Freedom of Speech

[Heavyarms]

I can't believe this forum changed so much in six months. Some people complain about certain things, here are some:

 

1. Iraq threads

2. Masta's avatar

3. Artoo's signature

4. Some forrumers comments.

 

 

I'd like a mod to come in here and please define for us what the forum's policy is on some of these kinds of things, such as making fun of french and stuff.

 

Personally, a person should be able to say whatever they want, like don't call a people a bunch of morons or such. I don't see a real problem if it is as a joke, like artoo's signature. Masta's avatar, it's borderline. My threads, no real violation, unless you want to get in to double posting.

 

Try to keep this one on topic, no flaming, can we try at least?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Heavyarms

3. Artoo's signature

 

As Tie Guy said, complaining about the bashing of certain countries and the strong anti-American feelings in here appears self-defeating when an American guy comes along and hopes to b*itch about the French while retaining the moral high ground when speaking of his own country.

 

Make your mind up - either you want no one bashing any countries at all, or you think everything goes (which, to a limit, is fine with me).

 

Masta's avatar, while tasteless and despicable in my eyes, is okay, by forums standards.

 

I can't see the problem in Iraq threads, but I can see the problem in spamming Iraq threads, most of which deal with the exact same topic anyway.

 

Some forummers comments? Could you be a bit more specific here?

[Heavyarms]

sorry, I was making a general statement about forrumers and comments.

 

and all those are just funny jokes making fun of the french. I think those are kinda amusing, personally. We get made fun of so much, I'm sure there's enough making fun of in europe at the US.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Heavyarms

and all those are just funny jokes making fun of the french. I think those are kinda amusing, personally. We get made fun of so much, I'm sure there's enough making fun of in europe at the US.

 

The Bush vs Tic-tac was mighty fun as well, no?

 

Some people didn't think so. Make your mind up.

[Heavyarms]

that's flaming the president, and I do believe flaming is against the forum policy, no?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Heavyarms

that's flaming the president, and I do believe flaming is against the forum policy, no?

 

Trying to find a loophole in the rules to justify your side's flaming, are we?

 

Here's the deal:

 

You Americans complain about the American jokes, the anti-American sentiments and the hatred for the American government. You do not want that.

 

We complain about your French jokes, the anti-French/Russian sentiments and the hatred for the French, German and Russian government. We do not want that.

 

You can't have the cake and eat it too. Stop the flaming. We will stop ours.

 

The alternative is to let your French bashing go on, but this sends a clear message to all the anti-American people - they can continue flaming USA.

 

Now, either Artoo changes his Sig to match his argument that goes "No flaming against my government (and others)", or he'll stop complaining about it. If Artoo feels this rule should only apply to his country then he's just being a twit. But I don't think that.

[Heavyarms]

there's a difference here you still don't get.

 

The french jokes are just a couple of small jokes, but posting a link that makes a lot of fun at the US president is different. I wouldn't want anyone coming on here and showing something like that of Jaques Chirac, would you? Or in your case, Vladamir Putin?

 

I wouldn't like that. I'm sure you wouldn't. A couple of jokes, sure, why not? But when you start showing other forms of propaganda and do things to try to invoke someone, then you are violating some rules, am I correct? I think you can agree with that.

[Zygomaticus]

Although, I didn't find it funny, nor do I support it, by your standards the Bush v Tic Tacs thread was also meant to be a "small joke."

 

But then a personal attack is different from a "national" attack.

[Heavyarms]

yes, I see your point, but maybe we should just be a bit more careful on what we say, hmm?

[Artoo]

@ C'jais

 

I do not try and keep any moral high ground when arguing for that goal is too lofty. I just try to abide by the rules while exercising my rights. Just to let you know where I stand on that.

 

Everything goes to a certain limit for me, you must back up any extraordinary claims with sources, and no personal attacks for beliefs, which is another lesson in the art of debating. Never attack an opponent, attack his ideas.

 

Let me state it again, I make no argument against flaming against governments, I just ask that you try and go about it in either a comedic way, or use sources to do your dirty work. The Tic-Tacs thing is okay by my standards, and I'll hold that up by my standards.

 

Repeat, I am not saying the rules only apply to certain people, this is being a bigot.

 

@ HA

 

Be careful you don't shoot yourself in the foot with your own arguments, I'd suggest you check the logic in everything you post carefully. This is not a threat, just a little word of advice I hope you listen to.

[Tie Guy]

Wow, this is historic. I actually agree with C'jais.

 

I really don't condone Artoo's signature at all. It doens't offend me like an attack on America does for obvious reasons, but i do not think it is appropriate.

 

Why do we need to attack the French, or America? Is it because our own logic fails and we must resort to immature attacks and insults?

 

I know that i, for one, will not engage in any attacks such as that. I do, however, see a difference between a sig and a thread. A thread is meant for discussion, and therefore an insult posted as the topic of one can only be meant to inflame and incense. A sig is a personal issue, a declaration of a stance, and for the public of the forum to read or ignore. I don't know about you, but most of the time i don't even look at the sigs of people.

 

That being said, i still don't support any kind of bashing towards anyone. I can state my stance through logic and facts, an insult only detracts from my case.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Artoo

Everything goes to a certain limit for me, you must back up any extraordinary claims with sources, and no personal attacks for beliefs, which is another lesson in the art of debating. Never attack an opponent, attack his ideas.

 

Because it bears repeating in bold. Well said.

 

The Tic-Tacs thing is okay by my standards, and I'll hold that up by my standards.

 

In hindsight, the Tic-tac one was probably a bit silly and unneeded, but if you're fine with it, then cool.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Wow, this is historic. I actually agree with C'jais.

 

*Marks date in calendar*

 

That being said, i still don't support any kind of bashing towards anyone. I can state my stance through logic and facts, an insult only detracts from my case.

 

Agreed. Everyone, let's just drop the flaming for now, ok?

 

As Havoc put it, the war has started whether or not you were for it.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Heavyarms

that's flaming the president, and I do believe flaming is against the forum policy, no?

 

That would only apply if the President were a member of the forum. Since he isn't, and since he is a public figure, he should be as open to lampoon as any other world leader, including Saddam Hussein.

[SkinWalker]

I have to concur with Heavy Arms. I believe that free speech is important and that people should have the right to post what they want, excluding direct attacks at individuals.

 

Not only do the direct attacks look ugly and incite anger, they discredit one's position in debate. I can think of a couple of "forummers" in particular, one of whom is banned at the moment, for making comments regarded as flames. Or comments designed to "piss off" rather than inform or persuade.

 

I've reported several of these, even in instances where I agree with the poster's ideas, just not the delivery. I'd like the mods to be more active in warning, editing, etc. if they can help eliminate the flames but leave the ideas intact.

 

I've even PM'd a couple of posters with my own opinions about their posts in hopes that it might help them get their opinions across without making personal attacks.

 

I'm glad there is a thread that addresses this... I hope to see other constructive viewpoints here and I hope this thread might endup being a place we can refer an unrulely "forummer/poster" to before things get out of hand.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I have to concur with Heavy Arms. I believe that free speech is important and that people should have the right to post what they want, excluding direct attacks at individuals.

 

Attacks on whole ethnic groups and minorities are just as hurtful as attacks on individual, SkinWalker.

 

I have no faith in letting religious fundamentals and racists communicate their views. How are we supposed to fight racism when we can only stand there and watch it happen?

 

I'm a buddhist and an ex-homosexual. Call me overreacting, but when a fundamental christian says I'll go to Hell for that, it offends me. When he's ignorant and imposes his religion on me, that's even worse (such as saying that males cannot marry each others in the USA because then they'll go to Hell? Separation between church and state makes that argument invalid. If a church thinks it's okay to let people marry, why should the govt. prevent them?).

 

The same goes for individuals with a different skin colour, different clothing, or different culture.

 

If a statement is hurtful, and does no good to society, it should not be allowed. Statements like "liberals suck" might be hurtful, but if they're reasoned, they're your right, and a vital piece of democracy. Racism/facism/nazism are all different, as they serves absolutely no good to society.

 

About the argument "well, I can make jokes on (blank) because no one here's (whatever you put in the last blank) anyway". Not so. Even in public where you see a person can you tell what that person's like. I'm blonde, but still a buddhist, for example. And the Internet is even more anonomous. And even if you think no one's, say, Chinese, well, I've got a cute little two-year old Chinese cousin, so I take offense when I hear statements on Chinese people, adopted people, foreigners, and people with East Asian physical traits such as cute little black eyes (but then again, if you don't like black eyes, you're screwed here anyway. All the smileys here have black eyes, don't they !!)

 

That's it for me. About Artoo's statement, it's stupid (you've gotta love a person who says the French suck at fighting but still want them to fight with his armed forces ) but I don't know if it should be thrown out. It says quite a lot about him, but I don't think it says something about the French. If someone gets more offended by it than me, however, I won't argue.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Attacks on whole ethnic groups and minorities are just as hurtful as attacks on individual, SkinWalker.

 

I cannot disagree with that. Not a bit.

 

I abhor the onesided opinions of many religious fundamentalists. I get so tired of hearing and reading about how they cannot accept scientifically established concepts such as evolution, genetics, etc. because of ancient and irrelevant religious documents. Documents that have no basis in fact.

 

However, those same fundamentalists, who will tell you that you cannot explain said concepts, specifically concerning dating methods, as they think the concepts are too complex for humans. Yet they will accept the concept of micro-circuits and cathode ray theory, which are used in computers.

 

But it looks like I disagreed with you after all. I just basically attacked a religious group (probably one or more christian cults) and their beliefs. So perhaps free-speech may be important in balancing the propaganda of an opposition.

 

Of course, the method by which one chooses to attack a group is significant. The use of slander, profanity and name-calling would be inappropriate. Direct rebuke of their idea(s) would be within reason. In my opinion.

[pbguy1211]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I'm a buddhist and an ex-homosexual.

Dare I ask?

[ShadowTemplar]

Not having been much to this forum, I'll just leave my two cents (where did that expression come from anyway?)... without knowing the exact details on everything commented on here (I know, me bad).

 

I've seen some of the stuff, though.

 

While attacks on nationstates (or infact any kind of states), instead of their policies, is kinda silly, and puts you in a bad light, I personally find that these usually have an entertainment factor that keeps them head and shoulders above personal attacks. Besides attacking a country says far more about you than about the country. And lastly an attack on a country can't hurt anyone (other than die-hard nationalists, whom I for a lot of reasons find it hard to pity). I think that the site making fun of Bush was just a 'wauw, look what I found on the www' event, so skirt over it will ye (if I found a genuinely funny link (or at least one that I found genuinely funny) about Clinton or Putin or Chirac (the last one shouldn't be too diffecult), then I'd post it too, assuming that it wasn't in violation of the rules).

 

I think that having a Swaztika/Cross/Inverted Cross/Half-Moon/Star of David/Hammer & Sickle/Fashes/ect in your avatar is incredibly bad taste, but, like C'Jais, I can't see why it should be against the rules.

 

Heavyarms: I believe that you have posted the notion that C'Jais lives in Russia. I can assure you from very reliable observations that he infact lives in Denmark...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Dare I ask?

Is that an expression or something or do you actually have a question you want to ask me?[/innocent ignorance;)]

 

But it looks like I disagreed with you after all. I just basically attacked a religious group (probably one or more christian cults) and their beliefs. So perhaps free-speech may be important in balancing the propaganda of an opposition.

This is hard to explain, but let's look solely at the views, not the reasoning for their views.

 

Yes, we've got freedom of religion. That doesn't mean we should be allowed to express any view depending on religion, though. For example, it's ridiculous to think that you shouldn't call Christians bad, but it's okay to call them bad if you're a Muslim, becuase then it's possible to translate some line into Christians=Devils (personally, I'm studying the Q'uran and found no evidence of this, but I only read a small bit of it). Ban the views, not the cause.

 

What I'm trying to say is, let's not ban fundamentalism in itself, let's ban the views communicated by them. For example: Let's outlaw saying mean things about christians as a group instead of outlawing "Muslim fundamentalism". Basically, they're the same thing.

 

That way, we clash only indirectly with freedom of religion. What we're basically doing is saying that freedom of religion doesn't work as an "umbrella" to let you go wherever you want. If a view is inappropriate, it's inappropriate, period.

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I'm a buddhist and an ex-homosexual. Call me overreacting, but when a fundamental christian says I'll go to Hell for that, it offends me. When he's ignorant and imposes his religion on me, that's even worse (such as saying that males cannot marry each others in the USA because then they'll go to Hell? Separation between church and state makes that argument invalid. If a church thinks it's okay to let people marry, why should the govt. prevent them?).

 

Well, perhaps i can spread some light on the situation from a Christian perspective.

 

Personally, i believe you are going to Hell if you don't repent and follow Christ, just like everyone else who's not a Christian, but don't overreact (actually, if you do it's ok, because that's the main reason i said it.) Note, i don't think homosexuality has anything to do with it, and i'd say anyone that says it does is not a true Christian (i do, however, believe it is wrong and a perversion, but that's your decision).

 

Now, it's not personal, not really. Quite frankly i believe that my religion is right, and yours is wrong. I believe that my religion is the only way to heaven. I mean, you believe that eightfold path and what not are the only ways to attain nirvana, no? Likewise i believe that being born again through the grace of Jesus Christ is the only way to attain eternal life. It's only logical that i believe your way is wrong, for that is the nature of opinions. You believe you are right, i believe i am right, both us can't be correct, and one of us is going to hell/equivalent. And if i thought i was wrong, i wouldn't be believing in it, would I? That leaves, IMO, you being the one who is wrong.

 

Now, if you thought i sounded like a pompous fundamentalist christian back there, then read it again.

 

 

I abhor the onesided opinions of many religious fundamentalists. I get so tired of hearing and reading about how they cannot accept scientifically established concepts such as evolution, genetics, etc. because of ancient and irrelevant religious documents. Documents that have no basis in fact.

 

I, quite frankly, abhor your adherence to that theory of evolution that is NOT, in fact, been scientifically established, and, i mihgt add, has an infinitesimal chance of actual occurance, which any scientist will admit. Now, if you want to submit any proven scientific evidence then do so now. A book from before all known civilization, perhaps? Or maybe prophicies that have come true pertaining to evolution?

 

Wait, or maybe you want to explain concretely how matter can be created from vacuum? Maybe you want to show some species' fossils from sometime in between the dawn of time and right now that justify one species changing into another? Maybe you want to explain how through mutations chromosomes and base pairs can be added? I'll tell you right now you can't, so don't even try. And there is another thread on this, ya know, if you wish to further display your apparent ignorance.

 

Oh, and if you don't think the Bible is based in fact, then you need to brush up on your history, becuase it is.

 

 

Now, concerning freedom of speech, i think all attacks on anyone are inappropriate. There's a big difference between aguing a point and attacking a person. Personal attacks are base, immature, and often founded in ignorance or frustration at being wrong. Attacks on anyone, be it members, or groups, or nations, or races, are completely uneccessary and have no place here. Freedom of Speech doesn't cover, for instance, libel or slander, so i'm not quite sure what the big argument here is.

[Zygomaticus]

Now, it's not personal, not really. Quite frankly i believe that my religion is right, and yours is wrong. I believe that my religion is the only way to heaven. I mean, you believe that eightfold path and what not are the only ways to attain nirvana, no? Likewise i believe that being born again through the grace of Jesus Christ is the only way to attain eternal life. It's only logical that i believe your way is wrong, for that is the nature of opinions. You believe you are right, i believe i am right, both us can't be correct, and one of us is going to hell/equivalent. And if i thought i was wrong, i wouldn't be believing in it, would I? That leaves, IMO, you being the one who is wrong.

