Science and Politics- where is the borderline?

[hamishspence]

How do we tell when a Science issue shades into a Political Issue?

Some things one can guess are likely to be too politically related to be valid "the ethics of the use of embryonic stem cells" seems like a candidate for Not Right Here.

Some might be harder to tell. So what do we look for in a Science Topic to Avoid?

[Jack Squat]

I would guess just use common sense. If it's been subject to large debate, it's probably going to be morphed into politics or religion at some point.

For instance, a good topic would be on the new breakthrough in biodiesel (coffee grounds, incase anyone wanted to know). A bad topic would be to talk about a study on whether hybrid cars are better for the environment or not.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

A bad topic would be to talk about a study on whether hybrid cars are better for the environment or not.
Eh, that's not really political in itself.

Political stuff would really be discussion of legislation and similar things stemming from the science.

[Jack Squat]

Eh, that's not really political in itself.

Political stuff would really be discussion of legislation and similar things stemming from the science.

While the topic itself isn't political, we're not exactly known to stay strictly on topic on these boards.

A thread on if the Prius was environmentally friendly (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76797) was taken off the boards for a bit. It was an over reaction, but it does show there is concern. The mods here aren't exactly unknown to lock down a thread because it may stray into politics either.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

I would say that as long as you don't bring politics into the topic, you should be able to talk about science topics...

The Global Warming topic we had a few days ago made efforts to avoid politics, except unfortunatly for the OP and a few scattered posters. But it was the OP's statement that Al Gore was wrong right out the gate that doomed the topic.

I would like to see what people think of any flaws or weaknesses in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, without dragging "Left" or "Right" and/or "Religion" vs. "Secular" into it.

Or back on the GW topic, I'd like to know what people think about the methodology used to track the changes. I know several of the arguments against GW are based on questionable placing of a number of the temperature gages...

[Zeb The Troll]

I would say that as long as you don't bring politics into the topic, you should be able to talk about science topics...

The Global Warming topic we had a few days ago made efforts to avoid politics, except unfortunatly for the OP and a few scattered posters. But it was the OP's statement that Al Gore was wrong right out the gate that doomed the topic.

I would like to see what people think of any flaws or weaknesses in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, without dragging "Left" or "Right" and/or "Religion" vs. "Secular" into it.

Or back on the GW topic, I'd like to know what people think about the methodology used to track the changes. I know several of the arguments against GW are based on questionable placing of a number of the temperature gages...Them's awfully weighty topics for an Orc. Especially one that's a surfer dude. I have my doubts as to your actual heritage being Orcish at all. :smallannoyed:

*says the one who claims to be both a Troll and a graduate student... :smallcool:

[SnowballMan]

I think better questions would be, is there really a reason to discuss such things here? Would there be a better place for such discussions to take place?

I rather like that the focus of these forums seem largely devoted to comics and gaming. I come here to escape the real world. Don't much want it intruding here.

[afroakuma]

My very first proviso is that if it's frequently in the news as a two-sided issue, chances are it has leaked into RL politics and may do so on this board.

So, for example, the speculated correlation between vaccinations and autism would be a danger zone, as are global warming and stem-cell research.

For what's safe, look to science news without "sides." Flying car development? Nobody's going to come and say it's immoral. You could have an entertaining debate on the safety and viability of a Jetson world but it's probably as likely to veer into hot-button topics as any regular FB thread. Medication is also often a safe issue; discussing side-effects and personal experience, or lambasting Big Pharma for having Vioxx on the shelves.

[KnightDisciple]

I think better questions would be, is there really a reason to discuss such things here? Would there be a better place for such discussions to take place?

I rather like that the focus of these forums seem largely devoted to comics and gaming. I come here to escape the real world. Don't much want it intruding here.

I'd throw in that having such discussions is prime ground for generating bad feelings around here. I'd rather not clash heads with someone over something, or have my innocently stated opinion/stance upset someone who I otherwise got along with smashingly.
Of course, some of that is knowing when to hold your tongue, but still.

[afroakuma]

Well, some of these topics simply don't have a place on a board such as this; I know the Depression Thread routinely discusses meds and therapy, which fall into the realm of science, but I think it's appropriate for their discussions.

[FdL]

Politics is not a topic in itself, it's no so clearcut. Politics is a way to look at things, and as such it permeates the most dissimile topics.

I personally think the banning and moderation of some topics for this reason has gone plain ridiculous. The Prius thread was an example.

One thing is avoid people falling into discussion of what is unequivocally real world politics for their potential for generating heated debate. But extending this to issues that may be considered as potentially leading to political discussion is too subjective at best.

Dunno, any choice or concept backed by a definite line of thought, world view or philosophy can be considered politics. Think about it.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Them's awfully weighty topics for an Orc. Especially one that's a surfer dude. I have my doubts as to your actual heritage being Orcish at all. :smallannoyed:

*says the one who claims to be both a Troll and a graduate student... :smallcool:

Well... I spent 20 years in the Navy, 12+ of which in balmy, tropical Hawaii. (Tough job, but somebody had to do it. :smallbiggrin:) I chased and earned both a B.A. in History and Poli Sci, and a Master's in Education. Which means my work day was spent with Right leaning Conservative Military types, while my evenings were spent with Left leaning Liberal types. And since Lunch was two hours if you did a workout, and I was less than ten minutes from some pretty good waves...

Half-Orc =/= Dumb :smallwink:

[Mx.Silver]

I would say that as long as you don't bring politics into the topic, you should be able to talk about science topics...

[...]

I would like to see what people think of any flaws or weaknesses in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, without dragging "Left" or "Right" and/or "Religion" vs. "Secular" into it.

No. Just... no. The only way you could possibly get that result would be if you were posting on an academic forum solely for evolutionary biologists. On a forum like this something will be said to get that thread locked before it's even hit five replies (assuming its not pre-emptively deleted by the mods the second it's posted).

The problem with scientific issues is that some of them are siezed upon and become highly politicised. The only topics worse than that are History (especially anything that occured within the last 150 years) and applied Ethical Philosophy. As long as there's a ban on political/religious discussion then we are going to have to face a severe limitation on topics available.

[TRM]

It's really a judgment call. You should just look at your topic and try to find (at least vaguely) logical ways to get in a political fight about it. If there aren't any immediately obvious ways, you can probably go ahead and start it; if you aren't trying to start a political discussion, and you have a topic that clearly isn't politically charged when you start it (i.e: flying cars), you're unlikely to get in trouble—even if other posters manage to bring in politics (for example, the ethics of low-wage workers making the cars and how [evil-evil-evil-bad-bad-bad country] is exploiting them).



I think better questions would be, is there really a reason to discuss such things here? Would there be a better place for such discussions to take place?

I rather like that the focus of these forums seem largely devoted to comics and gaming. I come here to escape the real world. Don't much want it intruding here.
The reason to talk about them here is because you want to talk about them with people here. I respect the majority of the posters on this forum, and could certainly be interested in discussing subjects other than Games and Comics with them.

[puppyavenger]

The problem with scientific issues is that some of them are siezed upon and become highly politicised. The only topics worse than that are History (especially anything that occured within the last 150 years) and applied Ethical Philosophy. As long as there's a ban on political/religious discussion then we are going to have to face a severe limitation on topics available.

that makes historical fiction rather touchy doesn't it?

also, I was unaware that their were major two-sided arguments going on over the events of the 19th and 20the centuries.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Disallowing scientific discussion of any kind would solve the current problem. However, allowing religious and political discussions would also solve the problem and would be more beneficiary to the forums by allowing more freedom to express thought.

[The Neoclassic]

However, allowing religious and political discussions would also solve the problem and would be more beneficiary to the forums by allowing more freedom to express thought.

I think that Rich Burlew has stated he keeps this forum open for discussion of the comic and more general roleplay gaming, and has no interest in providing a place for political/religious discussion. It'd be a big burden on the mods (since religious and political topics could easily fall into flaming, which would still be not allowed- as it should be).

From a personal standpoint, I kind of like to just be able to have that line. Religious and political discussions can be a lovely thing, but often they lead to serious stress and frustration which may cause more harm and discontentment in the community than it'd be worth. That's just my two copper though.

[Serpentine]

also, I was unaware that their were major two-sided arguments going on over the events of the 19th and 20the centuries.Holocaust-denyers; Cold War; McCarthyism and its residue Commy-hating; the Australian Stolen Generation; black, women's and gay rights movements; the treatment of POWs; etc, etc, so on and so forth.

The very vast majority of history is politics.
Shame, I'd really love to discuss so much of this :smallsigh:

[GoC]

I would like to see what people think of any flaws or weaknesses in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, without dragging "Left" or "Right" and/or "Religion" vs. "Secular" into it.
Assuming you mean "Natural selection causes speciation." then it wouldn't have flaws it would have failings. A flaw in a theory is a part of it that doesn't match up, this is impossible with a one-statement theory. A failing is when the theory fails to explain some phenomena or has some exceptions.

Just correcting your vocab.:smallbiggrin:

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I know a couple of forums with a "Flamewar" section that is the only place religious/political is allowed. That way the discussion can continue, but anyone who doesn't want to deal with it doesn't have to, and reads that go off-topic into political issues just get moved instead of locked. May be effective here, since it is fairly hard to debate the alignment s system without being able to refrence real-world examples.

[afroakuma]

The Giant doesn't want it to leak out to other areas of the forum, for example if bad blood were to arise between to people who also post in Friendly Banter.

I don't see it as such a concern, myself. We have generally a lot of latitude in discussions, and there are plenty of places on the Net where one can discuss religion and politics. I don't see why we need them here.

[snoopy13a]

I would like to see what people think of any flaws or weaknesses in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, without dragging "Left" or "Right" and/or "Religion" vs. "Secular" into it.



One weakness in Darwin's original theory was the belief in gradual evolutionary change. From looking at the fossil record, the current theory is punctuated equilibrium where species have long periods of no apparent evoluntionary changes with brief rapid changes. This theory helps to explain gaps in the fossil record (with rapid change, intermediatary species would not exist for very long, thus leaving no fossil record). Darwin also did not address genetics (Mendel came afterwards) or sexual selection.

Another argument against Darwin's theory (and the modern unified theory of evolution) is Dawkins "Selfish-Gene Hypothesis. Richard Dawkins believes that the gene, not the indidivual, is the unit of selection.

There, discussion about evolution without any politics :smallbiggrin:

[wxdruid]

There was a related thread on a similar topic, creating another board or adding a flamewar section to GitP. Here is the link to the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96903) and Roland St. Jude's response (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5315819&postcount=43) with a quote from the Giant before Roland locked the thread. It's been suggested before and rejected.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Things change. I do not see why the ban on politics and religion cannot be lifted. The only thing this does, frankly, is censor our opinions. Further, by the logic of the post you link, talk of scientific topics will also be banned because controversy has come up about such threads.

[Rawhide]

It can't be lifted because Rich doesn't want it to be lifted and that is not going to change. You need to remember that this is not an all-purpose message board, it is a message board to discuss primarily fantasy and fantasy roleplaying game related conversations as well as the two comics hosted on the site.

Ignore for a moment the reasons that discussion of religion and politics are prohibited, to which many have already stated their agreement that it is reason enough in itself, and understand that discussions of those natures are not the reason this message board exists and are not wanted here.

There are plenty of places on the internet where you can discuss religion or politics, this is not one of them. You are more than free to visit or join the other places and you don't even have to stop visiting here.

[afroakuma]

Things change. I do not see why the ban on politics and religion cannot be lifted.

The problem is this: Contentious opinions can and do frequently devolve into flamewars. We've seen threads about the balance of a particular RPG idea explode and lead to multiple bans or infractions. More contentious topics are certain to have a higher level of risk, because people will have strong opinions and stronger feelings.

Politics is not a suitable subject for this board in any event; much of our audience is below the voting age, and in a multinational community many political threads will only draw a country-specific audience, which leads to insular conversation.

Religion is an obviously contentious topic and can easily lead to hurt feelings or open insults. It's also a bit fast and loose these days; most wouldn't suggest that Christianity, Islam or Buddhism are not legitimate religions, but even our own legal systems are being challenged by breakaway sects or special interest groups that demand accreditation as a religion and may or may not receive it, for whatever reason.


The only thing this does, frankly, is censor our opinions.

Not at all. If I posted asking which do you prefer, vanilla or chocolate, and all those who chose chocolate had their posts deleted or scrubbed, that would be censorship of opinion.

The reason, which has been expressed fairly before, is that we are a fairly positive, pleasant community, with little in the line of factionalization and a rather comfortable tolerance level for all our users. Discussing politics will invariably begin to color people by their political views, and rifts may start to form without need.

On the religion side, GitP has an open LGBT community and support community. Should someone whose religion forbids their orientations be allowed to post defamation or Jack Chick tracts in their threads, telling them that they are wrong? We have a depression support thread, which often discusses the use and side effects of certain treatments, including pharmacological interventions. Should someone whose religion decries these be permitted to insult them and their therapy via religious freedom?

If the boards permit religious discourse but say no to the previous questions, then we will have censored opinion and free speech. If we allow the previous two, however, then we are certain to damage the community spirit that we have forged here.

[Mando Knight]

On the religion side, GitP has an open LGBT community and support community. Should someone whose religion forbids their orientations be allowed to post defamation or Jack Chick tracts in their threads, telling them that they are wrong?

That's something that's crossed my mind as well... (As part of the latter group, but without the Fail (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever)-Tracts...) I almost feel discriminated against, yet to bring it up would be against the rules of the board... it's quite a peculiar position.

(Disclaimer: my thus previously stated discomfort with the LGBT community has little-to-no bearing on how I treat the individual members of the community, like trying to respect someone you disagree with as a person while still opposing their ideals)

[Admiral_Kelly]

I could just as easily post my non-religious views for finding homosexuality immoral. But I do not since I see the LBGT thread as a support group and not a discussion of its morality and because it would needlessly offended too many people who disagree with me as I highly doubt anyone here would be open-minded about the subject. I have posted them elsewhere though.

[Serpentine]

One weakness in Darwin's original theory was the belief in gradual evolutionary change. From looking at the fossil record, the current theory is punctuated equilibrium where species have long periods of no apparent evoluntionary changes with brief rapid changes. This theory helps to explain gaps in the fossil record (with rapid change, intermediatary species would not exist for very long, thus leaving no fossil record). Darwin also did not address genetics (Mendel came afterwards) or sexual selection.

Another argument against Darwin's theory (and the modern unified theory of evolution) is Dawkins "Selfish-Gene Hypothesis. Richard Dawkins believes that the gene, not the indidivual, is the unit of selection.

There, discussion about evolution without any politics :smallbiggrin:I've already posted most of this in a PM, but anyways. For starters, no scientist will tell you that Darwin got it exactly right first time.
Whether evolution is gradual or sporadic is still under debate today. I expect that it'll turn out to be a combination - some slow change punctuated by sudden outbursts. Darwin didn't address genetics because he didn't know about it (I know, that's pretty much what you were saying), which I believe caused some errors simply because he didn't know what the fundamental root of these changes was. I think I remember some mention of Darwin considering sexual selection, maybe in a later work? Though I think it may have simply been a comment on how things like peacock feathers, that seemed to work against natural selection, baffled him.
I don't really see how the Selfish-Gene Hypothesis is "against" evolution. Natural selection simply acts upon the expression of the gene. Reading the definition in my Oxford Dictionary of Zoology, I'm even less sure how it's meant to contradict Darwinian evolution, though it may simply be that I don't understand it. Quite possible.

Selection acts within the genome, favouring any method by which DNA may more rapidly replicate itself, and that this can be better achieved if phenotypic expression can be bypassed. This is achieved, it is proposed, by DNA spreading laterally so as to be duplicated at new loci elsewhere in the genome. In this way the DNA may be viewed as acting "selfishly", since the apparently surplus DNA confers no advantage on the organism bearing it and therefore supplying the materials from which it is made.Might be worth noting that this is specifically explaining why there's "surpluss DNA in the genome which is not translated into protein".


(Disclaimer: my thus previously stated discomfort with the LGBT community has little-to-no bearing on how I treat the individual members of the community, like trying to respect someone you disagree with as a person while still opposing their ideals)Hate the sin, not the sinner, so to speak. So few people, on either side of these sorts of arguments, seem to get this...
...and because it would needlessly offended too many people who disagree with me as I highly doubt anyone here would be open-minded about the subject. I have posted them elsewhere though.Mostly this bit offends me, though I do see your point. It does bug me a bit on the rare occasion where someone posts some non-pro-LGBT comment or question and then gets barraged out of there, though as they say, it's more support group than general discussion. Though they do do general discussion too... Bah. It's normally not too bad. I'll defend any of 'em from anti-LGBT attacks, and I'll defend any polite, non-hateful anti-(or non-pro-)LGBT from theirs.

I've just exchanged a couple of PMs with someone I've talked to a bit, specifically about politics. Within about one exchange of messages, we've brought up at least 4 points of contention upon which I'm pretty sure we could easily turn into very heated argument. And that's just with two people...

[afroakuma]

I could just as easily post my non-religious views for finding homosexuality immoral.

I very much doubt that.


But I do not since I see the LBGT thread as a support group and not a discussion of its morality and because it would needlessly offended too many people who disagree with me as I highly doubt anyone here would be open-minded about the subject. I have posted them elsewhere though.

I'm sure that some would be open-minded about it, while others might find it insensitive. However, though you are clearly willing to set limits of acceptability on what you will and will not post, there are those that are not; given permission to do so, they will vocally and angrily push their position in a way that is certain to make many members of the community uncomfortable.


I almost feel discriminated against

There again is the argument against. While I am sorry for your discomfort, I do expect that members of less mainstream religions would experience criticism, mockery or even discrimination for voicing their views should religious discourse be permitted. Whether one worships a pantheon headed by an amorous sky god or believes themself to be coated in the sins, fears and regrets of deceased alien souls, or even that some carpenter was nailed to a tree two millenia ago, there should be no need to call into question their faith.

To the original point of The Giant: This is not a general discussion board and never has been. It is devoted to gaming, media and cheerful conversation.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Now wait a second here, afroakuma. You sound very hypocritical right now as you are continuing to exalt your own mindset of 'atheism is correct - religions are a deviation from normalcy and promote toxic behavior' while saying it is necessary to ban religious topics as it would be offensive.

[afroakuma]

Now wait a second here, afroakuma. You sound very hypocritical right now as you are continuing to exalt your own mindset of 'atheism is correct - religions are a deviation from normalcy and promote toxic behavior' while saying it is necessary to ban religious topics as it would be offensive.

Excuse me? I do not believe I have suggested anything of the kind. I have been consistent in stating that the religious - all religious - have the right to their faith and its associated beliefs. If I have erred in this course or have written something which could be so interpreted, please direct me to it.

[Admiral_Kelly]

You say if we allow religious discussion our forums will be plagued by intolerance of homosexuals, people who will go against pharmacological interventions when they may be necessary, and people who will exalt Jack Chick's nonsense all over the place. Further, take this exert:
Whether one worships a pantheon headed by an amorous sky god or believes themself to be coated in the sins, fears and regrets of deceased alien souls, or even that some carpenter was nailed to a tree two millenia ago, there should be no need to call into question their faith.It seems to me you are expressing your sentiments against religion while saying we should have no discussion of it. This in of itself does not make your argument of barring religious discussion invalid but I do find it slightly hypocritical.

[snoopy13a]

I've already posted most of this in a PM, but anyways. For starters, no scientist will tell you that Darwin got it exactly right first time.
Whether evolution is gradual or sporadic is still under debate today. I expect that it'll turn out to be a combination - some slow change punctuated by sudden outbursts. Darwin didn't address genetics because he didn't know about it (I know, that's pretty much what you were saying), which I believe caused some errors simply because he didn't know what the fundamental root of these changes was. I think I remember some mention of Darwin considering sexual selection, maybe in a later work? Though I think it may have simply been a comment on how things like peacock feathers, that seemed to work against natural selection, baffled him.
I don't really see how the Selfish-Gene Hypothesis is "against" evolution. Natural selection simply acts upon the expression of the gene. Reading the definition in my Oxford Dictionary of Zoology, I'm even less sure how it's meant to contradict Darwinian evolution, though it may simply be that I don't understand it. Quite possible.
Might be worth noting that this is specifically explaining why there's "surpluss DNA in the genome which is not translated into protein".



I suppose I mistyped in regards to the selfish gene hypothesis. It isn't against evolution but rather it argues that the selective unit is the gene, not the organism. Thus, it differs from the "modern" theory of evolution which has the organism be the selective unit. It is a suggested modification, not really an argument against.

Personally, I find the implications of the selfish-gene hypothesis to be rather depressing (but of course my personal feelings don't support or hinder it) :smallsmile:

[afroakuma]

You say if we allow religious discussion our forums will be plagued by intolerance of homosexuals, people who will go against pharmacological interventions when they may be necessary, and people who will exalt Jack Chick's nonsense all over the place.

No, what I said was that to give permission to religious discourse would open permissions for those with potentially offensive views that are a very real part of their respective faiths to post them, and that restricting individual beliefs, dogmas or whole faiths while generally allowing their discussion would be unfair, but no more so than opening up the community to potential intolerance based on religious beliefs.


Further, take this exert... It seems to me you are expressing your sentiments against religion while saying we should have no discussion of it. This in of itself does not make your argument of barring religious discussion invalid but I do find it slightly hypocritical.

That excerpt stipulates that regardless of one's religion, one has a right to it and not to have their faith disparaged or criticized; in this case, I am defending a religious practicioner's right to faith-based views that would offend others, and stating that I don't believe they should be attacked for those, any more than I believe that any forum member should be attacked with same.

[Solaris]

You say if we allow religious discussion our forums will be plagued by intolerance of homosexuals, people who will go against pharmacological interventions when they may be necessary, and people who will exalt Jack Chick's nonsense all over the place. Further, take this exert:It seems to me you are expressing your sentiments against religion while saying we should have no discussion of it. This in of itself does not make your argument of barring religious discussion invalid but I do find it slightly hypocritical.

It seems to me that you're demonstrating exactly why this stuff is banned, my friend: You are being entirely too sensitive. This way lies madness and the Internet.

[Admiral_Kelly]

Perhaps I am being too sensitive but I can not stand the hypocrisy I see. The poster alludes to the idea that religious views are the cause of toxic behavior and intolerance. While they can be, mature thinking individuals who do follow various religions are not intolerant or trying to cause upset. To assume because religious discussion is allowed people of religious denominations (notice he does not sight any form of atheistic or agnostic ideology) will automatically upset the forums is grating. The poster further alludes all religions are purely based on wishful thinking by saying 'no one has a right to contest what someone else believes in' and comparing Christianity to paganism.

These ideas on there own do not upset me but to say religious discussion should be barred while, through thinly veiled wording, exalting one's own a-religious views does.

[Solaris]

Perhaps I am being too sensitive but I can not stand the hypocrisy I see. The poster alludes to the idea that religious views are the cause of toxic behavior and intolerance. While they can be, mature thinking individuals who do follow various religions are not intolerant or trying to cause upset. To assume because religious discussion is allowed people of religious denominations (notice he does not sight any form of atheistic or agnostic ideology) will automatically upset the forums is grating. The poster further alludes all religions are purely based on wishful thinking by saying 'no one has a right to contest what someone else believes in' and comparing Christianity to paganism.

These ideas on there own do not upset me but to say religious discussion should be barred while, through thinly veiled wording, exalting one's own a-religious views does.

I honestly didn't get that from his posts, but I'm not you and you're not me. My guess is that you already knew Afro was atheist, and that's coloring your perceptions. I'm not exactly fond of the atheist 'religion' (or lack thereof) and in point of fact have a lot of problems with its proselitizers (sure hope I spelled that right...), but I think he was more honestly trying to point out how religions do tend to sound a little goofy out of context.
However, I want you to remember one thing: This is the Internet. Win or lose, the argument was pretty dumb to begin with, neh?

[Val]

I could just as easily post my non-religious views for finding homosexuality immoral. But I do not since I see the LBGT thread as a support group and not a discussion of its morality and because it would needlessly offended too many people who disagree with me as I highly doubt anyone here would be open-minded about the subject. I have posted them elsewhere though.

This statement has been questioned - keep in mind that morality uses as its source a set of fundamental values which have no need to spawn from religion. If at the very least your fundamental values include a desire for human population growth, there, you have a moral argument against homosexuality.

Religious morals are usually just similarly practical morals that don't remember or think about their practical reasons/underlying values - or that use religious dogma (which is just another layer of morality/fundamental values) as the source values. The real thing to keep in mind is that ALL, repeat ALL fundamental values are PURELY subjective.

. . . no absolute morality, and no purely logical morality. the illogic is there somewhere. even if it's self-centered morality, the illogic is the source of the decision to use self-preservation as a fundamental value. Why use that? Why not another? Because of cultural/genetic programming or whim.

. . . I got sidetracked, didn't I? Also, that's . . . almost an argument against religion. But it's really an argument against beliefs. But it isn't - I don't condemn either, I merely recognise that beliefs are a result of choice and programming.

[Serpentine]

Perhaps I am being too sensitive but I can not stand the hypocrisy I see. The poster alludes to the idea that religious views are the cause of toxic behavior and intolerance. While they can be, mature thinking individuals who do follow various religions are not intolerant or trying to cause upset. To assume because religious discussion is allowed people of religious denominations (notice he does not sight any form of atheistic or agnostic ideology) will automatically upset the forums is grating. The poster further alludes all religions are purely based on wishful thinking by saying 'no one has a right to contest what someone else believes in' and comparing Christianity to paganism.

These ideas on there own do not upset me but to say religious discussion should be barred while, through thinly veiled wording, exalting one's own a-religious views does.He was merely saying that religion includes some highly contentious issues which will be fought for passionately by all sides. For example, there's no real reason why Christianity shouldn't be compared to paganism. They're both (or, more accurately, all, seeing as paganism is by definition "any non-Christian (or maybe non-Abrahamic) religion") religions, belief systems, philosophies, point of views, neither objectively more or less valid than the other. Your immediate up-in-arms reaction to the mere suggestion that they might be compared is Exhibit #24b in the Case of The Playground v. Religious and Political Topics.

[afroakuma]

Er... I'm not atheist... I'm Catholic.


Perhaps I am being too sensitive but I can not stand the hypocrisy I see. The poster alludes to the idea that religious views are the cause of toxic behavior and intolerance. While they can be, mature thinking individuals who do follow various religions are not intolerant or trying to cause upset.

Regardless of intent, it could happen, and they would have legitimate grounds to do so, which would be unfortunate. You have here concurred that they can be a source of toxic behavior and intolerance, which is also Mr. Burlew's opinion. Hence their exclusion from these boards.


To assume because religious discussion is allowed people of religious denominations (notice he does not sight any form of atheistic or agnostic ideology) will automatically upset the forums is grating.

I didn't have room to list them all. :smallannoyed: I also didn't cite Sikhism, Judaism, Jainism, Rastafarianism or Pastafarianism. I certainly do include atheists and agnostics among religious viewpoints that could become inflammatory.


The poster further alludes all religions are purely based on wishful thinking by saying 'no one has a right to contest what someone else believes in' and comparing Christianity to paganism.

Er... honestly, I'm not seeing that, and neither did Solaris and Serpentine. Religion is "what someone believes in." Do we Christians not say, "I believe in God" at the beginning of the Apostles' Creed? I find "belief system" considered a synonym for "religion," which strikes me as roughly appropriate.

I see no problem in comparing Christianity to paganism, Sikhism, Buddhism or even Scientology. What I am trying to put forth is that one has a right to one's religion and faith, whatever they may be, and not be subjected to thinly veiled persecution or disparagement of their beliefs.


These ideas on there own do not upset me but to say religious discussion should be barred while, through thinly veiled wording, exalting one's own a-religious views does.

As noted above, I do not have areligious views. My views are that one's religion is not superior to or more authentic than any other.

I concur with Serpentine: you seem to have taken offense (whether intentionally or accidentally) to my positing that Christianity and paganism are equally valid faiths, which is in itself the sort of discourse that the forum rules try to put a stop to, because it will be insulting to a part of our community, without any intent whatsoever to do so.

[Solaris]

*Taps original post* We might want to get back on topic, neh? Admiral Kelly, I'm sorry, but you are doing a splendid job of arguing against your position.


How do we tell when a Science issue shades into a Political Issue?
When they start talking about making laws about its application.


Some things one can guess are likely to be too politically related to be valid "the ethics of the use of embryonic stem cells" seems like a candidate for Not Right Here.
Yeah, pretty much.


Some might be harder to tell. So what do we look for in a Science Topic to Avoid?
Something that makes people angry. You might not always realize this before you post.

[TRM]

That's something that's crossed my mind as well... (As part of the latter group, but without the Fail (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever)-Tracts...) I almost feel discriminated against, yet to bring it up would be against the rules of the board... it's quite a peculiar position.

(Disclaimer: my thus previously stated discomfort with the LGBT community has little-to-no bearing on how I treat the individual members of the community, like trying to respect someone you disagree with as a person while still opposing their ideals)
I see what you mean. But, the LGBTitp thread specifically asks that it not become a discussion of whether being LGBT is right or wrong.

I'm pretty sure that a previous thread about the discussion of whether homosexuality would cease to exist was locked. I think the moderators just want to err on the side of safety; with such a large LGBT population, it would be very easy for a discussion of such to become very hurtful.


Something that makes people angry. You might not always realize this before you post.
So, the moral is: think a bit before you post a potentially religious/political topic and listen to the moderators (or debate them politely and privately) if they lock the thread.

[afroakuma]

*Taps original post* We might want to get back on topic, neh?

True. :smallredface:

Solaris basically has the right of it, hamishspence. We also now have a thread in Board/Site Issues that essentially asks for a sober second thought before posting a potentially contentious topic. So far there have been two, both of which have been fine.