jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (98 posts)

Q&A and the way they are moderated

  1. Austinstar profile image77
    Austinstarposted 9 months ago

    I'm stymied and mystified by the moderators deleting my question:
    "Calling all atheists and agnostics - do any of you hate Christians?" which was an opposite question as a rebuttal to:
    "Calling all Christians. Do any of you hate atheists?"
    I reported the "Christian" question first (and a second time) several days before posting my rebuttal question which used the exact same type of language and asked the exact same type of question.
    Why was my later question deleted by HP moderators, yet the first question is still up and running?

    1. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      It is totally mystifying to say the least.  Your questions are very intelligent & thought provoking.  They aren't the usual questions asked here.  Yes, it is totally unfair for some questions to be deleted while others.....AREN'T.....

    2. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      The way I see it (and happy to receive disagreement), if the moderator or moderators have unreasonable bias in filtering out certain hubs/questions/answers/opinions, then that would not be at all acceptable.
      However, if they are only concerned with excluding gutter-like utterances that don't inform, respect, enlighten us hubbers in a friendly way, then I would be supporting them.
      Even some of the apparently worst postings can at least inform us about the character of the poster.

    3. LoisRyan13903 profile image71
      LoisRyan13903posted 9 months ago in reply to this

      I remember both of those questions, the one you wrote and the other one.  I did not see anything wrong with them and there was no reasons for anybody to report either one.

      1. Austinstar profile image77
        Austinstarposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Thank you, Lois. I appreciate you saying this.

        1. LoisRyan13903 profile image71
          LoisRyan13903posted 9 months ago in reply to this

          You're very welcome

      2. Oztinato profile image82
        Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12919051_f1024.jpg

        It's a dead parrot. Right?
        Any suggestion that atheist moderators have acted improperly is a serious matter. My best suggestion is you leave HP altogether and visit divisive sites perhaps? Otherwise humbly learn by mistakes here.

        1. LoisRyan13903 profile image71
          LoisRyan13903posted 9 months ago in reply to this

          Was that directed at me?  I did not make any such suggestions

          1. Oztinato profile image82
            Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            It was for both of you for trying to convince each other it's not a dead parrot and failing to understand the obvious: Dawkins style divisive stereotypes are in fact a dead parrot.

            1. LoisRyan13903 profile image71
              LoisRyan13903posted 9 months ago in reply to this

              I agree that the Religion Q/A answer should be eliminated altogether.  Would be a lot less headaches.  There is not so much drama on the Forums at Blog Job.  I myself have been avoiding this section.  But once in a while the temptation is there

              1. Oztinato profile image82
                Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                I don't agree that any QandA should be eliminated except for the ones that break Hub rules.
                This invariably falls into the category divisive hate speech or obsessional negative questions repeatedly asked by the same people. It's wrong and needs to stop.

  2. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 9 months ago

    I gave up on Q&A a long time ago. For whatever reason, HP is determined to not let anyone make any money there.

  3. Austinstar profile image77
    Austinstarposted 9 months ago

    It's still pennies and every once in a while I get a new follower or find a person worth following. Kind of a random thing, but one is better than zero, right?

    1. paradigmsearch profile image90
      paradigmsearchposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      I agree. I don't know why HP doesn't give us more latitude.

  4. Oztinato profile image82
    Oztinatoposted 9 months ago

    If all a person does is continually pose anti religious hubs etc they  are being unethical. My theory is that modern new atheism is dulling or eradicating the moral sense of the said practitioners. Case in point: the current question being asked here which shows no remorse or any sense of ethics and seems to exhibit genuine total moral blindness.

    1. Austinstar profile image77
      Austinstarposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Oztinhato - I have 276 featured hubs, 16 of them are probably what you call "anti-religous". So what are you talking about?
      This question is a rebuttal question to one that was asked by a "Christian" seeking religious folks that "hate" atheists. Perhaps you should copy and paste your unethical answer onto his question.
      Thank you.

      1. Oztinato profile image82
        Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        The moderators have acted ethically against certain people who clearly spend all their time (a huge majority of the time)constantly injecting anti religious  venom into HPs. No other group engages in such wholesale never ending hate speech as do a certain group of atheists who seem to cluster together united by bitterness and hatred. Of course we can't name names but how on earth can anyone be so utterly blind to the good ethics in getting rid of such continual gross anti religious behaviour? My theory which this very discussion proves, is that modern new atheist thought is removing atheist's ability to perceive right vs wrong. Independent observers themselves atheists and experienced moderators have seen fit to remove hatred: this is the act of an actual ethical atheist as opposed to the bastardized new atheism promoted by such hypocrites as Dawkins and co.

    2. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      There might well be a group somewhere in the United States that is atheist and "... is dulling or eradicating the moral sense ..." to whoever.  But they would not in any way be representative of all persons who have an a-theist point of view.  I am a-theist, but don't consider myself immoral, but unless my moral status affects the life or lives others, it's no anyone else's business.

      I try to keep open-minded and considerate of individuals who have a theist disposition.  I have friends who are Christian, (2 or 3 at this point in time), Buddhist, (also 2 or 3), Hindu, (5 or 6), Muslim, (variable),  Pagan (1 or 2).

      But I will not stand for BS that insists I must follow any one of those other paths.  I make my own choices and fear no god.  There is no such thing as "original sin" in reality.  It's the human practitioners that worry me sometimes.

      Good question, Austinstar.

      1. Oztinato profile image82
        Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        I have drawn the same distinction as you. There are in fact ethical atheists. Unfortunately you may be one of the only ones on HPs.
        I have responded to Austins question with this same theme of actual atheism versus the usual barrage of hatred proposed by the usual crew.
        Once again: if an alleged atheist can't see why ugly hate speech should be banned then a very important piece of their ethics has been removed like a lobotomy by the unsightly new atheist trend.
        Hence this discussion is not based on a "good" question but it is ironically shedding light on the very poor state of ethical standards exhibited by the same old crew.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          If you were to give equal criticism of un-ethical theists, I would give you equal credibility.
          Is it ethical for theists to presume all or most a-theists are lacking morality?without a shred of evidence apart from bigotry?

          1. Oztinato profile image82
            Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Jon
            I didn't say that I said the exact opposite. Yes it is possible to be an ethical atheist. There's just not too many on HPs just mainly (but not exclusively dear Jon) only the lobotomised type.
            I really don't see anyone else trying to use HPs as a platform for hate speech other than "the same old crew".

  5. Austinstar profile image77
    Austinstarposted 9 months ago

    UPDATE!
    This question has been reinstated by the moderators, but it is still closed to new answers for some reason. Very strange.

  6. Austinstar profile image77
    Austinstarposted 9 months ago

    Thank you, Johnny! You always have the best comments. I appreciate your support.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      The goings on in The Vatican right now show the tip of an iceberg that represents hypocritical religiosity.  An organisation that says we must repent; that we risk eternal damnation if we don't; or we don't accept/believe in a set of controlling, superstitious excreta;  that supports the idea men who commit to chastity can understandably have a taste for little boys and girls .... and then be protected by the said organisation!!!   
      And, before any one of another religious organisation decides The Vatican alone stands condemned, just examine your own beliefs and your leaders.   
      There will be just as many hypocrites among believers as non-believers.
      Morality?  In the same ball-park as Relativity ... it depends on your point of view.

      Sorry, gone off topic here.

      1. savvydating profile image85
        savvydatingposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, you went very much off topic, Johnny. Your assumptions about Catholicism are only that---mere assumptions....and assumptions do not replace facts. As for your assertion that "priests are understandably fond of little boys and girls due to their celibacy" (I am paraphrasing your words) that statement is categorically false. Do you think the Dalai Lama has that problem? What about Buddhist monks? What about nuns? What about 68 year old women who are tired of sex?
        Being gay and being a pedophile are two different things--and it has nothing to do with whether one is celibate. It would be well for you to do some research on those subjects before you talk about them.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          Savvy, thankyou for giving me your opinions.  They don't change my mind, yet.  You may wish to try harder.
          If what I describe of the Roman Catholic Church is untrue, please take each point in turn and explain clearly.
          I can only see that church as a Convenient, Hierarchical Use of Religion for the Control of Humanity.  So much superstition, theatrical dressing up, ceremony and promotion of dogma - aided and abetted by ordinary people who kneel down and worship without question.
          At least this is how it appears to me - a gay lapsed christian who is grateful for having learned to think for himself.
          If you can indeed refute my perception, please do so, but it better be good.

          1. savvydating profile image85
            savvydatingposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Johnny....It is not my goal to convert you. I understand that you are committed to  New Age beliefs, and explaining Catholicism would be a waste of my time. What I am saying is that you were wrong in stating that celibate priests naturally have sexual desires towards little boys and girls. That assertion is untrue. Pedophiles are pedophiles. This has nothing to do with celibacy. As for gay priests who are bad men, they have an interest in teenagers, not children. That is the point I was trying to clarify. If that is not what you meant, then feel free to let me know. It is possible I misread your statement.
            Here is an excerpt from Google Scholar: "Studies that are based on empirical research dispute the existence of a direct link between sexual abuse of minors and homosexuality.
            Plante (2006) posits that an incorrect interpretation of the 2004 John Jay College report may have contributed to the scapegoating of homosexual priests. Plante (2006) reports that many pedophile priests, when evaluated, self report as heterosexual.
            The majority of the pedophile priests claim to target boys for reasons
            that include “easier access to boys” in an all-male or majority-male environment, “pregnancy
            fears with female victims,” and “more easily established trust and access with boys (and
            perhaps with their parents)” (p. 236).
            He also states that research has recognized that men
            with a homosexual orientation are not any more likely to abuse a child sexually than are
            heterosexual men (e.g., Groth and Birnbaum 1978; Groth and Gary 1982; Herek 2009).
            Rossetti (1994), who utilized data from hundreds of clinically evaluated and treated clergy
            sexual offenders, concludes that “homosexuality and child abuse are two different realities
            that spring from two different psychodynamic sets of factors” (p. 14)."

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Th … c44322.pdf

            My point is that pedophiles are not created as a result of celibacy. These men already had this propensity. Furthermore, most priests who are pedophiles identify as heterosexuals. Also, many priests are gay men, but they are also committed to celibacy and a spiritual life, for the most part.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image86
              jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              I agree.

              1. savvydating profile image85
                savvydatingposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                OK. That's good. Thanks.

                1. savvydating profile image85
                  savvydatingposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  I think... That is, if you were agreeing with the priest thing, Johnny.

          2. Austinstar profile image77
            Austinstarposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            And she replies by defending and making excuses for sexual deviancy in Catholic men. The response requested was about the "control" that the Catholic church has on ALL its members.

            1. savvydating profile image85
              savvydatingposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              Austin, that is not what I said. You have a penchant for twisting the truth. Read the the comments and entry so that you can make an intelligent, rational answer. At this juncture, you are merely spewing hate speech. Anyway, Johnny can answer for himself.
              I would imagine the reason your question was deleted, by the way, is because the moderators have figured out that you are not interested in the answers to your questions. Rather, they apparently see that many of your questions are an opportunity to invite hate speech.

              1. Austinstar profile image77
                Austinstarposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                My question was reinstated.

            2. Oztinato profile image82
              Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              The selective focussing on the Christian religion by atheists has now become an established phenomena. This usually focuses on either extreme right wing Christian groups or solely bad examples. Recently the main atheist leader Dawkins was ejected from the organised skeptics society for such behaviour as it is divisive and hate filled even to a hard core atheist.
              You see, it leads to and is in fact only bigotry to constantly stereotype a group. Good atheists find Dawkins and his ilk here on HP as totally repugnant. So why keep indulging in repugnant activity against a religious stereotype? It is just a deluded obsession and a repetive "broken record"
              I implore you to take a wider view and to stop taking an extremely narrow minded view.

              1. Austinstar profile image77
                Austinstarposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                How many times are you going to repeat yourself?

                1. savvydating profile image85
                  savvydatingposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Austin, given your innate passion, you could be a force for good and truth....simply by being more open minded, and less defensive.
                  That is the message some of us are  communicating. That's all. You needn't be offended. That is not the intent.

                2. Oztinato profile image82
                  Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  I'm not repeating myself you are with obsessions about christianity. I've asked you to look at all religions including indigenous but you keep focused on a stereoptype.

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    I don't see all religions pushing the precepts of their religion onto others.  Jewish people don't insist that we all become Jews.  Buddhists don't insist we all become Buddhist.  Indigenous people don't insist we all "believe in" the Dreamland. 

                    How often have you seen myself respectfully allow for a Christian to have his/her faith and beliefs, provided he/she does not insist it's the only way for me?   Yet how often have you seen a Christian, particularly a "right-wing" fundamentalist Christian allow me the same respect in my un-belief?  Very, very rarely, if ever. 

                    So you see, I (speaking only for my own point of view here) cannot withdraw from confronting "right-wing" Christians, because I can only be on the defensive as far as they are concerned.  They should not expect me to just sit back and let them get on, taking over the world of political obligations and bullying.  When fundamentalism is put up as the standard, then the battle line is drawn.

                    Those gentlefolk who are applying their faith in good works, kind, thoughtful, addressing the problems of this world and using their talents for the common good, rest easy.  I have no quarrel with you.

              2. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                Guess that makes me a "bad atheist."  But certainly not delusional....

                Please don't blame us, who can think beyond belief, for confronting christian argument so often...when those (who often do sound delusional) bring the rhetorical upon themselves.

                1. Oztinato profile image82
                  Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  It's about the persistent focusing on right wing Christians and mistakes as representative of all religion:how did you just jump tracks with such a basic point?

                2. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Case in point of a post that can easily be construed as divisive and bigoted.

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    Sorry, Live-to-Learn, not fully understanding your point here. 
                    Do you feel I am being "divisive and bigoted" with this post?  Or should I make my feelings known in a bit more politically correct way?

          3. gmwilliams profile image86
            gmwilliamsposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            +1,000,000,000,000, jonny!

  7. Shadrack2 profile image66
    Shadrack2posted 9 months ago

    I have a feeling that atheists just live in denial. No matter what evidence you give them about God their only aim seems to rubbish it away.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Shadrack2, there is no evidence of that judgmental god you seem so scared of, apart from the beliefs of humans like yourself, who use that judgment to their own ends.

      Numerous times I have indicated a respect for anyone,  even yourself, in that you exercise your choice whether to "believe" or not.  I exercise my choice as well.  Fair enough?

      I am living in denial of such a "god" as yours, and will come to no harm because of my denial....unless an extremist human should take exception.

  8. Will Apse profile image91
    Will Apseposted 9 months ago

    Perhaps the mods are just tired of the same old, same old. I know I am. Just how many 'atheist v true believer' threads can any one website be expected to bear?

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Will Apse, a "quiet rural life" would surely be a good antidote.

      1. Will Apse profile image91
        Will Apseposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Getting stuck in a loop is never fun and I sympathise. Sometimes though, other people deserve a break.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          Maybe it's better if we sort of "allow" what is important for the individual...i.e., what each values in his or her life.  The atheist allows the theist to choose, unconditionally.  And vise versa.  The theist allows the atheist to choose.  After all, what's the problem?  We have learned here of individuals having close friendships across cultures. 
          In a similar way I am just now reading of the Aboriginal view of life, the ancient stories and their meanings.  It's mostly what we grow up with and should not be pushed onto others for whom it does not fit.
          Live and let live.

          1. Will Apse profile image91
            Will Apseposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Some kind of automated filter made it impossible to read that post.

            1. Oztinato profile image82
              Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              Maybe the new AI human decency algorithm?

              1. Will Apse profile image91
                Will Apseposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                lol. But first of all we would we would need human decency.

                1. Oztinato profile image82
                  Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  My theory is that in order to program ethics into AI we necessarily need to analyse the history of ethics and how it evolved in order to ascertain what are the best ethics. My beef with such lunatics as Richard Dawkins and co is that they are trying to trash all ethics and start all over again without any references to religion or philosophy thus removing their own cherished Principle of Evolution from the equation. For a zoologist like Dawkins to do this is crank stupity on a scale seldom seen in the recent history of intellectualism.
                  This also relates to this current discussion as the said individual has revealed they don't have a clue about ethics anymore due to the odd non evolutionary developments in "new atheism". The new atheism is giving followers a rapid ethical lobotomy.

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    You might disagree with Richard Dawkins, you are entitled to do that.  But to then declare him a "lunatic" just shows how shallow your own mind must be.  Sometimes here, Oztinato, you do write some sensible things.  But this latest post of yours is very unintelligent and insulting towards a man who is at least able to think beyond the mundane mind of conformity.

                    Have you even, ever, read his books?  Or do you just take a few extracts from journalist and religious fanatics in order to make your judgments?  For if they tend to be biased, then your own views are going to be equally biased.

          2. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            The "problem" is that the constant baiting between people on each side who will never change their point of view even one iota is tedious.

            1. Oztinato profile image82
              Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              Look, logically pointing out serious ethical flaws can't be dismissed as baiting. Take a step by step look at the question of this discussion and the totally obvious and correct way HPs has acted to the absolutely relentless anti religious hate practiced by certain unamed individuals. It's as plain as day but apparently can't be understood by certain unamed individuals.
              This is a very important issue to very basic ethics; it's a real worry that otherwise intelligent people have such vacancy when it comes to understanding really normal standards. It's actually scary.

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                Sure it is baiting.  Because the hate is going in both directions all the time.  Taking part in it in any way is just a vote in favor of pointless hostility

                1. Oztinato profile image82
                  Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Sorry but you're getting mixed up about what a discussion is as opposed to hate speech etc. We can't use "free speech" arguments to justify hate speech. There is no hate at all in condemning hate speech.

  9. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Maybe HP is growing tired of constant divisiveness among its  children ,  I know every time I visit forums  I am disappointed in "the usual   "  buttonholing  , biased , nit-picking , I mean what question seriously hasn't been  beaten to death  by all sides in bias and even outright  hatred ?    If you enter these forums , questions - eventually , you're apt to get your ego stepped on .

    In other words are we promoting a bringing together of our community or  a division and why ?

  10. Austinstar profile image77
    Austinstarposted 9 months ago

    I have asked the moderators to delete or close this forum because of you and your ilk that constantly come around to my content for the express purpose of creating animosity. Please go away.

  11. Austinstar profile image77
    Austinstarposted 9 months ago

    I do hope you realize that I wasn't talking about you, Alan.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Sorry to take so long replying.  A thunderstorm knocked out the local transmitter and we have been without internet for 12 hours.
      No problems Austinstar.  But I agree that this sort of discussion does tend to bring out irrational discourse sometimes.
      Patience is a virtue but some patients ain't virtuous...big_smile

  12. calculus-geometry profile image85
    calculus-geometryposted 9 months ago

    I suspect HP Q&A is not long for this world and it would be a good idea to start weaning yourself.  Besides, there are virtually no earnings from Q&A, whereas posting the questions in a hub and encouraging flame wars in the comments will still produce a few bucks.

    1. Austinstar profile image77
      Austinstarposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Strangely enough, I make more from the Q&A than I do from my 200+ hubs. So, that is why I hang around there. Traffic to hubs is going down the tubes.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Of course, traffic from hubs are abysmal.  That is nothing new at all.

      2. calculus-geometry profile image85
        calculus-geometryposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        You're riding your gravy train so hard it's in danger of derailing.

        1. Austinstar profile image77
          Austinstarposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          So, you are suggesting that i not ask questions? Why don't you just ignore them if they bother you?

          1. calculus-geometry profile image85
            calculus-geometryposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Aren't you the Q&A hound who got cyberstalked by another Q&A hound? 

            https://media.giphy.com/media/6ZXoMtHImZOgw/giphy.gif

            1. Austinstar profile image77
              Austinstarposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              I do tend to attract many trolls. My burden to bear, i suppose.

              1. calculus-geometry profile image85
                calculus-geometryposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                That could explain why your question was moderated, too much naughtiness in the comments and answers.

                1. Austinstar profile image77
                  Austinstarposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Nope, the comment was moderated because the original questioner told the moderators that I was "copying" him, which was true, but I asked the same question in reverse. My puzzlement was because they decided to delete my question based on TOU, but they didn't delete his question which would have "violated" the same TOU. Please read the first post in this forum for more information.

                  1. Oztinato profile image82
                    Oztinatoposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    You're wondering why you keep getting kicked off Q&A, remember? I've given you a clear logical and honest answer: the Dawkins style divisive hate speech isn't working anymore. It's even turning off atheist moderators. It's passe, finito, a "dead parrot", it's pushing up the daises, defunct, it is no more!

  13. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 9 months ago

    I think anyone who feels the vitriol is only one-sided is displaying their own bias right there.  I have seem massively insulting things said here quite frequently to both theists (Christian and sometimes Muslim) and atheists. The answer is not just to try and add more bickering to try and balance it out according your estimate of a fair balance-of-petty-nastiness. The answer is to not post stuff that denigrates what other people may/may not beleive in faith-wise, even if you go through the pretense of phrasing it rhetorically.

 
working