Originally Posted by HigherFlyer
If you are saying that the Evangelical Christian faith is somehow superior to, or more legitimate on this forum than a 'Kangaroo bone faith', then it is YOU who are violating the TOC.
Really? According to the posted TOS (Italics mine):
Personal attacks
We invite and encourage a healthy exchange of opinions. If you disagree with an opinion or idea expressed by another member, by all means, challenge the opinion or idea - not the person. Personal attacks on individuals, insults and "flaming" will not be tolerated and will be removed. You may challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.
<snip>
Offensive Language/Material
Any posts containing communications that are knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, obscene, profane, threatening, harassing, offensive, vulgar, abusive, hateful or bashing -- especially those aimed at sexual orientation, gender, race, color, religious views, national origin, or disability - will not be tolerated and will be removed. Individuals who do not abide by these rules are subject to having their FlyerTalk account permanently deleted.
Seems to me that a poster who wishes to posit that one set of religious beliefs is superior (by whatever definition) to another is offering to engage in “a healthy exchange of opinions.” It may be foolhardy, but it seems to be “challeng[ing] the idea or opinion” not the person.
It is indeed true, of course, that in some repressive and unenlightened countries in the world, such a philosophical discussion would be culturally and perhaps even legally banned, but I have always (perhaps incorrectly) presumed that since FT is based in the United States, the TOS should be interpreted in accordance with US laws and culture, and such a discussion, if “respectful and thoughtful,” is well within the “tolerance zone” of reasoned debate.
Of course, if a poster used pejorative language, for instance calling one of the belief systems a “gutter religion,” that could hardly be said to be “respectful and thoughtful;” similarly, if a poster said of an individual – for example – “well, what else could one expect from a <enter faith here>” in a derogatory manner, that would constitute a personal attack, rather than a discussion of opinions or ideas.
And speaking of personal attacks, I would think that calling someone a “nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc.” (unless of course the “target” held himself out to be, or had been properly convicted of being a nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc.), besides being a violation of the TOS as not being “respectful and thoughtful,” would also constitute a “personal attack” in violation of the TOS.
It is one thing to posit “Resolved: That the President’s actions in the GWOT are ill-advised and counter-productive,” a topic which could easily be the subject of “respectful and thoughtful” – as well as spirited and even heated – discussion. It would seem, however, that simply calling the President names is neither “respectful" nor "thoughtful” and indeed may be said to cross the line into being “abusive”.
(And, with all respect to
PremEx, I did not interpret the provision of the TOS which I again set out below:
Personal attacks
We invite and encourage a healthy exchange of opinions. If you disagree with an opinion or idea expressed by another member, by all means, challenge the opinion or idea - not the person. Personal attacks on individuals, insults and "flaming" will not be tolerated and will be removed. You may challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.
as limiting the protection from personal attacks to members of
FlyerTalk. In my understanding, the second sentence does not modify the third sentence; the ban on personal attacks is not limited to responses to an “idea expressed by another member” but rather is a complete and universal ban. If I am correct and that is the case, calling the President names is a violation of the TOS even though he may not (how would we know?) be a registered member of FT.)
I am open for “respectful and thoughtful” discussion on what I said here. No flames, please.
