Ignore/Invisible Option

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I dont know why you insist on converting behavior to personal attacks. If behavior is unacceptable you get booted, thats it. Not booted if you are a non male, or non catholic, or non anything. The site is created to serve a community. When the time comes, that some elect to redifine what that community is, or should be, then the community ousts them. Your attempt to equate behavior to personal targeting is common to all movements. If youare an xxxxxx and you throw rocks through my window, and I have you arrested, then why do you complain that i am a xxxxxaphobe.

In regards to your second coment,,, You have twisted that also. Once again my position is constant. Use the site for what it was not intended for and you should get the boot. Had someone offered the examle of tree huggers instead of islamists I would have used the example of groups destroying forestry sites and equipments. And as such a group that woud engage in discussions about how to damage personal property to prevent the cutting of forestry, would be doing so outside the scope of the designed purpose of the SB site.

If you wish to take up the Christian community issue again Then you have no grounds untill the christian group wants their own forum on SB based solely on their religous association. I doubt that anyone would have problems with that so long as discussions remained diving based. However if such group had a forum that centered discussion on how to interfere with or destroy an athiest dive boat operators business, they should also get the boot.


The site has a right to protect themselves from attack both internal and external. It is routinely demonstrated when, board behavior is believed to be unacceptable, language, personal attacks, ect. If I were to start a non ending slandering rant on how you are a bla bla bla, I should expeect to be suspended or booted for the behavior and not aspects of the poster of the offence. If i started a thread on how to make crack at home, I should expect to be censored also. Not because of gender or any other factor but because the discussions are not in line with in the purpose of hte SB site.

I am not a new kid on the block. I have seen my share of "oh poor me manipulations" of just about everything that a cause can toss at society.
This thread has transitioned from a christian comment some where, to an objection by a non christian to christian comments, to SB being a christian preferential site. To SB showing favoritism to christians by teling non christians to leave the site if they dont like it. I strongly suspect that if someone were to tell SB that "unless they display a giant cross on the home page, they shall eternally burn, They would be ignored. If they however engaged in discussions on how to enact denial of service attacks on SB, action would be taken, an most likely beyond just banning from the site. And when that happened the stories will fly that SB banned a group proving they are homophobes, gender phobes, fatphobes, religiphobes, you name it anything other than the facts of the behavior. The assumed fact that the majority of SB users share some religous identy is not supportive of your claim that SB offers/denies forms based on religious affiliation.

This conversation reminds me of a story i got sent to me. very briefly it goes

Ther is a fire in a 4 story apt building. All die except the renters of the 4th floor. Some demographic leaders demanded from the fire chief why all perished except the 4th floor in attempts to show the cheif engaged in preferential decision making to save certain groups of renters and allowing others to die based on race, legality, criminal status. The cheif answered that the folks on the 4th floor was at work at the time of the fire and that is why they did not perish.


Are you saying that SB is an inherently Christian community, and that SB's stance on tolerating other beliefs and non-beliefs is to simply ask them to leave? I hope that's not the case.


Ah, but this isn't about banning people. It's about SB specifically endorsing and supporting one particular religious community by giving them their own (public!) area, while not doing the same for others. But it's very interesting that your first thoughts on a hypothetical Islamic Divers Association seem to be underwater demolition and banning them for their behaviour. Tells me a lot about you.
 
Last edited:
The usual counter-question is about how people would feel if instead it was an Islamic Divers Association, with posts proclaiming Allahu akbar.

Interesting that you should chose an Islamic Divers Association for your argument. Says a lot about you. Why not an Atheist Divers sub form?
 
I personally want a Pastafarians sub forum- Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and they make small business loans!
 
Interesting that you should chose an Islamic Divers Association for your argument. Says a lot about you. Why not an Atheist Divers sub form?
Because Islam elicits a much stronger response from those Xtian believers than atheism. Usually anyway, and I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of that :)
 
Because Islam elicits a much stronger response from those Xtian believers than atheism.

Someone's own sterotyping is showing.

