Yes she is
Who is a member of the board.
There’s a difference between criticising and challenging someone’s religious beliefs and religious apologetics, and accusing them of criminality. Whether you accept that or not is immaterial.
What's immaterial is your distinction. If someone feels harassed, it doesn't matter in what form the harassment comes.
If Daniel Peterson was to become a member of this board, would you vote to shut down the constant posts about him if he felt harassed?
Nobody should be using this board to accuse another board member of ‘in real life’ criminality. That’s really not too difficult a concept to comprehend. If a board member was accusing Peterson of ‘in real life’ criminality, I’d expect Shades to remove their post and warn them about their future conduct.
That’s sensible housekeeping to protect the board.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
What's immaterial is your distinction. If someone feels harassed, it doesn't matter in what form the harassment comes.
If Daniel Peterson was to become a member of this board, would you vote to shut down the constant posts about him if he felt harassed?
Nobody should be using this board to accuse another board member of ‘in real life’ criminality. That’s really not too difficult a concept to comprehend. If a board member was accusing Peterson of ‘in real life’ criminality, I’d expect Shades to remove their post and warn them about their future conduct.
That’s sensible housekeeping to protect the board.
Another thread in this very board does just that, accusing DCP of executing a "smear campaign."
Unsurprisingly, no one has raised a stink about that thread.
He has an account here. I doubt he is bothered. The thread makes him look innocent enough.
Then, if we're going to censor Rosebud, I formally petition Shades to shut down anything I deem to be harassment of Daniel Peterson.
I think it is fair that one should be able to make such a request. I don't think the general populus are saying delete her posts, just move them and ask her to stop criminalising him. People aren't accusing DCP of underplaying child sex abuse or whatever it is that is coming across. What I generally see about DCP is that he repeats articles, he likes food and visiting other places and apparently people expect him to publish more. I can't quite grasp whether he is a true believer or not. There isn't much more that I have come across that is scandalous. I think that is generally quite mild in comparison.
My brain has gone blank on his name... Mormon stories guy, I don't believe he is entirely innocent but it becomes repetitive and perhaps it would be beneficial for rosebuds mental health if she isn't encouraged to continue rumminating so publicly. It does affect her reputation negatively. But don't get me wrong... I don't disbelieve everything she says but a lot of it does seem to be melding together into one thing that looks skewed. I quite believe she has witnessed child abuse and I quite believe she has experienced injustice. For her mental wellbeing and for her life quality, she really needs to try to draw a line under it. Advocating is great but the value gets lost when she triggers herself into falling back into talking about Mormon stories and ex Mormon leadership. We can advocate and be a voice without making it personal.
Right. And Rosebud never exactly said that Dehlin is in cahoots with child molesters, but in both cases, that's what's clearly implied. In fact, it's not even just implied about banning Rosebud. Some are calling for her thread to be removed...
Just so I understand, you think this thread is clearly implying that Rosebud should be banned? Could you explain how you have come to that?
Don't want to get into an argument with you but I interpreted the title as suggesting she should be banned which is why I said earlier that I don't think she should be banned. There are two points in the poll question and because I would say yes to one point and no to the other I haven't answered the poll. I guess it's down to interpretation but it can be read as that. I know it doesn't literally say that but that was what I read it as so if someone else has then maybe they read it the way I did.
Nobody should be using this board to accuse another board member of ‘in real life’ criminality. That’s really not too difficult a concept to comprehend. If a board member was accusing Peterson of ‘in real life’ criminality, I’d expect Shades to remove their post and warn them about their future conduct.
That’s sensible housekeeping to protect the board.
Another thread in this very board does just that, accusing DCP of executing a "smear campaign."
Unsurprisingly, no one has raised a stink about that thread.
Until now.
Pointing out that DCP has said multiple unpleasant things about Paul Osborne, and giving examples of those unpleasant comments, is not the same as a campaign of unsubstantiated accusations of “in real life” criminality.
I do understand that this is a difference that you are struggling to grasp. And that’s fine. You don’t need to grasp it. Shades will do what Shades wants to do. It’s his sandpit.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
What's immaterial is your distinction. If someone feels harassed, it doesn't matter in what form the harassment comes.
If Daniel Peterson was to become a member of this board, would you vote to shut down the constant posts about him if he felt harassed?
Nobody should be using this board to accuse another board member of ‘in real life’ criminality. That’s really not too difficult a concept to comprehend. If a board member was accusing Peterson of ‘in real life’ criminality, I’d expect Shades to remove their post and warn them about their future conduct.
That’s sensible housekeeping to protect the board.
I would add without substantial evidence. If someone was charged of criminal activity then people might want to discuss that.
I don't think the general populus are saying delete her posts, just move them and ask her to stop criminalising him.
The general consensus has led Shades to consider moving the entire Rosebud MegaThread, which would, in effect, censor almost everything she's ever posted about.
Then, if we're going to censor Rosebud, I formally petition Shades to shut down anything I deem to be harassment of Daniel Peterson.
People aren't accusing DCP of underplaying child sex abuse or whatever it is that is coming across.
Bingo. And Rosebud accused Dehlin of being a groomer himself.
Many posts about DCP have been deleted when they cross a line.
Dan is a public figure and the leading LDS apologist. He was Bible bashing with evangelicals long before this board existed. He loves the back and forth.
Last edited by drumdude on Tue Dec 17, 2024 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pointing out that DCP has said multiple unpleasant things about Paul Osborne, and giving examples of those unpleasant comments, is not the same as a campaign of unsubstantiated accusations of “in real life” criminality.
I understand you want to draw distinctions in order to protect your desire to heavily censor another poster.
