom" thread we have this intellectual excrement offered as a rebuttal:

Scrooge McDuck.

How else do you think he got all that many gold coins in his vault?

It is time for this website and it's overseer's to eliminate this kind of blatant idiocy.

I have no problem handing out insult's towards atheists and others whose only quest is to Christian-bash (in fact I enjoy their rage at being challenged) but, a reply of "Scrooge McDuck" to a theological question, if tolerated, diminishes this site to just another Christian-bashing infidels.orger trash site.

[OccamsRazor]

1) Is it rational to let pure insulting response go?
2) I have no problem handing out insult's towards atheists

Is there not a direct contradiction here?

You seem to feel that the points made should be exemplified and condemned if you feel if insults or belittles your own beliefs. However you do not have any problem with handing out insults to people with beliefs which are contrary to your own.

[otseng]

Is it rational to let pure insulting response go?

The proper response on this forum is to report it by pressing the button. Every member of the moderating team will then get an email notification and someone should get to it. If it's deemed a violation of the rules, then either a public message will be posted or a private message will be sent. If the report button is not used, then one can simply ignore the insult and thus not start a flamewar.

Responding to an insult with another insult could result in action being taken on the responder and not on the initiator. So, such action is strongly discouraged.

[ENIGMA]

Under "Who collected the ransom" thread we have this intellectual excrement offered as a rebuttal:

Scrooge McDuck.

How else do you think he got all that many gold coins in his vault?

It is time for this website and it's overseer's to eliminate this kind of blatant idiocy. I have no problem handing out insult's towards atheists and others whose only quest is to Christian-bash (in fact I enjoy their rage at being challenged) but, a reply of "Scrooge McDuck" to a theological question, if tolerated, diminishes this site to just another Christian-bashing infidels.orger trash site.

It was not a "rebuttal", it was the first response to an open question and a valid response within the parameters of the subforum. (Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma)

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority.

At no point does my response contravene this assumption as, last I checked, the non-existence of Scrooge McDuck is not an assertion made by the Bible. The main point I wish to get across with this is namely:

Don't knock it, for the first few posts it was amongst the better supported in the thread. M'kay?