
The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?
- 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?
Heya Taqiyya, welcome to Ratz by the way. 

Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/
- 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?
It's a piece of piss to be cowiz, but it's not cowiz to be a piece of piss. Or something like that.
- 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?
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
- 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?
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.
- 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?
Cliff's Notes version unavailable at this time.
Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/
- Thinking Aloud
- Page Bottomer
- Posts: 20111
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:56 am
- Contact:
Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?
And be warned, if you have an existing identity anywhere else on the atheist internet, you must use it there too.
(I know, these are proposed rules.)
(I know, these are proposed rules.)
http://thinking-aloud.co.uk/ Musical Me
- 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?
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?
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
Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?
...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.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.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?
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.Bella Fortuna wrote:Cliff's Notes version unavailable at this time.
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.
Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?
Arguments, and therefore opinions, are proscribed.
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.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.
- 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?
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.
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.
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.
Listen. No one listens. Meow.
- 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?
I like being told what to think, saves me the effort.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.
It's a piece of piss to be cowiz, but it's not cowiz to be a piece of piss. Or something like that.
- 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?
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.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.
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
-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
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?
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.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.
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?
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Atheism Plus "movement" -- good, bad, ugly?
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.Robert_S wrote: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.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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests