Board symbols discussion

[Comrade Tortoise]

As to offending someone because of their beliefs in regards to said symbol, the solution should be simple. We don't make them come here, so they can leave if they are 'offended'.

Frankly Walper, considering that board iconography represents the entire board, maybe we shouldnt put people into the position that they should have to leave.

That is like saying I should leave the US because ofthe "under God" section of the pledge of allegiance.

Maybe, if we have something which is supposed to repesent our board, it actually SHOULD represent our board, and not intentionally offend the religious sensibilities of certain individuals.

Again, I dont think anything religious should be part of official board policy. if there was choice involved with icon selection, as has been mentioned, I wouldnt see the problem.

But you cant have it both ways. You cant say that each person is accountable for their religious beliefs, and then force a religious symbol on them. That is hypocritical and wrong.

[Robert Walper]

As to offending someone because of their beliefs in regards to said symbol, the solution should be simple. We don't make them come here, so they can leave if they are 'offended'.

Frankly Walper, considering that board iconography represents the entire board, maybe we shouldnt put people into the position that they should have to leave.

They don't have to leave. It's their choice.

This board is not a democracy. What the owners see fit to employ is their decision, and any requested feedback on our part is a courtesy, not a requirement.

If someone doesn't like it, too fucking bad for them. Like I said, we're not under obligation to baby anyone, you, me or anyone else.

[Batman]

Sorry for partaking in another debate here and this propably ought to be split if it goes any further but I refuse to not react to this.

As to offending someone because of their beliefs in regards to said symbol, the solution should be simple. We don't make them come here, so they can leave if they are 'offended'.

Frankly Walper, considering that board iconography represents the entire board, maybe we shouldnt put people into the position that they should have to leave.

Um-who says they have to leave? IF they feel offended they can CHOOSE to leave. I fail to see why the board should tender to their irrational beliefs.

That is like saying I should leave the US because ofthe "under God" section of the pledge of allegiance.

It is no such thing. It's like saying 'IF the under God section offends you you CAN always leave'. If it DOESN'T bother you, what's the problem?

Maybe, if we have something which is supposed to repesent our board, it actually SHOULD represent our board, and not intentionally offend the religious sensibilities of certain individuals.

If those individuals choose to be offended that's THEIR problem, not the board's.
IF any of those symbols had always and exclusively been used to intentionally insult one religion you might have a point. They weren't. They're just symbols some religions react negatively to. Tough luck.

Again, I dont think anything religious should be part of official board policy.

So you'd agree that if I found a religion that bans any kind of picture this place should no longer have avatars or sig pics?

But you cant have it both ways. You cant say that each person is accountable for their religious beliefs, and then force a religious symbol on them. That is hypocritical and wrong.

The board is not forcing anything on anybody. It's the offended people who make it a 'religious' symbol in the first place. Don't like your sky pixie mocked/insulted/whatever? Too Valendamned bad. You can always leave.

[Comrade Tortoise]

It is no such thing. It's like saying 'IF the under God section offends you you CAN always leave'. If it DOESN'T bother you, what's the problem?

Thanks for missing the point. Maybe my working was bad, but we should not, with official iconography, put someone in a position where they need to make the choice.

If we know someone is going to be offended by something, then AS A SIMPLE COURTESY we shouldnt do it. If only so we dont decend into a ravenous pit of group-think where we drive away everyone who holds differing views.

So you'd agree that if I found a religion that bans any kind of picture this place should no longer have avatars or sig pics?

There is a difference between individual choice in icons, and having a single icon for the entire board. If official policy was that you MUST have a sig pic, then I dont think that is a wise policy. And there is a standard of reasonability as well.

It does not harm us, IF we can only chose one icon for the entire board, to not choose the one which causes problems for board members. We can easily pick a different one and it would be no skin off our backs, and we retain, or acquire, valuable, intelligent people. From a simple utilitarian calculus we can conclude that we should not deliberatly offend other members. Your beliefs regarding the usefullness or irrationality of religious beleifs aside.

Also, your argument falls apart, because NO ONE who is offended by all photographs will ever frequent a BBS anyway

If those individuals choose to be offended that's THEIR problem, not the board's.
IF any of those symbols had always and exclusively been used to intentionally insult one religion you might have a point. They weren't. They're just symbols some religions react negatively to. Tough luck.

If we deliberatly choose something which we know will offend people, it is our issue as well.

EX: If I tell you if you were to come visit, that my mormon grandmother doesnt like cursing, would you do so anyway, seeing as it is her problem that she is offended? Probably not.

There is no utility in pissing someone off, and if we can reasonably avoid it, we should.

I have no issue with a little panel in our profile which lets us select from a number of little rank icons, including pentagrams, and bat-signals. However, if we are restricted to one choice, I think we should choose one which is non-offensive, one which actually represents the board as a whole, rather than one group of individuals who want to "stick it to the christians" or what have you.

The board is not forcing anything on anybody. It's the offended people who make it a 'religious' symbol in the first place. Don't like your sky pixie mocked/insulted/whatever? Too Valendamned bad. You can always leave.

This is not a board dedicated to mocking and insulting religions.

It isnt a matter of what we have A right to do, it is a matter of what IS right, and decent. And maybe, just maybe, we shouldnt use an inherently religious symbol (which a pentagram is, 'perfect mathematical symbol' straw-grasping aside) as an official board icon, without offering an alternate.

Edited: typos

[Comrade Tortoise]

As to offending someone because of their beliefs in regards to said symbol, the solution should be simple. We don't make them come here, so they can leave if they are 'offended'.

Frankly Walper, considering that board iconography represents the entire board, maybe we shouldnt put people into the position that they should have to leave.

They don't have to leave. It's their choice.

This board is not a democracy. What the owners see fit to employ is their decision, and any requested feedback on our part is a courtesy, not a requirement.

If someone doesn't like it, too fucking bad for them. Like I said, we're not under obligation to baby anyone, you, me or anyone else.

Thanks for missing the point. The whole reason we have these discussions is to argue the merits of a particular decision.

I am arguing that one potential choice has less merit, and it is a valid position to take. The admins are under no obligation to listen to me, but they would probably be doing well for themselves to do so.

Again, the difference between The Right and Doing Right.

[Batman]

It is no such thing. It's like saying 'IF the under God section offends you you CAN always leave'. If it DOESN'T bother you, what's the problem?

Thanks for missing the point. Maybe my wording was bad, but we should not, with offical iconography, put someone in a position where they need to make the choice.

We wouldn't be. It's their religion that puts them in a position where they have to make a choice, not this board.

If we know someone is going to be offended by something, then AS A SIMPLE COURTESY we shouldnt do it.

Good. I'm offended at writing. As a simple courtesy this board should cease to exist.

If only so we dont descend into a ravenous pit of group-think where we drive away everyone who holds differing views.

Extrapolation to infinity and garbage to boot. Nobody's driving away anybody, we'd just refuse to adhere to whatever stupid shenanigans their particular sky pixie demands of them.

So you'd agree that if I found a religion that bans any kind of picture this place should no longer have avatars or sig pics?

There is a difference between individual choice in icons, and having a single icon for the entire board. If official policy was that you MUST have a sig pic, then I dont think that is a wise policy.

Who said anything about HAVING to have an avvie or sig pic? My religion takes offense to ANYBODY having one, thus I demand the practice be stopped.

And there is a standard of reasonability as well.
It does not harm us, IF we can only chose one icon for the entire board, to not choose the one which causes problems for board members.

Why? Especially if it being a problem is their own damned choice?

We can easily pick a different one and it would be no skin off our backs, and we retain, or acquire, valuable, intelligent people. From a simple utilitarian calculus we can conclude that we should not deliberatly offend other members.

We wouldn't offend. They'd choose to be offended. Slight difference.

Also, your argument falls apart, because NO ONE who is offended by all photographs will ever frequent a BBS anyway

Thank you for completely missing the point.

If those individuals choose to be offended that's THEIR problem, not the board's.
IF any of those symbols had always and exclusively been used to intentionally insult one religion you might have a point. They weren't. They're just symbols some religions react negatively to. Tough luck.

If we deliberatly choose something which we know will offend people, it is our issue as well.
EX: If I tell you if you were to come visit, that my mormon grandmother doesnt like cursing, would you do so anyway, seeing as it is her problem that she is offended? Probably not.

Your point being?

There is no utility in pissing someone off, and if we can reasinably avoid it, we should.

Why? Whywhywhywhywhy? As they're being pissed off about something irrational like nobody's business even within the confines of something as inherently irrational as religion why should this board pander to them?

I have no issue with a little penel in our profile which lets us select from a number of little rank icons, including pentagrams, and bat-signals.

Neither would I. Especially if it has Batsignals.

However, if we are restricted to one choice, I think we should choose one which is non-offensive, one which actually represents the board as a whole,

Good luck at that.

rather than one group of individuals who want to "stick it to the christians" or what have you.

And why pray tell does not caring about any religion's sensibilities equal having an agenda?

The board is not forcing anything on anybody. It's the offended people who make it a 'religious' symbol in the first place. Don't like your sky pixie mocked/insulted/whatever? Too Valendamned bad. You can always leave.

This is not a board dedicated to mocking and insulting religions.

Last I checked it wasn't a board dedicated to pandering to them, either.

It isnt a matter of what we have A right to do, it is a matter of what IS right, and decent. And maybe, just maybe, we shouldnt use an inherently religious symbol (which a pentagram is, 'perfect mathematical symbol' straw-grasping aside) as an official board icon, without offering an alternate.

It is not an inherently religious symbol. It's a geometrical figure. End of story.

[Mayabird]

It is not an inherently religious symbol. It's a geometrical figure. End of story.

So is a cross. It's a geometric figure. End of story.

Look, I don't like the pentagram either, and I'm atheist. It's used as a religious symbol, and when I see one, I don't see "perfect geometric figure" or whatever excuse you make. I think "religious symbol." I don't want a religious symbol attached to my name.

What's the point of pissing off folks like Frigidmagi and Elheru anyway? They don't do anything to you. They're not demanding we all have little crucifixes in place of stars (I'm not even sure if that's shrink down properly anyway).

Why are you people being such dicks about it?

[Comrade Tortoise]

We wouldn't be. It's their religion that puts them in a position where they have to make a choice, not this board.

Would the board be taking an action which causes people to be irritated? Yes. It isnt as if we did something, then someone decided to be offended.

We would be doing something, with the full and stated knowledge that it made at least one person on our MOD STAFF uncomfortable. Thus WE are one of the causal agents.

There are TWO entities at work and BOTH of them make a concious choice, and share responsibility for the results.

Good. I'm offended at writing. As a simple courtesy this board should cease to exist.

Now you are being disengenuous, and that is not acceptable. You know full well what I meant, dont distort it.

Extrapolation to infinity and garbage to boot. Nobody's driving away anybody, we'd just refuse to adhere to whatever stupid shenanigans their particular sky pixie demands of them.

And we dont have to accomodate your anti-sky-pixie sentiments.

This is not an atheistic board, several of the people on our mod staff are religous and we have religious members. Why the fuck should we do something which we know will make at least one of them uncomfortable? There is no reason to do it, no utility. And there is disutility in doing it. It is not the correct thing to do.

Who said anything about HAVING to have an avvie or sig pic? My religion takes offense to ANYBODY having one, thus I demand the practice be stopped.

Again, there is a standard of reasonable accomodation. Your demands are not reasonable. Not using a pentagram as official board iconography is a reasonable request from someone on the board staff.

Knowing FM, he doesnt have a problem with other people having pentagram icons (in fact, I asked him when I saw him today) he just doesnt want to be forced to have one.

