@LakshmiNarayanan The solution to the problem is very simple - as per the meta post, majority of the people agree that such notes of caution should not be added, that's it - that's the solution.
@ChinmaySarupria I know, what I mean here is why is protest against adding such notes an issue that the user has to put up with? that too why ask this on meta? How will you police the many posts that have no such honest disclaimers and slip in Advaitic semantics into the answer without even acknowledging that it is being done? This is pure double standards if you ask me.
@ChinmaySarupria oh please. You know very well what will be response. At least the user here has the decency to state his assumptions, clarify them when requested in comments. This Meta Post is a witch hunt as far as anything practical is concerned.
@LakshmiNarayanan Imagine a scenario where we got 20 users adding their sectarian beliefs, a group of such users will keep on adding such points, a group of other users will do the same. This site will become a mess in no time.
@LakshmiNarayanan "At least the user here has the decency to state his assumptions, clarify them when requested in comments" Which user are you talking about?
@LakshmiNarayanan Downvoting is not the preferred solution, as I said, look at the big picture, at the moment, only 1 user is doing it, but the moment the count of users doing the same thing increases, it's only going to affect the community in a negative way.
@ChinmaySarupria And this business of calling all clarifications as sectarians beliefs has to stop. If Scriptures say something uncomfortable interpreted inline with Pratyaksha and Anumana and supported by ample reasons I don't think it is right to call it sectarian. You may feel it is sectarian when in reality it might be an elegant solution inline with scriptures. Stopping all debate by hiding everything under the rug for the sake of cosmetic reasons of a website is not the solution.
@ChinmaySarupria How are you so sure it will be negative? Have you run empirical trials? What theoretical basis do you have for this claim?
@LakshmiNarayanan The said user didn't even address the main point which is adding such lines intentionally on selected scriptures.
@LakshmiNarayanan "How are you so sure it will be negative? Have you run empirical trials? What theoretical basis do you have for this claim?" It isn't hard to know what will happen when users post things only to demean other Gods/scriptures.
@ChinmaySarupria I don't find it demeaning as you believe it to be so. This is your opinion. Additionally, you haven't answered why your hypothetical negative consequence is indeed negative. If you want you can spend time and energy debunking, if any, untrue claims on part of those notes - I feel that's the right way to do it. Banning such things outright shows lack of commitment to honest effort IMHO.
@LakshmiNarayanan I even added an example in my own post: people could say Sri Krishna was avatar of Lord Shiva, will you be happy to see such posts?
@LakshmiNarayanan The thing is those efforts are not at all honest, the user said he does it to add "value" to his answers then why not add value to the scriptures he likes? Why only add value to the scriptures he is against?
@LakshmiNarayanan You might downvote it but flagging will result in nothing because technically it is a correct statement that Sri Krishna was avatara of Lord Shiva because Shiva is one of the names of Vishnu.
@ChinmaySarupria We can argue as to why this particular statement you have made here is technically not correct AFAIK - And that's just the point, I'm ready to expend time and energy to do the right approach!
@ChinmaySarupria How do you know he/she is against some scriptures?
@ChinmaySarupria ok, so all the user's posts are incorrect based on this particular disagreement? They are not allowed to be informed by their interpretation in the answer? If so, why only this user?
@ChinmaySarupria Moreover, comments, votes, etc,. are used for this purpose.
@LakshmiNarayanan If you read all of user's answers, you will see a clear trend, he is adding notes on scriptures which has nothing to do with Vaishnavism but not adding anything on Vaishnavism related content.
@ChinmaySarupria I don't see any meta posts on others who freely and unhindered espouse advaita, etc,. in an actually subversive manner. I think this is targeted censorship which is largely wrong!
@ChinmaySarupria I think we already discussed this.
@LakshmiNarayanan "Moreover, comments, votes, etc,. are used for this purpose" That can only be done when users who do such stuff are limited in number, as I said before, the moment the number increases, what will you do? Downvote every single post?
@LakshmiNarayanan "I think this is targeted censorship which is largely wrong" As of now, only 1 user is doing it.
@ChinmaySarupria Time and Energy is needed to fight entropy, that's an undeniable fact there's no running from.
@ChinmaySarupria I think there are many people wrongly espousing advaita as the defacto view of vedanta on this site through their answers where such things can be easily avoided.
@LakshmiNarayanan If question is on advaita, there is no problem if you answer from Advaitic point of view, if question is on Vaishnavism, there is no problem if you answer from Vaishnava scriptures, if question is on others, there is no problem if you answer based on that. But if someone asks on Visistadvaita and the one who answers the question adds that forget Visistadvaita and go with Advaita or Advaita is a better approach, this is wrong. Same applies for other type of questions as well.
@LakshmiNarayanan The said user has made it a habit to use such notes on a select scriptures.
@ChinmaySarupria What about questions that are ill-informed or rather can be informed on the basis of one of a spectrum of contesting beliefs? I see that many questions like this have massive defacto advaitic answers which certain users consistently push without disclaimers - are you saying this is hearty and whole and in no way subversive? Where's the pitchfork on these issues?
@ChinmaySarupria So? that's their right to do so and be contested for it specifically on a case by case basis. Be thankful they are being explicit and not subversive like certain elements on this site.
@LakshmiNarayanan "I see that many questions like this have massive defacto advaitic answers " You are free to post that on Meta as well with examples like other users have done.
@LakshmiNarayanan "Be thankful they are being explicit and not subversive like certain elements on this site" Same as above, post such examples on the same meta post.
@ChinmaySarupria I think such meta posts are not going to solve this issue since subversive elements will once again contest that it is not subversive or refuse to engage in conversation unless named explicitly. And if I do name explicitly, I will be labelled as witch hunter without any sense of irony. I think it is just the nature of how things are in this Kali Yuga. Let's just disagree on what the right course of action is here. You obviously think this is a great idea and I obviously don't.
@ChinmaySarupria I have been refused to be engaged in conversation on such disagreements before by specific user(s) previously. They always end with some conclusion that i'm not qualified enough to debate the point or that I'm wasting their time and that they rather do something else. The double standards are appallingly laughable and the number of blind eyes incredulous. AFAIC this is a pucca witch hunt.
Moderation
Moderation