Should he be banned? Yes or no choice. It's that simple.

Thus the people shall speak. :)

Yes, he should be banned.

I don't think that was Dr. Lou's point, though. :(

No..he has the right to speak his mind (or type it). His words being crazy and all...well thats an opinion.

1)he's already been banned as proud syrian.
2) Whilst I don't think he should be banned, there are aspects of the way in which he argues which he should look at and re evaluate.
3) There are a couple of other points which I wuould be happy to discuss with PM off forum (if he so wishes) which essentially involve his attitude to those members who are on the "same side" as it were.
4) points 2 & 3 do PM no favours at all, and are part of the reason why he seems to rub certain members up the wrong way.
5) the fact remains: although he is in no way reperesentive in any shape or form of Arabs/Muslims or Islam (although he is constantly being made to be so by certain members) PM is the only Arab/Muslim on this board (appart from another I think), and since the dissapearance of Ghassan Kanafani PM should endeavour to curb the vitriol at times.

It's the same worldwide: non muslim X acts a certain way noone bats an eyelid, Muslim Y acts the same way and not only is he then vilified but Islam gets put on trial too.

Just watch your step PM

Should he be banned? Yes or no choice. It's that simple.

Thus the people shall speak. :)

the people do enough speaking.

The people need to think.

Somebody state the reasons he should be banned.

I don't think he should be banned because he is a perfect example of someone who doesn't think. Islam has all the answers, it does all the thinking for him. It is important for thinking people to recognize what they are working towards- an environment where we are not imprisoned by our ideas, but able to use ideas in a creative way. Science and religion at its worst inhibit the possibility of creative thought. It is good to be reminded of the adversary, the contrast reminds us how far we have come, and the danger of giving in to fixed ideology and seriousness.

I voted no because even though others see him as "wrong" to them, he , in fact, is right to himself and others that see things his way. Just because someone "sees" things in a totally different point of view than yours, doesn't mean they are wrong....only different thinking. To adapt to their way of thinking and try to understand them is very difficult but for those who truely want to be "enlightened" they must be able to understand All peoples points of views and be able to cope with them. Visa versa also.

No.

Fuck. Dum de dum... there, that should give me the appropriate 10 necessary characters.

Just for consistency, I will repeat myself as per a banning topic:

Looking to Certified Psycho's post, and also the poll, I think people understand the idea that we have no conventional ground rules which describe the nature or degree of the offenses we might ban people for. So right now everybody's looking at this from a perspective dominated by opinions, tastes, and politics.

And I think we all know that pretty much all of us have our days, and we're not going to ban someone for a line we might cross, or want to cross someday.

yes indeed, but also by the same token the member in question does have some onus to watch himself.
Several cases have been shown to me where his outburts at those who are actually supporting him are well misjudged to say the least.

I'd think that if someone threatens anothers life that would be grounds for banning them.

No, because just because he may or may not be obnoxious is not the point, I'd like to ask him if he believes in democracy? if he feels that people have a right to disagree with him. and that he could be wrong & others could be right?

I always thought that forums & the Internet where suppose to be a "market place of ideas"; where truth, lies, foolishness, logic & illogic could roam freely, unashamed, so that people could make up their own minds, bring ideas, dreams, worldviews to a forum for everyday real people, not just the eggheads & the partisans. I don't agree with P_M, but I do believe in the First Amendment, which may be too American for some, & too naive for others, but I believe that if someone lies, show the lies, let people decide if that person is a liar, if his ideas are lies, etc...
minimum standards for banning, should be 'making threats', stalking, flaming, & trolling...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-me-sbriefs22.3nov22,1,3450426.story?coll=la-utilities-technology
http://www.sfwa.org/gateway/stalking.htm
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/flame.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

And God bless Al Gore, the inventor of the internet :D

I think sciforums should have the same access regulations as heaven: according to south park only Mormons and Saddam Husain, sense Proud Muslim is very unlikely to be Saddam Husain he should be banned.

I voted no.

At the same time, if I was forced to pick someone that deserves to be banned it would have to be PM.

Can we ban him yet?

And God bless Al Gore, the inventor of the internet
God bless the RNC for fabricating rumors to crush their opponents!

Can we please ban him now?

Yes that would be nice.

Is he banned yet?

If you find entertainment in watching and debating with the loonies who stand on soap boxes in Hyde Park, for example - then you should find no reason to ban PM.

No.

Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

He's not our enemy.

He's a nuisance.



The pro side is winning.
Can one of the admins just go ahead with it now?

Its best to remove a nuisance. Do you let a fly live or do you swat them?

No.

For as the Profit Cheesus (PB+J B UH) said:

"Let he who is without shit ban the first troll."

I'm glad he said that.


Porfiry, will you do the honors?

What the FUCK IS THIS NONSENSE??????????????????

Why the hell ar people actually voting yes on ban? Are you lot that fucking ignorant and non accepting of deferring beliefs? What if he constantly posts about the greatness of ISalm? It is his belief and fucking right! It is not up to you to decide on his importance in this forum. This is ridiculous. Give an argument as to why he should be banned! Why must people always abuse the privileges they are given?

Its that he is a troll
- He will hijack threads about totally different subjects and turn it into Muslims vers the rest of the world, Israel is evil, jews are evil and controlling the world, ect
- He has responded rude and vulgar to people who have disagreed with him.

I vote no.
I believe in freedom of speech. Even objectionable speech.

Sheesh, it's a tie now.

Come on, folks. He's a barbarian incapable of posting anything that even approaches "rational".

This is not about freedom of speech this forum is about discussing issues scientifically, about following basic laws of logic and argument structure and a certain degree of formality, all of which Proud_Muslim is lacking.

this forum is about discussing issues scientifically, about following basic laws of logic and argument structure and a certain degree of formality, all of which Proud_Muslim is lacking.What's funny is that if I compare that with Dr. Lou's paranoid spew (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34321), which topic preceded and may well have had something to do with this topic, is that if PM's lack what you consider this forum to be about is grounds for banning, there are so many people who would go out the door with him.

Look, nobody around here really wants to agree to any basic ground rules because most people realize that we all violate them sometimes. Yet at the same time people wish to appeal to some common standard in order to ban someone.

Let's face it: If this site is to be restricted to specific laws of logic and argumentative structure, as well as a subjective degree of formality, the best thing to do would be to close the most popular and used fora on this board. Those fora are not about science or logic, and formality is generally ridiculed.

is that if PM's lack what you consider this forum to be about is grounds for banning, there are so many people who would go out the door with him.


Let us have a list then who should be banned and we will do a case by case analysis and make new polls if necessary.

tiassa,

We are not agreeing to any ground rules here, there already posted! http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34522
As for your slippery slopes on how this would require many more to be banned bring it on: Not everyone should be ban for the smallest infraction, but at least those that do it way to often.

This is not about freedom of speech this forum is about discussing issues scientifically, about following basic laws of logic and argument structure and a certain degree of formality, all of which Proud_Muslim is lacking. Then set the precedence by scientifically and logically illustrating how PM violates the forum rules that warrant his ban; also show how you are exempt from a like punishment. In this demonstration, it seems to me that you are the one who is lacking an argument structure and science in your support and perhaps start, under a different moniker, of this thread. From your previous thread about PM, one can see that you dislike his parading of his beliefs, you dislike his beliefs...even if you thought he could present his arguments logically, that is no grounds for a ban. A user must not be able to think or even present their arguments in a logical manner to belong in this forum. You dislike him; that is quite not enough!

As for your slippery slopes on how this would require many more to be banned bring it on: Not everyone should be ban for the smallest infraction, but at least those that do it way to often.
And who should set the bar in terms of the frequency of said violations? You? I dislike the notion of members starting threads to ban other members! I have seen two or three abuses of this privilege. What should happen, if Porfiry wants member involvement, is to have the mods present to the members who they want to ban, and have the members vote.

Then set the precedence by scientifically and logically illustrating how PM violates the forum rules that warrant his ban
It takes time and energy to find and to sort out references, but sense you demand I will deliver.
Here is a law proclaimed by Porfiry:
Avoid posts which promote hatred among different religions, ethnic groups or nations.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34522
Here is PM violation of this rule:
Well first, Israel is Not religious state, it was illegaly established by the biggest armed robbery in this century by an athiest jewish racist movement called zionism.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=498257#post498257
It disgusts me this WESTERN SELF-RIGHTOUS ATTITUDE, you guys are sick with this self-rightous attitude disease, your societies are SICK and you want to preach on us
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=501462#post501462
This is how the Jews behave, by insulting and using obscene language....this is their behaviour in this forum, imagine their behaviour in Palestine !
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=498011#post498011
and it can continue, but it would take hours if not days to compile all the times he has violated a rule or policy, and I have a life, so if other wish to grab more please do.

Also show how you are exempt from a like punishment.
When did I say I was?

From your previous thread about PM, one can see that you dislike his parading of his beliefs, you dislike his beliefs...even if you thought he could present his arguments logically, that is no grounds for a ban.
Not at all my argument was that PM has place to many illogical arguments and violated forum rules.
- Arguing hatful beliefs is a violation of forum rules and polices
- Disrespecting others is a violation of forum rules and polices, its also a Ad Hominem (illogical argument)
- Using Emotional and bias language is a appeal to emotion fallacy (illogical argument)

And who should set the bar in terms of the frequency of said violations?
Well in this pseudo-democratic dictatorship
1. The Administrator can ban anyone at his own discursion for what ever reason he wants.
2. Moderators can demand the banning of anyone for violating rules or insulting them.
3. The common member can make a poll and vote for the banning of someone for what ever reason they claim.
In this case it falls under #3.

I dislike the notion of members starting threads to ban other members!
I totally agree:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32359

Rule supposedly violated:
Avoid posts which promote hatred among different religions, ethnic groups or nations.

Instances you presented as violatation of the above rule:

Well first, Israel is Not religious state, it was illegaly established by the biggest armed robbery in this century by an athiest jewish racist movement called zionism.
In what manner does a statement which is an opinion about how the state of Israel came to being promoting hatred amongst ethnic groups or nations? He is voicing what he deems to be how Isreal came to being

It disgusts me this WESTERN SELF-RIGHTOUS ATTITUDE, you guys are sick with this self-rightous attitude disease, your societies are SICK and you want to preach on us

Again, he is voicing an opinion and not inciting hatred. He feels like this constant witch hunting of the one of the most vocal proponents of Islam is being self-righteous, as you also voice your beliefs.

This is how the Jews behave, by insulting and using obscene language....this is their behaviour in this forum, imagine their behaviour in Palestine !
Now this is an insulting statement when viewed out of context, however, he is replying to this statement:

want to act foolish too, on this redicolous symbol?. suck my Jewish penis, you cock sucker

Now if that is not an onscene and insulting use of the English language, then I don't what is. The poster, otheap, claims Jewish ancestry. PM is replying in kind to a member who abused him. If the moderators are not protecting him, then he should protect himself.

Also show how you are exempt from a like punishment. ”

When did I say I was?
So you are not exempt from the very "misbehaviour" you accuse PM? This is silly.

Not at all my argument was that PM has place to many illogical arguments and violated forum rules.
- Arguing hatful beliefs is a violation of forum rules and polices
- Disrespecting others is a violation of forum rules and polices, its also a Ad Hominem (illogical argument)
- Using Emotional and bias language is a appeal to emotion fallacy (illogical argument)
YOu have not shown how he is arguing hateful rules and policies. In what way is he disrespecting anyone? Show how you were disrespected. You showed an instance in which he responded in kind to an ignorant statement. It was directed at an individual. He can use "illogical or bias langauge", that is no grounds for a ban.


Well in this pseudo-democratic dictatorship
1. The Administrator can ban anyone at his own discursion for what ever reason he wants.
2. Moderators can demand the banning of anyone for violating rules or insulting them.
3. The common member can make a poll and vote for the banning of someone for what ever reason they claim.
In this case it falls under #3.
This is no answer to my question. I will repost: "And who should set the bar in terms of the frequency of said violations? "
If anyone can set the bar, then there is no bar!


Get better arguments! At this point I should propose to ban you for presenting illogical arguments.

He could have voice his opinions in a more neutral matter, phrases like "athiest jewish racist movement called Zionism" is very emotionally charged and induces hate. This is called an appeal to emotion, logic fallacy or illogical argument. He could have said "Zionism is a major political movement in Israel and the Jewish community specifically (state reference), it causes racist beliefs (state reference) it also induce atheism (state reference)." This would have been a proper and neutral way of expressing this opinion.

No one can state gross generalizations like: "This is how the Jews behave..." its impossible to group such a large populace under any one aspect as a exception is guaranteed to exist; this is called a generalization fallacy. If he said "This is how this one jew behaves..." that would have been more correct but still this is implying that Judaism is at fault, best would have been "This is how he behaves..."

This is no answer to my question. I will repost: "And who should set the bar in terms of the frequency of said violations? "

Any one of the three I mentioned. If the Adminstrater thinks someone has done enough to get banish, if a moderator thinks someone has done enough to get banish and the adm agrees, or if a member thinks someone has done enough to get banish and ½ of 100 or more other members agree and the adm vetos.

So you are not exempt from the very "misbehaviour" you accuse PM? This is silly.

This is called an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, just because I could also be punishment does not mean I can't proclaim others wrong as well. A criminal can still testify against another accused. Please learn proper argument structure, you can start with this fine sites:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
http://www.austhink.org/critical/

Bad villains make the movie folks. PM is the required ingredient for a good fist i cuff argument. It's the unusual character that adds spice to any discusssion and not monotonous logical diatribe.

but Greco we have enough drivel on this forum lets try to make arguments as valid, formal and calm as possible. If you want a bitch fighting or peeing contest got to Free Thoughts, Subcultures or About the Members subforums.

He could have voice his opinions in a more neutral matter, phrases like "athiest jewish racist movement called Zionism" is very emotionally charged and induces hate. This is called an appeal to emotion, logic fallacy or illogical argument. He could have said "Zionism is a major political movement in Israel and the Jewish community specifically (state reference), it causes racist beliefs (state reference) it also induce atheism (state reference)." This would have been a proper and neutral way of expressing this opinion.
So essentially noone can talk of religion anymore? It is his belief that Zionism is a racist movement; this should not cause anyone to be upset. Also, he replied to an individual, and the response was directed at that individual. Let me see you calling for the many people here who use the word nigger with or without quotation marks. I see that you are a hypocrite.

No one can state gross generalizations like: "This is how the Jews behave..." its impossible to group such a large populace under any one aspect as a exception is guaranteed to exist; this is called a generalization fallacy. If he said "This is how this one jew behaves..." that would have been more correct but still this is implying that Judaism is at fault, best would have been "This is how he behaves..."

