Happy Atheist Forum

There is a rather odd belief which seems to be circling the atheist community at the moment-atheists can escape ideology. This is rather odd because clearly no human can. For instance atheism is a cosmological view, and so cannot be defined as an ideology. So too is theism a cosmological view, and so cannot be defined as an ideology. However, there are ideologies which can be placed under the broad umbrella of theism-Puritanism etc. Where as a cosmological view cannot easily lead to someone committing violence, the ideologies which derive from those cosmological views can-Puritanism lead to the witch hunts in New England etc. Although atheism is a cosmological view, the ideologies which can be placed under the broad umbrella of atheism can lead to violence. Which ideology are you?

Marxism/Communism:  This is clearly an ideology which can be placed under atheism. Marxism without atheism is just liberation theology.

Nazism:  I know many will argue that many prominent Christians supported Nazism, but Nazism itself was based on Nietzsche’s philosophy and social Darwinism, which were not Christian. Nazism was an ideology which could sit beside other ideologies far more comfortably for far longer than Communism, but that is not to say that this particular ideology was theist in nature, even if it did borrow much mythology from various theist ideologies.

New Atheism:  An ideology characterised by its strong dislike of religion and its complete expectance of materialism.

Humanism:  Tends to believe in progress toward secularism and utopia, but in a rather less proactive way than New Atheism or Communism-they seem to genuinely believe history will progress in that direction anyway.

Can anyone think of anymore?

My dog barked twice last night. So?

Goodwin's law in one post. Even faster then you did it last time. Congradulations....I guess

I am not aware of the ideology that atheists are immune to ideology is circulating strongly throughout the atheist community...I think I'm involved enough to know if it were too  :raised:

Quote from: "Dagda"There is a rather odd belief which seems to be circling the atheist community at the moment-atheists can escape ideology.

We, as atheists, are basically just as susceptible to ideology as anyone. I have ideologiesâ€"biases if you willâ€"that I try to reduce and carefully weigh against evidence so that I don't make mistakes due to misunderstanding or misinterpreting the facts. Fortunately, as an atheist, I'm not susceptible to a very specific type of ideology: those of a religious nature. I would never choose to justify something because of a negative or positive association with the supernatural, church dogma or the unexplained. I consider myself fortunate to understand the importance of objectivity and empirical evidence, things which can counteract ideology. I'm not perfect, I do attempt to be intellectually honest.

Quote from: "Dagda"This is rather odd because clearly no human can. For instance atheism is a cosmological view, and so cannot be defined as an ideology. So too is theism a cosmological view, and so cannot be defined as an ideology.

An ideology is a set of goals and ideas that directs one's thoughts and actions, is it not? In what way is religion not an ideology or set of ideologies? When I was Lutheran, I had goals such as better knowing god, spreading the good news, and reaching heaven. I had ideas which came directly from the Bible. These ideas and goals directly impacted my thoughts and actions until I left religion and stopped believing in the supernatural. As a religious person, I held an ideology. Religion, without exception, leads to belief in the supernatural and actions based on said belief. If you are religious, you, by definition, believe in the supernatural and if that is a true belief you will behave based on your beliefs.

Quote from: "Dagda"However, there are ideologies which can be placed under the broad umbrella of theism-Puritanism etc. Where as a cosmological view cannot easily lead to someone committing violence, the ideologies which derive from those cosmological views can-Puritanism lead to the witch hunts in New England etc. Although atheism is a cosmological view, the ideologies which can be placed under the broad umbrella of atheism can lead to violence. Which ideology are you?

This is a guilt by association fallacy on both counts. Theistic witch burnings really only date back a few thousand years. The idea of dangerous supernatural women, however, dates back further. Gender bias has existed in one form or another for tens of thousands of years. As an atheist, I cannot honestly say that witch burning is a direct consequence of theistic puritanism. It may occur under theistic, puritanical social circumstances, but there is only correlation, not direct causation. I can demonstrate this by citing examples of theistic puritanism under which witch burning would be considered sinful or counter to the social rules.

I can make an even stronger case for atheism and violence. Not only is there no causal relationship between atheism and violence, but there aren't even any direct correlative links between them. I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts.

Worse still, you're comparing apples and oranges. A lack of an ideology is not an ideology. Atheism is a lack of belief, null theory. one can no more say atheism is an ideology than not believing in the Easter Bunny is an ideology. Did the Nazis believe in the Easter Bunny? No, therefore, following your logic, the Nazi's fall under a-easter-bunny-ism. See how silly that sounds? It sounds silly because it's illogical.

Quote from: "Dagda"Marxism/Communism:  This is clearly an ideology which can be placed under atheism. Marxism without atheism is just liberation theology.

Not even a little bit. The only reason Marx wrote against theism is because it happens to be prevalent. If another ideology had a similar place in society at the time, Marx would have written against it, too.

Quote from: "Dagda"Nazism:  I know many will argue that many prominent Christians supported Nazism, but Nazism itself was based on Nietzsche’s philosophy and social Darwinism, which were not Christian. Nazism was an ideology which could sit beside other ideologies far more comfortably for far longer than Communism, but that is not to say that this particular ideology was theist in nature, even if it did borrow much mythology from various theist ideologies.

I'm afraid you have a mistaken understanding of history regarding this matter. The Nazis were extremly selective in what ideas of Nietzche they adopted. Among them was not atheism. Adolph Hitler was a devout Christian. The vast majority of Nazi members were practicing Protestants (though some were Catholic). The anti-Semitism if the Nazi party was actually adopted from European Christianity. The most telling evidence, however, can be found in the speeches of Adolph Hitler himself. Very commonly, Hitler would cite "positive Christianity", addressing the nationalistic, anti-communist, anti-Semetic part of Christianity (which still exists today in some incarnations of Christianity). I'm afraid there's simply no way to associate Nazism with atheism, even if you believe incorrectly that atheism is an ideology.

Quote from: "Dagda"New Atheism:  An ideology characterised by its strong dislike of religion and its complete expectance of materialism.

There's no such thing as "new atheism", it's a pejorative term coined by religious leaders to create a false enemy of those nonbelievers that happen to disagree with religion. If you mean militant atheism, we're not an ideologically based group, we're resisting an ideologically based group that's trampling on our rights and is abusing its own members.

Quote from: "Dagda"Humanism:  Tends to believe in progress toward secularism and utopia, but in a rather less proactive way than New Atheism or Communism-they seem to genuinely believe history will progress in that direction anyway.

Humanism is an ideology that happens to be mostly secular. That it's atheistic means it's missing an element present in most other ideologies.

Quote from: "Dagda"EPIC FAIL!

Quote from: "Dries"My dog barked twice last night. So?

Dries, your reply is not in keeping with the spirit of the forum. The OP is posting an interesting discussion in the proper thread. Please keep that in mind before you make posts like this.

Quote from: "Tanker"Goodwin's law in one post. Even faster then you did it last time. Congradulations....I guess

Ditto to you as in my post to Dries (and it's spelled "congratulations", by the way).

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Dagda"EPIC FAIL!

Ditto, again.

Folks, this is the philosophy forum, and Dagda's post is in no way out of line with forum rules or the spirit of the forum. This is exactly the place to discuss topics like this and one of the reasons the forum exists.

Please keep that in mind before posting rude replies.

Thanks.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Tanker"Goodwin's law in one post. Even faster then you did it last time. Congradulations....I guess

Ditto to you as in my post to Dries (and it's spelled "congratulations", by the way).

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Dagda"EPIC FAIL!

Ditto, again.

Folks, this is the philosophy forum, and Dagda's post is in no way out of line with forum rules or the spirit of the forum. This is exactly the place to discuss topics like this and one of the reasons the forum exists.

Please keep that in mind before posting rude replies.

Thanks.

While I agree rude replies are generally bad...I personally found Dagda's post offensive because he 1)Implied that most atheists think they are immune to ideology when that is not the case 2)felt the need to make atheism responsible for natzism and communism (normally communism wouldn't be offensive because in theory it's a nice idea but I'm pretty sure dagda is thinking of the red scare type of communists).

I think those who replied rudely (my sarcastic post included) probably felt the same about his post as I did.

dagda has been here for a while and it would be nice if he could start trying to get a better grasp of what an atheist is and isn't because I see that lack of understanding making him ask questions of us that don't really make full sense.

While I apolagise for not giving a more in depth response to Dagada's post as soon as Nazis are metioned I generaly stop taking the poster seriously. This is NOT the first time Dagda has used Nasis in a post about Atheism. So more so then usuall I have trouble responding in a serious manner.

