| Should there be a daily limit to how many questions any one person can ask on this site? |
|
|
|
Asked 2 years ago
by enigmamz  United States |
|
About
Just another guy, trying to get by.
|
9 Points
|
I never thought so before, but now I do. I think 5 questions per day is plenty.
5 Questions a day would be PLENTY. Most people dont ask 1 good question a month anyway.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyNope. INeedADick (AnitaDick) asks questions that are at least thought provoking. Would you rather have his/hers or vinski's? I thought so...
The questions that are being referenced are not "thought provoking" they are rhetoric.
What exactly is "pro-viking" about my comment. You say they are rhetoric, that's YOUR opinion. But, AGAIN, you are telling me what MY opinion is. Haven't we been down this road before?
Unless you are "A-dick" (which you may very well be) then I did not say YOUR comment was anything at all. I said "A-dicks" questions are not thought provoking they are rhetoric. I was disagreeing with your comment but I was not commenting on your comment. The comments are not even original they are, for the most part, copy and pasted, (with a word changed here and there occasionally) from atheist websites.
Like I said, your opinion is they are rhetoric. My opinion is that they are thought provoking. Is there any way I can make this clearer to you, sir?
Like I said if you think "You've got to question a story where the fruit of knowledge is forbidden!" is a serious, thought provoking question then I think that says a lot about your mentality.
Of course they are thought provoking, else religious extremists wouldn't object so strongly to questions like that being asked. A simple vote "strongly disagree" would suffice.
Personally I dont mind you asking the question. They are not thought provoking and they are not something original. As I said before you are getting the almost verbatim from one of several atheist websites..but asking 20 questions about the same subject gets really old. And they really are not that good of questions, I get that you don't believe in god. Thats fine with me. I'm not trying to shove religion down your throat, but YOU are trying to shove anti-religion down mine. Your not asking for an opinion, really, your just stating your opinion in question form. You have no desire to know how other people feel or what they think about your questions, your just wanting to force your opinion on other people. I have read a lot of the posts on your questions and I have yet to see one person attack you for being an atheist. We dont care....just please, try and limit your questions to a few a day.
Sure, but the ones that get deleted will go back up until they run their course, Don't mistake me for some tree-huger extremist can bully around.
No...its apparent you are the extremist that is doing the bullying.
Interesting, when an atheist says "keep your religions away from me" you consider it bullying.
Is that what your saying...because that's not what Im reading in your questions. If your really wanting to keep away from religion then maybe you should consider leaving religious people to their beliefs without belittling them. It seems to me that your trying to attack Christians and then saying that they wont leave you alone.
This comment was deleted.
[-10 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI'll show you what bullying looks like asshole!
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyBlackOrchid said, "No, we have to swap Emails. R U willing to exchange Emails with me and a few other neo-cons on this site? This way we can coordinate our attack on the libs a little better. We have been doing it for a while and, although, it doesn't seem to help all that much, it is something to do.
When you make a comment that you don't want anyone else to see, you type it up like this, click on 'submit reply' then immediately click on the delete key. The only person to see it are the people directly above you if you are responding to their comment. IN OTHER WORDS, make sure you are not a couple comments down in the answers to someone you don't want to see this deleted comment. You also have to be careful who's question you are on because they get all comments whether you delete it or not.
Find my name on Past Questions or go to my profile, find an really old comment of mine and return your answer. Also be sure to delete it.
http://www.ask500people.com/profile/blackorchid"
To reply to this comment, click this link:
http://www.ask500people.com/questions/does-blackorchid-hold-the-record-for-most-moderated-down-comments#comment_231658
--
support@ask500people.com
http://www.ask500people.com
As another atheist, that is NOT what you are saying. You are taking atheism and rubbing it in everyone else's face. The very thing you probably don't like when it is done to you. However they at least are not doing it vindictively and out of spite. I have no doubt that is what is behind this "barrage" of questions that you surly know will be offensive to those of faith. I have never seen anyone of faith/religion on this website ?attack? someone for not believing in their religion the way you are attacking them, over and over and over and over...
This doesn?t make you look learned, thoughtful, or more in formed than those with faith and religion. It makes you look like a bully, narrow minded and petty. Is that what you are going for? You are proving yourself to be not that different from what your are mocking. Just the opposite side of the same tarnished coin.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyA few questions, I'd agree with you. But it is quite obvious, based on the way the questions are asked, worded, and there shear number that one the main points of these questions is to offend and riel those who believe.
What is being done here is as much an attack on those of religion, as when someone of religion tries to preach their beliefs to someone else who didn't ask to be preached too. He is preaching atheism in the form of questions. Is there anything wrong with that? Again, no more or less so than when then when someone of religion tries to preach their religion to everyone. But I’ve never seen them bombard the website like this.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou are obviously hung up on and nitpicking about the word "attack" and the fact that you can disagree rather then bigger point of the whole discussion. So I'll just agree to disagree with you.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt is not "a question". It is 83 questions that are all anti-religion (basically preaching atheism) and obviously designed to get under the skin and irritate those who believe by the way they are worded and asked. In fact it is the only kind of question, that I can see, AnitaDick has asked in his short time on the web site. It's sad you can't (or refuse) to see that.
I am sorry to see you missed my intended point, I blame no one but myself for that. The questions are "designed" to get people to think about why religion should never be the foundation of legislation. The removal of the questions in spite of the fact that they all have options to disagree with the premises, shows just how intolerant the religious extremists are against freedom of individual thought. For the people who believe that their particular religion should be forced onto the population as a whole, then the basis of the religion must be questioned. For those who want to use their religion as the basis of legislation to try to imagine how they would react when members of another religion want to bring in legislation. (for example; Islam in the US, Christianity in Iran)
However I will keep reposting the remaining two that have been deleted last night until they have run their course. And I will put up a few more when I feel like it. I suggest the question are legitimate as they have plenty of scope to disagree both in the vote as well in the comment section. I hope this clarifies my intentions (and silly reasoning) If it is not perceived as such, then I apologize for not expressing myself clearly.
Why don't you just post questions about the particular legislation in question instead of religion in general?
Because the sole basis for the legislation is religious beliefs.
Exactly what legislation are you referring to?
Teaching creationism in schools, banning same sex marriage, putting up a version of the ten commandments in a court, to name a few.
See, there you have it. Question #1 Should creationism be taught in Schools? Question #2 Should same sex marriage be banned? and Question #3 Should the Ten Commandments be posted in Court Rooms?
Now wasn't that easy....I doubt those questions would get banned and I doubt they would make you look like as ass for asking them. You would still have every opportunity to discuss your point of view and you would not be treated as evil.
Sure, what is the rationale for teaching creationism in schools, banning same sex marriage, or putting up a version of the ten commandments in a court?
1) If you believed that say algebra was an unnecessary part of education should it be banned from all kids?
2) While I dont really have a dog in that fight I would argue that marriage is more of a religious ceremony than a legal ceremony. I am under the impression that most states allow for a civil union which is supposedly the same thing as marriage. Am I wrong on this one?
3) A good portion of our laws are somewhat based on the 10 commandments. You shouldn't kill, Steal, curse, commit adultery (else why are you for marriage in the first place) and nor should you bear false witness. You should honor your father and mother. So would it be ok with you if they were paired down to just those? Maybe the 6 Good Rules or something like that??
Now you are just being silly.
1) If you believed that say the stork theory was an unnecessary part of education should it be banned from all kids?
2) I have no personal interest in marrying a person of the same sex as myself either. But the state and other organisations give rights to married couples, denying consenting adults those right based on their sexual preferences is cruel. Now to answer your specific question; As far as I am aware the word marriage is not copyrighted, they have as much right to describe their relationship using those terms as any one else. When the various religious groups deny the use of that word it is petty and would require the rewriting of rules. Even more bureaucracy, even more waste.
3) Depending on the version of the ten commandments, about half would be unconstitutional. I am not for marriage, nor am I against marriage, I simply think it is up to the people involved if they want to choose for marriage or not. I oppose murder, stealing, but you can swear, fornicate with anyone (consenting adults only) all you want. There is no way a law can force some one to honor their parents, or prevent one from desiring the neighbours property. Let me state that I do honor my parent, do not commit adultery, I do watch porn and rarely swear, but those are my personal choices.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyNo one should feel harmed by my questions, however if they do feel harmed, they need to do some serious soul searching. For instance how my claim of talking to god is less true.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyQuestioning religion dogma has always been considered an attack by those who can not argue from facts. The Holy books are contradictory at best, have to be interpreted by the individual and can therefor be used to support nearly any position.
