NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80208
Go on, why was it locked?

Gee, I wonder...
The title, the obvious flamebait, and the spam it no doubt caused. Could that be the reason?

Gee, I wonder...
The title, the obvious flamebait, and the spam it no doubt caused. Could that be the reason?
You didn't read it, and you just assume there was spam?

I read it. The thread's original post was indeed flaming and was therefore locked.

Gee, I wonder...
The title, the obvious flamebait, and the spam it no doubt caused. Could that be the reason?
You didn't read it, and you just assume there was spam?

I said spam it no doubt caused. You're right, I didn't read it. The first two are true though, and you know it.

The very title is flaming. Rules apply for everybody, folks.

I read it. The thread's original post was indeed flaming and was therefore locked.
Why was that more flaming than a post that says that science has proved blacks as inherently inferior to whites? Surely science is objective, and not based on politics. You can't be offended by a therom.

Spoffin, do I really need to answer that, or are you just attempting to further your own agenda by playing dumb?

*gets out some popcorn and candy*
This is gonna be a good debate...

I'm really interested in this. How can a topic with a title that calls a (rather large) group of people something so rude not be flaming?

edit for typos

I read it. The thread's original post was indeed flaming and was therefore locked.
Why was that more flaming than a post that says that science has proved blacks as inherently inferior to whites? Surely science is objective, and not based on politics. You can't be offended by a therom.
When will you be deleted? I admit that I will be missing out on a priceless education when I'm not able to read all of your brilliant insight and obvious knowledge of everything imaginable. But that's the price that you pay for common sense.

I read it. The thread's original post was indeed flaming and was therefore locked.
Why was that more flaming than a post that says that science has proved blacks as inherently inferior to whites? Surely science is objective, and not based on politics. You can't be offended by a therom.
When will you be deleted? I admit that I will be missing out on a priceless education when I'm not able to read all of your brilliant insight and obvious knowledge of everything imaginable. But that's the price that you pay for common sense.
Excuse me, are you calling for my deletion? I thought you committed suicide tonight anyway.

Spoffin, do I really need to answer that, or are you just attempting to further your own agenda by playing dumb?
Aw, comeon Neut, after all we've been through together, you can indulge me in this, can't you?

I'm really interested in this. How can a topic with a title that calls a (rather large) group of people something so rude not be flaming?

edit for typos
Why is it different to say that about racist than about a race? Is it the insult itself? Surely that doesn't matter in this kind of ruling, a flame is a flame after all.

I'm really interested in this. How can a topic with a title that calls a (rather large) group of people something so rude not be flaming?

edit for typos


So you dont see a difference between "You have shit for brains" and "You are mentally inferior to Marilyn Vos Savant"?

I'm really interested in this. How can a topic with a title that calls a (rather large) group of people something so rude not be flaming?

edit for typos


So you dont see a difference between "You have shit for brains" and "You are mentally inferior to Marilyn Vos Savant"?
But I don't think the thread said "You have shit for brains". BMV was simply summing up the contents of the article in the title of the thread, so that people would know what they were clicking on.

I'm really interested in this. How can a topic with a title that calls a (rather large) group of people something so rude not be flaming?

edit for typos


So you dont see a difference between "You have shit for brains" and "You are mentally inferior to Marilyn Vos Savant"?

Er, Neut... That's his point...

I was agreing with you. That thread was flaming from the start.

Ok, then perhaps that explains quite a bit. I see no point to continuing this discussion, as it will devolve into yet another circular argument as those opposing the rulings of the Mods will most likely ignore/misunderstand logic, as usual.

I read it. The thread's original post was indeed flaming and was therefore locked.
Why was that more flaming than a post that says that science has proved blacks as inherently inferior to whites? Surely science is objective, and not based on politics. You can't be offended by a therom.
When will you be deleted? I admit that I will be missing out on a priceless education when I'm not able to read all of your brilliant insight and obvious knowledge of everything imaginable. But that's the price that you pay for common sense.
Excuse me, are you calling for my deletion? I thought you committed suicide tonight anyway.
I'm not NWB. Why would a Brit. name a nation True South? :roll:

I'm really interested in this. How can a topic with a title that calls a (rather large) group of people something so rude not be flaming?

edit for typos


So you dont see a difference between "You have shit for brains" and "You are mentally inferior to Marilyn Vos Savant"?

Er, Neut... That's his point...
Thats what I was thinking.

I read it. The thread's original post was indeed flaming and was therefore locked.
Why was that more flaming than a post that says that science has proved blacks as inherently inferior to whites? Surely science is objective, and not based on politics. You can't be offended by a therom.
When will you be deleted? I admit that I will be missing out on a priceless education when I'm not able to read all of your brilliant insight and obvious knowledge of everything imaginable. But that's the price that you pay for common sense.
Excuse me, are you calling for my deletion? I thought you committed suicide tonight anyway.
I'm not NWB. Why would a Brit. name a nation True South? :roll:
Sorry, I must have misread that post in the other thread. My mistake. :oops:

What's really amazing is that the anti-Nazis toe/cross the line more often in their attempts to have an opposing viewpoint removed than the Nazis have in expressing that opposing view.

Ok, then perhaps that explains quite a bit. I see no point to continuing this discussion, as it will devolve into yet another circular argument as those opposing the rulings of the Mods will most likely ignore/misunderstand logic, as usual.
You haven't even listened to my train of logic yet!

What's really amazing is that the anti-Nazis toe/cross the line more often in their attempts to have an opposing viewpoint removed than the Nazis have in expressing that opposing view.That all depends where you draw the line.

Ok, then perhaps that explains quite a bit. I see no point to continuing this discussion, as it will devolve into yet another circular argument as those opposing the rulings of the Mods will most likely ignore/misunderstand logic, as usual.
You haven't even listened to my train of logic yet!

I dont have to. I've heard it time and again previously...trains of logic arent necessarily logical however. I can logically prove that I'm 40, fat, and smoke. None of which is true.

...I can logically prove that I'm 40, fat, and smoke. None of which is true...

And I can prove that red is really green, and that the sky isn't blue, but an unusual shade of orange, all using physics...

:D

Ok, then perhaps that explains quite a bit. I see no point to continuing this discussion, as it will devolve into yet another circular argument as those opposing the rulings of the Mods will most likely ignore/misunderstand logic, as usual.
You haven't even listened to my train of logic yet!

I dont have to. I've heard it time and again previously...trains of logic arent necessarily logical however. I can logically prove that I'm 40, fat, and smoke. None of which is true.
You just said that if we continue with the arguement I would ignore logic, and now you say that logic isn't of any use?

Do only I see the contradiction here?

However, you dont because: there are more important people that rule the sky is blue, no?


Same thing here. We Mods have ruled there to be a distinction. Unless you dont want anyone to be able to post a single word because someone might be offended, I suggest you drop your argument promptly.

We are getting deeper into semantics here. The reason for the lock has been given in the original thread and here - trolling/flame-baiting. Does anyone really have anything to add?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Ok, then perhaps that explains quite a bit. I see no point to continuing this discussion, as it will devolve into yet another circular argument as those opposing the rulings of the Mods will most likely ignore/misunderstand logic, as usual.
You haven't even listened to my train of logic yet!

I dont have to. I've heard it time and again previously...trains of logic arent necessarily logical however. I can logically prove that I'm 40, fat, and smoke. None of which is true.
You just said that if we continue with the arguement I would ignore logic, and now you say that logic isn't of any use?

Do only I see the contradiction here?

Or perhaps flawed logic is of no use here...and as your logic is flawed, it will be ignored.

...I can logically prove that I'm 40, fat, and smoke. None of which is true...

And I can prove that red is really green, and that the sky isn't blue, but an unusual shade of orange, all using physics...

:D

I can logically prove that we don't actually move across the surface of the Earth, but that the surface of the Earth moves beneath us and we are actually staying in the same spot. However, I could just as easily prove that that statement is false, and could again disprove that arguement. My English class is discussing philosophy this year, and we have collectively come to the conclusion that everything is how you perceive it. Therefore, everything has a different truth to different people, which means that everything I would say is false, and true at the same time. It boggles the mind, yet makes perfect sense, and no sense at the same time.

However, you dont because: there are more important people that rule the sky is blue, no?


Same thing here. We Mods have ruled there to be a distinction. Unless you dont want anyone to be able to post a single word because someone might be offended, I suggest you drop your argument promptly.
Yeah, cos I'm the one here asking for more censorship.

Ok, then perhaps that explains quite a bit. I see no point to continuing this discussion, as it will devolve into yet another circular argument as those opposing the rulings of the Mods will most likely ignore/misunderstand logic, as usual.
You haven't even listened to my train of logic yet!

I dont have to. I've heard it time and again previously...trains of logic arent necessarily logical however. I can logically prove that I'm 40, fat, and smoke. None of which is true.
You just said that if we continue with the arguement I would ignore logic, and now you say that logic isn't of any use?

Do only I see the contradiction here?

Or perhaps flawed logic is of no use here...and as your logic is flawed, it will be ignored.
You haven't even heard my logic yet. How can you say its flawed already?

So, Danimalia, you'd agree that just because one finds a belief to be irrational does not necessarily make it so?

sat·ire
n.

1.
a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.

2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

So, Danimalia, you'd agree that just because one finds a belief to be irrational does not necessarily make it so?

Absolutely.

So, Danimalia, you'd agree that just because one finds a belief to be irrational does not necessarily make it so?

Absolutely.
I'm sorry Neut, where does that bring us?

...I can logically prove that I'm 40, fat, and smoke. None of which is true...

And I can prove that red is really green, and that the sky isn't blue, but an unusual shade of orange, all using physics...

:D

I can logically prove that we don't actually move across the surface of the Earth, but that the surface of the Earth moves beneath us and we are actually staying in the same spot. However, I could just as easily prove that that statement is false, and could again disprove that arguement. My English class is discussing philosophy this year, and we have collectively come to the conclusion that everything is how you perceive it. Therefore, everything has a different truth to different people, which means that everything I would say is false, and true at the same time. It boggles the mind, yet makes perfect sense, and no sense at the same time.

...

*head explodes*

Can I calmly suggest that everyone just walk away from this thread before someone gets hurt.

So, Danimalia, you'd agree that just because one finds a belief to be irrational does not necessarily make it so?

Absolutely.
I'm sorry Neut, where does that bring us?

Oy. I hate being the voice of reason, but it's a burden I bear. Anyway, where that brings you, Spoffin, is to the conclusion that just because you think something is bad, does not mean it is. Conversely, just because Neut thinks something is good, does not mean it is. The situation WILL be different for everyone who sees it, and everyone will take it a different way. This is not opinion; it is fact. Your dispute with Neut is proof of it. In fact, this occurence (everyone finding different truth in everything) is the only universal truth, and all other truths are contestable.

Can I calmly suggest that everyone just walk away from this thread before someone gets hurt.
*takes a swing at Compis* :D

No-ones going to get hurt. I'm sure the mods aren't going to delete me or forum ban me or anything for this, and I doubt that they're going to be angered by anything that I'm going to say.

...

*head explodes*

Sorry about that man.

Can I calmly suggest that everyone just walk away from this thread before someone gets hurt.

You can suggest it, but we will all find it varying degrees of wise or unwise, and therefore it would forever remain just a suggestion and probably not heeded by many.

So, Danimalia, you'd agree that just because one finds a belief to be irrational does not necessarily make it so?

Absolutely.
I'm sorry Neut, where does that bring us?

Oy. I hate being the voice of reason, but it's a burden I bear. Anyway, where that brings you, Spoffin, is to the conclusion that just because you think something is bad, does not mean it is. Conversely, just because Neut thinks something is good, does not mean it is. The situation WILL be different for everyone who sees it, and everyone will take it a different way. This is not opinion; it is fact. Your dispute with Neut is proof of it. In fact, this occurence (everyone finding different truth in everything) is the only universal truth, and all other truths are contestable.
So what can be lost by talking about this?

So what can be lost by talking about this?

Absolutely nothing. However, nothing can really be gained by it either. So what's the point.

So what's the point.
Thats a question thats more philosophical than I'm qualified to answer.

So what's the point.

The sharp bit you prod people with. ;)

Neuts left, hes hoping this thread will die I guess.

So what's the point.
Thats a question thats more philosophical than I'm qualified to answer.

D@mn straight.

So what's the point?
The sharp bit you prod people with

Smart-@$$

all other truths are contestable.
I contest that. I contest your contestability. :D Actually, I do semi-seriously contest that. I sort of believe in intuitive knowledge of right and wrong and an intuitive knowledge of the truth.

Neuts left, hes hoping this thread will die I guess.

No, he believes he won the arguement, whereas you do not. Once more, I have proven my point...

all other truths are contestable.
I contest that. I contest your contestability. :D Actually, I do semi-seriously contest that. I sort of believe in intuitive knowledge of right and wrong and an intuitive knowledge of the truth.

Yeah, because everyone you interact with has the same set of core values regarding those things. But if you were to go into an uncivilized part of Africa (or, for that matter, back in time) you would find people who did not share those particular beliefs, and therefore would find different truths than you.

Neuts left, hes hoping this thread will die I guess.

No, he believes he won the arguement, whereas you do not. Once more, I have proven my point...
I didn't disagree with your point. I just wanted Neut to see my side of the story.

Neuts left, hes hoping this thread will die I guess.

No, he believes he won the arguement, whereas you do not. Once more, I have proven my point...
I didn't disagree with your point. I just wanted Neut to see my side of the story.

I never said you disagreed, I was simply showing that it was another example of my point. Indeed, both you and Neut have not contested my ideas at all. Shame on you.

Neuts left, hes hoping this thread will die I guess.

No, he believes he won the arguement, whereas you do not. Once more, I have proven my point...
I didn't disagree with your point. I just wanted Neut to see my side of the story.

I never said you disagreed, I was simply showing that it was another example of my point. Indeed, both you and Neut have not contested my ideas at all. Shame on you.
Lol.


Okay, well its 04:26 where I am, so I'm off to bed.

I'll remember to bump this for Neut in the morning :wink:

Let me end with this:

Ultimately, those in power are the ones who determine what is acceptable - whether it be in society (which is what you owe your "intuitive" knowledge of good and evil) or in the Forums. Thus, as a representative of that power here in the forums, it is for Max to determine what is and isnt acceptable, and for the Mods to interpret his wishes. Max wishes everyone to have the same right to post their opinion - regardless of whether society has named it as being evil.

The actual determination of a post or a thread being flames/flamebait/etc. is left, by Max, to the Mods. This is the reason the Modding is not done with scripts, because it takes the interpretation by human intelligence.


Basically, if you want to really get down to it, the difference is there because Max and the Mods want the distinction to be there.



As for the misnomer of myself as a coward, I find it amusing you are once again resulting to personal insults in an attempt to win an argument. And the next time that you feel that this forum, or a discussion with yourself, is more important to myself than real life I suggest you take a break from the forums.

As for the misnomer of myself as a coward, I find it amusing you are once again resulting to personal insults in an attempt to win an argument. And the next time that you feel that this forum, or a discussion with yourself, is more important to myself than real life I suggest you take a break from the forums.
I don't think I called you a coward (I certainly did not intend to). I just meant that this clearly wasn't a discussion that you were enjoying, and that you'd probably be happier if the topic was dropped.



Let me end with this:

Ultimately, those in power are the ones who determine what is acceptable - whether it be in society (which is what you owe your "intuitive" knowledge of good and evil) or in the Forums. Thus, as a representative of that power here in the forums, it is for Max to determine what is and isnt acceptable, and for the Mods to interpret his wishes. Max wishes everyone to have the same right to post their opinion - regardless of whether society has named it as being evil.

The actual determination of a post or a thread being flames/flamebait/etc. is left, by Max, to the Mods. This is the reason the Modding is not done with scripts, because it takes the interpretation by human intelligence.


Basically, if you want to really get down to it, the difference is there because Max and the Mods want the distinction to be there.
This on the other hand don't make a lick o'sense. Are you suggesting that modding is there to encourage fallibility?

no he's just suggesting that the mods are priests for max. :wink:

OMG it's the pacific threads again.... OMG.... :roll: :shock:

Hey, at least the Mods are being consistent...

Gee, I wonder...
The title
Tghe followinf threads have not been locked based on title:
TG sux0rs (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80006)
You are all going to hell. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79591)
Who Sucks: A Eurotrash World (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=75315)
Why are you all such prudes? (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=74348)
The Folly of the Political Left - they can't think! (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=73383)
What the hell is a muther f@ckin Monkey P.I.M.P (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80322) (although this one is kinda new, so it might be .. especially now that it's been pointed out)

, the obvious flamebait
The following threads were not locked for potentially offensive content:
Recall Bush (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79036)
The Holocaust. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60423)
Man, Why Can't the Bushies Take What They Dished Out?? (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=67406)

, and the spam it no doubt caused. Could that be the reason?
What spam?

(Didn't see any reasons given by Neut, but it seemed like he supported those)

Big Mad Vikings, consider this a very stern warning.

Just because you dont like the opposing viewpoint does not mean that it's wrong, and therefore does not give you the right to flame/troll.

Thank you! :D

One way to find out the rules is to break them I guess, even though I'm sure there are better ways. At least it's clear that posts not directed at a specific person, but rather a big group of persons (in this case racists) can be considered flame, and as such, against the rules. I thought I read somewhere that "flame" had to be something personal, but that was obviously wrong. Now we all know that it isn't so.

I'm happy that you locked that topic and gave me a warning, because if you hadn't, general could easily turn into a hate forum, where people could post all sorts of texts about other people in disparaging terms and I don't want that, no matter which point of view one might have, or if it's right or wrong.

Rest assured that there will never be any more posts of my beliefs in this matter and I would also like to apologize for any inconveniance.

Sincerely, BMV

So what can be lost by talking about this?

Absolutely nothing. However, nothing can really be gained by it either. So what's the point.

The problem with your logic is that if followed through, we might as well top ourselves now. There's no point in being alive if we meekly accept everyones point of view and pass on, oblivious. There would be no scientific discovery, no social progress, no nuffink. I for one, will continue to live my life by what I consider to be right, which is what you're saying, but I will not accept the views of others that corrode society and damage other human beings. And Sputnik, of course you are right, the rules are made by the rulers, but if the rulers were never challenged, inertia would cause stagnancy. Rather a bubbling, vibrant pool, than a stagnant pond?

Hey, at least the Mods are being consistent...

Well I don't think you are, and thats what I was calling you on. You didn't lock threads and warn the posters of threads like the ones that Naleth suggested.

Nuet, I'm not trying to suggest that you have a bias towards nazis like a lot of other people do, as I simply don't believe that. But I think that you fail to see the difference between this thread and ones from the other side.

It's one thing to challenge the rules every once and again. However, when the rules are challenged for EVERY reason and/or simply because the Mods are the authority figures here, it becomes more of a "thing to do" and thus loses it's value as a true challenge of the rules.

And yes, BIg Mad Vikings, I see what you're attempting to set us Mods up for. However, you're incorrect. EVERYONE has the right to post their political beliefs. Whether they are condemned by "polite" society or not, they have the right to post that view - just the same right as you have to post yours.

That does not mean the Mods endorse any particular view, as we dont. We simply argue that everyone has the right to post. Perhaps rather than resort to sinking below those whose beliefs you find subhuman, respond with enlightened discussion. Use facts, evidence, etc. to prove them wrong. Post civilly, and negate their arguments and you'll have no problems. As it goes right now, however, most of the neo-Nazis count on having their viewpoints insulted, or having themselves flamed simply because society says that is what we should do. On this board, everyone's political standing is valid - no matter where it may be on the political spectrum.

It's one thing to challenge the rules every once and again. However, when the rules are challenged for EVERY reason and/or simply because the Mods are the authority figures here, it becomes more of a "thing to do" and thus loses it's value as a true challenge of the rules.
Is this to me in particular, or to everyone? I don't challenge you just for the fun of it (although it is a little fun).

But Spoffin, I see a difference. One is expressing a viewpoint considered by society to be morally defunct as tastefully as possible. The other is simply attempting to offend people. That's the difference.

On this board, everyone's political standing is valid - no matter where it may be on the political spectrum.
Unless you think that racists are subhuman?

Regardless of what I think, or how I feel about it, everyone has the same right to TASTEFULLY post their political beliefs.

But Spoffin, I see a difference. One is expressing a viewpoint considered by society to be morally defunct as tastefully as possible. The other is simply attempting to offend people. That's the difference.
Well, I don't think that there is a way to say that racists have sh*t for brains any more tastefully than BMV did.

Regardless of what I think, or how I feel about it, everyone has the same right to TASTEFULLY post their political beliefs.
So you're locking posts that are tasteless now?

So saying that "Persons who show racial bigotry are not as mentally astute as those who do not show racial bigotry" wouldnt be considered more tasteful/tactful than "racists have shit for brains"?


If you cant see the difference, then you dont belong in a political forum. That simple.

So saying that "Persons who show racial bigotry are not as mentally astute as those who do not show racial bigotry" wouldnt be considered more tasteful/tactful than "racists have shit for brains"?


If you cant see the difference, then you dont belong in a political forum. That simple.
I see the difference. But in this instance, shit for brains wasn't being used as an insult. The article posted said that racists literally did have shit for brains, not that they were less mentally astute.

so they didnt have human defecate? It was for sure "shit" right? Gotta learn to play the game Spoffin. That simple. The neo-Nazis have, and most of the anti-Nazis havent.

Once again, should you not read their threads, how can you be disgusted/offended by their obviously subhuman sentiments?

Sputnik, you're talking about 'polite' argument, which is difficult for passionate people on any side of a viewpont. However, we're losing sight of the fact that the post we're talking about was a (very) humorous thread. It was meant to do what you say, make the point, but in this case, with humour. That surely met your requirement that insult and abuse is not to be used? The fact that a lot of people took the point seriously demonstrates a failure on their part, not the thread.

Could it not have been accomplished without using foul language?

That's my point. That's why it was locked.

so they didnt have human defecate? It was for sure "shit" right? Gotta learn to play the game Spoffin. That simple. The neo-Nazis have, and most of the anti-Nazis havent.

Once again, should you not read their threads, how can you be disgusted/offended by their obviously subhuman sentiments?

Just a touch disingenuous. If a neon light is flashing in your eyes, it's very hard to ignore. I see (as does Spoff) the thread titles such as; 'are Jews human?' and find it impossible to ignore. The only way to get the peace you talk about is for all the decent people to go elsewhere............no, no, don't say it.

Could it not have been accomplished without using foul language?

That's my point. That's why it was locked.

Yes it could. But it wouldn't have been as funny, and might have been seen as even more 'serious' than it was intended to be. As for foul language, every thread has WTF, Fcuk..........I'll go no further........hold on, one thread even had c***, the foulest word going. Many have ni*ger, kike etc. What am I telling you for? If the thread was locked due to foul language, bang goes three quarters of the site.

so they didnt have human defecate? It was for sure "shit" right? Gotta learn to play the game Spoffin. That simple. The neo-Nazis have, and most of the anti-Nazis havent.
The title was just summing up the content of the article. Would you not have locked it if the wording was human defecate rather than shit?


Once again, should you not read their threads, how can you be disgusted/offended by their obviously subhuman sentiments?
And if the racists didn't read BMV's thread, how could they be offended by what he said?

Could it not have been accomplished without using foul language?

That's my point. That's why it was locked.

Yes it could. But it wouldn't have been as funny, and might have been seen as even more 'serious' than it was intended to be. As for foul language, every thread has WTF, Fcuk..........I'll go no further........hold on, one thread even had c***, the foulest word going. Many have ni*ger, kike etc. What am I telling you for? If the thread was locked due to foul language, bang goes three quarters of the site.
Exactly. Was the thread locked for foul language or for being in bad taste? You've said different ones at different times.

On this board, everyone's political standing is valid - no matter where it may be on the political spectrum.
Unless you think that racists are subhuman?

See: Brain Picture. :P

On this board, everyone's political standing is valid - no matter where it may be on the political spectrum.
Unless you think that racists are subhuman?

See: Brain Picture. :P

Indeed. :lol:

So what can be lost by talking about this?

Absolutely nothing. However, nothing can really be gained by it either. So what's the point.

The problem with your logic is that if followed through, we might as well top ourselves now. There's no point in being alive if we meekly accept everyones point of view and pass on, oblivious. There would be no scientific discovery, no social progress, no nuffink. I for one, will continue to live my life by what I consider to be right, which is what you're saying, but I will not accept the views of others that corrode society and damage other human beings. And Sputnik, of course you are right, the rules are made by the rulers, but if the rulers were never challenged, inertia would cause stagnancy. Rather a bubbling, vibrant pool, than a stagnant pond?
What you just posted is the way I feel, almost point by point. I say that and feel that just as passionately, but I'm condemned for it because it doesn't conform to what too many people believe is the truth. I have the same beliefs only on the far side of the spectrum to you.

bump

The bottom line (as I see it) is you can't go saying people have "sh*t for brains." Any topic that says that is doomed from the start.

The bottom line (as I see it) is you can't go saying people have "sh*t for brains." Any topic that says that is doomed from the start.
Is that because of the language used, or cos its bad to insult people?

Bad to insult in that manner. An outright insult (Every person in this group sucks) is wrong. If you offer some actual proof as too why what you say is so (flawed as it may be) then at least you are not just rnadomly being nasty. So, unless you can prove that all racists have soild biological waste products in place of their brains....

Bad to insult in that manner. An outright insult (Every person in this group sucks) is wrong. If you offer some actual proof as too why what you say is so (flawed as it may be) then at least you are not just rnadomly being nasty. So, unless you can prove that all racists have soild biological waste products in place of their brains....

Everyone keeps forgetting that it was a very obvious joke, and in much better 'taste' than most on this site. It was a way of making a sharp point using humour. It was effective, despite some people jumping all over it as if it was serious. If we all made our points humorously, there would be less hatred and bile spilled out.

Bad to insult in that manner. An outright insult (Every person in this group sucks) is wrong. If you offer some actual proof as too why what you say is so (flawed as it may be) then at least you are not just rnadomly being nasty. So, unless you can prove that all racists have soild biological waste products in place of their brains....
So... you doubt the science in the post? Just like I doubt that its scientifically proven that blacks are less intelligent than whites, which was the subject of a topic that did not get locked.

Because, doubt it as you may, if you can offer real science, thats one thing. Saying that their brains are sh*t is just an outright insult.

So... you doubt the science in the post? Just like I doubt that its scientifically proven that blacks are less intelligent than whites, which was the subject of a topic that did not get locked.

You are aware of the ongoing debate over the book which sets out exactly these claims: 'The Bell Curve' by Murray and Herrnstein?

(I have not read the book myself, but I believe the main problem lies with the fundamental flaws in the Stanford-Binet IQ system, and the mistaken belief that it actually measures something which is equivalent to 'intellectual prowess'...)

Edit: here is a link to a page which voices some objections to the works of Murray & Herrnstein.
http://goinside.com/98/3/postmod.html

Might I take a moment to remind everyone that political matters are not to be debated here. Only the technicalities of Moderation. Does this thread still serve a purpose, or are we to consider it hijacked?

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

EDIT: I can't believe I typo-ed Moderation! :oops:

May as well close it. It doesn't do any good to try to make anyone understand anyway. :(

Then why are aryan tribe's anti-Jewish threads allowed? Is it a coincidence that Neutered Sputniks and National Socialism both have the initials NS?

Sigh. Well for a start, they are in General.

Locking.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator