censorship

[Ophiolite]

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.

I find your posts so filled with hate, with self righteous indignity and not a trace of humility that I have no wish whatsoever to have any further dialogue with you. Indeed dialogue with you is impossible. You insist upon an acidic, destructive monologue while claiming to be arguing for the betterment of society. It won't wash. Please do not direct any more of your posts towards me. Thank you.

[swansont]

What is not privately owned?

Streets, parks, government buildings, etc.

 

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

Perhaps because the government against whom we rebelled had a habit of clamping down on this freedom. But the constitution is a document describing the power of government and the rights people have with regard to these government powers. This forum is not an arm of the government.

 

"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech"

 

About which congressionally formulated law are you complaining?

[Athena]

Streets, parks, government buildings, etc.

 

 

Perhaps because the government against whom we rebelled had a habit of clamping down on this freedom. But the constitution is a document describing the power of government and the rights people have with regard to these government powers. This forum is not an arm of the government.

 

"Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech"

 

About which congressionally formulated law are you complaining?

 

 

Not exactly. Our downtown is an exclusion zone. That means governing authority can determine who can enter this area and who can not, and this is strongly enforced with security guards and police. In some cities, government decided the people who live on a street are the people who have to pay for the road repair. They have no say over how the street is used, but their homes are taken if they do not pay for the street or the sewage line that runs down the street. When people do not live by principles, they do not enjoy the benefits of the principles, and it is not the police or military that defends us our rights, but our willingness to live by principles. When power and authority are not ours, we do not enjoy the benefits of power and authority, nor do we live with a sense of responsibility when power and authority are not ours. The more power an authority takes, the more it undermines the power and authority of the individual.

 

Freedom of speech is a matter of principle. This is really a moral matter, not a power struggle. We are very good at protecting our property rights, but not so good at protecting human rights. Now if we all agree the principle of freedom of speech is meaningless, and only property rights exist, then we loose our freedom of speech. This is as sure as 2 plus 2 equals four. This is not 'opinion" but just the way things work. Only if we live by principles, do we enjoy the benefit of them.

[swansont]

governing authority can determine …

That would be the duly-elected governing authority, would it not? Meaning that you could elect people who governed differently.

 

I see nothing in your little diatribe that ties in with government laws restricting freedom of speech, and how they are manifested on this forum. This is private property. The owners and those duly appointed to represent them can tell you to be quiet and toss you out on your keister, should we choose to, just as you can bar individuals from your abode. (One difference is we try and have objective reasons, while you are under no obligation to do so.)

[Athena]

I find your posts so filled with hate, with self righteous indignity and not a trace of humility that I have no wish whatsoever to have any further dialogue with you. Indeed dialogue with you is impossible. You insist upon an acidic, destructive monologue while claiming to be arguing for the betterment of society. It won't wash. Please do not direct any more of your posts towards me. Thank you.

 

What or who do I hate? That is such a strange opinion to me, because it sure does not fit any feelings I have. You might be projecting something in me that is not true of me.

 

The other possible explanation is, virtue, is synonymous strength. Personally, I am very humble person who knows how much she does not know. I have an income far below the poverty level, and this forces me to live a very simple life. I do my best to live by my grandmother's 3 rules"

 

1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people.

2. We protect the dignity of others.

3. We do everything with integrity.

 

I walk my dog down the bike path and all the homeless people think I am their friend because I treat them just as I would anyone else. I just came back from managing a foster home for a week, and the 4 mentally challenged adults who live there, see me as a good friend who eats with them and socializes with them as equals. I am forever, thanking them for helping me get around town by giving me directions, or do whatever is hard for me to do without help. I don't think anyone who knows me would hold the opinion of me that you have expressed.

 

Morale is what comes out of believing we are doing the right thing. When I speak of our freedoms, I certainly believe I am doing the right thing. Standing for our rights, when everyone is attacking me, is the virtuous thing to do, and I become as a soldier standing his duty. Only if we live by our principles, and stand for them, will we keep them, because it is not the police or the military that can protect our human rights and liberty. Laws take away our liberty. When people live by principles and morals, they do not need laws. Moderators who do not value principles, might be a problem as much of a problem as the posters who do not live with principles and values. This is something we need to be mindful in all areas of our lives. We protect our liberty by obeying the laws, and having good moral judgment and living by principles.

 

Speaking of the education that has changed our understanding these matters, is equally important to defending democracy. Explaining the change in bureaucratic order that has shifted power and authority from the individual to the state, is just as important to defending democracy. Your awareness of such matters is what gives you power, to maintain the changes, or question if we should maintain the changes. Information is power, and I am trying to give everyone power. I speak with love, not hate. My user name is a statement of my love of democracy and human rights.

[Phi for All]

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?

!

Moderator Note

It seems pretty clear that you have fundamental differences with our approach here at SFN. It's also abundantly clear that your grievances are not shared by anyone else. This leads to a very obvious conclusion.

 

Rather than ask you to continue to participate in a community whose leadership you oppose so vociferously, we invite you to look elsewhere for discussion. Rather than gripe about the moderators in every thread, we invite you to start your own forum where you can seek the perfection you're looking for. Rather than continue to degrade the work we all put into this forum with your anger and hate, we invite you to leave.

[swansont]

When I speak of our freedoms, I certainly believe I am doing the right thing. Standing for our rights, when everyone is attacking me, is the virtuous thing to do, and I become as a soldier standing his duty.

…

When people live by principles and morals, they do not need laws.

And if anyone has the temerity to disagree, they get branded as being bad persons or having bad judgement. Many an atrocity has been performed by people believing they were doing right. Obviously, that's an insufficient standard, and the details of "the right thing", aka principles and morals, will vary from person to person. Which is why we have rules that are more specific than that.

[Athena]

And if anyone has the temerity to disagree, they get branded as being bad persons or having bad judgement. Many an atrocity has been performed by people believing they were doing right. Obviously, that's an insufficient standard, and the details of "the right thing", aka principles and morals, will vary from person to person. Which is why we have rules that are more specific than that.

 

Hum, you should take your argument to the thread about secular morality. How do we determine what is moral? NAZI Germany is an excellent case of good people committing atrocities.

 

What are you saying is "the insufficient standard"? This thread is about censorship, and censorship without good standards is a bad thing. That was the purpose of this thread, to point out the power of being able to censor someone, needs to go with the merits of being a good moderator. Censoring someone because of the use of a word, or mention of an unpleasant subject, without consider of the context of what is being discussed, is reactionary and this is not a good thing. Moderators need to be careful before reacting. Their reaction needs to be based on reason, not emotion.

 

Having no knowledge of a subject and saying someone is saying outrageous things, is not good judgment, because the opinion is based on what this person does not know. Jumping from this ignorance of what is being said, to accusing someone of violating rules, is equal to the church putting Galileo under house arrest and preventing him from speaking of what science can tell us. The reason the US adopted the principle of freedom of speech is because of human failing, and for the same reason we have moderators. It is not easy being human. It is a big responsibility to be a moderator. Knowing what everyone is talking about, before censoring someone is part of that responsibility. This thread was started because of two cases of moderators reacting emotional, without being careful of what was being said.

 

The proof of bad judgment is the result of the decision. Making bad decisions does not mean the person is bad, but the person is most likely poorly informed, because in general, when we know right from wrong, we are compelled by our nature to do the right thing. However, humans also have this incredible ability to rationalize why what the know is wrong is right. That is one reason we need each other, to keep each other in check.

 

Deming, in his explanation of good industrial management, says not only does management need to pay attention to what workers are doing, but also someone needs to pay attention to what management is doing. Moderators are not perfect gods, but humans who do not know it all and who make mistakes. It seems mostly this thread is arguing that moderators should be treated as perfect gods, who never make mistakes, because by god this forum is private property and the principle of freedom of speech does not apply here. To question this relationship to authority, is to be hateful and an enemy of the people. To say this obedience to authority is what went in wrong in Germany, is to be attacked for being intolerant of other people's opinions. I think these attacks are what we might call projection, because they are seem so completely backwards to me. I argue for freedom of speech and questioning authority and individual rights, and get treated as though I stand for the opposite of everything I value. Oh well, may be in the end everything will come out okay. If not, at least I have done my best to raise awareness and sensitive, and I have stood on principles. I did not cower to avoid the attacks, or act as though nothing matters but being liked.

[iNow]

Why don't you just make it easy for Athena, ban her, and be done with it? This incessant complaining and whining became tiresome months ago.

[Athena]

!

Moderator Note

It seems pretty clear that you have fundamental differences with our approach here at SFN. It's also abundantly clear that your grievances are not shared by anyone else. This leads to a very obvious conclusion.

 

Rather than ask you to continue to participate in a community whose leadership you oppose so vociferously, we invite you to look elsewhere for discussion. Rather than gripe about the moderators in every thread, we invite you to start your own forum where you can seek the perfection you're looking for. Rather than continue to degrade the work we all put into this forum with your anger and hate, we invite you to leave.

 

I am clear about being in favor of enforcing rules. Both posters and moderators need to be principled people. The leadership of the forum involves many things besides the action of moderators. I have not attacked the leadership of the forum, but questioned the action of those who are probably subordinate the leadership, and possibly loosely supervised or not supervised at all. I am not sure how leadership identifies and corrects errors, only that errors are made. Actually I know nothing of the leadership. I do not know if the owner of the forum is actively involved, or trusting everyone to do what should be done. I do not know if the leadership is one person or many. I have said, occasionally moderators are being reactionary, reacting emotionally to a word or a subject, without paying attention to the content. Can we go back to the original post and determine if that grievance has merit?

 

All the rest of what has happened in this thread is me dealing with the attacks made against me personally, and me trying to convey why, we as citizens, we need to be careful about something as fragile as our freedom of speech, because if we reason against it, we could loose it, and at the same time ovoid being banned for trying to make this point. This has become a moral discussion about principles. That is not what I intended, but it is what others made of this thread.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Athena

[John Cuthber]

"How can the logic of an argument be judged when the judge is ignorant of the subject? "

Quite easily.

For example, I don't know know a lot about knitting patterns, but if someone tells me "Jack is a good knitter because he produced a good pattern and I know it's a good pattern because Jack produced it" then I can recognise a circular argument.

 

In much the same way I can recognise other logical fallacies even if I don't know what they apply to.

So the answer to the question "If you knew nothing of physics, would you enter a discussion of physics and start attacking the logic of someone well educated in physics? " is yes, I would.

 

Inow, if we ban someone they can claim they have been censored- though giving them 5 pages of leeway first suggests we are fairly keen on free speech.

[swansont]

Leadership? We're an autonomous collective — an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more far-reaching decisions.

 

Can we go back to the original post and determine if that grievance has merit?

I think we've had ~80 posts where all but you are arguing that it does not.

 

All the rest of what has happened in this thread is me dealing with the attacks made against me personally

It's a problem when attacks on one's position are misconstrued to be attacks on that person.

[Klaynos]

I frankly fail to see why anything the US constitution says would bare any relation to my actions?

[mississippichem]

Athena,

 

I think of forum communities as 24-7 social events. Blike is the owner IIRC so we are guests at a party in his home. Have you considered that perhaps you just don't fit in with the crowd at this party?

 

It's alright to not fit in. I would not fit in at a Christian prayer forum, or a homeopathic medicine forum. I just think it's rude that you are at the owner's house drinking his beers and sitting on his couch all the while screaming about how his party sucks. When the other guests (members) and party organizers (staff) politely ask you to take it easy you start ranting about Nazi Germany and the US constitution. Effectively evoking Godwin all over the party organizers. That's just obnoxious.

 

Kindly go find another party.

Edited October 15, 2012 by mississippichem

[zapatos]

Leadership? We're an autonomous collective — an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more far-reaching decisions.

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

[Ophiolite]

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

Surely you are aware that if you send money to the Admin team they ignore flagrant breaches of the rules. I can tell you that their rates are very reasonable compared with other forums. For a slightly larger sum you can get them to victimise a designated individual. It really is the best system that money can buy.

[ydoaPs]

Surely you are aware that if you send money to the Admin team they ignore flagrant breaches of the rules.

 

How else could I still be here after all these years? You can make the checks out to swansont.

 

I think we've had ~80 posts where all but you are arguing that it does not.

 

Indeed. This site is private property which costs blike money. He and his crack staff have set some exceedingly simple rules to which you agreed upon registration. If you follow the rules, you're allowed to post. If you don't, you're not. Freedom of speech plays no role. If you don't like the rules, then don't post.

 

A grievance claiming this site's policy is censorship is about as valid as one claiming you not letting me spraypaint profanity on your home is you censoring me.

 

I frankly fail to see why anything the US constitution says would bare any relation to my actions?

 

You didn't know? Every person on the planet is an agent of the United States government.

[Klaynos]

You didn't know? Every person on the planet is an agent of the United States government.

 

Damnit, I'm always the last to know!

[swansont]

Damnit, I'm always the last to know!

And now that you do, pay no attention to the black helicopters or the folks hopping out of them. They're there to help.

[Athena]

I think your intentions are clear. I am not sure if this is what everyone says does not happen?

Edited October 16, 2012 by Athena

[ydoaPs]

I think your intentions are clear. I am not sure if this is what everyone says does not happen?

 

The situation is clear. You have no unqualified right to write whatever you want wherever you want. You allowed to write on this private property given you abide by the rules to which you agreed by registering. This, however, is not a right.

 

Do you not like the rules? Well, I guess that's goodbye then. If you find it hard to stay away, I'm sure an admin would change your password if you request it.

[Unity+]

What or who do I hate? That is such a strange opinion to me, because it sure does not fit any feelings I have. You might be projecting something in me that is not true of me.

 

The other possible explanation is, virtue, is synonymous strength. Personally, I am very humble person who knows how much she does not know. I have an income far below the poverty level, and this forces me to live a very simple life. I do my best to live by my grandmother's 3 rules"

 

1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people.

2. We protect the dignity of others.

3. We do everything with integrity.

 

I walk my dog down the bike path and all the homeless people think I am their friend because I treat them just as I would anyone else. I just came back from managing a foster home for a week, and the 4 mentally challenged adults who live there, see me as a good friend who eats with them and socializes with them as equals. I am forever, thanking them for helping me get around town by giving me directions, or do whatever is hard for me to do without help. I don't think anyone who knows me would hold the opinion of me that you have expressed.

 

Morale is what comes out of believing we are doing the right thing. When I speak of our freedoms, I certainly believe I am doing the right thing. Standing for our rights, when everyone is attacking me, is the virtuous thing to do, and I become as a soldier standing his duty. Only if we live by our principles, and stand for them, will we keep them, because it is not the police or the military that can protect our human rights and liberty. Laws take away our liberty. When people live by principles and morals, they do not need laws. Moderators who do not value principles, might be a problem as much of a problem as the posters who do not live with principles and values. This is something we need to be mindful in all areas of our lives. We protect our liberty by obeying the laws, and having good moral judgment and living by principles.

 

Speaking of the education that has changed our understanding these matters, is equally important to defending democracy. Explaining the change in bureaucratic order that has shifted power and authority from the individual to the state, is just as important to defending democracy. Your awareness of such matters is what gives you power, to maintain the changes, or question if we should maintain the changes. Information is power, and I am trying to give everyone power. I speak with love, not hate. My user name is a statement of my love of democracy and human rights.

 

First, if your going to complain about rights and government why are you doing it here?

 

 

Second of all, was this supposed to make us feel bad for you? The users here came to talk scientifically with others to discuss science and related ideas, not to invoke our real-life problems on others, though if you want you can probably PM someone to see if they want to get involved. If your agenda coming here was to spread a political message you came to the wrong place. If you want to protest against government, go do so. Everyone comes here to NOT talk about politics unless in the right section. This section is labeled "Suggestons, Comments and Support" not "Politics".

 

 

[Ophiolite]

What or who do I hate? That is such a strange opinion to me, because it sure does not fit any feelings I have. You might be projecting something in me that is not true of me.

I have pointed out that you do the following:

1. Insist, without room for doubt, that every one of your views is correct.

2. Accuse those of differing views of such things as lack of integrity, dishonesty, distaste for freedom.

3. Present interpretations of history that you assert are facts.

4. Demand that we accept these 'facts'.

 

There are other behaviours, but those are the principle ones. In my experience only two conditions account for such behaviour: gross stupidity and hatred. Your posts are well written and intelligently structured, so I rule out stupidity and am left with hate. If you feel there is another motive, not for arguing your case - we all get that - but for the related behaviours noted above I am certainly willing to listen to an explanation.

 

 

The other possible explanation is, virtue, is synonymous strength.

This appears to be an attempt at that alternative explanation. You seem to be arguing that virtue accords one with the strength and confidence of being right. You then go on to try to demonstrate how virtuous you are. Athena, what you call virtuous strength appears to me like arrogant self righteousness. I always entertain the possibility I may be wrong. You, apparently, don't suffer from that weakness.

 

 

You say you attempt to follow these three rules.

1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people.

2. We protect the dignity of others.

3. We do everything with integrity.

Here would be my three equivalents:

1. I accord respect from the outset, until someone demonstrates they are not worthy of that respect. Then I give them a second chance. And a third.

2. I will not knowingly damage the dignity of others. But if they wish to self harm and call it noble that's their choice. (It's part of freedom, you know.)

3. I'm reasonably sure Hitler felt his integrity was intact up until the end, so I don't set much store my self identified integrity.

 

You might argue that I have qualified integrity with the words self-identified. You might argue that we can determine actions that reflect integrity via guidance from others. However, this does not seem to apply to you, since - as noted - you have refused to listen to anything anyone has said about your own integrity in this thread.

 

 

I speak with love, not hate. My user name is a statement of my love of democracy and human rights.

Your indulgent self-righteouness, determination to ignore others who act with integrity and conviction, these things do not speak of love. You may love democracy and human rights. You really don't seem to keen on people.

[Athena]

Perhaps this is a better reply to Swanspont questions. He did say he really didn't care about the subject, but I still have the frustration of not completing a communication about a subject he did question. Today the characteristics of our education are pretty much the same, and no one remembers when our education was different, nor all the aguments against change, so we can discuss the social, economic, and political ramifications of a change that is not part of consciousness.

 

However, those who opposed compulsory attendance have won their fight with laws that make home schooling legal. I have not heard of anyone being fined $300 dollar later, for a child not attending school, but before the home schooling rule parents were fined. But before education was made compulsory, plenty of parents kept children home to work. Child lobar laws applied only to industry. Parents could keep their children and make the work. I am not saying that is a good thing, but who should be the authority over children, parents or the state?

 

 

Characteristics of the Prussian education system



The Prussian system instituted compulsory attendance, specific
training for teachers, national testing for all students (used to
classify children for potential job training), national curriculum set for each grade and mandatory kindergarten.

History



During the 18th century, the Kingdom of Prussia was among the first
countries in the world to introduce tax-funded and generally compulsory
primary education, comprising an eight-year course of primary
education, called Volksschule.
It provided not only the skills needed in an early industrialized
world (reading, writing and arithmetic), but also a strict education in
ethics, duty, discipline and obedience. Affluent children often went
on to attend preparatory private schools for an additional four years,
but the general population had virtually no access to secondary
education.

Lutheran influence



Historically, the Lutheran denomination had a strong influence on German culture, including its education. Martin Luther advocated compulsory schooling and this idea became a model for schools throughout Germany.

Pietist influence



Pietism,
a reformist group within Lutheranism, forged a political alliance with
the King of Prussia based on a mutual interest in breaking the
dominance of the Lutheran state church. The Prussian Kings, Calvinists
among Lutherans, feared the influence of the Lutheran state church and
its close connections with the provincial nobility, while Pietists
suffered from persecution by the Lutheran orthodoxy. Bolstered by royal
patronage, Pietism replaced the Lutheran church as the effective state
religion by the 1760s.

Pietist theology stressed the need for "inner spirituality", which can only come about through the reading of Scripture. Consequently, Pietists helped form the principles of the modern public school system, including the stress on literacy.

The political motivations of the King of Prussia



Seeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy,
the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the
citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become
convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his
decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount.[citation needed]

The schools imposed an official language, to the prejudice of ethnic
groups living in Prussia. The purpose of the system was to instill
loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the
bureaucracy. As the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte,
a key influence on the system, said, "If you want to influence [the
student] at all, you must do more than merely talk to him; you must
fashion him, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will
otherwise than what you wish him to will." [1]

Compulsory education



A series of edicts made clear for the first time that education was a
task of the state. This evolution finally culminated in 1763, when
Frederick II made schooling compulsory for all children between ages
five through 13.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system

Edited February 25, 2013 by Athena

[ydoaPs]

Perhaps this is a better reply to Swanspont questions. He did say he really didn't care about the subject, but I still have the frustration of not completing a communication about a subject he did question. Today the characteristics of our education are pretty much the same, and no one remembers when our education was different, nor all the aguments against change, so we can discuss the social, economic, and political ramifications of a change that is not part of consciousness.

 

However, those who opposed compulsory attendance have won their fight with laws that make home schooling legal. I have not heard of anyone being fined $300 dollar later, for a child not attending school, but before the home schooling rule parents were fined.

I'm not seeing how that is relevant at all, actually.