From: Bodie (mclarkc@essex.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 07:30:39 MST
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, L' Ermit wrote:
> [Hermit 1] Perhaps, except that this will encourage the godly. Which is why
> we previously determined that people advocating a non-atheist or irrational
> stance have no right whatsoever to make use of our "pulpit", although we
> carefully did not determine exactly where the limits were, as that would
> depend, to a large extent on the scope, advocates and style of the advocacy.
> The only question in this instance is whether this instance is approaching
> the limits or not. Which requires discussion and eventually list consensus,
> which will probably, though not necessarily, be determined by a vote. When
> somebody using our platform will not discuss their viewpoint, it becomes a
> question of whether this is in and of itself irrational, or if there is some
> other way to determine their perspective. Some discussion on this issue may
> be good. Should we just boot them, or should they be ignored, knowing that
> if we permit this, that such discussion will take over the CoV simply
> because it will tend to drive off those most capable of engaging in rational
> discussion (recognizing that there has been very little of that recently
> anyway). Or is there another path? Suggestions are, as always, welcomed.
Maybe we should have a bigger discussion about this. I think we should
only kick people from the mailing list when it is the last possibly resort
and that person has been constantly abusive and destructive to the
memespace we have created. The recent discussions certainly fall in to
that catagory, and I would support kicking yash if that was what was
finally agreed. Also I would support some kind of voting system and we
would only kick a person if we had something like 90% agreement. I don't
really think a general majority would be a good idea.
> [Hermit 1] Oh, been there done that. I have a nice collection of babbels and
> other so-called "sacred works" which I read from time to time and can
> probably talk to the topic as well or better than most anyone else here -
> but don't choose to - or at least, not here. Neither I think, do most of the
> congregation. The reason is simple. Discussing religion - outside of its
> memetic or possibly historical implications (within indeterminate limits) -
> opens the door to an invasion of nutcases, lunatics and lay preachers that
> could make Yash look positively attractive. Given that we tend not to toss
> people out of our church, or at least not in a hurry, opening the door to
> this would be to invite an invasion of the mindless. In addition, it seems
> likely that we have a number of members who are still not completely decided
> on their stance, and it would not be fair to raise theological issues from
> the CoV's atheist perspective without also opening the door to the Deistic
> or Theistic viewpoint. It was for these reasons that we as a church,
> determined that theological discussions were off topic.
>
> [Hermit 1] There are thousands of locations, on mail-lists, Usenet and IRC
> where religious discussions can be held. Most of them are nests of the class
> of flame-fest we are currently suffering. Anyone desiring such conversations
> (for any particular religion, or religion in general) and not knowing where
> to start is welcome to ask me off-list for suggestions. For myself, I don't
> think that it would be good for the CoV. Do you?
Point taken, I can see the logic in that
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT