Ban Proud Muslim?

Is it humiliation? If so, the comparison is valid. If not, then it isn't.

He seems to be actually. The pain of a completely stunted mind.

*shrug*

It would probably be better if people weren't treated that way. I'm a moron though, and I don't take those pictures at face value. Obviously, that might be wholly mistaken... but I was in the military for four years and it simply doesn't fit. Maybe it's a new army now, but don't you think that in the context of the people in those picture, they must make sense? I need to know the context before making a judgement - and all information coming to me regarding said context has been through the ringers of a number of competing agendas, so I basically feel that I have zero to go on. I think some of them might have been deliberately staged for use in psyops. That simply makes sense, because it provides a context that explains the behavior. It's also quite possible that command and control totally broke down and people were running amok, all wigged from being in Iraq for so long and feeling powerful because they had all these prisoners - who to them were killing their friends - at their whim. I dunno, and doubt if I ever will. Maybe I guess.

I'm sure you can just write it off as denial or what did you say?... "compressed and rather bogus". Then you'll take comfort in being able to ignore such inane tripe in the future.

So you miss the point. I'll clarify.

If they are both humiliation, then there is inconsistency. Why? Because if you think it's not okay to humiliate someone to get what you need from them, then how can you allow that here? Are you arguing that the difference is that the guy in that picture is in pain and as such the comparison is completely invalid? It's okay if PM's buffoonery is accepted because he's a completely joke - as long as you vote to let him stay? Is that not endorsing humliation as long as you get what you want?

*shrug* as you wish.

no, but I might if it was in the context of banning me for being a useless asshat.

lol? oh? based on what evidence?

yeah i noticed you glossed over every point i made except the one you though you could exploit. is that honest? does that show good faith on your part? i suppose that is exectping to much. it must have been because my retorts were rather compressed and/or bogus? thank goodness you're an advocate of free speech, or were you just hypothesizing that you are?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Were you going for cleverness there?

I think you messed up... torture doesn't necessarily kill people.
I suppose it wouldn't, normally.

Your efforts at writing are "rather unsophisticated".

Besides, since when does sarcasm have to be sophisticated in order to be "'biting,'" since you were awarded Syntactical Grand Pombah status?

Bloodhound... as in a wilful, paranoid, and plaintive nitpicker, a fault-finder?

You've the balls to desribe another that way just after mentioning "JACKBOOTED NAZI PIGS"?





We white pigs had better cross the creek before old Mister "'bloodhound'" Hathor scents our plan for sciforums censure and domination!

I hear he's got some nose for fascists, and that means trouble!

Want to bet?

Why don't you consider BigD's 100 Facts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is the real issue here?

I don't like Proud Muslim much myself, but I don't think he should be banned.

I think we now have the opportunity to teach him something, to make him aware of his mistakes -- this of course only if we
a) really wish to change him and think that we ought to change him,
and
b) see ourselves as competent to do that.

I can't help but to find both a and b questionable.


But, from my experience with him, there is a simple and valid issue one can propose to him, and this is where PM seems to freeze: I asked him "What have *you* *done* to convince me that your religion is the right one, as you claim that it is?" He didn't reply.

There obvioulsy is a way to get to him, there is something where his propaganda doesn't work anymore.

Regardless of his methods of communication: we can take a Gandhi-like approach to him, and then see what happens.
But in order to do that we have to keep him, not ban him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hehe, "moderetard" i get it

just think, if we all put our intelligence into helping people, instead of thinking up amusing insults, maybe the world would be better

 

The fact is that he pisses people off. I know of several people feel that the 'sciforum experience' is lessened by his presence.

He pushes other sciforumers away, and we are not talking about people we gladly see going.

That is reason enough for me to see him go, or else he should be under strict moderation. In fact he should set a shining example of good behaviour for the next three months or so in a row before he should be permitted to cross the line again. Because let's face it. He crossed the line more times than anyone else on this forum.

 

RAPPACINI

your responses indicate a lack of reading skills. they are disjointed and irrelevant to the points you chose to address.

however..

the plan has already been "scented" out. you discredit the "our". i am however more than willing to treat ALL of you as dishonest and hate filled trolls.

pack your bags, lil' bitch

 

WESMORRIS

if you need clarification, ask. insist, be specific. i will respond. and yes, you did make quite a few points that cannot be refuted. i am however not convinced of either relevence or applicabiIlty

neither are you by the looks of the quotes below

unfortunately for you, you tire of being accomadating and decide to take a stand

now everything is in black and white and thats too bad. absolutism is a very big stick and there are very few of us that cannot be hurt by it.

in anycase, i already offered up some guesses as to why the condemnation is not there. here are a few more

*effective utilization of time and resources. ie: maximum bang for the buck.
*nitpicking is distasteful
*the muslim is really a freak (an outlook that i am flirting with)
*hypocrisy

addressing the last point....it is a possibility but until you are willing to make the investment to actually investigate the alleged hypocrite's posting history and dig out the inconsistencies, it is rather small minded and seemingly vengeful to merely accuse on the basis that it is possible.

this hypocrisy is a non issue.
you also sound like the muslim when you demand condemnation. i believe we discussed the politics of victimhood, yes?

 

I believe CCs comment was rhetorical...reread the quote he responded to.

Anyway, I think PM exists here just to incite and inflame. I remember higher ups saying that people who have nothing positive to contribute to the community were not welcome on sciforums.

PM doesn't contribute. Debate is contribution, true...bludgeoning is not. PM does the latter.

 

That wasn't "taking a stand". That was 'oh yeah, i remember now'. I had to get back down the same train of thought to remember what the hell I'd been thinking, and the preceding sentences reminded me well enough to regurgitate the basis of reasoning.

I don't think establishing accurate conceptual relationships is "absolutism". I don't agree that I've painted the issue in black and white at all, but merely pointed out inconsistent thinking based on the subjectivity of your perspective. I do believe the fact is that regarless of one's affiliation, they will likely, almost surely skew their input to justify it.

Actually I think it serves as a decent example of the human tendency I explained above with the simple exposure of the inconsistency... however I have to say, it was just a passing thought which at the time I deemed worthy of comment. While "small minded and vengeful" seem to actually strengthen the point, I don't care to make a huge issue of it. I do appreciate what appears to be an honest effort to dissect it from your perspective.

I think it's a valid example as I mentioned, but not so much to argue further on that point, I'll agree.

I didn't demand it, I simply expect it if the ideology is consistent.

Indeed. If you read something I wrote and think I'm playing the victim, you read it wrong or I failed to get across my point. I am no victim. I despise the thought. In fact, I take responsibility for everything I'm involved with. That would be overwhelming if I weren't somewhat irresponsible and emotionally capable of accepting a certain amount of irresponsibility.

 

If you cut the people who have nothing positive to contribute to the community, you'd lose half your posters. There are a lot of people in this foum, and in this thread especially that do nothing at this point but incite and inflame. There are moderators at this point that rarely have anything positive to add, but love to incite and inflame. You see, there comes a time in a forums life where you either have to do a huge amount of mass bannings to clean it up or just keep letting it get out of hand until you can't control anything anymore. This forum has been riding the thin red line for a long time. When someone really starts caring a great deal again things could get better.

 

surely if he causes enough heat to make people moan about him for like a zillion threads then ban the guy.
of course, if the forums ever have a dull moment then you can have him to piss a load of people off.

 

Well said m8.

 

Demonstrate it.

I could, if you wished me to, run through your posts and highlight every writing-related error committed.
Can you do the same in the case of my reading?

Yikes... you actually believe there's a secret plan to censor and dominate SF?

Do you know how often posters have stated that?

The we're on the verge of oblivion, guys number is quite old.

Why should it be any truer now than it was whenever some surly halfwit like crazymikey wrote it?

 

Is there really a problem with that?

And we are not talking about all, we are talking about the person who excells the most on sciforums in not contributing anything positive to sciforums.

In fact we are probably (in my humble opinion) talking about a person who contributes in the most negative manner to sciforums of all members. People got banned for less.

 

hey, whoever has the power to do it, could you change my vote from yes to no please

i suddenly remembered all that crap about free speach

 

reminder for alain:

There is no free speech on sciforums.

edit - see for instance:

He does not abide the rules too often.

 

Spuriousmonkey,

Thanks for bringing this up! This is a good point for clarifying the argument.

Well, then it is rule #13 that Proud Muslim should be confronted with. I highlighted the part I find most important.

As patient and understanding as I am trying to be, with his actions, PM has shown that he doesn't consider posting here a privilege.

So I suggest an open letter to him, and giving him an ultimatum.

If he doesn't abide, then ban him.

 

i was more saying that i couldnt morally take away his free speach, and still expect to keep my own, even if the rules are against him, if porfiry wants him out then porfiry will block him, and i wont think bad of him for doing it- its his website, but im not going to actively try to take away someones free speech

 

Actually, as most recent events show, the man has his own forum -- I have received this private message from him

And I have read some of the recent things he has written -- saying that he intends to stay here, "to expose the liars".

And, from past posts, I know that I am one of these "hypocrites" and "liars" -- and now he has the nerve to invite me to his forum site! This is a condescence that I am not willing to put up with.

I say ban him, I voted "yes."

 

Dear All:

It is all amusing and funny to see how weak some people are, how powerless and logicless some people are:

Starting a thread denying the existence of Jesus (pbuh ) is OK, no problem with that !!

Starting a thread mocking and denying prophet Muhammad (pbuh ) is ok, no problem with that !!

Starting many threads denying and mocking the existence of GOD HIMSELF is ok, no problem with that !!

However, starting a thread questioning ( not even denying ) the holocaust becomes unforgivable sin and an invitation for hate !!! one need to ask what kind of HYPOCRISY is this ??

When I complained to the owner of this forum about the anti muslim hate and bigotry, he replied by stating that this is FREE SPEECH, so, why cant I enjoy the same FREE SPEECH in questioning the holocaust ????

Your attitude toward Muslims here on sciforums is sadly the general attitude prevailing in the west nowadays:

Bias Against Muslims Up 70%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61488-2004May2.html

Boston Radio Host says Kill All Muslims

http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=166&page=AA

slandering and ranting islamophobic remarks is ok, it is free speech, but when muslims try to hit back, it becomes hate and fanaticism !!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you dont like my posts, dont bother reading them, dont even respond to them, the fact that you are reading them and responding to them means you dont like what you read and resent the fact that I am PROUD MUSLIM ! this only shows your hidden bigotry and islamophobia.

How many times you will try to ban me ?? dont you realize that I have my own joint forum now ( thanks to those who tried to ban me the first time, I realized it is important to have my own jointforum with the help of another muslim who suffers the same hate and abuse from non muslims like yourselves) !

Dont you realize I am going to build a special website about the '' holohoax '' debating and exposing this lie about the 6 million jew died there ?? you see, dont ever try to suffocate my rights to express my views freely, this will only make me more determined and more eager to spread my views.

Why you all got so mad when I questioned the ( holohoax ) ? I did not even deny it, I was questioning the figures, dont I have the right to do that ? dont I have the right to call it the HOLOHOAX ??? why it is ok for you to question the existence of Jesus or Muhammad and even deny the existene of God but not ok for me to even question the holohoax ???? this is sickning hypocrisy.

''All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.''
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)