Atheism is the world's most intolerant religion.

TByte wrote

Mr. Schmidt portrayed himself as being inoffensive on the other forum, which was not the case.  This pretty neatly sums up his level of integrity.

I never made this claim, so you are a liar.

And I guess I'll sum up by saying that if Atheists are the least tolerant of misogyny, bigotry, servitude, and the destruction of civil rights, that is a badge they would wear with honor.

There is a big difference between being intolerant of ideas or actions.  Before liberalism, we used to have this idea called "freedom of speech".  Modern liberals, like Stalinists, have no use for free speech.  So it doesn't surprise me that it is a badge of honor for you to censor ideas that you disagree with.

Are you SERIOUSLY going to claim that this post was not meant to imply that you were not offensive?
"I didn't post anything terribly controversial, nothing nasty about women or anything like that. "
Is English your second language or something?  Do I need to refer you to www.thesaurus.com:
http://thesaurus.com/browse/nasty
Main Entry: nasty
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: disgusting, offensive 
I feel like I'm dealing with a grade-schooler here.  Go sit in the corner young man, until you learn to act like a man.

It is interesting, TByte, how you put personal insults into all of your posts.  This is very typical of liberals, something readers of this thread should recognize.

My "terribly controversial, nothing nasty" statement was aimed at readers of THIS forum, not your pathetic atheist forum.  And by OUR standards, my statement was accurate as Drealm explained.  The difference between what I said and the word "offensive" is that what is "offensive" depends on the reader where it was posted (in the atheist forum), but what is nasty is as understood here.  I explained this before but since you seem to have run out of criticisms, you just repeat yourself while adding new personal insults.

TByte wrote

It matters not whether they would be controversial in this forum.  Mr. Schmidt portrayed himself as being inoffensive on the other forum, which was not the case.  This pretty neatly sums up his level of integrity.

Actually it matters a great deal, fschmidt was speaking to the audience of this form. So his original post was perfectly in context. You're whole elaborate tantrum is based on a simple reading comprehension error. The fact that you've wasted so much time constructing such an elaborate argument out of such a small nuance of human language indicates you're either obsessive compulsive or a troll.

TByte wrote

Personally, I would have left his rants there as a record of his failed attempts to justify his ideas.  Coming across that thread would have save the members of the next forum he infects a great deal of time.  They could have jumped directly to any of the many arguments he was unable to counter.

It's funny how you liberal atheists shun away from Christianity, but in the very same breath adopt a pseudo christian belief system to push liberal-universalism.

TByte wrote

And I guess I'll sum up by saying that if Atheists are the least tolerant of misogyny, bigotry, servitude, and the destruction of civil rights, that is a badge they would wear with honor.

Obfuscation seems to be another badge you wear.

"My 'terribly controversial, nothing nasty' statement was aimed at readers of THIS forum, not your pathetic atheist forum."

No doubt.  And no doubt as well it was meant to imply that you did nothing to offend anyone on that forum.  As I said before, you lack the moral courage in your convictions to actually state "Yes, I got banned because the ideas I put forward were offensive to all the other members".
The speed with which you donned the mantle of oppressed victimhood would make any Feminist proud.

Drealm wrote

TByte wrote

Personally, I would have left his rants there as a record of his failed attempts to justify his ideas.  Coming across that thread would have save the members of the next forum he infects a great deal of time.  They could have jumped directly to any of the many arguments he was unable to counter.

It's funny how you liberal atheists shun away from Christianity, but in the very same breath adopt a pseudo christian belief system to push liberal-universalism.

Where in that phrase was anything related to a pseudo christian belief in liberal-universalism?
You make no more sense than your daddy.

TByte wrote

As I said before, you lack the moral courage in your convictions to actually state "Yes, I got banned because the ideas I put forward were offensive to all the other members".

And I suppose those sent to the Gulags by Stalin should have had the moral courage in their convictions to actually state "Yes, I got sent to the Gulag because the ideas I put forward were offensive to the Communist Party".  Yes, I am familiar with your way of thinking.  My parents lived in Eastern Europe under Stalin.

TByte wrote

Drealm wrote

TByte wrote

Personally, I would have left his rants there as a record of his failed attempts to justify his ideas.  Coming across that thread would have save the members of the next forum he infects a great deal of time.  They could have jumped directly to any of the many arguments he was unable to counter.

It's funny how you liberal atheists shun away from Christianity, but in the very same breath adopt a pseudo christian belief system to push liberal-universalism.

Where in that phrase was anything related to a pseudo christian belief in liberal-universalism?
You make no more sense than your daddy.

Your zero sum logic about ideas. They're either right or wrong. You have no concept of relativity. More importantly you focus only on ideas but care little about behavior.

Do you just have a little Scrabble bag full of words you've heard other people use, from which you draw randomly to concoct your posts?  People who actually KNOW something about this subject are aware that liberals and atheists incline towards moral relativism, whereas conservative and the religiously minded believe in a universalism of defined right and wrong.

Moreover clearly my presence on this forum is to take fschmidt to task on his BEHAVIOR in dishonestly portraying his actions on Atheist Nexus, rather than the ideas he proposed.  Drealm, would you at least have the honesty to concede that point before posting yet another incoherent reply?

TByte wrote

People who actually KNOW something about this subject are aware that liberals and atheists incline towards moral relativism, whereas conservative and the religiously minded believe in a universalism of defined right and wrong.

No, what liberals and atheists incline towards is dishonesty.  If they actually were moral relativists, they wouldn't get so upset that my morality differs from theirs.  Liberals are universal absolutists.

...said the man who started this thread by lieing.   And the atheists were not upset that your ideas were different.  They were upset that you advocate RAPING WOMEN and RESTRICTING CIVIL RIGHTS.  There's a wide range of views expresssed on Atheist Nexus, so once again it is you who is being dishonest. 
I'd argue about whether atheists believe in universal truths, bit since you are so thoroughly outnumbered by phalanxes of fellow conservative wingnuts who decry our moral relativism, I'll let you sort that out with them first.

TByte wrote

And the atheists were
not upset that your ideas were different.  They were upset that you advocate
RAPING WOMEN and RESTRICTING CIVIL RIGHTS.

Please stop lying.  I did not advocate either on Atheist Nexus.  Note that voting is a political right, not a civil right.

There's a wide range of views
expresssed on Atheist Nexus, so once again it is you who is being
dishonest.

This is so absurd that it qualifies as humor.

I'd argue about whether atheists believe in universal truths, bit since you
are so thoroughly outnumbered by phalanxes of fellow conservative wingnuts
who decry our moral relativism, I'll let you sort that out with them first.

I am not conservative, I am reactionary, so what conservatives say is irrelevant to me.

TByte wrote

Do you just have a little Scrabble bag full of words you've heard other people use, from which you draw randomly to concoct your posts?  People who actually KNOW something about this subject are aware that liberals and atheists incline towards moral relativism, whereas conservative and the religiously minded believe in a universalism of defined right and wrong.

And what authority are you appealing to for knowing this subject? For starters, liberals and atheists are categorically different terms. Of course you've bastardized atheism to be an extension of liberalism so I don't expect you to acknowledge this. Conservatives don't expect world peace, reconciliation or multiculturalism. For this reason conservatives qualify in many respects as being much more open minded.

TByte wrote

Moreover clearly my presence on this forum is to take fschmidt to task on his BEHAVIOR in dishonestly portraying his actions on Atheist Nexus, rather than the ideas he proposed.  

He was booted for his ideas, not his behavior. He's been civilized towards you and this forum as a whole has afforded you a luxury to speak that your atheist forum conceded. You on the other hand are a text book example of a hate filled, uncivilized, liberal who focuses on ideas but ignores all moral practice.

TByte wrote

Drealm, would you at least have the honesty to concede that point before posting yet another incoherent reply?

You really love begging this question.

fschmidt wrote

TByte wrote

And the atheists were
not upset that your ideas were different.  They were upset that you advocate
RAPING WOMEN and RESTRICTING CIVIL RIGHTS.

Please stop lying.  I did not advocate either on Atheist Nexus.  Note that voting is a political right, not a civil right.

So, are you prepared now to state equivocally, yes or no, whether you have condoned the raping of women?  Or does that still require too much effort from you?
Also, in the United States voting is a civil right for citizens.  You're just being weaselly again with definitions, which is a sorry substitute for reason and honesty.  Regardless, you were at least advocating the curtailment of half the population's "political" rights, which any normal person would find offensive.  And even though you aren't normal, you were well aware that such comments would be offensive.  So once again we are back to square one dealing with your dishonest (and, I repeat, cowardly) portrayal of your booting from Atheist Nexus.

fschmidt wrote

TByte wrote

There's a wide range of views expresssed on Atheist Nexus, so once again it is you who is being
dishonest.

This is so absurd that it qualifies as humor.

It is not at all absurd.   It's a demonstrable fact.  We have feminists, chauvinists, equalists.  We have libertarians, conservatives, socialists, anarchists, and one token communist to boot.
There is a far greater diversity on Atheist Nexus than there is in this little club of yours, so once again you are factually incorrect.  I'm sure this won't be the last time.

Drealm, you are clearly out-classed here.  My responses had nothing to do with "begging the question".  I'm really beginning to wonder whether you have any clue about what you write.  Its practically word salad.

Look, I'll make this really simple for you:
1) Twice now you have accused me of focusing on ideas rather than behavior and morality.
2) Virtually all my posts on this sorry little forum have been focused on Mr. Schmidt's behavior, not his ideas.
Thus, you are a fool.
Please stick to actual examples of things I have said, rather than claiming that red is blue, up is down, etc.

TByte wrote

So, are you prepared now to state equivocally, yes or no, whether you have condoned the raping of women?  Or does that still require too much effort from you? Also, in the United States voting is a civil right for citizens.  You're just being weaselly again with definitions, which is a sorry substitute for reason and honesty.  Regardless, you were at least advocating the curtailment of half the population's "political" rights, which any normal person would find offensive.  And even though you aren't normal, you were well aware that such comments would be offensive.  So once again we are back to square one dealing with your dishonest (and, I repeat, cowardly) portrayal of your booting from Atheist Nexus.

TByte, again, your exasperating tantrum is a reading-comprehension-error. This thread is made on our forums, for our members - your standards of offensive don't apply here.

Also why do you insist on trying prove a point about a completely subjective standard?

TByte wrote

It is not at all absurd.   It's a demonstrable fact.  We have feminists, chauvinists, equalists.  We have libertarians, conservatives, socialists, anarchists, and one token communist to boot.
There is a far greater diversity on Atheist Nexus than there is in this little club of yours, so once again you are factually incorrect.  I'm sure this won't be the last time.

Like fschmidt said, absurd. And you just lied again. All the demonstrable evidence is right in front of us. fschmidt was booted and you weren't. Every post you make here is a testament to your hypocrisy.

Drealm, we are discussing whether fschimdt's behavior was offensive on Atheist Nexus, not whether it is deemed offensive in this community.
Please make at least some effort to understand the nature of the conversation before posting.
Also, the fact that one person got banned from a forum is in no way a reflection on the overall diversity of the forum.  Diversity is measured in the variety of views held and expounded upon by the forum's members.  So I am not a liar; you are just demonstrating your foolishness once more.

I'm not sure whether you're intentionally trying to obfuscate everything you say, or are just so self absorbed that you can't see your own biases.

You supplied a statement that contained both a answer and a question in it. This is BEGGING THE QUESTION. Because any response, validates the supplied answer. This is no different from asking:

What crimes have you committed?
How many times do you beat your wife?

I think at this point you're either intentionally driveling away posts that make no sense or your an absolute fanatic who's oblivious to their own biases.

Drealm wrote

TByte wrote

Drealm, would you at least have the honesty to concede that point before posting yet another incoherent reply?

You really love begging this question.

No, dumb-ass!  This is just a question!  It is not a question and an answer!  There's no circular reasoning involved!
Did you even bother to read the wikipedia article you referenced?  Apparently not.
So once again, do you still claim that I am focused more on ideas than behavior, and if so what is your supporting evidence?

TByte wrote

 No, dumb-ass!  This is just a question!  It is not a question and an answer!  There's no circular reasoning involved! Did you even bother to read the wikipedia article you referenced?  Apparently not. So once again, do you still claim that I am focused more on ideas than behavior, and if so what is your supporting evidence?

Like I said I don't know whether you're a troll or just incapable of thinking.

Direct wikipedia quote:

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof", or more generally denotes when an assumption is used, "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".

Now lets see your fake question:

TByte wrote

1. Moreover clearly my presence on this forum is to take fschmidt to task on his BEHAVIOR in dishonestly portraying his actions on Atheist Nexus, rather than the ideas he proposed.  

2. Drealm, would you at least have the honesty to concede that point before posting yet another incoherent reply?

The statment put fourth in 1. is an assumption. So whether a responder states yes or no to 2. - 1. will still be validated. It's a fake question.

Now here's a question for you, which isn't a fake question.

Can you acknowledge that our forum provides more freedom of speech than your forum? Can you acknoledge that we're providing you a privilege, which WAS NOT afforded to fschmidt?