User talk:Incide

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


No one here blocks anyone for being a liberal. It is the tactics and deceit by which they convey their message that get people blocked here. To my knowledge we have a few liberal Sysops. Show me a message with sound morals and you're safe. --David Rtalk 16:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)

i was once blocked for disagreeing with Karajou. I don't want to seem like a cynic but i'll believe it when i see it.
thanks for the response, though. much appreciated.--Incide 17:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)
You called someone else's moral views "archaic", and when you were told to stop by a sysop, you ignored that and tried to claim rights that you don't have. So you have no grounds to argue that your block was purely because you disagreed with Karajou. It was your manner of disagreeing that was the problem. We don't block liberals here for holding liberal views, but we do block people for being rude and demeaning. Unfortunately, it seems that many liberals can't tell the difference.
Now instead of playing the victim, I suggest that you start contributing productively. Philip J. Rayment 21:03, 23 January 2008 (EST)
For me to call anyone's views as archaic is like a conservative calling me or my views immoral because you disagree with them. Do you think that homosexuality is immoral? Yes. This you cannot deny. So, by extension, I am immoral for supporting and doing everything i can to uphold gay rights such as marriage and adoption. It's all a matter of perspective. Religious Conservatives will say some of the harshest things (i.e. referring to things and people as perverse, disgusting, ungodly, immoral...) simply because they represent an ideal of morality that differs from theirs. I was not being rude nor was i any more demeaning that some things I've seen on this site that refer to people like me. I thought talks pages were designed to get people talking. If this site's idea of a talks page is a mutual admiration society then so be it. I thought i would be able to have frank, honest, and civil discussions. If not. Also, so be it. I haven't vandalized a single page not do I intend to. I did not break any of the commandments, either. I'm simply here for debate. If this is forbidden, please let me know and I'll refrain.--Incide 17:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
An idea being old, i.e. around for a long time, does not make it a bad idea, but "archaic" is a derogatory way of saying "old", to give the impression that it's bad when it's not necessarily so. Calling a view "immoral", on the other hand, is an accurate way of explaining what is wrong with something (assuming, of course, that the thing is immoral). So that's not a valid analogy. It's like the difference between calling someone mistaken and calling them stupid. And no, Christians will not call things perverse, ungodly, immoral, etc. "simply because they represent and ideal of morality that differs from theirs", but because they are these things according to God.
And others being rude does not excuse you being rude.
But that's getting off the point, which was that you weren't blocked simply for disagreeing, but for the way in which you disagreed.
Philip J. Rayment 21:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
we'll have to agree to disagreee, then. no worries. i'm guessing that this will happen often... that sounded angry. it really wasn't....--Incide 12:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)