Any thoughts

[mee]

Jesus Christ spoke about the condition of the dead.


He did so with regard to Lazarus, a man whom he knew well and who had died.


Jesus told his disciples: "Lazarus our friend has gone to rest." The disciples thought that Jesus meant that Lazarus was resting in sleep, recovering from an illness. They were wrong. Jesus explained: "Lazarus has died." (John 11:11-14)

Notice that Jesus compared death to rest and sleep.


Lazarus was neither in heaven nor in a burning hell. He was not meeting angels or ancestors.

Lazarus was not being reborn as another human.

He was at rest in death, as though in a deep sleep without dreams.

Other scriptures also compare death to sleep.


For example, when the disciple Stephen was stoned to death, the Bible says that he "fell asleep." (Acts 7:60)


Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote about some in his day who had "fallen asleep" in death.—1 Corinthians 15:6.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Why not learn to personally contend with whoever is personally judged to be revealing something undesirable?

I have done that and found that the thread was completely derailed. This could have been avoided.

The real issue IMHO is whether hate speech has any place at all on the Internet to begin with, especially given its potential to sidetrack legitimate discussion and its potential to scare people off.

The existence of posting standards in the form of the CR Code of Conduct would indicate that there is some consensus on these things and that postings standards are NOT simply reducible to a personal judgments or opinions of individual forum members.

Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument makes the CR Code of Conduct unnecessary and also relieves moderators of their duty to uphold said Code.

 

[Snoopy]

Moderation. Censorship. Self- or Site- Moderation or Censorship.

Same or different?

s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Moderation. Censorship. Self- or Site- Moderation or Censorship. Same or different?

I don't see it as a "censorship" issue at all and I think it's too easy to sling the term around as though endorsement of Free Speech is the only reasonable response when someone has a question about whether existing posting standards could be revised.

Censorship means suppressing certain content entirely. Except for the things that are already coverd in the existing CR Code of Conduct, that's not anything I'd endorse for the simple reason that a wholesale suppression of content on a subject is like destroying the possibilities for the dialectical exchange we need to develop the issues, present relevant information, and gain some insight.

Another discussion forum I saw had a code of conduct that included a prohibition against people deliberately lying. Not sure how they'd enforce that because it's kind of hard to prove when someone is trying to lie. The attention being given to the principle of good faith was interesting anyway because it pointed to the importance of quality in communication.

 

[Dawud]

true you can believe what you want to believe.

Religious liberty

 

[Dawud]

I think "aggressive" when it comes to soapboxes refers to putting pressure on people to agree with you. So I guess I'd say the key word is pressure. You can say what you believe, that's totally fine. Share your beliefs, share your thoughts, and let go... i.e. don't worry about what people think about it. Don't worry about their reactions. They're free.

 

[Tao_Equus]

What angers me is when someone who is persistent in his use of half-truths, derailments, dodges, ducks and dives to attempt a diversion of any dialogue into his own narrow parameters, then calls for censorship of those who call his bluff. What a damned cheek is all I can say.

 

[Netti-Netti]

....

 

[cyberpi]

I have done that and found that the thread was completely derailed. This could have been avoided.

The real issue IMHO is whether hate speech has any place at all on the Internet to begin with, especially given its potential to sidetrack legitimate discussion and its potential to scare people off.

Did you employ hate speech? You indicate that you contended with someone and derailed a thread, and that hate speech sidetracks (derails) a thread. Which is more important: the person or the thread?

The existence of posting standards in the form of the CR Code of Conduct would indicate that there is some consensus on these things and that postings standards are NOT simply reducible to a personal judgments or opinions of individual forum members.

To the contrary: A consensus requires the collection of personal judgments or opinions.

Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument makes the CR Code of Conduct unnecessary and also relieves moderators of their duty to uphold said Code.

No. The logical conclusion I see is that regardless of the forum every individual has the responsibility to be a moderator in forming and upholding standards. I suspect where we differ is in how a true consensus, standard, or code is defined and upheld.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Did you employ hate speech?

What is your definition of hate speech? I'm going with the US Supreme Court's definition.

You indicate that you contended with someone and derailed a thread, and that hate speech sidetracks (derails) a thread.

No, my point was that having to contend with their hate speech caused the derailment. Hence the need for the code of conduct to reflect some understanding on the issue of hate speech. People who post here should be able to do so without having to fight these kinds of battles. They should be free to talk about religion without having to serve as vigilante moderators.

Which is more important: the person or the thread?

This strikes me as a somewhat artificial way to describe the situation. For one thing, it's unclear whether the person's interests were compromised in any substantive way. Moreover, it's very easy to imagine situations where an individual poster's rights and priviledges are subordinated to the interests of the forum, so your implicit contention that individual rights should prevail is questionable.

A consensus requires the collection of personal judgments or opinions.

As far as I can tell, tere is an operational consensus here on the CR forum that involves the owners and the moderators.

The forum owners have already exercised some judgment about acceptable content for this forum. I suppose you could come up with an argument as to why that judgment should be considered irrelevant.

Further, I surmise the forum's moderators agree with the CR forum code when they agree to moderate, which makes for an operational consensus. I suppose you could also come up with an argument as to why moderators should be ignored.

The logical conclusion I see is that regardless of the forum every individual has the responsibility to be a moderator in forming and upholding standards. I suspect where we differ is in how a true consensus, standard, or code is defined and upheld.

There are always differences. That's why people eventually decide on a set of rules to manage those differences.

The forum owners evidently agree with normative rules regarding internet communications or else they woud not have adopted them and made them part of the CR code of conduct. Those normative rules reflect broad-based agreement on what is acceptable content for internet communications.

I invoked the term "consensus" partly because some of the rules that appear in the CR code of conduct are in fact found in the posting guidelines for many discussion groups all over the Internet. These guidelines are not new: at least some of them are based on very traditional conversational rules that were around long before the Internet.

For some reason you ignore the fact that this forum has an existing code of conduct and appointed moderators who presumably agree to enforce existing rules when they accept a position as moderator. I don't see any provisions in the CR code of conduct to the effect that individuals should be able to override the rules that appear in the code or to usurp moderators' powers. What you are proposing is seems quite radical.

It seems to me that you want to override the existing code of conduct and modify the jurisdiction of the moderators by introducing a system of vigilantism. Such an approach might make sense in situations where there is no central control. But that is not what we have here.

Further, while I appreciate your emphasis on individual responsibility, a vigilante approach has at least three major drawbacks; (1) it risks creating a situation where people reinvent the wheel over and over again, with ongoing debates about how to define rules for which there is already widespread recognition all over the Internet and about how to decide their applicability; (2) it makes for a messy situation where any and all threads are subject to attempts at vigilante dispute resolution on specific issues. For example you could be debating me for a year or longer about whether I have a right to post snuff movies and in the meantime this could scare off hundreds of potential forum members who might otherwise have joined in interesting discussions; and (3) it would be hoplessly inefficient because at given time, there could be multiple attempts at dispute resolution on the part of individual forum members with no consequences in terms of posting priviledges being suspended/revoked as a means of managing a problem. The forum should be able to count on more efficient, streamlined iterventions on the part of a moderator whose actions have the weight in terms of enforcement.

 

[Netti-Netti]

every individual has the responsibility to be a moderator in forming and upholding standards.

Does that mean every individual can revoke or suspend other forum members' posting priviledges?

 

[seattlegal]

Does that mean every individual can revoke or suspend other forum members' posting priviledges?

On a personal level, yes they can. Each member can customize which member's post they see via their personal "ignore list," which is accessible by clicking on "User CP," and selecting Buddy/Ignore list from the menu on the left hand side.

BTW, the Code of Conduct doesn't use the term "hate speech."

Sorry for participating in the derailment of your thread, mee.

 

[Netti-Netti]

BTW, the Code of Conduct doesn't use the term "hate speech."

"Hate speech" is the general rubric for the issues. Those terms show up quite often in formal efforts currently underway toward preventing hate speech directed at religious and ethnic groups and in the related discussions on how to define racist or xenophobic content. For example, from Resolution 1510 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:

...(T)here cannot be a democratic society without the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The progress of society and the development of every individual depend on the possibility of receiving and imparting information and ideas. This freedom is not only applicable to expressions that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those that may shock, offend or disturb the state or any sector of the population, in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.​

(T)he Assembly emphasises that hate speech against any religious group is not compatible with the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.​

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

Europe has been making some effort to regulate web content based on legal understandings of hate speech.

 

[seattlegal]

Here I am participating in the thread hijacking again. Sorry.
{Perhaps a split of this thread might be in order?}

"Hate speech" is the general rubric for the issues. Those terms show up quite often in formal efforts currently underway toward preventing hate speech directed at religious and ethnic groups and in the related discussions on how to define racist or xenophobic content. For example, from Resolution 1510 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:

...(T)here cannot be a democratic society without the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The progress of society and the development of every individual depend on the possibility of receiving and imparting information and ideas. This freedom is not only applicable to expressions that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those that may shock, offend or disturb the state or any sector of the population, in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.​

(T)he Assembly emphasises that hate speech against any religious group is not compatible with the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.​

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

Europe has been making some effort to regulate web content based on legal understandings of hate speech.

Here's a more current document from June 2007:
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

2. It is important to note in this context that blasphemy and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion are not the same thing – and the way both phenomena are dealt with vary widely both in Europe and worldwide. As Mrs Hurskainen has rightly pointed out in her report, “blasphemy can be defined as the offence of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for god and, by extension, toward anything considered sacred”2. In contrast, hate speech “is always directed against persons or a group of persons”3, even if the motivation is religious.

Was any of this speech boardering on hate speech you say that occurred on this forum directed against persons or a group of persons, (hate speech,) or was it directed towards a specific action or towards a specific dogma?

13. The general principle of the necessity for legal certainty in penal law (every person must be able to know if he/she is committing a crime) would thus call for “incitement to discrimination” not to be criminalised and penalised by the state. In contrast, the clearer – and practically universally accepted – “incitement to hatred” or “incitement to violence” should be. This is why I am proposing Amendments A, B and E.

The above referenced document also references this 2005 document:
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

 

[Netti-Netti]

Perhaps a split of this thread might be in order?

Hasn't the life-after death question been resolved? .....

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I've been baffled by the lack of sensitivity and intolerance I have seen in these parts. Frankly, I thought some of it outrageous. Some of it bordered on hate speech. I respectfully suggest moderators look into the possibility of revising the CR Code of Conduct to include something about misleading or totally unsubstantiated allegations of fact and deliberate deception in arguments or assertions about other people's religion. For this kind of conduct to be tolerated in a Comparative Religion/interfaith forum makes no sense to me.

Can you cite an example of outrageous speech you've encountered here at CR? Can you give an example of what you'd consider hate speech, or borderline hate speech from the postings here? What about deception? Can you provide an example of that? Please C&P an example of each so we can see what, exactly, you're talking about.

Look Netti, you're obviously an intelligent person so I'll just give it to you straight: If this is the first time you've been busted for lazy, bullsh it rhetorical tactics consider yourself blessed. You can't get away with thin sourcing here. You tried it, you got busted. So now, if you've got a genuine beef about deceptive or hateful speech here at CR let's see you make the effort to actually document it.

Chris

 

[cyberpi]

Does that mean every individual can revoke or suspend other forum members' posting priviledges?

No, it means the intended standard is NOT made or upheld when an individual revokes or suspends another forum members' posting privileges.

 

[juantoo3]

I've been baffled by the lack of sensitivity and intolerance I have seen in these parts. Frankly, I thought some of it outrageous. Some of it bordered on hate speech. I respectfully suggest moderators look into the possibility of revising the CR Code of Conduct to include something about misleading or totally unsubstantiated allegations of fact and deliberate deception in arguments or assertions about other people's religion. For this kind of conduct to be tolerated in a Comparative Religion/interfaith forum makes no sense to me.

Kindest Regards, Netti-Netti.

To begin, if there is ever a time you feel a discussion has degraded to the point of something like hate speech, I would encourage you to report the post so it can be reviewed. There is a little red triangle for that purpose on the bottom left of the typical post.

I am not aware of the post you mention, nor has any other mod brought it to my attention. Generally, we are instructed to allow as much leeway as possible to promote discussion. However, there are some pretty clearly defined lines as stated in the CoC, hate speech would be included in that. Something maybe to keep in mind, is that a typical discussion can at times become a little...excited...particularly when both sides are emotionally invested. Not having seen the discussion you mention, I would have to consider whether it is clearly hate speech, or merely an emotional disagreement.

I do feel there is some difficulty regarding your suggestion about "misleading or totally unsubstantiated allegations of fact and deliberate deception in arguments or assertions about other people's religion." I for one came to CR as much to learn as to participate, I am pretty certain there are others here to learn as well. In the strictest sense, this you suggest would hinder conversation, not promote it. How can I participate in any discussion, let alone find where I may be mistaken, if I am bound not to deceive? This is not considering POV as regards what is truth and what is not. Then there are subjects in which the truth is clearly a matter of opinion...

IOW, what you suggest is a logistical nightmare, impossible even in the best of circumstances, and stifling to debate and discussion.

You are welcome to present your suggestion of course, and the place I would recommend is the feedback forum. It is far more visible there, particularly to Brian.

I hope this helps.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I hope this helps.

Thank you very much. Appreciate these thoughts and suggestions!

 

[mee]

Where​

Are the Dead?​

What happens to us when we die?
Why do we die?
Would it be comforting to know the truth about death? ​

Any thoughts then?