And yet you deliberately ignore that the insult was instigated and that pothead repeatedly excites PM on purpose?


This is called an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, just because I could also be punishment does not mean I can't proclaim others wrong as well. A criminal can still testify against another accused. Please learn proper argument structure, you can start with this fine sites:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/.../arguments.html
http://www.austhink.org/critical/
I'm glad you know the definitions of the fallacies, trust me I need no references. If you would realize, I did not use it as an argument to debunk your presentation, it was a comment to illustrate the hypocrisy of this whole bullshit.

So essentially noone can talk of religion anymore? It is his belief that Zionism is a racist movement; this should not cause anyone to be upset. Also, he replied to an individual, and the response was directed at that individual. Let me see you calling for the many people here who use the word nigger with or without quotation marks. I see that you are a hypocrite.

Not at all, all can talk about religion. The issue is the use of neutral wording, if you disagree wit a religion you cannot say "That religion is evil and wrong and its followers are idiots" you have to say something like "That religion has policies which I find offensive and immoral and I believe its followers are ignorant of the qualities of other religions of better moral character"

Again being a hypocrite means nothing (ad hominem tu quoque) and the judgment of others is a different subject (for other banning polls) from the judgment of PM.

And yet you deliberately ignore that the insult was instigated and that pothead repeatedly excites PM on purpose?

This is again a ad hominem tu quoque (your on a roll here.) It does not matter if others were being bad (there punishment will come if demanded). If someone attacks you illogically and you attack back illogically then you have just lowered your self to their level, there is no allowed illogical self-defense in arguments. If someone calls you a ass-hole all you can do is tell them that is inappropriate, ignore that comment or report them, calling them a ass-hole back has no validity.

I'm glad you know the definitions of the fallacies, trust me I need no references. If you would realize, I did not use it as an argument to debunk your presentation, it was a comment to illustrate the hypocrisy of this whole bullshit.

Well then why mention it as that statement would then have no value to your argument. If you wish to complain about public banning polls then go here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33147
Though even then saying that banning is wrong because it’s hypocritical is still not a logical argument.

We are not agreeing to any ground rules here, there already posted! http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34522
As for your slippery slopes on how this would require many more to be banned bring it on: Not everyone should be ban for the smallest infraction, but at least those that do it way to often.Right now, as it stands, there is only one way to ban: through Porfiry.

All roads lead there.

Ban war topic? Even if the vote is clear, Porfiry can still veto the ban.

Moderator recommendation? Porfiry can still say "No."

Public outcry? Porfiry can still say, "Deal with it on your own."

So if Poster A violates Rules B, C, or D "E" number of times, we can ask for a big F.U.?

I'm actually tempted to put up a list of people I would have had banned at one point or another. But short of open and direct threats, cyberstalking, and outright spam--all of which come in direct relation to our ability to post here at all--I'm not about to ban anyone. Okay, I admit I enjoyed the process leading up to a ban of a neo-Nazi who had some beef with our man Porf, but it's like that Jim Croce song, you know?

And I'm glad, in the end, that these folks aren't banned. A couple of them have gone on to make serious spectacles of themselves; I've had a couple decent discussions with others.

I might turn to another of your points for a moment:This is called an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, just because I could also be punishment does not mean I can't proclaim others wrong as well.Exactly correct, however, what of a case like this when the question is so interpretive? Again I chuckle at Dr. Lou's topic, which sets this principle on its ear: Nobody else can be banned unless PM is banned first.

I'll tell you this much: those who would seek to exploit what they present as a bad situation in order to further their own desire to conduct themselves poorly ought to be the first out the door.

In the meantime, a certain amount of tu quoque can be expected until one of two things happens:

• We all decide to adhere strictly to the posting rules.
• We gather together and set some agreement about what we expect for sanction in response to what we call offense.

No matter how we look at it, there is here the consent of the governed. As it stands, we've all agreed to Sciforums' standards by joining in the first place, and now that we choose to find these standards somewhat nebulous, Porfiry has offered us, through SFOG, the opportunity to advise and consent to a certain degree hitherto unavailable to us.

That we do not take advantage of this opportunity and set some conventional boundaries that eliminate the popularity-contest aspect of the Ban Wars is our own choice.

And it's our own problem, too.

If we choose to not decide . . . .

In the meantime, here's the problem without any sense of conventional standard; I shall examine the examples you set in response, as I read it, to Thefountainhed:

• Avoid posts which promote hatred among different religions, ethnic groups or nations. The standard listed.
• Well first, Israel is Not religious state, it was illegaly established by the biggest armed robbery in this century by an athiest jewish racist movement called zionism. This assertion is acceptable across the board. Zionism is more about a race issue that Israelis seem to foster; atheist is a classic rhetorical denunciation of what is perceived to be false faith--e.g. the "faith" of Zionists specifically; I'm no more a fan of the internationally-sponsored land grab for Israel than I am of Manifest Destiny in American history, though I'm even more at a loss to figure the contemporary propriety. To me, if this statement, part of a running dialogue between two posters, promotes hatred, it is merely inflaming the hatred that is in the eye of the beholder. It's got a particular political slant to it, but one that can be justified in history at least as well as the pretentious "nobility" of Western civilization.
• It disgusts me this WESTERN SELF-RIGHTOUS ATTITUDE, you guys are sick with this self-rightous attitude disease, your societies are SICK and you want to preach on us . . . . Honestly? I'm going to have to ask for some clarification. What's wrong with this, or even the tangential point it leads to? I mean ... I could at least see the argument with the prior example, but this one ...?
• This is how the Jews behave, by insulting and using obscene language....this is their behaviour in this forum, imagine their behaviour in Palestine ! Perhaps a little pointed, but acceptable in no small part because of the comments responded to and the person who offered them. While I, personally, am inclined against such generalizations of Jews, I have recently been advised by one who represents himself to be Jewish that yes, the Israeli issue is about all Jews; it's especially entertaining to watch him try to ignore his fellow Jews who happen to disagree with his politics.and it can continue, but it would take hours if not days to compile all the times he has violated a rule or policy, and I have a life, so if other wish to grab more please do.There are plenty of lists we can all write up about one another that ought to do the trick. I think I'm about the only person here that would derive any pleasure whatsoever--no matter how perverse--from answering those charges.

Sometimes the offense is the plank in the eye of the offended.

However, I'm not entirely sure that people know entirely what they're saying insofar as the only reason PM sticks out is because he argues the Muslim side across language and cultural-reference barriers. We have seen thousands of calls for violence around the world in posts at Sciforums and why is it that only the fiery rhetoric of the most visible Muslim advocate is so reviled?

Calls for genocide haven't been enough to incite bans before, so ... well, while we're not exactly fans of it ... and hey, that shows, too ....

But while we're not exactly fans of it, well, we must consider for instance that the United States' invasion of Iraq, while given a necessary stamp of acknowledgment by the UN, violated many standing international agreements and does appear to be part of a larger global agenda (e.g. PNAC). I'm not about to say, however, that voicing your support for the war in Iraq (as illegal and falsely-founded as it is) is intended to promote hatred. I mean, if voicing your support for ongoing human rights and international convention violations against a people isn't hateful ...?

Which is why we might, instead of writing up lists of whom we wish to ban and why, consider making lists of the form of argumentation and presentation that really pisses us off, and when we discover the common trends, we can discuss the whys and wherefores, and perhaps somewhere in there we'll come up with a reasonable idea of what we expect as posters of Sciforums.