 

It is quite possible for both to be right. But that's my opinion. I look at God and I see Vishnu. You look at god, and you see Christ, Eagle looks at "god" and he sees Buddha (Buddha didn't like to call himself God), and a muslim sees God and he sees Allah. and so on...It's all a matter of interpretation, is how I see it. All the above mentioned and many more religions basically teach the same thing, non-violence, kindness, and all the good stuff...it's only peoples' interpretations of them that causes discrepancies.

 

Now, I don't think you're going to hell because you're not Hindu, but I do see your interpretation as wrong (just like you explained it), but in essence, they're all the same thing.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

But it looks like I disagreed with you after all. I just basically attacked a religious group (probably one or more christian cults) and their beliefs.

 

Not really. While you generalized and called Christianity a cult might be offensive, you basically described their modus operandi which cannot be argued against.

 

As you said, it's all about the delivery method of the "attack", so to speak. Saying that France has generally been losing battles since the time of Napoleon wouldn't be unfair. Likewise, saying that GW Bush has caused most the world's opinions to turn against him wouldn't be distorting the truth either.

 

When is it allowed to call a poster's ideas idiotic or foolish? Or is it only allowed to call a cow a bovine animal, so to speak? Sometimes a frank statement is preferrable to a long, drawn-out discussion with a person who cannot see his views are false. I usually don't react if someone calls another persons arguments in a manner as this - it does, however, show that they now have taken a very firm stance and must follow it up accordingly.

 

Remember, always attack the person's ideas and arguments, never the person itself. Act is if the person sitting behind the screen is not even participating in the discussion, but as if it's only a battle between the arguments you present.

 

IMO, a Moderator should really only intervene if a user's posts are disrupting the thread with meaningless garbage only consisting of off topic slandering of various personas or groups (interpretation given broad space here), or if a poster reports a user's posts as hurting him personally. Just because someone voices a dissenting opinion doesn't mean he's a troll ripe for banning.

 

No, I don't find Artoo's signature flaming or needlessly insulting the French. I do, however, find it to be more than a little hypocritical if it accompanied an opinion that went: "We should not insult governments". Like it or not, calling Russians dirty, filthy, rotten bastards and saying that the anti-Americanism in here is disgusting can only be interpreted as "Asking for it".

 

When you're finished writing a reply you should ask yourself: "Does this post contribute to the ongoing topic?". If it doesn't, is it a post that people are going to enjoy reading? If not, can you justify the post's place in this thread?

 

To be frank, I don't have a problem with threads going off topic. If it degenerates into small talk or turns into a completely new topic, it must be what the crowd wants. Of course, if the thread starter has a problem with it, I'd recommend the mods to split the thread in two. But if this thread's new "topic" only consists of insulting and mud-throwing, one can only ask why it needs to keep going.

 

Direct rebuke of their idea(s) would be within reason. In my opinion.

 

Isn't this what it's all about, really?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

It's only logical that i believe your way is wrong, for that is the nature of opinions. You believe you are right, i believe i am right, both us can't be correct, and one of us is going to hell/equivalent. And if i thought i was wrong, i wouldn't be believing in it, would I? That leaves, IMO, you being the one who is wrong.

 

Thank you, Captain Obvious!

 

No really, I agree.

 

I, quite frankly, abhor your adherence to that theory of evolution that is NOT, in fact, been scientifically established,

 

Wrong.

 

and, i mihgt add, has an infinitesimal chance of actual occurance

 

It is based on actual occurence

 

which any scientist will admit.

 

A sweeping, false generalization.

 

Or maybe prophicies that have come true pertaining to evolution?

 

Interesting. Have there been any discoveries predicted by your theory? No?

 

As for evolution, many discoveries have been predicted by it. In fact, the evolving feather has predicted several fossils of feather-clad dinosaurs that could not fly yet, which is what was to be expected.

 

Wait, or maybe you want to explain concretely how matter can be created from vacuum?

 

We've been through this before, haven't we? Energy=matter. There is energy stored in the universe's curvature.

 

Maybe you want to show some species' fossils from sometime in between the dawn of time and right now that justify one species changing into another?

 

They don't show these fossils at your school?

 

Maybe you want to explain how through mutations chromosomes and base pairs can be added?

 

I'm not proficient enough to explain how, but it should be needless to state that they can. Call it God's work, but the adding of genes is really just a normal effect of mutations.

 

I'll tell you right now you can't, so don't even try.

 

*Cough* I don't think it'd be wise of you to insult Skin, who probably knows more about evolution than you ever will, if you continue having this attitude.

 

And there is another thread on this, ya know, if you wish to further display your apparent ignorance.

 

The ignorance of evolution?

 

Oh, and if you don't think the Bible is based in fact, then you need to brush up on your history, becuase it is.

 

Sure, if we exclude the entire old testament, all the miracles in the new one, and all the contradictions in them both, then yeah.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Ban the views, not the cause.

 

Ie: Burn the books, not the authors?!?

 

I am mildly surprised that you could hold such a tyrannical point of view... Mildly.

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

What I'm trying to say is, let's not ban fundamentalism in itself, let's ban the views communicated by them. For example: Let's outlaw saying mean things about christians as a group instead of outlawing "Muslim fundamentalism". Basically, they're the same thing.

 

That made a lot more sense... But you aren't banning the views here, just the expression of said views.

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

That way, we clash only indirectly with freedom of religion. What we're basically doing is saying that freedom of religion doesn't work as an "umbrella" to let you go wherever you want. If a view is inappropriate, it's inappropriate, period.

 

If an expression is inappropriate, it's inappropriate, period. Otherwise I agree with you here. But I would like to see it expanded to cover all kinds of dogmatism: Christian, Muslim, Communist, Facist, Nazist, Jewish, or any other kind of religious dogmatism.

 

I mean, you believe that eightfold path and what not are the only ways to attain nirvana, no?

 

Read up on Bhuddist mythos. The easies, yes, but by no means the only.

 

Now, if you thought i sounded like a pompous fundamentalist christian back there, then read it again.

 

I did. But it didn't help. I understand the logic that you employ, but you fail to see the huge, glaring hole that is that you employ belief.

 

*Initializing preliminary bombardment*

*Preparing drop pods*

 

I, quite frankly, abhor your adherence to that theory of evolution that is NOT, in fact, been scientifically established

 

There is a thread for this. Stop spamming this one.

 

A book from before all known civilization, perhaps? Or maybe prophicies that have come true pertaining to evolution?

 

Bah. If it had been written in Sanskrit, then I might have taken that comment seriously. And you want predictions based on the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution? Look what I've digged up on http://www.sciam.com (and before you throw mud at Scientific American, remember that it's a leading, peer-reviewed magazine):

 

This is a prediction made based on the theory of evolution, that's been fulfilled.

 

Wait, or maybe you want to explain concretely how matter can be created from vacuum? Maybe you want to show some species' fossils from sometime in between the dawn of time and right now that justify one species changing into another? Maybe you want to explain how through mutations chromosomes and base pairs can be added? I'll tell you right now you can't, so don't even try. And there is another thread on this, ya know, if you wish to further display your apparent ignorance.

 

Yeah, there's another thread on this... And I suggest that you go there for the answer to all of the above...

 

Oh, and if you don't think the Bible is based in fact, then you need to brush up on your history, becuase it is.

 

Examples, bitte. With sources that are not based on circular, biblical reasoning (yeah, I know I made a redundancy here).

 

And there is another thread on this, ya know, if you wish to further display your apparent ignorance.

 

[...]

 

Now, concerning freedom of speech, i think all attacks on anyone are inappropriate. There's a big difference between aguing a point and attacking a person. Personal attacks are base, immature, and often founded in ignorance or frustration at being wrong. Attacks on anyone, be it members, or groups, or nations, or races, are completely uneccessary and have no place here. Freedom of Speech doesn't cover, for instance, libel or slander, so i'm not quite sure what the big argument here is.

 

Hmm... I'll leave that hanging in the air, while I report your previous insult to Skinwalker to the MODs.

 

The big arguement here is that insults like "And there is another thread on this, ya know, if you wish to further display your apparent ignorance." keep popping up.

 

*Preliminary bombardment completed*

*Surveys indicate extensive barrage pinning*

*Drop pods launched*