moderation open thread
#13
Our rules apply equally to atheists and theists,if you read the thread above adtc was banned for similar reason , now he has been unblocked since he acknowledged it.
It is called indian atheists debate corner because it is the debate corner of indian atheists , that is all, it is still not a bulletin board, the word debate does not imply that it allows for all types of ideas to be put up and endorsed, nirmukta represents it and is cautious of the language used there, and will step in time to time to shun racism,sexism and homophobia,in the debate corner however(unlike our other groups) we do allow for redundant and (to us) pointless debates which we discourage in our main group , like atheism is a religion,hinduism/islam/'s scriptures prophesied this and that, atheists are actually theists in disguise and they know it deep in their heart, there are no atheists in deathbed/foxholes,one cannot be good without god,evolution is just a theory,atheists worship darwin,atheists and theists are arrogant and agnosticism is the only honest stance etc. etc.
Quote:1. whenever something is posted against Islam pertaining to disregard or disapproval related to the above mentioned differences, I should denounce Islam and accept secular injection. In this case, you should remove the word "debate" as the moment I accept your secular ideology, debate cannot exist.
we would want you to take secular but you are not obliged to,you can always remain silent about it, you can defend all parts of islam that are disputable on truth value, and ontological questions about quranic/generic god, but we do not appreciate defending and endorsing sexist/racist/homophobic stance, irrespective of whether your religion endorses that

Quote:I have to be dishonest with myself and all the atheist members and claim that..No, Islam does not say that. I don't think you would like to nurture this kind of dishonesty in the group.
many a times mostly by hindus or chirstians or some millitant atheists you may find islam being criticized for something that it does not endorse, you are surely invited to defend islam on that, the point is not endorsing anything bigoted quranic or otherwise
Quote:I have to be dishonest with myself and all the atheist members and claim that..No, Islam does not say that. I don't think you would like to nurture this kind of dishonesty in the group.
i didn't really get that point,but if that was about a similar comment by you before that men and women are biologically different so should not be treated equally then yes we discourage that
if it was about xyz is how it should be according to nature and so that is how we should use it, that is a naturalistic fallacy
Quote:This options is for you. Here, group admin should add a rule that, secular social issues should not be discussed here and only theological posting is allowed. This would extremely limit the scope debate in the group and certainly no one would accept this rule including admins as well as myself.
you are misrepresenting the stance, we are not recommending no debate on secular/social issues there are alot of debates on social issues worth having only endorsing social injustice like slavery,gender inequality etc is discouraged.

Reply
#14
(28-Sep-2011, 09:38 PM)arvindiyer Wrote: The above demand would be reasonable in a world when a freethinker is allowed to participate unconditionally in a Quranic fundamentalist forum without accepting Quranic (or Hadith-based) values.
Arvind, There are forums which are meant to discuss Islamic issues only among Muslims. So, in such forum it should not be allowed. But, if the forum is meant to have debate between Muslims and non-Muslims it should be allowed. The group I am talking about is particularly for debate. So, if such restrictions are put on a forum which are meant to have debate, how really debate can happen. Moreover, owners of this group are supposed to be atheists and if they pretend to believe in "free speech", it does make much sense to put such restriction. This was my concernd I addressed it in right place.
(28-Sep-2011, 09:38 PM)arvindiyer Wrote: Further, how come apologists for Islam seek the 'secular social value' of free speech to make their medievalistic case, when the same 'secular social value' is rejected wherever society is organized according to Shariah dictates? Isn't this a paradox?
Every culture and civilization has their own free speech. Islam has some restriction and as I understand from here, atheists too has some. I found it incorrect to put such restrcitions on a forum which allows to have debate between theists and atheists.
LMC..
This is your forum and I do not want to debate on what should be allowed and what not. As per my understanding, you are saying that "while we can have debate on theism and atheism, we are not allowed to have debate on secular social values. If someone criticises social values of Islam considering secularism as ultimate truth, I have to keep quite" Correct me if I am wrong. I have logical reasons to believe that it is against nature and well being of civilization to assign same social role to men and women. But I am not allowed to present or defend my opinion in the group. Am I right?

Reply
#15
(29-Sep-2011, 07:59 AM)AbdusSalam Khalifa Wrote: But, if the forum is meant to have debate between Muslims and non-Muslims it should be allowed. The group I am talking about is particularly for debate. So, if such restrictions are put on a forum which are meant to have debate, how really debate can happen.

Which Islamic fundamentalist forum "is meant to have debate between Muslims and non-Muslims"? Name one.
Without rules there can be no debate. What you want to do is make statements that are in disagreement with what we stand for and not be called out on them. If you say something that is sexist by humanistic standards, then you are being sexist. Period.

Quote:Moreover, owners of this group are supposed to be atheists and if they pretend to believe in "free speech", it does make much sense to put such restriction. This was my concernd I addressed it in right place.

Read this to see why your understanding of free speech is flawed: http://nirmukta.com/2010/09/08/trolls-an...ht-groups/

"There is some confusion among the general public on the distinction between the concept of free-speech and the conditional limitations on its practice.

The common understanding about freedom of speech in a democracy is that all its forms should be protected unless physical harm is implied (with a few exceptions, such as for cases involving minors and sexually explicit material). This sort of freedom of speech is considered a fundamental right of all citizens. Most freethinkers respect such rights, and some may even think of them as the foundations of a free society. However, the right to free-speech is conditional on other fundamental rights, such as the right to owning property.

Here are some examples of this distinction: You may be free to write what you want to, but you may not use my pencil or keyboard to write it unless I permit you to do so. You may be free to talk about the importance of religion, but you may not expect to air your views on the BBC, unless they want you to. You may be free to sing Church songs all day long, but you may not barge into my living room and unleash your oh-so-blessed hymns on me."


Anyway, its astoundingly hypocritical of Islamists such as yourself to talk about free speech to atheists who run an open forum, allowing Islamists such as yourself to talk about your repressive ideology that denies basic human freedoms to people. Islamic fundamentalists have no qualms in abusing democratic rights to promote their undemocratic ideas. You will have no problem proselytizing in the West, but will deny other religions their right to proselytize in countries where your ideology is in control of the government. If you want to not be judged by our standards of what's moral, then stick to your Islamist groups where you make the rules based on your archaic scriptures.

Quote:Correct me if I am wrong. I have logical reasons to believe that it is against nature and well being of civilization to assign same social role to men and women. But I am not allowed to present or defend my opinion in the group. Am I right?

You are allowed to present your reasons logically, but without making derogatory statements about either gender. This is, of course, possible although your scriptures are clear on this point that women are in some ways inferior to men. The fact that you believe in a book whose dictates are in violation of our rules, is the very nature of the problem.
Here's an analogy.
Say there is a religious group in which men and women are not allowed to cover their genitals. Their very presence in public would be disallowed in most parts of the world. Would not most governments insist, including democratic ones, that these people have the right to visit their country and mingle in public as long as they refrain from their religious rule?

The simple fact is the right to speech is always conditional, and in our group it is conditional upon humanistic values. We can talk about the values themselves, but we cannot dispense with them under any circumstances.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#16
again you try to misquote me and misrepresent our stance, putting words into my mouth i have already said there are a lot of other debates that can be had on social secular values, there are a lot of debates happening, people can defend and endorse the stance they take unless the stance they take is horribly anti-social
Quote:I have logical reasons to believe that it is against nature and well being of civilization to assign same social role to men and women.
firstly what you say is incorrect also,we have no authority to say what is against nature since nature has no purpose , by our vague understanding of natural laws we can make several claims,t is against nature to use condoms, sex was supposed to be for reproduction, it is against nature to use pacemaker, most of the fruits we eat today are different from what they would naturally occur in wild deserted areas without farming methods employed by us,it is against nature to save endangered species,it was not meant by evolution and it is against the laws of natural selection to help handicapped and people with genetic diseases reproduce,it is against nature to preserve nature,what is natural or not does not matter,nature can be brutal and be kind but such adjectives do not make sense since it is not living as a whole it has no purpose,we do make our own purposes in life, and one of our(people behind nirmukta) purpose to prevent social injustice to any sex/race, what you were attempting is called naturalistic fallacy
Quote: well being of civilization
now it is not a naturalistic fallacy but you have stepped into domain of falsifiable, what you said is empirically and verifiably false.
also read this http://www.cfr.org/asia/gender-dispariti...stan/p7217
Quote:I found it incorrect to put such restrcitions on a forum which allows to have debate between theists and atheists.
just because it is a forum for atheists and theists does not mean anything can be said and supported that some how relates to god/religion,
i already said we do allow for redundant and (to us) pointless debates which we discourage in our main group , like atheism is a religion,hinduism/islam/'s scriptures prophesied this and that, atheists are actually theists in disguise and they know it deep in their heart, there are no atheists in deathbed/foxholes,one cannot be good without god,evolution is just a theory,atheists worship darwin,atheists and theists are arrogant and agnosticism is the only honest stance etc. etc.
Quote: someone criticises social values of Islam considering secularism as ultimate truth, I have to keep quite" Correct me if I am wrong.
yes, but not the way you attempt to make it sound, we did not say secularism is some universal truth, and there is a lot of debates within secularism,what you are basically asking is the right to endorse hate against and belittle a particular race and sexual orientation just because it is a part of your religion and thus you think becomes a part of atheist vs theist debates,we cannot allow that also we know bigotry is not confined to islam or religion in general, there are number of atheists who are racist and sexist and we discourage such language by all.

Reply
#17
Ajit: I do want to debate here. This forum is for moderation issues and just wanted to understand the stance of the group.
LMC..I understood your point and continue to abide by the rules.
Reply
#18
[Image: 2eqgi92.png]
[+] 1 user Likes LMC's post
Reply
#19
Dear Moderators,

It has been observed that I was banned from the 'atheists debate corner' group for not stating the 'constituents' of the Vedanta. It may be noted that I am Hindu theist (Vedantic). Problem arose when I asked details of the 'credible evidence' which is a pre-condition fro any theists to put forth his views. Without observing this and about which discussion was going on the admin by name 'Gayathri Iyer' insisted upon reversing the discussion by asking 'constituents of Vedanta. I have read 'Vichar Sagar' which is the essence of all Hinduism/Vedanta. It was in accordance with logic and reason and your own comment policy that discussion was allowed. Other few people were moving in the right direction and I was answering their questions. However this madam and few others breaking all the rules, using abusive language etc banned me.

Is it a way of Atheists? Does the Atheists exists for atheists? If you people are to convince me I may turn atheists!!

How is that you people will come to know what theists think by banning them?

If 'Gayathri' found that I was not answering her she might have preferred to remain silent till the appropriate time.

Are these the standards observed by atheists? I am dissappointed by your unscientific attitude!

How will you address it?
Reply
#20
(12-Dec-2011, 10:16 AM)ramesh Wrote: Without observing this and about which discussion was going on the admin by name 'Gayathri Iyer' insisted upon reversing the discussion by asking 'constituents of Vedanta. I have read 'Vichar Sagar' which is the essence of all Hinduism/Vedanta.

By 'constituents of Vedanta', perhaps what was meant, was a statement of core tenets and fundamental claims of that school of thought. Here is the request: Could you provide a brief statement of the claims of Vedanta like, say the Nicene Creed or the Shahada which are statements of their respective schools of thought? Citing an obscure text like 'Vichar Sagar' which a great many practicing Hindus, including those versed in Vedanta, have likely neither heard of nor influenced by, does not serve the purpose. It seems an entirely reasonable request on part of an interlocutor to seek a brief and clear statement of the stance that is being argued for before proceeding to argue, and refusal to comply with this request may fairly be construed as obstructionism and obscurantism.

[+] 1 user Likes arvindiyer's post
Reply
#21
'Vichar Sagar' is a text written by Nischal Das and is most famous treatise on 'Vedanta'. Highly talented Hindus practise it daily. Simply because you people are not aware of the same doesn't reduce its significance. It is the essence of all 'upnishads, puranas, brahmasutra, bhagawadgeeta etc. It is a text written in about 1840.

Leave alone the above fact, by Vedanta itself some meanings come out like it describes the origin of the universe and all activities related to it. It deals with the metaphysics and can well be interpreted as pure science based on logic and reason. This much was informed to the 'Gayathri'. Wasn't that sufficient? All further queries about the Vedanta are likely to be futile for that won't be holding water without providing the 'scientific evidence or credible evidence'. So I insisted upon clarification of these concepts since the beginning (in the main post itself). How is that my issue is neglected and breaking the proper sequence of logic and reason attempt to jump into other details (Vedanta) is made?

Vedanta is a part of Hinduism and is well known all over the world. What extra does the 'Gayathri' wanted to know about the same?
Reply
#22
(12-Dec-2011, 11:32 AM)ramesh Wrote: Vedanta is a part of Hinduism and is well known all over the world. What extra does the 'Gayathri' wanted to know about the same?

In a forum that is a no friend of misogyny, do you realize how repugnantly sexist that statement is? Or was it intentionally done? In either case any more statements in a similar vein will invite a ban. Ideas do not deserve necessarily respect, but people necessarily do.
Reply
#23

Sorry Lije,

I badly fail to understand "do you realize how repugnantly sexist that statement is".

It is unintentional! But will you let me know how it is 'repugnantly sexist' in content? My English knowledge is not that standard.

Please let me know why it was so 'repugnantly sexist' in content at least!
Reply
#24
(12-Dec-2011, 08:20 PM)ramesh Wrote: I badly fail to understand "do you realize how repugnantly sexist that statement is".

It is unintentional! But will you let me know how it is 'repugnantly sexist' in content? My English knowledge is not that standard.

Please let me know why it was so 'repugnantly sexist' in content at least!

You referred to a women as an object, but not as a person. You don't use 'the' when referring to people by their name nor do you put people's names in scare quotes as if they mean something else.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)