Z-Man wrote:Concord wrote:I should be able to post rather boring, non-controversial statements without being verbally assaulted, right?
Wrong. Making statements in a discussion implies those statements have a bearing on the discussion, and it is natural to assume you mean them that way. If you mean them as boring and non-controversial, "I mean what I say" statements, they are empty and contribute nothing. You need to be called out on that.
If, instead, you make them because you think they are relevant, you also need to be called out on that, because they're not; you're just muddling the waters. Obviously a physical book is inanimate and can't be blamed for anything; what one means when one blames a book is something different and less direct, Phytotron already explained that.
Either way, your statements were completely unhelpful and the treatment you got was mostly deserved and not the verbal assault you make it out to be.
This is ridiculous. When sine.wav says that Islamic Law is based on the bible and when Phytotron says that books aren't inanimate objects, we're all suppose to assume they mean something profound and contributive? When I simply point out some minor flaws in those statements (minor flaws being their that they're false), it's irrelevant and empty?
Seems like the rules aren't getting applied equally around here. Why do you, the moderator, get to assume who is contributing profound intellectual insights in a thread and who is contributing "shalllow pseudointellectual garbage?" FURTHERMORE, since when is it a standard that only posts sufficiently intellectual (as judged by sine.wav and Phytotron) are valid to be protected by a moderator. This is the forum of a video game whose decision making consists of turning left or right, not the faculty lounge at Harvard Law School. I think you need to reexamine your standards; standards at the moment so high that to satisfy them, you cannot write simple, true and factual statements. Your standard says that the posting of simple facts is worthy of criticism and abuse.
Either way, your statements were completely unhelpful
When you say that, you may be right, if all you care about is sine.wav's argument, and that very well may be the case. My statements were not helpful to sine.wav's argument. They were helpful to the truth, which continues to be obscured here. If only statements helpful to sine.wav's argument are worthy of your defense, you should say so.
Now you and them both say I'm not contributing to the discussion. I am. I may not be contributing to sine.wav and Phytotron's argument, but that shouldn't matter. Unless you their argument's get priority around here, which it seems like they do. We already know that Z-Man has a bias for sine.wav: "Simple criteria a bot could evaluate: no warnings on your head, not a developer, most posts in 2011. Somehow, sine managed to post more last year than most others manage in their whole career and demonstrated that you can have disputes and controversy without low blows or trolling."
Now, Z-Man is free to admire whoever he wants, but as a moderator he ought to be transparent about it, and nonetheless, when his favorite poster's default response to a challenge to his argument is, "Please shut up," he must not be so blind as to defend that action.
Let's look at my first post in this thread.
Concord wrote:what does that have to do with the bible?
sinewav wrote:Please shut up and do your homework before posting.
Ensuring sine.wav doesn't pass off Morocco as a country with Biblical Law is a substantial contribution to the thread. And sine.wav knows this. And while he won't admit it, he was wrong. Just look at his next post, where he admits that Moroccan Law is not based on the Bible (and simultaneously calls me stupid for saying the same thing).
If sine.wav had read the original article, he would know that, "According to the newspaper, this type of forced marriage is rooted in local rural traditions to safeguard the honor of girls who are raped."
Furthermore, if sine.wav had done his homework, he would have learned more about the subtleties of this issue. Subtleties like the ability of judge recommending marriage only if both parties agree. The court advised the woman's father to take the marriage option to avoid a scandal and he made a decision. People have responsibility. Books do not. The father could have refused. Also, the court could have decided not to pressure the father into accepting the marriage. These were decisions made by people. People have responsibility.
Furthermore, the woman did not suicide just because of the judge's ruling. The marriage lasted for 5 months during which she was terribly abused by her rapist/husband. That's probably not a surprising result, but nonetheless, it wasn't simply the judge's ruling that caused the suicide.
