Of course. And that's always been the case as per the guidelines. Let's not pretend though that there won't be disagreement over what constitutes a sexist remark.

Historically his sexist comments have been over the top, so I doubt that will be an issue.

I can only hope that @Agustino will use this opportunity to try to understand the effect some of his comments have had and will adjust himself accordingly.

Me too.

But if I understand you correctly, you'll delete any future sexist remarks from Agustino if I flag them? — Mongrel

You are such a liar, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Nothing happened. — Mongrel

Of course nothing happened, cause none of them were sexist. Please list one single sexist comment I made. As I told you in a PM long ago, you have a mental issue it seems where you perceive regular and normal sentences as sexist. In fact, you said to me in one of your last PMs:

Just to let you know: everybody thinks you're sexist. That's how you come across. I'm not sure whether you really care what anybody else thinks, though. — Mongrel

So now please, where the hell are all the people who think that I'm a sexist?! You said everyone thinks I'm a sexist. Let's see the evidence. They can freely speak here, I hold no authority, I'm not even on good terms with the moderators, nobody has any reason to be afraid of me. They can speak their mind. So let's see. But quite the contrary, I predict that many will come to defend me.

Now let's have a look at how crazy Mongrel is. Just look at this:

Are you Greek Orthodox? Or Catholic? — Mongrel

That one. Why are you inquiring? :P — Agustino

Just curious. Can't a person be curious? — Mongrel

>:O Yeahhh they can, but I'm curious why you're curious about it :P — Agustino

I don't really know much about Greek Orthodox. — Mongrel

We tend to be more Platonist, more lenient with priests (our priests get to marry), and more focused on contemplation/prayer :P — Agustino

They frequently don't know much about what the Bible says, but they don't realize they're clueless, so they'll start arguments with Protestants (not realizing that Protestants frequently have read the Bible) — Mongrel

I'm not sure if this is true with Catholics in Europe though. — Agustino

Anyway.. there is a difference between what the Bible says and what constitutes a Christian tradition. It just depends on what's being emphasized, what folklore has been added.. so on. — Mongrel

I agree. — Agustino

Now notice. Out of nowhere. The true wacko:

Could be. The US is heavily Protestant dominated just because the culture is sort of British.
BTW.. you seemed to suggest that rightists are sexist. That's not true at all in the US. Here, sexism is just wacko. — Mongrel

lol where did I suggest that? You seem to think I'm sexist, but that's quite false. Understanding the world isn't the same as sexism. — Agustino

Just to let you know: everybody thinks you're sexist. That's how you come across. I'm not sure whether you really care what anybody else thinks, though. — Mongrel

I'm not sure who this "everybody" is, but that's certainly not true. There's many people on these forums, including Americans by the way (and women too) who do not think my views are sexist, and who agree with them. I think you just don't know what you're talking about, or you're just refusing to accept the way things are, namely that there's biological differences between men and women, which is true. Do you want me to provide you with medical journals documenting these differences?
As for this wacky belief: — Agustino

Here, sexism is just wacko. — Mongrel

That screams fear from miles away. Sexism is more rampant in the US than in Europe for that matter, but it seems you'd like to deny even this fact. I actually don't think you quite understand what sexism even means. I'm absolutely not prejudiced against women based on sex, as I've made abundantly clear, the one best fit for the job should do the job. — Agustino

Fine. You don't want to hear what I'm telling you. I don't care. :P — Mongrel

lol - what you're telling me is absurd :P You're talking when you have a President who grabs women by the pussy and objectifies them? :s You're saying that's wacko in the US? Give me a break. — Agustino

Whatever dude. — Mongrel

Let's see another example of "sexism":

We're dealing with a very big ignoramus in this thread. Whoever dares to say that Kierkegaard is an atheist/mystic who thinks Christianity is dead and he isn't trying to build anything on its grave has probably NEVER read Kierkegaard. If anything Kierkegaard was a conservative Christian who thought that the only way to cure the illnesses of modernity is to return to a personal relationship with God, which is for example a subject addressed in Sickness Unto Death.

Furthermore to suggest Kierkegaard doesn't believe in a personal God is ABSOLUTE lunacy!! Kierkegaard, the man who, along with Pascal, rejected the God of the philosophers for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! And to suggest that most Christian mystics don't believe in a personal God - oh dear!

"God is an underlying creative force... something like that."
— Mongrel
>:O >:O >:O >:O Yeah right, cause Christians are New Age believers! — Agustino

Yep. He was a mystic. My goodness... two posts attacking me. :D — Mongrel

How was he a mystic if he rejected the God of the philosophers and rather accepted the personal God who directly and literarily spoke with Abraham? :s You're the first person I hear who claims K. to be a mystic, quite a lot of the secondary literature on him that I've read finds him to be anti-mystical if anything. — Agustino

Anyone who spends much time contemplating union with the divine is a mystic. I'm not sure how anyone could interpret that as anti-mystical.

We're some ways off topic now. — Mongrel

Reference? — Mongrel

Read Sickness unto Death, or Either/Or. Also you can check out this book:

Struggling with God: Kierkegaard and the Temptation of Spiritual Trial — Agustino

Kierkegaard's emphasis upon God's transcendence could also play an important role in tempering the intimacy of the mystic's relation with God... It is only be an act of grace on God's part and not by the mystic's striving for experience of or union with the Divine that he comes into God's presence. It is in making clear these truths that the value of Kierkegaard's anti-mysticism lies. — quote from Struggling with God

By the way you should already be aware that merging into God is HERESY in Christian theology. So Christian mysticism is different than other forms of mysticism. Even Eckhart's mysticism is different.

Theosis - which is union with the Trinity - and is the goal of life according to Orthodox Christianity does not mean the annihilation of the self into God, but rather the self being deified and joining the Three Persons of the Trinity in communion, but still remaining separate. — Agustino

I agree he meant that striving doesn't get one there..."power which is impotence"

What document is your quote referencing? — Mongrel

The book I recommended you. — Agustino

And now, because she was proven wrong, not only by me, but also by Thanatos Sand in that thread, look what she does:

From Amazon's description of that book:

" Invoking the biblical motif of Jacob's struggle with the Face of God (Genesis 32), Simon D. Podmore undertakes a constructive theological account of 'spiritual trial' (tentatio; known in German mystical and Lutheran tradition as Anfechtung) in relation to enduring questions of the otherness and hiddenness of God and the self, the problem of suffering and evil, the freedom of Spirit, and the anxious relationship between temptation and ordeal, fear and desire. This book traces a genealogy of spiritual trial from medieval German mystical theology, through Lutheran and Pietistic thought (Tauler; Luther; Arndt; Boehme), and reconstructs Kierkegaard's innovative yet under-examined recovery of the category (Anfægtelse: a Danish cognate for Anfechtung) within the modern context of the 'spiritless' decline of Christendom. Developing the relationship between struggle (Anfechtung) and release (Gelassenheit), Podmore proposes a Kierkegaardian theology of spiritual trial which elaborates the kenosis of the self before God in terms of Spirit's restless longing to rest transparently in God. Offering an original rehabilitation of the temptation of spiritual trial, this book strives for a renewed theological hermeneutic which speaks to the enduring human struggle to realise the unchanging love of God in the face of spiritual darkness."

:-}

What's kenosis? Anyway, we're done. Life's too short for me to spend much time talking to a sexist jerk. — Mongrel

Yes what about it? Why aren't you happy about it? It will dispel your misconceptions about the Christian spirituality that K. was advocating and you'll see that it's actually a very Orthodox view. — Agustino

And it will certainly cure you of your idea that Christianity is dead. — Agustino

I just saw the "spectacular" additions to your post ...

What's kenosis?
— Mongrel

Kenosis means self-emptying through loving activity.

Anyway, we're done. Life's too short for me to spend much time talking to a sexist jerk.
— Mongrel

:-} Just because I find your comments in this thread stupid and you're a woman doesn't make me a sexist, nor a jerk. You just don't know what you're talking about with regards to Kierkegaard (or Christian mysticism for that matter). Your judgement is so dominated by your 1960s atheistic/humanistic/leftist ideology that you can't even see beyond your own nose. It's pathetic. Everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a sexist. — Agustino

Every reasonable person will look at Mongrel, and the only plausible reaction will be laughter. Because let me tell you, those crocodile tears of hers, and protestations are nothing but sheer slander. I've never made any sexist comment, unless, of course, you count my arguments against abortion, against casual sex, and such as sexism. Which only a wacko, indeed a true wacko, could think.

Now, back to the topic. Mongrel doesn't understand what sexism is, nor is capable to combat it. If anything, I'm the opposite of sexist, because I respect women. I value women, and they aren't just sexual objects to me. It seems though that Mongrel is upset that women aren't sexual objects to me, because she perceives the freedom of women to be identical to sexual slavery - for her, promiscuous sexual behaviour is freedom. But I argue, as Spinoza did, that quite the contrary, vice and licentiousness is not freedom, but poison, and contrary to the opinion of the dumb majority, it is the ones (both male and female) who give in to their lusts who are in bondage, and those who don't, who are truly free.

I've asked Mongrel multiple times how I or my remarks were sexist. She never said anything, because she slanders based on lies. And why does she slander? Because I'm a conservative, and she has no other way to combat my arguments, but the crocodile tears.

This is an example of how it works, actually. Agustino is sexist. If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. The people who moderate this forum know that, but they don't care. Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up?

Same thing with the statue of Lee. The message it sends to both whites and blacks is counter to what We the People have declared we are and will be.

But as I mentioned to you in PM.. if you make it about personality, you're right. Humanity is a bunch of flawed rascals. — Mongrel

Lies, lies, lies. First of all, where are the nasty comments?! If you cannot produce these nasty comments, I expect a public apology.

Second of all, you already are peripheralized by the very fact that you cannot have a proper conversation. In the middle of a normal conversation you suddenly call people you converse with sexists, and jerks and other things out of nowhere. That's the behaviour of a crazy person.

Third of all, with regards to sexism, "we the people" have actually declared that we are sexist. That's what they declare everytime when you see advertisements which objectify women and their bodies. That's what they declare every time they admire men like Donald Trump who grab women by the pussy (and most men in the US, by the way, are just like Trump - Trump is the alpha male, they'd all want to be like him). That's what they declare every time when they make everything about a woman her physical beauty. That's what your dear American society is doing, not me. Quite the contrary, Agustino is against and fiercely opposed to the objectification of women's bodies. He is opposed to treating women as sexual objects. He wants women to be valued as human beings, and exposes the hypocritical Western society who claims to oppose sexism, while actually loves it and endorses it with its whole heart - including YOU Mongrel.

Historically his sexist comments have been over the top, so I doubt that will be an issue. — Mongrel

If you cannot produce the evidence that I am a sexist, do you agree to receive a warning from the moderators for slander? After all, this is exactly what you are doing. If I was amongst the moderators, I'd certainly give you a warning if you fail to produce the evidence. As I said before with TimeLine, it's unacceptable to accuse someone in the absence of evidence - that's slander, and it makes the forum a worse place for all of us.

But if I understand you correctly, you'll delete any future sexist remarks from Agustino if I flag them? — Mongrel

Yes of course they will, IF THEY ARE SEXIST. But I don't think you understand what that means. You'll most likely flag my comments about the Orthodox Church or Kierkegaard >:O

Heister Eggcart can confirm - Kierkegaard was not a Christian mystic.

Meister Eggcart can confirm - Kierkegaard was not a Christian mystic. — Buxtebuddha

Okay, that's enough. Life's too short for me to spend much time talking to a sexist jerk >:O >:O

I think both y'all needa calm down. The only person that needs to be shut down on this forum is Thanatos Harris Sand.

Actually, it's Buxtebuddha since he just trolled me out of nowhere again. It's what people who can't actually contribute tend to do...poor kid.

Actually, it's Buxtebuddha since he just trolled me out of nowhere again. Maybe if he said something intelligent along with that trolling, but that's beyond his faculties. — John Harris

Rofl. Right on queue, you fucking madman, >:O

Thanatos Harris Sand. — Buxtebuddha

>:)

You have to admit that Mr. Harris is a little bit like a toy. You press the button, and there he goes! >:O

Rofl. Right on queue, you fucking madman, >:O

Rofl. The only mad man is you, and your trolling and mad emolji proves it. Keep on causing conflict, though...:)

↪Buxtebuddha You have to admit that Mr. Harris is a little bit like a toy. You press the button, and there he goes! >:O

Because I respond to your trolling? That only makes the children you who aren't here to talk philosophy but immaturely try to get reactions out of people. How sad.

That only makes the children you who aren't here to talk philosophy but immaturely try to get reactions out of people. How sad. — John Harris

Yes, I am a child and you are my toy! X-)

Which button should I press so that you tell me that you won't read any of my future comments in this thread? >:O

Yes, I am a child and you are my toy! X-)

No, I've clearly made you my toy in our discussions, where you've been left a child well-"spanked"...:)

No, I've clearly made you my toy in our discussions, where you've been left a child well-"spanked"...:) — John Harris

Oh yes, my butt is red.

↪John Harris Which button should I press so that you tell me that you won't read any of my future comments in this thread? >:

I've already pushed too many buttons needing to debunk so many of your arguments, I'll let you figure that out.

Oh yes, my butt is red. — Agustino

Wow, are you making fun of American Indians? You goddamned racist.

— John Harris
Oh yes, my butt is red

On that we can agree...:)

I don't notice many of @Agustino 's comments being sexist...

The bulk of his sexist remarks were made a few months ago. He made a few more a few weeks ago.

It's nice to know there won't be any more. I just have to remember to flag them when Baden is here. None of the others would do anything about it.

What exactly did he say?

I had it all up on twitter at one point. I took it down. His sexism is principled. He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so. He associates these views with religion.

I would rather clean out the NYC sewer system than go rambling through his posts, but you can if you want. It's all there (unless he deleted it himself... which would great.)

I am afraid that I don't know which thread(s) you are referring to, but I have read much on here for awhile, and haven't noticed anything saying that.

oh yeah, it's all there, just Google it. >:O

How typical.

You don't have any evidence that I ever made any sexist replies. I ask the moderators to come up with a policy against slander, because it's not the first time things like this happen, and it shouldn't, since it makes the forum a worse place for all of us. It's not fair that particular members get accused based on fancy; it's disgraceful.

@jamalrob
@Baden

It's not fair that particular members get accused based on fancy; it's disgraceful.

Looks like somebody's buttons really got pushed...:)