Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I’m all for no censorship, but having it optional would probably be the best solution. I think we have to have some sort of system of weeding out trolls. As this forum becomes more popular, we may get bombarded with people that enjoy angering atheists. Also, religious zealots may start missionary projects on our forums in an attempt to score “god points” for heaven (I hear atheists are worth double). We should try to keep that to a minimum.
Also, I think we should discourage unnecessarily caustic language used towards religious people (Btw, I wouldn’t consider what I said before about god points caustic lol). Attacking the people (as oppose to their ideas and ways of thought) could fuel our opponents. I’ve come across militant atheists who love to ridicule religious people, but do nothing constructive by doing so and only hurt the atheist image. I don’t know how we would monitor this, but at least we can attempt to foster a culture that elicits respectful debate, not ad hominem attacks.
In particular, religious belief is far from the exclusive prerogative of unsavoury people..There are an awful lot of very decent religious people around the world, and it does no good at all to malign them in the process of demolishing their belief systems. I think it’s something the mods ought to keep an eye on.
I think making fun of people for their sexual orientation the way I have been making fun of Daystar is really inappropriate. On the other hand, I think making fun of Daystar for his ridiculous interpretations of the bible is totally appropriate. Do the two cancel each other out and leave me off the hook?
You’re right. As with anyone who would who is accustomed with mainstream biblical interpretation by people with real credentials (I.E., PhD’s with peer reviewed books and articles), I have already fallen down laughing at your ridiculous interpretations.
I’d say no swearing, as there’s already been some.
No reason not to swear. Just have the option open for people to censor it if they so choose. I’ve been on many boards with many different contents, mature adults know where the lines are and if they do not, then the strike system makes sense to me.
Personally, I don’t see how all these censorship ideas have a place on a site like this.
If someone comes here once a day and finds someone to call a jackass, shithead, or straight up motherfucker, we can all simply choose to ignore his/her posts - correct? Let the trolls come! Let the fundies come, with their idiotic posts! Better to have it all out in the open than to keep the morons hidden in silence, where their hatred can fester in the dark recesses of their closeted souls!
As far as I’m concerned, everything short of threats should be allowed. Are we rational people - or are we children who need protection from the bad words and scary Jesus-Camp-Loopy Folk?
make that fourth strike = torture
fifth strike - death! LOL
Seriously, I tend to like to keep rules to a minimum, only enacting new ones if there is a serious need to. . . a site dedicated to reason and with adults participating should be able to tolerate the occasional swear word. I don’t see much likelihood many children would be following these discussions.
I do think (and we probably don’t need to be told) that basic respect for other people’s opinions and arguments is essential. So no flame wars. The site already has an ignore button for individual posters. That is one way to manage such idiocy if it pops up. Another is to warn the offending poster and ban them if they persist.
Obscured by Clouds - I don’t think you need to make “personal attacks” more complex than it is. . . they are usually obvious. I work at a newspaper and among other things edit letters to the editor. . . Personal attacks not allowed (edited out if possible, letter not published if not possible) include:
1. gratuitous name calling - words like stupid, dumb, jerk, idiot, dunce etc. . .
2. gratuitous and offensive language - excessive swearing and off-colour characterizations directed at an individual—nobody deserves to be called a D**khead or other such names
3. those assuming or assigning motive without any due cause. . . i.e. “obviously you’re just saying that because you’re trying to get a job with xyz corp” that’s not argument or reasonable, it’s bordering on slander/libel.
It usually is obvious. . . attack dogs seldom offer any evidence or logical argument of their own.
finally, How about adding an option along with the “ignore” option by posters’ names. . . a “complain” option that would go to you or moderators. Not all complaints would necessarily be valid, but you’d know fast if there was a problem poster or not, I’d bet because you’d be inundated!
You’re right. As with anyone who would who is accustomed with mainstream biblical interpretation by people with real credentials (I.E., PhD’s with peer reviewed books and articles), I have already fallen down laughing at your ridiculous interpretations.
Obscured by Clouds - I don’t think you need to make “personal attacks” more complex than it is. . . they are usually obvious. I work at a newspaper and among other things edit letters to the editor. . . Personal attacks not allowed (edited out if possible, letter not published if not possible) include:
1. gratuitous name calling - words like stupid, dumb, jerk, idiot, dunce etc. . .
2. gratuitous and offensive language - excessive swearing and off-colour characterizations directed at an individual—nobody deserves to be called a D**khead or other such names
3. those assuming or assigning motive without any due cause. . . i.e. “obviously you’re just saying that because you’re trying to get a job with xyz corp” that’s not argument or reasonable, it’s bordering on slander/libel.
finally, How about adding an option along with the “ignore” option by posters’ names. . . a “complain” option that would go to you or moderators. Not all complaints would necessarily be valid, but you’d know fast if there was a problem poster or not, I’d bet because you’d be inundated!
Oh I was opening that issue to discussion, just wanted peoples input. We do have an ignore feature. As well as a report post feature.
Been on the “other” Sam Harris website for over a year, it’s dog eat dog there, it’s a tough forum, but I’ve grown fond of not being restricted. BTW the forum SW there isn’t working properly anymore and no request to the admins has been answered, are we being forced to this new site?
I jiust got kicked off the Catholic Answers Forum ICAF) for disrespecting Catholicism. I was just bringing up a few Vatican-Nazi connections, for crying out loud! Now is that really offensive?!!!!
Hopefully we can avoid rules that limit freedom of speech.
I would be cautious to limit personal attacks to the following:
1. Attacks on a poster’s human worth (race, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity)
2. attacks on a posters’s sincerity
3. attacks on a poster’s iintelligence.
Apart from that maybe it’s good to add rules as they become necessary.
It would be terrific if this site didn’t devolve into the sort of site that doesn’t self censor and is full of ad homs and comments just for the sake of commenting with little if anything of content. It is good to see obscured by clouds here. My concern is that there is the potential for yet another talk fest site with site resources being wasted in meaningless commenting and back slapping. I have seen that happen before. On the swearing issue - let’s not - just for a change. Let’s use and further hone language skills instead. Oh - and make sound arguments and cogent points.
