Jim

I think self[/i']-censorship is rather healthy. If you think you are going to offend someone with your comments, then before posting you should ask yourself if you really want to offend them. If not, don't post.

We all need that little voice in our head that keeps us from making an ass out of ourselves; still, policy by a government or a discussion board which chills free expression on perhaps the most important issue of our day, is not necessarily healthy.

Everyone's talking about censorship and banning and free speech in this thread because I expressed a concern about doing my moderator job fairly.

Yes, but your job was to squelch what someone said. That raises issues of free expression by its very nature. Maybe it's justified in some cases but I do not believe so here.

I'm thinking I should split these comments off into a thread of their own asking if people think it's prejudicial to judge all of Islam based on what radical Muslims are doing. Or why it's OK to discriminate this way because terrorism is so horrible.

Two strawmen in a row, at least w.r.t. my p.o.v.

I would like to understand because no one has convinced me that it's OK to let it slide in this instance. Policy is what I have to make sure we can discuss these issues among so many varied members with intellectual honesty. It has less to do with what's offensive and more to do with not setting double standards and hopefully creating an atmosphere where members can understand without feeling threatened by narrow mindsets.

Well, you might start with the actual arguments I've made rather than a characterization of "judging all of Islam based on the radicals." I was sorry to see my answer to the "gang" question didn't make it over here. I would have liked to have had answers to that hypothetical.

My point has been that in large part we have a meaningless debate over semantics when we say the problem is, or is not, Islam. What the heck does this even mean?

If I had my druthers, we'd have a much more secular world. I'm willing to tolerate religious beliefs so long as the members of the various faiths keep it from landing in the form of a bomb in my lap.

Here we have a religion that was founded and expanded through mliitary conquest, has historically not been an advocate of the separation of church and state, speaks of "infidels" and "jihads" and, at least in Britain (kind of funny how that poll isn't mentioned much in this discussion), the present day attitude does not respect liberal western democatic traditions as much as other groups. When you say a problem is, or is not, with the religion, how is that analyzed?

I don't think we're limited to the actual words of the founder, although that is not entirely comforting in this case. I think we can look to what the founder actually did when he was alive and what has happened since then with respect to the traditions on which this species is, or is not, going to survive.

So the policy is what again?

Shall I split these comments off to start the thread?

I appreciate your doing so. I think this is a very important issue in terms of the value I derive from this board. I need to know where the lines are with respect to what can and cannot be said about Islam.

Protecting privacy? It should obviously be decided in Congress (whatever they decide)' date=' the Constitution is not involved.

[/quote']

 

 

According to Roe v. Wade, the Constitution is involved.

Colmes is lowbrow, yes, but he's probably too spineless to be a "demagogue." I kind of like Chris Matthews. Certainly smarter, more honest and less pandering than any of the people I mentioned. It's not really a liberal thing, though. I like people like Pat Buchanan as well (though I wouldn't vote for him). And Matthews isn't particularly liberal, anyway.

Heh, yeah, Colmes just doesn't have the horsepower to compete.

Mathews continually stacks the deck on his shows. IMO, he's less obvious than Hanity but no less of an advocate.

I wouldn't vote for Buchanan either but I think his latest efforts on illegal immigration are a great service to the country.

I am an honorable person so there will be no need for a ban. When the admins ask me leave I will leave without causing trouble or making a comment.

 

Bettina

You were asked to leave???

I don't see how. What I see tends to offend.

 

Bee

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men and women do nothing. That said, if they will not let me say what I believe, I would leave. I'm searching here for the line they have drawn with you because I do not understand it at all. I hate to see you leave but I do not blame you at all at this point. I know you said not to defend you, but that is not my nature.

Court's deplore the chilling self-censorship effects of vague prior restraints of speech. This is not a free speech area because it is controlled not by the government but by private individuals somehow convinced that they can have liability for allowing free expression. However, the value of this forum is directly related to the free speech allowed even as I appreciate the high-tone that is often insisted upon.

Sev, you are a prince. Here's some salt. Why don't you find some more wounds to rub it in?

Bettina is offensive? I respect your intellect but irony is completely lost on you.

Interesting interpretation' date=' but only accurate if "afraid" means leery of biting off more than we can chew for no reason.

 

If one jerk in a motorcycle gang of twenty starts hassling me, which is smarter, try to single him out so I can fight just him, or start talking about how his whole gang is no good? Is it even right to assume the whole gang will jump me? What if most of the gang thinks the guy is a jerk, too? Maybe I'm just "afraid" to be stupid.[/quote']

 

Let's see if we can come up with a better analogy: Imagine an alternate universe in 1800. One of the Gangs of New York City is headed by a charismatic leader claiming a direct connection to God. He knows God's will and is the chosen one. Followers flock to this leader and call him a prophet and holy man. His word becomes law and he uses their beliefs, as he sincerely believes God demands, to control the government by waging a holy war against rival gangs and then anyone who would oppose his will in any matter of government. This man becomes not only the undisputed gang leader literally worshiped by his followers but the dictator of New York. His religion spreads, in part due to conversion and in part due to holy war, to the entire eastern seaboard and eventually claims this nation. He wages wars against other countries and then controls almost all of the Americas.

 

Fast forward 106 years: The gang has moderated its tactics. They have peaceful churchs, undergo civic missions but are still in effective control of the civilian government in the Americas. Unfortunately, a portion of this Gang's members still remember the founder's words and actions. Most apply a liberal, peaceful interpretation to the founder's intent, but some, yielding to the eternal primitivistic urge of humans to go back to a time when things were good and pure, do not shrink from the tactics of their leader.

 

Fast forward 100 years: The areas controlled by the Gang's religion is in decline. Other, more liberal nations, have eclipsed the Gang in every measure of governmental success except the survival of the government. In areas of science, wealth generation, military power, the areas controlled by the Gang suffer. Tensions erupt between the Gang and the liberal democracies of the Africas over disputed territory. Wars are waged through proxies and many Gang members starts to resort to violent means. Outwardly, most Gang members deplore these measures but, in some small way many feel empowered by the losses of those who have eclipsed the One true religion.

 

Now let's go forward another 20 years and imagine that citizens of Gang states are starting to question their belief. Due to technology, they can read for themselves the literature of their centuries long antagonists and many come to understand that the strength of their historical enemy flows from their freedoms, indeed, their ability to seperate government from their own religions.

 

Would the members of the African liberal democracies be helping their cause to never fully discuss problems of the Gang. Oh, they may mention it indirectly, but the Gang members reading the internet never really hear any of the free peoples of the world say that the Gang MUST separate its government from its religion (particularly the religions historical attempts to coerce belief by infidels through holy war) if it wishes for peace and for advancement.

 

In the mean time, matters grow worse as the primitivists of the Gang, invoking the old religion, begin to use terror. They destroy the largest sky-scraper in the world which is located in Cairo. They promise death on a larger scale and are given sanction and aid by some allies that share the Gang's religious history.

 

Would it be harmful to discuss this history with the gang's members so long as the free countries citizens expressed appreciation for the Gang's mostly peaceful nature. Would it be harmful to hear that their religion has a history of military conquest that continues to this day? Would it be harmful to call on the responsible peaceful Gang members to exert what influence they could to curtail the primitivists that share their religious bond? Is it possible to intelligently separate the Gang from its entanglement in the past and present with religion? It was founded with religion, was spread with religion and remains to this day, in large part, controlled by religion.

 

What does it mean to say "the problem isn't the religion" for a religious government that exists today, in large part, because of historical conquest and despotism? Is there a problem with a religion when it not only has violent words (albeit ignored by most), a violent history and membership even today attempting to reclaim the dignity of the religion through violence? Is a religion comprised entirely of the words of the founder or, in part, is it defined by the acts and beliefs of its current membership?

 

The first step in solving any problem is to understand it. What we do with that understanding is an entirely different question. To put on blinders for fear of offending the despots of Islam is an insult to those, we don't know how many, in Islamic countries who yearn for freedom.

Budullewraagh. I enjoyed the debate with you but since your post brought the attention of moderators it bothered me immensely. I didn't expect you to take it so personal since I felt I was just jabbing you. I'm a spirited and passionate debator and sometimes unsure of my limits. However' date=' you and Tetrahedryte are right, I do have issues with the Koran, Islam, Islamic radicals, Islamic terrorism, Islamic oppression of women, the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, and things that are just plain evil.

 

I don't want anyone getting into trouble defending me so cool it please and thanks very much for the defense. There is another forum I belong to with a religious and political section that I post in and I will take my more "spirited" comments there. I promise you moderators and administrators that from now on I will take deep breaths before I post in the religious and politic forum and be much more tamed. Thanks for not giving me a warning.

 

So, budullewraagh, you no longer have to answer my question because I won't be debating anything overly sensitive with either you, or Tetrahedryte again. I just can't do that and risk any more hard feelings.

 

Anyway, I'm going to play a Multiplayer game now in honor of Pluto.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

While it's always a good idea to take deep breaths, I do hope you will continue to express your opinion and "call it like you see it." Incidentally, 53% of the British public now feel threatened by Islam, not just Islamic fundamentalists. Hopefully, we still have a home for this rather sensitive viewpoint shared by the majority of the British public.

 

The findings were revealed as Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, conceded that the multi-culturalist approach encouraged by the Left for two decades had probably been a mistake and could have contributed to the alienation that many young Muslims said they felt and experienced.

 

...

 

"In our attempt to avoid imposing a single British identity and culture, have we ended up with some communities living in isolation from each other with no common bonds between them?" she asked. Miss Kelly said that diversity had been "a huge asset" but she acknowledged that the wave of immigration, the highest in British history, had brought fresh challenges. These included the importation of "global tensions" and the growing alienation of white Britons worried by the pace of social and cultural change.

 

After years when many on the Left have either shut down the debate on cultural diversity or sought to avoid it, Miss Kelly said: "We must not be censored by political correctness and we cannot tiptoe around the issues."

 

Well and timely said, Miss Kelly.

It's a discussion about our liability' date=' not your censorship. I doubt you would be that interested tbh.

 

 

This thread is generating some heat, so I'd like to add to Phi's comments by reminding all involved parties that we have strict policies on racial and prejudiced remarks.

 

Please think before you type, and always use the "preview" button.

 

If you think someone is feeding you "emotive BS", don't feed it right back. Identify it in your reply and ask for clarification.[/quote']

 

Okay, let me ask for clarification. Your liability? How do Bettina's posts expose you to liability? Has a lawsuit been threatened?

 

Please clarify: Look at my posts on the Islamic Radicals thread on the philosophy topic and tell me if I have been bigoted, prejudiced or otherwise exposed you to civil or criminal liability.

On many occasions Bettina has offended myself as well as others and frankly, I'm fed up with it, which is why I said that I had nothing more to say.

I thought I would leave once but only because of what I perceived as a censorship of ideas. That is the most offensive thing that can happen on this board and your leaving over Bettina expressing her opinions is an attempt to muzzle opposing points of view. You may even succeed. We'll see.

This is a tough one for me' date=' since I also believe that it is wrong to judge an entire group on the actions of some of it's members. Terrorism and the fear it engenders have largely made us numb to reactions like Bettina's. Too many are saying that, since a disproportionate percentage of terrorists are Islamic, that means Islam is to blame for terrorism. That wouldn't be allowed here if you said that, since a disproportionate percentage of US prison inmates are black, that means blacks are to blame for crime. It worries me that this prejudice doesn't bother enough people.[/quote']

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that the majority of even intelligent educated Americans do not really understand what makes racial bigotry so uniquely pernicious. Words like bigotry, discrimination and racism are thrown around without thrown around willy nilly without an appreciation that not all forms of discrimination are inappropriate or what, in particular, makes racial discrimination so universally condemned.

 

What I really love, are posts that just assume someone is a bigot in a side conversation with people that agree on the same point. It's kind of like when Hanity or Colmes gets his fill of someone he disagrees with and switches to the guest with whom he agrees.

 

I hate the idea that we are making more enemies every day by condemning Islam instead of terrorism.

 

Sounds like a results oriented philosophy. We are afraid of the 1.6 billion Muslims so, for god's sake, let's not be critical. Maybe it will take a few Bill Cosby type Muslims who have the courage to address the problems. In the mean time, our self censorship is going to keep us from winning any war of ideas.

 

Part of what separates us from terrorist animals are the ideals we adhere to. If we forget our ideals or cast them aside to fight fire with fire, what makes us different?

 

Yes, I think we can all agree that we should not sacrifice our ideals, our traditions of dissent, free expression or our belief in the separation of church and state. I think I'll throw in here a healthy respect for the truth. When we sacrifice that, we lose quite a bit of ourselves.

 

Regardless, I will be conferring with the Admins on policy regarding Islam and the Racist/Prejudice warning and it's implementation, but I know we don't need to flame or use ad homs to make our points. Respect your fellow SFNers, please.

 

I think this discussion should be open, not in private between "Admins." We all have a stake in this community and if this topic is going to be censored, we all need to know.

"Defining the beginning of life, the end of life, and the difference between life and nonlife are questions for lawyers, not scientists." - Freeman Dyson

One reason why we don't think of abortion as a moral question is that the US Supreme Court has taken the subject away from the democratic process.

Well, during both his Presidential campaigns, W. borrowed from Catholics (who are officially both prolife and anti-death penalty) and drove the phrase "culture of life" as deep into the national consciousness as he could. Granted this is implicit rather than explicit, but such is the form that hypocrisy usually takes. I've also heard the usual lowbrow demagogues like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. speak more explicitly in those terms. Granted, I wouldn't consider any of those people "credible pro-life advocates," but my point was not that it is the reasoned position of an intellectual movement, but rather just that it is a common position that is present in the public debate.

If someone says, "I believe in the absolute sanctity of human life without any qualification whatsoever," then obviously they really can't have a reasoned position in support of war or the death penalty.

OTOH, if someone merely says human life is precious, we should err on the side of protecting human life, even that human life is sacred to their God, it is a strawman to morph those statements into "human life can never be taken under any circumstances." If someone says that human life is precious but that they also support a war, then obviously they do not believe in an absolute value.

I think there is a liberal strawman going on here which seeks to dismiss conservative thought as hypocrisy. Not that this doesn't happen from the other side, but there is an all too easy tempation shared by Hanity and his ilk to villify first and listen later.

Incidentally, do you think that Colmes and Chris Mathews are lowbrow demagogues?

Then being pro-life and pro-death penalty isn't hypocritical' date=' but someone claiming to believe in an [i']absolute [/i]sanctity of human life and the death penalty would be.

I don't think such people really believe in the absolute sanctity of life. I wouldn't call them hypocritical just imprecise in their language. It would be helpful if we had an example of a credible pro-life advocate who spoke in such terms.

I suppose it would depend on the justifications for each position. I don't think you can be prolife because of inflexible appeal to "sanctity of life" and unhypocritically favor the death penalty. However, this is quite a common viewpoint.

By definition, someone who is both pro-life and pro-death penalty does not believe in the absolute sanctity of human life.

Its a shame scientists had to wait so long for this political garbage. And to answer your question Jim, i do not think its hypocritical to be pro choice but anti death penalty. It's simple, until you can show me unequivical proof that at 3 or 4 weeks that's a baby then i don't believe it is. Whereas we know that people on death roll are people, and the fact that their seems to be more and more of them found innocent before they are put to death or worse, after they are put to death we should not have it. Wen dealing with the life of a human being on this earth you better be absolutely sure they committed the crime before you kill them.

The question was meant to be a bit rhetorical. I can never understand those who say it is somehow hypocritical to want to protect innocent human life and, at the same time, want to punish those adjudicated of committing heinous crimes to death. This is apples and orangutans.

I do not agree with the prolife position but it seems perfectly consistent to be prolife and pro-death penalty.

Being pro-choice doesn't compel you to abort pregnancies. You can even be pro-choice and think abortion is wrong.

I'll go out on a limb and say you can also be prolife and pro-death penality.

Refer to: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/science/24stem.html?hp&ex=1156478400&en=297c7c19068ae597&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

 

 

Now I can't wait to see the backlash from hypocritical conservatives who will further broaden their views of the "sanctity of life" while they continue to support the death penalty.

 

What do you all think of this new breakthrough? I think it's pretty hilarious myself and ironic in the sense that it (to me) is more disturbing than harvesting fetuses.

If it is hypocritical to be pro-life while favoring the death penalty is it likewise hypocritical to be pro choice while disfavoring the death penalty?

I moved my office to the outskirts of my residential neighborhood so I don't have to drive downtown every day. Do I get credit even if my motivation was to save time and money?

We have Tivo, but I gave up on FtN and MtP a while ago. I pick up "George" (as my wife and I call him), along with a local political show, and that's about all my stomach can handle on a weekly basis. (grin)

I like George S. He seems completely fair even if I disagree with him sometimes.

I've never forgiven George W for coining the term the "wimp factor" to describe George H.

I don't speak any other languages so I'm impressed beyond measure that you can more than hold your own.

I genuinely want to read what you write but my eyes just slide right over the words without punctuation. I'm not trying to make you comform but it is very likely that I won't go back and forth with you in an exchange in this mode. No hard feelings but I don't particuarly feel like comforming either.

Free thinkers that you are seemed highly threaten by this lack of proper writing structure.

 

I'm not threatened anymore than I would be by someone who wrote posts in pig-latin. However, if you want to open my narrow Okie mind, I'd much rather you recommend a good author.

Hold on.... ack, I just see you punctuated! I read the substance of that post so easily that I didn't notice the form.

I think you meant "Bud" there instead of "Bull"? A freudian slip?

Whoops! Sorry... er, Bud.

This thread has more re-runs than NBC. Find some common ground, or at least something new to say, or I'm going to shut it down.

Here's something new: Pfft!

Just kidding.

hello

 

though numbers of rockets might not be as significant ' date=' the fact that they could continue to launch during the intensive isreli bombardment shows growing complexity amoung the hezbollah fighters. for those of you who know katushka rockets are not very complicated affairs. fins-body-warhead. main targeting, you point it in the direction of your target. that's why you can fire hundreds of missiles and still do relatively little damage. most never hit anywhere close to their intended target. most missles hit short or long or just fall somewhere. which is why reporters don't say hezbollah lauched a rcoket attack against the isreali barracks in haifa. if they hit it its by luck.

which is why its called a weapon of terror. since you can't aim at a specific target, anywhere in the range is a target. with more advanced weapons you stay away from certain targets and you stand far less chance of becoming collateral damage (fun term). but with these you don't know where is safer.

for the isreali's they attempted to destroy the launch sites, that's not launchers. a launcher for a katushka is a nice long section of pipe or rail into which the weapons is placed or rested on for aiming. plus a hundred feet of straight view to place your pipe in facing the direction of the target. that can be a field, street, or even roof top.

in the past one of the first things the isreali's did was take out the c&c (command and control)of their opponent.

making it difficult for the people maining the rockets to co-ordinate amoungst themselves. hence a rocket launches and survailence picks up the launch and quickly calls in a retalitory strike usually air launched. taking out rocket launcher and crew.

but this time hezbollah managed to use more common communications tools like cell phones to keep in touch. so you start launching rockets, the isreali's determine your position, but now a hezbollah fighter located a ways away keeps watch for that f16 and notifies the missle launchers when it's inbound. giving them time to clear the area. what gets destoyed, a bit of pipeing plus maybe a missle still sitting on the launcher.

so now all the hezbollah needs do is going get some more pipeing and their back in business.

 

the loss for isreal here is that they've figured this out. no need for cumbersome military gear which they can't afford much of and can't replace quickly when destroyed. a $50 dollar cell phone works just as well. could isreal take out a cel phone communications satelite. most likely. but the hezbollah don't own one. they're using common phones that use bandwidth that lebanon rents from some major western nations satelite. and somehow i think most people reading this would be a little peeved if they took out that satelite and you lost use of your cel for the next 1/2 year or so.

 

mr d[/quote']

 

Mr. D, is there a reason you don't punctuate? I almost have to force myself to read your posts. You seem to have good sentence structure, coherent arguments, but the punctuation drives me batty. Please take this in the manner as I'm one of the spelling-deprived individuals of the world. This question is not to criticize but I wonder if we are heading to a text-messaging world were capital letters at the beginning of sentences are optional.

I think you missed his point, which was that the numbers might have been higher had it not been for the attacks. Personally I think that's awfully speculative, but it's a legitimate opinion. (shrug)

Pangloss, I'm not speculating. I was only saying that we can't make judgments based on numbers of rocket attacks compared to zero. That is really a meaningless point. Yes, once war broke out, rocket attacks were up. Way up. Big suprise.

Bull, if you don't think terrorists like Hezbollah hide amongst civilians, I really don't think I"m going to convince you of anything.