From Wikipedia

QuoteGodwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi Germany, nor, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances is understandable. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.[

While I normaly don't argue with mods I do believe my response was within reason in repose to the OPs continued inapropriate Nazi comparisons.

(I do give a warning about my spelling and grammatical errors in my sig. You trying to catch all of them will be far more trouble then it's worth. I really do try to minimise them I fail often regardless. I have many skills, spelling is not one of them.)

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Tanker"Goodwin's law in one post. Even faster then you did it last time. Congradulations....I guess

Ditto to you as in my post to Dries (and it's spelled "congratulations", by the way).

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Dagda"EPIC FAIL!

Ditto, again.

Folks, this is the philosophy forum, and Dagda's post is in no way out of line with forum rules or the spirit of the forum. This is exactly the place to discuss topics like this and one of the reasons the forum exists.

Please keep that in mind before posting rude replies.

Thanks.

I think it's appropriate to respond to a fallacious post fallaciously, but I agree that this behavior is essentially nonproductive.  I don't, however, think it's appropriate for someone who is tisk tisking someone else for being unnecessarily rude to, in the same comment, correct the spelling of someone's post.  You are admonishing Tanker for being rude while being rude.

Quote from: "Whitney"While I agree rude replies are generally bad...I personally found Dagda's post offensive because he 1)Implied that most atheists think they are immune to ideology when that is not the case 2)felt the need to make atheism responsible for natzism and communism (normally communism wouldn't be offensive because in theory it's a nice idea but I'm pretty sure dagda is thinking of the red scare type of communists).

I think those who replied rudely (my sarcastic post included) probably felt the same about his post as I did.

dagda has been here for a while and it would be nice if he could start trying to get a better grasp of what an atheist is and isn't because I see that lack of understanding making him ask questions of us that don't really make full sense.

Whitney, I didn't even think your post was an issue. Sorry if I made you think that, but I never even brought it up. To your points, regarding number two, I disagree. I have read the post over and over and I don't interpret it the same way. It doesn't look at all to me that Dagda's point was to say that atheism is responsible for nazism. Ideologies that fall under many different umbrellas can be blamed for it, but that's the point of addressing the OP. To discuss whether or not those ideologies can fairly be put under atheism, or somewhere else, right?

And I don't really see how Dagda's post at all is out of the ordinary for the philosophy forum. It doesn't contain any direct accusations, but it does appear to be a topic to stimulate discussion. That is my interpretation. Dagda can explain for himself. I don't understand some of the replies from people. Please read even the earliest posts from Dagda, and the replies of the members here. It's embarrassing on our part. Read Dagda's intro post. By the end of the first page, the insults are flying. That behavior has continued, and as a member, I find that more objectionable and offensive than anything Dagda has written.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I think it's appropriate to respond to a fallacious post fallaciously, but I agree that this behavior is essentially nonproductive.  I don't, however, think it's appropriate for someone who is tisk tisking someone else for being unnecessarily rude to, in the same comment, correct the spelling of someone's post.  You are admonishing Tanker for being rude while being rude.

Pointing out an glaring spelling error, while perhaps not always necessary, is not rude. If it is, then what is this post of yours? And since you want to bring up rudeness here, let me remind you of your first two posts to Dagda, which were posted in his introduction:

First, a comic which I don't think says, "Welcome to the forum".

Quote from: "pinkocommie"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv23%2Fpinkocommie%2Funholy_trinity3.jpg&hash=862f170e0bbec28c1d3b9b22a1157bbfe116a457)

And then this comment, which definitely does not say, "Welcome to the forum".

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Dagda"Essentially the response to a criticism of New Atheism has been the pictorial claim that other militants are worse therefore you suck.

And I feel that religious people's insecurity about their own beliefs made obvious by unfairly labeling atheists as militant or violent with little to no evidence of this being true sucks.  We're even.

I would have to call that rude.

Quote from: "Tanker"While I apolagise for not giving a more in depth response to Dagada's post as soon as Nazis are metioned I generaly stop taking the poster seriously. This is NOT the first time Dagda has used Nasis in a post about Atheism. So more so then usuall I have trouble responding in a serious manner.

While I normaly don't argue with mods I do believe my response was within reason in repose to the OPs continued inapropriate Nazi comparisons.

(I do give a warning about my spelling and grammatical errors in my sig. You trying to catch all of them will be far more trouble then it's worth. I really do try to minimise them I fail often regardless. I have many skills, spelling is not one of them.)

I think it's worth noting that in all of your posts, this is the only time I've ever pointed out a misspelling. So you can forget about me "trying to catch all of them". Nobody spells everything right all the time, and I really don't care. We all do it. It's not about that. You could try reading the post as it was intended. If you find it not worth taking seriously, then why respond at all? Also, what are the continued Nazi comparisons? Show me comparisons to Nazism in Dagda's posts. Not mentions, or even correlations (which may actually have a basis in fact and are worth at least discussing), but comparisons.

Now, if you all don't like the tone of my post, then consider the reason for it. The tone of the forum is supposed to be a bit different than other forums, and for the most part it is. If you don't like being called out in the open forum, then don't post things that deserve being called out. My point was to match the tone that the thread had taken, and you all helped me demonstrate that you don't like it very much.

So if you don't like that kind of tone, then go back to the home page, or look at the top of any page, and read the forum name. And have some fun actually discussing these topics instead of attacking the person.

QuoteGodwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi Germany, nor, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances is understandable. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent

Direct comparison is not required for goodwins law to apply. Although in this case I would argue that he does indeed use a direct comparison. Shown here.

QuoteAlthough atheism is a cosmological view, [the ideologies which can be placed under the broad umbrella of atheism can lead to violence. Which ideology are you?

Marxism/Communism: This is clearly an ideology which can be placed under atheism. Marxism without atheism is just liberation theology.

Nazism: I know many will argue that many prominent Christians supported Nazism, but Nazism itself was based on Nietzsche’s philosophy and social Darwinism, which were not Christian. Nazism was an ideology which could sit beside other ideologies far more comfortably for far longer than Communism, but that is not to say that this particular ideology was theist in nature, even if it did borrow much mythology from various theist ideologies.

New Atheism: An ideology characterised by its strong dislike of religion and its complete expectance of materialism.

Humanism: Tends to believe in progress toward secularism and utopia, but in a rather less proactive way than New Atheism or Communism-they seem to genuinely believe history will progress in that

I honestly don't care much about the spelling corections. I've come to accept my flaw and try to minimise it as much as possble.I put the warning in my sig as a way to mitagate constant "helpful" posts showing what I mispelled. You're right you never have before, perhaps thats why it stood out. Surely I have made worse errors in my time on this forum. I guess the rarity of it made it stand out more to me.

Quote from: "McQ"Pointing out an glaring spelling error, while perhaps not always necessary, is not rude. If it is, then what is this post of yours? And since you want to bring up rudeness here, let me remind you of your first two posts to Dagda, which were posted in his introduction:

First, a comic which I don't think says, "Welcome to the forum".

Quote from: "pinkocommie"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv23%2Fpinkocommie%2Funholy_trinity3.jpg&hash=862f170e0bbec28c1d3b9b22a1157bbfe116a457)

And then this comment, which definitely does not say, "Welcome to the forum".

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Dagda"Essentially the response to a criticism of New Atheism has been the pictorial claim that other militants are worse therefore you suck.

And I feel that religious people's insecurity about their own beliefs made obvious by unfairly labeling atheists as militant or violent with little to no evidence of this being true sucks.  We're even.

I would have to call that rude.

Thank goodness I'm not A MODERATOR, otherwise my behavior would be entirely inappropriate, wouldn't it?  I don't go around telling people they're being rude because I'm, at time, rude.  Dagda, at times, has been rude.  You are also, at times, rude AND you're a mod for the forum which automatically puts you in a position to 'set a good example'- yet here you are...pointing fingers at everyone but yourself...

I was not meaning to insult anyone. Perhaps I should have used different ideologies, but they were the most glaring examples of an ideology which could be placed under the cosmological view of Atheism. I was not saying, and it was not my intention to imply that atheism has in some way or form shaped the ideology of Nazism, or that atheists were more likely to become Nazis. I knew that many people would disagree that Nazism can be described as an atheistic ideology and was expecting a debate over whether it can be placed in the Theistic, Deistic or Atheistic category. I did not think that my post could be read in a way that my intention could be taken as to imply that an atheistic cosmological view somehow contributed to Nazi ideology anymore than Islamic extremism could be attributed to a theistic cosmology. What I did mean was that ideologies can be placed under the broad categories of Theism, Deism or Atheism (from these cosmological views there branches of various ideologies). For instance from Theism there could be branches of the ideologies of Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Islamism. This does not mean that Theists somehow are implicit in Islamism, just that Islamism can be placed in the broad category of Theism.

