Restricted Access?

[esp]

Is it acceptable to commence a thread in a public web-based forum that attempts to restrict not only those allowed to post replies, but also those allowed to view said thread?

A nameless individual wrote...

This thread is for Christians only.
It is a place where we can come together and discuss our doctrines and its relevance to society, its relevance to science, and its contribution towards the development of Mankind.

Note:

1. Only mainstream Protestant Denominations
2. Roman Catholic and Orthodox
3. Atheists can just read but must not contribute. Preferable that they
dont visit this thread at all.
4. Mormons are not allowed.
Topics can be started by anyone, about anything that you feel we as Christians must be aware of.

The Creator Loves You.

Does this interfere with the basic principles of free speech?

Do these rules devalue the intellectual potential of the thread as a whole?

Do the mandates specified indicate a closed mind?

Is it, in your opinion, a thread started by someone who wishes they administered their own forum?

 

[Light]

Is it acceptable to commence a thread in a public web-based forum that attempts to restrict not only those allowed to post replies, but also those allowed to view said thread?

A nameless individual wrote...


Does this interfere with the basic principles of free speech?

Do these rules devalue the intellectual potential of the thread as a whole?

Do the mandates specified indicate a closed mind?

Is it, in your opinion, a thread started by someone who wishes they administered their own forum?

If I may ask, why are you so concerned about it?

Personally, I have no problems with it and believe all your questions to be invalid.

I see it as simply being a group of like-minded indviduals who would like to discuss something they have in common that often draws critisim and ridicule by people who do not think as they do. It could be compared to people who want to talk about hunting, for example (and no, I'm not a hunter) because they, too, often draw abuse from those who dislike hunting.

So, in my opinion, it's actually you who is being rude for bringing the whole thing up. Just leave them alone and let them be - they aren't hurting you in any way. As far as free speech goes, you are perfectly free to state your opinions anywhere else in the forum that you choose. You've not been denied anything.

 

[esp]

Light wrote...

As far as free speech goes, you are perfectly free to state your opinions anywhere else in the forum that you choose. You've not been denied anything.

Excuse me!

I thought that that was what I was doing.

Having been excluded from said thread by the rules posted above, I felt it necessary to "state my opinions elsewhere", i.e., here.

In fact, my use of the phrase 'state my opinions' is somewhat inaccurate, since I've not actually stated opinions, merely asked questions. This is what scientists do.

So now, rather than work within the rational framework of this thread, you choose to attack me.

I had the civility to operate by the mandates set out in the thread referred to, and not post there.

You will note that I do not invite those who do not work within strict scientific guidelines not to post within this thread.

Light wrote...

If I may ask, why are you so concerned about it?

Concerned is too strong a word.
Interested, intrigued or riled, even, perhaps.
This is a public forum. If one's threads or purported principles cannot withstand analysis...... (draw your own conclusions).

Light wrote...

Personally, I have no problems with it and believe all your questions to be invalid.

In the spirit of this thread, perhaps you would like to iterate why you have no problems with it.

And, while you're at your keyboard, just for the hell of it, explain why my questions are invalid.

Light wrote...

I see it as simply being a group of like-minded indviduals who would like to discuss something they have in common that often draws critisim and ridicule by people who do not think as they do.

One of the operating principles of this forum is examination, criticism and destruction of flawed statements, arguments and sentiments.
That is not to say that I declare any of those parameters of the thread in question to fall within any of the mentioned catagories; I have not the temerity.
I simply invite others to explore and argue the queries that I put forth (regardless of whether or not they agree with my stance (which I still haven't stated)). Show me any part of my thread which you could accurately call criticism.

Light wrote...

...they, too, often draw abuse from...

Abuse? Me? Where?
Please give references to abuse I've meted out. I will be happy to withdraw.

Light wrote...

So, in my opinion, it's actually you who is being rude for bringing the whole thing up.

Rude.
Interesting choice of words.
As rude as someone banning people from arguing with them if they don't subscribe to the same ideals as them?

I anticipate your response on all counts.

 

[esp]

I would just mention that I do not believe in voting on my own poll, so this will distort the actual results until the numbers reach double figures!

 

[Light]

Light wrote...


Excuse me!

I thought that that was what I was doing.

Having been excluded from said thread by the rules posted above, I felt it necessary to "state my opinions elsewhere", i.e., here.

In fact, my use of the phrase 'state my opinions' is somewhat inaccurate, since I've not actually stated opinions, merely asked questions. This is what scientists do.

So now, rather than work within the rational framework of this thread, you choose to attack me.

I had the civility to operate by the mandates set out in the thread referred to, and not post there.

You will note that I do not invite those who do not work within strict scientific guidelines not to post within this thread.

Light wrote...


Concerned is too strong a word.
Interested, intrigued or riled, even, perhaps.
This is a public forum. If one's threads or purported principles cannot withstand analysis...... (draw your own conclusions).

Light wrote...


In the spirit of this thread, perhaps you would like to iterate why you have no problems with it.

And, while you're at your keyboard, just for the hell of it, explain why my questions are invalid.

Light wrote...

One of the operating principles of this forum is examination, criticism and destruction of flawed statements, arguments and sentiments.
That is not to say that I declare any of those parameters of the thread in question to fall within any of the mentioned catagories; I have not the temerity.
I simply invite others to explore and argue the queries that I put forth (regardless of whether or not they agree with my stance (which I still haven't stated)). Show me any part of my thread which you could accurately call criticism.

Light wrote...

Abuse? Me? Where?
Please give references to abuse I've meted out. I will be happy to withdraw.

Light wrote...


Rude.
Interesting choice of words.
As rude as someone banning people from arguing with them if they don't subscribe to the same ideals as them?

I anticipate your response on all counts.

You completely misunderstand my points.

For one, I never said YOU abused them, did I? I was making general statements about the kind of response that people with their set of beliefs (and my example of hunters) often receive from people that regard them as less than intelligent. And the hunters as being overly cruel.

So calm down.

The primary point is that they are NOT restricting your freedom of speech in any way and they simply wish to be left alone to discuss things among themselves. Is that really too much for you to grant? Sheesh!

 

[esp]

Light wrote...

they simply wish to be left alone to discuss things among themselves. Is that really too much for you to grant

It is not in my power to grant that on a public site with a scientific bent and so naturally attracts all theistic groups.

To discuss such matters without fear of argument, perhaps
http://www.gospelfortoday.org/gftforum/
might be more appropriate?

 

[tablariddim]

I've not looked at that tread, because it say's 'for Christians only', so I'm not interested, but I'm sure it hasn't kept the hardcore atheists and Christianity bashers out, so the title is probably irrelevant and self-defeating.

 

[esp]

tablariddim wrote...

I've not looked at that tread, because it say's 'for Christians only', so I'm not interested, but I'm sure it hasn't kept the hardcore atheists and Christianity bashers out, so the title is probably irrelevant and self-defeating.

Quite. And possibly deliberately inflammatory.

I've not read the thread in any significant way myself, merely the thread start, containing the 'rules' stated above.

But that wasn't the point of this thread.

I ask, does any individual who starts a thread have the right to censor who may view or reply to a their thread in this public forum?

 

[tablariddim]

I would say in principle, no. It's like anyone can start a thread and say this thread is only for me and x y and z, it's our own private discussion. Imagine if everybody did this!

 

[Light]

Light wrote...

It is not in my power to grant that on a public site with a scientific bent and so naturally attracts all theistic groups.

Still not the point at all. Because it IS within your power for YOU to not enter the thread. Everyone is left to their own judgement as to respect that wish or not.

 

[esp]

Light wrote...

Light wrote...

It is not in my power to grant that on a public site with a scientific bent and so naturally attracts all theistic groups.

Still not the point at all. Because it IS within your power for YOU to not enter the thread. Everyone is left to their own judgement as to respect that wish or not.

So you believe that in this (and I'm getting quite tired of stressing this word now) PUBLIC forum, any individual has the right to specify who may and may not view their thread?

What do you believe? That in a science based forum, those who think themselves incapable of arguing their point on anything from string theory to molecular biology to socratic statements, should be allowed to restrict who can argue against them?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

There's no such thing as free speech and it's a good thing too.

The condition of speech being free is not only unrealizable, it is also undesirable. It would be a condition in which speech was offered for no reason whatsoever. Once speech is offered for a reason it is necessarily, if only silently, negating all of the other reasons for which one might have spoken. Therefore the only condition in which free speech would be realizable is if the speech didn't mean anything. Free speech is speech that doesn't mean anything.

Once meaning, assertion, predication get into the act the condition of freedom has already been lost and, as I would say, well lost because you want speech to mean something; you don't want to live in a world where people's utterances are weightless -- neither commit to anything, nor illuminate or challenge you in any way. The impossibility of free speech is one of the happy facts of our condition and not a fact to be lamented. There's no such thing as free speech and it's a good thing too.

http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-February-1998/fish.html

 

[spidergoat]

Is it acceptable to commence a thread in a public web-based forum that attempts to restrict not only those allowed to post replies, but also those allowed to view said thread?
Yes.
Does this interfere with the basic principles of free speech?
No.
Do these rules devalue the intellectual potential of the thread as a whole?
No, they may wish only to discuss something and avoid the kind of comments that too often characterize discussions about God here.
Do the mandates specified indicate a closed mind?
Not necessarily, it's only one thread, and anyone can start as many threads as they want.
Is it, in your opinion, a thread started by someone who wishes they administered their own forum?
No.

First of all, the forum has voluntarily been made accessible to the public, but it is privately run, therefore, any restrictions on free speech here are perfectly permissible. They may be unfair, but that's another matter.

As far as a particular thread, there are many reasons why someone would ask for a voluntary restriction on who participates. They may wish to know the opinions of people with a particular point of view. This has intellectual value the same way that a scientist may wish to collect data on a certain subject or subset of people in society. For example, if I wanted to find out about the experience of marriage, I wouldn't want to hear from people that haven't been married.

You may have noticed that the wish to restrict the participants was not successful, although I think it's best to respect such notions.

 

[esp]

spuriousmonkey (what a curious name! Do you meely resemble a monkey, or does it go deeper?... I digress ) wrote...

The condition of speech being free is not only unrealizable, it is also undesirable. It would be a condition

....et al.

And so to what extent do you propose to restrict speech?

Should it be to what is said? Should it be to who is speaking?
Where is the line (in relation to your statement) drawn?

And in an environment where the limitations of what may and may not be said have long since been set, should one of the inhabitants of that environment be allowed to generate their own branch of legislature on expression?

The reference you give is insightful, but (and in your own words), what do you think, bearing in mind that this thread focuses on the restriction of access to threads within sciforums?

 

[Light]

Light wrote...

Light wrote...

It is not in my power to grant that on a public site with a scientific bent and so naturally attracts all theistic groups.



So you believe that in this (and I'm getting quite tired of stressing this word now) PUBLIC forum, any individual has the right to specify who may and may not view their thread?

What do you believe? That in a science based forum, those who think themselves incapable of arguing their point on anything from string theory to molecular biology to socratic statements, should be allowed to restrict who can argue against them?

Aww, gee whiz! Just get over it and move on to something else, OK? You've been given very valid reasons why it's acceptable, not hurting you in the least, and yet you continute to whimper. It's not worth it. Grow up a little.

 

[esp]

spidergoat wrote...

First of all, the forum has voluntarily been made accessible to the public, but it is privately run, therefore, any restrictions on free speech here are perfectly permissible.

Indeed. And if such restrictions were emplaced by the forum administrator then that is all good and correct.
And as you so insightfully note, the forum has been made accessible to the public. Not to specific groups, not to like minded persons, to the public.

spidergoat wrote...

They may wish to know the opinions of people with a particular point of view.

Yes, they may. Doesn't that make the 'data' gained one sided?
Perhaps I should have named this thread 'Only for people who think that restriction of access to threads is not permissable'.
But then I wouldn't be getting anything from it. And neither would anyone who repiled to the thread. And those excluded would have to go on to form a 'isn't it wrong to criticise access restrictions to threads' thread.

Unless one wants to maintain an insular, unchallenged view, one has to allow free and unrestricted argument, that way lie both far left and far right politics.

Light wrote...

You've been given very valid reasons why it's acceptable, not hurting you in the least, and yet you continute to whimper.

And yet I continue to argue.
The very principle I'm defending here.

Light wrote...

It's not worth it. Grow up a little.

It's not worth it. And yet you argue.
Grow up a little? Getting personal now, aren't we?

 

[Light]

Light wrote...
And yet I continue to argue.
The very principle I'm defending here.

Light wrote...
It's not worth it. And yet you argue.
Grow up a little? Getting personal now, aren't we?[/color]

Just don't get it do you? There's no real principle involved here other than a simple request because you CAN, in fact, go into that thread if you so desire.

No, not getting personal - at least not about your age, whatever it might be. I'm just saying that your concerns are purely childish and are supporting no cause of any type. You are beating your head against a wall and gaining absolutely nothing! There IS nothing to be gained. No principle, no cause, no violation of anything - no nothing. But since you choose to fight this crusade much like lilting at windmills, feel free to continue it for the rest of youR life if it makes you that happy. As for me, I'm finished with it and I hope everyone else chooses to ignore this silly thread too.

 

[spidergoat]

As I implied, the ground rules are set by the administrator. They happen to be rather broad, but they could be restrictive.

Not to specific groups, not to like minded persons, to the public.

Well actually, the administrator can and does ban certain members, and is under no obligation to explain why.

This isn't the same thing as suggesting a voluntary limitation on any thread by a member.

Yes, they may. Doesn't that make the 'data' gained one sided?

Obviously they wanted one-sided data.
If I wanted to study the behavior of mammals, and someone started to talk about how mammals were stupid, and reptiles are better, it would interfere with my narrow area of interest, wouldn't it?

If I wanted to know about sun spots, I wouldn't include data about campaign finance reform, would I?

Unless one wants to maintain an insular, unchallenged view, one has to allow free and unrestricted argument, that way lie both far left and far right politics.

I agree, and most threads are like this. In fact, it isn't currently possible to restrict participation in threads involuntarily other than banning someone.

Let me make an analogy, someone wants to have a conversation with a fellow Christian about some aspect of scripture, would you feel that you should be able to butt in if you wanted? Wouldn't it be rude? Isn't it possible to talk to that person at another time?

While it does seem more appropriate for this person to participate at a Christian forum, of which there are plenty, I see no reason why they shouldn't ask for some voluntary and temporary rules. They are experimental in nature.

 

[esp]

The principle here is the exclusion of people from a discussion due to nothing more than their beliefs. That's called bigotry. (Check the Oxford English dictionary).
And unlike so many newcomers to the 'forums, my age and other information are available in my profile.
I can't "fight this crusade for the rest of my life" because unlike others, I have to work four days out of eight.

Light wrote...

I hope everyone else chooses to ignore this silly thread too.

'Bye then. Thanks for so many cogent arguments.

 

[spidergoat]

No one was really excluded from any discussion. Do you realize that?