OrangeDragon wrote:Warning was made... take 24 hours.

Well that wasn't biased. At all. So much for free speech.

He was responding me and reiterating what his view entails.

Don't become like the people you used to criticise so much.

vladimir wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Warning was made... take 24 hours.

Well that wasn't biased. At all. So much for free speech.

He was responding me and reiterating what his view entails.

Don't become like the people you used to criticise so much.

It wasn't... and don't try to make it something it's not. I had issued him a warning saying to get off the ranting and personal attacks. He'd been unofficially warned several times, and was intentionally using it as one more time to make personal attacks and accusations against SC. I'm honestly on the verge of locking this whole thread because it's becoming apparent that members here are incapable of discussing religion without it turning into personal and emotional attacks on anyone who has differing views. Enough is enough... all of you.

Discuss it from an academic perspective, or how you personally believe, but leave how other's personally believe out of it when you do.

OrangeDragon wrote:I'm not opposed to discussion of the subject in an adult manor... however I am opposed to the attacking of individual members on the basis of their religious beliefs. I'm an atheist... far and wide. Though I find the subject of religion a fascinating one in regards to human psychology and sociology and don't at all think my beliefs (or lack of them) should be forced down someone else's throat. Just as I wouldn't tolerate Stroppy or his missus doing so with theirs. The exception we have here id dengaham doing so with his, and personally attacking anyone who opposes him or points it out. It's over the top, and a warning has been issued. Continued behaviour will result in a ban.

Dagenham indeed can be repetitive and annoying, and I do not share his views either. That said I think banning him just now was flat out wrong. Nothing he posted was ban worthy. If he is too repetitive he can be placed on ignore.

One of the biggest complaints about K440 is that admin protected certain long term or high volume posters from criticisms by others.

I fear that trait is starting to emerge here.

Rain Dog wrote:You post a lot of religiously bigoted shit. Sometimes I call you on it.

And generally I think you're wrong, and I say so. It's how it works.

You tell your Aussie Mates that they need to Choose between Australia being a Christian Country or a Muslim country and that if they don't choose that they are choosing Islam by default(?)

Yes, correct.

This is clearly a call to action. So what do you want them to choose (in Choosing Christian against Muslim)? How should they demonstrate this choice?

Again, these are all your words. I have Muslim friends in Australia, and friends of other religions (including atheism) too. They're all Australian.

What does your vision of an exclusively "Christian" Australia entail? How does the status quo need to change?

Sigh. It doesn't need to change. That's my point.

reread post edits... honestly i think to this point we've been MORE than tolerant of his personal attacks on posters because he doesn't agree with their life views. especially considering this is about the only thing he comes on here TO post. when we banned jonnonpfc, and the times we've banned FC, it's been for less... and no one called it unfair or complained.

OrangeDragon wrote: when we banned jonnonpfc, and the times we've banned FC, it's been for less... and no one called it unfair or complained.

I think I did, or if I didn't I forgot to.

OrangeDragon wrote:reread post edits... honestly i think to this point we've been MORE than tolerant of his personal attacks on posters because he doesn't agree with their life views. especially considering this is about the only thing he comes on here TO post. when we banned jonnonpfc, and the times we've banned FC, it's been for less... and no one called it unfair or complained.

I cannot recall the specifics of Jonnopc being banned here but I recall from K440 is was usually for antisemitic comments which would typically get Jacked Camry all worked up. I personally don't like reading a lot of racist, bigoted crap --- but in fairness there does seem to be a lot of double standards when it comes to censoring racism on these forums.

Criticize Jews and you are zapped in a flash
Attack Blacks and it's maybe 50/50 depending on how far it is pushed
Go after "Ragheads" and "SandNiggers" then it is open season --- even calls for mass killing and genocide -- as has happened on this thread on page 1.

So in some ways it is unfair.

Dagenham has made no racist comments here -- he hates all religions. I cannot understand why he was censored unless it is because we are reaching the point of protecting certain favored posters.

No, it's because he was making repeated personal accusations of specific behaviour of posters, self included, which had zero backing. Even when said posters clarified it was untrue. Regular and repeated trolling. He was then warned about the behaviour, and told to stop it or take a break. He then intentionally did it again. That gets him 24 hours to cool down.

And reading P1 of this thread I see no calls for mass killings... and we've even tolerated blanket/academic anti-semitic views, as well as anti christian views of the same cut. The thing that got him banned was attacking individual posters for their views.

StroppyChops wrote: Again, these are all your words. ..........
Sigh. It doesn't need to change. That's my point.

So set aside personal attacks and accusations thereof now. You posted a Muslim bashing forum debate with all the usual red herrings of creeping shariah and Islam teaches wife beating blah blah blah.

Your thread title pits Christians against Muslims

Your follow up with comments but keep saying these are "my words" not yours when i cite you.

So to be precise --- here is your exact quote:

"Choose today whether you want Australia to identify as being Christian or Muslim." You cannot do nothing, if you believe you're choosing the none-of-the-above option, you're choosing a Muslim nation."

The latter part (emphasis mine) is a call to action --- to use your words, doing nothing means choosing a Muslim nation.

So you are insisting on a "for us or against us" choice ---- I am curious as to what the specifics are as to the "choice" you want people to make if a "Christian Nation" is your desired outcome. What are the implications? Be specific. You want people to choose Christian Australia against the default option of the threat of Muslim Australia --- what exactly does this mean in practice? How should people indicate or express this conscious choice?