So in light of this, I am calling you on a false analogy.

Why? Especially if it being a problem is their own damned choice?

Takes two to tango. If you do something with the full knowledge you will offend someone, you are responsible for the offense as much as they are.

Your point being?

My point being, that if this were any other discussion, about cursing around mormon grandmothers, you wouldnt even be arguing.

Why? Whywhywhywhywhy? As they're being pissed off about something irrational like nobody's business even within the confines of something as inherently irrational as religion why should this board pander to them?

Jesus christ, you are acting like not using a pentagram is bending over backwards to accomodate people. It isnt.

Seriously, what harm does it do, to honor a simple request, to not plaster pentagrams all over a christian's personal profile. Again, I have talked to him. he doesnt object to YOU having pentagrams HE just doesnt want to have them. It is the same as not having ONLY pork dishes when celebrating thanksgiving with your jewish uncle. He doesnt mind if YOu eat pork, but he would probably like to have something which doesnt vipolate his religious beliefs, and if you can procure a turkey breast or something for him, it is the devent thing to do.

And why pray tell does not caring about any religion's sensibilities equal having an agenda?

It was an example, sue me

Last I checked it wasn't a board dedicated to pandering to them, either.

Just because we dont pander to them doesnt mean we cant make reasonable and simple concessions for the sake of getting along nicely.

It is not an inherently religious symbol. It's a geometrical figure. End of story.

But it is not used as such, and USAGE is what puts value in things.

[Robert Walper]

I split the discussions side tracking the arts thread.

I suggest anyone having a serious issue with the board potentially employing symbols of any type, take it up with the board owners.

I personally expect the answer you'll get is "Board owners have final say".

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Are you guys talking about the Pentagram Robert proposed as star replacement?

If that the case, then I fail to see any reasons why the board should not have it. Remember folks, it is NOT like we are displaying picture that actively insults religion (like Mohammed cartoon, or a picture of nude Jesus, or such); we just refuse to conform to the values dictated by religion (like "OMG Pentagram is the evil!!"), that's all.

If certain religion is offended by Pentagram, then it is its problem; not this board's. Saying that this board is not allowed to display Pentagram is like saying we are not allowed to have a discussion board about Satanism, Atheism, gay marriage, or anything disapproved by religion.

[Charon]

You're missing the point. The argument is not over if we should have it or not. It's if we can force it upon those who feel uncomfortable having it. In which case it is a resounding no, especially seeing as from what I understand said persons are mods. (Myself somewhat included, but more because I don't feel comfortable attaching any religious symbol to the board as a whole.)

Either way it's a moot point now as the admin's have stated that the Pentagram shall not be used. Frankly I find the fact that an argument sprung up over this to be ridiculous, and if I were an admin I would say that since you can't discuss something as trivial as this civilly and with consideration to others you don't get a choice on what the new one is.

[Comrade Tortoise]

You're missing the point. The argument is not over if we should have it or not. It's if we can force it upon those who feel uncomfortable having it. In which case it is a resounding no, especially seeing as from what I understand said persons are mods. (Myself somewhat included, but more because I don't feel comfortable attaching any religious symbol to the board as a whole.)

Either way it's a moot point now as the admin's have stated that the Pentagram shall not be used. Frankly I find the fact that an argument sprung up over this to be ridiculous, and if I were an admin I would say that since you can't discuss something as trivial as this civilly and with consideration to others you don't get a choice on what the new one is.

Hey, I was civil

But thanks for reiterating the point. It is not a matter of caving in to another person;s religious dictates. It is a matter of forcing the choice of "leave, or violate your own religious sentiments" that is/was the issue.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

You're missing the point. The argument is not over if we should have it or not.

So the board eschews the Pentagram is because we (or the mods) merely agree to do so, not because we're morally obliged to conform to anything, isn't it?

(For analogy, the reason why I didn't wear my "Atheist" t-shirt today is merely because I don't want to, not because I'm morally obliged to conform to religious beliefs, am I correct?)

Just to confirm: if DarkSilver, as the board owner, decide to keep the Pentagram anyway, he has every right to do so, doesn't him?

[Comrade Tortoise]

He does, but that doesnt mean he morally should.

Nor is it about you conforming to another person's beliefs by eschewing the pentagram.

A better analogy would be forcing your hypothetical muslim roommate to wear your atheist t shirt. After all, he can leave and not have to wear the shirt if he chooses to do so...

I use the "you" pronoun merely as an example...

[Charon]

So the board eschews the Pentagram is because we (or the mods) merely agree to do so, not because we're morally obliged to conform to anything, isn't it?

I'd say it's more of a giving way to personal freedoms over general ones. If you like something and someone else doesn't, morally it is generally seen to be your duty to respect that persons personal beliefs and not force something upon them.

(For analogy, the reason why I didn't wear my "Atheist" t-shirt today is merely because I don't want to, not because I'm morally obliged to conform to religious beliefs, am I correct?)

True, but this is a false analogy to what we are discussing. This pentagram is akin to someone walking up to you and demanding you wear a "I <3 Jesus and hate Homos" shirt.

Just to confirm: if DarkSilver, as the board owner, decide to keep the Pentagram anyway, he has every right to do so, hasn't him?

As he is the board owner, yes. However there would be a number of dissenters and eventually he would either have to ban them or give in and give them different symbols.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

He does, but that doesnt mean he morally should.

Nobody said he should use the Pentagram symbol.

Nor is it about you conforming to another person's beliefs by eschewing the pentagram.

A better analogy would be forcing your hypothetical muslim roommate to wear your atheist t shirt. After all, he can leave and not have to wear the shirt if he chooses to do so...

No, the correct analogy if I own a baseball club, and the club's symbol is a Pentagram. Of course the symbol is naturally displayed on the club's baseball uniform, like on the shirt, or on the cap.

Now if religious people are offended by the Pentagram, they can choose to not joining MY baseball club, or they can choose to join the club and get over their religious sentiments.

I, as the club owner, has every right to have the Pentagram as the club's symbol. If I decide to replace the Pentagram with something else, it is my right too (for instance, maybe I want to attract religious baseball players to join my club). But if I decide to stick with Pentagram, it is still my right, and I don't have any moral obligations to replace it with something else.

[Robert Walper]

He does, but that doesnt mean he morally should.

Nor is it about you conforming to another person's beliefs by eschewing the pentagram.

A better analogy would be forcing your hypothetical muslim roommate to wear your atheist t shirt. After all, he can leave and not have to wear the shirt if he chooses to do so...

Your analogy (and arguement) fails, CT. You see, unlike your body which you own and have the right to do with as you please, every member's account here is property of the board and board owner. Thus is can be altered in any fashion the owner pleases.

Based upon your analogy, it would be like borrowing someone's shirt. Just because you're wearing it doesn't give you the right to dictate to the owner how to label or alter it.

If a board administrator sees fit to throw pentagrams replacing stars, he/she is not morally wrong to do so. Morality is subjective, and not dictated by those who feel offended based on irrelevent religious beliefs.

The board is the administrator's house, and he/she can decorate it any damn way they want.

[Charon]

No, the correct analogy if I own a baseball club, and the club's symbol is a Pentagram. Of course the symbol is naturally displayed on the club's baseball uniform, like on the shirt, or on the cap.

Now if religious people are offended by the Pentagram, they can choose to not joining MY baseball club, or they can choose to join the club and get over their religious sentiments.

I, as the club owner, has every right to have the Pentagram as the club's symbol. If I decide to replace the Pentagram with something else, it is my right too (for instance, maybe I want to attract religious baseball players to join my club). But if I decide to stick with Pentagram, it is still my right, and I don't have any moral obligations to replace it with something else.

However there are a few problems with this analogy. First is that this forum started out with a non-religious symbol. Then the issue was given to the public on what it should be changed to. The administration gave up their right to go "This is my way, get used to it or get lost." as soon as they did that.

EDIT: Not to say what the current administration should or should not do of course. Or at least attempting not to.

[Cynical Cat]

The admins have every right to use pentagrams if they want.

They shouldn't.

The correct analogy is if the guys running a club decide to impose a symbol that some of its members and many prospective members will find offensive. They have every right to do so, but it doesn't make it smart or nice.

[Robert Walper]

Just to confirm: if DarkSilver, as the board owner, decide to keep the Pentagram anyway, he has every right to do so, hasn't him?

As he is the board owner, yes. However there would be a number of dissenters and eventually he would either have to ban them or give in and give them different symbols.

False dilema. They can simply leave or not join up in the first place. All members of this board are guests of Dark Silver and related owners. They have accounts at his discretion, not theirs.

If I tell someone not to smoke in my house, or take off their shoes, they do so or they get the fuck out. And if they dared to whine about how I decorate my house (or change said decorations) while guests on my property, they got another thing coming.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Your analogy (and arguement) fails, CT. You see, unlike your body which you own and have the right to do with as you please, every member's account here is property of the board and board owner. Thus is can be altered in any fashion the owner pleases.

Again, you are mistaking "The Right" with what is morally "Right, or Correct"

And you seem to completely miss the point that if we are discussing the MERITS of a particular policy, the UTILITY of it, what the board administration SAYS, while it is the end decision as to what happens, does not make their actions morally correct, and has no bearing on the afformentioned merits of the policy.

Just because I own the club uniforms, and have a right to do it, does not mean I SHOULD have "I hate Jews and Faggots" printed on them.

[Robert Walper]

The admins have every right to use pentagrams if they want.

They shouldn't.

The correct analogy is if the guys running a club decide to impose a symbol that some of its members and many prospective members will find offensive. They have every right to do so, but it doesn't make it smart or nice.

It's up to the owner to be nice. Smart is argueable, as there's absolutely nothing wrong with a pentagram symbol except in people's minds. But those are the exact same people who create uproars about exposed breasts or an exposed woman's face. They have no logical or reasonable justification for their offense.

[Robert Walper]

Your analogy (and arguement) fails, CT. You see, unlike your body which you own and have the right to do with as you please, every member's account here is property of the board and board owner. Thus is can be altered in any fashion the owner pleases.

Again, you are mistaking "The Right" with what is morally "Right, or Correct"

Morality is subjective, CT, so don't argue it like there's some violation of it in this instance.

And I'm not arguing about the ulility or merits of said symbol. Again, that is entirely subjective, and I naturally go in the catagory of reason and logic, not religious and superstitious idiocy.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Your analogy (and arguement) fails, CT. You see, unlike your body which you own and have the right to do with as you please, every member's account here is property of the board and board owner. Thus is can be altered in any fashion the owner pleases.

Again, you are mistaking "The Right" with what is morally "Right, or Correct"

Morality is subjective, CT, so don't argue it like there's some violation of it in this instance.

And I'm not arguing about the ulility or merits of said symbol. Again, that is entirely subjective, and I naturally go in the catagory of reason and logic, not religious and superstitious idiocy.

lets not use sophistry Walper. I know damn well you are smarter than that.

Utility can be fairly objective.

[Cynical Cat]

It's up to the owner to be nice. Smart is argueable, as there's absolutely nothing wrong with a pentagram symbol except in people's minds. But those are the exact same people who create uproars about exposed breasts or an exposed woman's face. They have no logical or reasonable justification for their offense.

Bullshit. The pentagram (which I like, by the way) has a lot of cultural baggage and that means something. So does the swastika and I wouldn't display one casually, even if Buddhists don't use it in any way like the Nazis. A cross is also a just a symbol and I would be offended if I was inflicted with them as a symbol.

The admins want this to be a friendly place. Offending the sensibilities of our valued members isn't the way to maintain that.