Look, this is a discussion board, not a credulous agreement board.
I am sure there are boards where discussions on this topic can be met without any dissenting views. Just like there are boards where JW's can have 'wholesome fellowship' without 'dissenting views'. Why is that bad, and the expectation of a respectful silence to what some consider equivalently objectionable views not bad?
I think it is it's reasonable to suggest if you want uncritical responses, go where you can reasonably expect them.
I'm sure no one gives a hoot if you do post them here, and some will enjoy it, but to expect people with experience of the damage pseudoscience and potentialy exploitative beliefs can do to not speak out about issues involving pseudoscience and potentialy exploitative beliefs is obviously wrong, both (in my opinion) to expect AND to even want.
Who made some people god to decide what beliefs people have to suffer in silence and those that it's okay to comment about?
Can I have a thread on a topic of my choice where no one is allowed to say I am wrong?
Why is it okay to shred a dumb Creationistic argument that ignores scientific fact (whilst using a PC to make it), and not okay to shred a dumb Astrological argument that ignores scientific fact (whilst using a PC to make it)?
You are welcome to your beliefs and to expressing them. Extend those with polar views the same courtesy.
I'd ask anyone who does think it reasonable to request people gag themselves the following question;
If you consider having discussions that can only involve 'true' believers from the outset (due to their unsupportable nature when examined by any reliable method) is 'okay', exactly what have you learnt in your departure from a cult?
And save the 'harmless' routine. Are lies harmless? If someone's engagement with them is such they don't want to even hear an opposiong view, I don't think they are.
