censorship

[swansont]

Somethings are just a matter of logic. It is very hard to continue a discussion if everyone stops posting. Inversely the way to keep a discussion going is to reply to what has been said. I know when people stop replying to me, and I have nothing to reply to, that is the end. It is that simple.

Except that it's not that simple.

 

How do you prevent people from responding? If you don't want external enforcement, then it has to be voluntary, which means that as long as one person finds a post compelling, the discussion will perpetuate. Even if the compelling part is to tell the person off for posting something vile. So we opt for a different solution, that of deleting an offending post, since we don't want to be associated with certain behaviors, like hatred or prejudice, or something that poses a physical risk.

 

Someone who wants to advertise will also find their posts deleted. Leaving it alone doesn't work, because they still get a search-engine boost from having an active link on the site. The inaction won't work for someone who continually interrupts discussion with off-topic information. The interruption will still be there. In fact, some people get frustrated by being ignored, and step up their disruptive style. Going Neville Chamberlain on them will not bring peace for our time.

 

(There's another claim of censorship that sometimes happens when we move posts, so that people can discuss a single subject, without distraction, or have a discussion happen where similar discussions can be found. That also can't be solved by doing nothing. It's not true censorship, of course, but that doesn't stop the complaints.)

[ydoaPs]

Going Neville Chamberlain on them will not bring peace for our time.

 

What if we go Neville Longbottom on them?

[swansont]

What if we go Neville Longbottom on them?

Doesn't that require that they fry our parents' brains?

[Greg H.]

What if we go Neville Longbottom on them?

 

We'll end up with an affinity for plants that no one else can pronounce?

[Athena]

Except that it's not that simple.

 

How do you prevent people from responding? If you don't want external enforcement, then it has to be voluntary, which means that as long as one person finds a post compelling, the discussion will perpetuate. Even if the compelling part is to tell the person off for posting something vile. So we opt for a different solution, that of deleting an offending post, since we don't want to be associated with certain behaviors, like hatred or prejudice, or something that poses a physical risk.

 

Someone who wants to advertise will also find their posts deleted. Leaving it alone doesn't work, because they still get a search-engine boost from having an active link on the site. The inaction won't work for someone who continually interrupts discussion with off-topic information. The interruption will still be there. In fact, some people get frustrated by being ignored, and step up their disruptive style. Going Neville Chamberlain on them will not bring peace for our time.

 

(There's another claim of censorship that sometimes happens when we move posts, so that people can discuss a single subject, without distraction, or have a discussion happen where similar discussions can be found. That also can't be solved by doing nothing. It's not true censorship, of course, but that doesn't stop the complaints.)

 

You write that as through we have some kind of disagreement here. We do not. In fact I report spam and often wish more were done to stop the personal attacks. Those personal attacks are frequent in threads where people are not familiar with the subject matter, and really ruin the discussion.

 

But for another way to get someone to stop responding to a poster, PM that person and say why you wish this person would be ignored. Social pressure is very effective.

 

What I have said, is sometimes errors in judgment are made by moderators. I am very pleased by a quick correction that was made when I opened this thread.

 

I have also said I am not allowed to talk about something that I believe is politically important, and doing so doesn't violate any rules. This is a matter of lack of information, making something taboo to talk about it.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Athena

[Phi for All]

I have also said I am not allowed to talk about something that I believe is politically important, and doing so doesn't violate any rules. This is a matter of lack of information, making something taboo to talk about it.

!

Moderator Note

To clarify, if you're talking about your propensity to bring Nazi Germany, Greek enlightenment and historical education standards into every discussion, this does violate our rule against thread hijacking. It's been pointed out to us that since these are not generally accepted mainstream concepts that have a great deal of support, they amount to your pet theories that end up derailing many discussions that aren't about them. That's why you've been asked to stop making everything about the Nazis, the Greeks and education. It's not taboo, it's just generally not on-topic. No offense intended, please.

[Athena]

!

Moderator Note

To clarify, if you're talking about your propensity to bring Nazi Germany, Greek enlightenment and historical education standards into every discussion, this does violate our rule against thread hijacking. It's been pointed out to us that since these are not generally accepted mainstream concepts that have a great deal of support, they amount to your pet theories that end up derailing many discussions that aren't about them. That's why you've been asked to stop making everything about the Nazis, the Greeks and education. It's not taboo, it's just generally not on-topic. No offense intended, please.

 

Really, when it is my thread, what is being derailed? Tell me, who knows the difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking, and what education has to do with this? Your reasoning is as good, as the church forbidding Galileo to speak no the grounds his thinking is not mainstream thinking. Since no one wants what happened to Germany to happen again, might there some interest in concrete thinking and NAZI Germany and what education has to do this? My reason for objecting to the censorship is as good as Galileo's and Socrates, unless you can demonstrate others already know what I am talking about.

 

This explains a book I think we should probably be familiar with because it is more important to our legal system and politics, than the thread about sex and politics that is so popular http://www.sciencefo...ollective-mind/

 

Heidegger and the Nazis, the concrete and the spirit

majorityrights.com/.../heidegger_and_the_nazis_the_concrete_and_t...Heidegger and the Nazis, the concrete and the spirit ... It seems to be a characteristic of his thinking that it can be turned out to graze in almost any field, as I have ...

 

Tell me what you think of the site. And think of the church refusing to look through Galileo's telescope before censoring him, before reading the site and telling us what you think of it.

 

While this may not be mainstream thinking it is coming up more and more

http://www.schoolsth...democracy-prep/

 

=> We believe that public schools have an obligation to help young people acquire and learn the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to become competent citizens throughout their lives. Democracy Prep schools do this in 5 major ways: Civic engagement is a core part of our schools’ mission and culture. We hold weekly town hall meetings to discuss current events and community issues. Students organize yearly Get out the Vote (GOTV) drives (we’ve passed out 40,000 GOTV fliers across two states) and participate in mock elections. We host elected officials and community leaders at all our schools. Students participate in required community and public service. We prepare our students to become advocates on issues of local concern, and we give them opportunities to use their skills in their communities. Students learn to—and do—meet with elected officials and conduct lobbying visits. They deliver testimony at city and state legislative hearings (they’re the youngest ever to do so in New York and Rhode Island), and learn to write their own testimony effectively. We organize school and city-wide events with civic themes. We visit State Capitols and attend hearings and committee meetings. In 2009, our staff and students organized New York’s largest Inauguration celebration. We hosted one of Harlem’s largest election watching-parties, and our first-ever school dance was an Inaugural Ball. Our schools have school-wide speech and debate programs. The public hallmark of our civic engagement program is our championship speech and debate team. Beginning in 7th grade, all DPPS students compete in forensics activities through the New York Urban Debate League and the Middle School Public Debate Program. Students have placed at national competitions across the country (including the Middle School National Championship in Claremont, CA). All of our high school students take a speech and debate course as part of their core academic program. All our families register to vote. We believe a core component of civic participation happens at the ballot box. We ask all our families to register if they are able, and actively disseminate registration forms to our incoming families."

Edited September 29, 2012 by Athena

[swansont]

Really, when it is my thread, what is being derailed? Tell me, who knows the difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking, and what education has to do with this? Your reasoning is as good, as the church forbidding Galileo to speak no the grounds his thinking is not mainstream thinking. Since no one wants what happened to Germany to happen again, might there some interest in concrete thinking and NAZI Germany and what education has to do this? My reason for objecting to the censorship is as good as Galileo's and Socrates, unless you can demonstrate others already know what I am talking about.

 

OK, let's look at this from another angle. You've made at least a half-dozen threads on various topics, many of which are not about education or Nazi Germany, and yet this same issue keeps coming up. So it's bait-and switch, which is poor etiquette, and even if you reject the label of hijacking, rule 5 still applies: Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. We call it hijacking when other members do it. All you're doing is arguing semantics.

[Athena]

OK, let's look at this from another angle. You've made at least a half-dozen threads on various topics, many of which are not about education or Nazi Germany, and yet this same issue keeps coming up. So it's bait-and switch, which is poor etiquette, and even if you reject the label of hijacking, rule 5 still applies: Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. We call it hijacking when other members do it. All you're doing is arguing semantics.

 

What you are calling bait and switch, is what I would call "looking at this from another angle". I started the "Why God" thread, because I thought I had a new approach to the subject. For me these arguments are a challenge to get across ideas that I am having a very hard time getting across, so I approach the challenge from different angles. What I have to say in the "Why God" comes up in this thread Secular morality and now I am afraid to give my answer.

 

The "Why God" thread took an unintended left turn, because it became obvious this approach to the God question was not working, because there is not a good understanding of the difference between abstract and concrete thinking. I had to address that problem, before what I wanted to say in the thread could be understandable. I asked a neighbor to explain the difference between abstract and concrete thinking last night, and she did. My knowledge of this was mainstream knowledge, but this knowledge is no longer being transmitted, so there is a communication problem. The arguments about God and morals are the result of changed education, and concrete thinking verses abstract thinking. Both Christians and Atheist are thinking concretely instead of abstractly, and this becomes a moral problem, which threatens our liberty.

 

Seriously, I am in shock most the time, because people are not getting the meaning of what I am saying, but are attacking me. What I am talking about is politically more serious than the political issues of sex, and I have become afraid to continuing posting here. We have been over this before and you all come down on me for begin afraid of being banned, while I continue to receive warnings, and mods react to my post, without being sure they are off topic before reacting.

 

However, not here, but out there in the real world, more and more voices are saying what I am saying, so I am less afraid than I was, when my voice seemed to be the only one. They are not saying adopting German institutions has resulted in manifesting what Germany manifested, but maybe this isn't totally necessary? I think this says things very well, Secular morality , without triggering the hostility I am getting, however, it does not say it all. Secular morality is almost like people Galileo writing in code because of being forbidden to openly discuss something. When I say adopting German institutions results in manifesting what Germany manifested, I expected people would want to know about this. I was blown away when they became hostile with me! I am offering facts, and people who are proud to deal with facts, are reacting emotionally and ignoring are the facts. This was not the reaction I expected! I haven't even said it is a bad thing to adopt German institutions, but rather there good reasons for doing so, and Eisenhower praised the Germans for their contribution to democracy, and good social changes have followed the change . But now things are spinning our control, and I am trying to provide facts so everyone is empowered to regain control. In the real world, more and more people are trying to resolve the problems that have come up. I am no longer alone, but in this forum I am like Galileo facing the church's tribunal.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Athena

[imatfaal]

What you are calling bait and switch, is what I would call "looking at this from another angle".

Perhaps - but it always seems to be the same contentious angle.

 

I started the "Why God" thread, because I thought I had a new approach to the subject. For me these arguments are a challenge to get across ideas that I am having a very hard time getting across, so I approach the challenge from different angles.

The Why God thread had a valid and very interesting OP - which members seemed to want to discuss, however the thread was soon dragged away from the advertised and interesting question to the familiar refrain

 

What I have to say in the "Why God" comes up in this thread Secular morality and now I am afraid to give my answer.

The question asked that you state you are afraid to answer is "how do you motivate...?" Feel free to answer it - but please do not use an answer putatively concerning the possible methods of future motivation of today's youth to re-introduce the subject of the Nazi Education/Hitler's Germany

 

The "Why God" thread took an unintended left turn, because it became obvious this approach to the God question was not working, because there is not a good understanding of the difference between abstract and concrete thinking. I had to address that problem, before what I wanted to say in the thread could be understandable.

It would seem more that your use of logic was challenged, and your claims of fact were challenged.

 

I asked a neighbor to explain the difference between abstract and concrete thinking last night, and she did. My knowledge of this was mainstream knowledge, but this knowledge is no longer being transmitted, so there is a communication problem. The arguments about God and morals are the result of changed education, and concrete thinking verses abstract thinking. Both Christians and Atheist are thinking concretely instead of abstractly, and this becomes a moral problem, which threatens our liberty.

So you have now brought the substantive argument about modern education into this procedural thread on censorship! Do you not see the problem?

 

Seriously, I am in shock most the time, because people are not getting the meaning of what I am saying, but are attacking me. What I am talking about is politically more serious than the political issues of sex, and I have become afraid to continuing posting here. We have been over this before and you all come down on me for begin afraid of being banned, while I continue to receive warnings, and mods react to my post, without being sure they are off topic before reacting.

Yes - I (and I believe many others) think you are very incorrect in some of your facts, arguments, and conclusions; but by no means all. I was the mod who acted too hastily - and I apologised on the boards and via PM; I made a mistake on that occasion, but will stand by the other modnotes.

 

However, not here, but out there in the real world, more and more voices are saying what I am saying, so I am less afraid than I was, when my voice seemed to be the only one. They are not saying adopting German institutions has resulted in manifesting what Germany manifested, but maybe this isn't totally necessary? I think this says things very well, Secular morality , without triggering the hostility I am getting, however, it does not say it all. Secular morality is almost like people Galileo writing in code because of being forbidden to openly discuss something. When I say adopting German institutions results in manifesting what Germany manifested, I expected people would want to know about this. I was blown away when they became hostile with me! I am offering facts, and people who are proud to deal with facts, are reacting emotionally and ignoring are the facts. This was not the reaction I expected! I haven't even said it is a bad thing to adopt German institutions, but rather there good reasons for doing so, and Eisenhower praised the Germans for their contribution to democracy, and good social changes have followed the change . But now things are spinning our control, and I am trying to provide facts so everyone is empowered to regain control. In the real world, more and more people are trying to resolve the problems that have come up. I am no longer alone, but in this forum I am like Galileo facing the church's tribunal.

 

Galileo - really? That is just needlessly melodramatic. You have not, in most of the threads I have read, offered facts - you have offered off-beat interpretations of ancient philosophy and perspectives on modern politics laced with unusual and misleading re-definitions of common terms. I do not agree with what seems to be your underlying premise that failure to agree with you shows a lack of knowledge, education, understanding, or an inability to think abstractly.

[Phi for All]

What you are calling bait and switch, is what I would call "looking at this from another angle".

!

Moderator Note

Unfortunately, this is exactly what the staff has to deal with from members who claim, for instance, that the Earth is hollow. Every thread they get involved in gets derailed by "looking at this from the Hollow Earth angle".

[swansont]

When I say adopting German institutions results in manifesting what Germany manifested, I expected people would want to know about this.

When someone makes a claim like this, I would expect them to back their conjecture or opinion up, and not treat it as if it were an established fact. (Which is the same mistake the hollow earth folks make — skipping the supporting evidence and assuming they're just right)

[Athena]

When someone makes a claim like this, I would expect them to back their conjecture or opinion up, and not treat it as if it were an established fact. (Which is the same mistake the hollow earth folks make — skipping the supporting evidence and assuming they're just right)

 

This is going on memory, but if you want more exacting information I can quote from my 1980 text "Public Administration and Public Affairs", by Nicholas Henry. The US adopted the German model of bureaucracy, and it is obvious why. It is amazing our government functioned at all considering how things were done. First off people were not hired on merit, because we were not thinking in those terms. It was typical for someone to get a bureaucratic job, because he was related to someone in office, or knew someone. I can remember assuming I would get a bureaucratic job, just because I am reasonably intelligent, as my neighbor and sister got their jobs. Like honestly, we did things differently in the not so different past.

 

Now this is really going to sound crazy, but no two people did the job the same. How a job was done depended upon an individual's talents and interest. This was disaster when a person died or for some reason quit a job. Everyone would have to adjust to a new person, and how this person did things differently. Obviously with the old system, there were periods of chaos. Obviously, corruption was a big problem, as people got hired for the wrong reasons.

 

Now the Prussian military bureaucracy was the most advanced in its day, and before this, it was the Islam that had the most advanced bureaucratic model. Like you all really want to discuss this right? Kidding. But let us look at what the Prussians were doing better. You have to admire this. Because in times of war people get killed, the Prussians devised a system where individuals are easily replaced. Oh, you may not get the strong resistance to this? Noble men did not take well to this change! But this is how the new system works, from the git go policy determines what everyone will do and how it will be done. Now whoever steps into the office will do the job exactly the same as the person before. Also, because it is determine what and how things will be done, hiring is based on proven skill, or merit, not on inherited privilege and status. As Eisenhower, a military man, saw this, it was a great German contribution to democracy, because when this is paired with the education, it levels the playing field. Anyone can raise through education and qualify for jobs that were once closed to outsiders.

 

England, rejected Germany's education for technology, because England wanted to protect its social classes. The US made some adoption to Germany's education for technology in 1917, but didn't replace liberal education with education for technology, until 1958.

 

Are there any questions? Do you want books and page numbers or information about government documents? Like I am speaking facts and would love if everyone had the facts. I have given sites before and they are ignored. I have been looking for your reaction to the last site about NAZI Germany and concrete thinking, and haven't seen it. I think the change in bureaucracy was essential. We could not have Social Security without it. There would be no federal programs without the bureaucratic technology for such large organizations. But the change in education really concerns me, because this is a change in how we teach our young to think. We are educating for a mechanical society, and this is what we fought against. truth is not easy, because this is such a complex subject. There are good reasons for change, but there are also undesired social and political ramifications. However, with awareness of all this, the future is very hopeful, because we have a chance of creating new systems better than anything in the past. The problem is getting people to care enough to become informed. Eisenhower, warned us of the Military, Industrial Complex, and everyone ignored him. He is the man who put things in order for the Military, Industrial, Complex, and we ignored what he was telling us. Like how many people are going to read through this post and attempt to get more information? But I must say, Swansort, you are doing better than anyone else, but I don't think you are following through by reading links or looking for information on your own.

[swansont]

But the change in education really concerns me, because this is a change in how we teach our young to think. We are educating for a mechanical society, and this is what we fought against.

That's what we fought against? I thought it was because Germany was bent on global domination. Would we have gone to war if the Germans had stayed within their borders? Over an educational system? Seriously?

 

But I must say, Swansort, you are doing better than anyone else, but I don't think you are following through by reading links or looking for information on your own.

I'm not, because I have not been interested in the main argument, other than pointing out some flaws in the logic that underpin it, and in objecting to your treatment of the argument as a foregone conclusion.

[Athena]

That's what we fought against? I thought it was because Germany was bent on global domination. Would we have gone to war if the Germans had stayed within their borders? Over an educational system? Seriously?

 

 

I'm not, because I have not been interested in the main argument, other than pointing out some flaws in the logic that underpin it, and in objecting to your treatment of the argument as a foregone conclusion.

 

 

Thank you for your honesty. I thought other moderators were just baiting me, because they dropped out of discussions when they couldn't figure out how to attack my arguments. I think you have validated my complaint. Thank you.

 

Swansont is not the only one playing this nasty game of baiting people, leading a person to believe a sincere request for information has been made, when in fact the moderator, and several of the posters, are only for an excuse to attack. I think he has fully validated my complaint about censorship. When moderators know they are playing these nasty games, they assume everyone else is doing the same, and this results in bad judgment and censorship based on bad judgment. I might check back to see if any effort to correct this problem is made, but I don't expect that to happen.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Athena

[randomc]

 

Swansont is not the only one playing this nasty game of baiting people, leading a person to believe a sincere request for information has been made, when in fact the moderator, and several of the posters, are only for an excuse to attack.

 

I hope you don't include me in that. I asked you a question because your ideas are interesting, even if a bit inappropriately expressed for a forum that's focused on establishing facts. Which isn't to say that my style of posting is any more appropriate.

Edited October 2, 2012 by randomc

[swansont]

Thank you for your honesty. I thought other moderators were just baiting me, because they dropped out of discussions when they couldn't figure out how to attack my arguments. I think you have validated my complaint. Thank you.

 

Swansont is not the only one playing this nasty game of baiting people, leading a person to believe a sincere request for information has been made, when in fact the moderator, and several of the posters, are only for an excuse to attack. I think he has fully validated my complaint about censorship. When moderators know they are playing these nasty games, they assume everyone else is doing the same, and this results in bad judgment and censorship based on bad judgment. I might check back to see if any effort to correct this problem is made, but I don't expect that to happen.

I can't help it if you assume that there is some discreditable motivation behind posting in response to you. All I can do is assure you it's because I see a flaw in your argument, or I disagree with your opinion. I can't help it if you assume that there is any more to a post than what's actually in it. If you think it's baiting game, then all I can say that your imagination is a little too active.

 

Moderators try to enforce the rules. You can like it or not. You can participate or not. But what's not going to happen is that the system changes simply because you find it unpalatable. That, by itself, is not going to convince anyone that a change is in order.

[Athena]

I can't help it if you assume that there is some discreditable motivation behind posting in response to you. All I can do is assure you it's because I see a flaw in your argument, or I disagree with your opinion. I can't help it if you assume that there is any more to a post than what's actually in it. If you think it's baiting game, then all I can say that your imagination is a little too active.

 

Moderators try to enforce the rules. You can like it or not. You can participate or not. But what's not going to happen is that the system changes simply because you find it unpalatable. That, by itself, is not going to convince anyone that a change is in order.

 

By your own words, you are here to attack, not to learn and that makes you a bad moderator

 

Not understanding what running bureaucracies with written policies has to do with a mechanical society, shows your reasoning is faulty.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Athena

[swansont]

By your own words, you are here to attack, not to learn and that makes you a bad moderator

 

Not understanding what running bureaucracies with written policies has to do with a mechanical society, shows your reasoning is faulty.

By my own words I'm here to enforce the rules, when I act as a moderator. "I'm here to attack" are your words. As a moderator, I should not be involved in a discussion (outside of the speculations forum); I should not have interest in whether someone is correct or not (though I daresay one should not be here to learn things if they are not correct), so being here to learn or not is moot, for a moderator.

 

When I act in my capacity as a member I am happy to learn, but again, not if the presented material is incorrect. If I see e.g. a logically inconsistent statement, I am going to point it out. Disagreement of opinion, or correction of fact or logic is all part of discussion and debate. This is not a blog, where one can freely pontificate without fear of contradiction.

 

As for "Not understanding what running bureaucracies with written policies has to do with a mechanical society", I have to confess that I don't know what you are talking about. You appear to be under the illusion that I have been debating the substance of your thesis, despite the fact that I have told you (several times) that I am not — I have only responded to a few of your more outrageous claims.

[Athena]

By my own words I'm here to enforce the rules, when I act as a moderator. "I'm here to attack" are your words. As a moderator, I should not be involved in a discussion (outside of the speculations forum); I should not have interest in whether someone is correct or not (though I daresay one should not be here to learn things if they are not correct), so being here to learn or not is moot, for a moderator.

 

When I act in my capacity as a member I am happy to learn, but again, not if the presented material is incorrect. If I see e.g. a logically inconsistent statement, I am going to point it out. Disagreement of opinion, or correction of fact or logic is all part of discussion and debate. This is not a blog, where one can freely pontificate without fear of contradiction.

 

As for "Not understanding what running bureaucracies with written policies has to do with a mechanical society", I have to confess that I don't know what you are talking about. You appear to be under the illusion that I have been debating the substance of your thesis, despite the fact that I have told you (several times) that I am not — I have only responded to a few of your more outrageous claims.

 

"I'm not, because I have not been interested in the main argument, other than pointing out some flaws in the logic that underpin it," You used different words to explain yourself, but the motive to find something to attack is the same. However, you can not critically attack my logic, because you do not have understanding, and you can rationally point out some flaws, when you do not understand the subject. You do not even get what was meant by a "mechanical society", when we entered the first world war.

 

"Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out liberty and power". Tagore This bureaucratic technology is the foundation of the novels "The Brave New World" and "1984". In my new thread Education and morals, I posted a link that provides more detailed information about the cultural change we have had.

 

What is happening here reminds of a high school class, where a student who knows nothing, delights the class by attacking what teacher is attempting to teach the class. Only in this situation, that student has the power of a moderator, and I think things validates my objection to the censorship in the forum.

[swansont]

"I'm not, because I have not been interested in the main argument, other than pointing out some flaws in the logic that underpin it," You used different words to explain yourself, but the motive to find something to attack is the same. However, you can not critically attack my logic, because you do not have understanding, and you can rationally point out some flaws, when you do not understand the subject. You do not even get what was meant by a "mechanical society", when we entered the first world war.

You were speaking of Nazis earlier; they were not in power during WWI. Regardless of which war we are discussing, thought, does it matter? My point is that we would not have gone to war if armies had not been marching and shooting. The idea that we would attack a country because we didn't like their form of bureaucracy (or education system) is, IMO, ludicrous. Bureaucracy did not sink the Lusitania or American commercial shipping. Or, decades later, invade other countries in Europe. My motive is that I disagree. I think you are wrong.

 

Am I not permitted to disagree and voice that disagreement? Are you trying to censor me?

 

 

You will notice that I am not addressing any other point you brought up.

[Ophiolite]

Athena, your post #63 presents your views as if they were undeniable facts. It does so with aggression and implicit condemnation of the intellect or motives of anyone who dares to disagree with you. You pretend to be willing to debate the points, but really wish only to destroy any opposing arguments by weight of cherry picked or misinterpreted evidence. This approach is in my view an especially sinister and vile form of censorship by bullying, browbeating and authoritarian preaching. I retract an earlier remark of mine that we were singing from the same hymn sheet. I do not wish to inhabit the same choir, church, diocese or denomination with you.

[Unity+]

Here is the thing with users and the supposed "censorship". First of all, this forum is private property and is owned by the people who bought the product. Freedom of speech applies to public property under the laws of the United States. The owner of this site has the right to determine if freedom of speech is allowed in his or her forum if he or she wants. If you don't like that, go to a different forum or whatever you intend to do. For example, if freedom of speech were to apply also for private property that would mean that protest groups would have the ability to protest inside the building they are protesting.

[mississippichem]

Here is the thing with users and the supposed "censorship". First of all, this forum is private property and is owned by the people who bought the product. Freedom of speech applies to public property under the laws of the United States. The owner of this site has the right to determine if freedom of speech is allowed in his or her forum if he or she wants. If you don't like that, go to a different forum or whatever you intend to do. For example, if freedom of speech were to apply also for private property that would mean that protest groups would have the ability to protest inside the building they are protesting.

 

Exactly. Well put Unity. +1

[Athena]

Here is the thing with users and the supposed "censorship". First of all, this forum is private property and is owned by the people who bought the product. Freedom of speech applies to public property under the laws of the United States. The owner of this site has the right to determine if freedom of speech is allowed in his or her forum if he or she wants. If you don't like that, go to a different forum or whatever you intend to do. For example, if freedom of speech were to apply also for private property that would mean that protest groups would have the ability to protest inside the building they are protesting.

 

What is not privately owned?

 

Why did anyone bother to put something about freedom of speech in the US constitution?

 

Who enforces freedom of speech?

 

And I will even give you these forums are privately owned, does that excuse moderators bad judgment? How can the logic of an argument be judged when the judge is ignorant of the subject? If you knew nothing of physics, would you enter a discussion of physics and start attacking the logic of someone well educated in physics? Why aren't mods suppose to participate when they are wearing their moderator hat?

 

Athena, your post #63 presents your views as if they were undeniable facts. It does so with aggression and implicit condemnation of the intellect or motives of anyone who dares to disagree with you. You pretend to be willing to debate the points, but really wish only to destroy any opposing arguments by weight of cherry picked or misinterpreted evidence. This approach is in my view an especially sinister and vile form of censorship by bullying, browbeating and authoritarian preaching. I retract an earlier remark of mine that we were singing from the same hymn sheet. I do not wish to inhabit the same choir, church, diocese or denomination with you.

 

Would you please be more specific? Please, copy and paste the evidence, of the charges. Especially list what you think I said that is not a fact, so I can provide the source of the fact you question.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Athena