Both you and translate seem to be hung up on this idea of "attack". Let me put it to you this way, do you like it when someone of faith starts preaching there religion to you without you having asking about their region? I suspect not, I know I don't and that most others don't either. Well you are doing the same thing in reverse. Are you no better than they are?
Even in this enlightened era, I have to suffer their attacks every single day. For Pete's sake, the religious fanatics want to introduce creationism into science classes, put up the ten commandments in public building, ramming their various religious dogma down the throat of me, my children and every one else. But when I question their holy books they claim that they are attacked? You have to be kidding!
For comparison, they are advocating banning same sex marriage for those who do not even share their religion. Now if if I proposed to ban their religion, they would be correct as that I would be attacking them. That would make me just as intolerant as them. To make sure no one gets their tits in a tangle, I would like to state that I strongly oppose either ban.
If the number of question I posted is a problem, people would not vote on them nor would they rise to the top. Deleting (legitimate) polls that are balanced in the possible answers proves to me there is little difference between extremist Muslims and extremist Christians. Even when they don't consider themselves as religious extremist. If (my) questions were biased in the possible answers I would agree that they should be deleted, but the only complaint that has been voiced is that there are to many of them, possibly true, but if people are bored with them they will stop voting them up.
I'll leave you to answer your question (if I am better then the extremist) for yourself, I am biased in that regard.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
You said, "if if I proposed to ban their religion, they would be correct as that I would be attacking them."
This is the crux of "attack". You choose to attack elements of religion rather than the whole. (Smart, as 85% of US believes in God)
The thing that creates the problem is that you disregard elements of Atheism, (Which Theists are not allowed to question) then hammer all religion as evil by portraying elements as bad. (Which "proves" your argument.) For example...
You speak of the religious fanatics wanting to introduce (literal) creationism into science classes. I and the majority of religious people believe that people pushing for literal creationism are wrong and hurt God's purposes on earth. We also believe in freedom of speech and our ability to say effectively that Atheists are incorrect about the origins of humankind. When you ignore the majority and your question assumes that a small, vocal minority represents mainstream Christianity, you are attacking the easy target, in the form of a question, not requesting an opinion. Another example...
You threw in "put up the ten commandments in public building, ramming their various religious dogma down the throat of me," This is an entirely different group with a secular purpose. It has NOTHING in common with the literal Creationists, yet you throw them in together. [aside: The ten commandments are put in place to remind lawyers that there is an ethical code for the law and that the law is what sets us apart as a society. It proclaims that the practice of law is noble and historic, not something one person made up for the benefit of the few. These things hold true for Jews, Christians, Muslims and those that value history. For the vast majority, it is an inspiration for a just society.] When you throw "Ten Commandments in courthouses" in with literal Creationists, you show your self to be an attacker or spectacularly misinformed. I don't think you are misinformed.
When you attack us, don't demean yourself or your cause by calling them legitimate questions.
BULLSHIT!!!!!! Any part of a religion or science CAN and SHOULD be questioned. Specially so since you religious extremist try to push your religion onto others. The ten commandments have no place in a courtroom. What is going to be next, Biblical/Sharia law? Below is one of the many versions of the ten commandments, should it be put up in a courtroom, that is after all supposed to be impartial? I would like to suggest that since there are fewer Atheist per head of population in jail then Christians, Atheist have a better understanding of morals then religious people!
1) "There is no other god beside God."
2) "My Lord, make this a peaceful land, and protect me and my children from worshiping idols."
3) "And make not Gods's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is One Who heareth and knoweth all things."
4) "O you who believe, when the Congregational Prayer is announced on Friday, you shall hasten to the commemoration of GOD, and drop all business."
5) "....and your parents shall be honoured. As long as one or both of them live, you shall never (even) say to them, "Uff" (the slightest gesture of annoyance), nor shall you shout at them; you shall treat them amicably."
6) "....anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people."
7) "You shall not commit adultery; it is a gross sin, and an evil behaviour."
8) "They shall not steal." and "The thief, male or female, you shall mark their hands as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as an example from God. God is Almighty, Most Wise."
9) "Do not withhold any testimony by concealing what you had witnessed. Anyone who withholds a testimony is sinful at heart."
10) "And do not covet what we bestowed upon any other people. Such are temporary ornaments of this life, whereby we put them to the test. What your Lord provides for you is far better, and everlasting."
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
If "I would like to suggest that since there are fewer Atheist per head of population in jail then Christians, Atheist have a better understanding of morals then religious people!" is true, then I would like to suggest that since there are fewer Ministers per head of population in jail then Lawyers, Ministers have a better understanding of morals then Lawyers!
Your logic doesn't hold water.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Why should, Biblical/Sharia law be next? Biblical/Sharia law doesn't remind lawyers that there is an ethical code for the law and that the law is what sets us apart as a society. It doesn't proclaim that the practice of law is noble and historic, not something one person made up for the benefit of the few. Biblical/Sharia law does not hold true for Jews or Christians and those that value history. For the vast majority, it is not an inspiration for a just society
You want to post religious law in a courthouse, want to introduce religion into science classes and you ask me want would be next!? And to make it even worse I am now not to allowed to question the basis for the religious beliefs, you have already passed legislation on and want to pass even more? Freedom of religion is obviously not enough, you think I am stupid?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
You don't get it. Your information is flawed. It makes your reasoning flawed.
I don't want to post anything at the courthouse. Lawyers want to post the Ten Commandments, not religious law. I have spoken out against the stupidly of literal Creationism just as loud and long as I have spoken out against the stupidly of Atheism.
Your response again reinforces that you are using questions to attack religion. You didn't respond to my content. You simply made more outrageous accusations.
What do you think the ten commandments are if not religious law?
One of the more accurate translations...
from Exodus 20:3
1. You are to have no other gods but me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them:
3. You are not to make use of the name of the Lord your God for an evil purpose; whoever takes the Lord's name on his lips for an evil purpose will be judged a sinner by the Lord.
4. Remember the day of rest by keeping it holy. You have six days to do all your work.but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your employees, nor your animals, nor the visitor within your home. (Mark 2:27 Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not lie when you testify about your neighbor.
10. You shall not desire to take your neighbor's household away from him. You shall not desire to take your neighbor's wife, his employees, his ox (business equipment), his donkey (transportation), or anything else that belongs to him.
To begin with I am no position to judge which translation of your version of the selected holy books is correct. But I do wonder why you Christian fanatics keep insisting that the bible is fact, not fantasy. I could argue that the god of your bible is an evil, sadistic, megalomaniacal monster. Why would anyone, in their right mind, want that to be true?
What I don't get is why NONE of your questions where about putting the Ten Commandments in court rooms? Why NONE where about teaching religion in school?
They were in fact all about one question you did ask. "I am treated as evil by people who claim they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force their believes on me." Only in this case the "I" is those who have a faith, and the one trying to force believes on others is you. You are trying to preach and force others to accept Atheism. You question in such a way that one has to deny their religion or look a fool. Despite the claim that you gave them a way to disagree, you only gave them your way to disagree.
All you have done is show how much you are like that which you dislike.
Like the removal of the polls clearly showed that I am being treated as evil for questioning their holy books. I am in no way advocating atheism, I am advocating freedom of and from religions. In order to do that is it not fair to question the basis of the various belief systems? They are even advocating discrimination based on religious beliefs now and you think I am the bad one, there is no comparison.
With respect, freedom OF and freedom FROM religion are two very different things. In the US, there is no constitutional protection for freedom from religion. People can make a logical case that there should be, but you can't always have both.
If I choose to practice my religion by building a neighborhood church, I have constitutional protection.
I begin to understand, the only way to to prevent religious extremist like yourself from persecuting me, is to start my own "religion". Are you nuts?
What was extreme about what JWBrothers just said? He is right that freedom OF and freedom FROM religion are two different things, and I would argue mutually exclusive. To have freedom FROM religion you would have to remove churches, eliminate all holidays based on religion, and tell people it is only okay to practice your religion by yourself in your home. And that stomps on freedom OF religion.
If anything, right now, you are the one being extremest.
Let me show you what extremist questions would look like.
"I am in no way advocating atheism, I am advocating freedom of and from religions." -- No you are not. If you where you wouldn't be trying to browbeat those who do believe. If you where you would realise they have a right to beieve what they beieve with out having another veiw point shoved in there face. Just as you wish their extremists didn't shove their religion in your face.
"In order to do that is it not fair to question the basis of the various belief systems?" -- It is fare for you to do that, but why are you trying to force those questions of those who didn't ask for it? Again you are being what you decry.
"They are even advocating discrimination based on religious beliefs now" -- Care to show the example?
"and you think I am the bad one, there is no comparison." --You are the one who shook up the hornets nest. You started it, they didn't.
