I've noticed that specific community members have let the quality of their posts decrease. Whether this is a result of a loss of confidence in Austrian theory, or out some juvenile attempt to seek attention, I want to make clear that the forum moderators will not tolerate posts that boil down to flaming and/or trolling. If you are uninterested in serious discussion where serious discussion is due, then please do not post at all.
Furthermore, for community members frustrated with these posts, it is definately not acceptable to insult them. If you find yourself in a position where the only response you can think of is an insult the best course of action is to refrain from posting in that thread.
Also, report any trollish post using the report function.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Does the condemnation of religion without sufficient evidence (or any evidence or knowledge at all) fall under this? By far I find that the most annoying.
We absolutely do not moderate over alleged faulty argumentation; that is the path to ideological censorship.
Snide remarks only intended to inflame however are unacceptable.
Bert wrote: Does the condemnation of religion without sufficient evidence (or any evidence or knowledge at all) fall under this? By far I find that the most annoying.
Religion is un-scientific; it is not in the field of knowledge. And you demand evidence in order to criticize it?
There is no evidence required to condemn action in the name of Zeus or Itzli, the Aztec god of sacrifice and stone knives.
The evidence is the complete lack of transferable knowledge.
Wrong topic to bring this up.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Andrew Cain wrote: Wrong topic to bring this up.
I think not. Bert demands evidence when such a thing is impossible. No amount of evidence can disprove unicorns.
And then he is looking for moderation based on such an impossibility.
So, to be clear:
The two are not reconcilable and to be a religious libertarian is to be a moronic non-moron.
I advocate we disassociate ourselves from the lunacy that is religion in order to solidify our intellectual position.
Religion is total balls to the wall lunacy that has no basis in reality.
Are these comments acceptable (no argumentation; just flat out assertions)?
What does this have to do with forum etiquette? Why the knee-jerk reaction? There are 3 other threads where this very issue is being "discussed."
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Calling religious individuals morons is not acceptable. If you come across posts like those please report them.
Okay, thank you.
Is the OP aimed at anybody in particular?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Yes, and you are one of them. We're not interested in strangling discussion through overburdening moderation, but I am just making a note of what we expect in terms of etiquette. By the way, this is also aimed at those who have insulted you out of frustration - that is not acceptable, either.
I am personally guilty of flaming (in between what I hope are sound arguments) some of the more frustrating people here on the mises.org forums. For that, there is no defense beyond claiming the catharthic value of name-calling.
However, I do maintain that there are more offensive things than name calling. Endorsing the senseless genocide of East Timor or excluding brown people from moral equivalency with Americans out of xenophobia is enough to set one on fire, more than any name calling ever could.
It is not merely the things we say, but how we say them. There is no punishment great enough for desiring the extermination of a group of people just for its own sake.
Esuric made my point. It's not whether you are going to disprove the belief in god(s), or the philosophy behind a religion, or the cultural significance, but that someone is making blind assertions with no evidence and in the process being rude with insults. I wouldn't expect anyone on this forum to call a Native American's religion ignorant and backwards just as much as I wouldn't expect them to say it about any major religion.
I wouldn't expect anyone to try to seriously discuss Marx (or debate with a Marxist) with "Marx is stupid and anyone who believes him is an idiot. You have to defend yourself because you're the one who believes in communism." It just doesn't hold up.
Any ad hominem argument should be unacceptable.
I only insult people behind their backs. So, I'm prissy enough for a British tea party.