atheist, there are many false "translations" of the Torah floating around the internet. Don't believe everything you read.
The most absurd moderation in Sci history
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Lucysnow: I meant, what now between me and you.
SciForums: Oh, that "what now". I tell you what now between me and you. There is no "me and you". Not no more.
Lucysnow: So we cool?
SciForums: Yeah, we cool. Two things: one, don't tell nobody about this. This shit is between me, you, and Mr. soon-to-be-living-the-rest-of-his-short-ass-life-in-agonizing-pain rapist here. It ain't nobody else's business. Two, you leave town tonight, right now, and when you gone, you stay gone. Or you be gone. You lost all your Sci.F privileges. Deal?
Lucysnow: Deal.
SciForums: Now get your ass out of here.
Then from this point forth, since every civilization has been demonized in some manner, I proclaim it illegal to criticize any culture or group of people!
What hate speech?
I can blame whomever I want for whatever I want. Unless I am specifically using vulgar language and directing it against a group of people, then it's not hate speech.
Grow up. Not everyone agrees with your twisted views of history, and no matter how twisted you think mine are, you shouldn't have banned me for my opinion.
I did not say death to the jews. I said Jews have a history of violence and oppression. That is an opinion. And I do not regret it one bit.
I suppose we can never criticize Jewish history, because James R and his nickel-and-dime Zionist inclination will swoop down and give you the ban hammer.
I stand by my statement that that was the most absurd moderation I have ever received.
Just because I criticize a group of people, no matter how "victimized" you feel that they are, does NOT make me guilty of hate speech. I can blame whoever I want for whatever I want. Blaming people is not hate speech.
Bells:
It doesn't matter whether my history is right or not. I can criticize people. I can blame people. I did not at all say anything along the lines of "death to jews", or something similar. I said "The Jews are responsible for many atrocities, including the World Wars", and I stand firmly behind that statement, because I feel that it is true.
And even if it ISN'T, how is it anti-Semitic? Well, if saying anything bad about Jewish history makes you an anti-Semite, then surely we need to ban all the anti-Americans, and anti-Muslims, and anti-atheists, and anyone else of the sort.
ANYONE who says "The Americans were responsible for many atrocities such as the Iraq war" needs to be banned, do you agree James?
Is that Anti-Americanism to you?
I would think not.
No, it's just a double-standard for Jewry, and it was an absurd moderation. The simple fact that I haven't received an apology from you shows that you are childish, and a Zionist.
But that's just it! I can be anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.
I simply can't make threats, or call for violence, or deliberately insult a group of people.
But I can be against something.
James R is anti many things. He is an anti-capitalist, an anti-Arab, and many other things. Yet why do we not ban him?
Criticism is not insult. Brain on for a minute.
I get infractions just for posting.
Unless you learn to stroke the mods then you will get 'hassled'.
Here is one one of my latest infractions:
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2579850&postcount=372
Unless you learn to stroke the mods then you will get 'hassled'.
Here is one one of my latest infractions:
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2579850&postcount=372
Antisemitism is defined as "prejudice against or hostility towards Jews". Prejudice is defined as "a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without recourse to reason; drawing typically instead upon received information or upon instinctual preference".
Your statement: "And Jews sabotaged Europe, manipulate world banks, and created the conditions necessary for both World Wars." is clearly not true. That could be demonstrate by either reviewing history (which shows contradictory evidence) or asking you to demonstrate your claims (which would show absence of evidence). This means your statement counts as prejudice against jews which of course qualifies as antisemitism.
So, are you spouting antisemetic drivel? Absolutely. Were you spouting hate speech? Nope. Is your intent to lie in order to make Jews appear "mean"? Probably. Should you be held accountable for intentionally lying on a science site? That's up to the moderation.
Then surely we must moderate all the "prejudice" against Americans, Arabs, Muslims, and every other group of people on this board.
Except the nickel-and-dime Zionist James won't have that.
And what "lie" did I say? A lie is something that is not true; what I espouse, I believe to be true. Just look at the atrocities committed by the Jews from 1948 onwards.
Except the nickel-and-dime Zionist James won't have that.
And what "lie" did I say? A lie is something that is not true; what I espouse, I believe to be true. Just look at the atrocities committed by the Jews from 1948 onwards.
Is prejudice against the forum rules?
James isn't even Jewish, let alone a Zionist. Aside from that you might be right.
It doesn't matter what is "believed" when you make a statement of truth. You didn't say it's an opinion, you didn't state that you "believed", you just outright made the following claims:
* "...Jews sabotaged Europe..."
* "...Jews manipulate world banks..."
* "...Jews created the conditions necessary for both World Wars."
* "Zionist James" (i.e. James is a Zionist).
Now you are welcome to provide evidence for each of these claims to show them as true, but you wont be able to and we both know why.
Then if prejudice isn't against the forum rules, and you admit that what I said was not hate speech,
...then why the hell was I moderated?
Stating facts, or what I perceive to be facts, is not against the forum rules.
Thus it was not hate speech; and prejudice, as you imply, is not against the forum rules, you admit and concede to the point that my banning was unjust. And as such I demand an apology from James R for his bigotry, though I am not holding my breath.
In fact the forum rules are on my side, more than James's.
You admit that it was not hate speech (unless you have a very loose definition of hate speech).
You admit that prejudice is not against the forum rules (and once again, in this example, it is simply stated as a criticism; and it is no different than any other criticism, unless you wish to call that "prejudice")
And as for lieing, as far as I am aware, lieing is not against the forum rule and NEITHER did I lie in the first place
Then why was I moderated?
Point proven.
...then why the hell was I moderated?
Stating facts, or what I perceive to be facts, is not against the forum rules.
Thus it was not hate speech; and prejudice, as you imply, is not against the forum rules, you admit and concede to the point that my banning was unjust. And as such I demand an apology from James R for his bigotry, though I am not holding my breath.
In fact the forum rules are on my side, more than James's.
You admit that it was not hate speech (unless you have a very loose definition of hate speech).
You admit that prejudice is not against the forum rules (and once again, in this example, it is simply stated as a criticism; and it is no different than any other criticism, unless you wish to call that "prejudice")
And as for lieing, as far as I am aware, lieing is not against the forum rule and NEITHER did I lie in the first place
Then why was I moderated?
Point proven.
Don't know. You should take that up with James and Plazma.
Don't know about the forum rules in this case, but claiming that something is true that really isn't is a lie (regardless of your beliefs/percptions/etc.). I'll speculate that you a are well aware that your claims aren't true (you would have provided mass quantities of evidence by now otherwise). Interestingly, I have seen an emerging trend recently of claimers being asked to provide evidence, revoke their claim, or enjoy their ban. This approach is something that I agree with and your claims could potentially be subject to it, but that is not a decision I can make or enforce.
I agree.
Actually I don't know. I haven't reviewed the forum rules for any standing on prejudice. I *suspect* it's not against the rules.
I admit that the reason listed for your being banned (i.e. hate speech) doesn't correspond to what I saw in the thread; however, I don't know what definition of hate speech is being used. I am familiar with the definition used in the U.S.; however, James is Australian and he may be using a different definition.
Why not discuss the banning with James to understand it better before creating QQ threads and issuing demands?
Well about lying (or is it lieing? I'll go with the former), what can be said to be a lie?
If we can ban people simple because someone thinks another has lied, then surely we should have everyone banned by this point. Evidence is needed to prove a truth, but it is not needed to state an opinion; it's rather like a conspiracy.
Should someone who proposes a conspiracy theory be automatically banned on sciforums? I would think not.
And so again, why was I banned?
Point proven. Either he apologizes or he is a child.
