An Appology

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Should we let 'arian' AKA 'Trump' stay?

Poll ended at Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:41 pm

Yes
5
63%
No off with his head
3
38%
 
Total votes: 8

Trump
Banned
Banned
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:43 pm

An Appology

Post #1

Post by Trump »

Hello to all my Debating friends whom I dearly missed.

A few months ago I got an e-mail from Debating Christianity and Religion and was able to get on as a guest (which I couldn't do after being banned), then tried to log on hoping this was my chance to get back on after being banned, but arian was taken, so I created Trump, was able to get on, and here I am.

First, I did not 'sneak back in', my name Odon Sabo, my IP address, my home address everything is the same, as is my desire to know God, and our Lord Jesus Christ better is.

After Clownboat called me out on who I am, and I told him, I got a PM from our Leader and friend Otseng noting that since I was banned, it broke forum rules to be allowed back in. I replied that it was my sincere wish to be allowed back on the Forum, at which he told me I should post here and make a sincere, and honest apology to my Moderators, and fellow Debaters, and see what you all think?

I will bow to no one, bad back, but I will get on my knees and ask you all to forgive me for being nothing less than barbaric in my debates with you all, and there is absolutely no excuse for such animalistic behavior (could use evolution as an excuse, but I won't).

I have since then read some of my responses and it truly sickened me, I sounded anything but Christ-like or civil and when I thought of the question: "What Would Jesus Do?", I'd say he probably would of pushed the Pharisees aside, and cast the first stone himself, which I would have deserved, yet knowing better, here I am on my knees before you all.

Since being gone, I have visited a few other Debating Forums, and seen what little or no Moderation can do to a Forum. But what I missed is you all, yes you;
from Otseng, the list goes on; JoeyK whom I dearly missed as I did; Z, McCulloch, Divine Insight, JW, Wyvern, Tired of the Nonsense, H.sapiens, liamconnor, onewithhim, Clownboat (I know, I know), KenRU, Furrowed Brow, ThePainfulTruth, and already like some of the Newbies like Dr.NoGods, servant and the rest whom I just had the pleasure debating with on "Question about the Earth" interesting topic.

I realized what a goldmine this Forum is, but because I was brought up as a Christian, to defend my faith without evidence, and as unschooled as I was, I did just that, not realizing that atheists were being more Christ-like than I was.

So I ask you all to consider my plea to stay on this Awesome Forum, and I'm not saying this to bribe anyone, but you'll think that too once you've been out there, and intelligence (yes, I know what intelligence is, why do you think I want to stay here, I want some more of that to rub off on me) is rare, and hard to come by, and must be respected and cherished.

So, what do you say?

Oh, and I know I insulted some of you here pretty badly, so here is your chance to test me if I'm genuine or not? Quote some of those comments of mine that offended you, let me see it and give me a chance to respond to it, or explain why I said what I said, whether from stupidity, ignorance, or simply defending my blind faith, my religion because I could not stand loosing to an unbeliever, or all of the above?

Thanks

arian AKA Trump

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #2

Post by Zzyzx »

.
A few thoughts:

'Trump' has already received a warning -- hardly an indication of genuine repentance or willingness to abide by Forum Rules.

A couple people were permitted to re-register after being banned -- BUT they asked Admin to grant re-admission rather than establishing a new identity.

Perhaps allowing 'Trump' to post BUT being on Probation status -- in which another warning will trigger a Suspension vote.

Thus, I do not oppose re-admission on condition
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Trump
Banned
Banned
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:43 pm

Post #3

Post by Trump »

Zzyzx wrote: .
A few thoughts:

'Trump' has already received a warning -- hardly an indication of genuine repentance or willingness to abide by Forum Rules.
Thank you Z for responding, and you are absolutely right, I already got a Warning, the same way I got three Warnings for the same post the first time I came on this Forum. These are facts, there is no denying it.
Z wrote:A couple people were permitted to re-register after being banned -- BUT they asked Admin to grant re-admission rather than establishing a new identity.
Again you are correct, and if we are to look at just that, ignoring the fact that I had no other option then to choose a different name (I checked my profile, and it shows I tried to log on as arian) then I agree again that it shows dishonesty on my part.
Z wrote:Perhaps allowing 'Trump' to post BUT being on Probation status -- in which another warning will trigger a Suspension vote.
You are too kind my old friend, but do you really think it's worth the risk of polluting such organized, fair and just Forum that prides itself on: "Civil and engaging debate on Christianity and religious issues" ?

Besides, to tell you the truth I did not change that much regarding my previous beliefs, the change was really that I realized just how much I, and the rest of the "Believers in Christ" are ignorant of. And with this Newfound Flat Earth info, I am sure that our debates will get much, much hotter, and I already see restrictions being imposed on me. I already had a number of cautions on Forum Rules.

Now I'm not saying I will not do my darndest to stay respectful and civil, my apology above stands, and I will do my best to stick to it. nor will I report anyone who may go off the handle in our debate because I understand, we're just human from the theistic POV, and just evolving apes from another.

So as you pointed out, things do not look good for me already. But I love a challenge, especially that benefits me, make me a better communicator with people, it is something I am just learning, .. and it isn't because I am a slow learner.
Z wrote:Thus, I do not oppose re-admission on condition
Again, I dearly thank you 'Z', especially that so far you're the only one who has responded, I respect you for this too.
Oh yeah, I did get 'one' vote, oh woe is me if that's the only one I get?

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #4

Post by McCulloch »

I am of two minds on this issue.
  • We should ban him.
    The legalist in me coming out. He broke the rules. He continues to break the rules. Not just technical violations, but the very spirit of the law. The rule of law is an important underpinning of democracy. As with his namesake in the White House he disregards it. He says that he is trying. And I agree, he is very trying.
    As to his newfound flat earth shtick, it is hard to tell whether it is a parody of anti-intellectualism or he really is that blind to reality. No matter, it is tiresome and represents no significant school of thought in the real world. There seems to be no merit in that line of debate.
  • We should let him back.
    The partisan in me comes out. He takes biblical literalism to its logical and absurd end. He is almost doing our work for us. Every incivility, every insult is an admission of defeat in debate. Every hypocrisy reinforces negative stereotypes.
    Besides, it feels good to forgive. Who am I to judge another?
If he is allowed to stay, I would suggest one condition: that he use his own in-real-life name as his user name. He would then have to take public ownership of his remarks and behaviour.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #5

Post by Neatras »

Kinda feels macabre in a way; having forum members sentence another. But if I wanna participate in this discussion, I should make a decision I won't regret later.

The question I want to ask is: Is this forum about opportunity for discussion, or about putting forward quality debates? If the former, then offering arian another chance wouldn't be out of the question. After all, any person would have the privilege to put forward any debate question (and we've seen a vast quality in the past). So long as they are able to express themselves without extreme hostility, nothing would be damaged.

On the other hand, if the purpose of this forum is more focused on the debate than the debater, then there is a strong argument for banning him. Because of what we've seen of his debate style, past and present, one could argue that he was banned because the debating etiquette he had was not conducive toward debates. As in, if there is ever an ethic for debating, which should be possessed and enacted in discussions here, can arian really be said to have it? How would we judge that? Is he alone in needing it (unlikely)? What about others on the forum? What about me? I've had my share of warnings (though no outright suspension or ban). This ethic can be learned, so in a way, rehabilitation can be offered yet not guaranteed. To argue that he lacks the ethic, and I have it, can very well be false. And passing judgment on how he debates can be hypocritical.

In both cases, the possibility for arian remaining exists. If we, the members of this forum, believe that the debater is more important than the debate itself, we should let arian come back. If we decide that having quality debates wins out over letting just anyone come on and post what they like, then that should first lead to introspection about how we are debating, before we can "pass judgment."

If we decide that arian should take some sort of educational course in debate and ethics in order to participate, should any members of this forum also take part in the course? Should I?

My gut feeling says to ban him. The interactions I've had on this forum tend to be that some people don't value the actual etiquette of debate no matter what, and I haven't the time or capabilities of knowing if just any random forum member has debate-compliant values.

But my curiosity leads me to wonder if rehabilitation is possible. In fact, a community exercise in how debate works may reshape the landscape of this forum, with this particular crisis being the catalyst.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: An Appology

Post #6

Post by JP Cusick »

McCulloch wrote: I would suggest one condition: that he use his own in-real-life name as his user name. He would then have to take public ownership of his remarks and behaviour.
I like this suggestion for everyone, but not to make it into a commandment.

I use my real name and identity because I want anyone to be able to look up my name and to see my comments, and it does put pressure on myself to behave better because I can be personally held accountable for whatever I say in any post.

The real-life identity is what really made Facebook so compelling, because on Facebook we are seeing real life people and that makes a BIG difference.

Why would anyone not want their own words to be attached to their real life self? and if they do not want their self to be known then that is okay too.

As to Trump in the OP then I say give him another chance - yes.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: An Appology

Post #7

Post by Kenisaw »

[Replying to post 1 by Trump]

It doesn't bother me if you are allowed to stay. I'm willing to see you given a new chance. All I ask is that you take care in what you write so you don't get banned.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 739 times

Re: An Appology

Post #8

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to post 1 by Trump]

I voted "No, off with his head" simply because of the two options, that seems to be the most fair to the moderating team that has to deal with this.

A third option (which would essentially create a new 'rule' for the site) would be to have bans only last a limited time and coming back would involve some restrictions.

Then we would get into the scenario of how many times can one be banned and allowed back? A maintenance nightmare and opening the site to repeat offenders who just may not change.

I'm all for giving people second chances, but I don't have to deal with moderating people here, so it's really up to them. Do we potentially create more work for the moderators?

Trump
Banned
Banned
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:43 pm

Post #9

Post by Trump »

McCulloch wrote: I am of two minds on this issue.
  • We should ban him.
    The legalist in me coming out. He broke the rules. He continues to break the rules. Not just technical violations, but the very spirit of the law. The rule of law is an important underpinning of democracy. As with his namesake in the White House he disregards it.
Thank you McCulloch, I value your opinion.
You are a legalist you say, As for our Illustrious Leader President Trump, have nothing to do with him, but I guess in your view, we do have something in common; the total disregard of the law.

