SRL Archive - Senior News and General

I just saw 'i luff yeww' signature.

God does not exist.
Thinking otherwise is an abomination to yourself, society, and anyone who shall ever meet you.
I am sorry to anyone of faith, and I hope you come to your senses.
You are wrong.
There is no deity of any sort.


I don't know the exact rules on this but I just thought it was kind of inappropriate outside of a god existance thread.

If it is inappropriate can someone ask him to change it? If it is not and is fine then that is fine with me too. I was just simply stating.

Don't turn this into a debate thread, doesn't need to be in SSRL

I do think that is a bit strong, but whether or not any admin/mod intervention is needed seems like quite a thin line on this - it may be that he doesn't realise how offensive it is/may be to you and other religious peoples and you sending a pm asking him to change it would be enough. I would like to think that rather than censoring him, we could ask him to be a bit more respectful first.

Then again, I'm not religious - I don't know how offensively or unoffensively people would take it.

I didn't notice it till now, I find it offensive, and I'm *not* religious. There is no need for something like that..

Not my decision, but I don't think its very just or needed.

Well I will ask him then, I just was wondering if it was or if I was just thinking it was.

I noticed it a while ago too (like a week? ago) I found it somewhat offensive as well.

Kick his ass out.

From: Nava2
Kick his ass out.

I find this more offensive than his signature. :)

I'm not religious at all, but agree it's offensive. He could word it a lot better and still make his point. And a signature related to religion is unnecessary anyways IMO.

I don't like ian. and I don't think he should be allowed back, but yes, your point is valid.

Take the 3 middle lines away and it's fine, that'll be kind of a trick ;) DOIT

I find this thread more offensive than that signature. How is saying god doesnt exist more offensive than saying he does exist? If you believe in god, you should have your own reasons which stand up to criticism. If you get offended by someone criticising your beliefs, its a sign you don't have full belief in them anyway. Someone who has full faith and is confident in it would just laugh at comments like that, like I laugh (internaly, dont want to get punched in the face) at people who try to convince me god exists.

Another thing, censorship of any kind is bad.

Also, everyones opinion is as valid as everyone elses, so even though you are offended: get over it.

If we are to respect people who believe in some sort of god (dunno how they would choose which one to believe in but you get my point), then we are to respect people who don't and allow them to voice themselves equally.

From: Nava2
I don't like ian. and I don't think he should be allowed back

I completely agree. He has returned after a ban (more than once?) and has at least 3 accounts. He has also posted offensive material, as well as caused a lot of commotion and arguments. And he leaked SSRL material IIRC.

I believe in freedom of speech… but really his signature is just bashing all those that have a faith, in God or otherwise. Its fine to state "God does not exist." but then to go on to bash all of those that believe…

While I do believe in freedom of speech on the internet this is _our_ forum and the rules have been set.

Here I'll reword it:
"(something you are, like, believe etc.)
Thinking otherwise is an abomination to yourself, society, and anyone who shall ever meet you.
I am sorry to anyone who is/likes ____, and I hope you come to your senses.
You are wrong."

Fill in the blanks with any assortment of stuff. Some may be silly and ignored other stuff is dead serious and charges of discrimination can ensue.

Well, what about x[Warrior]x3500 signature? Someone who believes in let's say Thor, Allah, Goofy, Zordon etc. could find that very offensive. If your belief in one of the thousands of gods mankind has thought of can't take criticism you really don't belong on the internet.

From: GoF
Well, what about x[Warrior]x3500 signature? Someone who believes in let's say Thor, Allah, Goofy, Zordon etc. could find that very offensive. If your belief in one of the thousands of gods mankind has thought of can't take criticism you really don't belong on the internet.

I think the problem isn't so much he's saying "God doesn't exist" but he's saying "God doesn't exist and you're an idiot for believing him" - not so much expressing his opinion, but expressing his opinion and attacking one of peoples core values because of it.

Like I said at the beginning, I'm unsure if it is enough to warrant a sig edit, but I would like to think he was given the choice to remove it themselves if they knew how offensive it was to some people - I think HyperSecret mentioned sending him a pm earlier on, so may be worth waiting to see if he gets a reply first.

From: mixster
I think the problem isn't so much he's saying "God doesn't exist" but he's saying "God doesn't exist and you're an idiot for believing him" - not so much expressing his opinion, but expressing his opinion and attacking one of peoples core values because of it.

I think HyperSecret mentioned sending him a pm earlier on, so may be worth waiting to see if he gets a reply first.

Exactly, he can keep the 'God doesn't exists' part all he wants. I would have posted this if it said 'Ala doesn't exists' or bashed any belief of anything. It the fact that after it, he directly attacks more than just a belief but attacks the person directly.

I sent him a pm but haven't received anything back yet.

"Thinking otherwise is an abomination to yourself, society, and anyone who shall ever meet you.
I am sorry to anyone of faith, and I hope you come to your senses.
You are wrong."

This is the only offensive thing here…

From: marpis
"Thinking otherwise is an abomination to yourself, society, and anyone who shall ever meet you.
I am sorry to anyone of faith, and I hope you come to your senses.
You are wrong."

This is the only offensive thing here…

Compare that to what Christianity says to all others: "If you don't believe in me, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, suffering the worst pain imaginable." That is much more offensive than simply calling someone "an abomination."

If his signature is going to be removed, then remove all signs of the cross as well.

Coexist. We have added the option for people to create custom user groups, support can be shown for their beliefs in these and off-topic areas….New rule ? Signature not to mention anything regarding, race, religion, politics, sexual orientation, or anything non SRL related, that may be constituted as offensive to another group or individual ?…Where does the censorship end ?

There doesn't need to be any censorship. People can disable signatures if they are that distraught over them.

From: Nava2
I don't like ian. and I don't think he should be allowed back

I second that.

Although, I see no reason to change his sig.

From: bullzeye95
Compare that to what Christianity says to all others: "If you don't believe in me, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, suffering the worst pain imaginable." That is much more offensive than simply calling someone "an abomination."

If his signature is going to be removed, then remove all signs of the cross as well.

No one has "If you don't believe in me, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, suffering the worst pain imaginable." in their signature though.

I think people should be able to freely express their opinion on the matter in their signature as long as it isn't an attack on another person or group of people, which it is in this case.

From: bullzeye95
Compare that to what Christianity says to all others: "If you don't believe in me, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, suffering the worst pain imaginable." That is much more offensive than simply calling someone "an abomination."

If his signature is going to be removed, then remove all signs of the cross as well.

Like I said above, he doesn't have to remove the 'God doesn't exist' part just the part that attacks the actual individual that has this certain belief.

And like I said, a debate about religion doesn't belong in SSRL, so don't try to bring it to that.

From: RAM
Coexist. We have added the option for people to create custom user groups, support can be shown for their beliefs in these and off-topic areas….New rule ? Signature not to mention anything regarding, race, religion, politics, sexual orientation, or anything non SRL related, that may be constituted as offensive to another group or individual ?…Where does the censorship end ?

I don't believe such censorship is necessary. The religious fact isn't what bothers me, he is free to believe what he wants and to express it but when he attacks such people belong to that belief, I believe that line needs to be drawn.

Just like you banning R0b0t for his comments at your mother specifically, if he would have directed it towards moms in general nothing would have resulted from it (possibly) but it was a direct attack. And this signature is directed towards people specifically even though there is no names.

So his direction towards 'God doesn't exist' doesn't bother me, its his affect towards what the next lines say about me.

From: bullzeye95
Compare that to what Christianity says to all others: "If you don't believe in me, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, suffering the worst pain imaginable." That is much more offensive than simply calling someone "an abomination."

If his signature is going to be removed, then remove all signs of the cross as well.

Yes, if someone had "If you don't believe in God, I feel sorry for you and you will burn in hell" I would like to have it removed.
But first use your brain please. This is not about what some christians say, this is what people say in our forums.

From: The Claw
I find this thread more offensive than that signature. How is saying god doesnt exist more offensive than saying he does exist? If you believe in god, you should have your own reasons which stand up to criticism. If you get offended by someone criticising your beliefs, its a sign you don't have full belief in them anyway. Someone who has full faith and is confident in it would just laugh at comments like that, like I laugh (internaly, dont want to get punched in the face) at people who try to convince me god exists.

Another thing, censorship of any kind is bad.

Also, everyones opinion is as valid as everyone elses, so even though you are offended: get over it.

If we are to respect people who believe in some sort of god (dunno how they would choose which one to believe in but you get my point), then we are to respect people who don't and allow them to voice themselves equally.

I don't think anyone is offended by the "I don't think God exists" part its more of

"You're a dumbass idiot" part

From: bullzeye95
Compare that to what Christianity says to all others: "If you don't believe in me, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, suffering the worst pain imaginable." That is much more offensive than simply calling someone "an abomination."

If his signature is going to be removed, then remove all signs of the cross as well.

A lot of christian beliefs teach tolerance, even in Catholics. So goes the saying, it's not your fault for being raised a certain way or not praying to God when you've isolated from the rest of the world since birth.

I don't see how this is at all anywhere comparable to

"You're an idiot"

->

*Picture of a cross"

One is clearly different than the other. Yet from your logic, they would both need to be removed? That makes less sense than what people make religion out to be.

