A thought on flaming

Fwiw NB, I've never red boxed you over anything, and I believe you are correct that rep should never be used as a tool to punish those who you disagree with. I respect and appreciate the opinions of all the non-believers here; hell I was one myself for quite some time! Furthermore, belief in Christianity is a radical undertaking in its most basic form; if you really believe that the universe was spoken into existence and a dude rose from the dead and seas were parted, then you believe in the supernatural which really puts the onus of proof in your court.

Too many people see religion as "off limits" somehow. We have to respect other people's religion, but we can mock their political stance, or raise the bullshit alarm about anything else they say. Even asking perfectly honest questions (such as, where did Jesus's Y chromosome come from? If he didn't have one, he'd be a woman, so he obviously does, son of god or otherwise) is seen as a bad thing.

It drives me up the freakin' wall!

Agreed.

To me, neg rep is something to be used for blatantly personal insults, extremely negligent and dangerous medical advice, or repeated self incrimination by someone who should know better (not just a bi-monthly or so accidental slip, which we are all prone to making). As far as insults go, there's a difference between "you are stupid" and "you are stupid if you believe ..." One is personal, the other is not. It seems a lot of people just try and find the vaguest pretense to neg rep people who they disagree with, or who is providing information they don't want to believe. Half the neg rep here seems to be about something that should have been addressed in a post as a counter point. At least most of them seem to keep the points taken low though, so I just let it ride. I think one of my problems at least is that people mistake a facetious or light hearted tone of mine as something emotional or malicious.

Some people are just very sensitive to disagreement it seems, no matter how intellect or subject oriented, and see it as flaming.

I also applaud your defense of reason in those heated Christian threads you like to join. It's hard not to be passionate when discussing a theology which, along with Islam, has caused more intolerance, bloodshed and genocide than anything else in the history of the world. Regarding drugs, in the U.S. it was groups of fanatical Christian zealots, the Women's Christian Temperance Union along with others, that were largely responsible for the prohibition of alcohol and drugs (for purely faux-"moral" reasons, not because of an actual significant problem) and thus the rise of superpowerful organized crime syndicates, countless millions of brilliant and productive people destroyed, and the inconceivable amount of purposeless horror, injustice and regression from ~90 years of "The War on Drugs." One percent of our population is fucking in prison for Christ sake, most for not abiding by a prejudicial, largely racist in origin, fanatical set of bullshit laws laid down by turn of the century Christians.

There was a guy once on a forum who swore to Jesus he would smash my face in if I ever posted a christian satire video again.

How Christian of him... although he wouldn't have felt God was with him once he realized he was trying to smash the face in of an experienced cagefighter.

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.

*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.

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.

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.

Or at least discussing horrible things people have done under the influence of alcohol, anyway, serving possibly as harm-reduction.

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...

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!

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.

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.

That didn't end well...

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.