Do me this dignity, a final word

[Gobalopper]

Ok, basically the rules are there as guidelines, they shouldn't be considered the only thing that could get you banned. I've updated them to specify that.

And emprworm hasn't exactly had a clean track record either. I like the guy but he can go overboard sometimes.

[Edric O]

How are they Christian values specifically? They seem to be pretty obvious morals, considering the whole evolutionary feeling of empathy we humans have developed. To tack on that they are "Christian" values is very presumptuous and is like saying that "Do not kill" and "Do not steal" are Christian values as well.

Tell that to the Norse, or the Aztecs, or the Romans for that matter. As I mentioned before, Roman values were significantly different from the Judeo-Christian values we currently take for granted in the West. The Romans viewed mercy as weakness, they believed that it was good sport and wonderful entertainment to watch men slaughtering each other in the arena, they believed suicide was an honourable way to end your problems, they supported slavery, they believed a man had the right to have sex with as many women as he liked but a wife should be faithful to her husband, and so on and so forth.

Oh, and by the way, the idea of a complete ban on all killing is very much a Judeo-Christian invention. Many (perhaps most) non-Christian cultures specify certain conditions under which you are allowed to kill someone else. Vengeance and duels are the most common. Ritual sacrifice used to be quite widespread too.

So, yes, "do not kill" is very much a Christian value. It is true that many Christian values are now shared by large populations of non-Christians across the world, but this is only due to the cultural domination of Europe over the past few centuries.

[nampigai]

Sorry to go a bit off-topic, but...

I am willing to bet that your vision of "evil" is fundamentally based on Christian values.

Virtually every single Western atheist that I know - with the exception of some philosophers - has an understanding of good and evil that is based on Christian values (e.g. mercy and compassion are good, harming people for your own gain is evil).

so before christianity there wasn't any good people, and christianity hasn't harmed others for it's own benifits?

I find religion dominating and a way to control the mob.

[lowzeewee]

Time to move this thread to the Poems, Rants and Peanuts board.

[Acriku]

Tell that to the Norse, or the Aztecs, or the Romans for that matter. As I mentioned before, Roman values were significantly different from the Judeo-Christian values we currently take for granted in the West. The Romans viewed mercy as weakness, they believed that it was good sport and wonderful entertainment to watch men slaughtering each other in the arena, they believed suicide was an honourable way to end your problems, they supported slavery, they believed a man had the right to have sex with as many women as he liked but a wife should be faithful to her husband, and so on and so forth.

And I'm sure there weren't any other societies existing pre-AD, like the ancient Greeks, or the Egyptians, etc.  ::)

Oh, and by the way, the idea of a complete ban on all killing is very much a Judeo-Christian invention. Many (perhaps most) non-Christian cultures specify certain conditions under which you are allowed to kill someone else. Vengeance and duels are the most common. Ritual sacrifice used to be quite widespread too.

A complete ban of all killing? Hardly. The OT (a Jewish and Christian document) documents many ways in which killing is warranted and even encouraged. If you want to take a look at Western society, killing somebody in defense is allowable or to protect another person.

So, yes, "do not kill" is very much a Christian value. It is true that many Christian values are now shared by large populations of non-Christians across the world, but this is only due to the cultural domination of Europe over the past few centuries.

I love how Christians declare their values being their special creation, all the while ignoring the thousands of years of societies beforehand that held the same values.

Maintaining the argument with corrupt societies like Rome or Nord is much the strawman.

[Edric O]

so before christianity there wasn't any good people...

Of course there were. But we're not talking about individual good people here, we're talking about good cultural standards. And Christianity, in my opinion, provides the best cultural standards.

In other words, there are far more good people thanks to Christian values than there would have been otherwise.

...and christianity hasn't harmed others for it's own benifits?

The history of Christianity is full of injustice and oppression, but so is the history of just about everything else (including every other religion, as well as atheism). The difference is that the founding figure of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth, commanded people to love each other and live as brothers and sisters. Most Christians do not practice that. But they still keep the commandment somewhere in the back of their minds, and it is a great influence on Christian culture. As long as people believe in Jesus, His words have the authority to change the world for the better.

I find religion dominating and a way to control the mob.

I find religion to be the best means to achieve self-control. It also provides a much needed dose of humility. We are but tiny grains of sand in the universe, and we need to be reminded of it every now and then so that we won't get carried away by our pride.

[Edric O]

And I'm sure there weren't any other societies existing pre-AD, like the ancient Greeks, or the Egyptians, etc. ::)

I used the Romans as my example because they were the last non-Christian civilization in the West. The Greeks were very similar to the Romans (or rather the other way around - the Romans copied a lot from the Greeks). As for the Ancient Egyptians, are you coming out in support of a culture based on theocracy?

A complete ban of all killing? Hardly. The OT (a Jewish and Christian document) documents many ways in which killing is warranted and even encouraged. If you want to take a look at Western society, killing somebody in defense is allowable or to protect another person.

Christians interpret the interdiction on killing much more strictly than the ancient Jews did. Taking into account Jesus' words about how you should behave towards your enemies, it is logical for a Christian to oppose killing even in self-defense.

Of course, Western society does not follow Christian morality perfectly, and it never did. However, it has been very strongly influenced by Christian morality and it tends to follow it more often than not.

I love how Christians declare their values being their special creation, all the while ignoring the thousands of years of societies beforehand that held the same values.

Obviously Christian values didn't pop out of thin air. Christian culture evolved out of older societies and cultures.

But those older societies don't exist any more, and, in any case, no one in his right mind could deny the fact that Christian culture has some unique features (just like, say, Hindu culture has some unique features).

Maintaining the argument with corrupt societies like Rome or Nord is much the strawman.

Fine. Why don't YOU give me an example of an advanced culture that you believe is better than Christian culture?

[Caid Ivik]

Time to move this thread to the Poems, Rants and Peanuts board.

Jj, one comes to weep his pain out of soul and our great thinkers turn it into a philosophic debate  ;D

[MrFlibble]

So, yes, "do not kill" is very much a Christian value. It is true that many Christian values are now shared by large populations of non-Christians across the world, but this is only due to the cultural domination of Europe over the past few centuries.

In Zoroastrianism, which is far older than Christianity (I won't be talking about its influences on the latter here), bans killing completely, and all life is deemed sacred. Even those animals that are considered evil, twisted creations (like serpents or like) should not be killed as this brings even more evil into the world.

[Apollyon]

Ok, basically the rules are there as guidelines, they shouldn't be considered the only thing that could get you banned. I've updated them to specify that.

And emprworm hasn't exactly had a clean track record either. I like the guy but he can go overboard sometimes.

OK, Gob. But

Ultimately, you signed up to the rules as a precondition for posting. If you then break them, you have no grounds for complaint.

Is kind of non-applicable (or at least very muddy), then. Just pointing it out.

[gunner154]

Having been away for a while (damn you, preliminary examinations!) and just returned from a break from it... wow.

And I've been to his site and saw,

"Until people are free to express views that offend, there cannot be true freedom

We cannot mask our own intolerance by throwing around terms like "hatemonger", or "xenophobia".  Simply because we do not like what we hear does not give us the right to silence."

I used to have that kind of opinion too, but like we all know, it's too extreme. Might as well resort to swear words.

[Gobalopper]

Is kind of non-applicable (or at least very muddy), then. Just pointing it out.

This is what you agree to when you sign up:

You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, please realize that they may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well.

You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.

You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password out to another person except an administrator, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another person's account for any reason.  We also HIGHLY recommend you use a complex and unique password for your account, to prevent account theft.

After you register and login to this forum, you will be able to fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clean and accurate information. Any information the forum owner or staff determines to be inaccurate or vulgar in nature will be removed, with or without prior notice. Appropriate sanctions may be applicable.

Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.

Also note that the software places a cookie, a text file containing bits of information (such as your username and password), in your browser's cache. This is ONLY used to keep you logged in/out. The software does not collect or send any other form of information to your computer.

As you can see the things listed here are a little more comprehensive then on the rules page.

[Tako]

taken from emp's own site:

"The mods at dune2k's philosophy forum make sure that no one is offended.  What they do not realize is that their forum is full of offensive posts to people who are social conservatives.  When I and millions of others who share my conservative views read those posts and see images of swastikas superimposed over America, we get offended.  But guess what?  I can take it.  Its a religion and philosophy forum!  If you cannot handle the heat, then go somewhere else.  Sadly, the wrong people are modding.  They ban posters who make "offensive" posts.  Offensive to who?  To them of course!  They regularly permit posts that would offend 75% of the worlds Christians and millions of Americans, but don't you dare offend a Muslim (or them)!  Doh! In short, they just don't want to be "stirred" by anyone.  Its a safe, leftist forum, impervious to opposition.  For anyone who is a capitalist and pro-bush supporter, unless your posts are extremely mild and void of all emotion, you will see a ban stick from one of the ultra-sensitive, easily offended mods.  Sure, the leftist mods will permit a conservative capitalist to post, but they will not tolerate any passion or emotion from such a person.  They only permit passionate posts that conform to their worldview.  Anything else is "xenophobia", "homophobia", "islamophobia" or whatever other kind of crutch "phobia" they can think of to justify their intolerance and intellectual frailty.  Out of curiosity, I wonder why Edrico was never banned for Ameriphobia when he superimposed Nazi swastika's over the American flag?  My ban was for "blatant islamophobia" (and Edrico tried to ban me once for the all-powerful crutch of 'xenophobia').  I guess blatant ameriphobia is perfectly legit.