"Your not asking for an opinion, really, your just stating your opinion in question form. You have no desire to know how other people feel or what they think about your questions, your just wanting to force your opinion on other people."
You're kidding with this comment, right?
Not at all.
Wow. This is scary, CrossBurner....
You must scare easy, what did I say that frightened you so much??
I like how you resort to name calling for lack of a decent argument. Very original move there. Is that how you deal with everyone that disagrees with you?
Wow, again, BillyBob. Name calling? Look up to see A-Dick. Scare easy? It should be scare easily. Sorry, again. Go play with the farm animals.....
Wow indeed. That, again, is a very well thought out, intelligent and convincing argument that only helps prove my point. Thanks!
You're welcome. The only point it proves is the one on your head. The point proven is that you're from the South and you have no train of thought, nor general rules of punctuation/ grammar. Anything else I can help you with, CB?
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou? Give me a break, Jonny. You're overmatched, proven before, with you crying.
Ho-hum. But, being a southerner, I guess this is pretty witty, junior.
Great reply...
Not really. I was reading the comments of the inter-racial marriage question. Your comments shone like a beacon. That was the southern reference. I've lived in the south since '70, but was edumicated in the North. I have a leeettle experience with southerners, so we both know what the truth is about the answer to this question, don't we?
yes we do...why don't you tell me how many lynchings you witnessed?
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyTruBlu, peregrine, bobaknob, april, your wife. Please ask more questions and see if any make it - ADMIN
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyGood comment. Now blow me before the missus does. We've been down this road before.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYeah, about half didn't make it. Too bad. sniff, sniff. When was the last time you had one that made it thru? The ones that block you are the ones with common sense. Soon, you will join your hero Reagan in permanent insanity. Pity.
This comment was deleted.
[7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou really are paranoid, Jonny. I do ask questions, still. I think you should ask some questions also.
Edited to add: I thought that translate was Waugs? Does waugs have as many site names as you?
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI agree. I liked the Aussie kids ones, except for the sexually explicit ones. Vinski was rather an idiot like BlackOrchid with his comments. If someone wants to ask a question, let them, whether it's one or 100.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIsn't that kind of like someone smoking in public or playing their radio very loud? If it irritates other people (and more to the point, seems to be done purposefully to irritate some people) do you think the smoker or boomer would be justified in saying, "if you find it personally irritating, perhaps you should [leave]"?
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyHis topic may be what started this poll, but that is not my point. No one was talking about a government imposed limit, but a limit that the owners/users of the web site itself may want to impose. From that stand point it doesn't matter if it is public or private, the question was directed at the users of the web site, and a valid opinion poll in and of it self. If it isn't a valid poll question then no one should ask if anything should be changed on the web site or not.
Who decides what a "valid poll question" is? Me? You?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I think the poll is not so much about validating a question but more about limiting ones ability to take over and spam the whole website.
What exactly is the point of the questions that started this particular poll? Do you think these are questions A-dick is really wanting answered or do you think hes really trying to make a statement with his questions?
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis question isn't about deciding what a "valid poll question" is. It is simply about whether the users of this site would find it to be beneficial to have some limit on the number of questions posted per person per day.
Don't change the subject.
You brought up the subject of valid poll question, not I. I responded to it.
I did not bring up the subject of what's a valid poll question. The question is about limiting questions per day, not the validity of the questions. The only thing I brought up that is even remotely related to the validity of questions (and that isn't what I was talking about) is my challenge to translate on why should the one being irritated by someone being irritating be the one have to leave? And no where in there am I asking what is a valid poll/question.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyAnytime a single person asks a seris of questions, they all seem to be very similar. I wouldn't mind it if said person was more creative and asked lots of things about different topics.
Indeed. When I ask a series of very similar questions I just get marked inappropriate.
Sorry, Chip. I disagree. Some people just mark inappropriate because of who asked the question. There's nothing wrong with your questions...
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[0 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYeah. You and your new group. Fuckface and The Rump Rangers.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I've been considering the possibility that he is a sociopath, and obsessed with "winning". He lacks the personal charm, though.
What do you mean "possibility"?
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Replyooo, nice one!
three per day, would be sufficient
I don't think so. Sometimes we have teachers who are asking questions for their students, I wouldn't want to limit their ability to use the site. As for "AnitaDick"'s recent postings, I highly doubt he or she can keep it up forever, it would take too much energy. It will back off eventually. If I don't care for a group of questions I simply ignore them, or ask my own.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply