1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
    Dismiss Notice

A thought on flaming

Rating:
3/5,
  1. Nature Boy
    Let's get real here people. Flaming, in terms of an internet messageboard, is direct attack on another member. This does not include criticising or making fun of widespread opinions that many people might hold. I'm pointing the finger at you Christians! I'm sick and tired of receiving a little red dot for having a poke at your crazy delusions. And look, having a pop at Christianity isn't having a pop at any ONE person in particular. So it's not flaming. Religion is a choice. It's not something you can't change. If you can't deal with criticism or mockery, I guess your faith just isn't that strong.

    PS: To those Christians that can "turn the other cheek", you have my respect. At least you seem to get the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you don't start wetting yourselves anytime someone opens their mouth. And to D-F members in general, whether Christian, atheist, pantheistic or whatever: THIS ISN'T XBOX LIVE! THIS IS AN INTERNATIONAL FORUM WITH MANY DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. THE INTERNET ISN'T THE USA!!

    That is all. :p

    Share This Article

Comments

To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. Synesthesiac
    An argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy. If you have to resort to attacking the person instead of the argument then it usually shows you are losing the argument. Thats just my personal experience anyway.

    If you call someone a pejorative name with a meaning, ie, a crackpot, then this distinction becomes somewhat blurred however.
  2. NeuroChi
    The moderator of the forum would receive the post report, and would pass it on to Ilsa who moderates rep. It would be better to suggest the member report it so that it goes strait to Ilsa.
  3. SWIMclub
    In the overall, I concur with Nature Boy. That said, there is sometimes a nearly impossibly thin line between ideas and the individual, between what someone is and what choices they make. Is it attacking the person to bag on gay people in general, or homosexual activities? I think it is. Now apply that to Xianity, and you have "Christians are all fucked up, believing in all these ridiculous contradictions, rather than face the likelihood that they've been lied to." In and of itself, you're talking about an idea, Xianity. But when you say that in response to some ONE who just expressed something Xian, then it becomes an attack on that person as well as the overall idea.

    IMO, it's pointless to try to be reasonable or have a logical debate with a Xian on theology, because the basic premise is not reasonable, for so many reasons it'd take books to express them all thoroughly. So I don't bother trying to. They're gonna believe what they WANT to believe. How do I know that? Because Jesus himself never said half the stuff they attribute to Xianity, and actively spoke out against the other half, but they STILL include that crap in their "Christian" religion. Jesus never said to pray to him. In fact, he said to pray "Our Father..." and yet supposed followers of his example still pray to him all the f-ing time. Why bother putting yourself through the frustrations of a logical conversation with someone like that?
  4. RaverHippie
    Would reporting a post to trigger a rep evaluation be acceptable as well? Or would this just be an abuse and an annoyance to the moderator receiving the report ticket?
  5. NeuroChi
    If you would so choose, please take it upon yourself to PM those members who received those ratings and ask them to report the reputation to be evaluated.
  6. Coconut
    It didn't end at all well, but I feel I would be doing an injustice if I did not make my support for Nature Boy public. I've seen a few negative reputation points here and there given by religious people based on nothing other than things like "my religion says you're wrong" or "I am offended" as a justification for giving neg rep. I think criticism of religion should be freely allowed and I do not at all think it is unreasonable to directly attack a particular belief held by someone because, like it or not, there are such things as truth, reality and objective, verifiable evidence. I do not believe that nonsense about "energies", the Bible and whatnot should be given anywhere near the same credibility as rational science and even atheism itself.
  7. Potter
    That didn't end well...
  8. Alfa
    Flaming is flaming. No matter who it is aimed at. No matter if the person is specifically named or not. We do not allow this. I want this community to be respectful.
    After all these years you should know this. You used to report flaming posts of others.
    Somehow your attitude has changed and unfortunately insults and flaming has previously costed you your platinum membership. Now attacks on a specific member cause another infraction. I much regret this and really hope this changes.
  9. NeuroChi
    If that's the impression I give you, then either I am having trouble communicating my thoughts or you are having trouble understanding them. There is indeed a loss in translation though, because the last thing I want is to increase the tolerance to bullshit and nonsense.

    Flaming: Joe is a a fucking cunt for leaving me neg rep.

    Flaming: Some fucking cunt left me neg rep.

    Let me quote your first post in this blog:

    In both of those instances above, you are directing the member who left you neg rep. In the first case, everyone knows who you are attacking. In the second case, only the person who left the rep, and the mods who have seen it know who you are attacking. Both are considering flaming in my mind.

    I don't think its necessary to use offensive terminology when it is directed to a member, whether or not you use their name. You can call Christianity a wad of bullshit or Dell computers shitbricks all you want, because these are not people.

    Anonymously lambasting someone is criticizing or insulting a person.
    Attacking a widespread belief is criticizing or insulting a belief.
    There is quite the difference.
  10. Nature Boy
    The forum rules state:
    Now although this is vague, I tend to focus on the first point. Criticize ideas, not people. If no one person in particular is being implied, I don't see it as flaming. If any general comment could be perceived as a flame, this forum wouldn't get very far. We don't have any rules against profanities. We're adults here and if someone says "fuck", "shit" or "cunt" we don't start complaining.

    Richi, read what you just said again. To insult someone directly or indirectly? Come off it. Your opinion is quite insulting to me seeing as I think of you as an intelligent member who usually knows what's right but now you're giving me the impression that you want D-F to become some overly-PC, avoid stepping on eggshells wuss forum. But do I consider a difference of opinion to be a flame? Hell no.

    Also, your second point completely contradicts your first. Anonymously lambasting someone is exactly the same as attacking a widespread belief in that no one individual is being identified and targeted. Jesus, surely we haven't got to the point where someone can't say "Mr X is an asshole". Where's the damage in that?

    Regardless of whatever philosophical opinions one might have about our flaming rules, fact of the matter is that they're not very clearly defined and anyone who says otherwise is merely taking their own subjective stance in order to pick sides.
  11. NeuroChi
    I disagree. Flaming can be essentially of the purpose to inflame, to insult someone directly or indirectly which is one and the same when a member is posting in an angry fashion using derogatory or offensive words directed at anyone - even if that person is anonymous.

    Regarding this blog and the initial statement you made, I agree that pointing fingers at or attacking a widespread belief is not flaming, because these beliefs do not have feelings, only people do. In my opinion you can bash Christianity all you want, but this can come dangerous close to bashing an individual if the conversation starts to veer that way.
  12. Nature Boy
    Felt the need revive this thread as I've been a victim of another barrage of little red dots. Reminder to all: IT'S NOT FLAMING IF IT ISN'T AIMED AT ANYONE DIRECTLY!! Sheesh! Talk about easily offended. I think some of you should be removed of your reputation rights seeing as you don't even know how to use it.
  13. enquirewithin
    I saw statement from some official in Scotland. He said that over 50% of crimes were committed by drunks. Then he went on to say that the three "D"s were to blame-- "Deprivation, Drugs, Drink".

    I am glad he fingered the right drug, but there is only one real "D"-- deprivation. Take that away and the other two "D"s become insignificant.

    Christians, or some varieties of them, love to find 'demons' to fight. It makes them feel so superior to everyone else!

    Dammit, fancy staring to drink at 18. Such a lot of wasted opportunities! :)
  14. Potter
    I was pretty upset with that thread, as with many of the anti-alcohol threads that show up here. People take the actions of highly irresponsible individuals and blame them on alcohol. I drink all the time, sometimes more then I should, yet I never get into fights, sleep with people I shouldn't have, cause accidents, woken up from a black out... Why? Because I acknowledge the dangers inherent in what I am doing and make sure I simply don't do those things! It really is THAT SIMPLE!

    What I see in this thread, is the same problem with religion, that a person can not take personal responsibility for their actions, and so place the blame on the drug/god, of which they partake irresponsibly.

    I love the opening paragraph "I'm 18 and in high school, so all my friends drink." Funny cause I never had any friends who drank at that age. I wonder if it ever crossed his mind to find some responsible friends. Of course we could point out, alcohol isn't legal until the age of 21 in the US...

    sigh...
  15. psyche
    Or at least discussing horrible things people have done under the influence of alcohol, anyway, serving possibly as harm-reduction.
  16. psyche
    Oh yes, the comment bolded was a bit funny. He takes it way too seriously. But there are numerous really irresponsible things he has done under the influence, totaling a car not being the least one of them.

    Ofcourse people should take responsibility for their actions and not blame drugs for it, but some drugs have a higher propability for causing irresponsible behaviour. When people at the recovery and addiction section bad-mouth addictive drugs, you don't go there finding the root problems for their addiction. Bad-mouthing certain drugs over others is a form of harm-reduction, and that was the aim of the thread.
  17. Nature Boy
    O contraire. In a thread (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=685476) of no value other than bad-mouthing alcohol, the individual's opinion was heavily influenced by Christianity:

    He bad-mouths alcohol, I bad-mouth Christianity. Neither constitutes the bad rep: "deliberately inflammatory and adds nothing to the discussion. You should know better"


    Should I know better? Inflammatory comments are aimed at people, not at opinions and it certainly added something to the discussion for whoever decided to issue bad rep over it. Though one-liners may be frowned upon, they're not against forum rules either.
  18. psyche
    I remember seeing a post by Nature Boy that earned negative reputation that was trashing the christianity. But in that case it was given because the post was about one-liner and the thread had nothing to do about religion.
  19. guldenat
    *Waaaa waaah!!* You don't like my point of view!! *waaah waaah* I'm offended!!!

    There's my impression of a Christian. I think it was pretty spot on.
  20. Chronix
    Well put nature boy, on the terms of religion if one has the right to post about their religion you have just as much right to post how you think they're religion is complete BS. Both are purely expressions of ones opinion.