|
| Thread: Freedom of speech or something else? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
posted February 04, 2009 09:31 PM |
|
|
Yeap. You're right, Elvin.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted February 04, 2009 09:40 PM |
|
|
( I for one would still ove to see an adults only forum for mature discussion so that i needn't ever talk about censorship again )
and what would be the criteria for being adult?
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted February 04, 2009 11:06 PM |
|
Edited by pandora at 23:06, 04 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
Schoolyard logic - you are open, I am closed - or vice versa?
But I agre that this is a completely unnecessary discussion: it's atypical case where someone - in this case you - is doing what is supposed to be so bad: picking things out of connection, clinging to a specific point and start a discussion about it. Why?
What I meant by you being closed, is that no matter what I say - you seem to ignore it...I did not open this thread to continue talking about the debate idea, there is already a thread for that - this thread was because I wanted to respond to your other statement and the issue that raised there.
I did not do "what is supposed to be so bad" I did exactly as I asked all members to do - if a new point is raised in a thread and you wish to speak about that new topic - give it its own thread. In this case, I did not want to rehash the same things about debating anymore - I felt I was repeating myself - but I did want to know how you deem it acceptable to write "KILL ALL GAYS LIKE GOD COMMANDS US TO"
Quote:
But I'm not going to eat something like "your post is not in the spirit of what the thread intended" by ANYone EXCEPT OP.
You also have to listen to the moderators - overseeing the forums is actually why we're here. I don't know if your use of caps there is meant to be hostile, but it strikes me that way. Angelito and I both take the time to address and discuss criticism - so there is no problem in questioning us about our actions - but blatantly refusing to do as you are asked by forum moderators is not acceptable.
Judging from your apology at the end (thank you for that btw) it seems to me that there is some confusion on your part as to why I made this thread. So to clarify, this thread was to have nothing to do with the debate thread - this is why I felt you were being very closed to what I was saying, as I was not speaking about the whole banning idea that you had about the thread - I only wanted to discuss how you felt it was wrong for moderators to silence someone for making a statement about killing a group of people.
So you see, if you had wanted to continue talking about your issues with the Debate guild idea, you are more than welcome to continue writing it there - its a separate topic.
However, I wanted to address your offtopic comment so I created this thread. That way anyone who wants to talk debate can do so there - anyone with an opinion on 'freedom of speech' and where the lines are in dealing with that , can do so here.
I hope its all clear by now?
btw Omega - you're just going to get a headache if you keep banging your head against the same wall. 
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted February 04, 2009 11:15 PM |
|
|
Wait, no. I'm beyond that.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted February 04, 2009 11:21 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 23:28, 04 Feb 2009.
|
I totally agree with JJ.I would rather create a law that enforces killing of all high crime makers for their immediate execution.
In Saudi arabia,if you steal something your limb from with you stole that is cut (aka:amputation).A rather drastic but good idea to teach the growing crimes in the world.
I can not rather understand people that say drugs should be allowed.The only reason drugs exist is cuz the goverment gains by people consuming it.Drug dealers should be dealt with execution and badly nor the Bible or Quran prohibits drugs imho.
And opinions are opinions,no need to ban someoen cuz of his opinion but warning him is affordable.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted February 04, 2009 11:27 PM |
|
Edited by veco at 23:27, 04 Feb 2009.
|
huh? I sense a disturbance in the topic flow
____________
none of my business.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 08:23 AM |
|
|
Disclaimer: The following does not represent my opinion and is just hypothetical to prove a point.
THREAD TITLE: What's wrong with our world?
Post by Disciple:
[hypothetical post]
Our world has become a dark place. The big towns are pits of sin and crime. The reason for all the wrongs and crimes is that we aren't following God's Word anymore.
To remind you about God's word:
Leviticus 20:9 Quote:
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Clearly, the Lord our God told us that children have to respect their parents. But at look at the way today's children aree unruly and spoilt. It's high time to teach the young generation respect again as it should have been done 50 years ago. Children need not only the soft touch of the loving parents, they need a hard guiding hand as well, so it's high time we teach children respect again.
Leviticus 20:10 Quote:
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Clearly, the Lord our God doesn't want us to commit adultery. What we need are strict laws against it. If people would keep to their spouses we wouldn't have such horrors like AIDS. Being unfaithful within a marriage is breaking the oath people swore before god and therefore punishable.
Leviticus 20:13 Quote:
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Clearly the Lord our God doesn't want too much gaiety, but not enough that they loudly and proudly celebrate their godless ways, they mock the holy institution of marriage as well by demanding marital rights. It's high time to remind them about God's words and show them their place lest our society isn't complete corrupted by their unholy ways.
Leviticus 24:16-22 Quote:
And he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, shall be put to death. And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death. And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good, life for life. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him: breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered unto him. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good: and he that killeth a man shall be put to death. Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the sojourner, as for the home-born: for I am Jehovah your God.
This world has come to care for the sinner and the killer more than for their victims. An eye for an eye, says the Lord our God, not 5 years on vacation in a comfy prison cell. [/hypothetical post]
I don't see any legal reason to ban such a post.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 08:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But I'm not going to eat something like "your post is not in the spirit of what the thread intended" by ANYone EXCEPT OP.
You also have to listen to the moderators - overseeing the forums is actually why we're here. I don't know if your use of caps there is meant to be hostile, but it strikes me that way. Angelito and I both take the time to address and discuss criticism - so there is no problem in questioning us about our actions - but blatantly refusing to do as you are asked by forum moderators is not acceptable.
I don't see the immediate connection between forum moderation and "intended spitit of the thread". "Intended spirit of the thread" is quite obviously something OP is responsible for, or at least something OP has in mind. If the thread is running against that - in OP's opinion - OP is free to post something along those lines to clarify his or her intentions; Father did that, for example, taking an active interest and trying to guide things.
If that's not working - people ignoring OP's request - and if OP cares for his or her thread, OP would or should notify a mod, and that mod would or should or might (depending on the actual situation) take action, requesting, deleting, warning, doing nothing, whatever moderation deems necessary.
This is my take on this. Apart from that, if OP didn't post specifically how OP intends a thread to become or not to become, how would ANYone know what the intended spirit of the thread is? And that includes moderators. A moderator who BELIEVES that was the case and then takes action without asking OP is acting arbitrarily, in my opinion. The same thing is true if someone else than OP calls a mod and complains about violation of intended thread spirit: how would the complainer know what that spirit was? Checking back with OP would be necessary first.
Note that the phrase "violation of intended thread spirit" is in itself an admittance that the posts in question are not off-topic. Otherwise you wouldn't need that phase but could simply rule off-topic, OP's intentions or not.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 08:53 AM |
|
|
im sorry JJ,but this is irellevent,qouting 'god' is irelevent to me,because i dont belive in it. i respect your belives,but i don't belive the book. meaning that if you want justification you need to qoute something else
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 10:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Disclaimer: The following does not represent my opinion and is just hypothetical to prove a point.
In the spirit of the Debaters' Guild I'm going to take the example farther with a hypothetical "discussion" evolving around that post:
[hypothetical]
Answering post by JoJo:
Lots of Bible quotes, Disciple, but what do you actually mean? Do you really propose to kill children, when they curse their parents? Kill people when they commit adultry? Kill gays for being so? Repay everything, eye for an eye, death for a death? If there is an accident and someone dies, do you want to kill the person responsible for the accident? How would all that killings make the world a better place? Seems to look more like a carnel house to me.
Answering post Disciple:
Of course we cannot start killing people from nothing. If currently gays have full rights you cannot suddenly and immediately put them to death.
But we have to set signs to steer back to a sane and healthy society. We would need to outlaw all those things first.
Look at children's respect for parents. How can you expect children to honor the values of society, the law and God when they don't learn any respect for those who are supposed to teach it to them? The consequences are obvious: a decay of general moral, from generation to generation.
Today, if I slap a child for being rude, showing them what rudeness means, a day later authorities may come telling me that I'm abusing my child. Is that right? The law is supposedly protecting my child from being taught moral, but who's going to protect society from my children afterwards?
Look at people committing adultry. If two people swearing before God to be faithful to each other and then break their oath, lusting after and "stealing" another person, can you trust them to keep ANY oath, if they break this one? Are they not prone to lie and steal with other things as well? Once an oathbreaker, always an oathbreaker. Consequently adultry of married people should be treated as false swearing, which is an offense the law punishes.
Gays, on the other hand are unnatural. We would long be extinct, if we all were gay, so it's an abberation of nature. It should be punished by the law as well, especially seduction to gay conduct.
Answering post JoJo:
Yeah, yeah, but what about putting them to death? You seem to run in circles around that one. Do you want to put them to death or not?
Answering post Disciple:
The law already punishes the repetition of a certain crime harder. Everyone can fail once, but if you fail for the 3rd time you demonstrated an unwillingness to keep to the law. There is every reason to expect a 4th and a 7th and a 100th failure, and since I've no qualms with the death penalty, yes. If one and the same crime, no matter which one is done often enough, it shall be punished with death.
Answering post JoJo:
So you want to say that you should get a year in jail or something for your first commitment of adultry, maybe on probation, then 2 or so, if it happens again, and then death? For ADULTRY?
Answering post Disciple:
Yes. People are not forced to marry and swear oaths to each other which is the prerequisite of committing adultry. If you commit a crime on a regular basis the law is punishing you harder. I think in the US the 3rd time is the charm; why would it be different with false swearing? And why shouldn't the unteachables not be put to death after they've proven they are unteachable?
[/hypothetical]
At this point JoJo pulls out, aghast.
Now what? Ban Disciple? Start a quote war? Ignore him, admitting defeat? Mind you, he has a point even without God to quote, hasn't he? "Exile" him into the Debater's Guild, judging his rhetorical qualities?
At this point another poster steps in, Jeez.
[hypothetical]
Answering post Jeez:
Disciple, you call yourself a Christian, but Christ taught something entirely different, didn't he? He taught about love and forgiveness. What about that? Not an eye for an eye, but turning the other cheek.
Answering post Disciple: He taught that indeed, but not for the authorities. He taught, that the Lord our God is his father and that his Word is true and be followed, and he taught US not to throw the first stone. Which means, that if we find an adultress we shall not go ahead and stone her, but instead go to the authorities leaving everything to them to enforce the law how they see fit. Or do you think it was a good idea if the authorities would turn the other cheek to be slapped?
[/hypothetical]
Now what? Ban him and start a crusade against general religious fundamentalism?
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 12:27 PM |
|
|
yes! name one thing good about fundlemantalis religioness
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 12:40 PM |
|
|
Strong sense of community and a commitment to help each other ("other" being a member of the community defined by the specific belief). Values and loyalty to values. Steadfastness and readiness to bring personal sacrifices for the greater good and their beliefs.
More?
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 12:50 PM |
|
Edited by pandora at 12:54, 05 Feb 2009.
|
JJ - I'm not going to keep repeating the same things over and over to you. My views on a well stated argument vs. a call for others to murder a group of people have already been posted. You chose to ignore it - so we'll leave it at that.
Thank you for your take on who has the right to speak up on a thread's intention. I disagree with you. I think that simply by reading the thread and its replies anyone who cares to pay attention to what others say should be able to figure that out.
Its my impression from your posts that you just want to fight for the sake of fighting, and I have no desire to be a part of that. If I am reading you wrong, I do apologize for sounding harsh, but this is my reaction to picture you are trying to paint here.
What has been asked is very simple. I asked that separate topics be kept to separate threads, which you translate as ban and exile. I said that I would penalize anyone making a post asking others to kill a group of people - and you read it that I'm some anti-religious crusader out to ban any person of faith.
I've had enough. I have tried to be respectful and answer you as thoroughly as I can - but this is getting nowhere.
With regards to your perceived beliefs about what my rights are as a moderator - please feel free to read the forum rules again, and if it comes to it at any time that you cannot respect that I do have a say in what goes on here- I would be happy to ask Valeriy to intervene. But no more of this, I find it insulting.
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 02:07 PM |
|
|
@ Pandora
In all honesty, neither do I see any reason for your hostility nor do I see a reason for what you claim I read into you.
I've made 3 posts after your second last one.
The first is a more sophisticated example for demanding drastic action against certain people - not all-caps, but drastic enough. My comment is that there should certainly be no reason then to BAN this post. I'm not reading something into you there. Should I have quoted you before this?
Pandora: Quote:
There have been many opinions expressed here that make me ill over the years, I have never once acted on those posts based on my personal feelings. As much as I may dislike the thought process that certain people go through - I certainly do not believe its within my right to judge based on how I feel. But if someone does have an opinion that may be deemed offensive to someone, I should hope that they find a way to express themselves intelligently and in a manner that encourages a like response
So post 1 would be an example for a post that would not be banned.
Post 2, separate from that one, is a separate issue, "violation of the intended spirit of the thread". I basically only said that citing this for any judgement call should at least involve asking OP for clarification. In no way does this constitute any opinion about your moderational RIGHTS, mind you. It's just my opinion about the JUSTIFICATION of an action. You can moderate whichever way you want: "I don't want such ungainly quote wars in the forum I moderate", is perfect. It's subjective, but it's fine. Or "I had 3 people complaining about unreadable quote wars destroying a perfectly fine thread and agree with them." No problem. But "it violates the intended spirit of the thread"? That sounds a bit like the "healthy public instinct" judging.
Post 3 deepens post 1, going into detail, asking a couple of questions.
Now, if all you want is
a) make sure that all all-caps kill all and similar posts will get banned, but no post that can convey a likewise opinion with reasonable means
b) threads are kept on topic and off-topic strays ahould be done opening a new thread including those either moderators or a majority of posters of the specific thread feel out of place there
c) a Debater's Guild will be done basically for those who debate for the heck of debating
and this is not only your personal pov, but the official moderation stance as well, I'm taking everything back I may have said, that looked like I might be against that or would want to read something into what you said.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 02:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now what? Ban him and start a crusade against general religious fundamentalism?
Nothing. Just keep going. If you think he's wrong and you have arguments against him - by all means, continue.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 03:18 PM |
|
|
That's what I think as well.
Now, Mvass, the thread is called "What's wrong with our world?" and let's say the first post was a bit like that in the "Would you be a hero thread", a couple of personally examples for internet fraud, people not helping others in need, or people faking beeing in need and then robbing the helper and so on, maybe even an example of a really sad case of long going adultry resulting in a really dirty battle at court, ending with the thread question.
Then what? What about "thread spirit"?
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 05:23 PM |
|
|
I agree as well with Mvass, discussion and an exchange of ideas and opinions is what the OSM is about. Provided that members can understand the difference between flaming and actually communicating with each other.
People have different views for all sorts of reasons, it does not necessarily make them stupid, hateful etc - perhaps that's all that they've been exposed to. I've seen footage of parents teaching their children the ways of the KKK from the time they were barely able to talk, chilling stuff really - but does that make those children evil if that's all that they've ever known?
If such a child were to grow up and come here expressing their views in a way that encouraged a real exchange, and our members were able to show him a different viewpoint - and inspire him to look at things a little bit differently, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it? I see no reason why discussion of this nature should be discouraged, so long as a level of maturity and level headedness is maintained.
However, if the same kid were to come here and simply start ranting against minorities with no regard for anything being said back to him, and all the other members responded to him with such things as "you're an idiot" etc - then I would most certainly have to step in.
Without discussing now the example I gave, is the meaning behind what I'm saying clear? In such cases, I'm afraid that you have to accept that our judgement as moderators will be the bases of our decisions (within the CoC) of course. If our action is objectionable, then it can be discussed in feedback - but in some matters I would hope that people might just respect that we're trying to do our job here to serve everyone, and not trying to censor and dictate what you can and cannot say.
@JJ, I sent you a HCM - I hope it resolves things.
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 08:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't see any legal reason to ban such a post.
Yeah, I don't see any legal reason either. 
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 10:26 PM |
|
|
|
You can swim all day the sea of utter expressed knowledge at this forum and still come out completely dry cuz of a simple thing. Most people do here so.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2009 10:45 PM |
|
|
JJ:
In that case, the spirit would be personal stories and mild discussions about them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
