> Personally, I think this life IS a dress rehearsal, and everybody has got on the wrong costumes.

Dmitri Gheorgheni, h2g2

@TRiG not to get overly personal, but my wife has been pregnant or nursing for well neigh 97% of our nearly 8 years together, but (pleasure alone) doesn't imply eroticism. Using what little knowledge I have from the one woman I have ever known intimately, I think it either means (for the heck of it) or (to make my husband happy). In other words, it is the instances where man says to wife, "at your pleasure, madam" smooch smooch smooch.

@TRiG That is a good point, however, the minority groups in question are religious ones. And more specifically, Christian religious minorities. I understand that it is easy to sound racist in today's racially charged society, however, I still reject any attack on my sincerity; I reject the notion that I intentionally want to offend or spread hate against anyone.

> Seriously, here is everything you need to know about American Christianity: Leviticus 20:13 is widely known and discussed as a clobber text and the litmus test for any Christians’ fidelity to the Bible. Deuteronomy 15:1 is not.

Fred Clark

@TRiG Umm ... more telling of an American Christian is the over-reliance on [misinterpreted] scripture in general, I'd say.

(I am technically an American Christian. But, I'm also Catholic. So, my interpretation of scripture is bound to an established tradition ... my practice thereof is unfortunately not as dedicated as my interpretation ... typical hypocrite am I)

@TRiG That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Christians read the Old Testament.

It goes to the Tripartite division of the law, Ceremonial, moral, civil.

@waxeagle I'd star that twice if I could.

There are good examples of Christians ignoring clear moral law directives in Leviticus in favor of condemning homosexuality, that just isn't one of them.

@waxeagle Oh, I think Fred knows how Christians read the Bible.

@TRiG in that case his theology sucks :)

@TRiG Actually, Jubilee is better understood than you might think. The Pope declared 2000 a Jubilee Year for 3rd World debt, and he was not alone in endorsing it

@AffableGeek A lot of third world debt is Odious debt

It's irrelevant whether the debt is justified or not - the Jubilee calls for the cancellation of debt (The Lev 15:1 statement that Trig doesn't think Christians believe) - and both Protestants and Catholics were endorsing it all around!

My point is simply that Trig is making an unfair accusation, in suggesting that Christians are willing to ban homosexual behavior based on Leviticus, but not call for a Jubilee. He's simply wrong

@justbelieve So I did re-read the messages again and I think I do owe you an apology for calling you "poorly logically equipped". I am sorry for basically calling you dumb when you have clearly shown that you are not. At the time, it would seem that I meant something more along the lines of "you keep saying things that don't make sense."

On the Nazi issue, I did not call you such. svidgen said it, though I would say jokingly. I did however, say that some of the things you were saying sounded like nazi ideology.

@AffableGeek Sure, it wasn't necessarily related, I just thought it was an interesting fact (I think it's important to discourage amoral creditors from lending to corrupt and/or dictatorial regimes by not protecting their investments)

@fredsbend So you admit to replying to something you didn't actually read, you admit to thinking someone was calling you names (when in fact you were doing the name-calling), and you admit to talking about racism while proudly refusing to learn about the most recent racism case. Yet you want to be a moderator. Why not nominate yourself next year?

@justbelieve My apology says what it says. If you want we can start a room for us and hash out each issue you have raised here. I think it is easier to forgive and forget. I see 1) You think it didn't read something particular 2) I felt attacked by you (and TRiG) which involved name calling 3) I called you names 4) I have talked about racism yet do not follow mainstream media 5) This is all in conflict with being a mod.

Would you like me to start the room or not?

FYI: Moderator positions are not annually elected. They are permanent. A mod is a mod until he steps down (or has been removed which am not sure if that has ever happened). I assume they only hold future elections if need for more mods arises.

@fredsbend No, @fredsbend. My proposal was for you to voluntarily withdraw your nomination based on understanding how your recent activity was problematic. I think you might actually improve in the future, but you must first past the denial stage.

@fredsbend OK, thanks. I did not know that. Based on the room names ("Christianity 2013 Moderator Election") I assumed it was a annual event.

@fredsbend Mods step down all the time, it happens fairly regularly across the SE network. We had one pro-tem on Christianity step down during beta. They can also be removed at the discretion of SE. But you are correct, elected mods are 'permanent' positions.

@justbelieve I don't think having an argument is grounds to remove myself. We were arguing about an off-topic issue in chat. That, by definition has little to do with moderation. All it might have shown is that I can make mistakes. And it is now showing that I admit them and attempt to reconcile.

@fredsbend it's rare, but it has happened a few times. elections used to be yearly, but are now held on an as needed basis

@waxeagle Why the switch?

@fredsbend basically, I think they were seeing that they were evaluating communities at the 1 year mark and seeing that they were still adequately moderated by the staff they had and didn't need more. They decided to save themselves some time and just add mods when the current site mods felt they needed the extra manpower

@fredsbend Yes. The problem is making mistakes like not reading what you're replying to, having a siege mentality (you were OK with @TRiG calling you a "racist dip****" but not OK with me attaking you "cleverly") and starting sensitive topics while refusing to get informed about them.

@waxeagle A decision for efficiency and practicality. That makes sense. When you have good mods like we do now, I'm perfectly fine with never having an election again.

@justbelieve I edited that for language, I didn't delete it because it's not your words.

I don't think these are conductive to a good mod. But since you must wonder what the "carrot" in my proposal is, admitting and understanding your mistake can lead to a better person, sometimes much better than those who were never mistaken to begin with.

@waxeagle Uh, OK. I thought it was OK to quote someone :)

@justbelieve TRiG and I have had plenty of discussions. I am immune to his toxic nature. You, I have only just "met". If you want to discuss those issues one at a time (in an attempt to convince me unfit for a moderator position) I am willing, but in a separate room where we will take each one separately, slowly, and without emotion or emotionally charged language.

@justbelieve I've (since day 1) had a 0 tolerance policy in here for bad language, nothing about you, and like I said, I respect the fact that you're quoting which is why I didn't delete the whole post. I use my chat edit powers sparingly.

@waxeagle Did you also edit @TRiG'w original post :) ?

@justbelieve no, Shog deleted it outright IIRC

actually no, it's still there..I obviously wasn't around :)

@waxeagle Shog9 deleted something else I said to fredsbend once, but not that.

yep you're correct

I wasn't paying attention or I would have :)

@waxeagle I think you would actually detract from the conversation if you removed it (instead of editing it) :)

@justbelieve yes I agree.

@waxeagle So in this case, you don't have a 0-tolerance policy, but a more meaningful case-by-case policy regarding bad language :)

@justbelieve ok yeah, whatever it is, if I see bad/foul language I'm going to do something about it.

@fredsbend Since you don't follow the news, and since it is an important topic that you chose to pick up, the POTUS is speaking about the Zimmerman case: dailykos.com/story/2013/07/19/1224994/…

Having a little fun :P

data.stackexchange.com/christianity%20stack%20exchange/revision/…

@justbelieve Ok. Thanks. I did watch it just now. I think generally everything he said was reasonable. I'm in more support rather than against "stand your ground" laws. I think if someone ends up dead it should be more about whether it was reasonable to kill the person at the time. I don't really care if it was "legal". I usually oppose "duty to retreat" laws, especially if your property is on the line. But that is not the case with this thing.

@justbelieve I just read the wikipedia article on the story. From the facts we have (or that wikipedia shared anyway), I think it is safe to say that Zimmerman did not racially profile. Everything seems consistent with someone fed up with his neighborhood being robbed and Trayvon behaving suspiciously, according to Zimmerman in the dispatch call.

The whole section on media coverage of the story should be enough to convince anyone that mainstream media is first interested in ratings (money), then possibly interested in the truth if they can still make the same about of money.

Read that media coverage section then tell me what you think about the media and their ability to give you the truth.

@justbelieve But after reading seeing the POTUS first then reading the case I can't help but notice that no one actually seems to care about the case. They only care about the racism (if it even existed in this case). Just like Sandy Hook. It was less than a day when the discussion went from "How can we keep schools safe from this" to "Let's remove guns from the public hands".

Perhaps the two are related, but that was pressed so hard that no other suggestions to keep schools safe from this were seriously entertained by congress.

And so that leads me to say: Mainstream media is only interested in selling (any) story, whether true or not; and politicians cannot actually focus on any particular issue without escalating it to something much, much bigger. I have a hard time trusting either.

@fredsbend this is why I get my news from a non-profit?

@BruceAlderman The above is not necessarily "defending criminal activity" but the complete inability by some to think that Zimmerman might have acted in self defense, or that Trayvon might have attacked him first, is very similar. The wikipedia article on the subject is the only one I can find that appears unbiased.

@waxeagle Well, profit is not such a bad thing. People do need to make a living. I just think reporting would be better it there was a journalists' "Hippocratic Oath" where they swore above all else to be honest and honorable in their reporting. If we had more effectual laws on this I would certainly be more inclined to watch the nightly news.

@fredsbend my understanding is that the president's remarks today were intended to give context to why people are upset and not speak very specifically about the details of the case.

obviously he cannot really comment on whether he agrees or not with the verdict (I'm sure he's upset about it from an emotional/personal perspective, but I think as a lawyer he can see that justice was carried out fairly)

@waxeagle Yes, I got that too. I don't want to invalidate people's feelings, but this particular case is a very good example of how race became an issue merely because the deceased was black.

@fredsbend in a sense a journalist's credibility is their Hippocratic oath.

@fredsbend add to that the way this was first reported and I will agree with you

@waxeagle I guess that is why they have little to none with me.

@fredsbend have you by any chance read the millenium trilogy?

@waxeagle Yeah. It was so messed up I thought Trayvon was about 12 and Zimmerman shot him from his car then fled.

@fredsbend I'm mostly talking about the selective editing of the 911 tape. NPR had otherwise pretty fair coverage, but they tend to do that.

@waxeagle Yeah. NBC really screwed up there. They did fire about four people over it, but won't tell their viewers on the air that they really messed up.

@waxeagle I have seen the dragon tattoo one on the shelves. "which inspired the themes of sexual violence against women in his books." From wikipedia. I'm not really interested in that kind of violent themes. They disgust and disturb me too much.

@fredsbend Trayvon definitely did not "attack him first". He may possibly have reacted angrily to the scary stranger stalking him for no apparent reason. We don't know.

> I think it is safe to say that Zimmerman did not racially profile.

What world are you living in?

Zimmerman saw an unknown boy, and automatically assumed he was a criminal, on the basis of ... what?

Zimmerman claimed he wasn't racially motivated: that he would have acted the same with any other teenager. If the jury had actually believed that, they wouldn't have let him go free, would they?

Sheesh. You get worse every time you open your mouth.

@TRiG They did let him go.

@TRiG According to GZ he did. But like you said we don't know.

@TRiG His reasons I read in the wikipedia article seemed reasonable. For the community appointed community watch, it was within his purview to confront suspicious behavior.

@TRiG But your inability to consider it is what I am talking about. You seem so sure that he didn't but then admit that there is too much doubt to know.