democracy on PF

[ada]

Still no religion board despite the lenghty thread on it below.

Why can't we have an official poll of PF members conducted by PF administrators. All members can be sent an email to make sure they're alerted that they have until a particular time to vote.

The vote can be considered as binding, so if the majority of members vote for a separate religion room we get one. If the majority vote against one, then the dissenters shut up and put up.

That way those who feel like torturing themselves by reading religious posts from a certain member, or who want to engage or debate with her; or marvel, scoff at, laugh at or be inspired by her; or simply enjoy the jaw-dropping experience of looking inside pianistimo's mind, can go there when they feel like it.

The rest of us will be spared. It's about choice, people! At the moment we have no choice but to have religious rantings shoved down our throats.

What about a poll?

EDIT: This isn't intented to target one member. Non-believers will also be free to post topics like: Why America's fundamentalist christian right is sending the nation to hell in a hand basket, or Ten reasons why creationism sucks.

[counterpoint]

When you start a new topic, there's an option to create a poll.

So why don't you create a poll yourself?

[ada]

When you start a new topic, there's an option to create a poll.

So why don't you create a poll yourself?

We've done member polls on religion. This would be an official poll by a third party and the reuslt would  be  binding.  That means all members would have to abide by the result of the poll, like a referendum.

So the question is: Do you want a separate religion board? Members answer "yes" or
"no". If the majority vote "yes" then we get a religion board .

It would be a way of introducing a new "rule" rather than being a opinion poll designed to prompt discussion and debate but not ultimately changing anything.

[counterpoint]

It doesn't look like many people want a separate "religion board"

[ada]

It doesn't look like many people want a separate "religion board"

Well, put it to a vote and we'll know for sure one way or another.

[m1469]

We've done member polls on religion. This would be an official poll by a third party and the reuslt would  be  binding.  That means all members would have to abide by the result of the poll, like a referendum.

So the question is: Do you want a separate religion board? Members answer "yes" or
"no". If the majority vote "yes" then we get a religion board .

It would be a way of introducing a new "rule" rather than being a opinion poll designed to prompt discussion and debate but not ultimately changing anything.

Well, this is a bit tricky in that, what you are in essence saying is that there should just be a ban on speaking about "religion" in any discussion that is not in a thread which is specifically dedicated to what is commonly termed "religion" (and there are plenty of those threads anyway).  I guess that seems simple enough, but I would think it could be a nightmare for Nils to actually enact and uphold.

First, what qualifies as "religion" then ?  Perhaps we are talking about staying away from certain words or so, which is not necessarily religion in itself, in my opinion.  Or perhaps "we" are just trying to have specific members change the way they post.

One thing I have noticed is that if people stop talking religion, other forum members whom are against it may have a lot less to quote, respond to and argue with -- what would we "discuss" anymore ? 

This thread here wouldn't even exist if not for religion  -- niether would numerous others.  Think of all the posts that would never have happened and the several members of the forum whose status would be so much different if not for being able to "counteract" religious posts  ...

[counterpoint]

One thing I have noticed is that if people stop talking religion, other forum members whom are against it may have a lot less to quote, respond to and argue with -- what would we "discuss" anymore ? 

  Good point 

[amanfang]

Why not just create your own forum with your own rules?  I'm sure Nils considers the opinions of members, but he is in no way obligated to follow the majority opinion.

[leahcim]

Why can't we have an official poll of PF members conducted by PF administrators. All members can be sent an email to make sure they're alerted that they have until a particular time to vote.

Have you emailed / messaged Nils and just asked him?

The problem I see is that it's clear that no matter how much you say it isn't one member you didn't actually hide the truth.

It's evident whose posts you don't like and why, but when will get to vote on whether we like your posts or mine and so on for other subjects?

I'm all for a witch hunt, but I don't want to get the pitchfork out for some half-arsed attempt at it...we aren't Catholics after all

That said, for this particular vote, I'd count votes iff those offended / bored or whatever else have never contributed to a debate with her. If you've posted to one of these "<gays/other religions/flared trousers/whatever are evil " "No they aren't" "yes they are" "No they aren't" and then followed it with a dummy spitting "Ooh miss it's not fair Piantisimo's being mean" thread is beyond derision TBH.

[ada]

Well, this is a bit tricky in that, what you are in essence saying is that there should just be a ban on speaking about "religion" in any discussion that is not in a thread which is specifically dedicated to what is commonly termed "religion" (and there are plenty of those threads anyway). 

Yes, essentially I am. If members fail to self-regulate then there need to be rules

First, what qualifies as "religion" then ?  Perhaps we are talking about staying away from certain words or so, which is not necessarily religion in itself, in my opinion.  Or perhaps "we" are just trying to have specific members change the way they post.

I think we all recognise "religion", just as we recognise offensive, rude or disrespectful posts.
It wouldn't be a case of changing the way certain people post but of making sure appropriate topics are posted in the appropriate place.

One thing I have noticed is that if people stop talking religion, other forum members whom are against it may have a lot less to quote, respond to and argue with -- what would we "discuss" anymore ? 
This thread here wouldn't even exist if not for religion   -- niether would numerous others.  Think of all the posts that would never have happened and the several members of the forum whose status would be so much different if not for being able to "counteract" religious posts  ...

The debates wouldn't stop, on the contrary they'd really be able to flourish in a designated spot. I for one would be happy to debate in a religion room, I just think having religion polluting every random thread cheapens the original topic.

Have you emailed / messaged Nils and just asked him?

I'm all for a witch hunt, but I don't want to get the pitchfork out for some half-arsed attempt at it...we aren't Catholics after all

It's not a witch hunt and it certainly isn't half-arsed. I think it is perfectly sensible And I haven't emailed Nils because I am sure he monitors this site. I also want to raise the suggestion with members to see what they reckon.

And it's not personal. It's not about a particular person but a particular style of post. P. is quite capable of making reasonable and helpful contributions about piano, for example.

If you think it's a crap idea, that's fine  I'm just saying a vote is a simple way to lay the matter to rest.

[leahcim]

If you think it's a crap idea, that's fine  I'm just saying a vote is a simple way to lay the matter to rest.

Ok, I doubt it'll rest after a vote.

Since the site isn't a democracy, I could have an opinion and waffle some more, but I don't see the point. I'll happily let Nils decide. Which is at least realistic

[If I did care one way or the other though, I would go for convincing one person that counts over counting others...]

[thalbergmad]

The God Squad have been silent recently and this might start them off again.

I don't know where Pontius Pa is, but i think she was looking for a job, which might explain the recent lack of preaching.

Thal

[ada]

oh come on, don't make me start a poll about whether we should  have a poll 

 This reminds me of a meeting I once attended .... we spent two hours debating whether we should have shorter meetings 

This is a lesson in why democracy is flawed. All you get is waffle, indecision and inaction 

[retrouvailles]

I don't think Nils has responded to any similar threads in the past, so don't expect a response to this one.

[pianistimo]

ada - why do you even bring up democracy?  working with news - i would think you would want to hear both sides.  and, remember - i never started a religious thread per se - excepting 'relativity.'  that was to ask if people thought things were 'relative.'  as i see it - there's always two sides to a story.  humanism is a religion, too - although people don't call it such. m1469intimated this.  whatever one believes deeply is a form of philosophical thought or religious thought.  you may as well ban philosophy. 

i really don't care if people think they have a soul or not (although i think we may as well all become cannibals if we don't - and have no God to answer to).  if evil did not exist - good would not exist either.  i would like people to think about what they believe.  if they come to the conclusion that evil and good don't exist - well, then they have their view.  if it does - might it not be in their best interest to connect with that 'eternal' Spirit from whom all life exists (according to creationists).  why?  so that they don't die eternally?  that is the point of belief.  to trust that God has something in store for our future?  to be a child of His eternally.  to be 'like' Him.  if Christ was the firstfruits of all of creation - then we have a potential to rule with Him the entire universe.

how do you explain evil, ada?  if evil and good exist - then we must have a reason for attempting to be 'good' even when we are humanistic in thought.  what does that imply?  that we have a soul!  that our soul knows when it sins (ie - especially in murder or whatever society deems evil).  if we had no soul - we'd have no conscience.  i believe our soul records our life work - and our names are recorded in the 'book of life' when we realize that we are sinners and cannot be perfect by ourselves.  at the judgement we will give account for what we have done (good and bad).  it is said that the soul that sins shall die.  but, if Jesus died for all that we may have life - our soul is neglible in the event that it is completely filthy and needs a wash.

ok.  ban me now.  i've not asked for anyone to be banned to a certain section of pf for religious responses for differring in thought.  these are questions posed by other members and BTW I AM A MINORITY in my responses.  what does that say for your toleration, ada?  that you can't stand to be argued with?  may as well join the mafia and just come over here and do me in.

what you don't like, ada, is a thinking person to disturb your worldview.  albeit - mine might be skewed.  why don't you point out my skewed thinking and leave it at that.  at least i have talked at length about world peace.  do you care about peace?  who can bring it?  world governments that claim africa is fighting against itself because of global warming?  this is idiotic and should be yellow highlighted in the newspaper to show how gullible people are today and how much MORE we should think for ourselves.  does global warming naturally affect our morality?  that means we should react to temperature?  on feeling alone?  THIS IS HOW FAR HUMANISM CAN BECOME A RELIGION.

[thalbergmad]

You are clarity personified.

[ada]

humanism is a religion, too - although people don't call it such. m1469intimated this.  whatever one believes deeply is a form of philosophical thought or religious thought.  you may as well ban philosophy. 

Humanism isn't a religion any more than religion is a science. And I am quite happy to hear both sides, but in the appropriate place

i really don't care if people think they have a soul or not (although i think we may as well all become cannibals if we don't

 

ok. ban me now. i've not asked for anyone to be banned to a certain section of pf for religious responses for differring in thought. these are questions posed by other members and BTW I AM A MINORITY in my responses. what does that say for your toleration, ada? that you can't stand to be argued with? may as well join the mafia and just come over here and do me in.

Pianistimo, I don't want to ban you, I've said that. And doing you in, while it may solve the problem    is perhaps a tad extreme.....Plus, I don't do murder  And I don't need a god to guide me on that one.

All I've asked for is a poll of members to establish once and for all if we want a separate religion room and stop all the argy bargy.

[thalbergmad]

may as well join the mafia and just come over here and do me in.

OK

[m1469]

I think we all recognise "religion", just as we recognise offensive, rude or disrespectful posts.

Sure.  I am simply suggesting that each of us may recognize it as different things, just as we do with the latter example you provided.  Some people are offended by "swearing" while others are not, for example.

To me, the trick with this particular request is that "religion" is going to need to be defined clearly, as though it is a specific thing, in order to be able to segregate it.  So, whose definition do we go by then ?
 
I can't help but think there must be particular words like "Bible" "Jesus" "God" "Christian" that you are referring to as wanting to have omitted from certain areas of the forum -- or some decision come to as to whether or not it should be (and perhaps you are suggesting that the use of these words is what defines "religion" ?).  If that is the case, then I suppose we ought also to ban words like "Buddha" "Koran" and "Muslim" -- but, somehow I don't think those last three words are really an issue.  So, I think it goes back to something very specific, actually -- which, I think has more to do with one or two (or one) people than it has to do with anything else ... and, in that case, why keep reading what you don't want to read when you can almost bet by now what's coming ?  I think, also, it has more to do with how these words are used than the fact that they are, but they're still just words.

In many ways, I actually completely agree with you.  In general, I think it's a shame when a thread can't stay on track or is all but helpful, but I think that's true no matter how it gets sidetracked.  I think the fact that threads tend to get sidetracked is more to the heart of the matter than how they get sidetracked.

Just my two cents.

[ada]

I can't help but think there must be particular words like "Bible" "Jesus" "God" "Christian" that you are referring to as wanting to have omitted from certain areas of the forum -- or some decision come to as to whether or not it should be (and perhaps you are suggesting that the use of these words is what defines "religion" ?).  If that is the case, then I suppose we ought also to ban words like "Buddha" "Koran" and "Muslim" -- but, somehow I don't think those last three words are really an issue.  

Well, I'm not suggesting a "christianity" board. A relgion board would be just that. Members could discuss god, jesus, bible, creationism, catholicism, kabbalah, scientology, taoism, islam, animism, voodoo, the latest book by Richard Dawkins or the flying spaghetti monster if they wanted. It's all religion.

There is always going to be a grey area, I acknowledge that. For example, a thread about "Was Chopin Gay" would start off in miscellaneous, but what do we do if it turns into a gay bashing thread because one particular view of christianity says it's evil?

But then, come to think of if, I can't think of any other reason except religion for being opposed to homosexuality, so a separate thread about "God hates fags" could start in the religion room. Easy.

[m1469]

It's all religion.

And, for some people, piano and music are their "god" and "religion"  -- but, I get the distinct feeling we don't actually talk about those things around here anymore 

[ada]

Well as a working definition, I would say religion is a belief in an eternal, supernatural being who sets the codes by which we live and promises life after death.

I don't think music or piano, or "humanism", quite fits the bill.

[m1469]

Well, normally I would tell you what I believe (perhaps I should have used the word "think" instead of "believe" in order to abstain from sounding religious), but I don't think this is the appropriate place  .

[leonidas]

I can choose not to read something, I can choose to remember which poster's posts to avoid, and I choose not to let mild ticks get in the way of my overriding sense of and belief in freedom.

[thalberg]

If pianistimo's posts bother you, just don't read them!!  Sure it's a lot of scrolling, but you're up to it I think.

[leahcim]

If pianistimo's posts bother you, just don't read them!!  Sure it's a lot of scrolling, but you're up to it I think.

I'm sure if you look in the pages and pages and pages of threads that this will have come up in before, the response to the 'why not just ignore it?' will be something like :-

(a) that the posts aren't ignored by others and so the "single post to just ignore" quickly becomes a subthread or more.
(b) that the person doesn't want to ignore the posts in the right place [for their definition of right], it's just that they want to be able to discuss other subjects, and this topic often prevents that.
(c) That they also want to read p's other posts that aren't ranting about religion and thus can't ignore them.
(d) That...and so on and so on.

Someone should create one of the multi-choice answers for these like they have elsewhere for the myriad 'why don't you just...' unworkable solutions to spam. I doubt anything new is going to turn up, hence, I guess, the reason for the requested poll.

My last word, just report the messages / threads you don't like to Nils. If he feels the same he'll delete / move them [and if there are enough and he has to keep deleting or moving and the person making them doesn't get the message then he'll probably get bored and ban the account that posts them instead] OTOH, if he doesn't feel there's anything wrong with them and folk keep reporting them then he'll probably get equally bored playing and ban anyone who continually reports them.

Whatever, of the 3 [or possibly more if we did a poll] that will take a role of 'reporting posts', 'moderating' and 'making posts' they will get to duck it out amongst themselves, with Nils picking the lucky winner(s) via his admin tools