The most absurd moderation in Sci history

[WillNever]

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".

Crunchy, every statement in a forum conversation should be taken as opinion unless specifically preceded by "it is a fact that..." or some such. Expecting all statements to be prefaced with "I think" or some variation of the kind is an untenable situation for users to have to contend with. As well, it simply makes for bad writing.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy, every statement in a forum conversation should be taken as opinion unless specifically preceded by "it is a fact that..." or some such. Expecting all statements to be prefaced with "I think" or some variation of the kind is an untenable situation for users to have to contend with. As well, it simply makes for bad writing.

I understand the point and don't agree with it. The nature of written English provides mechanisms for the distinction between a claim of fact and an opinion. I think it's reasonable to ask people to at least make an effort to use those mechanisms especially for rather "fantastic" assertions.

 

[WillNever]

The nature of the English language allows for people to write however they want, and, if they are skillful, still convey the same meaning, crunchy. Obviously what Norse wrote is an opinion and not a fact. Bells and James know it. Norse's mistake wasn't in his language; it was in his assumption that only intelligent people would be reading his words.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

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.

You need to learn what hate speech is. Blaming the Jews in World War II as being responsible for their own persecution, based on nothing, is hateful, insensitive and, importantly, factually wrong. The fact that you didn't even attempt to justify your claims shows that they are just small-minded prejudice and nothing else.

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.

If you're going to make such claims, in future back them up with evidence. Nobody wants your raw "beliefs". They are clearly repugnant.

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.

You haven't ever discussed Jewish history, as far as I can recall. I doubt you care much about it.

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.

Based on what? Your personal prejudice is all I see as justification, so far.

I may feel that it's true that you're an uneducated moron, but unless I can back up that claim with something substantial, it's just offensive and hateful, isn't it?

ANYONE who says "The Americans were responsible for many atrocities such as the Iraq war" needs to be banned, do you agree James?

If they can provide appropriate evidence that Americans were indeed responsible for atrocities, then it is vitally important that such speech is allowed and protected. If, on the other hand, it's just an empty claim based on a "feeling", then it may well amount to hate speech. Context is everything.

The simple fact that I haven't received an apology from you shows that you are childish, and a Zionist.

You're still confusing Zionism and Judaism. Go look up the difference.

But that's just it! I can be anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

I don't care what you are. If you're a small-minded bigot that's your business. Just don't expect to be able to air your racism here.

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?

You have some strange ideas about me. I'm not anti-capitalist or anti-Arab. I do admit to the many other things though.

If I were anti-capitalist, for example, I hope I'd have some kind of argument to put in support of my position.

James R is the most intolerant, bigoted, and immoral moderators on here. I'll probably get moderated just for saying that. Just watch.

Water off a duck's back, Norsefire. I get this from previously-banned members who bear a grudge day in, day out.

And for the record, I can't recall every banning anybody who called me intolerant, bigoted or immoral. The only circumstance I could ever see that happening would be if somebody tried to back up such empty assertions with actual lies.

He can call people bigots, but people cannot call him a bigot.

Sure you can. Be my guest. Without evidence, it's just more empty prejudice from you, and it says so much more about you than it does about me.

Then surely we must moderate all the "prejudice" against Americans, Arabs, Muslims, and every other group of people on this board.

Hard to moderate prejudice. Hate speech we can do.

Should someone who proposes a conspiracy theory be automatically banned on sciforums? I would think not.

In general, conspiracy theories are given a good airing here. Peruse the Pseudoscience and the Politics forums if you want some examples. Conspiracy theorists only tend to be banned when they stop debating the point and resort to repetitive trolling. Oh, and if their conspiracy amounts to nothing more than hate propaganda, of course.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Just to add - I'm fully behind Bells regarding the ban.

You have two options:

(a) provide evidence to support your argument that "The Jews are responsible for ... the World Wars"; or
(b) retract your statement and apologise.

You have 11 hours left.

 

[WillNever]

Norsefire:
If you're going to make such claims, in future back them up with evidence. Nobody wants your raw "beliefs". They are clearly repugnant.

If I am not mistaken, Norse was banned only about two hours after his statement. One person asked for evidence... but norse might not have ever seen that request.

You should have asked norse why and given him time to respond because as far as he might have known, nobody requested more from him.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The nature of the English language allows for people to write however they want, and, if they are skillful, still convey the same meaning, crunchy.

I disagree. I could easily write a set of statements and just by being an "intelligent reader", you would have no idea if they were claim or opinion.

Obviously what Norse wrote is an opinion and not a fact. Bells and James know it.

Then you should have no problems in objectively pointing out what makes it obvious.

Norse's mistake wasn't in his language; it was in his assumption that only intelligent people would be reading his words.

You and I both know that fallacies such as your statement above will likely be identified for what they are and treated as such.

 

[WillNever]

You disagree without warrant, crunchy. You are interpreting written statements too rigidly.

 

[GeoffP]

If it's any consolation, Norsefire, I'm anti-capitalist.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You disagree without warrant, crunchy. You are interpreting written statements too rigidly.

Rigid interpretation, narrow defintition, etc. can often be a great aids at finding truth. ;3

 

[Crunchy Cat]

If it's any consolation, Norsefire, I'm anti-capitalist.

Praise the great Myuu (and East Korea) for that!

 

[GeoffP]

Praise the great Myuu (and East Korea) for that!

Yes!

Now if only we could fool other people into following us... :scratchin:

 

[James R]

If I am not mistaken, Norse was banned only about two hours after his statement. One person asked for evidence... but norse might not have ever seen that request.

You should have asked norse why and given him time to respond because as far as he might have known, nobody requested more from him.

He has 11 hours to respond now, having decided to persecute his original claim further.

 

[WillNever]

Some people work 12 hour shifts, JamesR. At least I have. As well, people in America usually start going to sleep around this time.

11 hours is unreasonable.

 

[James R]

Some people work 12 hour shifts, JamesR. At least I have. As well, people in America usually start going to sleep around this time.

11 hours is unreasonable.

Well, if Norsefire hasn't logged in within 11 hours, we might extend the deadline.

 

[Norsefire]

Well, if Norsefire hasn't logged in within 11 hours, we might extend the deadline.

Now you are seriously going to force me to agree with your view of history? I seriously love your tolerance. You're not a bigot at all.

Well surely we must ban everyone who calls Obama a socialist, as WillNever said, because they are not "showing the proof". I wasn't under the impression that you had to prove opinions.



As per proof: the Zionist movement was alive and well long before 1948 and the establishment of the state of Israel. Zionists posed a threat to the stability of the entire region of Europe and the Middle East (as we later saw, Zionism led to several wars). And it was European Jews who supported the Zionist cause; and wealthy European Jews used their resources to promote this hate-mongering and nation-stealing.

Even a simple wiki article is proof enough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#History


But if it is not proof enough for you, then I will retract my statement, and think from now on that you are a great bigot, using your administrator's powers in order to force people to accept your opinions.

So there: I'll retract my statement. The Jews are innocent, perfect angels.


But you are a bigot. A supreme bigot.

Using your administrator status to force opinions onto people? That's just about as low as you can get. Bigot.

 

[Norsefire]

Actually, you know what?

I refuse to retract my statement. I'm not going to be made to support Zionism just 'cause scary ol' James is going to ban me.

Go ahead and be a bigot and silence those that disagree with you. In fact, I want you to permaban me.


And you can go on knowing that I still oppose Israel and the Zionist movement that had origins well before that, which the Jews are responsible for. Go ahead and ban me. And while you're at it, I want you to ban spidergoat, who has criticized Arabs before; and ban so many others that have criticized the Chinese, the Communists, the Americans, the Europeans, everyone else.

I really couldn't care less. I don't live in order to satisfy that communist parasitic scumbag entitled brat called James R.

By the way, your post in the other thread regarding rights is a fallacy; you say you are entitled to things because you pay for them. That's exactly what I'm arguing for: modern society is built upon VOLUNTARY, individual transactions, and if an individual agrees voluntarily to accept your payment in order for a service in return, THEN you are entitled, because you have paid for it.

What are you are arguing for is not transactions, but mere entitlements simply because you exist; and that requires that others work whether they like it or not, and that they do not demand payment; because if they do, and they quit, then they deny you your rights.


Get some logic, get some back bone, and grow a pair.

Zionist scumbag.

 

[James R]

Now you are seriously going to force me to agree with your view of history?

No. This is Bell's thing, not mine. She's running this show.

Well surely we must ban everyone who calls Obama a socialist, as WillNever said, because they are not "showing the proof". I wasn't under the impression that you had to prove opinions.

The opinion that Obama is a socialist is not hate speech. Saying that the Jews were responsible for both world wars is. See the difference?

As per proof: the Zionist movement was alive and well long before 1948 and the establishment of the state of Israel. Zionists posed a threat to the stability of the entire region of Europe and the Middle East (as we later saw, Zionism led to several wars). And it was European Jews who supported the Zionist cause; and wealthy European Jews used their resources to promote this hate-mongering and nation-stealing.

Well, I guess we'll see if this satisfies Bells of the truth of your claim that the Jews were responsible for both world wars, and their Holocaust.

Actually, you know what?

I refuse to retract my statement. I'm not going to be made to support Zionism just 'cause scary ol' James is going to ban me.

Straw man. I have never asked you to support Zionism.

And I'm not going to ban you. Not for this. I can't speak for Bells.

Go ahead and be a bigot and silence those that disagree with you. In fact, I want you to permaban me.

Really? Beware of what you wish for. We used to have policy of protecting people from their own stupidity and ignoring ban requests made in the heat of self-righteousness and pride, but these days we generally accommodate such requests. The main reason is that refusal to honour them usually results in the person releasing the full strength of their prejudices, spamming the forum and generally acting like a troll until they get what they originally asked for.

So, I'll give you one chance. Please PM me if you wish me to permanently ban you. I advise you to take a little time to cool off first. Then if you're still adamant I will happily oblige you. Maybe give it a day or two. But it's your choice.

Actually, CheskiChips went out the same way you apparently want to go out, and he's Jewish. How about that? You're in good company. Wouldn't it be ironic for you to leave the forum for much the same reasons that a Zionist Jew left?

And you can go on knowing that I still oppose Israel and the Zionist movement that had origins well before that, which the Jews are responsible for. Go ahead and ban me. And while you're at it, I want you to ban spidergoat, who has criticized Arabs before; and ban so many others that have criticized the Chinese, the Communists, the Americans, the Europeans, everyone else.

spidergoat has, I believe, already been warned about his anti-Muslim sentiments - probably more than once. His case won't be tied to yours.

I really couldn't care less. I don't live in order to satisfy that communist parasitic scumbag entitled brat called James R.

You don't live to satisfy anybody but yourself, the way you tell it.

Anyway, get back to me if you're serious. But take a little time to cool off.

 

[Norsefire]

Well then the same thing I said to you applies to Bells.

You do know that she is a lowly moderator and you are an admin, though, right?



Ban me or not, I'm getting sick of the slant and I'm tired of the one-sidedness here. Sciforums is too full of bias. It's no longer a forum for intelligent discussion. It's just not enjoyable anymore. Not to mention the folks like PJ who can't even form a coherent sentence, and report me for every single thing.

Seriously, do some cleansing on here, because this place is full of tards. Maybe I am one of them; but it's definitely full of them.


And you and Bells can go ahead and ban me. Again. I really don't care what communist socialist Zionist-loving nickle-and-dime anti-capitalist marxists do. And yes, philosophically, you either agree with capitalism or communism. There is a practical middle ground but not an ideological one; the principles on each side are not compatible. And you are clearly a communist and anti-individualist, and since the Renaissance, the peak of intellectualism, was all about individualism and individual achievement, then you are indeed an anti-intellectual Marxist.

 

[James R]

Well then the same thing I said to you applies to Bells.

You do know that she is a lowly moderator and you are an admin, though, right?

Yeah. I try not to step on moderators' toes too much. If you can't trust the moderators to do their jobs independently, they shouldn't be moderators in the first place.

Ban me or not, I'm getting sick of the slant and I'm tired of the one-sidedness here. Sciforums is too full of bias.

Yeah. CheskiChips had essentially the same complaint, but from the other side of the political fence. Funny about that.

It's no longer a forum for intelligent discussion. It's just not enjoyable anymore.

Take a break. Nobody is forcing you to be here 24/7, or even to pop in every day. If you don't enjoy it, don't come here.

Not to mention the folks like PJ who can't even form a coherent sentence, and report me for every single thing.

PJ reports everybody who disagrees with him. On average, I estimate that about 1 in 20 of his reports are actionable.

By the way, he's mad with me too. He thinks I'm persecuting him - just like you do.

Seriously, do some cleansing on here, because this place is full of tards.

You know, that's happening gradually, but not according to some set timetable or plan. Mostly I'm seeing a lot of resistance to getting rid of the "tards", so I'm treading lightly.

And you and Bells can go ahead and ban me.

Well, yes. We can. There is a procedure though, and a cycle of ban lengths. Temporary bans are supposed to serve as strong warnings and some time out to reconsider your posting style. Those who cannot, in the long term, manage to abide by the few simple guidelines we have for posting here eventually find themselves permanently banned.

I should say, by the way, that there are far more troublesome people here than you. You don't troll in the same way that some people here do. You seem generally honest about your views, and for that I give you a lot of credit. That doesn't mean I'll in any way tolerate hate speech from you, though.

Again. I really don't care what communist socialist Zionist-loving nickle-and-dime anti-capitalist marxists do.

As a non-American, I don't know what "nickle-and-dime" means as an expression. It's just a reference to coinage to me.

Since your description doesn't apply to me (or to Bells, I suspect) I don't really see the relevance of this opinion.

And yes, philosophically, you either agree with capitalism or communism. There is a practical middle ground but not an ideological one; the principles on each side are not compatible. And you are clearly a communist and anti-individualist, and since the Renaissance, the peak of intellectualism, was all about individualism and individual achievement, then you are indeed an anti-intellectual Marxist.

Do you think Marx was anti-intellectual?

As for the post-enlightenment emphasis on the individual, that is a topic for a separate thread, perhaps.