Usually anyway, and I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of that :)

I didn't read KWS's response quite that way, though I'll agree that parsing it was not easy. What I saw was him trying to make the point that any religious sub-group would be equally welcome so long as they abided by the TOS and equally unwelcome to the extent their faith-focused discussion strayed from the TOS, whether that was Christian members discussing aquatic 'direct action' against an abortion provider's boat or members of a fictional Islamic Divers Association sub-forum discussing SCUBA-facilitated martyrdom operations.

As for SB supporting one religious group to the exclusion of others...I assume this is because nobody else has asked. To the extent that not true, I'd agree with you.
 
I dont know why you insist on converting behavior to personal attacks. If behavior is unacceptable you get booted, thats it. Not booted if you are a non male, or non catholic, or non anything. The site is created to serve a community. When the time comes, that some elect to redifine what that community is, or should be, then the community ousts them. Your attempt to equate behavior to personal targeting is common to all movements. If youare an xxxxxx and you throw rocks through my window, and I have you arrested, then why do you complain that i am a xxxxxaphobe.

In regards to your second coment,,, You have twisted that also. Once again my position is constant. Use the site for what it was not intended for and you should get the boot. Had someone offered the examle of tree huggers instead of islamists I would have used the example of groups destroying forestry sites and equipments. And as such a group that woud engage in discussions about how to damage personal property to prevent the cutting of forestry, would be doing so outside the scope of the designed purpose of the SB site.
Actually I never said anything about behaviour, nor anything about content of any posts within any such hypothetical subforum. You're the one who jumped to the conclusion that a hypothetical Islamic Divers subforum might somehow have people discuss underwater demolition and stuff and that people might get banned. I only postulated the mere existence of such a forum, nothing more. I asked how people would feel if such a forum existed, nothing more. Your response wasn't a direct answer, but more than sufficient as an indirect one.

If I'm mistaken, then please provide a direct answer to my question: how would you feel if such a forum existed? And if people therein praised Allahu akbar?

---------- Post added April 22nd, 2014 at 07:04 PM ----------

Someone's own sterotyping is showing.



I didn't read KWS's response quite that way, though I'll agree that parsing it was not easy. What I saw was him trying to make the point that any religious sub-group would be equally welcome so long as they abided by the TOS and equally unwelcome to the extent their faith-focused discussion strayed from the TOS, whether that was Christian members discussing aquatic 'direct action' against an abortion provider's boat or members of a fictional Islamic Divers Association sub-forum discussing SCUBA-facilitated martyrdom operations.
Yes I understand that. My point is that it's not true. I'd be willing to bet that there'd be quite a few people who'd be opposed to such a forum. Speaking from past experience, and the line of reasoning presented is also a strong indicator.
 
Because Islam elicits a much stronger response from those Xtian believers than atheism. Usually anyway, and I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of that :)

Ah, so you are trolling for an emotional argument instead of an intellectual debate. :)
 
The OP post offends me. I find it easy to skip past many threads when I do the auto renew. Icould care less about various subforums that dont interest me. This whole thing has me thinking for the first time that I may block a particular member. That will be my choice not to read rather than censorship. In fairness to the OP, he was not asking for censorship as another poster replied, only that OP just wanted to be able to not see something come up for HIM.
 
I've seen a number of things on the forum over time that offend my sensibilities as a Christian and are tolerated, then I come to this thread and see the original post. Unreal. As for this sentiment

the same as the believers have the freedom to posts such subjects i should have the freedom, as an atheist, to choose no to see them

Did the title of the post not clue you in as to what the content was likely to be?

What next? Outlaw public display of religious paraphernalia because you are bothered to see it?

Have the mod.s go through the forum diligently every day and delete any post or portion of a post that is not relevant to scuba diving. Wonder what percentage of the forum would be gone?

For that matter, delete any content that might offend somebody.

Maybe posts like the OP ought to be confined to a sub forum the rest of us can ignore!

To a Christian, Christianity is are hugely important part of his or her fundamental identity. While I understand that others don't care to be subjected to unwanted conversion attempts, I'm no more inclined to 'conceal' or avoid my Christianity than a black man is to cover his skin. It's part of who I am, I'm on the forum, and thus so is it. I don't aim to be over-bearing about it, but nor am I strictly avoiding any mention of it, either.

Richard.
 

Back
Top Bottom