In all seriousness though.

If I posted [Insert Member's Name Here] is a dumbass in my signature and an abomination to everyone, it would be considered flaming and would be infractionized, but just because I put

[Insert Member's Name Here] Is a dumbass Christian

I get the full protection from all of you?

From: mixster
No one has "If you don't believe in me, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, suffering the worst pain imaginable." in their signature though.

Nor does anyone have "all Jews should be killed" in their signature, but some have had – and got banned for having – a swastika, which (partially) stands for that. I see no reason why the cross can partially stand for something that is, in my opinion, much worse, yet still be allowed.

From: IceFire908
"You're an idiot"

->

*Picture of a cross"

One is clearly different than the other. Yet from your logic, they would both need to be removed? That makes less sense than what people make religion out to be.

Like I said above, there does not need to be any censorship of signatures, since they can be easily disabled. But even in a forum post, I don't see a reason to remove either… I am much more lax on what I consider "offensive" than most members though.

Well other then this thread I haven't seen any complaints over his signature yet. If enough people speak up then it's at ian's discretion how much he wants to be hated/complained at.

From: bullzeye95
Nor does anyone have "all Jews should be killed" in their signature, but some have had – and got banned for having – a swastika, which (partially) stands for that. I see no reason why the cross can partially stand for something that is, in my opinion, much worse, yet still be allowed.

I really don't think even you believe in that point (not to mention Harry got unbanned for some unknown reason). The Swastika is a lot more offensive, because it represents genocides. They `believed' Jews and minorities were bad and killed them. Christians may believe that Jews and other religions are bad, but they don't kill them (at least not currently to my knowledge).

Like I said above, there does not need to be any censorship of signatures, since they can be easily disabled. But even in a forum post, I don't see a reason to remove either… I am much more lax on what I consider "offensive" than most members though.

There does need to be some censorship though regardless. I'm not saying for this case, but just because they can disable it, it doesn't mean people should be able to put whatever they want into it.

Lastly just wanted to check whether or not you are religious. After all, if you're not then it would make sense that you are offended by `if you don't believe in God you'll spend an eternity suffering' but not `religious people are abominations and are silly etc'.

From: i luffs yeww
Hello. I apologize for offending you, I honestly do, but for you to ask me to not be allowed to show my side of the story is quite immature and offensive.

Thanks,
i luffs yeww

Majority of anyone with power doesn't see any of it as offensive and there is enough support here for him to have it, so it will stay.

Everyone can let it be now.

And why would anyone disable signatures because of 1 signature? I just have absolutely no respect for him.

From: HyperSecret
Majority of anyone with power doesn't see any of it as offensive and there is enough support here for him to have it, so it will stay.

Everyone can let it be now.

And why would anyone disable signatures because of 1 signature? I just have absolutely no respect for him.

I trust that you didn't say anything stupid or overly dramatic in your original message. With that said, :duh:

I think this was handled correctly.

From: Town
I trust that you didn't say anything stupid or overly dramatic in your original message. With that said, :duh:

I think this was handled correctly.

Nope just a simple little message.

From: HyperSecret
Would you mind changing your signature. I and other find it to be a bit offensive outside of a 'God exists' thread/debate.

Thanks,
HyperSecret

In my reply, I just simply stated, that I didn't mind the 'God doesn't exist' part and by all means keep that. But the middle part that directly attacks people with that belief is offensive.

Didn't ask him to change it just told him what part, will see if he considers or not.


I do have to say though, it is pretty disappointing. If you guys were my irl friends I would find it disrespectful (as I do now), that you guys at least don't take into consideration of your 'friend' over a guy who has shown disrespect to this forum in the past. I know if my friend asked me to stick up for him on something, I would back him up 100%, even if I didn't full agree with him on the subject.

is the ian we talk about the not stable guy? fuken kids keep bouncing back

Here are the private messages.

From: HyperSecret
Would you mind changing your signature. I and other find it to be a bit offensive outside of a 'God exists' thread/debate.

Thanks,
HyperSecret

From: i luffs yeww
Hello. I apologize for offending you, I honestly do, but for you to ask me to not be allowed to show my side of the story is quite immature and offensive.

Thanks,
i luffs yeww

From: HyperSecret
Go ahead and leave the 'God doesn't exist' part, that isn't what is offensive. It is what is after that, you go out and personally attack individuals with that belief.

From: i luffs yeww
I do not personally attack anyone. However, you are personally attacking me.

From: HyperSecret
k, leave it no big deal.

From: i luffs yeww
Thank you. Sorry for offending you. :<