Bah!  That forum was always run by insecure kids with no tolerance for conservative views.  My mistake was that I thought they grew up by now."

sounds like he was holding a gruch a long time why did he return? I agree with him that we should express our feelings but:

there are limits and perspectives, the christian history is not without some extreme bloodshed so do not think the islam is the only one.

besides there is a extreme branch in every religion (best just admid it) luckely there are lots of others who think the other way!

my advice keep it civil, in perspective or stay away

[nemafakei]

"That forum was always run by insecure kids with no tolerance for conservative views"

Yeah, that does make me laugh a bit. Every staff member is in their twenties at least, and the top two are conservative leaning (last time I checked, anyway).

"Is kind of non-applicable (or at least very muddy), then. Just pointing it out."

Not really. Whereas you previously had something like "These are the rules - break them, you'll be mauled by Gob's claws; otherwise, you're fine", we now have "These are the rules - break them, you'll be mauled by Gob's claws, but breaking the literal written rules is not the only way to get eaten by a yeti."

[Mahdi]

Gob and who's the second Nema?

[ordos45]

I thought the second conservative was Nema.  (And see guys, Gob clears things up nicely.) 

[alchemi2]

Didn't see wormies posts (censored), so can't judge the situation, using the word animals in reference to terrorists of any religion is an insult to animals not to the group in my eyes.

"You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum."

After reading this opening paragraph, it occurs that many of us should be "BANNED" especially for the sexually oriented and profane parts and let's not even start to examine the inaccurate bit, that would be a real can of worms.

Obviously there is more to this whole situation than meets the eye and possibly past behaviour is still fresh in someones heart, after all old wounds may heal but the scars still show.

[nemafakei]

Forgive me, Mahdi, - I was thinking you (I'm not entirely sure why I had that inmy head). That said, socially (which is what empr highlights), both Edric and I are also quite conservative.

Alchemi2, unfortunately, I've mostly given up on censoring vulgarity. 'Inaccurate' is certainly not something we'll normally mod, as it's impossible to verify. It's probably there in case you insult someone, edit the post, ans lie about it afterwards. Or possibly to cover Gob's legal liability.

[Cyborg]

I've mostly given up on censoring vulgarity.

Yay! :P

[Gobalopper]

A lot of that wording comes from when Westwood made us the official Emperor board. And just because we have it does not mean we will ban or delete posts of anyone who may break one particular section of it.

And remember guys, emprworm was banned for one day not forever, he was then subsequently banned for 7 days because he created an alternate account, thats it, nothing more. I hardly think that was harsh treatment. He is more then welcome to come back once his ban is over.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Christians have been called much worse on these forums than "muslim animals"

Chrisitans have been called morons, idiots, you name it on this board.  However people are sensitive to criticism of muslims because there are no muslims on this board to defend themselves.  I dont think foul language for either is appropriate........ but lets not power trip on the members ok?  banning someone...even for a day is very rude especially when someone has been on a 3 year break and is a veteran member.  It may be only 1 day but it hurts people's feelings nonetheless and it would be nice if we had more moderating and less power-tripping.

I do remember Nema giving warnings to those who have insulted christians, but emprworm didnt get a warning... just a flat out 1-day bann.... and for the record people dont know that its just a one-day bann... when you bann someone for one day... and they cant get back in all day... for all they know its a permanent bann. So when they get extreemely pissed off its understandable.  I often laugh when mods bann someone for a day...dont explain that its just a day.... and then are soooo surprised when the person gets enraged thinking they are perma-banned.  So a warning that the one-day bann might be incoming if the person doesnt behave would be very appropriate for one who is a moderator exercising their power.  Its the decent thing to do and it will prevent massive rage and sympathy posts like this.  Lets try to think logically here.

Thanks

Guns

[Andrew]

Muslims in the Middle East are almost rioting over the Pope quoting an Emperor from the 14th century.

[alchemi2]

I thinks Guns has a very good point, why didn't the Mod just modify the post or dungeon the topic? Was a warning given that if the unacceptable behavior continued then a ban would be imposed! If your not told it's a one day ban how are you supposed to know? It seems to me that if emperorworm didn't no that the ban was one day, then the 2nd account seems reasonable and resulting 7 day ban unreasonable, afterall he only wanted to have a final say before accepting his ban. having read his comments on his website i again see what he is saying, whilst not necessarily agreeing with his point of view.

I must say i have read far more inflammatory and down right bigotted post on the politic boards of this and other forums. It is generally accept on most forums that thing may get intense in these areas and more leeway is generally given.

I think the questions this banning episode raise are was the ban imposed for what was said or based on what would be said, prejudging of his passed behaviour.

[Acriku]

Christians have been called much worse on these forums than "muslim animals"

Chrisitans have been called morons, idiots, you name it on this board.

First, post the threads that say that. Second, being called sub-human, or an animal, is far worse. You may be moronic (not you, but generally), but at least I'm still referring to you as human.

However people are sensitive to criticism of muslims because there are no muslims on this board to defend themselves.  I dont think foul language for either is appropriate........ but lets not power trip on the members ok?  banning someone...even for a day is very rude especially when someone has been on a 3 year break and is a veteran member.  It may be only 1 day but it hurts people's feelings nonetheless and it would be nice if we had more moderating and less power-tripping.

I highly doubt Nema was on a power trip when he banned emprworm. Although it is highly amusing to have you talk about it not being a big deal if we call muslims 'animals' but then say it isn't nice to ban someone for a day, or some feelings might have been hurt. I sympathize with emprworm, but lower the double-standards here.

I do remember Nema giving warnings to those who have insulted christians, but emprworm didnt get a warning... just a flat out 1-day bann.... and for the record people dont know that its just a one-day bann... when you bann someone for one day... and they cant get back in all day... for all they know its a permanent bann. So when they get extreemely pissed off its understandable.  I often laugh when mods bann someone for a day...dont explain that its just a day.... and then are soooo surprised when the person gets enraged thinking they are perma-banned.  So a warning that the one-day bann might be incoming if the person doesnt behave would be very appropriate for one who is a moderator exercising their power.  Its the decent thing to do and it will prevent massive rage and sympathy posts like this.  Lets try to think logically here.

Thanks

Guns

You're right that communicating that it was just for one day might have been helpful (esp. since it would've given emprworm a reason not to create another account).

[GUNWOUNDS]

Acriku... its not double standards.... i dont think its right to insult others.. but i sure as hell dont think its right to bann people either for offenses far less than what occurs on a daily basis in PRP.  Especially someone like emprworm who debates with the purpose of debating not insulting.   There is a guy on here who was perma-banned for constantly insulting Jews as a race and he was perma-baned.  That i agree with.... that wasnt debate, that was pure racism.  However Emprwrm was calling terrorist muslims like Osama "animals"  ... which i agree with Alchemi is an insult to the poor animals.  Also... lets be real... "animal" is not really that huge of an insult, considering what else has been posted on these forums.   

Also isnt Emprwrm simply attacking the violent interpretation of Islam perpetuated by Osama bin Laden.....and the many conversions by the sword of Mohammed?  Or am i missing something? People bring up the crusades all the time... but i think bringing up terrorists in more sensitive since its present day.  I think that people need warnings in these cases so that they can get a chance too cool off... because these PRP discussions get heated.  I remember a Homosexuality thread where a member called "Dan" personally threatened to kill me in real life and went totally offtopic screaming that he wanted to kick my ass, etc, etc.  I dont think he was banned for a day, even though his attacks were clearly personal.  Once again the liberals get a get out of jail free card. I think Emprwrm was a victim of moderator vendetta, as i personally havent seen Nema react/post that way....actually saw a glimpse of emotion from the otherwise emotionless persona.

I think Emprwrm needs to take some lessons from Acriku in the subtle art of insulting a religion w/o setting off the moderator radar.  *Psssst*  Emprwrm pay attention and see how its done!

p.s.- i think another point Emprwrm was trying to make that probably went over many people's heads is that violence in the muslim religion is not "just" carried out by terrorists.  Mohammed raided many caravans and decapitated many people.  Last i remember Jesus only whipped a few money changers.  Islam may be considered a peaceful religion but there are definitely more instances of violence in the Qu'ran by the most prominent characters, and is generally considered to be more demeaning to women.  While there are some violent episodes in the Old Testament,  atleast Christianity has the New Testament telling us "What to do now" (which is peaceful), whilst the muslims are only left with Mohammed brandishing a sword, no peaceful "new testament" set as an example for future generations, just a lasting impression of violence from the most revered Prophet.  The funny thing is that the only peaceful verses concerning conversion from Mohammed come BEFORE he rose to power.  The verses where he said "no force in the matters of faith" ..... is something he said when he still felt threatened and wasnt in power yet.  Once he rose to power he had no qualms unsheathing that sword.  So Islam starts out peaceful and then progressively becomes more violent as the Prophet gains power.  Quite the total reverse of Christianity's progressive peacefulness.

Guns