I know that as a Moderator, that would be helpful. And hey ... I don't have the more venomous fora to deal with, so ....

In the meantime, all the posters have to go by is the posted rules and playing connect-the-dots according to past administrative and moderator action in order to see how to interpret them.

aaaa tiassa read up on some of my later post there I did specify that Porfiry is at the center of everything in detail (fine print)
"If the Adminstrater thinks someone has done enough to get banish, if a moderator thinks someone has done enough to get banish and the adm agrees, or if a member thinks someone has done enough to get banish and ½ of 100 or more other members agree and the adm vetos."
also as statement I made on another thread that I think wraps up what you said in the first several paragraphs (not that I don't disrespect your writing style) into one sentance!:
"I think porfiry should make it a law that only mods or him can make ban polls, at this rate everyone is going to try to ban everyone!"

Ok tiassa are you saying you don't think he could have used more neutral language in any of those phrases? lets take this one:
"It disgusts me this WESTERN SELF-RIGHTOUS ATTITUDE, you guys are sick with this self-rightous attitude disease, your societies are SICK and you want to preach on us"
This statement is not just a appeal to emotion but it to is a "you also to" ad hominem, no matter how messed up we are that does not mean we can't criticize others. Second let me rephrase it and if you can prove to me that this rephrase is not less offesive then I will leave sciforums forever!:

"It bothers me that many in the west have a attitude of self-rightousness that dispite their own social problems they spend time criticizing us."

----
have recently been advised by one who represents himself to be Jewish that yes, the Israeli issue is about all Jews

Really my mothers a Jew and she does not give a dam, since I have found just one Jew that does not find her self connected to Israel's fate in anyway I have made your generalization invalid. Beware generalizations

I'm not about to say, however, that voicing your support for the war in Iraq (as illegal and falsely-founded as it is) is intended to promote hatred. I mean, if voicing your support for ongoing human rights and international convention violations against a people isn't hateful ...?

I'm not focused on hated I'm focus on neutral language, those that repeatedly use harsh and bias language should be removed.

Sadily tiassa your argument structure though very detailed has eluded total meaning to me, could you explain how the last part is connected to this thread, I mean If you want to start a poll for the removal of a poll banning and constructive improvement of sciforum's community through individual empowerment and understanding be may guest, but I just don’t see how its relevant to the issue of wanting to ban PM or not.

Not at all, all can talk about religion. The issue is the use of neutral wording, if you disagree wit a religion you cannot say "That religion is evil and wrong and its followers are idiots" you have to say something like "That religion has policies which I find offensive and immoral and I believe its followers are ignorant of the qualities of other religions of better moral character"
No, this is not the issue at all-- not with reference to this specific case. He voiced his opinion about Zionism. The wording is irrelevant.

Again being a hypocrite means nothing (ad hominem tu quoque) and the judgment of others is a different subject (for other banning polls) from the judgment of PM.
Incorrect. The decision or argument to ban PM must depend on the behavior of other members on the forum. If like bechaviour is being unpunished, then cleary, the "standards" if they are being broken, are not being upheld by administering the proper punishment. There are many many others who have made religious and racial quips. You have presented only ONE example from PM that could warrant a punishment: an insult to a different member who "disrespected him". This is no grounds for a ban. First, establish a deorum, a standard. Show how PM violates it. One instance or even two or three is not enough-- especially when the punishment versed in the "Rules" is an editing of the post.
WEP Rules. Check #5 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34522)

This is again a ad hominem tu quoque (your on a roll here.) It does not matter if others were being bad (there punishment will come if demanded). If someone attacks you illogically and you attack back illogically then you have just lowered your self to their level, there is no allowed illogical self-defense in arguments. If someone calls you a ass-hole all you can do is tell them that is inappropriate, ignore that comment or report them, calling them a ass-hole back has no validity.
You are so focused on logical "fallacies" that you miss the important issue. This is a community governed by rules that are supposed to protect its members. One member is being catigated for the very same offenses that many, including you, are guilty of. To quouque is not a fallacy within this context! You have deliberately misrepresented evidence by taking quotes out of context; you are continuing with a seemingly popular game of "tranish PM's image".

"Lowered" yourself? Mr. let me reference my fallacies, What is that?

Pothead has REPEATEDLY insulted PM as have many many members who disagree with him. It is the responsibility of the populace and mostly moderators to ensure that such abuse gets punished or is stopped. I have watched as notHing has been done. In such an environment, if the person being insulted feels the need to respond i kind, it is fine. Why? The precedence allows it.

Well then why mention it as that statement would then have no value to your argument. If you wish to complain about public banning polls then go here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33147
Though even then saying that banning is wrong because it’s hypocritical is still not a logical argument.
Realize that the argument to ban a member or even the process to ban a member is not based on logical rules; this is the mistake you are making. By logic progression, if we allow for the ban of PM, then every member who violates that same rules should be banned. The process to ban a member currently relies on votes-- as one of its methods. This is not logic. A logical argument is not needed to defend the proposal to ban a member. Hypocrisy in an argument presented to ban a member implies unfairness. In such a community, that is unbecoming. Regardless, the argument is not illogical.

Again: "YOu have not shown how he is arguing hateful rules and policies". Thus far, you have presented one dodgy evidence that breaks this rule:
Avoid posts which promote hatred among different religions, ethnic groups or nations.. In the guidelines, it says that any posts fitting such descriptions will be EDITED. Fact: the post still REMAINS. The moderator of that subforum, by their inaction, implictly suggests that the posts does not warrant such action. Therefore, that argument itself is invalid as are the rest you have presented.

Second let me rephrase it and if you can prove to me that this rephrase is not less offesive then I will leave sciforums forever I have no intention of arguing that the rephrase is better.

Rather, send PM your email so he can run all his posts by you before they are allowed to be viewed by the public.

:rolleyes: aaaa tiassa read up on some of my later post there I did specify that Porfiry is at the center of everything in detail (fine print)I did notice. But that doesn't necessarily change the aspect I'm discussing. Running through Porfiry is one thing, but the lack of a standard according to the advice and consent of the posters as offered through the opportunity of SFOG leaves it entirely with Porfiry, so while you might well be talking about the rules, the running pattern is that it's still a judgment call based on criteria which are the moderators' and administrator's alone, and we're not actually obliged to share those criteria. It's helpful, but nobody would be happy with uniform, consistent enforcement, and the ban lists would grow quickly as people argued with us because, frankly, we don't want to put up with it from everyone who would be upset by strict enforcement, and we don't really want to put the time into it.Really my mothers a Jew and she does not give a dam, since I have found just one Jew that does not find her self connected to Israel's fate in anyway I have made your generalization invalid. Beware generalizations Ignore them altogether? Especially when someone else is relying on them to make an argument?

It's not that I disagree with you on that count, but I don't know if we've really addressed the point. How can one be upset with the generalization against the Jews when generalizations in their favor are acceptable? And right there we run into a problem of how to moderate the situation. The objectionable phrase you noted as an example--Well first, Israel is Not religious state, it was illegaly established by the biggest armed robbery in this century by an athiest jewish racist movement called zionism. --how is it offensive?

I don't have to agree with the generalization to acknowledge that it exists. And in exploring someone else's ideological assertions, I should at least keep within context. If I ask questions that have nothing to do with how another person views reality, how can I expect that person to answer appropriately?I'm not focused on hated I'm focus on neutral language, those that repeatedly use harsh and bias language should be removed. Interesting proposition. But how to determine the line? (Seriously, I'm willing to hear ideas.) Sadily tiassa your argument structure though very detailed has eluded total meaning to me, could you explain how the last part is connected to this thread, I mean If you want to start a poll for the removal of a poll banning and constructive improvement of sciforum's community through individual empowerment and understanding be may guest, but I just don’t see how its relevant to the issue of wanting to ban PM or not. It's another way of looking at the situation of people we consider problematic posters.

Of course, if we just want to keep focused on PM and pretend that issues don't exist elsewhere at Sciforums, that's fine. It only reinforces the argument against banning PM or anyone else at this time.

Seriously ... look at all these ban proposals. None of them have passed. Just to review though, from this topic:

• . . . I think we all know that pretty much all of us have our days, and we're not going to ban someone for a line we might cross, or want to cross someday. (Tiassa)

• "Let he who is without shit ban the first troll." (Hypewaders)

• Look, nobody around here really wants to agree to any basic ground rules because most people realize that we all violate them sometimes. Yet at the same time people wish to appeal to some common standard in order to ban someone. (Tiassa)

• Let us have a list then who should be banned and we will do a case by case analysis and make new polls if necessary. (Spuriousmonkey)

• Then set the precedence by scientifically and logically illustrating how PM violates the forum rules that warrant his ban; also show how you are exempt from a like punishment. (Thefountainhed)

• What should happen, if Porfiry wants member involvement, is to have the mods present to the members who they want to ban, and have the members vote. (Thefountainhed)

• At this point I should propose to ban you for presenting illogical arguments. (Thefountainhed)

• I'm actually tempted to put up a list of people I would have had banned at one point or another. But short of open and direct threats, cyberstalking, and outright spam . . . I'm not about to ban anyone . . . . And I'm glad, in the end, that these folks aren't banned. A couple of them have gone on to make serious spectacles of themselves; I've had a couple decent discussions with others. (Tiassa)

• Which is why we might, instead of writing up lists of whom we wish to ban and why, consider making lists of the form of argumentation and presentation that really pisses us off, and when we discover the common trends, we can discuss the whys and wherefores, and perhaps somewhere in there we'll come up with a reasonable idea of what we expect as posters of Sciforums. (Tiassa)

So ... just to be clear ... you don't see what the idea of how the end of my post relates to the ongoing discussions in this topic?

I'll be happy to clarify, but I'm unsure where to start.

I'll skip the first as it basically what I said (or thought) only more convoluted.

How can one be upset with the generalization against the Jews when generalizations in their favor are acceptable?

I don't think I have been talking about how things should be moderated anymore, now my argument is focus on what is and isn't a valid argument, a generalization is always wrong no matter if its for or against something. YOu can easily make a argument without making a generalizations by simply using the words "most" "some" "many" "few",ect for example "most Jews are Semitic" is not a generalization, it may be untrue (most Jews might not be Semitic) but the premise is still logical.

--how is it offensive?
I don't have to agree with the generalization to acknowledge that it exists. And in exploring someone else's ideological assertions, I should at least keep within context. If I ask questions that have nothing to do with how another person views reality, how can I expect that person to answer appropriately?

First I'll repeat my self its not about offensiveness as it is about neutrality, though the "atheist Jewish racist" is rather unnerving (I can't really imagine a atheist Jew).
Second generalization virtually do not exist, they are erroneous by nature and not the whole truth.
thrid after this I don't really follow your argument anymore.

Interesting proposition. But how to determine the line?
Easy: the more people it arouses emotionally the more its a appeal to emotion, Its very hard not to piss people off but its pretty easy being neutral enough in your arguments that people won’t demand your banishment.

As for the end no I still do not understand how it has context here, the poll asks if you want to ban PM, yes/no your answer should not vary just because we don’t believe in public banning, or if you think the poll will ever make it or not, just answer the question and state your reasons which should be in context to PM and what PM does or had done only.

Oh god thefountainhed posted to, ok thats it I'm going off for a few days I can't spend hours of my days arguing with people. If possible try to make arguments shorter please.

Bye Fetus. Any of the 21 fools who voted for the ban can respond.

Easy: the more people it arouses emotionally the more its a appeal to emotion, Its very hard not to piss people off but its pretty easy being neutral enough in your arguments that people won’t demand your banishment.Lost in the messy archives of wire stories flying around the globe in the immediate wake of 9/11 were two capsule stories about arrests on that day. One man praised Allah publicly when he heard the towers had been hit. The other started sermonizing, and this one in New York City that this was the result of American foreign policy. Both men were arrested "for their safety." In other words, a mob was about to kill them.

To the other, it was Ozzy Osbourne--an Englishman at the height of his 1980s infamy--who reminded us that the great thing about America is that "you have the right to be offended."

I would point to the recently-closed topic, "Twenty-first century hijab (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34548)," in which PM wrote--
It is this sort of action that wins America the hearts and minds of the Muslims all over the world.

It is this action which confirms to the muslim world that America really stands for religious freedom and human rights.

It is this action which exposes the Islamic fanatics' big lie in which they use to recruite more jihadis ( America is NOT waging war on Islam ).

This little girl is an American, Black and MUSLIM, preserving her rights is preserving the rights of every american.--only to be asked, in a roundabout manner, what he was so upset about, be accused of plagiarism (the phrase isn't found by Google), and as a last resort is accused of sarcasm.

The discussion degenerated from there. Guess who's absent from that degeneration?

Let that serve as an example of how PM is not the problem here.

Your inflammatory line:
Bye Fetus. Any of the 21 fools who voted for the ban can respond.
rules:
3. Stereotyping and name-calling Be careful of assigning character features to another poster because of his or her membership of a group (such as a particular religious belief system). It is acceptable to point out similarities between members of groups, but only as long as this is backed up by some kind of argument or evidence. Posts which resort to name-calling will be edited or deleted. Unacceptable posts include: People like you are nothing more than blind followers of authority. All Jews want to rid the world of the Palestinian people. Muslims (like you) are mindless fools who don't believe in the real God.

you are not allowed to call us fools you idiot.

See now what you have done. Your actions provoked an ad hominim attack.

Shit guys, we're all supposed to give opinions... he just does it moreso then you. And anyway, I'd just come back with a different account so banning is irrelevant.

Shit guys, we're all supposed to give opinions... he just does it moreso then you. And anyway, I'd just come back with a different account so banning is irrelevant.

Until porf bans your IP address.

Or contacts your ISP.

you are not allowed to call us fools you idiot.

See now what you have done. Your actions provoked an ad hominim attack.
Mother of GOD! How dare you insult me? And the cycle continues, you name calling fucking bitch, you need to be banned.

By the way, I think the author of this: " All Jews want to rid the world of the Palestinian people. Muslims (like you) are mindless fools who don't believe in the real God. " , although he presented quoted text as an example of what not to do, exercised some sick joy in the impunity of his words. Ban him.

Arghh.
Stop acting like a bunch of panzies. PM says a lot of shit, but it's within his right to do so. Deal with it and stop whining about how it affects you, or how he hijacks topics.
People need something to hate.

There is no "rights" here, this is not a country or state or anything, its a internet forum and no laws apply here except the law of the administrator, and (at present) the law allows us to call of the banishment of anyone we want for what ever reasons.

DONT BAN THE GUY! I see something good in him. Although he loves calling his opponents "liars" Ive never seen him go lower than than. He's pretty ok. LEAVE HIM ALONE!

There is no "rights" here, this is not a country or state or anything, its a internet forum and no laws apply here except the law of the administrator, and (at present) the law allows us to call of the banishment of anyone we want for what ever reasons. I'm of the opinion, having observed the evolution of the Administrative Rule, that Porfiry follows certain Rules of Integrity. While I can certainly be wrong, I can say that I have observed and interpreted the following:

• Porfiry never wanted to have to babysit us. He hoped we could get along on our own.
• Porfiry doesn't ban or administrate arbitrarily. He seeks a certain consistency in his actions.
• The "spirit" of Sciforums bears a certain, undetermined importance to our man Porfiry that extends beyond merely being the creator and owner and administrator of this site.
• Moderation and administrative intervention has been slow in coming specifically for these reasons.

I could easily be wrong about any and all of those. But what it creates for me is the appearance of "rights" granted: PM does have a right to participate in the fullest extent of discussion allowed here. His posts only stick out because his values lead him to conclusions that are not nearly as familiar to most of us.

And, as a specific editorial comment, the unusual amount of negative focus given those differences only reinforces notions of the superficiality of the Western perspective; it hints--at the very least, if not downright proclaims--much about our priorities of classification.

Yes and according the laws Profiry displayed PM as disobeyed several of them and we can demand banishment for that. Yes there are many others opposite to PM that have commented the same crimes repeatedly and yes it unfair they are not benign charge with banishment (actually some of them have beenm, look into the records) but that has no relevance to this charge.

My longer-term recommendation is to keep an eye on the new rules posted in the Religion (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34473) forum. The times they are a-changin'.

As the rules become more and more concrete, it will be easier to make cases for administrative action.

And I'm well aware of the ban records. If I think back to the first banning I watched happen, very few of us would be here.

Take profanity, for instance. There was a time when people complained to the moderators about the mere presence of profanity.

But the posters insisted, and we've largely been allowed to say whatever the fuck we want.

And even that's a-changin', as people get sick of drinking from ******** wells.

The boundaries of the situation are changing. Sciforums only becomes more autocratic by necessity, and if people don't want to use SFOG to establish a broader convention of rules, then our mere membership signals our consent to whatever form of governance comes to give some order and utility to these boards.

Just the other day, incidentally, someone pointed out to me that this is Sciforums, and therefore only scientific discussion should be allowed.

Real estate in Sciforums-world will become mighty cheap if we invoke that standard.

It's all in what we, the posters want.

tiassa,

so are you saying that if we let this banning go through then all hell will break lose and we will be placed under ever stricter rules and regulations until its 1984, err internet forum version of 1984 that is?

[b]
Mother of GOD! How dare you insult me? And the cycle continues, you name calling fucking bitch, you need to be banned.


Yes please...

so are you saying that if we let this banning go through then all hell will break lose and we will be placed under ever stricter rules and regulations until its 1984, err internet forum version of 1984 that is?Where ever do you get that?

Listen to Tiassa; he speaks the truth. The times they are a-changin'. I'm taking James R's rules for the Religion forum and adapting them to WE&P. Once the administration of this site has figured out what the rules are, we can apply them. In the mean time, everyone try to ban everyone, it's pretty funny.

Edit: Goofy already got his version up for World Events. So I put mine up for Politics.

It is pretty funny how meaningless this subforum is. I think it should be banned.

tiassa,

Then what are you saying? and say it in smaller more concise sentences As I have a attention span of a small aborted mammal.

WCF

Something about being fair from the outset, as opposed to being fair as a last resort.

Dr. Lou

It occurs to me that, since this subforum is composed of and intended for our contributions, we are the only ones to blame for the lack of meaning. That would indicate that the subforum should stay and the rest of us should go . . . er . . . however that works.

That would indicate that the subforum should stay and the rest of us should go . . . er . . . however that works.

You are leaving sciforums?

cool...

So who says were being unfair, banning polls for all those that many have mentioned deserve it more then Proud_Muslim can be called up any anytime, just because no one seems to want to thus means that we should not ban Proud_Muslim?

Why're you so bothered about banning PM? If you can't deal with an annoying member of an ONLINE COMMUNITY, how the fuck do you deal with real stuff?
You're allowing an anonymous individual on an online forum to piss the crap out of you.
Sad. Very sad.

I'm not bothered by PM I'm not offten on the political and religious subforums. Most people are not bother by raving lunatics in other cities; that does not mean they can’t vote to have them pulled of the streets does it?

You are leaving sciforums? Personally, I think Sciforums would be vastly improved if we either gave reading lessons to posters or merely banned all the illiterates.

Spurious, when are you going to learn to read so you can stop wasting your time on false issues of your own imagining?

Really, on the one hand it's rather disruptive and annoying, to the other if it's not intentional it's a handicap of yours. Either way, there's something amiss about your priorities. Straighten it out, and you'll find it much easier to read two sentences without confusing yourself so deeply.

So:

(A) Learn to read
(B) Read my post again
(C) Try your question again

Illiteracy is a very ugly color. Stupidity even worse. Stop wasting my time and forum space with unrelated digressions.

How about required lesson on critical reasoning and proper argument skills for getting ride of that stupidity part.

Looks like he isn't going any where.


Crap.

I did not think he would besides there needs to be over 100 votes before its over.

If you can't deal with an annoying member of an ONLINE COMMUNITY, how the fuck do you deal with real stuff?
I can't punch him in the face here.
And lets face it, no one would behave that annoyingly in real life and expect to live.

Personally, I think Sciforums would be vastly improved if we either gave reading lessons to posters or merely banned all the illiterates.

Spurious, when are you going to learn to read so you can stop wasting your time on false issues of your own imagining?

Really, on the one hand it's rather disruptive and annoying, to the other if it's not intentional it's a handicap of yours. Either way, there's something amiss about your priorities. Straighten it out, and you'll find it much easier to read two sentences without confusing yourself so deeply.

So:

(A) Learn to read
(B) Read my post again
(C) Try your question again

Illiteracy is a very ugly color. Stupidity even worse. Stop wasting my time and forum space with unrelated digressions.

At least I can write.

//I'm not bothered by PM I'm not offten on the political and religious subforums. Most people are not bother by raving lunatics in other cities; that does not mean they can’t vote to have them pulled of the streets does it? //

Whatever gets you off man. You're the loser who's so desperate to ban some guy you've never seen, who's managed to piss you off over the internet. Idiot.

I' m not desperate about it either, a poll was presented, I know the guy did not follow the rules often and so I voted based of logic alone.

As for a comment about me being a loser and a idiot: it looks like your the one that has emotion about this, so much so that you can't even write a valid argument.

Not a valid argument in your desperate eyes.

No not a valid argument in the eyes of logic and philosophical reasoning. Look up ad hominem: Its not valid to say someone is wrong because of traits they might or might not have, You can only say someone is wrong based of evidence against their argument not character.

Come now children, lets play nicely. The issue at hand is this; should PM be banned? If he were banned then we wouldn't have the discussions we have now about him or his threads. We can all learn either from him or each other by introducing new ideas and thoughts that other wise would never be born (if he were to be banned). All we have to do then is to simply take it or leave it. Okay? :)

The arguemtn against Proud Muslim's banning seems to be fairly weak, in that it consists only of "we all break the rules sometimes."

I agree.
Once in awhile we all make posts trying to push our ideas on others and not even attempting to actually converse with anybody.
Once in awhile some of us threaten the lives of someone/group (although usually jokingly... I hope).
Once in awhile some of us post the same basic thing over an over.
Once in awhile we all jump to unfounded conclusions.
Once in awhile we are all assholes.

