Hijack - rant

[metaphysic jew]

i feel like the moderaters on this site dont really care about the people that post and just think they can run everything and rule everyone. i will rant what i want when i want because that is my human right. anyway i dont think you can become a self taught theoretical physicist without some help. study some theories and works of theoretical physicist. if you already a physicist then learn just the components that make up the theoretical part.

Edited January 8, 2014 by metaphysic jew

[arc]

i feel like the moderaters on this site dont really care about the people that post and just think they can run everything and rule everyone. i will rant what i want when i want because that is my human right. anyway i dont think you can become a self taught theoretical physicist without some help.

 

I would have never imagined those two sentiments would appear in the same paragraph let alone in tandem. Well . . . . . . this should be interesting.

[Ophiolite]

i will rant what i want when i want because that is my human right.

Here is some information that may be of value to you. This is a privately owned and operated forum. The right to free speech does not apply here. The moderators can shut you (or I) down anytime they wish. Contrary to your impression, they will display considerable tolerance before doing so. If you have concerns about how moderators treat members you might want to start a thread in the Feedbacl subforum, or pm specific mods with your concerns.

[swansont]

I moved this. I'm a mod and just think I can run everything and rule everyone. Except that's not true; I moved this post in complete accordance with the rules — the opening is an off-topic hijack, which violates the rules, and that means I can delete it or move it. I could have moved it to the trash, where there could be no further discussion, but it warrants a response and perhaps other commentary, so I moved it here.

 

As Ophiolite says, you do not have a right to free speech here; that right is between you and the government where you live; the government is (supposedly) limited in how they can censor you. How much depends on where you live. The price you pay for entering this forum is that you agree to follow some rules, and if you don't follow them, you might be shown the door. If you don't like that caveat, you can go somewhere else and start your own blog and then you can say what you please. THAT is how you can exercise your right to free speech.

[michel123456]

i feel like the moderaters on this site dont really care about the people that post and just think they can run everything and rule everyone.

They look as if they were in the military, yes.

i will rant what i want when i want because that is my human right. anyway i dont think you can become a self taught theoretical physicist without some help. study some theories and works of theoretical physicist. if you already a physicist then learn just the components that make up the theoretical part.

I agree with arc, the sentence is bizarre. Or is an entire paragraph missing?

Here is some information that may be of value to you. This is a privately owned and operated forum. The right to free speech does not apply here. The moderators can shut you (or I) down anytime they wish. Contrary to your impression, they will display considerable tolerance before doing so. If you have concerns about how moderators treat members you might want to start a thread in the Feedbacl subforum, or pm specific mods with your concerns.

This is a very old discussion.

After some time here, what I realize is that the problem is not the absence of freedom of speech, the problem is that most people here are proud of it instead of being ashamed.

[Phi for All]

After some time here, what I realize is that the problem is not the absence of freedom of speech, the problem is that most people here are proud of it instead of being ashamed.

 

I think some people see any kind of suppression as an abridgment of their rights, even when what's being suppressed is someone's "right" to be a dick on a science discussion forum. And I hardly feel ashamed setting rules and then abiding by them, expecting others who join to do so as well.

 

There's lots of places on the webz you can go that let you say anything you want. You just have to expect a lower calibre of conversation.

[CaptainPanic]

This is a very old discussion.

After some time here, what I realize is that the problem is not the absence of freedom of speech, the problem is that most people here are proud of it instead of being ashamed.

 

The rules here are not much different than in the family I grew up in. If I shouted, my parents would tell me to shut up. They wouldn't care if I was right or wrong. First I had to behave, and only then they'd listen to the contents.

 

It's no different here. You have freedom of speech as long as you behave and don't piss off anyone (especially the mods and admins).

[swansont]

 

I think some people see any kind of suppression as an abridgment of their rights, even when what's being suppressed is someone's "right" to be a dick on a science discussion forum. And I hardly feel ashamed setting rules and then abiding by them, expecting others who join to do so as well.

 

There's lots of places on the webz you can go that let you say anything you want. You just have to expect a lower calibre of conversation.

 

Indeed. Unmoderated discussion boards are cesspits. I would not waste my time trying to compete with the shouting in such a place.

 

The irony here is that the sentiment that most people are proud of alleged censorship misses the irony that this sentiment isn't being censored, and no warnings or threats about such sentiment is issued.

 

This is a very old discussion.

After some time here, what I realize is that the problem is not the absence of freedom of speech, the problem is that most people here are proud of it instead of being ashamed.

 

I take it then that you have no rules about the behavior of guests at your home. Anyone can do as they please with no repercussions?

[CharonY]

Do they have to be guests? I mean we can just show up at his/her doorstep and rant to our heart`s content?

[swansont]

Do they have to be guests? I mean we can just show up at his/her doorstep and rant to our heart`s content?

 

Sure. It's not like being at SFN is invitation-only. So the analogy can be extended to anyone passing by, including neighbors being extremely loud.

[Phi for All]

i feel like the moderaters on this site dont really care about the people that post and just think they can run everything and rule everyone.

 

I'm always open to criticism, but I have to say it's really strange to have you join and make this your first post, all on the same day. I mean, what are you basing this on, the one thread you were reading when you responded? This is a pretty harsh generalization for a day-old member. Everything and everyone, all the time? Really?

[Ophiolite]

After some time here, what I realize is that the problem is not the absence of freedom of speech, the problem is that most people here are proud of it instead of being ashamed.

[iRONY]Indeed. I am heartily ashamed that the following examples of free speech are discouraged, or even prevented:

1. Religious preaching, free of any willingness to discuss.

2. Hate speech against ethnic groupings, nationalities, followers of specific religions.

3. Detailed prescriptions for the manufacture of weapons.

4. Encouragement to engage in violent acts.

5. Persistent posting of unscientific assertions, coupled with a refusal to provide evidence to support such assertions.

6. Persistent use of the language and methodology of cranks.

7. Posting off-topic material in threads.

8. Re-posting the same debunked argument in multiple threads over a period of time.

[/iRONY]

[michel123456]

Freedom of speech is a human right, correct?

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

 

 

So when you enter a classroom, a church, an army, a house, an Internet Forum, you immediately lose one of your Human Rights.

That is what I understand from the System of our society as it works.

I recognize that is the way things are but I am not O.K. with that. In general I consider the Human Rights as a minimum and I am not O.K. when the minimum is diminished.

Otherwise one has to tell me where are the Human Rights applicable? In the street? On the beach? On the Moon?

Somewhere else?

Edited January 9, 2014 by michel123456

[swansont]

Freedom of speech is a human right, correct?

 

So when you enter a classroom, a church, an army, a house, an Internet Forum, you immediately lose one of your Human Rights.

 

 

You continue to miss the point that these rights are limitations on what governments can do to you. You aren't losing a right to free speech in an internet forum if the government is not censoring you. Being able to say whatever you want on someone's private property is not lost, because it's not a right you had in the first place.

[Phi for All]

Freedom of speech is a human right, correct?

 

No, it isn't. It's recognized as such by some countries, but it's not a right all humans have.

 

And even in those countries where they recognize a right to freedom of speech, it's never a right to say anything you want anytime you want anywhere you want. You aren't allowed to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for instance. You aren't allowed to stand up and start talking in a court of law, or even at your place of work, unless it's appropriate to the situation.

 

Do you think your freedom of speech would allow you to stand up on a lunch table at work and start loudly proclaiming that your employers are crooks and then start listing alleged offenses to your fellow employees? I mean, you're free to do it, I guess, until your employer has you escorted off the premises. As soon as they say it's time for you to go, your ability to say what you want about them on their property ends. So the question is, did you ever have a right to do that in the first place?

[Strange]

Even if it were a universal right, you voluntarily gave up that right by agreeing to the rules of the forum.

[michel123456]

No, it isn't. It's recognized as such by some countries, but it's not a right all humans have.

And you feel OK with that?

Are you proud that Human Rights have not been gained by the entire humanity on planet Earth?

 

And even in those countries where they recognize a right to freedom of speech, it's never a right to say anything you want anytime you want anywhere you want. You aren't allowed to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for instance. You aren't allowed to stand up and start talking in a court of law, or even at your place of work, unless it's appropriate to the situation.

 

Do you think your freedom of speech would allow you to stand up on a lunch table at work and start loudly proclaiming that your employers are crooks and then start listing alleged offenses to your fellow employees? I mean, you're free to do it, I guess, until your employer has you escorted off the premises. As soon as they say it's time for you to go, your ability to say what you want about them on their property ends. So the question is, did you ever have a right to do that in the first place?

 

 

I know that. There is no freedom of speech in business. There is no freedom of speech at the place you work. There is no freedom of speech in a theater, in a classroom and in many other places. And I ask you: where do you have freedom of speech? Under the water of your bathtub?

It is as if anyone says "freedom of speech somewhere else" because it is impossible to bear.

Even if it were a universal right, you voluntarily gave up that right by agreeing to the rules of the forum.

So one evil made the thought of abolishing a human right and you think it's ok.

A good guy created the Internet so that everybody can freely communicate and some other guy immediately created a rule that says otherwise.

Please take the point that this Forum, as many others, is ONLY about discussion. I guess if it were about anything else the rules would have abolished other H.R. as well.

 

I'll stop here.

Edited January 9, 2014 by michel123456

[Phi for All]

And you feel OK with that?

Are you proud that Human Rights have not been gained by the entire humanity on planet Earth?

 

I think you're holding up absolute freedom of speech as some kind of goal, something we should all be striving for. But you're missing point that it's not really an ideal to let anybody say anything they want to anytime they want and anywhere they want. It's really kind of insane to think it makes me a freer, more complete human if I have the right to recite Hamlet's soliloquy at the top of my lungs in my own backyard at 3am. If I didn't have neighbors, I could exercise my right, but I do, so I can't. And yes, I feel OK with that.

So one evil made the thought of abolishing a human right and you think it's ok.

A good guy created the Internet so that everybody can freely communicate and some other guy immediately created a rule that says otherwise.

 

I don't get it, there are a thousand discussion sites out there where you can say pretty much anything you want to. We created SFN for those who didn't want to wade through the flame wars and name-calling and abuse and "freely communicated" junk. We created a haven amongst the savagery, a society in the wilderness, and that's always meant some rules for living, working and communicating with each other.

 

Yet you join here and complain that there's no true freedom of speech. Do you look for apartment buildings that don't allow pets so you can move in and complain that they won't let you keep your cat? I've always had a hard time understanding why you feel we're so repressive here, when we only uphold the rules everyone agrees to when they join.

[swansont]

And you feel OK with that?

Are you proud that Human Rights have not been gained by the entire humanity on planet Earth?

 

Whoah, where did THAT come from?

 

 

 

So one evil made the thought of abolishing a human right and you think it's ok.

A good guy created the Internet so that everybody can freely communicate and some other guy immediately created a rule that says otherwise.

As I said in my first post in the thread, you are free to e.g. start your own blog. That's where your freedom exists.

 

It is not universal, as other have also pointed out. You can't lose something that never existed in the first place.

[Bignose]

Freedom of speech is a human right, correct?

 

So when you enter a classroom, a church, an army, a house, an Internet Forum, you immediately lose one of your Human Rights.

That is what I understand from the System of our society as it works.

I recognize that is the way things are but I am not O.K. with that. In general I consider the Human Rights as a minimum and I am not O.K. when the minimum is diminished.

Otherwise one has to tell me where are the Human Rights applicable? In the street? On the beach? On the Moon?

Somewhere else?

michael,

 

Here are some equivalent questions to what you're asking:

 

#1 Should we be able to force the New York Times to print an article calling for an end to women's suffrage?

 

#2 Should we be able to force Hollywood to film and produce and movie praising a neo Nazi?

 

#3 Should we force McGraw Hill (or any other book publisher) to publish a book of Satanic verses?

 

#4 Should we be able to force NYYankees.com to print an article praising the Red Sox?

 

I would hope that your answer is no. The owners of each of these media get to publish whatever they choose, and they typically choose to publish things that their fans want and will share the message they want to share.

 

What is your right is to start your own newspaper, your own film company, your own book publisher, or your own website and publish whatever agenda you want. No one will forced to buy what you publish, or read what you publish. But you have every right to publish it.

 

In the same way, you don't have the right to force scienceforums.net to publish what you want. The owner of scienceforums.net is the only one with that right. The rest of us are here as their guests. The owner can do anything he wants to what we publish.

 

He can turn all our posts in the baby speak. He can permanently ban anyone who uses the letter 'e'. Etc.

 

On the other hand, the owner has graciously opened up the site to let us post things -- things that will remain posted so long as we follow the rules.

 

This is exactly the same as the NY Time publishing opinion letters that follow their rules. Their opinion pages do not have to publish everything -- they get to choose. Just like this site gets to choose. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else gets to force someone to publish something for us. This is all covered in the freedom of speech.

 

You have the freedom to produce whatever you want without your own resources, and the rest of us have the freedom to ignore it. Your freedom does not force anyone else to use their resources to help your production.

[imatfaal]

i feel like the moderaters on this site dont really care about the people that post and just think they can run everything and rule everyone. i will rant what i want when i want because that is my human right. anyway i dont think you can become a self taught theoretical physicist without some help. study some theories and works of theoretical physicist. if you already a physicist then learn just the components that make up the theoretical part.

 

Firstly - who the bleep are you? A few minutes after you join the forum you feel able to give a nuanced and damning critique of the way the forum is run? It is possible you are a sock-puppet, or a lurker - but my guess is a just another troll

 

 

They look as if they were in the military, yes.

I agree with arc, the sentence is bizarre. Or is an entire paragraph missing?

 

This is a very old discussion.

After some time here, what I realize is that the problem is not the absence of freedom of speech, the problem is that most people here are proud of it instead of being ashamed.

 

No. We are proud that we maintain a forum where discussion is possible, where members with thousands of posts take almost every opportunity of taking pot-shots at the staff and no one dreams of reprimanding them, where young and old can debate without possibility of coming upon something untoward, where a 14 year old can get physics tips from a bunch of phd's and teachers, and where no-one has to be ashamed of a love of knowledge.

 

Freedom of speech is a human right, correct?

 

So when you enter a classroom, a church, an army, a house, an Internet Forum, you immediately lose one of your Human Rights.

That is what I understand from the System of our society as it works.

I recognize that is the way things are but I am not O.K. with that. In general I consider the Human Rights as a minimum and I am not O.K. when the minimum is diminished.

Otherwise one has to tell me where are the Human Rights applicable? In the street? On the beach? On the Moon?

Somewhere else?

 

You and I are both lucky enough to live in a region where many human rights are protected by law (although only two are absolute - and freedom of expression is not one of those). This is the right within the EConvHR that is now part of EU law through the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

Whilst the notion that a private setting must provide unfettered freedom of expression has correctly be shown to wrong; I would go further than the others and say that in as far as this is an internet science forum - with the emphasis on the science - we do have freedom of expression. Our rule against soap-boxing is restrictive but in the balance (and there is always a balance except for torture and slavery IIRC) we are caught in having to protect the right to a free debate against a right to promulgate one's own views; as our raison d'etre is to provide a forum for discussion the result of that necessarily arbitrary choice is clear. Within the realm of discussions of science there is freedom of expression.

 

 

And you feel OK with that?

Are you proud that Human Rights have not been gained by the entire humanity on planet Earth?

 

I know that. There is no freedom of speech in business. There is no freedom of speech at the place you work. There is no freedom of speech in a theater, in a classroom and in many other places. And I ask you: where do you have freedom of speech? Under the water of your bathtub?

It is as if anyone says "freedom of speech somewhere else" because it is impossible to bear.

 

So one evil made the thought of abolishing a human right and you think it's ok.

A good guy created the Internet so that everybody can freely communicate and some other guy immediately created a rule that says otherwise.

Please take the point that this Forum, as many others, is ONLY about discussion. I guess if it were about anything else the rules would have abolished other H.R. as well.

 

I'll stop here.

 

The jibe about staff being proud of the fact that the majority of the world have no protected human rights was foolish and not worthy of you.

 

You need to read up on social contracts, Hobbes, the rule of law etc. we don't live in a state of nature - we live in organised societies which by their very nature have rules and concomitant protections;, how is this not obvious?

 

And if this forum were only about discussion, I and many others, would not be here; the forum is about science.

[michel123456]

i feel like the moderaters on this site dont really care about the people that post and just think they can run everything and rule everyone. i will rant what i want when i want because that is my human right. anyway i dont think you can become a self taught theoretical physicist without some help. study some theories and works of theoretical physicist. if you already a physicist then learn just the components that make up the theoretical part.

Hi "metaphysic jew", Hi others

 

Look back at this thread: not even one neg. point to Michel.

People argue they have the right to shut me up but they don't.

...

Maybe I am wrong and this Forum is not so bad after all.

[Strange]

So one evil made the thought of abolishing a human right and you think it's ok.

 

Don't be ridiculous. I didn't say that. I said that you chose to give up your rights. If you regret that now, then you just have to stop posting here.

 

 

A good guy created the Internet so that everybody can freely communicate ...

 

Worth noting that the development of the Internet was funded by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency so perhaps not as idealistic as you think.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

I notice that the tone of this debate is getting a bit harder. Let's not go there.

 

Before posting, ask yourself:

Am I dealing with a misunderstanding, or am I dealing with someone who fundamentally opposes my worldview?

 

From experience, I suggest that there is a large chance we're just dealing with a misunderstanding, or another form of friendly disagremeent. Please adjust the tone of your post here accordingly. A friendly post is more likely to clear up a misunderstanding than a harsh battle. In addition, it generally helps to focus on the big picture, and to just ignore individual little phrases that you disagree with. Make sure that your post is interesting to more than just 2 people (you and the person you're quoting).

[Phi for All]

I think this is a case where michel has an overriding ideal in mind that requires all speech to be allowed or we're tyrants. I think it's similar to the current political situation with the Indian diplomat who was arrested in NYC for visa fraud and underpaying her maid. The US wants this to be about criminal intent, but the Indians can't get past the idea that their female diplomat was strip-searched.

 

India is going through some reform with regard to women, so they're focusing on what they feel is abuse. Regardless of how anyone really feels about that, or who is really guilty in this matter, the situation is hampered because both sides are offended for different reasons about the same case. I think the Indians have an overriding ideal in mind that requires their women NOT be strip-searched by anybody, anywhere. This keeps them from seeing the procedural necessities.

 

Similarly, I think michel is standing up for what he sees as a right to speak our minds about injustice and oppression and other concerns, while we're arguing more from a practical side. We don't censor people the way michel fears we could. We actually champion that kind of speech quite frequently. What we suppress is the kind of speech that's not meant to help discussions, like trolling and flaming, or refusing to answer questions posed by others, or preaching with no intent of listening to what others have to say. And everyone knows we do because we tell them that in the rules.