The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Locked
User avatar
Bella Fortuna
Sister Golden Hair
Posts: 79685
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:45 am
About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require.
Location: Scotlifornia
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by Bella Fortuna » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:01 pm

Heya Taqiyya, welcome to Ratz by the way. :cheers:
Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Image
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/

User avatar
cowiz
Shirley
Posts: 16482
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:56 pm
About me: Head up a camels arse
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by cowiz » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:15 pm

It's a piece of piss to be cowiz, but it's not cowiz to be a piece of piss. Or something like that.

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by Audley Strange » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:21 pm

If they keep going they might be able to make Leviticus look like a pithy phrase.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

User avatar
cowiz
Shirley
Posts: 16482
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:56 pm
About me: Head up a camels arse
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by cowiz » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:26 pm

I seriously want to join and start a "Rape Joke" thread
It's a piece of piss to be cowiz, but it's not cowiz to be a piece of piss. Or something like that.

User avatar
Bella Fortuna
Sister Golden Hair
Posts: 79685
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:45 am
About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require.
Location: Scotlifornia
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by Bella Fortuna » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:33 pm

cowiz wrote:Jest fucking raping Christ

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6
Cliff's Notes version unavailable at this time.
Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Image
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Thinking Aloud
Page Bottomer
Posts: 20111
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:56 am
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by Thinking Aloud » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:41 pm

And be warned, if you have an existing identity anywhere else on the atheist internet, you must use it there too.
Screen Shot 2012-08-28 at 20.37.24.png
(I know, these are proposed rules.)

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by colubridae » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:46 pm

Dawkins must be banned, unless he promises not say nasty things about RW.

Harris would be banned unless he promises not to say nasty things.


And Hitchens, well fuck, they have a special post-death forum with a sub-forum entirely devoted to banning him.

I wonder if they do retro-banning?

Does everyone start with a blank slate?
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
DaveD
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by DaveD » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:48 pm

Control freaks wrote:Maintain a consistent identity: You should either post under your real name, or under a consistent pseudonym. Minor modifications to your pseudonym are permitted, so long the relationship to the old version is clear. If you have any kind of online presence in the atheist or skeptic community, then you must either use your real name, or the same pseudonym.
...because you're not allowed to say anything bad about Atheism+® at their forum, and they feel they have to supervise their members everywhere else on the web too.
Image
Image
Image

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:57 pm

Bella Fortuna wrote:
cowiz wrote:Jest fucking raping Christ

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6
Cliff's Notes version unavailable at this time.
In section 107(b)(4)(iii) of the Atheist Plus Penal [heh heh heh] Code, it plainly says that all posts are subject to editing by the moderators, such that any posts that do not express the correct opinion will, as a courtesy, be corrected.

Section 422(g)(11)(mcmxiii) specifically provides for an alternative to banning, though. One may accept reeducation in the Atheist+ School for Wayward Atheists, and with enough dedication, along with a nominal fee, those who go astray can be readmitted to the collective.

User avatar
DaveD
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:59 pm
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by DaveD » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:00 pm

Arguments, and therefore opinions, are proscribed.
Don't say "not all X are like that": When someone complains about a serious problem, it is rarely helpful to complain that the scope of the problem has not been delineated with mathematical precision. For example, if someone gives an account of sexual harassment, replying with “not all men are like that” gives the impression that you care more about being vaguely implicated, than you do about the actual harassment.
No, when somebody says something like "men are rapists" it is necessary to point out that not all men are rapists, otherwis it's a very one-sided argume.......ah wait, that's what they want, silly me.
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by hadespussercats » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:34 pm

It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.

Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
cowiz
Shirley
Posts: 16482
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:56 pm
About me: Head up a camels arse
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by cowiz » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:36 pm

hadespussercats wrote:It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.

Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.
I like being told what to think, saves me the effort.
It's a piece of piss to be cowiz, but it's not cowiz to be a piece of piss. Or something like that.

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by Robert_S » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:41 pm

hadespussercats wrote:It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.

Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.
I was circumcised and I'm not really all that happy about it, but they left the glans. So, I consider it orders of magnitude less severe than FGM.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:57 pm

hadespussercats wrote:It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.

Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.
LOL -- and they like conflate less severe problems with severe problems. Hence they're citation of "fake jewelry" and "I'm not a skepchick t-shirts" as examples of threats and hatred against women.

But, I do like how they want their forum rules to narrow the scope of permissible discussion. I don't get why an argument or opinion that Male circumcision is just as bad as female circumcision ought to be impermissible. Why not let people argue that black is white and white is black? Do women need to be protected from people advancing tenuous arguments?

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:58 pm

Robert_S wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:It's interesting-- one of the rules is something to the effect of "Don't dismiss a severe problem by conflating it with a less severe problem." Then went on to use as an example FGM versus male circumcision.

Apparently they've already decided the latter isn't severe. I think there are many progressively-minded atheists who would disagree with that assessment. Apparently the site owners consider it beyond reproach.
I was circumcised and I'm not really all that happy about it, but they left the glans. So, I consider it orders of magnitude less severe than FGM.
So, couldn't one argue that mere removal of the clitoral hood would be about the same? Why is it a matter of dogma that FGM is "worse" than MGM. It seems as if it's an enforced value judgment.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests