Forum guidelines - polite reminder....

Post Reply New Topic

Thank you so much for this announcement!! !

Thank who for this announcement??

Somebody ought to note that being a conservative is against the rules on this forum.

People like Emp and RobertN and snake321 run all over the place with their liberal, anti-Christian, anti-USA talk. Emp was making an anti-Christian topic daily for months, RobertN said that he hopes America gets hit with "a thousand 9/11's" and that "all conservatives should be executed as war criminals", and snake321 claims outright he's better than "rednecks" and that they should all be wiped out.

Of all of them only one - RobertN - was ever disciplined. His suspension was a mere 2 weeks.

Yet let a conservative come in and criticise Islam, and Alex can't ban him fast enough.

Look at Sean, Scrapheap and McJeff. They did not break the terms of service, or if they did, the infractions were far, far less severe than the three liberals mentioned above. And yet all of them are banned, permanently, without explanation.

No JimServo is very conservative and makes well reasons arguments for conservatives.
I'm not sure if Scrapheap was a conservative but he certainly was anti-religious as persons like EMP was. So religion and conservatism are not one in the same. The Sean
person was a racist and nothing conservative about that. As far as the Mcjeff I mainly remeber him being more interested in promoting conflict than understanding.

Of course religion and conservatism are not one and the same. Awesomelyglorious could be described as conservative (though his preferred terms are classical liberal or libertarian; only call him anarcho-capitalist if you want to annouy him; laissez faire capitalist would be my term and is almost certainly not religious; I am religious (and Christian; they are not synonymous) and in the lower left quartile (anarchist corner) of the political quizz, though conservative in some things. snake321 is conservative in some things.

So advocating an "eye for an eye" policy against the terrorists is "promoting conflict over understanding" and thus bannable, but saying that "I hope millions of ignorant Americans die in a thousand 9/11's" is worth a two week suspension? Doesn't seem balanced to me.

No....

Saying we have to wipe out Islam is worth a ban.

That's what McJeff said to get banned.

Did I really say that? (that Muslims should be wiped out) Because I sure don't remember saying it, and don't think it. Yeah, I'm intensely critical of radical and orthodox Islam, but that's a religion, and one of the things I regularly mention is how the extremists are allowed to intimidate the moderate muslims into saying nothing about it.

And even so, that's about equivalent to the "thousands of 9/11s" comment, and so a more appropriate action would have been a warning and two week suspension. But the guy who I presume handed down and authorized the banning never had the guts to explain to me why I got banned - Flagg, you're the first person who's actually TOLD me what I did.

Or um... how about this?

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php? ... ic&t=25899

Criticized Islam. Got flamed by a Moderator no less. Then got banned, again, no explanation.

And yet, all the anti-Israel, and 9/11 Conspiracy Theory topics are allowed to stand not only undisturbed, but vehemently SUPPORTED by the people who find what I have to say so appallingly offensive, even though the so-called hate speach is at least equivalent.

What's with that? What's with the damn double standards here?

This treatment is certainly unjust. The hate-speech instanced is clearly a rather graver offence than yours given that you have not been advocating the punishment of the adherents of a whole faith for the sins of a few; a desire that Americans collectively be punished for the foreign policy of successive governments (whom not all Americans may even have voted for, given you do not have compulsory voting and even those who do vote are not unanimous - though offences are bipartisan anyway - not that compulsory voting has helped Austalia, lol) amounts to an equivalent of precisely that. However do not take this as an unconditional surrender to your point of view; think of it rather as sympathy from a respectful adversary. A case that Americans (or Australians, British, and other fortunate inhabitants of the "First World" for that matter) should be more aware of wider repercussions should not degenerate into an advocacy of mass murder; therein I agree with your argument. Scapegoating of groups is uniformly repugnant. Sins, misdemeanours and crimes are carried out by individuals (even in the context of a whole group, say the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazis) tied to a poisonous ideology like fascism, crimes are perpetrated by real individuals who are accountable for their actions; no amount of lame excuses about peer group pressure shall absolve them of guilt; then it is not a case of scapegoating - precisely what such evil groups are guilty of - but of truth-telling to unreservedly condemn the ideology and its adherents).

Actually, my preferred terms would be most of those things other than anarcho-capitalist, which would be completely false given the fact that I have never claimed a desire to abolish the state. I usually call myself a conservative, and my facebook profile describes me as conservative, classical liberal or libertarian also work and might be truer to my current beliefs, laissez-faire capitalist also has some truth to it as well, but not perfect truth of course as I am nowhere close to being as laissez-faire as Milton Friedman or other major laissez-faire advocates and can sometimes see a need for government interventions.

Yeah, there are non-religious conservatives and religious liberals and everything across the board in that direction though.

I think that to advocate violence against members or groups certainly worth a ban or suspension depending on the circumstances/rules. In regards to the controversy over whether it is being applied equally or not, I will decline to take a side. Further, perhaps in the future, the moderators can keep said critiques in mind and thus apply penalties equally and justly (not to suggest otherwise).

Surely most of what you have said here goes without saying. What circumstances are you considering to be mitigating circumstances? Surely incitement or advocacy of violence is invariably wrong.

MENDEL: "I say we fight! An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!"
TEVYE: "Very good. That way, the whole world can be blind and toothless."
From "Fiddler on the Roof."

Mind you, they were being dispossessed from the homes they had known all their lives due to the edict of the Tsarist regime; maybe Mendel had a point. It would probably not have helped.
CONSTABLE: Against our army? I wouldn't advise that.

Hard to say, however, these forums are more likely to attract people who have more personal issues. Should any of those be considered? After all, a person with some struggles in their life is more likely to call out for a wrong but not truly mean it. I mean, I'll be honest, I have advocated killing atomika every time he spams on us. That is a call for violence against a member(even a short-lived one), however, I would claim that there are mitigating circumstances.

Awesomelyglorious essentially answered this question for me. I would also add that there I think there is some room for exaggeration and satire (admittedly that sometimes people may cross the line of what is usually considered good taste).



I believe that we have had may have had a debate on this very subject. When "an eye for an eye" was developed it was most progressive, although I am certainly not an advocate of that most absolutist form of justice.

Room for satire!! ! To the guillotine with you!! ! Off with jimservo's head!! !! !

Well, it was originally intended to stop the idea of taking life for the crime of stealing.