The most absurd moderation in Sci history

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats not the point. The point is if you said it, should you be banned? ANd if you came back after the ban and said it was just your opinion and you saw no need to provide evidence for it, should you be banned again? In science, if your opinion is not backed up by evidence, do people lose the right to express it? Or does it simply remain irrelevant until it can be supported? How is banning opinions science? Is it forbidden to have unsupported opinions??

The British "holocaust" is not taught anywhere in England. Are they all racists? Are they in denial?

Do Americans learn about natives villages being burned by George Washington? Are they all racists?

People like James somehow abandon rational thought and become patronising SOBs who think they have "struck a note" because their rants and accusations are not given due consideration. All because we're talking about Jews! Amazing, really

Land without a people for people without a land. Familiar, isn't it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that your opinion or is it a fact? Because if its a fact, you'll have to back it up with evidence. It may be offensive enough to many Indians to be considered as hate speech by them. Its like saying they and not the British were responsible for what happened to them. Like the Gazans today, in fact.

 

lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good catch, I meant "struck a nerve"

/you lurker you.

 

Thanks, it was funny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Probably a residual sublimation

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

S.A.M.
If you want to go on about British Colonial Oppression, just remember that India invented War rockets which were used against the British Troops and you could imply that without this technological change made by Indians the Nazi's would have never had V2 rockets to launch at England.

(I think this is the usual play on logic people usually complain about in regards to you, but I could be wrong)

 

War Rockets seem to have been good for England. Think of it as a learning experience. After all, your wars with France left us with the income tax and property tax.

Now which one of us will be banned for hate speech [is that a clock I hear ticking?]

Yeah unsupported opinions are no longer permitted on sciforums. Haven't you heard?

By the by, does this mean that posters can now be reported for lack of evidence or failure to cite evidence and this will be a reason for moderation?

 

Personally I don't hate you or India. I know you could perhaps hate me for being apart of a country you see as an oppressor, but you have to take into consideration that I have no position in the countries running so I'm not personally at fault. (In fact there are a lot of things I disagree with about this country but there is little I could do, it's what you could call the downfall of civilization, "Apathy".)

It's very similar to how I believe you are, I mean I can't fault you for what goes on in the part of the world where you originated, it's all power games done by people other than us and we are of course made to suffer for it.

It's just occasionally there will be something that you detest passionately and sometimes people feed off that, which is why they'll just be happy feeding you lines to cook you in your own stooper.

Incidentally my point with my last post was to identify a blantent Logical Fallacy, not actually fault a country.

 

Stryder, I don't know you well enough to hate you or love you

But tbh, if there was something I wanted to hate you for, it would be for transferring that certain thread out of Biology when I was having the argument with Voldemort. I don't know why you did it and I don't care. I found it singularly disrespectful an action by one moderator towards another. You could be a purple alien monotheist hermaphrodite and I would still hold it against you only for that one reason.

The topic is absurd moderation.
Is it now the role of admin and moderators to determine the evidence given to support opinions on sciforums?

Because if it is, I want to know what qualifications you are forwarding as an authority on the subject.

Are mods and admins going to jump into discussions and demand evidence from posters and ban them if they do not support their opinions in history, religion, politics and world events with evidence?

For example:

 

To repeat:

Now imagine in this discussion, a mod jumps in takes a side, demands evidence, sets a timer and threatens a ban. Is this science?

 

Why should I bother, if you can simply remove it, relevant in my opinion or not?

Moderator note: off-topic discussion moved to other thread about disease in North America