Hi, I'm Mick

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The Bible doesn't say this or that. The Bible is a collection of ancient documents. Which ancient document within the Bible are you referring?

Well I've read all of it twice and large parts of it many more times. But nowhere within it is there a prohibition on sex with children. Quite an omission, don't you think? Unless, as I suspect from your last post, you don't hold it to be the pure and unalloyed received word of god that many of your doctrine profess?

So, if it is nothing more than a collection of ancient tales, I must ask why you claim to be a catholic? And, more to the point, how you decide which parts, among those ancient tales, have relevance to you?


(Please understand that I am quite happy to discontinue the cross-examination if you prefer. It is just that, announcing yourself in your introductory post as a catholic, I supposed that you were here to debate religious topics. If I was wrong about that, please feel free to discuss beer, cheese, tits and wanking with the rest of us. (And guns, there are a few that like talking about guns here too - but they have their own little corner which I rarely visit. ))

In those times, it was a norm to marry kids we nowadays view as children, at least when broadly construed. I heard Mary was likely between 12-15 when she married Joseph. That's just now things were back then, I guess. This was true of the Greeks and Romans, too.

If the idea is that the omission suggests its permissibility, at least if we are talking about prepubescent children, then that's rather absurd.

But when you consider the long list of things that are expressly prohibited in OT law: wearing clothes made of more than one fabric, eating dairy products and meat in the same meal (ie. cheezburger), women speaking in church, etc... Don't you find it odd that there is no mention whatsoever of it being wrong to fuck babies? I sort of do. I am not a big fan of stoning disobedient kids to death either, or forcing rape victims to marry their rapists. But the bible says it's good for us, so...

[Hermit]

...it looks like I just offended the sensibilities of favoured members.

That's pretty much how I see it, but hey, what's new about it?

Welcome, outcast.

This, by the way my view of religions when I am looking at it from the most charitable angle:

[Mick]

If you have been subject to moderation you can formally appeal that action and the Moderation Team is obligated to respond to all such appeals. To make a formal appeal you can:
• Send a PM to a member of the Moderation Team to state you wish to make a formal appeal. Preferably, in the first instance, a PM would be sent to the moderator who issued the action and then if the member isn't happy with the outcome they may choose to PM a Global Moderator and/or the Senior Moderator;
• Start a ‘Formal Appeal’ thread in the Feedback Forum.
Members who have been suspended or banned can appeal moderation actions by emailing info@rationalskepticism.org.

Send an email requesting a formal appeal. There is no doubt that there is some controversy surrounding your banning.

I personally don't think you are a troll.

Thus far they are ignoring my emails. I asked for an appeal. No response.

[Mick]

Hi Mick.

I just come here to play with the gifs. This one is bunny.


This one is sofa

I'm sold.

[FBM]

Welcome, Mick.

I hardly post anything except photos over at RatSkep these days, so I just wanted to say

[LucidFlight]

Hi, Mick!

jamest has be furiously running polls across at RatSkep to gather as much scientific... I mean, objective data as possible to support the case for an appeal against your banning. Unfortunately, the first two attempts have been thwarted somewhat, so we might be looking at a third poll to gauge whether or not members thought the decision to ban you was correct.

Anyway, just thought you'd like to know.

Welcome to Ratz!

[Mick]

...it looks like I just offended the sensibilities of favoured members.

That's pretty much how I see it, but hey, what's new about it?

Welcome, outcast.

This, by the way my view of religions when I am looking at it from the most charitable angle:

Funny. I hold the same to be true for naturalism.

You should read from Ockham, see if he agrees with you.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Funny. I hold the same to be true for naturalism.

Hmmm... Care to clarify?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism

Do you mean the racehorse?

[Mick]

Hi, Mick!

jamest has be furiously running polls across at RatSkep to gather as much scientific... I mean, objective data as possible to support the case for an appeal against your banning. Unfortunately, the first two attempts have been thwarted somewhat, so we might be looking at a third poll to gauge whether or not members thought the decision to ban you was correct.

Anyway, just thought you'd like to know.

Welcome to Ratz!

No shit? I appreciate that.

There should be a secondary poll objecting to the lack of sanction for the abuse I received by hackenslash. Seriously, he had a meltdown and refused to stop. Yet, nothing happened. He's OG--the protected class.

[Hermit]

...it looks like I just offended the sensibilities of favoured members.

That's pretty much how I see it, but hey, what's new about it?

Welcome, outcast.

This, by the way my view of religions when I am looking at it from the most charitable angle:

You should read from Ockham, see if he agrees with you.

What makes you think I have not?

As for religion, I am not talking as a stranger to it, having been raised by parents, both of whom converted to catholicism from protestantism just before they married. The entire family consisted of practicing believers. Well as much as they could. They could not marry in church. My mother was not allowed to go to confession or communion. She was a divorcee. What a lovely religion catholicism is.

[pErvinalia]

Hi Mick , you a http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ exile?

Apparently. They banned me for "trolling", though I was not asked to stop a particular sort of behavior, whatever they found to be trollish. It was quite surprising.

I can't say I'm enthused to have another Christian here, but ratskep's policy of banning outside of their regular warning system is ridiculous and authoritarian.

[LucidFlight]

Funny. I hold the same to be true for naturalism.

Hmmm... Care to clarify?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism

Do you mean the racehorse?

No, the theatre. That really does appear surplus to requirements.

[LucidFlight]

Hi Mick , you a http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ exile?

Apparently. They banned me for "trolling", though I was not asked to stop a particular sort of behavior, whatever they found to be trollish. It was quite surprising.

I can't say I'm enthused to have another Christian here, but ratskep's policy of banning outside of their regular warning system is ridiculous and authoritarian.

Just think of it like being on Fox news — fair and balanced.

[pErvinalia]

Mick wrote:

If hackenslash or a popular member creates an ultimatum, we will ban you and call you a troll.

Are you implying that "hackenslash" and "popular member" are mutually exclusive entities?



PS - when I was growing up in Oz (as a very non-religious protestant), "Mick" was the somewhat derogatory term used for catholics. For example, my Dad (not a religious man), when confronted by mormons at the front door, would say "No thanks, we're all Micks here..."

And now, for my sins, I teach maths at a catholic boy's school (they enjoy having a token atheist...)

Point granted:

If hackenslash or another popular member...blah, blah, blah.



Hey: is there an appeal for this shit, or am I properly fucked?

No, you're fucked. They pretend that you can appeal and seek information on your suspension/banning. But they'll ignore your emails and hope you go away. Eventually if we kick up enough stink here they might respond, but it will be a glib condescending dismissal and there will be no review. Bad luck, mate.

I don't know where to stand on this one. Even though I think their policy of permabanning on feelings alone is retarded, I don't know enough about your activity/behaviour there to know whether it was a great loss to rationality and debate. If you were a troll like Tyrannical, LionIRC, Hugin, etc., then I don't have a lot of sympathy. But I still think it is wrong to straight out ban people outside the usual suspension system.

[pErvinalia]

The Bible doesn't say this or that. The Bible is a collection of ancient documents. Which ancient document within the Bible are you referring?

Well I've read all of it twice and large parts of it many more times. But nowhere within it is there a prohibition on sex with children. Quite an omission, don't you think? Unless, as I suspect from your last post, you don't hold it to be the pure and unalloyed received word of god that many of your doctrine profess?

So, if it is nothing more than a collection of ancient tales, I must ask why you claim to be a catholic? And, more to the point, how you decide which parts, among those ancient tales, have relevance to you?


(Please understand that I am quite happy to discontinue the cross-examination if you prefer. It is just that, announcing yourself in your introductory post as a catholic, I supposed that you were here to debate religious topics. If I was wrong about that, please feel free to discuss beer, cheese, tits and wanking with the rest of us. (And guns, there are a few that like talking about guns here too - but they have their own little corner which I rarely visit. ))

In those times, it was a norm to marry kids we nowadays view as children, at least when broadly construed. I heard Mary was likely between 12-15 when she married Joseph. That's just now things were back then, I guess. This was true of the Greeks and Romans, too.

If the idea is that the omission suggests its permissibility, at least if we are talking about prepubescent children, then that's rather absurd.

But when you consider the long list of things that are expressly prohibited in OT law: wearing clothes made of more than one fabric, eating dairy products and meat in the same meal (ie. cheezburger), women speaking in church, etc... Don't you find it odd that there is no mention whatsoever of it being wrong to fuck babies? I sort of do. I am not a big fan of stoning disobedient kids to death either, or forcing rape victims to marry their rapists. But the bible says it's good for us, so...

Who cares what the bible says? The fact is that catlicks have a propensity for fucking kids and covering it up, while at the same time moralising to the rest of us about idiotic things.