If we can ban people simple because someone thinks another has lied, then surely we should have everyone banned by this point. Evidence is needed to prove a truth, but it is not needed to state an opinion; it's rather like a conspiracy.
Should someone who proposes a conspiracy theory be automatically banned on sciforums? I would think not.
And so again, why was I banned?
Point proven. Either he apologizes or he is a child.
The dictionary says it's ly*ing. A lie is when something is intentionally claimed that doesn't match reality.
That's generally why you go after trends.
That's true. If you are stating an opinion/conjecture/etc., some useful phrases to show this might be:
"I think *something* is true"
"I believe *something* is true"
"I suspect *something* is true"
"I speculate *something* is true"
As you can plainly see, these statements are very different from
"Something is true".
A theory is a model based on evidence. Either the theory fails the evidence test or it passes. If a theory is presented as fact then that's a different story.
Ask James.
Or he is using a different definition of "hate speech" then is used in the U.S., or there are other posts involved that haven't been shown yet, or there is some particular context to this that isn't discernable from the linked post, or... you get the point. As long as you're asking publicly why some particular individual did something to you, you are probably not going to get the answer you are looking for.
Of course your intent may be to simply try and make James look bad (i.e. influence people into thinking he is mean and thus getting political support). Unfortunately that stategy only works when you have the possibility of attaining power. That's not the case for you so that would be a dead end.
Bells
Staff member
So when posting in the history forum, it does not matter that what you say about history is incorrect?
You weren't just incorrect, your little spiel was anti-semitic.
Of course you can. But blame them when there is a need to. What you effectively did was to blame the victims for their own massacre, because they were Jewish.
You are repeating the comment that got you banned in the first place? Your intelligence, or lack thereof, aside. Do you have absolute proof to back up your claims? Studies from a university perhaps?
Which atrocities were Jews responsible for? How are they to blame for the two world wars, one of which resulted in the Holocaust? Please, cite your proof and not from hate sites. I don't particularly give a flying fuck about your "feelings". I want absolute proof.
You have 12 hours to provide said proof. Failure to do so will result in my banning your arse for anti-semitism. And it will be for much longer than James banned you.
How is it anti-semitic to blame the Jews for the Holocaust and for the world wars and atrocities, of which you can't even name one? Are you dim?
Do you think 'Awwee poor Hitler, having to kill all those Jews.. it's their own fault too'..?
It's like saying to a child who is abused.. 'Well you brought it upon yourself for being a child'. You are blaming them because they are Jewish. They weren't responsible for the World Wars. They were the victims, you retard.
Now you obviously have your own prejudice that you are stating claims that you believe are true, and then have the absolute nerve to say 'it doesn't matter if my history isn't correct, I believe this is correct'. That is what makes you prejudiced, anti-semitic and all of the above.
Do you think it's the same as blaming the victims of a Holocaust for their own Holocaust because they were Jewish - which was the reason they were massacred anyway? If we were to take your stance, we would be blaming the Iraqis for being the victims of atrocities because they were Iraqis.
That is what you are not quite grasping.
Not only will you not be getting an apology, but you will be getting another ban from me if you are not able to cite proof of your beliefs and claims. There is no double standard here. If someone had said that the Tutsi's were responsible for their own genocide, I'd be reacting the same way.
12 hours Norse. Tick tock.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Leave him alone.
There is no such thing as "absolute proof" for most things that we accept as historical truth. Can you provide the absolute proof to the fact that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust? Can you show us the 6 million names? Didn't think so. Get your mind out of the toilet.
This is a forum conversation. In forum conversations, both sides state their viewpoints and then put forth evidence, examples, or logical argumentation in order to support that viewpoint until finally a preponderance of evidence on one side or the other sways the ultimate conclusion in one side's favor. That is how things work in the real world.
Get with the program. We have people running around this forum calling Obama a socialist, people saying Israel is a rogue state, people saying the USA is conspiring to destroy the Middle East. All without "absolute proof."
No double standards you say? Way to lie.
Last edited: