 
Support Wrong Planet!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AlexandertheSolitary
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: Melbourne
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| emp wrote: | | Barracuda wrote: | | I find your hate speech toward christians disturbing. |
Hi, you are demonstrating the manipulative technique of accusing people of your own bad behavior. i.e. the hate speech is in the christian bible (it says that homosexuals are an abomination and should be killed, see Lev 18:22, 20:13), and you are christian, and you are accusing me of hate speech. Therefore you are accusing me of your own bad behavior. |
Actually you have no evidence of Barracuda's hatespeech (you specifically say "your own bad behaviour"). As the Christian Old Testament is also the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim, or law, prophets and writings) you could as easily make assumptions about both Jews and Christians. For that matter isolated passages in the Qur'an could be used to slander all Muslims.
Admittedly you might be able to raise a legitimate question for evangelical Christians, fundamentalist Muslims and some orthodox Jews as to why if the Scriptures are the Word of God some of this matter is included. Equally liberals of the three faiths might be queried as to why, if some passages are rejected, do they have a basis for accepting others. I am a Christian myself, so probably playing Devil's advocate here. I just think there may be the seeds of a valid argument here. But you commenced your initial post talking about religious people (there are no atheist xenophobes or homophobes?) and zoomed straight in on Christians. This does not actually provide an argument for why the hatespeech regulations should be directed solely at those holding religious belief, let alone solely those of Christian belief (if indeed that is the case as was previously alleged, which I am not certain is the case).
Also, this is politics, philosophy and religion. Plenty of potential grounds for hatespeech in all three (well philosophy might be a little harder, but it can be done). Basically the regulations seem sound if courteous rational discourse still allowing dissent is encouraged.
No hard feelings I hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AlexandertheSolitary
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: Apology |
|
|
| Sorry I replied before reading the later post about emp's departure. It was an interesting discussion while it lasted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
dgd1788
Eccentric Philosopher
Joined: Oct 09, 2005
Posts: 1352
Location: Indiana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you so much for this announcement!!!
_________________
If great minds think alike, does that mean that stupid minds think differently? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Scrapheap
Banned
Joined: Nov 02, 2005
Posts: 1678
Location: Animal Farm
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dgd1788 wrote: | | Thank you so much for this announcement!!! |
Thank who for this announcement??
_________________
All hail Comrade Napoleon!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
ThaCat
Emu Egg
Joined: Mar 31, 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Somebody ought to note that being a conservative is against the rules on this forum.
People like Emp and RobertN and snake321 run all over the place with their liberal, anti-Christian, anti-USA talk. Emp was making an anti-Christian topic daily for months, RobertN said that he hopes America gets hit with "a thousand 9/11's" and that "all conservatives should be executed as war criminals", and snake321 claims outright he's better than "rednecks" and that they should all be wiped out.
Of all of them only one - RobertN - was ever disciplined. His suspension was a mere 2 weeks.
Yet let a conservative come in and criticise Islam, and Alex can't ban him fast enough.
Look at Sean, Scrapheap and McJeff. They did not break the terms of service, or if they did, the infractions were far, far less severe than the three liberals mentioned above. And yet all of them are banned, permanently, without explanation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheMachine1
.
Joined: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 9092
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ThaCat wrote: | Somebody ought to note that being a conservative is against the rules on this forum.
People like Emp and RobertN and snake321 run all over the place with their liberal, anti-Christian, anti-USA talk. Emp was making an anti-Christian topic daily for months, RobertN said that he hopes America gets hit with "a thousand 9/11's" and that "all conservatives should be executed as war criminals", and snake321 claims outright he's better than "rednecks" and that they should all be wiped out.
Of all of them only one - RobertN - was ever disciplined. His suspension was a mere 2 weeks.
Yet let a conservative come in and criticise Islam, and Alex can't ban him fast enough.
Look at Sean, Scrapheap and McJeff. They did not break the terms of service, or if they did, the infractions were far, far less severe than the three liberals mentioned above. And yet all of them are banned, permanently, without explanation. |
No JimServo is very conservative and makes well reasons arguments for conservatives.
I'm not sure if Scrapheap was a conservative but he certainly was anti-religious as persons like EMP was. So religion and conservatism are not one in the same. The Sean
person was a racist and nothing conservative about that. As far as the Mcjeff I mainly remeber him being more interested in promoting conflict than understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AlexandertheSolitary
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheMachine1 wrote: | | ThaCat wrote: | Somebody ought to note that being a conservative is against the rules on this forum.
People like Emp and RobertN and snake321 run all over the place with their liberal, anti-Christian, anti-USA talk. Emp was making an anti-Christian topic daily for months, RobertN said that he hopes America gets hit with "a thousand 9/11's" and that "all conservatives should be executed as war criminals", and snake321 claims outright he's better than "rednecks" and that they should all be wiped out.
Of all of them only one - RobertN - was ever disciplined. His suspension was a mere 2 weeks.
Yet let a conservative come in and criticise Islam, and Alex can't ban him fast enough.
Look at Sean, Scrapheap and McJeff. They did not break the terms of service, or if they did, the infractions were far, far less severe than the three liberals mentioned above. And yet all of them are banned, permanently, without explanation. |
No JimServo is very conservative and makes well reasons arguments for conservatives.
I'm not sure if Scrapheap was a conservative but he certainly was anti-religious as persons like EMP was. So religion and conservatism are not one in the same. The Sean
person was a racist and nothing conservative about that. As far as the Mcjeff I mainly remeber him being more interested in promoting conflict than understanding. |
Of course religion and conservatism are not one and the same. Awesomelyglorious could be described as conservative (though his preferred terms are classical liberal or libertarian; only call him anarcho-capitalist if you want to annouy him; laissez faire capitalist would be my term and is almost certainly not religious; I am religious (and Christian; they are not synonymous) and in the lower left quartile (anarchist corner) of the political quizz, though conservative in some things. snake321 is conservative in some things.
_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep." |
|
| Back to top |
|
ThaCat
Emu Egg
Joined: Mar 31, 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So advocating an "eye for an eye" policy against the terrorists is "promoting conflict over understanding" and thus bannable, but saying that "I hope millions of ignorant Americans die in a thousand 9/11's" is worth a two week suspension? Doesn't seem balanced to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Flagg
Vivez sans temps mort.
Joined: Nov 09, 2006
Posts: 5657
Location: Western US
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ThaCat wrote: | | So advocating an "eye for an eye" policy against the terrorists is "promoting conflict over understanding" and thus bannable, but saying that "I hope millions of ignorant Americans die in a thousand 9/11's" is worth a two week suspension? Doesn't seem balanced to me. |
No....
Saying we have to wipe out Islam is worth a ban.
That's what McJeff said to get banned.
_________________
How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
ThaCat
Emu Egg
Joined: Mar 31, 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did I really say that? (that Muslims should be wiped out) Because I sure don't remember saying it, and don't think it. Yeah, I'm intensely critical of radical and orthodox Islam, but that's a religion, and one of the things I regularly mention is how the extremists are allowed to intimidate the moderate muslims into saying nothing about it.
And even so, that's about equivalent to the "thousands of 9/11s" comment, and so a more appropriate action would have been a warning and two week suspension. But the guy who I presume handed down and authorized the banning never had the guts to explain to me why I got banned - Flagg, you're the first person who's actually TOLD me what I did.
Or um... how about this?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=25899
Criticized Islam. Got flamed by a Moderator no less. Then got banned, again, no explanation.
And yet, all the anti-Israel, and 9/11 Conspiracy Theory topics are allowed to stand not only undisturbed, but vehemently SUPPORTED by the people who find what I have to say so appallingly offensive, even though the so-called hate speach is at least equivalent.
What's with that? What's with the damn double standards here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
AlexandertheSolitary
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ThaCat wrote: | | So advocating an "eye for an eye" policy against the terrorists is "promoting conflict over understanding" and thus bannable, but saying that "I hope millions of ignorant Americans die in a thousand 9/11's" is worth a two week suspension? Doesn't seem balanced to me. |
This treatment is certainly unjust. The hate-speech instanced is clearly a rather graver offence than yours given that you have not been advocating the punishment of the adherents of a whole faith for the sins of a few; a desire that Americans collectively be punished for the foreign policy of successive governments (whom not all Americans may even have voted for, given you do not have compulsory voting and even those who do vote are not unanimous - though offences are bipartisan anyway - not that compulsory voting has helped Austalia, lol) amounts to an equivalent of precisely that. However do not take this as an unconditional surrender to your point of view; think of it rather as sympathy from a respectful adversary. A case that Americans (or Australians, British, and other fortunate inhabitants of the "First World" for that matter) should be more aware of wider repercussions should not degenerate into an advocacy of mass murder; therein I agree with your argument. Scapegoating of groups is uniformly repugnant. Sins, misdemeanours and crimes are carried out by individuals (even in the context of a whole group, say the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazis) tied to a poisonous ideology like fascism, crimes are perpetrated by real individuals who are accountable for their actions; no amount of lame excuses about peer group pressure shall absolve them of guilt; then it is not a case of scapegoating - precisely what such evil groups are guilty of - but of truth-telling to unreservedly condemn the ideology and its adherents).
_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep." |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 9141
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AlexandertheSolitary wrote: |
Of course religion and conservatism are not one and the same. Awesomelyglorious could be described as conservative (though his preferred terms are classical liberal or libertarian; only call him anarcho-capitalist if you want to annouy him; laissez faire capitalist would be my term and is almost certainly not religious; I am religious (and Christian; they are not synonymous) and in the lower left quartile (anarchist corner) of the political quizz, though conservative in some things. snake321 is conservative in some things. |
Actually, my preferred terms would be most of those things other than anarcho-capitalist, which would be completely false given the fact that I have never claimed a desire to abolish the state. I usually call myself a conservative, and my facebook profile describes me as conservative, classical liberal or libertarian also work and might be truer to my current beliefs, laissez-faire capitalist also has some truth to it as well, but not perfect truth of course as I am nowhere close to being as laissez-faire as Milton Friedman or other major laissez-faire advocates and can sometimes see a need for government interventions.
Yeah, there are non-religious conservatives and religious liberals and everything across the board in that direction though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
jimservo
Phoenix
Joined: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 2116
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that to advocate violence against members or groups certainly worth a ban or suspension depending on the circumstances/rules. In regards to the controversy over whether it is being applied equally or not, I will decline to take a side. Further, perhaps in the future, the moderators can keep said critiques in mind and thus apply penalties equally and justly (not to suggest otherwise).
_________________
Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? -Captain Oveur, in Airplane! |
|
| Back to top |
|
AlexandertheSolitary
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Posts: 1046
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jimservo wrote: | | I think that to advocate violence against members or groups certainly worth a ban or suspension depending on the circumstances/rules. In regards to the controversy over whether it is being applied equally or not, I will decline to take a side. Further, perhaps in the future, the moderators can keep said critiques in mind and thus apply penalties equally and justly (not to suggest otherwise). |
Surely most of what you have said here goes without saying. What circumstances are you considering to be mitigating circumstances? Surely incitement or advocacy of violence is invariably wrong.
MENDEL: "I say we fight! An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!"
TEVYE: "Very good. That way, the whole world can be blind and toothless."
From "Fiddler on the Roof."
Mind you, they were being dispossessed from the homes they had known all their lives due to the edict of the Tsarist regime; maybe Mendel had a point. It would probably not have helped.
CONSTABLE: Against our army? I wouldn't advise that.
_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep." |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 9141
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AlexandertheSolitary wrote: |
Surely most of what you have said here goes without saying. What circumstances are you considering to be mitigating circumstances? Surely incitement or advocacy of violence is invariably wrong.
|
Hard to say, however, these forums are more likely to attract people who have more personal issues. Should any of those be considered? After all, a person with some struggles in their life is more likely to call out for a wrong but not truly mean it. I mean, I'll be honest, I have advocated killing atomika every time he spams on us. That is a call for violence against a member(even a short-lived one), however, I would claim that there are mitigating circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