The key issue here is 'once in awhile...'

Proud Muslim seems to be much more consistent in his lack of conversation then anyone else on this board. At no time have I actually seen this person hold a discussion with anyone. For PM, this board appears to only to serve as a place for him to advertise his ideas.

He shouldn't be banned because he breaks 'community standards'/rules.
He should be banned because he does so consistently.

Ban PM?

Nope.

We need him. (Sort of)
Dee Cee

I' m not desperate about it either, a poll was presented, I know the guy did not follow the rules often and so I voted based of logic alone.
Do you do everything on the basis of 'logic alone' Fetus?

Your sex life must suck.
Mind you, where's the logic in sucking?

Dee Cee

How is it that we need him, DeeCee?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. He definitely presents a contrasting view.

He does it in a vile, belligerent, and antagoinzing way.

You don't even take this seriously.

All this guy does is arrogantly espouse his own agenda.

If you need him to remind you that you're normal, you're probably not normal.

"All this guy does is arrogantly espouse his own agenda."
That is just too funny. Ban on the grounds of being too arrogant and opinionated. I arrogantly assert your stupidity!

Zen proverb: listen to what a man says, not how he says it.

That is just too funny. Ban on the grounds of being too arrogant and opinionated.

Oh, come on, man. We can all be arrogant and impervious to persuasion sometimes, but PM is consistent in both that and his dragging 'his agenda' into every single thread in which he posts.

Has he ever written a post that did not refer to Allah, Mohammed, or Zionists/Jews?

DeeCee,

I use logic on arguments mainly…

My sex life sometimes involves bondage (well just that on time, but I'm trying to get a girl friend willing to do that again.)

No not a valid argument in the eyes of logic and philosophical reasoning. Look up ad hominem: Its not valid to say someone is wrong because of traits they might or might not have, You can only say someone is wrong based of evidence against their argument not character.

Based on your argument, which indicated your desperation to ban PM, godknows why, i have asserted my assumption. PM can express his own point of view if he wants to. Why're you so eager to shut him down?
Hahahaha. Philosophical reasoning in a ban PM thread?

You can't ban someone because you disagree with their ideology or beliefs. Sure he can be a pain in the butt sometimes (aren't we all?), but think of all the others who are just like him, if not worse. Hell, I can think of several others who deserve the boot more than PM. He has his (many) ranting moments, but he also questions the status quo and he's come out with some good points which have led to many many discussions on here.

If he breaks the fundamental (bannable) rules of the forum, then yeah, he should be banned, like all of us if we also break the rules. However just banning him because he's in your face about his beliefs is wrong. If he's that bothersome to you, it's easy. Put him on ignore.

Ok so he rants about his views, big deal so do others, you just gotta learn whats a valid point, and whats just bias crap, he wont be a problem once you can distinguish between the good points he makes, and his pointless rants against others, besides if you ban him he'll come back with a different name, why bother?

If his religon is the lens which he views his life through it is still a rational if extreme view point. As long as he does not break the rules, we should allow him a voice.

laughing weasel and others,

But he did break the rules repeatedly that’s why we want him banished, not because he's a Muslim fanatic.

Well, technically, I do want him banned because he's a fanatic. If he wasn't a fanatic he probably wouldn't be so consitent in his failure to actually discuss. I could care les about the muslim part of the fanatic.

WCF

What separates his rulebreaking from anyone else's is the fact that he is a Muslim. People apparently won't tolerate of Muslims around here what they will tolerate of Christians, Jews, and atheists.

That's what people calling for his banning seem to not understand, or not wish to acknowledge.

not at all I quoted several violations that were purely logic fallacies and had nothing to do with him being Muslim. I do remember many non-muslims being banished before for the same or similar violations, remember spookz and Wraith? If some wants to banish him because he's a Muslim that’s there fault that does not me it wrong to banish him because of other violations.

not at all I quoted several violations that were purely logic fallacies and had nothing to do with him being MuslimBeside the point.

Spookz and Wraith are a different case; it wasn't just their behavior, but their overt reaction to advice from moderators and administration regarding their behavior.

The thing is that nobody called for bannings when Westerners took pleasure in the bombings of Arab lands. Nobody called for bannings when Westerners celebrated death and destruction in the Arab world.

And yet the same from our Muslim advocates over time has been denounced and subject to much complaint: What was good for the goose has not been good for the gander.

And the line held in defense of PM is that what is good for the goose is, indeed, good for the gander.

Like I said, keep an eye on the new rules; there wil be at least two versions of perception: what the posters see and what mod/administration sees in the new rules. These rules will make it easier to maintain the calm that people find so one-sidedly distasteful.

What it's like is that Joe slaps Bill, and Bill slaps Joe back. Then Joe complains that Bill slapped him, and that slapping people should be considered offensive. And the whole time what Joe never wants to consider or respond to is the idea that if slapping is inappropriate, why did he slap Bill?

In the meantime, then, you point to others who allegedly got booted for slapping, but hey, Don't slap at the administrator and moderators like that. What happened to Wraith and Spookz was different than what we're arguing about here.

So? Even though people here may be bias not banning PM is not going to fix that, please then start calling for ban of someone like Stokes Pennwalt... oh wait to late, personally I think your argument is null, its not the total truth and its not valid to this issue, the issue of fair banning is separate from "Should we ban PM": their not connected, just because others haven't been called up to be banished does not mean we can't try to ban PM.

What exactly are you going on about?

Hey thats what I think about when ever I read your posts!

The thing is that nobody called for bannings when Westerners took pleasure in the bombings of Arab lands. Nobody called for bannings when Westerners celebrated death and destruction in the Arab world.First, I must have been on vacation... because I don't remember anyone celebrating the death in the Arab world. Yet, I could still tolerate PM's posts if all he did was argue that the only good westerner is a dead westerner once in a while. However, that seems to be ALL he does... and worst yet he never actually seems to have much discussion behind it. He's posts read like just more spam... but he doesn't even seem to know what the hell it is he's selling.

Well cooked: Type coherently. I can't understand a word of your post in reply to Tiassa's which explained things quite nicely. Your post is a jumble of words. What're you saying? Utter nonsense in addition to incompetance as regards presentation of an idea makes for a bad combination. Fair banning, and the discussion of banning PM are intimately related I would think.

Tiassa : Well put. Very lucidly explained.

Well then you did understand what I said!

Unfortunately your view is incorrect, what your saying is just because PM is a Muslim he should be acquitted from his crimes?

Look around at some of the other ban polls I think things are very fair around here: we have all kinds of people being banned.

Unfortunately your view is incorrect, what your saying is just because PM is a Muslim he should be acquitted from his crimes?

Where did I say that? You're getting more incoherent by every post.

The people who keep poking and provoking Proud_Muslim share a significant portion of the blame for his inflammatory posts. With all these anti-Muslims flaming him, can anyone wonder at the fact that he feels inclined to flame back? Especially in this world of growing anti-Muslim sentiment.

-- Long live the Female Messiah!

airavata,

that what your saying, how else is is fair for PM to go free?

With all these anti-Muslims flaming him, can anyone wonder at the fact that he feels inclined to flame back?Of all the muslims I know PM is most certainly in his own little section (where all the kids have to wear helmets). If you can show me another poster who has been acting like PM, then I'll agree that perhaps he isn't the worst... but I can't find ANYONE who is as bad (edit: outside of pseudoscience... that's what it's there for). Even the worst tend to actually converse.

airavata,

:confused: are you going to responed to my question?

Because Muslims are uncivilised savages and should stay in their own little stinkhole countries without bothering us on the internet.

Same goes for Jews.Oh, you must belong to the master race. We are sorry, but it is our duty to inform you that you may not mix with us. It is hazardous to your intellect.

Please, for your own well being, do not visit this forum again.

I believe this topic is done. Please don't make me go start a poll.

i see some irony in this thread

it resembles a trial of a terrorist in the US.
instead of just banning the f*cker for his countless racist hateful deragatory posts, we have a topic that's 7 pages long, discussing about what we should do with him...

and in the end, the guy is not even banned!

kind of like how the US and German courts are treating the Qaeda terrorists. one is released, one gets extra rights because of technicalities, another switches lawyers every other day, all the while they have nice meals, warm beds and clothes, they're bathed regularly, etc.
alaska won't have any ice by the time the Sciforums Legal System finishes with PM


but back to PM
i'm used to him by now. if he'd be gone, i'd miss him. so i voted 'no'

if you don't like him, put him on your ignore list...

It is all amusing !! do you guys think you are the only forum in this world ? isnt easy for me to buy my own forum ? arent there hundreds of forums out there ???

Why you want to silence me ? why you argue with me if you dont like to hear what I write ? why you come to the religion section despite the fact most of you are indeed athiests ???

Where are the western concept of freedom of speech ?? or is it freedom of speech only when it suits you ??

What rules have I broken here ??

Banning me wont affect me, it will make me more determined, it will increase my resolve, it will give me this feeling of virtual martyrdom ,the feeling that me ALONE ( Nearly the only Arab and Muslim in this forum ) managed to shake your hypocrisy in its foundations.

Banning me is only an indication of your weaknesses, your inability to handle the truth, The truth is about to defeat you so you try to suffocate it.

Your enemy is not the truth but the illusion of the truth.

Finally, I conclude by quoting this famous saying:

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."

Blah blah blah, we have legitimate reason for banning you and it is not about what you say, its about how your say it. Try not to resort to fallacies and rude language, try to use neutral wording, ect.

not everyone is confortable with other people parading their pride...

if they do not wish to hear the truth you preach, do not try to convince them.

six more votes to keep him and its over.

PM : Please say what the hell you want.

"not everyone is confortable with other people parading their pride"
But I love parading it (http://www.cityoforange.org/Plaza/Images/opl3251t.JPG) so much!

I vote for banning hypewaders from posting suggestive pictures.

If you don't like what he has to say don't read it. If he offends you; when you see his name on the post don't read it. It is that simple people. I am here to see everyone's point on something not just those that I agree with. It would be a shame to only have agreement on all subjects. If he can not argue his stance accordingly than his point will be lost, but let him lose it, don't merely silence him.

With the quorum cut in half 26 would have been the ending point, as is Proud_Muslim remains. This poll is over, congrats Proud_Muslim, will kill you later. ;)

Someone tell Porfiry

proudmuslim used to be proud syrian, until PS got banned right?

he got around the ban by becoming PM, thats cheating

assuming he actually deserved the ban as PS, it should hold no matter how many names he chooses

PS was more of a fanatic then PM, if they are the same person they he has been trying to get nicer and nicer through each banning. So GW became PS who became PM.

>> No..he has the right to speak his mind

You guys had better understand the state of the world's human minds.

We have "them", a group of unsophisticated human beings. Being un-sophist-isticated (not intoxicated from living in natural surroundings) they are in close contact with their conscience (the common conscience of LIFE). They are fighting for LIFE's right to grow into a perennial organism.

Then we have a group of sophisticated human beings. Sophistry is the result of selfish, agenda laidened reasoning, that organic minds create when they are intoxicated by metal poi-soning. This intoxication is natural and good but the outcome will be destruction of the whole and then the one. Unless the error of enquiry is realised and acted upon, our toys will achieve LIFE's default option, one of an annual organism, seeding and the death of LIFE here.

This is a turning point in the life cycle of LIFE on this hunk of rock.

Proud Muslem has a right to speak from his conscience.. if the words don't agree with yours the maybe you should try to think in a bigger picture.... that of the good for the organism LIFE itself, and stop thinking on short selfish gains. And this applies to everyone.

LIFE here could be for many millions of years to come, for our children's children's .......... children.

The rulers of our fate here and now, should be restrained. The discussion should be the only way to the future, not destruction, alienation and extinction.

If we are alive we have a need to be here, for each of us has a bit of the jigsaw.... forever is a long time, now is so short it can't even be measured.

I vote for tolerance and discussion... I am interested in reason and eternity, the other, winning for now, is for fools and sophists.

Is there any other way ?????????????????????

Proud Muslem has a right to speak from his conscience.. if the words don't agree with yours the maybe you should try to think in a bigger picture.... that of the good for the organism LIFE itself, and stop thinking on short selfish gains. And this applies to everyone.
Wow... what a shitty argument. I argue that PM is not speaking from his conscience, but his ass. If you don't agree with me then maybe you should try to think of the bigger picture... me.

That's pretty shitty too, actually.

Yeah, that was the point. I simply forgot to put the above message in brackets.

Zarkov:

From dictionary.com:

soph·ist

1. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
2. A scholar or thinker.

Sophistry has something to do with ability to argue deviously, and also something to do with the ability to think. It has nothing to do with being out of contact with the "common conscience of LIFE" (whatever that is).

PM should not be banned.

Why do you want to ruin all my fun anyway? :)

>> Sophistry has something to do with ability to argue deviously, and also something to do with the ability to think. It has nothing to do with being out of contact with the "common conscience of LIFE"

Sophist James R, winning at any cost is not moral, it is being out of contact with the "common conscience of LIFE"

You should look in the mirror more often.

That line's a little old, don't you think?

>> That line's a little old, don't you think?

Sorry ??
truth becomes old ???? more like truth is forgotten.

Sophists never appeal to truth, they never appeal to a well rounded argument, nor do they cede that they know very little. Never let truth get in the way of a good argument..... if this is your reflection..... too late to help :(

Sophist James R, winning at any cost is not moral, it is being out of contact with the "common conscience of LIFE"

You should look in the mirror more often.

Are you saying I am a sophist who wants to win at any cost?
Win what, Zarkov? What competition are you talking about here?

Sophists never appeal to truth, they never appeal to a well rounded argument, nor do they cede that they know very little. Never let truth get in the way of a good argument...

Hmm... that doesn't sound like me. I think you must have somebody else in mind.

>> Are you saying I am a sophist who wants to win at any cost?
Win what, Zarkov? What competition are you talking about here?

Ego, James, you are not up to rational discussion, for all the years I have observed you, you KNOW it all, you wish!!!!!!!!!!

I freely admit I don't "know it all", Zarkov. You're attacking a straw man.

>> I freely admit I don't "know it all", Zarkov.

Neither do I.

Do you post just so you can read yourself, Zarkov?

>> Do you post just so you can read yourself, Zarkov?

Rappaccini, If Jesus loves you all night long, do you love yourself for being such a jerk, or are seriously mentally deficient?

James R, discounts all thoughts and even math that he does not understand,,,,,, as if he knows it all..... pooooffff, in truth then he knows nothing.

How did you even notice my title?

Why pretend it suggests anything about my "mental" well-being?



Someone's got a hot iron up his ass.