If people would dump their own threads there would be less for moderators to do. Maybe the no new threads in the cesspool rule should be changed to benifit the other sections of Sciforums. Maybe Cesspool should be renamed, "Flaming, Us versus Them, Hate, Lies, Islam Bashing, Racism, and Cesspool. Then let people post what ever they want in the cesspool but be stricter outside the cesspool.
Mods, now that your closing all threads related to your definition of 'racist' you might as well close Brian Folleys bullshit antiwest threads as they all come down to the same anyway.
Brians lies and skywalkers lies are totally accepted here how dare you ask a mod to lock a lying thread, when he is so busy closing factual threads that are the truth with links to prove it, only a left wing agenda supplied by skywalker and brian, can and will be accepted here. I vote we make brian and skywalker mods too, that way we can keep the balanced moderation towards the left. Brian is also a qualified locksmith, another good reason to make him a mod. I thought that world events was about actual world events happening now, not made up fantasy supplied by skywalker and brian, maybe the mods have missed that too.
vincent: It seems you just don't get it. In this forum, the fundamental rule is: attack the idea, but not the person. Threads which stereotype a religious group, or a nation, or a racial group or whatever, without supporting evidence, are inappropriate. Moderators therefore reserve the right to close such threads. In some cases, they are simply moved into the section of the forum reserved for the "unintelligent community" instead, in the hope that at some stage the people who post such material might wake up and start educating themselves. If you equate non-racist with left-wing, that is your problem, and I hope you'll eventually get over it. If you feel there is a left-wing bias here, first of all I urge you to examine the threads in the forums. Threads are never closed just because they express right-wing views. Secondly, I remind you that the views expressed here are the views of individual posters. If you feel that too many of the posters are left-wing for your liking, perhaps the best thing for you to do would be to find a right-wing forum which will reinforce your prejudices for you, and not challenge your world-view.
I only try to deal with you with your level of inteligence, which is about .02. So dont feel all sad, you still lead the contest of lies far more than any one else here in this forum. I mean just look at your recent posts in last 3 months, there is probably like 10% truth in all of them combine. hahah Why do you lie soooo much? please tell us? WHY DO YOU LIE? Are you a xians Fundamentlist? who based every thing on lies just like any other extremists.........ha. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Look peeps we are all racists to a certain degree I defy anyone out there who says that that have not had a racist thought/comment, at least once in their entire lives, it's no good having this eternal debate, because all it shows is that everyone thinks that their point of view is the valid one, we should look at Lennon for a lead when he sang, 'living is easy with eyes closed not misunderstanding all you see.....', obviously not in the literal way.
didn't Lennon also sing "Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can" wit £400 million stashed away in banks...? maybe we HAVE been through racist phases, but many grow out it by gaining insight maturity and compassion for others It is simply not true that ALL Muslims, for example, are racist------te Sufis are pluralistic and thus oopen toothe forms of beliefs and so on.......it is FUNDAMENTALIST beliefs tat need challenging. you have to speak out against racism. look what happened in nazi Germany when many conformed to that evil!
The most flagrant racism to exist in WE&P is aimed squarely towards the noble british. I do hope this is rectified. May I suggest that we, for starters, ban the arabs and gooks? I know alot of the racism against the british is perpetuated by jaded caucasians, but at least we could be rid of the arabs and gooks.
Dr Lou Natic: Racism is not tolerated on sciforums. The next comment of this kind will see you banned for an initial period of seven days.
It isn't? Why not? Is "fatism" tolerated? ...where one hates all fat people? Or "tallism", where one hates all tall people? Why is racism not tolerated? I don't fully understand limiting THAT, while NOT limiting other opinions/dislikes/etc? Racism is simply disliking/hating some race (breed?) of humans. There's a difference between disliking/hating some race, saying they're (whatever), and actually DOING something or advocating some physical harm to them. I.e., if I hate all green people, but don't advocate killing them all, what harm have I done to anyone? If I hate all green people and suggest that they be segregated to some uninhabited island, what harm have I done to anyone? Why is racism not tolerated at sciforums? Baron Max
bmax...if yer brains were dynamite they wouldn't blow yer rug off IF s you seem to suggest the talkin bout racism and the doin of it are two differnt things , please xplain why it is the nazis put out their propaganda, attempting to equate Jewish people wit rats etc....and all te many vile words spoken by tose racists in ORDER to promote racist ACTION......didn't action happen?
Fatism is unfair but has not yet gone to mass murder. Perhaps more important nobody seems to want to spam sciforums with anti fat threads. If you can create a consensus that the Green People should be sent to an unimproved island you would be stealing their opportunities from them. If you just got up and left for the island rather than asking them to leave that would be OK. You can't do racist talk without openning the door to crimes. If they are not fully human then they are animals. We do what almost what ever we want with cattle. If the enemy is talked bad enough about then we will have permission to inflict horrors upon them. Also emotional pain is pain. Our toatal activities should create a net reduction in pain and a net increase in pleasure. If you are a old fashioned God believer then replace pain and pleasure with obedience to god. My rules say if you make a fat person or green person feel bad you had better either make humanity as a whole feel more better than you made them feel bad or you had better be serving god. If you don't play by my rules I will sugest that you be sent to the island. If Sciforums want's to enforce a censorship in service to the advancement of greater human happiness, they can do that. If sciforums does not want world events to become a place full of mindless pro and anti racist theads and flaming Sciforums can do something about it.
Interesting that you make that direct connection between talk and action. And if you feel that way, then why isn't other such forms of talking not banned in the same way? I.e., many here rail against President Bush, spouting hate and even suggesting violence ...but they aren't banned? Why not? And more importantly, in your opinion as stated, why is it that one type of talk leads to action, but the other doesn't? No! One could see various humans as "breeds", in the same way we see dogs or cats ...just different breeds of humans. Some "good", some "bad". Like, for example, lots and lots of people see Pit Bull dogs (the breed) as "bad" dogs and advocate not permitting them in some cities/towns, etc. What's the difference? Hmmm? So with that in mind, shouldn't we also ban any and all radical posts about President Bush and the administration that has been going on since I joined this illustrious body of posters? What's the difference between that type of post and racist posts? If they wanted that, then they shouldn't allow any posts of a controversial nature at all! At least some members are going to be pissed off no matter what's posted. Listen, don't get me wrong. If the owners of sciforums wants to ban anyone or anything, I think that's their perogative ...they're the owners! I respect that. they could ban me for posting this, and I'd still respect their right to do so. But at this point in time, I'm simply asking .....why is racism posts banned, while other similar and probably equally "bad", permitted? And even moreso, why is racism viewed as bad? I mean, I can understand you not liking it. But why is it any different to saying that you don't like fat people? Or ugly people? Or tall, skinny people? Baron Max
There is a recent threat to Ban Brian Foley and maybe some deletion over his believing that the state of Israel should be ended. It seemed like anything passed a month ago but Vincent got a reaction. If Kiwi and others had not begun doing the same thing as Vincent everything might have been let slide. Starting several threads a day can pull a forum in some direction. I think only Brian, Kiwi, and Vincent do that in World events. I really don't know what the moderators want. I thought there were more thoughtfull posts a year ago. I personally think this anti-Muslim stuff is walking us down the path towards a revival of the political climate that produced Hitler. If it was just Sciforums it would be OK but it is everywhere. To me the idea tha Muslims have earned their hated status is as uniformed, unobjective and illogical as the idea that Jews earned their their hated status during the days of Hitler. Anti Jewish talk did lead to anti Jewish violence. In the schoolyard the kids can be egged on to violence against a scapegoat by the words of their friends. Why do they do it? Just to establish pecking order/rank I think. A variation on the same instinct seems to exist to establish group pecking order is what I think is the driving force behind anti-race,culture and religion hate hysteria. Zero sum competition was good for driving natural selection via survival of the fittest groups but now when we have Nukes and global pollution I think we should be reducing zero sum competition. Positive sum competition is still ok. Ok not different species. Even different breeds seems wrong to me. I don't think humans are as diverse as dog breeds. For the most part we wern't bred by anything but our environments. If we were to breed humans for traits, racism might start making sense. In the current climate at this forum I am not sure if calling for Bush's assassination would be accepted at Sciforums. Promoting hatred or love of Bush pollitically doesn't seem as potentially harmfull as promoting hate of groups to me. Bush haters at Sciforums could turn a metally unstable person into a would be assassin but it is hard to get at Bsh and if you did you may kill one man but dead presidents become heros and get their way even more than live presidents do. The pro-con debate over Bush was not as devoid of intellectual content as the race debate has been. The mainstream media was scared of making the anti-Bush case which meant that anti-Bush people in places like Sciforums had to be the other pole to Fox and Limbaugh in the national debate because nobody else was going to do it. Clearly people who identify with Bush did get their feelings hurt when people talked bad about Bush but I think there was a redeeming value for that hurt. Bush was screwing up and his support needed to be undermined. Hated minorities may also be screwing up but Idon't think the situations are comparable. You can say what ever you want about pollitical groups or people. Trash Howard Dean. I like him. That would be like me trashing Bush. Trash Clinton. It wouldn't bother me because i did not like him but it would bother somebody else. Was Sciforums here during Clinton? Were you here? What did people say about Clinton? I don't think their would be any pro hated minorities posts here if there were not anti hated minority threads here. You could ban both defenses of and attacks on the hated ethnic groups if you want to be fair. Let's keep the politics though. Bash socialsts. Bash welfare. That's not racist. We accept ugly people. We may not want to look at them but nobody stars thread after thread after thread begging the rest of us to hate ugly people as much as the thread starter does. Suppose the person that wants the rest of us to join him in his hate succeeds in getting us to join him in hate? What has he accomplished? I think what comes next is that when we join him in his hate he then believes he has permission to do physically do something to those he hates. If ugly people were in the same situation as the hated ethnic groups then I think the protection should be extended to them to. The cost benefit analysis for our species on whether or not we should encourage or discourage racism for the next several hundred years whilel our relationship with the natural environment and our relationships with weapons of mass destruction are unstable, clearly favors discouraging racism.
Baron: It goes back to the basic principle applied here: attack the argument, not the person. If you start attacking people because they are fat or tall, you'll be banned just as surely as when you start attacking people because they are black. Get it? Quite clearly, I'm not limiting your opinions. I'm limiting your right to express those opinions here, because they are offensive, and, just as importantly, they aren't good for the forum. Your suggestion (possibly) inspires other people to act to harm innocent people. Moreover, the basis for your selection of people you wish to harm is nonsensical, since it is not based on any feature which is significant. It's like saying all blue eyed people should be deported. For what? For the colour of their eyes? It doesn't make sense. One day, I hope you'll work it out.
