Unbiased Poll for Proud_Muslim
- Thread starter Maia
- Start date
- Status
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
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
Last edited:
Maia said: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.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
No to banning unless there is worse behavior
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
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
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.
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?
Can we please ban him now?
Yes that would be nice.
- Status