**ALL MEMBERS** The recent surge in Hatred, Racism, and Sheer Stupidity STOPS NOW.

Originally posted by Magantice
reply to post by Christie

 

Correct . Its not all butterflys and rainbows as much as you might like to believe. Evil exists and downright hatred.

i see.
so who are the "dredges of humanity" in your opinion?

lol. i don't think you'll find me claiming life is all butterflies and rainbows, dear.
but i don't believe in repaying evil for evil...some do.

reply to post by blupblup

"Racism" and "racial discrimination" are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of their somatic (i.e., "racial") differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

In 2001, the European Union explicitly banned racism, along with many other forms of social discrimination, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the legal effect of which, if any, would necessarily be limited to Institutions of the European Union: "Article 21 of the charter prohibits discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality Read more: www.answers.com...

www.answers.com...



In some of the above respects... ATS is shamefully behind...

reply to post by Springer

Here we go again, another "HOT STORY" the MSM ("Main Stream Media" in case you're new around here) can't milk fast enough or sensationalize crazily enough and we've got the racists, the ignorant, and the totally confused all coming out of the woodwork on our beloved ATS.

Thank you. I appreciate your efforts but I don't envy you the task.

I once took the time to imagine our world today if the internet had not been invented (by whoever) and this dark cloak of anonymity hadn't been handed out to invite the worst traits of our kind to spread the kind of stuff you're now trying to get a handle on.

Free speech is important. In fact, it is probably the single most important right we have. But without a shred of common decency or an ounce of self respect, we can and will and do often make complete idiots of our entire species.

Good luck... godspeed and all that. You'll likely need it and then maybe a few days off on a desert island with a keg of beer to recover

Originally posted by Magantice
reply to post by denver22

 

Its not what you say but HOW YOU SAY IT. Its ok to disagree, to debate etc but its important to be reasonable in your remarks and not offensive. Perhaps thinking about your response a little longer then posting it might help.

uh-huh...

Originally posted by Magantice
reply to post by Springer

 

Basically it all boils down to INTENT. What is the posters intensions??? Opinions......eh everybody has one. The question here is Intent. I vote that we as members have a voting system much like the stars and flags, on Intent. I vote that the thumbs up and thumbs down only be used for Intent votes. Once a person receives x amount of thumbs down intent votes then it would be up to the Mods to do serious review of that member. The questions would be this............were the thumbs down given by upstanding members or questionable members etc.

After all, if members dont have a say in who's in the membership then why not just allow all the dredges of humanity to spew the filth????

"Its not what you say but HOW YOU SAY IT. Its ok to disagree, to debate etc but its important to be reasonable in your remarks and not offensive"

"After all, if members dont have a say in who's in the membership then why not just allow all the dredges of humanity to spew the filth????"

ya.
that's inviting and reasonable.
(not

wot christie said i can take encouragement from and learn at least one has accepted my apology i have not been on here that long but i am learning ..thank you christie

reply to post by purplemer




Well yes, As I said, I'm aware of what hate speech, Hate crimes etc are and what they entail.

But racism does not include religion.


I mean I'm also aware that many people use Islam and Muslims as an excuse for their racism and try to hide it and mask it with complaints and attacks on Muslims.


I'm not saying I disagree that all of things should be dealt with and that all are absolutely abhorrent, just that Religion, to me, has nothing to do with Race.

Two entirely separate issues


Although yes, some try to blur the issues so i do understand that.

reply to post by Christie


We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. I do not advocate rudeness or violence. I think my "dregs of humanity" remake upset you and if I offended you in some way , it was not my intention and I do apologise.

Originally posted by denver22
wot christie said i can take encouragement from and learn at least one has accepted my apology i have not been on here that long but i am learning ..thank you christie

you are welcome.
and anyone who can not admit mistakes or apologize is the one with the problem, denver.
not you.
you are my friend.

reply to post by Magantice


okay!
forgotten.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple

The bottom line is this: Is it really that hard to be nice?

IMO you would do well with one of Gods hammers. Cause you certainly hit that nail upon it's head and drove it home with a single stroke.

i think as well that there will allways be a subject out there i feel where someone is going to be upset about something ,.if i did a thread about the christians and the moors the crusades or the diamond mines in africa for example.the fact that one side may say one thing while the other says another may offend some .but i agree word your words well if say for instance one says that when in the diamond mines one swallows a diamond and the punishment was so and so then you may get some saying he deserves this he deserves that because of this because of that some might say he does not .some will say its wrong some will say you sir are racist for starting this thread when all maybe you wanted to know is the opinion of others and if there was a conspiracy somewhere in there etc but that does not automatically mean an attack on the race as a whole just that it might be the opinion of the poster but some may get offended and think that it is an attack to the whole race.but you are right it does come down to choosing them words to express that .I was guilty of not choosing mine.

Call me crazy but the site owner has made a decision and there are 17 pages of debate??
That alone shows it's own level of disrespect. I read the changes. Happy to post in compliance.
Caver78

reply to post by Sparky63

Yep. It's like long, long ago, when the church would call someone a "heretic".

Sheer Stupidity could be avoided if you eliminated the Skunk Works/Grey Area nonsense and focused on articles in science, physics, space, paranormal and the unexplained.

Too many people have the option to make up a BS story and use the old "I don't need evidence in skunk" loop hole.
It does nothing to promote a civil discussion or anything of the sort that you encourage.

ATS, home of the "Smurfs Are Real" discussion.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

There is a clear bit of hypocrisy in this. From what I have experienced, a good number of members here will sweep in on a religious thread and hurl religious bias against Christianity as quickly as possible. When I first started here as Superiored, it was frightening how quickly my posts were smeared by a clear prejudice against the Christian viewpoint. You won't find many Christians "condemning entire religions" apart from noting how these religions--for instance Muslem extremists--are killing people in the name of their cause.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Would you kindly explain how my post is considered "hypocrisy", since I basically said the same thing you just said? I am truly confused.

I was agreeing. The potential for hypocrisy is with the new ruling from ATS. There is no way to legislate speech apart from unwinding the untruth in a person's words. I was just adding to what you were saying with my own example.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

Good point.
Now it is the "Church of Political Correctness"...some things never change.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
If we are going to ban Christians for sticking to the obvious truth of the Christian faith, let's make sure to also ban the Atheists who spew their own bias against the Christians.

I must be reading a different thread?

Where did anyone say that was going to happen?

I suggest you re-read Springers post. You've missed something.

My reply was in general to the topic of the OP and in answer to an above post by ProfEmeritus. Specifically, I was answering this sentence.

"There are several forums I ignore now, because the hatred posted on them gets out of hand. For instance, posts about religion almost always end up with such people condemning entire religions or the people who believe in those religions. It disappoints me tremendously that such posts are not removed. "

My response centered on the question, "Where does the filtering of content stop and start?"

While I do really appreciate the input of the vast majority of those who have responded, I have to really wonder about those who are confused (in spite of the fact it always happens that way) but, my years here have taught me a few things...

He who protests the most is usually guilty, he who is so confused by such simplicity is usually being obtuse, or, is guilty too, and finally, those who feel such a general statement is all about them are just not bright enough to get it, but are sadly so narcissistic they actually believe they are brilliant.

The points have been made, the details have been expressed, the rules are now in place.

Act with genuine and honest desire to discuss and share in a civil manner with respect for ALL points of view and you have nothing to fear, violate that tenet and you will be banned.


Here's a pointer for the less swift among us, if you can't respect (that doesn't mean agree with) a certain point of view enough to have a civil conversation about it, or with someone who holds it, I suggest you ignore it.

Thread Closed.

Springer...