CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Writing and Titling Guidelines

Writing and Titling Guidelines

Started by Roger Barrett2 · · 👁 4 views · 3 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Roger Barrett2Nicole Jamessteelskipper5
Roger Barrett2 Roger Barrett2 MemberOP
33 messages
joined May 2010
#1 ·
Topic: Raising children with faith

Is this level of discourse actually allowed here? We’ve been debating conservative parents who send their kids off to those summer religious retreats—Camp Woodstock. Sweet and I are somewhat in agreement that what happens at those camps is problematic, but then he goes ahead and labels the parents themselves, saying, "Any parent who would do that to their kid is a total piece of work!!"

If that kind of language is permitted (I reported the post in question, but nothing was done), does that mean I can turn around and say that parents who adopt through same-sex couples are also just total ......? Personally, I feel like that would cross the line into being offensive.

I’m really just trying to understand the posting guidelines here.
Nicole James Nicole James Regular
313 messages
joined Dec 2010
#2 ·
"What the hell," or if you want to put it more politely, "it's bad"—in my book, that’s hardly a crime. And no, I don't think anyone's going to hand me a red card for saying it like that.
Roger Barrett2 Roger Barrett2 MemberOP
33 messages
joined May 2010
#3 ·
Gregory Turner71 said:"It's bullshit," or to put it more politely, "it's bad." Personally, I don't see why that's such a big deal. And no, you wouldn't give me a red card just for saying that.

I think this really goes back to that old saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"—or in this case, truth is. If I were to compare being gay to corruption on the grounds that they're both sins in the eyes of God, you’d probably throw a penalty flag on me. But when Slat compares religious parents to anatomy, he isn't trying to be offensive; he's just using colorful, literary language to make a point. It's about expression, plain and simple.

Anyway, thanks for the response!
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#4 ·
Roger Barrett2 said:I think this just proves the whole "truth is in the eye of the beholder" thing. If I compare being gay to corruption—since both are sins in God's eyes—then suddenly I'm getting a ban? When Slade compares religious parents to genitals, it isn't an insult, it’s just... I don't know, understanding literary expression and how people actually talk.

Anyway, thanks for the reply!

It’s honestly fascinating how you can take a perfectly clear answer—basically saying even you wouldn't get banned for those words—and somehow twist it to mean the exact opposite.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads