Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Jameela
And as long as your intent is to share the truth in a civil, respectable manner (and your posting history supports that assertion) you will never have
a problem here. Neither will anyone else of any other religious background or belief.
I think part of the problem might well be that "in a civil, respectable manner" is a concept with a HUGE amount of variance.
I would dearly love to have a better understanding of HOW TO INSURE I stay on the proper side of all the mods' definitions of such.
MY INTENT [color=CCCCFF]IS
to share the truth in a civil and mutually respectable manner.
Most folks who tune in to my person fair-mindedly much at all, realize that.
People with knee-jerk REACTIONS to my content tend not to.
HOWEVER, merely my factual assertions and perspectives TEND to generate harsh personal personhood assaults when I have not said anything negative AT
ALL about my correspondent(s). That gets wearying at times.
It's those who seek to "preach" or "pontificate" with no interest in civil discourse or debate because they "know" they are right, that will
have issues here.
Not sure how to respond to that one.
At 65 years old, there are a LOT of things I'm greatly convinced I'm right or mostly right about. Am I supposed to pretend I don't think
anything's true or right? THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
There's still a lot of details and other stuff that I'm not so convinced of being correct on.
However, if I'm writing about things I am convinced about, I will certainly TEND TO SOUND EXCEEDINGLY CONVINCED!
How is it that Muslims or Marxists or some such WHEN THEY WRITE EXTREMELY CONVINCED of what they are saying--they get a free pass if not applause
while I get slapped? That double standard stuff does NOT feel wonderful.
I suppose I could try hard to put tentative qualifiers in virtually every sentence I write on ATS. That seems like a REALLY tumpted up artificial and
cumbersome thing to ask.
Personally, I think that criteria is a spin-off of the modern era mentality that preaches and teaches the globalist propaganda that
THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG whatsoever about anything
and whatever is right for you is right for you etc. etc. etc.
Personally, that's barf material to think or say such a thing. That is antithetical to the whole Christian Biblical paradigm.
This item is still a very troublesome one, to me. The only way it would appear that I can remotely hope to stay on the good side of that issue with
any confidence at all . . . is to insure that every sentence I write has some qualifier in it.
Personally, that would be PUNATIVE AND HOSTILE to my Christian world view.
Those who seek to sow intolerance, hate, racism or any other form of ignorance will have an issue too.
These SEEM TO BE UNNECESSARILY PROBLEMATIC HEREON.
ANY CHRISTIAN OR CONSERVATIVE who is seen to FEEL STRONGLY about their values and convictions
will be seen by a significant percentage of users and no few mods
to be INTOLERANT, HATEFUL OR RACIST
REGARDLESS of how civil, factual, polite, caringly their writing is worded and toned.
I've tried to see it otherwise. It persistently seems to come back to that far more often that is remotely comfortable.
And, for example, IF you think I'm going to write as though I'm politely and sweetly tolerant of elite globalists buggering and brutally sacrificing
toddler boys to satan as an initiation to join the upper ranks of their leadership--you're expecting too much.
And, is there NOTHING which you justifiably hate?
Is it not right to hate folks or at least the actions of those who serially rape women?
Is it not right to hate genocidally dooming millions of children to death by starvation?
I have this image of a tour of the death camps in Germany and the most intense responses allowed are white gloved sweetly toned "Oh, my." 's.
We don't do ignorance here, at least we try our dead level best to abolish it. I want to be clear, opinions we don't agree with are not "ignorant"
based on that singular criteria, that doesn't fly either.
Sounds good. Sometimes I wonder.