Timeline for What level of offense is allowed by the CoC?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9 at 2:01 | comment | added | JonathanZ | @tkruse - Good point. I thought it was at me because it came after my comment, but your suggestion makes more sense. | |
| Nov 8 at 6:18 | comment | added | tkruse | Possibly that first comment was not directed at you. | |
| Nov 8 at 2:34 | comment | added | JonathanZ | @PhilipKlöcking - I appreciate that being a mod here is difficult, but I can't help noticing that the OP gets to call me a bigot without anyone calling for a halt to "accusations aimed at the person". | |
| Nov 7 at 18:47 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking Mod | @tkruse It's aimed at everyone in general and you in particular 😉 | |
| Nov 7 at 18:44 | comment | added | tkruse | @PhilipKlöcking, I cannot tell whom you are addressing, given all the comments. | |
| Nov 7 at 18:34 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking Mod | I would like to ask you to abstain from sarcsm, cynism, and accusations aimed at the person, no matter how you feel about a subject (be it with or without good reason). No need to ridicule persons for their views. | |
| Nov 7 at 17:24 | comment | added | tkruse | And don't forget skeptics, they really long for the latest and greatest publications of the Discovery Institute. | |
| Nov 7 at 17:22 | comment | added | tkruse | @Matthew, thanks for offering..yes, I think all of the stack exchange sites are in dire need of you highlighting materialist propaganda. In particular physics, chemistry, biology, but also stackoverflow do not give enough attention to your Baby Jesus being the cause of everything. I cannot imagine your comments would not be welcome. | |
| Nov 7 at 17:17 | comment | added | causative Mod | To say that schools and schoolbooks are lying is very different from saying that the person you are speaking to is lying. Whether schools or schoolbooks are lying about something is a topic that can be discussed. | |
| Nov 7 at 16:40 | comment | added | JonathanZ | Also, the fairly standard Christian "I'm oppressed because I can't impose my beliefs everywhere and on everyone" tactic is noted. | |
| Nov 7 at 16:37 | comment | added | JonathanZ | I say "Go for it!". | |
| Nov 7 at 16:07 | comment | added | Matthew | @JonathanZ, should I then post a comment on every post that's Materialist propaganda? | |
| Nov 7 at 16:06 | comment | added | Matthew | I don't think you understand the difference between broad assertions and personal attacks. And your bigotry is showing, loud and clear. Maybe you should be reminding me of Matthew 5:11 instead. | |
| Nov 7 at 14:49 | comment | added | JonathanZ | Noting that something is propaganda is definitely useful - people don't need to waste their time pawing through it. If you want to spend your time that way, you are totally free to do so, but I appreciate the warning. | |
| Nov 7 at 14:09 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | If an answer gets downvoted into oblivion (or it's hidden below a few dozen other answers), then it doesn't really matter either way. But if it scores higher, then you should offer more in a comment than an offhand dismissal, to convince readers of the flaws in the answer. If your comment is just an offhand dismissal, people might infer that you don't have any rebuttal, which may be worse than not commenting at all. It's not like you're inviting them to a debate. They've already made their argument by posting an answer, and the only choice you have is how you react to it. | |
| Nov 7 at 14:09 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | There are certainly many people swayed by appeals to emotions, but that's fallacy-prone thinking. Promoting rationality may be a harder than winning by also appealing to emotion, but it would be a superior victory. A more rational world has a far better future than one with more anger and hate and fear and contempt. | |
| Nov 7 at 13:51 | comment | added | tkruse | Interacting with Creationists under the false pretence that their argument has merit is falling into their trap of trying to teach the controversy. There is no controversy, so no need for debating any such controversy. | |
| Nov 7 at 13:50 | comment | added | tkruse | Great strategy, maybe that could also win presidential elections. | |
| Nov 7 at 13:46 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | I'd suggest trying to do better than the bad-faith tactics that others employ. Such tactics are somewhere between merely "preaching to the choir" (without convincing anyone) or appealing to people's emotions and biases, rather than appealing to reason and evidence. | |
| Nov 7 at 13:36 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | Calling something propaganda, by itself, probably isn't too useful. That could benefit from (a) explaining why that doesn't meet the standards of a philosophy answer, or (b) explaining what's wrong with what's been said, on a factual or logical level (possibly by including a reference to some detailed discussion of the topic). | |
| Nov 7 at 6:36 | history | answered | tkruse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |