The most absurd moderation in Sci history

[James R]

Wishful thinking James.

Sure, SAM. Toddle off now.

 

[Bells]

Bells:

Yes, I asked for evidence why you don't believe Norse, I expect that if you feel strongly enough about the issue to ban him for it, you should be able to formulate an argument describing your viewpoints.

I believe I did. Unfortunately Norse was unable to provide anything aside from 'history doesn't have to be correct'.

I am well aware that history is written by the winner. But even losers have a perspective.

Have I said any differently?

Its not about who is right or wrong.

So it would be correct for me to say that the British did not colonise India, for example?

The Germans are not an evil alien species anymore than the Jews are.

Okay. Umm..

Where did I claim they were?

Do you believe that antisemitism and racism is a quality of European culture?

Nope. I believe it exists in all cultures in some form or other. In India, for example, you have the caste system.

Did you know that Germans who come to India are surprised at the admiration some people have for Adolf Hitler there?

And this is important because? Ah yes, we get to that..

Apparently its unbelievable to them that historical leaders who commit mass murders by proxy can have admirers.

Hitler has admirers around the world. We refer to them as Neo Nazis. They commonly attack any non-white groups, and their current pet hate is Muslims in Europe.

Imagine that! Oliver Stone has his work cut out for him.

Maybe. Or maybe some people just admire mass murderers. I believe even mass murderers in jails around the world and serial killers have their fan clubs. Why should Hitler be any different?

We live in one of the most advanced times, re:communication. How many people massacred in Iraq? How many in Afghanistan? Is there a way to find out if there are no records?

Which has what to do with this thread?

I mean we could say that there are no deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, because it isn't reported. 30 years down the track, we can take that and run with it and be like Norse. We can disregard the evidence that exists, the meticulous records kept by the Nazis and the video footage, photographs, the dentures, hair, glasses and the like of those they killed.. we can disregard testimonials from survivors and claim that 'it doesn't matter if my history isn't correct'.. I just have to believe that is so. I mean I can even claim that the Rwandan genocide never occured. And in 10 years time, I can believe that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in zero civilian deaths and that the Jews living in Israel now were always there...

La la la..

Denial is lovely, isn't it?

 

[S.A.M.]

So it would be correct for me to say that the British did not colonise India, for example?

Thats not the point. The point is if you said it, should you be banned? ANd if you came back after the ban and said it was just your opinion and you saw no need to provide evidence for it, should you be banned again? In science, if your opinion is not backed up by evidence, do people lose the right to express it? Or does it simply remain irrelevant until it can be supported? How is banning opinions science? Is it forbidden to have unsupported opinions??

The British "holocaust" is not taught anywhere in England. Are they all racists? Are they in denial?

Do Americans learn about natives villages being burned by George Washington? Are they all racists?

People like James somehow abandon rational thought and become patronising SOBs who think they have "struck a note" because their rants and accusations are not given due consideration. All because we're talking about Jews! Amazing, really

All that happened long after the first waves of smallpox, flu, colds, tuberculosis (new strains), cholera, and a long list of others had gone through the Reds, depopulating the continent to such a degree that early white pioneers found large areas of mostly empty wilderness to begin with.

Land without a people for people without a land. Familiar, isn't it?

 

[James R]

Thats not the point. The point is if you said it, should you be banned?

Saying "The British did not colonise India" is not hate speech, SAM.

You seem to be having a lot of trouble with a simple concept.

The British "holocaust" is not taught anywhere in England.

What holocaust? Are you claiming the British carried out an Indian genocide?

Do Americans learn about natives villages being burned by George Washington?

How many native villages did old George burn, SAM?

People like James somehow abandon rational thought and become patronising SOBs who think they have "struck a note" because their rants and accusations are not given due consideration.

Hehe. I certainly did strike a nerve there. Feel free to insult me, SAM. I promise I won't ban you for the personal insults you're dying to throw at me in this thread. Go on - tell me what you really think.

 

[S.A.M.]

Saying "The British did not colonise India" is not hate speech, SAM.

Is that your opinion or is it a fact? Because if its a fact, you'll have to back it up with evidence. It may be offensive enough to many Indians to be considered as hate speech by them. Its like saying they and not the British were responsible for what happened to them. Like the Gazans today, in fact.

 

[Enmos]

..who think they have "struck a note" because their rants and accusations are not given due consideration.

lol

 

[S.A.M.]

lol

Good catch, I meant "struck a nerve"

/you lurker you.

 

[Enmos]

Good catch, I meant "struck a nerve"

/you lurker you.

Thanks, it was funny

 

[S.A.M.]

Thanks, it was funny

Probably a residual sublimation

 

[Stryder]

S.A.M.
If you want to go on about British Colonial Oppression, just remember that India invented War rockets which were used against the British Troops and you could imply that without this technological change made by Indians the Nazi's would have never had V2 rockets to launch at England.

(I think this is the usual play on logic people usually complain about in regards to you, but I could be wrong)

 

[James R]

Is that your opinion or is it a fact? Because if its a fact, you'll have to back it up with evidence.

What? I have to back up with evidence that "The British did not colonise India" is not hate speech?

Who would the target of this supposed "hate speech" be, SAM? Indian people? ...

It may be offensive enough to many Indians to be considered as hate speech by them.

Indian people aren't even mentioned in the statement.

Its like saying they and not the British were responsible for what happened to them.

Is it? Is it, just? Mmmm....

I think you're grasping at straws now, SAM. You should have toddled off when I suggested it earlier and cut your losses.

Like the Gazans today, in fact.

Ah yes, everything comes back to the Palestinians for you, doesn't it SAM? What has it been? Two or three posts without a mention of Israel/Palestine? Need a fix?

 

[S.A.M.]

S.A.M.
If you want to go on about British Colonial Oppression, just remember than India invented War rockets which were used against the British Troops and you could imply that without this technological change made by Indians the Nazi's would have never had V2 rockets to launch at England.

(I think this is the usual play on logic people usually complain about in regards to you, but I could be wrong)

War Rockets seem to have been good for England. Think of it as a learning experience. After all, your wars with France left us with the income tax and property tax.

Now which one of us will be banned for hate speech [is that a clock I hear ticking?]

What? I have to back up with evidence that "The British did not colonise India" is not hate speech?

Yeah unsupported opinions are no longer permitted on sciforums. Haven't you heard?

By the by, does this mean that posters can now be reported for lack of evidence or failure to cite evidence and this will be a reason for moderation?

 

[James R]

Yeah unsupported opinions are no longer permitted on sciforums. Haven't you heard?

Now you're confusing hate speech with unsupported opinion.

It is hate speech that isn't permitted, SAM. Get it?

By the by, does this mean that posters can now be reported for lack of evidence or failure to cite evidence and this will be a reason for moderation?

That's been happening forever. It's called "trolling", SAM.

 

[Stryder]

War Rockets seem to have been good for England. Think of it as a learning experience. After all, your wars with France left us with the income tax and property tax.

Now which one of us will be banned for hate speech [is that a clock I hear ticking?]

Personally I don't hate you or India. I know you could perhaps hate me for being apart of a country you see as an oppressor, but you have to take into consideration that I have no position in the countries running so I'm not personally at fault. (In fact there are a lot of things I disagree with about this country but there is little I could do, it's what you could call the downfall of civilization, "Apathy".)

It's very similar to how I believe you are, I mean I can't fault you for what goes on in the part of the world where you originated, it's all power games done by people other than us and we are of course made to suffer for it.

It's just occasionally there will be something that you detest passionately and sometimes people feed off that, which is why they'll just be happy feeding you lines to cook you in your own stooper.

Incidentally my point with my last post was to identify a blantent Logical Fallacy, not actually fault a country.

 

[S.A.M.]

Stryder, I don't know you well enough to hate you or love you

But tbh, if there was something I wanted to hate you for, it would be for transferring that certain thread out of Biology when I was having the argument with Voldemort. I don't know why you did it and I don't care. I found it singularly disrespectful an action by one moderator towards another. You could be a purple alien monotheist hermaphrodite and I would still hold it against you only for that one reason.

Please take discussion of disease in North America to a different thread. It is off-topic here.

The topic is absurd moderation.
Is it now the role of admin and moderators to determine the evidence given to support opinions on sciforums?

Because if it is, I want to know what qualifications you are forwarding as an authority on the subject.

Are mods and admins going to jump into discussions and demand evidence from posters and ban them if they do not support their opinions in history, religion, politics and world events with evidence?

For example:

Based on the actions of Europeans everywhere else at the time. The Reds, as you call them, were technologically more hampered than the rest.

But as you say, it requires realistic population estimates of the entire NA continent. Failing which we only have the behaviour of the European immigrants to the natives to fall back on.

Now imagine in this discussion, a mod jumps in takes a side, demands evidence, sets a timer and threatens a ban. Is this science?

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Discussion of the history of disease in North America following the arrival of European colonists has been split to a separate thread, here:

[thread]103451[/thread]

 

[James R]

The topic is absurd moderation.

Yeah. The MOST absurd moderation in HISTORY!

Is it now the role of admin and moderators to determine the evidence given to support opinions on sciforums?

Nah. We can't read everything and wouldn't want to if we could. Most of your stuff, for example, is repetitive and boring.

Because if it is, I want to know what qualifications you are forwarding as an authority on the subject.

What subject?

Are mods and admins going to jump into discussions and demand evidence from posters and ban them if they do not support their opinions in history, religion, politics and world events with evidence?

That's been happening for a long time. Wake up and smell the coffee, SAM. We act on complaints.

Also, don't forget this is a science site.

 

[S.A.M.]

To repeat:

That would be 90% disease and 5% combat - estimating combat on the high side, and counting combat with other Reds.
That is a seriously misleading exaggeration of one or two incidents that had unknown but apparently not dramatic effects.

Based on the actions of Europeans everywhere else at the time. The Reds, as you call them, were technologically more hampered than the rest.

But as you say, it requires realistic population estimates of the entire NA continent. Failing which we only have the behaviour of the European immigrants to the natives to fall back on.

Now imagine in this discussion, a mod jumps in takes a side, demands evidence, sets a timer and threatens a ban. Is this science?

 

[James R]

To repeat...

That's for other other thread, SAM.

Now imagine in this discussion, a mod jumps in takes a side, demands evidence, sets a timer and threatens a ban. Is this science?

No. Science is the part where you have a hypothesis and you go out and find the evidence for and against it.

 

[iceaura]

Please take discussion of disease in North America to a different thread. It is off-topic here.

Why should I bother, if you can simply remove it, relevant in my opinion or not?

Moderator note: off-topic discussion moved to other thread about disease in North America