Again, not much going for me here, or in the White House is there?
McCulloch wrote:He says that he is trying. And I agree, he is very trying.
As to his newfound flat earth shtick, it is hard to tell whether it is a parody of anti-intellectualism or he really is that blind to reality. No matter, it is tiresome and represents no significant school of thought in the real world. There seems to be no merit in that line of debate.
Regarding the Flat Earth, ..
For the entire 61 years of my life, up till 8 months ago, I would have given a good ol' "Hear! Hear!" to that speech you just gave, but I'll be darned, I stopped and listened, so go ahead, pull that lever.
IF I'm allowed to stay, I will make sure to keep my response to you on the 'anti-intellectual (to you) F.E. reality (to me) to a one liner or less to avoid getting into a heated debate, I see how you feel about it already, .. but then 'one liners' also warrant a Warning, .. woe is me!
McCulloch wrote:[*]We should let him back.
The partisan in me comes out. He takes biblical literalism to its logical and absurd end. He is almost doing our work for us.
If you mean that I take a parable literally as a parable, yes, I'm a Biblical literalist, just as those that take the science fiction story how the universe Big-Banged into existence 'literally' to its absurd end, to where all we Creationists have to do is point it out, the absurdity is doing all the work for us. Doesn't really break any Forum rules though, does it?
We even have to put up with Evolutionists on this Civil and Respectable Forum calling us animals, apes at that. But hey, we are to "turn the other cheek", and as hard as that may be at times, we do, .. or else!
McCulloch wrote:Every incivility, every insult is an admission of defeat in debate. Every hypocrisy reinforces negative stereotypes.
Besides, it feels good to forgive. Who am I to judge another?[/list]
If I failed in any debates, I truly failed there, which is why I am here on my knees asking for forgiveness. I really will have to learn how to insult in a more civil, intellectual manner, which is why I been brushing up on my videos by Richard Dawkins.
McCulloch wrote:If he is allowed to stay, I would suggest one condition: that he use his own in-real-life name as his user name. He would then have to take public ownership of his remarks and behaviour.
You forget who it was that suggested that same thing years ago, remember? So here again, with pleasure:

Name: Odon Sabo
Address: 44768 W. Desert Garden Rd.
Maricopa, AZ 85139
Married with children
I rarely go on Facebook, my wife took it over, so PM me if any of you post something there, please?

Oh yeah, and the invitation (remember that invitation, I believe Otseng even started a topic on it!?) for all of us here Fellow Debaters to get together somewhere and meet in person, .. still stands. I will gladly give every one of you a big hug and a kiss on both cheeks. And yes, you all are still "my friends", that never changed, and besides what you think of me, my crude and rude response had nothing, .. that's right, nothing to do with how I personally felt about you all. I don't know how else to put this, but "It Wasn't Personal!"

Thank you for your response McCulloch, I'm still waiting on others? Or is the "moderation" so tight that they are afraid to speak out? :?:

sincerely:


Odon Sabo aka "arian" and "Trump." (thank goodness Hillary didn't win, I'd be "Hilary", right?)

Trump
Banned
Banned
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:43 pm

Re: An Appology

Post #10

Post by Trump »

JP Cusick wrote:
McCulloch wrote: I would suggest one condition: that he use his own in-real-life name as his user name. He would then have to take public ownership of his remarks and behaviour.
I like this suggestion for everyone, but not to make it into a commandment.

I use my real name and identity because I want anyone to be able to look up my name and to see my comments, and it does put pressure on myself to behave better because I can be personally held accountable for whatever I say in any post.
Now here is a man after my own heart, But as I just told McCulloch, I'm more than willing, and did put my name to my previous posts, even as insulting and crude as now I see they sounded, because I did NOT mean it to be personal against that person, but against what he/she stood for, the dangerous ideology of the debate itself.

But I do see I have to learn to be more "civil", meaning use big words, and quote a lot of famous people with notable credentials so it doesn't sound so primitive. Same poop, only different wrapping if you know what I mean?

Just like Richard Dawkins, he can trample, ridicule, degrade Christians and theists in general, but he does it in such, .. umm how would I say, .. such highly intellectual way that even the one he just insulted walks away thinking highly of him.
That is of course until he gets home and realizes what Dawkins really did, and want's to turn around and go back and punch him out!
But of course it's too late, Richard by now is in some Jet drinking Mimosa, and laughing just how dumb Christians are, and how smart he is to have once again gotten away with such nonsense like; preaching evolution that he himself doesn't believe, all the while insulting theists.
JP Cusick wrote:The real-life identity is what really made Facebook so compelling, because on Facebook we are seeing real life people and that makes a BIG difference.
Exactly!
JP Cusick wrote:Why would anyone not want their own words to be attached to their real life self? and if they do not want their self to be known then that is okay too.
Yes, I have asked that same question many times before: "Why would anyone not want their own words to be attached to their real life self?" Excellent point!
JP Cusack wrote:As to Trump in the OP then I say give him another chance - yes.
Thank you so much.

Post Reply