PPR Rules/Etiquette

Post Reply New Topic

I don't really believe or agree with you here. The way I see it the ToS is pretty much ignored in PPR.

Racist comments are allowed for example. And in some cases they are central to the debate. Some users will sneak in the odd slur or insult which is not the same as arguing a point.

I am not so sure about consensus rule. If the consensus is that it is OK to bandy around words like n****r and P-word for example would that be OK because the majority seem to be happy with it.

Forums are often dominated by a vocal minority with others reluctant to challenge them for fear of a flaming.

The issue discussed is religion not terrorism. What you are implying is either that you thought the issue was about merely terrorism or that all muslims are terrorists.

The number of people involved is irrelevant. You're avoiding the issue that there is obviously a problem with a holy book that incites violence against others, and you still haven't answered the question whether the attack was a criminal act.

More pertinent to THIS discussion is a person's right to point such things out. As I've stated before, Christians have endured a LONG period of growth in part through examination of the Bible and what it's intent really is. A holy war, for instance, requires first that God is consulted in making the decision and second that war is carried out entirely under precepts stated in the Bible as to what things are really worth fighting for. I personally believe, and I could be wrong, that the 1st Crusade was a triumph of war under divine guidance. That it was a clear victory attests to that fact. Further Crusades show the element of greed and self-seeking in making war, and it should come as no surprise that so many so-called Christians sent themselves to their deaths. You'd think we'd have been aware of how the Ancient Israelites and Judahites waged war relying entirely on their own strength or making foolish alliances with outsiders and recognized a lost cause when we saw one. We've had to survive Crusades and the varying bizarre policies of the Catholic church, the Inquisitions, the fragmentation of Protestant worshippers, and too many cults and heresies to count. We aren't perfect by any means, and there are those among us still in relative ignorance of what the Bible says and how to apply it to our lives, WBC being a case in point. But you cannot find fault with the Bible for that, only the way in which people misunderstand or misinterpret it.

The problem with the Koran is that it incites violence against others numerous enough times you can open it to a random page and pretty much find calls to murder anywhere. Those references cannot be interpreted any other way.

The real issue here is the mere pointing out of such issues with a criminal organization labels one as a "racist." Considering that those who follow the teachings of Islam transcend racial or ethnic boundaries, one is hardly a racist for pointing out such faults. As to whether the "millions" of other peaceful followers of Islam are also criminals, there is clearly no large-scale effort to stop extremist thinking. That makes a person complicit in the acts of others to kill and destroy. There are a lot of people sitting in jail who are no more guilty of a crime than those who commit crimes, yet their record shows they were "aiding and abetting." We Christians may not be right about everything. But we won't stand in the way of justice when it is deserved. You may hate WBC with a deep passion, but they have yet to do anything blatantly criminal, such as actually putting homosexuals to death. Until such a thing happens, they are only guilty of expressing opinions many of us don't like. And as long as we have freedom of speech or freedom of expression and religion, there is nothing criminal about what they do. If the day ever comes that they can be silenced without committing a crime, then those who succeed in silencing them better watch out. If you can silence the opinions of others, it's not a matter of "if" someone can do the same to you, but "when."

Therefore I stand behind what I said. You can disagree if you want. You are free to do so. But my statements are built upon clear facts. By limiting what can or can't be said about criminal groups who do NOT tolerate those with whom they disagree, you do MORE damage for the rights of others who are NOT guilty of crimes, all in the name of "tolerance" and eliminating "hate-speech."

9/11 was karma served, but not enough.

greenblue, I created a thread about killing Americans. It is called "America should die".

i had not realized that there was such a difference between nations.... apparently canada has developed more stringent laws against hate speech than the united states... i wonder if posters on WP are expecting that this website would have the same lax and flexible laws as seen in the united states regarding hate speech? well, the developer is american, but the mods live in different locations right?

The discussion was whether "kill them all" should be considered hate speech.

You don't know whether 9/11 was a criminal act?

Undoubtedly they wouldn't even be that cognizant of the differences. Most people live in one nation for a large part of their life. They will also tend to implicitly recognize the cultural workings of that nation as "correct", sort of in that same manner that many people implicitly recognize certain behaviors as "gross", even though other cultures will disagree.. A lot of posters are from the US, and even from extreme expressions of very US political beliefs, such as libertarians, which is an ideology that puts very high emphasis on individual rights, and really doesn't recognize rights of social protection to any extent. I think Dox, and myself are outright libertarians, and I think Orwell is a strong social libertarian with a more moderate view on the economy.

Well, in the US if you threaten to burn a Koran you get a phone call from the president begging you not to do it.

If you try it in the evil police state UK you just get slung in jail.

Edit: If you try it in Saudi Arabia...

Yeah, it's kinda different

The hate speech laws came into effect in the UK relatively recently. I think in principle at least someone in the UK posting comments in PPR saying all members of (a racial or religious group) should be (killed) could actually be arrested and charged with the crime of inciting racial hatred.

As an Englishman living in France moderating an American developed site well

The issue is that AngelRho seems to give responsability to Islam in general for the 9/11 attacks. Should "kill them all" be hate speech? probably so, because #1 the generalization seems highly questionable, #2 advocating for a genocide act, like trying to extinguish a perceived fire with hotter fire #3 Islam doesn't seem much different from Christianity regarding cultures and denominations and history.

i think this excerpt from this thread clearly illustrates the only clear rule of PPR:
"...that could be an interesting discussion topic."

I read less than 10% of what is on this board. If there are problems that the moderators are missing, they should be highlighted to a moderator. I guess that will always be my stand regardless of what anyone else says. The moderators do not see everything; it just isn't possible. Within what I read, I applied the rules as I explained in my post.

You are autistic, so perhaps you didn't realize, but the recent posts denigrating white people have all been examples of sarcasm. No one here is actually saying that white people are inferior to other races.

Come back DW. We need you.

BigK: Dox bascially summed up what my response to you would have been. I've added a bit to his comments in red.