Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
And in principle I agree but it's easy to say, harder to do. Do we want a forum with absolutely zero tolerance for any kind of negative comment against any person or group of people? Sure would make it easier to moderate, but I don't think it would go well.
"Lining up for 5 days to get a phone is stupid.", allowed? The implication is the people are stupid, but the grammar is that the lining up is stupid.
But there still is a basic difference. As you say saying "Religion X is harmful to society" is allowed, but saying "women are harmful to society" or "queers are harmful to society" would not be.
|
I think if you went on your gut in regards to religious posting you would very close to getting exactly right walking the correct line between allowing discussion and avoiding personal insults and stifling discusiion. Its just hard to write down.
I think the difference between negative commentary on what a person likes (phones) and what a person's core value is Religion makes it different when calling something someone does stupid. I think it is that religion is much less of a choice than people make it out to be.
I think the difference in saying X is harmful to society is the case you make to back it up. If you could make a logical argument to real harms that women are causing to society that are specific to women as you can with organized religion then that would be a valid discussion topic. However since no logical arguement exists to support that statement it is just hate speech.