Moderators and Free Speech

[Phi for All]

The point of a public trail is assuring justice and it gives the established power legitimacy. Like discussing our constitution and freedom of religion and freedom of speech, is about increasing political awareness, so too the subject of the importance of a trail.

I think the moderation rules we have currently are enough. I would be loathe to add some sort of public trial for any offenses. I've seen heavy-handedness at other forums and I'm convinced it stifles discussion. For every person like you who wants a spotlight placed on their alleged transgressions, there are probably twenty people who would rather move on to more interesting things.

 

Athena, many replies to your posts are like zapatos' above. You seem to have so much to say to us that it all comes bubbling up at once and many of your sentences have little relationship to each other. You jump from passionate rants to out-of-context anecdotes to defense of concepts that few understand. You have a great deal of potential but I think you need to think more about editing yourself (not censoring yourself, but editing for clarity and focus). I don't mean to offend, but looking back over some of your content, there are a lot of people who are telling you they don't know what you're talking about. You can do better; you're intelligent and passionate, and that has a lot of potential for interesting discussions.

[swansont]

It has been said that I accuse of moderators doing things they do not do, and from my point of view, moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing. For example trolling, and preaching. Isn't that really a personal judgement depending on ones point of view? I know I preach, and I question authority, yet it was argued I have not violated the rule, and should not be concerned about being banned. In another forum I was accused of trolling and was really offended by that. The point of a public trail is assuring justice and it gives the established power legitimacy. Like discussing our constitution and freedom of religion and freedom of speech, is about increasing political awareness, so too the subject of the importance of a trail. Were rulers in the past bad guys, or are there good reasons for having public trails with a jury of peers?

 

One of the important things about trials is that they use evidence rather than innuendo. Since you seem hell-bent on doing this here rather than through official channels (e.g. reporting posts or PMs to staff), I would like to see your evidence. Has anyone actually threatened you with being banned? Provide links. Have you received warnings that did not explain what rule you were violating? Provide links.

[Athena]

First, you're premise is flawed, this is not a democracy, it's a privately owned internet forum. Second, you're basically asking to be treated under a different set of rules than everyone else. Third, I'm not sure why you're suddenly going off on the mods here (in multiple threads, I might add). Has something happened to you recently that I haven't read, something you want a public trial for?

 

Not on topic

 

OT: Trail/trial is a good example of why people shouldn't rely on spell checkers. It's an example of why today's kids should learn to spell without a spell checker and how to do math without a calculator.

 

not on topic

[Athena]

I have no idea how this is an either/or question.

 

I was hoping for more thoughtful replies. Would you want to return to the past of trials without attorneys, and being judged by a king, or professional judges, or do you think there are good reasons for having a prosecutor and defense attorney and a jury of peers?

 

I think the moderation rules we have currently are enough. I would be loathe to add some sort of public trial for any offenses. I've seen heavy-handedness at other forums and I'm convinced it stifles discussion. For every person like you who wants a spotlight placed on their alleged transgressions, there are probably twenty people who would rather move on to more interesting things.

 

Athena, many replies to your posts are like zapatos' above. You seem to have so much to say to us that it all comes bubbling up at once and many of your sentences have little relationship to each other. You jump from passionate rants to out-of-context anecdotes to defense of concepts that few understand. You have a great deal of potential but I think you need to think more about editing yourself (not censoring yourself, but editing for clarity and focus). I don't mean to offend, but looking back over some of your content, there are a lot of people who are telling you they don't know what you're talking about. You can do better; you're intelligent and passionate, and that has a lot of potential for interesting discussions.

 

Well, almost on topic. If you had stayed with the topic, this might even have been an acceptable post.

[swansont]

As you said this is not the place for personal accusations and defenses. I am learning that what really matters to me can not be discussed in forums, because all moderators, in every forum, over many years, become defensive. I have been repeatedly assured I will not be banned and your assumption about what this thread is about is wrong.

 

I know every poster in this forum is proud of being non emotional and logical, but really, are you all sure emotions are not influencing what you think? Is giving someone a bad score without explaining why, a critical (meaning a matter of reasoning) reaction or an emotional one? Is hitting someone with no explanation something helpful?

 

It's very easy to accuse people and make them into a scapegoat. Simultaneously telling me not to be defensive, as I am a moderator and stand accused of some sort of unseemly behavior, and refusing to present evidence? That's thin. If you have been assured that you won't be banned, then why have you made any sort of moderator accusation at all? What's the connection? Is it just rabble-rousing to exert influence in the court of public opinion? Is that the banner you want to wave in a thread about openness and fairness in trials?

[StringJunky]

 

I know every poster in this forum is proud of being non emotional and logical, but really, are you all sure emotions are not influencing what you think? Is giving someone a bad score without explaining why, a critical (meaning a matter of reasoning) reaction or an emotional one? Is hitting someone with no explanation something helpful?

 

I don't think anyone gets a bad score for just being logically or factually wrong but being bad tempered, stubborn or ill-mannered in some way as well. I would say "yes", the final decider to give someone a demerit is an emotional one...but that's ok. Regardless of how logical we are, we are still emotional beings and when logicality and civility are transgressed the neg rep is the means by which to show that disapproval. If a poster doesn't know why they were repped negatively they can ask but 99% of the time it's clear why...usually because they are being intransigent and/or uncivil.

[Phi for All]

May I ask what makes a group of mods better than England's infamous Star Chamber? Someone has been accusing me of very awful things, and suspect this person's thoughts of my wrongs, began with someone saying I was doing wrong things. It has been my experience, that when a mod becomes annoyed with someone, in a short time another mod finds that this person is violating rules. It appears that the group effort is to protect the forum, and each other, not exactly the individuals.

Are you talking about THIS forum, ScienceForums.net, or another forum you participate in?

[Athena]

One of the important things about trials is that they use evidence rather than innuendo. Since you seem hell-bent on doing this here rather than through official channels (e.g. reporting posts or PMs to staff), I would like to see your evidence. Has anyone actually threatened you with being banned? Provide links. Have you received warnings that did not explain what rule you were violating? Provide links.

 

Do you really want to me to present evidence here? That is against the rules, and it would ruin the intent of the thread, which is a much bigger picture. I use how mods do things, to call attention to greater issue and political cause, so people relate what is happening today, to the over all picture that is REALLY IMPORTANT. Try to see the picture, okay?

[Phi for All]

Do you really want to me to present evidence here? That is against the rules, and it would ruin the intent of the thread, which is a much bigger picture. I use how mods do things, to call attention to greater issue and political cause, so people relate what is happening today, to the over all picture that is REALLY IMPORTANT. Try to see the picture, okay?

This seems highly unrealistic to me, no offense intended. Using "how mods do things" is in no way a fair representation of any democratic political system, and expecting people to relate what is happening today by calling attention to such unrelated events is not grounded in reality. Private forums are N-O-T democracies and our rules have little bearing on laws and constitutional rights.

[zapatos]

Do you really want to me to present evidence here? That is against the rules, and it would ruin the intent of the thread, which is a much bigger picture. I use how mods do things, to call attention to greater issue and political cause, so people relate what is happening today, to the over all picture that is REALLY IMPORTANT. Try to see the picture, okay?

He sounded pretty clear to me on what he would like. From a personal perspective I find it hard to concentrate on what you'd like us to talk about when you keep talking about the mods.

 

"Let's have a discussion about Jack the Ripper, who was in many ways similar to that fellow hiding behind the curtain over there. But please people, let's just try to stay focused on Jack!"

[doG]

Do you really want to me to present evidence here? That is against the rules, and it would ruin the intent of the thread, which is a much bigger picture. I use how mods do things, to call attention to greater issue and political cause, so people relate what is happening today, to the over all picture that is REALLY IMPORTANT. Try to see the picture, okay?

No, making an assertion and not supporting it is against the rules here. You need to present your evidence or retract your assertion!

[swansont]

No, making an assertion and not supporting it is against the rules here. You need to present your evidence or retract your assertion!

 

Indeed. If this isn't about the mods, then the statement should be withdrawn and not reintroduced.

 

I'll say this though: there are lots of examples where mods have suggested that certain behavior is questionable and other mods have disagreed, so no action was taken. There is no rubber stamp that I can see. If you see a modnote in a thread, it's because that moderator (and maybe others) had determined that some action needed to be taken. The staff also tend to use the report post function more than average, I think, because they know it's there and that's the proper procedure for bringing others' attention to potential problems, rather than dragging threads off on a tangent by complaining in a post.

 

Bur how mods do things is a poor example, because our board is not run like the criminal justice system.

[JustinW]

Easy there folks. From what I get from the conversation is, that although something may have happened with a mod at sometime, the intent of the conversation is not directed at mods in particular. The use of mods as an example is to lay out a scenario of what the issue is that Athena wants to talk about. In no way does she have to prove that a mod did something wrong, but has already supported her side of the conversation by conveying the thought that people today do not understand the general philosophy of a democracy. I think it would be better to encompass the context as a whole instead of breaking down each and every comment that is made. I think the conversation is a little deeper than mod bashing, and has nothing to do with mods other than establishing a scenario. I think we can have a more fulfilling conversation if given a chance.

Edited May 10, 2012 by JustinW

[zapatos]

Easy there folks. From what I get from the conversation is, that although something may have happened with a mod at sometime, the intent of the conversation is not directed at mods in particular. The use of mods as an example is to lay out a scenario of what the issue is that Athena wants to talk about. In no way does she have to prove that a mod did something wrong, but has already supported her side of the conversation by conveying the thought that people today do not understand the general philosophy of a democracy. I think it would be better to encompass the context as a whole instead of breaking down each and every comment that is made. I think the conversation is a little deeper than mod bashing, and has nothing to do with mods other than establishing a scenario. I think we can have a more fulfilling conversation if given a chance.

I couldn't disagree more. It is grossly unfair to say someone in a small group of people on this site has done something wrong, then refuse to explain it or retract it. It is also disingenuous to say someone reading this has done her an injustice but that they shouldn't take it personally, and please just move along. Athena has suggested the mods lack objectivity and are politically motivated, and have accused her of awful things, but refuses to explain herself. If this is her behavior on other sites I am not surprised she has found herself criticized

 

The bulk of the OP discusses the mods. If Athena wants people to concentrate on 'the general philosophy of a democracy', then she should not include inflammatory statements. She herself seems to epitomize the worst of the Star Chamber.

[zapatos]

.. I dread checking it, because I don't like being put in the defensive as is happening here. ...

 

The mods who are attacking me ...

 

... I really do not want to read through all the defensiveness and personal attacks, while being prevented from showing the evidence that is necessary to defending myself on this personal level. What is happening here is crazy, and painful to me, and it is not the higher level discussion that I really enjoy. If anyone wants me to read his/her post, it is a good idea to avoid beginning it defensively and attacking me. I seriously want to avoid the pain...

 

... Check the rules and stop demanding I violate them.

You are putting people on the defensive by accusing them of violations.

You are attacking the mods.

You are making personal attacks.

You are being encouraged to present evidence.

 

You challenge someone's integrity then are shocked, shocked, when they respond.

 

You have brought all of this on yourself. If you don't wish to have the higher level discussions that you really enjoy derailed by talk of people's behavior in this thread, then don't bring it up in this thread!

 

If you stay on topic, we'll stay on topic.

If you feel you have been wronged, then I encourage you to pursue it.

If you don't wish to follow the procedures the mods have outlined to help you resolve your concerns, then don't. But bringing this up in the manner you have chosen does not seem to be working out very well, either in terms of high level discussions or resolving your concerns with the mods. You may want to try something else.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The mods who are attacking me for not presenting "evidence" have a valid point, and discussing it might be helpful to the subject. I can not present the evidence that triggered my concern about our liberty and the direction western civilization is going, without violating the rules.

Which rules?

 

Is it possible for mods to delete private messages? One of you should pm, zapatos and confirm those accusations were made in a moment of emotional distress, and later, when better judgment was resumed, you decided to take back those words. I can not forward a pm as evidence, when the evidence was destroyed, and I can not post it if I had it, because that is a violation of the rules. Check the rules and stop demanding I violate them.

Moderators can neither see nor delete your private messages, unless you intentionally send the messages to them.

[Athena]

You are putting people on the defensive by accusing them of violations.

You are attacking the mods.

You are making personal attacks.

You are being encouraged to present evidence.

 

You challenge someone's integrity then are shocked, shocked, when they respond.

 

You have brought all of this on yourself. If you don't wish to have the higher level discussions that you really enjoy derailed by talk of people's behavior in this thread, then don't bring it up in this thread!

 

If you stay on topic, we'll stay on topic.

If you feel you have been wronged, then I encourage you to pursue it.

If you don't wish to follow the procedures the mods have outlined to help you resolve your concerns, then don't. But bringing this up in the manner you have chosen does not seem to be working out very well, either in terms of high level discussions or resolving your concerns with the mods. You may want to try something else.

 

Okay please direct me to my attacks on mods, other than mentioning the pm that was very offensive. Unfortunately, I must have deleted it myself. I forgot I deleting it, so I would feel compelled to respond to it.

 

This seems highly unrealistic to me, no offense intended. Using "how mods do things" is in no way a fair representation of any democratic political system, and expecting people to relate what is happening today by calling attention to such unrelated events is not grounded in reality. Private forums are N-O-T democracies and our rules have little bearing on laws and constitutional rights.

 

I can see the majority of people here are not here to discuss the topic, and I am so done with this thread.

 

No, making an assertion and not supporting it is against the rules here. You need to present your evidence or retract your assertion!

 

Okay, let us have a trail. Let us make me the subject of this thread.

 

I assert that mods are human beings. I assert that as normal human beings, they have a point of view. I asset that humans can make mistakes. I assert that members of groups tend to protect US against Them, because this is how group dynamics work. I assert that this thread has seen far more activity than my other threads, not because people are interested in the subject, but they think they personally have something at stake here. And I assert there are reasons for having public trials.

 

How about this, mods enforce the rules by suspending or banning people, and this happens without a good defense.

 

Did I miss any of my accusations and assertions? No is there something about my understanding of humans that needs proving? As for what mods do to enforce the rules, I believe that is listing in the rules.

 

Which rules?

 

 

Moderators can neither see nor delete your private messages, unless you intentionally send the messages to them.

 

Aren't we suppose to pm staff or mods when we have a concern, instead of posting it in a forum? Maybe it is just other forums that have that rule.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Athena

[Phi for All]

I can see the majority of people here are not here to discuss the topic, and I am so done with this thread.

If you're not attacking mods, why did you pull my quote, out of order and out of context, from way back on the first page just to accuse me of not discussing your topic? Honestly, I had stopped responding to the thread because you seemed so agitated by our explanations.

[anotherfilthyape]

It has been said that I accuse of moderators doing things they do not do, and from my point of view, moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing. For example trolling, and preaching. Isn't that really a personal judgement depending on ones point of view? I know I preach, and I question authority, yet it was argued I have not violated the rule, and should not be concerned about being banned. In another forum I was accused of trolling and was really offended by that. The point of a public trail is assuring justice and it gives the established power legitimacy. Like discussing our constitution and freedom of religion and freedom of speech, is about increasing political awareness, so too the subject of the importance of a trail. Were rulers in the past bad guys, or are there good reasons for having public trails with a jury of peers?

 

I have been accused once, but only once so far, of insulting people, I wondered if the mod actually read my post or just went by the words of a poster that had made the claim without providing evidence of it, but I could not defend myself because the mod did not want me to answer back his warning... I wished the mod read how the OP in that post had insulted without provocation even more people by claiming that philosophy is crap or rubbish and that all I did was point that underestimating philosophy in that way proves you do not know much about philosophy and that you are not a good scientist (you could be a good engineer, but not a good scientist)

 

But I rather have flawed mods that the rule of ad populum... I know how trial by jury can be very flawed, I suffered the consequences of it in tv tropes when I got banned because a grammar nazi protested my grammar and a bunch of nationalists disliked my attempts to make the pages less nationalist propaganda for the US... (I laughed last because the ban failed to keep me away)... Imdb does not has trial by public but I posted on "the big bang theory" and rather than addressing my post people started speaking against my post because it was too long, I said they lacked reading comprehension and they took offense to that, they were the ones that had sent the first insult (by claiming my words did not say anything when indeed they said as much as many words there where) but if they were allowed as jury I would have been banned, so I rather not be under the effect of jury because I do not trust the majority of people to be objective. Trusting them would be falling into the ad populum fallacy... That is why scientists do not succeed because they have good social skills but because they have good evidence. The modern world would not be possible if we submitted everything to trial by jury because the majority of people are ignorant fundies and only a minority have studied any science or pertinent field and the more complex each field becomes the less polymaths out there know about it... Think how would a society operate where people that know nothing about ecology make the rules involving how we treat our resources. We need to delay power to specialists and hope they deserve their role as specialists. I'm all for direct democracy, like in Switzerland, but not for trial by jury and I wont defend Von Der Sloot but the Dutch murderer has also avoided trial by jury because he realizes that common people are biased and wont handle well their biases.

[Athena]

If you're not attacking mods, why did you pull my quote, out of order and out of context, from way back on the first page just to accuse me of not discussing your topic? Honestly, I had stopped responding to the thread because you seemed so agitated by our explanations.

 

 

Sorry, I was going to address you and froze. The best way to handle this is to talk about what is happening in this thread, and compare it to the historical Star Chamber.

 

How do mods do things? What can we see in this thread? I see an assumption that this thread is really not about what I said it is about. It is about the importance of public trials and juries, but it keeps getting taken off topic, by people who insist I am attacking mods. I wanted to see evidence that everyone understands why we have public trials by jury, but what I am getting a personal history lesson on why public trials by jury are important and why people in the past were so defenseless.

 

I have said this is about the importance of trials in so many ways, but the discussion I want to have is prevented by those who come here looking for the proof that I am attacking mods. We used to defend our democracy and liberty in the classroom, and looking at this thread, I think anyone could judge, we can no longer discuss the importance of trial by jury and what this has to do with democracy. The couple of people who could answer the question, posted to the topic, rather then make an issue about me attacking mods. Those who evidently can not answer the question, are only concerned about me attacking mods and are keeping this thread off topic. Is that a false statement, based on my point of view, and feeling like a deer trying to dodge the hunters, or do others see this too?

 

Now let us consider the Star Chamber, and how is what is happening here different? Again and again, I am accused of attacking mods, and told to show my evidence, but there is no quote of me attacking mods, so I don't have a clue what they are talking about. I know myself and that my motive is trying to find evidence that I am wrong about what has gone wrong with our country, and I am dealing with people who believe they know my motive better than I do. Reminds me of a movie with guys in white wigs, drilling the accused and the accused having no defense. Some of the judges come in and ask for proof that I am not a witch, but they do not seem to know what set all this off, other than I was accused of attacking mods and not showing evidence. Because I can do not know what they are talking about, I can not show the requested evidence, I must be guilty as charged. I can not be telling the truth when I say why I started this thread, right?

 

Anyway now, I offer this thread as my evidence. What is ruling here is human nature unchecked by the process of trials. Only the accused can be banned for not showing evidence, and is being raked over the coals for making unfounded accusations, and the rule about not taking a subject off topic is not being ignored, because of the insistence on making me the subject and raking me over the coals, like a trial done by men in white wigs. This is almost certain to lead to enough evidence to justify banning me, because mods aren't coming here to discuss the subtopic. The questions are intended to find the desired proof of quilt, or am I just being paranoid, and this has never happened to anyone?

 

What does this have to do with democracy and our liberty? I wish it weren't so evident that you really don't know?

Yes, anotherfilthyage! " I could not defend myself because the mod did not want me to answer back his warning..". I thought I goofed when I said I could not present evidence because of the rules. Thank you for confirming I was not wrong. But my real reason for not showing evidence is I really don't know what I said that set off the belief I am attacking mods. Hey, and I really like your distinction between being a good scientist and a good engineer. This has everything to do with liberal education that includes science, and education for technology that is amoral and a threat to our democracy with liberty.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Athena

[John Cuthber]

Let me get this straight. You start the thread by saying "It has been said that I accuse of moderators doing things they do not do, and from my point of view, moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing. For example trolling, and preaching. " (The emphasis is mine)

 

Then you say that

" It is about the importance of public trials and juries, but it keeps getting taken off topic, by people who insist I am attacking mods."

Well, do you realise that people are doing that because they see your first post in the thread - the one that says "moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing" - as an attack on the mods?

 

Anyway, as you say "The best way to handle this is to talk about what is happening in this thread, and compare it to the historical Star Chamber."

OK, let's do that.

The start chamber could torture you to death. The mods can stop you posting in this one tiny corner of the internet (but they have not).

Edited May 12, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Athena]

Let me get this straight. You start the thread by saying "It has been said that I accuse of moderators doing things they do not do, and from my point of view, moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing. For example trolling, and preaching. " (The emphasis is mine)

 

Then you say that

" It is about the importance of public trials and juries, but it keeps getting taken off topic, by people who insist I am attacking mods."

Well, do you realise that people are doing that because they see your first post in the thread - the one that says "moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing" - as an attack on the mods?

 

Anyway, as you say "The best way to handle this is to talk about what is happening in this thread, and compare it to the historical Star Chamber."

OK, let's do that.

The start chamber could torture you to death. The mods can stop you posting in this one tiny corner of the internet (but they have not).

 

No, I do not realize people are doing what they are doing because I said moderators have accused others of doing things they might be doing. I am rather blown away by the defensiveness.

 

I preach but I am not nailed for preaching, and no one got uptight about preaching when someone preached the evils of wheat. However, if someone says something about God that a mod disapproves, this is preaching. I get uptight about this, because if preaching is a reason for banning someone, I could be banned at anytime. Someone just has to decide I haven't worded myself correctly and I am out of here. These violations of the rules, are not like murder or stealing where there is hard evidence of a crime, because if someone is violating a rule is matter of how we judge another, and that person's intention, and that is not hard evidence. The same with trolling. Long ago, in another forum a mod got very angry with me and accused me of trolling. I was never before accused of trolling and have not been accused of trolling since. I also left the forum, because that particular mod was abusing her power and nothing was done about it. My point is, if I am trolling or not depends on how someone else judges me and my intent. What is like the Star Chamber is how these judgments are made and the power of those who make them, while the person being judged has no defense.

 

It is taking a risk to come into this thread and say a mod accused me of being offensive and did not allow me to defend myself, because, the way this thread is going, that could be interpreted as accusing a mod. It is taking a risk to come into this thread and say maybe we should talk about the similarity between how the Star Chamber did things and how the mods are doing them, and why we decided to do things differently and have expensive and time consuming public trials with juries, because, arguing in favor of what I am trying to do, would be arguing against what the people with power believe is important here, and what they believe is important here is not the subject of the thread. The thread would look very different if people thought the subject were important.

 

The Star Chamber couldn't have people put to death, but in away banning people is similar to killing them. Excommunication was historically one of the strongest threats held over people, and it was especially used by the church as a means to control what people talked about. Keep in mind I am speaking of human nature, and steps we have taken to prevent the abuse of power. I am also talking about this in a nation that protects freedom of religion with a constitution, but where citizens with power, no longer believe freedom of religions is a good thing, and make rules against preaching, and label things said about God that they do not like, as preaching. Surely I can find the post where this happened. It didn't happen to me, but to someone else, and I thought whoo, we better talk about this. I have since read over the rules more carefully, and see there are a few rules that can be used to prevent someone discussing his/her religious beliefs. This is pretty black and white. I checked a few science forums, and they all have rules that can be used to prevent someone from talking about his.her religious beliefs, in a country that has a constitution protecting freedom of religion. Perhaps you could argue the constitution only limits what government can do, but then I would say, we are the government. And I would ask, how do we protect our liberty? That is the important issue that I talk about, and I talk about it so much it could be labeled preaching.

 

Of what am I accusing the mods? I am saying the things that people are banned for doing, are a matter of the judgment of moderators, who come to their decisions like the Star Chamber. Many years ago it was decided the way the Star Chamber judged people was not a good way of doing things. Is that statement wrong? Is it accusing the mods to question this problem of problem of judgment and lack of defense? Is this a matter of political awareness and our liberty as I think it is?

 

I have the impression that you are a traditionalist... I'm a liberal (if that term can apply to me, I'm not from the US or intersted in politics centred on a single country, but US liberals support gay marriage and abortion which I support), a social democrat, a direct democrat and a transhumanist... I believe it would be great if we advanced studies in cloning with no regard to what the church says... When I make the distinction between a good scientist knowing science and philosophy and a good engineer knowing science and more science is because I think that a good scientist must understand that scientific skeptism is a pragmatic approach to philosophical skepticism and a good scientist must understand ontology, philosophy of language, gnoseology, epistemology and philosophy of science... I dont think a good scientist needs, in order to be so, to know politics and ethics (it would help them but they can be good scientists without knowing either); knowing politics means they can better promote themselves, knowing ethics means they can participate in discussions of medical ethics, bioethics and other realms of study where science and ethics mix, but a good scientist needs to know ontology, philosophy of language, gnoseology, epistemology and philosophy of science to better understand their own work... Just like a good ethicist needs to know human sciences and ethology... I believe that even with crippling overspecialization modern people need to know beyond their own field of study, be some sort of polymaths, to be good and unique... But I dont think science needs to be controlled much... On the other hand I could argue that an engineer could benefit from ethics more than a scientist because he/she could realize that nanobots are a double edged weapon that can do greater harm than good if they fall on the wrong hands... But you can be a great engineer without understanding ontology, philosophy of language, gnoseology, epistemology and philosophy of science...

 

And well, I believe democracy can work without trial by jury... You know how many countries practice trial by jury? http://en.wikipedia....i/Trial_by_jury I tried confirming if Switzerland used it or not but I could not understand the conclusion... I think trial by jury is worse because I cannot trust laymen to be good peers and they are not always peers... A psychologist that kills a patient because the psychologist determined his patient had the power to decimate the city with a nuclear bomb and the psychologist could not betray his professional secrecy by revealing his patient's plan can be considered the peer of low class citizens that barely managed to finish high school? Can a dutch foreigner be considered the peer of US citizens? Who determines peerage? I prefer professional judges... Better said. I prefer a non-layman jury (a sort of bunch of under-judges) that follows principles of common law (their decision must change as newer trials are done) when the true and higher judge follows the principles of Civil law (his or her decision follows a stable constitution that can only be modified by the congress, point by point or by creating a new constitution from zero)...

 

Hot damn that was one good argument! Personally, I have wondered why we don't use computers to do the judging. I could go on and on about the corruption of our justice system. I had no idea there was a possible good human alternative.

 

I believe our public trials are very important to democracy, but then my understanding of democracy is unlike anyone else's, and oh boy, here is where the charge of me preaching can be made. My understanding of democracy is all tied up with a belief about god and morals, and I talk about this every chance I get. During the golden age of Athens democracy, which was very short lived, jurist were paid for jury duty, to assure everyone had the chance to participate on the jury, and this was seen as essential to legitimate authority and protecting everyone's rights. But rather than me doing all the talking, I want to know about your system. How does your system work? How many judges hear a case? Do you have a prosecutor and an attorney for the defendant? Are these public trials or closed to the public? What measures are taken to assure justice?

 

The qualities of a good scientist are a different subject. I have too many threads going or I would suggest one for exploring a possible need to control science and protect humanity. The religious and secular communities are at war with each other, and I believe the foundation of this war is justified on both sides. Considering all the science forums restrict discussion of religion, and that we have become amoral, I am deeply concerned. This is not good for democracy and liberty which is god and morals without religion. Which brings me to...

 

A psychologist that kills a patient because the psychologist determined his patient had the power to decimate the city with a nuclear bomb and the psychologist could not betray his professional secrecy by revealing his patient's plan can be considered the peer of low class citizens that barely managed to finish high school?

 

Minor detail but isn't a person a "who"? Is a psychologist that kills, a person? That may sound picky, but it is about our humanness or lack of it. Sort of the difference between killing the enemy, or someone's son, bother and father. When we say "a psychologist that kills", we have dehumanized the psychologist and objectified him.

 

I am not sure if discussing the psychologist derails the thread or not. I can see a connection between judging people and acting on our judgment of them and the question of this thread. Before I ask any more questions, I want to clarify, the questions are for the sake of thinking about what we think. They are about discussion, not right or wrong answers.

 

What is wrong with the psychologist protecting everyone by killing someone who has the power to decimate the city with a nuclear bomb? In the US we call these people who might harm us, dangerous terrorist and send out special forces to be sure they stop breathing. Isn't this the right thing to do?

 

What should the psychologist do? Why? Could this action lead to a problem?

 

No, making an assertion and not supporting it is against the rules here. You need to present your evidence or retract your assertion!

 

Hi I found the accusation against me. Hopefully in time to prevent being penalized for violating the rule of not supporting what I say.

 

Without evidence it's merely rumor-mongoring, or worse, libel.

That's not protected speech.

 

Now where is the quote that everyone says is my wrong? Is it my opening statement about how people can misjudge another and this is why having a defense is important?

 

Easy there folks. From what I get from the conversation is, that although something may have happened with a mod at sometime, the intent of the conversation is not directed at mods in particular. The use of mods as an example is to lay out a scenario of what the issue is that Athena wants to talk about. In no way does she have to prove that a mod did something wrong, but has already supported her side of the conversation by conveying the thought that people today do not understand the general philosophy of a democracy. I think it would be better to encompass the context as a whole instead of breaking down each and every comment that is made. I think the conversation is a little deeper than mod bashing, and has nothing to do with mods other than establishing a scenario. I think we can have a more fulfilling conversation if given a chance.

 

I think you are a very brave person.

 

And for sure the intended conversation is a whole lot deeper than mod bashing. What an insult to say I have nothing better to do than bash mods. That's is incredibly petty and so unworthy of my time and effort. My intentions are really concern about our democracy and liberty, and our future. How many people understand why we have public trials by jury? How do we protect our liberty? It really is about our humanness and how we protect each other from our faulted human nature.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Athena

[doG]

Democracy is directly tied to a notion of God and morals.

False. Please support that assertion.

[zapatos]

Oh, God, I am really going to get nailed for preaching now, because I am talking of our spirit.

 

Those who have been intent on accusing me of attacking the mods, are being mean spirited, and remind me of what Charles Sarolea wrote about what happened to the German spirit when the Prussians took over. We adopted German institutions and replaced classical philosophy with German philosophy, so the same thing is happening to us, and this thread is making me realize vividly the danger of the path we are on.

Okay please direct me to my attacks on mods

I was hoping this thread would stay on topic but I guess there is no such hope. So, here goes...

 

It starts in the very first sentence of the very first post, suggesting the mods might be up to no good.

moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing

 

Now you are making a comparison between the mods and a "political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power".

May I ask what makes a group of mods better than England's infamous Star Chamber?

 

This one is rather obvious.

Someone has been accusing me of very awful things, and even suggesting I am guilty of criminal charges.

 

Now you are suggesting that if one mod is annoyed with someone they will make up a rules violation just to get even.

It has been my experience, that when a mod becomes annoyed with someone,

 

And not only is the annoyed mod unfair, but another mod will be willing to jettison his integrity to unjustly gang up on you.

in a short time another mod finds that this person is violating rules. It appears that the group effort is to protect the group, regardless of what group, children service people, the police, or mods...

 

I guess this one is up to personal interpretation, but what many seem to see as asking you to put up or shut up, you see as a personal attack.

The mods who are attacking me

 

Pretty clearly suggesting that mods may be gaining access to your personal messages and surreptitiously deleting them in order to hide their own bad behavior and to suppress your defense.

Is it possible for mods to delete private messages?

 

Now you are asking a mod to admit guilt of threatening you and admit they then deleted your personal messages.

One of you should pm, zapatos and confirm those accusations were made in a moment of emotional distress, and later, when better judgment was resumed, you decided to take back those words

 

And of course since a mod destroyed the evidence, you cannot even defend yourself.

I can not forward a pm as evidence, when the evidence was destroyed

 

Now you are being unjustly raked over the coals by an unseemly group.

the insistence on making me the subject and raking me over the coals, like a trial done by men in white wigs.

 

And finally the mods will have enough made up evidence to hang you, which is the only reason the mods are in this thread in the first place.

This is almost certain to lead to enough evidence to justify banning me, because mods aren't coming here to discuss the subtopic

 

 

I could not defend myself because the mod did not want me to answer back his warning

Do you mean like when he said "I would like to see your evidence. Has anyone actually threatened you with being banned? Provide links. Have you received warnings that did not explain what rule you were violating? Provide links."

 

 

 

 

Now the mods are arbitrary and unreasonable.

Someone just has to decide I haven't worded myself correctly and I am out of here

 

And now onto me. I am mean spirited to the level achieved when the Prussians took over the Germans.

Those who have been intent on accusing me of attacking the mods, are being mean spirited, and remind me of what Charles Sarolea wrote about what happened to the German spirit when the Prussians took over.

If only I could find something you said about the mods...

Edited May 13, 2012 by zapatos

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

This thread has been split from another, entitled, 'Importance of Public Trial by Jury'.

As stated in my mod note in that thread, I am closing this thread as Athena and her problems with staff are not something that should be made into an entire topic of conversation.