Request to MAD mods for reconsideration

Post by **_AmazingDisgrace** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:00 pm

I don't think it was rude at all, but maybe that's just because I agree with the statement. I think a fair test of its potential rudeness is pretty easy to make, though - just check whether the inverse statement would be offensive coming from a TBM:

"There is a Lord. It's not just people."

This kind of statement is made all the time over there, and absolutely no one who disagrees with it finds it rude or offensive. It's a pretty ridiculous double standard if believers can state their position on the existence of God as a blunt fact while non-theists have to wrap theirs in cushiony softness.

Post by **_Alter Idem** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:09 pm

Sethbag, I sent a message to Chronos and made him/her aware of your post here and I asked them to reconsider.

However, Beastie's right; if one of the valued posters spoke up on your behalf, you'd have a better chance of being reinstated.

Post by **_Scottie** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:12 pm

asbestosman wrote:
skippy the dead wrote:This is a silly comparison. When an issue arises where the existence of God makes a difference to one's argument, is one supposed to not make the argument (remember, discussion is supposedly encouraged, even to the point of quarreling) because it might hurt someone's feelings?

I think that for many people, Sethbag's bluntness about how he thinks there is no God is seen as rude. I think Sethbag could have said it in a more polite manner. That said, I tend to like bluntness. I just think that many people do not. Maybe the fat thing was a bad example because it's something that allows for no polite way to discuss the subject unless perhaps you are a physician. In such cases there is a professional way to tell a patient that he or she should trim down a bit and then there are rude ways of doing so. Bluntness is (in my opinion unfortunately) often perceived as rude even when it is not intended to be insulting.

Again, thicken your skin a bit, MADites!! Sheesh!!

Post by **_asbestosman** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:14 pm

AmazingDisgrace wrote:It's a pretty ridiculous double standard if believers can state their position on the existence of God as a blunt fact while non-theists have to wrap theirs in cushiony softness.

Keep in mind the context of MADB--you are a guest in the home of believers. If I were a guest in a Jewish place of worship, I think it would be rude of me to bluntly state that I think the Jews are wrong and that the Messiah has already come even though I would not take offense if they said the opposite there. I might take offense if they said it in my church without wrapping it in cushiony softness ("I don't believe . . . ").

Post by **_asbestosman** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:17 pm

Scottie wrote:Again, thicken your skin a bit, MADites!! Sheesh!!

If they wanted to do that, they'd come here. They don't. That should tell you something.

Post by **_Scottie** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:17 am

asbestosman wrote:
Scottie wrote:Again, thicken your skin a bit, MADites!! Sheesh!!

If they wanted to do that, they'd come here. They don't. That should tell you something.

No, I've made it very clear that I think this place is way too harsh. I don't blame posters for not coming here.

They have very thin skins over there.

Post by **_Trevor** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:21 am

asbestosman wrote:Keep in mind the context of MADB--you are a guest in the home of believers. If I were a guest in a Jewish place of worship, I think it would be rude of me to bluntly state that I think the Jews are wrong and that the Messiah has already come even though I would not take offense if they said the opposite in their there. I might take offense if they said it in my church without wrapping it in cushiony softness ("I don't believe . . . ").

MADB's public discussion is not a house of worship. It is a forum for thrashing out apologetic arguments. If we are guests in the homes of believers, it is an invitation that clearly implies the desire to debate the subject of their religion. Since these are the very terms of the invitation, I would say that they are pretty touchy and rude hosts for tossing people out for doing what they invited critics to do.

You know the old saying, "if I can't stand your heat, I'll throw you out of my kitchen." Er, wait a second...

Post by **_asbestosman** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:26 am

Trevor wrote:If we are guests in the homes of believers, it is an invitation that clearly implies the desire to debate the subject of their religion. Since these are the very terms of the invitation, I would say that they are pretty touchy and rude hosts for tossing people out for doing what they invited critics to do.

Touchy they may well be (I tend to like bluntness), but I still don't think an invitation to discuss issues was an invitation to be blunt about it. I would like it to be that way, but they didn't ask me.

Post by **_Trevor** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:28 am

asbestosman wrote:Touchy they may well be (I tend to like bluntness), but I still don't think an invitation to discuss issues was an invitation to be blunt about it. I would like it to be that way, but they didn't ask me.

Anyone who pretends to be an apologist and then can't take it when a critic is "blunt" doesn't deserve the moniker "apologist."

Post by **_beastie** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:29 am

Touchy they may well be (I tend to like bluntness), but I still don't think an invitation to discuss issues was an invitation to be blunt about it. I would like it to be that way, but they didn't ask me.

Not many people have the stomach for obsequious pandering.