That is my hopes.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Go ahead and Talk about Religion
- Thread starter Fenway
- Start date
-
- Tags
- god is good
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
That is my hopes.
I would hope the mods with the 11lb trigger would set it to stun first for a3-7 day cooling off period before an outright shooter status would be permanently hung around the offenders proverbial neck.
I cant ant think of many meltdowns in and of themselves that would warrant shooter status out of the gate.
Now if you come back after a weeks forced vacation from the site and don't learn the lesson.... Then
status it is...
I would hope the mods with the 11lb trigger would set it to stun first for a3-7 day cooling off period before an outright shooter status would be permanently hung around the offenders proverbial neck.
I cant ant think of many meltdowns in and of themselves that would warrant shooter status out of the gate.
Now if you come back after a weeks forced vacation from the site and don't learn the lesson.... Then
I agree completely.
Thing to consider......If a member has a string of infractions for insults and inappropriate content it will be at the Mods discretion what to do.
Nothing is just "Black & white" so all things need to be considered.
That is what gets overlooked many times when someone gets the "Big" hammer.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
It has been four days short of eight months since I stopped posting on INGO, with this issue being the primary reason why. So far as I am concerned, Fenway and the mods have taken a very reasonable position on the matter which leads me to a few thoughts:
One of the most interesting discussions on religion that I have had was in person with a Christian of significantly different denominational background and an atheist. All three of us had an enjoyable time comparing ideas and learning more about each other. With a different issue with one side of the dissent usually resting on a religious foundation, one of the more interesting discussions on homosexuality in which I have participated involved a homosexual couple, a straight couple, an unattached homosexual, and me. Once again, it was an enjoyable conversation for all in spite of bringing significant differences and irreconcilable beliefs to the conversation. The common themes in both events are that those who are actually party to a controversy or a difference of position are generally easier to have a discussion with than are uninvolved apologists (case in point, most propagators of 'religion of peace' propaganda are NOT Moslems, and most homosexuals I have met are far less aggressive than are straight liberals). These experiences tell me that discussion of extremely thorny issues can take place without the discussion devolving into a virtual barroom brawl of the type that will result in bans.
The best way I can explain my own position on such matters is that all of the rights enumerated in the First Amendment rest upon the freedom of thought, which ultimately amounts to the right to be wrong. In the above-mentioned conversations, I was speaking with at least one person who considered my views to be wrong, and likewise had his or her views seen in the same way by me. I generally am willing to explain why I believe as I do but see no need for vitriol or nastiness with the caveat being that I am willing to take appropriate action in the case of someone else's belief system calling for inflicting harm on me or those about whom I care. The bottom line is that I find no need to encroach on anyone's freedom of thought with the caveat that the freedom of thought does not translate into freedom of doing unto me or mine.
While a friend has encouraged me to return to active participation, I am not sure about doing so. Having read this thread and the Ban Prediction thread, I have to wonder how much real discussion will be taking place and how much heckling especially from the ban vultures will be taking place. Much of the discussion so far seems to be snarky enough discourage a person from giving much thought to jumping in. My thought is that this little experiment will tell us much about the true nature of the INGO community for good or for ill. I am hoping for the best but have reservations. There are still a lot of good people on INGO, but I also see that there are plenty who are not such pleasant folks--and I have been surprised both ways. In my own experience, I have since 9/27/14 developed a significant amount of respect for someone who was one of my more outspoken critics and have also been surprised by people about whom I thought highly standing in line to kick me on the way to the door. This will definitely reveal a lot about what people are made of. That said, I, for one, am most likely to continue as I have been for a while.
Fenway's original post addresses an issue that stood out to me in a huge way from the beginning: Most of the activities which led to the prohibition on religious discussion (variations in interpretation of what constitutes religious discussion notwithstanding) were already against the rules. I am hoping for the best. Now, (cue sound of chains as anchor is raised) I am going to continue as I have been for the time being. My sincere hope is that this leads to discussion with comprehensive truth handled in a mature manner. Then again, it could go the direction of snarky delivery of Political Correctness which seems already to be taking place. I wish you the best.
One of the most interesting discussions on religion that I have had was in person with a Christian of significantly different denominational background and an atheist. All three of us had an enjoyable time comparing ideas and learning more about each other. With a different issue with one side of the dissent usually resting on a religious foundation, one of the more interesting discussions on homosexuality in which I have participated involved a homosexual couple, a straight couple, an unattached homosexual, and me. Once again, it was an enjoyable conversation for all in spite of bringing significant differences and irreconcilable beliefs to the conversation. The common themes in both events are that those who are actually party to a controversy or a difference of position are generally easier to have a discussion with than are uninvolved apologists (case in point, most propagators of 'religion of peace' propaganda are NOT Moslems, and most homosexuals I have met are far less aggressive than are straight liberals). These experiences tell me that discussion of extremely thorny issues can take place without the discussion devolving into a virtual barroom brawl of the type that will result in bans.
The best way I can explain my own position on such matters is that all of the rights enumerated in the First Amendment rest upon the freedom of thought, which ultimately amounts to the right to be wrong. In the above-mentioned conversations, I was speaking with at least one person who considered my views to be wrong, and likewise had his or her views seen in the same way by me. I generally am willing to explain why I believe as I do but see no need for vitriol or nastiness with the caveat being that I am willing to take appropriate action in the case of someone else's belief system calling for inflicting harm on me or those about whom I care. The bottom line is that I find no need to encroach on anyone's freedom of thought with the caveat that the freedom of thought does not translate into freedom of doing unto me or mine.
While a friend has encouraged me to return to active participation, I am not sure about doing so. Having read this thread and the Ban Prediction thread, I have to wonder how much real discussion will be taking place and how much heckling especially from the ban vultures will be taking place. Much of the discussion so far seems to be snarky enough discourage a person from giving much thought to jumping in. My thought is that this little experiment will tell us much about the true nature of the INGO community for good or for ill. I am hoping for the best but have reservations. There are still a lot of good people on INGO, but I also see that there are plenty who are not such pleasant folks--and I have been surprised both ways. In my own experience, I have since 9/27/14 developed a significant amount of respect for someone who was one of my more outspoken critics and have also been surprised by people about whom I thought highly standing in line to kick me on the way to the door. This will definitely reveal a lot about what people are made of. That said, I, for one, am most likely to continue as I have been for a while.
Fenway's original post addresses an issue that stood out to me in a huge way from the beginning: Most of the activities which led to the prohibition on religious discussion (variations in interpretation of what constitutes religious discussion notwithstanding) were already against the rules. I am hoping for the best. Now, (cue sound of chains as anchor is raised) I am going to continue as I have been for the time being. My sincere hope is that this leads to discussion with comprehensive truth handled in a mature manner. Then again, it could go the direction of snarky delivery of Political Correctness which seems already to be taking place. I wish you the best.
Good thing nearly all of mine are clerical errors!
I think if I get one more, I can yell "BINGO!"... or do I get a free sandwich? Not sure which.
Burgers are on me but need not get an infraction to collect.
Maybe mentally.
No.
Well since everyone is throwing their two cents in, so shall I. I will watch with interest as there are some on this forum that just want to stir the pot. They will go to the edge to insult believers and then back off for their fun. Often it amounts to casting pearls before swine and most of us know what the good book says about that.
I will be here in the corner with my
I will be here in the corner with my
Well since everyone is throwing their two cents in, so shall I. I will watch with interest as there are some on this forum that just want to stir the pot. They will go to the edge to insult believers and then back off for their fun. Often it amounts to casting pearls before swine and most of us know what the good book says about that.
I will be here in the corner with my
Which believers?
Kut (thinks it's a two way street)
Well since everyone is throwing their two cents in, so shall I. I will watch with interest as there are some on this forum that just want to stir the pot. They will go to the edge to insult believers and then back off for their fun. Often it amounts to casting pearls before swine and most of us know what the good book says about that.
I will be here in the corner with my
The really cool part is that the mod staff CAN recognize this... What is unfortunate is how many people do not respond to "Lighten up, Francis." But... that's what hammers are for.
The discussions on this were involved. I'll post how, later... in a rush now.
You hold a high opinion of yourself, sir. Might I remind you of the admonition, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" ?
Oh crap, I'm the same size no matter which way I turn.
