• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Offensive language - is it still offensive if offence is not intended?

A silly anecdote; as I said before, investigate the details, and avoid silly "2+2=5" anecdotes.

Of course, I don't mind attacks supported by sufficient evidence, but attacking absent evidence is not optimal.

I am not attacking you. I am trying to educate you on more effective communication techniques.

I was simply responding in accordance with the comment of another here:

..but I see like some others here, you want to make some form of comment, regardless of the lack of evidence or reason to justify said comment.

What standard of evidence would you want to see applied to assessing your poor communication skills?

You see "ProgrammingGodJordan" and something clicks, and you get the urge to say something likely silly, just for the irrelevant sake of it.

Here is a prime example: Yet another example where a member attacks Jordan, for a particular scope, but totally ignores another member for quite a similar scope.

None of that is relevant to my efforts to teach you how to communicate your ideas more productively.

I'm starting to get the feeling you care more about arguing with people than communicating your ideas.
 
Last edited:
A synonym for scope is liberty. Liberty is what they enjoy in the good ole US of A. The USof A is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Brave people are like action men.

Scope therefore means action.

Or not....
 
I stand by replies 290 and 291.

I motion that it is okay to attack someone in argument, given that sufficient evidence is provided.

Why has my supermathematics thread become this unfortunate political soup?

Robert's Rules of Order don't apply here. I predict you'll earn another suspension within 48 hours. Who's right then, smarty?
 
Funny enough, a search on the material gives this result...
https://atheistforums.org/post-1614538.html

Yup, Joined 5th September 2017. and banned 6th September 2017.

I stopped at that point because really, how potty does an idea have to be to buy an instaban? That has to be at least approaching some sort of record.

He was banned for playing with puppets. He was banned much earlier and apparently keeps making sock puppets, which the mods ban as soon as they recognize him. Which is easy, given his writing "style" (and I use the term loosely).
 
He was banned for playing with puppets. He was banned much earlier and apparently keeps making sock puppets, which the mods ban as soon as they recognize him. Which is easy, given his writing "style" (and I use the term loosely).

I was initially banned because I called another member retarded.

Sometimes I generate socks to gain helpful information, there are a few smart people there who tend to give sensible answers.

For example, regardless of the banning of the latest sock, I got some sensible answers from some of the members, who knew me well too.
 
I wonder why it is wrong when I point out that people say retarded things? I was banned a few times on other forums because I pointed out their retarded comments. What is with people and soft-snowflake feelings in 2017?

Alas I shall resist on this forum.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited material pertaining to the original thread

Simple: One does not need to actually be retarded to say retarded things. So there's no contradiction.
 
Simple: One does not need to actually be retarded to say retarded things. So there's no contradiction.

Well, the collection of brain cells that generate stupid/retarded sentences, may not surprisingly, be stupid/retarded in that scope of time.

Note that I refer to the "foolish" meaning of retarded.
 
I think can explain why he doesn't understand: his signature, minus the explanative bracketed & parenthetical items is: "The is for humans, that fancy evidence."

Linguistically, the first part of the signature lacks a subject and is therefore incomplete. What I can infer from this is that PGJ does not understand how written English language works and his understanding of English, on the whole, is weak. This can be logically carried to include the fact that he lacks the ability to understand that because he chooses, seemingly at random, a lesser-used and now outdated usage of a word - like belief - rather than common usage. He thinks he's being intellectual, but is coming off quite foolish to those of us with a higher comprehension of the English language.
 
Last edited:
In one language forum many years ago we used a <HUMPTY> tag to indicate arguments that boiled down to :
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
 
Why the fascination?
After all, I didn't bother to call anybody retarded here...

You learned the wrong lesson. Instead of learning ways to present your arguments more effectively, you chose to refine your skills at dancing around the rules to bend them without breaking them, to keep the letter of the rule while violating the spirit. It suggests a specific kind of antagonistic encounter is more important to you than effectively conveying your ideas.
 
Offensive language - is it still offensive if offence is not intended?

Of course it is. People get offended by stuff that wasn't intentionally directed at them all the time. Intention never played a role in people's ability to take stuff personally.
 
Of course it is. People get offended by stuff that wasn't intentionally directed at them all the time. Intention never played a role in people's ability to take stuff personally.

That's a good point. I had a friend in high school who threw around the term "wigger" now and then. He didn't mean offense by it, but it did offend a few people.

That said, I think subsequent discussion has rendered the thread title inaccurate for the incident that sparked it. The thread title was predicated on the since debunked assumption that ProgrammingGodJordan didn't think using the term "retarded" would cause offense. We've since learned he was banned from another forum for calling another poster "retarded." This isn't really about someone using a term not knowing it would cause offense, but using a word they knew to be offensive in a slightly different manner than the one that caused problems in the past.
 
Back
Top Bottom