I don’t know if I’ve ever seen one of them legitimately apologize for anything, ever. It’s like they think doing so would acknowledge their fallibility and harm their ability to act as the local “priests”
But also you gotta chill on SS dude you treat him like the devil when he’s clearly just a friendly hippie-ish Christian
Well, dude, then I apologize for my part in our failed communications. Failed comms are a two-way street of course. I've also apologized when you've disliked mod choices and we've amended them.
But the real issue remains: can you unequivocally condemn the escalation of disagreement into confrontation into threats of violence? Because I always find you equivocating when it comes to that. And for the Love of God, please don’t make some insane argument about everyone deserving to be murdered being theologically sound, thus justifying (even partially) specific, directed, personal threats. Nothing is more repulsive.
And even if you choose to do so, at the same time you choose to smear together your responsibilities with others’ into the golem you label “the mod board”. You’re not even the person at issue here, except insofar as you act as a fig leaf for the issue in your long posts refusing to “wheel war” (aka acknowledge imperfection in “the mod board’s” actions aka the original and 4 year longstanding request)
Yes, if it's a threat of violence, it's condemned.
If it's an allusion to violence, that's not often a threat and it's also much more subjective to judge. There was a recent exchange in the hypothetical voice that we debated but eventually agreed was removable. We're not here to remove all allusions to violence that people might take personally, or people might start saying they feel threatened when we speak of the deservingness of this or that Mideastern people-group.
If it's possibly readable as theology, that often gets a pass too because it's more charitable to read it as theological than as actually intentionally violent.
We do acknowledge imperfection in our actions. What I recall being asked 4 years ago was specific adjustments, and I went over the decisions with you and we made adjustments.
A covenant to work together is not a golem, it's a joint agreement to work as a body. All joint agreements in the world work like that.
So those seem to me to be fair definitions, without equivocation. If you don't think so, please feel free to drill down more specifically.
Why is it impossible for you to simply state “yeah man, it’s fucked up that anyone would ever say ‘all your kids deserve to be murdered’, much less the guy I picked to help me mod c/Christianity, I’ve talked to him about this and he knows it’s unacceptable behavior”?
I think I know why. I think you like the plausible deniability he gives you. I think you think you derive benefit from the goodcop badcop routine. You don’t. More importantly, the community doesn’t.
can you unequivocally condemn the escalation of disagreement into confrontation into threats of violence?
That's never happened. Not once. Learn how to read instead of clutching your pearls, and stop being an insufferable faggot. Or are you trying to beat Bill Mitchell at his own game?!?
What you just said goes against being a KJV-onlyist though - “One that tries to make sure you can understand what He's telling you?” would imply that God speaks to us in any language, at any time, and in any book
But you want to stuff Him into one book, from one time, in one language…
It's not adamant if it's contradictory and he doesn't realize it's contradictory. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen one of them legitimately apologize for anything, ever. It’s like they think doing so would acknowledge their fallibility and harm their ability to act as the local “priests”
But also you gotta chill on SS dude you treat him like the devil when he’s clearly just a friendly hippie-ish Christian
Well, dude, then I apologize for my part in our failed communications. Failed comms are a two-way street of course. I've also apologized when you've disliked mod choices and we've amended them.
Thank you.
And likewise.
But the real issue remains: can you unequivocally condemn the escalation of disagreement into confrontation into threats of violence? Because I always find you equivocating when it comes to that. And for the Love of God, please don’t make some insane argument about everyone deserving to be murdered being theologically sound, thus justifying (even partially) specific, directed, personal threats. Nothing is more repulsive.
And even if you choose to do so, at the same time you choose to smear together your responsibilities with others’ into the golem you label “the mod board”. You’re not even the person at issue here, except insofar as you act as a fig leaf for the issue in your long posts refusing to “wheel war” (aka acknowledge imperfection in “the mod board’s” actions aka the original and 4 year longstanding request)
Yes, if it's a threat of violence, it's condemned.
If it's an allusion to violence, that's not often a threat and it's also much more subjective to judge. There was a recent exchange in the hypothetical voice that we debated but eventually agreed was removable. We're not here to remove all allusions to violence that people might take personally, or people might start saying they feel threatened when we speak of the deservingness of this or that Mideastern people-group.
If it's possibly readable as theology, that often gets a pass too because it's more charitable to read it as theological than as actually intentionally violent.
We do acknowledge imperfection in our actions. What I recall being asked 4 years ago was specific adjustments, and I went over the decisions with you and we made adjustments.
A covenant to work together is not a golem, it's a joint agreement to work as a body. All joint agreements in the world work like that.
So those seem to me to be fair definitions, without equivocation. If you don't think so, please feel free to drill down more specifically.
I’m reading 4.9 paragraphs of equivocation here.
Why is it impossible for you to simply state “yeah man, it’s fucked up that anyone would ever say ‘all your kids deserve to be murdered’, much less the guy I picked to help me mod c/Christianity, I’ve talked to him about this and he knows it’s unacceptable behavior”?
I think I know why. I think you like the plausible deniability he gives you. I think you think you derive benefit from the goodcop badcop routine. You don’t. More importantly, the community doesn’t.
That's never happened. Not once. Learn how to read instead of clutching your pearls, and stop being an insufferable faggot. Or are you trying to beat Bill Mitchell at his own game?!?
Look at you lmfao. Proving yourself wrong every time you open your faggot mouth.
He adamantly denies the flesh of My Lord, there's no backing down from that.
And you try to foist on us a God who can only speak middle English, everyone has their blind spots
Would you rather have a god that dazzles you with his Grecian prose or One that tries to make sure you can understand what He's telling you?
What you just said goes against being a KJV-onlyist though - “One that tries to make sure you can understand what He's telling you?” would imply that God speaks to us in any language, at any time, and in any book
But you want to stuff Him into one book, from one time, in one language…
That's a lie.
Yet there's no reason to call you a demon just because you lie all the time.
It's not adamant if it's contradictory and he doesn't realize it's contradictory. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."