Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (3750)	3/20/2002 7:14:38 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

I am trying to keep this low key That marks quite a change from the other day, when you placed SI's atheists in the same category with Jew-haters. and to say where the line is I would classify any post directed at a belief system to be a normal part of argument, and to be at all times permissible. I would have no objection, for example, if you said "atheism is preposterous nonsense", though I would certainly expect you to support that contention with a line of reasoning, and I would feel free to challenge that reasoning. Posts directed generically at people who hold a belief system are marginal, to be evaluated on individual merit. For example: in my mind "atheists are congenitally incapable of accepting the obvious" would be acceptable, though again one would expect logical support, while "atheists are clearly incapable of moral behaviour" would be well over the line. The distinction seems fairly obvious: attacking an idea and attacking the individuals holding that idea are different things, unless you can very clearly substantiate a link between belief and action. Posts directed at a specific individual or group of individuals are over the line and should be avoided. Examples might be "_____ is a Godless pervert" or "they (SI atheists) are no better than the Jew-haters". Would you accept these criteria as a reasonable drawing of the line of acceptability?

To: Neocon who wrote (3750)	3/21/2002 1:02:43 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

To me, they may as well be Jew- haters, even granting they do not limit themselves, but despise those with some religious belief (most of their fellow men) pretty equally. I remind you that your accusation against atheists on SI as haters was that their Jew-hating-like behavior was for "belief." We have "despised" not for behavior; actions; public policy advocacy that would harm us; other ways of acting out certain beliefs; no, we have "despised," you have claimed (nice word), "those with some religious belief." We "despise" most of our fellow men, in fact, according to you! I think you owe us an apology, though I'm not sure to whom it should be addressed, since you won't tell us what was said that caused you to assert the above, or who said it (except maybe it wasn't I.) BTW, militant and other thread agnostics: I think God-belief is exactly on a par, rationally, with Jove-belief, gremlin-belief and fairy-belief. I despise no one for holding any of those beliefs. If those who believe agnosticism is more rational than atheism will state that they are agnostic about the existence of Jove, gremlins and fairies, the non-existence of which are equally not provable, I will join them in happy (in fact merry) agnosticism, for purposes of discussion with them here.