As the Nazis are a sensitive issue for many people, perhaps it was thoughtless of me to bring them up in this context. I only meant to stimulate what I thought would be an interesting debate, and did not believe, nor do I believe that my first post was illogical. Of course I have caused feelings and resentment which it was not my intention to create, and I promise you that any link that may have appeared in present or past posts between atheism and Nazism as any more than sharing a cosmological view was purely accidental.

Quote from: "Dagda"I was not meaning to insult anyone. Perhaps I should have used different ideologies, but they were the most glaring examples of an ideology which could be placed under the cosmological view of Atheism. I was not saying, and it was not my intention to imply that atheism has in some way or form shaped the ideology of Nazism, or that atheists were more likely to become Nazis. I knew that many people would disagree that Nazism can be described as an atheistic ideology and was expecting a debate over whether it can be placed in the Theistic, Deistic or Atheistic category. I did not think that my post could be read in a way that my intention could be taken as to imply that an atheistic cosmological view somehow contributed to Nazi ideology anymore than Islamic extremism could be attributed to a theistic cosmology. What I did mean was that ideologies can be placed under the broad categories of Theism, Deism or Atheism (from these cosmological views there branches of various ideologies). For instance from Theism there could be branches of the ideologies of Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Islamism. This does not mean that Theists somehow are implicit in Islamism, just that Islamism can be placed in the broad category of Theism.

As the Nazis are a sensitive issue for many people, perhaps it was thoughtless of me to bring them up in this context. I only meant to stimulate what I thought would be an interesting debate, and did not believe, nor do I believe that my first post was illogical. Of course I have caused feelings and resentment which it was not my intention to create, and I promise you that any link that may have appeared in present or past posts between atheism and Nazism as any more than sharing a cosmological view was purely accidental.

Dagda, to be clear, I generally do like your posts and I apologize if I've come off as overly rude at any time.  I didn't mean to make you feel unwelcome here, that was never my intent.  If I made you feel that way, I am genuinely sorry.  I figured if I had, you would let me know, but since someone else has pointed me out as being particularly rude to you, I want to make sure you know that I wasn't intending to be - I'm sometimes a very blunt person and this can make others uncomfortable.  I hope you keep posting here, your posts and the responses they inspire are one of the many things that make this forum as interesting as it is.  

Quote from: "Dagda"I was not meaning to insult anyone.

Nor was I. My comment was meant to be a sort of shorthand for, "I don't have the time to point out everything I find factually wrong with this post and I'm starting to think it was made intentionally to provoke anger in order to cloud the debate even further than it has been already". And I already mentioned elsewhere that I'm a smartass. In light of your second post in this thread, I'm willing to accept that your intentions were benign and you are simply far more misguided in your assumptions about things like atheism, theism, ideologies, logic, fallacy, etc. than I'd given you credit for thus far. :cool:

Quote... and I promise you that any link that may have appeared in present or past posts between atheism and Nazism as any more than sharing a cosmological view was purely accidental.

Well hopefully by now you can agree that the two don't even share that in any meaningful way.


Friends?

Quote from: "Dagda"I was not meaning to insult anyone. Perhaps I should have used different ideologies, but they were the most glaring examples of an ideology which could be placed under the cosmological view of Atheism. I was not saying, and it was not my intention to imply that atheism has in some way or form shaped the ideology of Nazism, or that atheists were more likely to become Nazis. I knew that many people would disagree that Nazism can be described as an atheistic ideology and was expecting a debate over whether it can be placed in the Theistic, Deistic or Atheistic category. I did not think that my post could be read in a way that my intention could be taken as to imply that an atheistic cosmological view somehow contributed to Nazi ideology anymore than Islamic extremism could be attributed to a theistic cosmology. What I did mean was that ideologies can be placed under the broad categories of Theism, Deism or Atheism (from these cosmological views there branches of various ideologies). For instance from Theism there could be branches of the ideologies of Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Islamism. This does not mean that Theists somehow are implicit in Islamism, just that Islamism can be placed in the broad category of Theism.

As the Nazis are a sensitive issue for many people, perhaps it was thoughtless of me to bring them up in this context. I only meant to stimulate what I thought would be an interesting debate, and did not believe, nor do I believe that my first post was illogical. Of course I have caused feelings and resentment which it was not my intention to create, and I promise you that any link that may have appeared in present or past posts between atheism and Nazism as any more than sharing a cosmological view was purely accidental.

 Even after all the debate here you are not getting it soooo NAZIS WERE NOT IN ANY WAY ATHEISTIC. Yuo keep trying to associate nazis with atheists they don't go together. McQ after this post are you really going to hold calling Goodwin's Law against me?

 

Quotebut they were the most glaring examples of an ideology which could be placed under the cosmological view of Atheism

I don't understand why you keep saying this. In what possble way can a non existant athestic ideology = Nazism/ We have no ideologies and not a single priceaple of Nazism has anything to do with atheism.

You have alot of ideas of what Atheists are. So far everything you have said of us has been wrong. Not just the Nazi thing EVERYTHING. Heres an idea read the dictionary on Atheist then add NOTHING to that deffintion. The only thig we all have in common is a lackof belif in a higher power. There is no such thing as an "atheist ideology"  Every example you have pointed out has be patently wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
a·the·istâ€, â€,/ˈeɪθiɪst/  Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist]  â€"noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Thats it. No ideologies. No groups. No parties. No dogma. No poiltitics. No views. No meetings. NO nothing but denial of higher beings.

Stop trying to shoehorn us into some groups that you percieve we belong to.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Thank goodness I'm not A MODERATOR, otherwise my behavior would be entirely inappropriate, wouldn't it?  I don't go around telling people they're being rude because I'm, at time, rude.  Dagda, at times, has been rude.  You are also, at times, rude AND you're a mod for the forum which automatically puts you in a position to 'set a good example'- yet here you are...pointing fingers at everyone but yourself...

Again, I disagree with your assertion, and you additionally missed the point of my posting your remarks to Dagda.  As a moderator, I do set a good example. I am also human, and just another member of this forum. As such, I do slip too and post before thinking sometimes. When that happens, I'm usually very proactive about taking responsibility for it. You are free to read all of my thousands of posts and find a ratio of good to bad and post it here if you think otherwise. I'm also not the one being sarcastic here. Although I personally love sarcasm and use it (sometimes wrongly), I believe that people can argue their differences without it, like we should be doing now.

You were very quick to put a disclaimer in your last post to Dagda: I'm sometimes a very blunt person and this can make others uncomfortable...

...as if it gives you the right to make mistakes and justify them. I actually would agree that it does give you the right to make mistakes, although not to justify them. Wouldn't you agree that the same would go to any member of this forum?

If you would like to continue this, feel free to send me a PM.

Quote from: "Tanker"McQ after this post are you really going to hold calling Goodwin's Law against me?

Nope.  

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Thank goodness I'm not A MODERATOR, otherwise my behavior would be entirely inappropriate, wouldn't it?  I don't go around telling people they're being rude because I'm, at time, rude.  Dagda, at times, has been rude.  You are also, at times, rude AND you're a mod for the forum which automatically puts you in a position to 'set a good example'- yet here you are...pointing fingers at everyone but yourself...

Again, I disagree with your assertion, and you additionally missed the point of my posting your remarks to Dagda.  As a moderator, I do set a good example. I am also human, and just another member of this forum. As such, I do slip too and post before thinking sometimes. When that happens, I'm usually very proactive about taking responsibility for it. You are free to read all of my thousands of posts and find a ratio of good to bad and post it here if you think otherwise. I'm also not the one being sarcastic here. Although I personally love sarcasm and use it (sometimes wrongly), I believe that people can argue their differences without it, like we should be doing now.

You were very quick to put a disclaimer in your last post to Dagda: I'm sometimes a very blunt person and this can make others uncomfortable...

...as if it gives you the right to make mistakes and justify them. I actually would agree that it does give you the right to make mistakes, although not to justify them. Wouldn't you agree that the same would go to any member of this forum?

If you would like to continue this, feel free to send me a PM.

No, I'm good.