Atheism is the world's most intolerant religion.

Drealm wrote

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.

Are you like the token moron on the forum that they use to waste people's time with random idiocies?
The statement put fourth in 1. is a PREMISE, not an assumption.  If you're not educated enough to know the difference, look it up in wikipedia.
Now, do you still disagree with the PREMISE that my presence on this forum was to take issue with fschmidt's behavior, rather than his ideas?  'Cause we can argue about that for a while, it matters not to me which way you make yourself look foolish.

TByte wrote

Are you like the token moron on the forum that they use to waste people's time with random idiocies?
The statement put fourth in 1. is a PREMISE, not an assumption.  If you're not educated enough to know the difference, look it up in wikipedia.
Now, do you still disagree with the PREMISE that my presence on this forum was to take issue with fschmidt's behavior, rather than his ideas?  'Cause we can argue about that for a while, it matters not to me which way you make yourself look foolish.

TByte - Read your own question to yourself.

Your question is "would you at least have the honesty to concede that point before posting yet another incoherent reply?"

If someone responds "yes I have the honesty" or "no I don't have the honesty", EITHER OR STILL confirms the previous statement (1). This is obviously circular logic.

But there's no point in reasoning with you. I gave you a chance to prove you're not a troll and you threw it away. You start every statement with an ad hominem attack, you avoid direct questions and you post nonsensical scribbles. So whether you're a troll or not, I don't care. Being branded a troll is the consequence of carrying yourself in a manner that's beneath a man of reason. You're not here to prove a point, you're here to entertain yourself. I'm sure if this was a liberal forum, you'd play the conservative. You don't have affiliation to any particular ideas or beliefs - you play whatever role gives you the most attention.

And you are doing absolutely everything EXCEPT answer whether you still contend that my participation on this forum was to discuss ideas, or to discuss behavior.
It is self-evident from my first post that I came here to discuss ideas.  The only reason you can't bring yourself to acknowledge this is because it would be an admission that you're comments regarding me where purely personal in nature, and any resemblance they had to reality was purely coincidental.  You were just throwing out ignorant slanders about me, so I picked them up and threw them back in your face.
And there they've stuck.

Oops.  Its late.  As I've said in all my other posts, its self evident that I'm came here to discuss fschmidt's behavior.

TByte, you are repeating yourself, and boring me as a result.

TByte wrote

So, are you prepared now to state equivocally, yes or no, whether you have condoned the raping of women?

This is a repeat of this post to which I responded.

TByte wrote

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.

You sound like Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland" who said "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."  If you are interested in reality, Wikipedia discusses the difference between civil and political rights.

Regardless, you were at least advocating the curtailment of half the population's "political" rights, which any normal person would find offensive.

And what fraction of the population is under 18 and can't vote as a result?  Should they also be offended by those who think they shouldn't vote?  In any case, I refined my position here and I have no problem with women voting as long as they can't impose their will on men.

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, are you aware of the fact that you are repeating yourself again and again?  If not, maybe you should be checked for Alzheimer's.

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.

This is a tiny forum.  Just you and I in one forum represents far more diversity than exists on Atheist Nexus.  All of the philosophies that you listed are a direct product of the Enlightenment and so collectively represent one sliver of Western thought from a historical perspective.  No one of a Confucian background or who thought like an Ancient Athenian or an Early Roman would fit into Atheist Nexus (even if they were atheist).

Oh, dear god yes.  I am all too aware that I am repeating myself over and over again.  I can't help wondering how many times I'll have to repeat a simple question such as "Have you condoned the raping of women" before you bring yourself to typing out a simple yes or no answer.
By the way, for the vast majority of civilized human beings, the answer is "No".
So I'll make you a deal.  I'll stop repeating my questions when you start answering them.

---

Given the extremly diverse nature of the members of Atheist Nexus at the moment, there is no reason to think that a confucian would not be welcomed, and the same goes for an "Ancient Roman", if you truly want to dive into hypotheticals.
But I doubt that you were even banned for your views.  I've pissed a lot more people off there than you have.  I suspect that you were banned for violating the terms of service, which are meant to exclude bible-thumpers.  I can forgive the founders of the forum for not anticipating the existence of an atheist bible-thumper.
Regardless, what is COMPLETELY FALSE is your statement at the start of this thread that you said nothing offensive on the forum.  That's just a lie.  I'd be happy to have a discussion with you about what should and should not be permissible on this, or that, or any other forum.  But not if you are going to start conversations with misrepresentations.
Honesty is supposed to be one of the virtues you admire, isn't it?
Well, lets have some.
Oh, wait.  There I go repeating myself again....

TByte wrote

Oh, dear god yes.  I am all too aware that I am repeating myself over and over again.  I can't help wondering how many times I'll have to repeat a simple question such as "Have you condoned the raping of women" before you bring yourself to typing out a simple yes or no answer.
By the way, for the vast majority of civilized human beings, the answer is "No".
So I'll make you a deal.  I'll stop repeating my questions when you start answering them.

No deal.  This question is off topic.  And what I say in private is no one's business, so I will not answer any questions about what I say in private.  So if you keep repeating the same question, I will just ignore you.

Given the extremly diverse nature of the members of Atheist Nexus at the moment, there is no reason to think that a confucian would not be welcomed, and the same goes for an "Ancient Roman", if you truly want to dive into hypotheticals.

If you have read Livy, then you would know that the rape of the Sabine women was portrayed as a positive event, and this is how it was viewed during the Roman Republic.  Undoubtedly, Livy would be quickly expelled from Atheist Nexus.

But I doubt that you were even banned for your views.  I've pissed a lot more people off there than you have.  I suspect that you were banned for violating the terms of service, which are meant to exclude bible-thumpers.  I can forgive the founders of the forum for not anticipating the existence of an atheist bible-thumper.

And a bible-thumper is what exactly?  Oh yeah, someone who doesn't hold liberal views.

Regardless, what is COMPLETELY FALSE is your statement at the start of this thread that you said nothing offensive on the forum.  That's just a lie.  I'd be happy to have a discussion with you about what should and should not be permissible on this, or that, or any other forum.  But not if you are going to start conversations with misrepresentations.
Honesty is supposed to be one of the virtues you admire, isn't it?
Well, lets have some.
Oh, wait.  There I go repeating myself again....

Yup, repeating yourself again, and lying again.

If Livy joined Atheist Nexus and began advocating the rape of women, then yes I would expect him to receive sour treatment.
Likewise Thomas Jefferson, were he to join and begin extolling the virtues of slavery.
Would they by booted?  I have no idea.  But if they started extolling the virtues of mythology and tauting them as superior to rational thinking, then they most certainly would be booted.
As you were.  Because that is a violation of the terms of membership on the forum.

And no, a Bible-thumper is not simply a non-liberal.  There are liberal religious zealots, as well as conservative atheists.  I'm sure you are aware of this in the back of your mind, but just choose not to let it intrude into your settled dogma.
So you are wrong once again.  Surprise, surprise.

Your comments regarding the raping of American women were public, not private, as you are also well aware.  Nevertheless, as long as you don't publicly deny making such statements I'll respect your wish to let the matter drop, as your side-stepping of the issue has done as good a job at putting your violent and despicable opinions on record as necessary.

And while we're at it, why can't you just come out and admit that you made statements that were offensive to the members of the Atheist Nexus forum?  Your continued denying of this not only destroys any shred of credibility you might retain, but also puts into doubt the sincerity of the views you expressed.
I'm just asking for a little honesty, that's all.  You do value honesty don't you?  Or maybe not.

TByte wrote

But if they started extolling the virtues of mythology and tauting them as superior to rational thinking, then they most certainly would be booted.
As you were.  Because that is a violation of the terms of membership on the forum.

Really?  Show me the link?  Or are you lying again?

Your comments regarding the raping of American women were public, not private, as you are also well aware.  Nevertheless, as long as you don't publicly deny making such statements I'll respect your wish to let the matter drop, as your side-stepping of the issue has done as good a job at putting your violent and despicable opinions on record as necessary.

My original comments were private and then parts, out of context, were made public by some liberals.  My comments were milder than the opinions of Livy, Homer, and the Old Testament, but are not politically correct in our intolerant liberal times, so I keep them private.

On the other hand, your general lack of civility is public record right here in this thread.  This thread is public record, and decent people can decide for themselves which of us has conducted himself in a more decent manner.

And while we're at it, why can't you just come out and admit that you made statements that were offensive to the members of the Atheist Nexus forum?  Your continued denying of this not only destroys any shred of credibility you might retain, but also puts into doubt the sincerity of the views you expressed.
I'm just asking for a little honesty, that's all.  You do value honesty don't you?  Or maybe not.

On this I would be happy to oblige.  I have never claimed not to have offended members of Atheist Nexus, and I have no doubt that I did offend them.  Why?  Because, as I explained in my initial post, atheists are the world's most intolerant people, and intolerant people are offended by any opinion that differs from their own.  Undoubtedly many members of Atheist Nexus were terribly offended by the idea that I could hold opinions with which they don't agree.

Aug 27, 2011; 10:52pm. fschimidt claims he did not claim that he did not claim to have been offensive.

fschmidt wrote

I have never claimed not to have offended members of Atheist Nexus, and I have no doubt that I did offend them.

Let me refresh your memory:
August 16th 2011, 6:01 pm.  fschmidt claims he did not post anything offensive on Atheist Nexus.

fschmidt wrote

I didn't post anything terribly controversial, nothing nasty about women or anything like that

You are repeating yourself again, to which I responded.  This is getting boring.

Well, if you're still claiming that your statement meant you had not said anything the misogynists on this forum would not have considered offensive, then that is akin to a member of NAMBLA complaining to his fellow pedophiles about being booted off of parenting.com.
Its a pretty lame excuse.  By the standards of the forum which you joined, your statements were offensive.  It is the standard of the forum on which you were a guest that is the measure of whether you were rude or not.