You're allowed to disagree or point out that they were wrong or that their position (even if correct) was based in ignorance. Calling a poster an asshole is something different, and I'm sorry if you can't tell the difference. Ed O.
one thing I would like to add... I didnt call anyone an asshole. Aside from a couple of you who I have met, and some O-live people who I have known for years, but not met. I have no idea the type of people they are. I just said that "it makes the people who called him out seem like assholes" and honestly I didnt have one person in mind when I typed it.
Which poster was called an asshole? Had I seen it, I would have highlighted it. Much like boatsandstars calling Shooter "Fuck Face" today in the OT forum, which still has not been edited.
anyone who has followed the Blazers as an average rabid fan for a few years regularly checking the usual sites/blogs should be very aware that they are well outside the loop... important/pertinent stuff happens all the time outside of our limited view. Especially in the offseason, at best we're squinting through a keyhole. I'm pretty sure that the posters you're responding to are commenting on the posters who refuse to acknowledge this in the outraged opinions they voice. Things often make so much more sense once we've been clued in and often we have to wait on that I don't think it was our right to know that LA's mom has cancer and I can fully understand why the Aldridge clan might want to keep that in house. Patience grasshopper STOMP
Who is attacking them? It's an observation, and quite an astute one... When a player mails it in and you observe it, it's not an attack, and the same is true when you observe that some people vehemently acted like assholes when they accused a player of action because of some made up reasons that were not right. Saying that Andre Miller is not a good 3pt shooter is not an attack, it's an observation. When people call someone out for something that he allegedly did without any knowledge, and it becomes clear that they had no idea about the situation - it is clear that they acted like jerks.
My understanding of this thread/certain posts was that the posters who "hated on" Aldridge for sitting out are more asshole-ish now than before because his mom has cancer. The new information of her having cancer does not affect the level of douche-baggery when that information wasn't available, IMO. I'm not trying to say ignorant assumptions are a good thing. If anything I am one of the people who hates ignorant assumptions the most. That's why I'm an atheist. I realize I'm having a hard time getting my point across right now..
So are you saying that it was ignorant to make judgement without the facts, thus making it no more of a douchy move after learning the facts?
Isn't atheism based on ignorance as well? Thinking something is true (there being no god) without knowing all the facts. I'm agnostic. Seems as though you may be as well, based on your post.
I hope this thread goes on forever. It's intoxicating and it makes me high. How about everyone try to define "new information?" That should fill up another page.
How about "facts" instead of "speculation". Does that clear it up for you, Pops, or are you still buzzed?
Attacks against other posters are not allowed here, but attacks on players and their games are. Calling another poster a jerk here is not allowed, whether you think it's a fact that he or she is or not. That is a personal attack. Calling a person an asshole is a personal attack and is not allowed. Telling someone they're wrong is not a personal attack, and pointing out (or even claiming incorrectly) that a position is based in ignorance is not a personal attack. Ed O.
Notice that I've edited nothing in this thread (and no other mod has, either). I am responding to posts where people seem to think that calling someone an asshole would be acceptable if they felt that the poster was being an asshole, or if the poster had attacked a Blazers' player. Ed O.
gotcha.. thats what was throwing me off.. the asshole talk, yet no editing. Thanks for the clarification. No need to be condescending with the "Notice no editing" comment.
That's condescending? How should I have phrased that sentence to avoid making it seem like that? Ed O.
Maybe its me personally, but comments like that come off as condescending, to me it screams of "hey idiot, Nothing is edited, so obviously it didnt happen", but whatever I'm over it.
The most widely used definition of atheism by atheists is not "thinking there is no god", it is simply not believing in a god. I know you may disagree with the semantics of atheist vs. agnostic and there is no real point debating it. I see things that would describe me as an "agnostic atheist" or a "weak atheist" and people who have a stong belief there is no god as "extreme atheists", "strong atheists" or "radical atheists" (radical atheists is a term coined by author Douglas Adams, here is a quote of his) This is the best thing I can find right now to explain my opinion "How can atheists say for sure there's no god?" Most atheists don't assert that no gods exist; only a subset of all atheists are also "strong" or "positive" atheists. In fact, most atheists identify primarily by their lack of belief in gods, rather than the belief claim that none exist. The terms "strong" and "weak" in this context are not referring to the level of fervor or conviction one has concerning atheism. They are indicative of whether or not the person is making a gnostic belief claim or not (see above). Weak atheism makes no gnostic claim. It is simply the lack of belief in any god. Monotheists share the same lack of belief in gods, except for the one they do believe exists. Weak atheism is the de facto position of the majority of atheists today. Strong atheism is weak atheism plus a gnostic belief claim: a strong atheist asserts with certainty that no gods exist. All atheists are at least weak atheists; a subset of those are also strong atheists.
Long story short I just made the decision to call myself an atheist. Agnostic doesn't get my point across as well, as most people see it as "I'm not sure" rather than "I don't believe in a god" Lack of belief is different than disbelief.
