Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Seth]

Jim should just leave you alone and let you say what ever you want just the same as everybody else
There is no excuse for singling you out just because you happen to express opinions he does not like
There is a healthy balance here between left and right so nothing should be done to undermine this

Remember you re only getting one side of the story here Mr 57

My point still stands however. The forum could have no rules
on personal attack and still function more or less as it is now

Of course, and it would. But it would mean that the leftists wouldn't get the last insult and they can't tolerate that either. The reason I was banned from RatSkep was NOT because I engaged in a personal attack, it was because I was so fucking good at taking down their stupid arguments and they were so incapable of controlling themselves that THEY were getting suspended and banned for violating the rules, so the dictators over there decided to permaban ME because THEY couldn't control their emotions. They had to violate every forum rule and every ethical constraint to permaban me because they are all fucking nitwits who are incapable of rational thought who can't stand to hear anything outside the vacuous echo-chambers that exists between their ears, where everyone else has a brain.

The same sort of illogic is taking place here, where overt violations by leftists against me are utterly ignored because to be ethically consistent they would have to suspend Feck, animavore and probably eRvin, among others, for a couple of months and they don't want to do that, so they violate their own rules instead. But let me protrude a toenail over the line and I'll be suspended for the max in an instant.

The hypocrisy is monumental.

[Animavore]

Liberals have never been tolerant of free speech. They only tolerate THEIR speech as animavore and Feck so clearly illustrate

Not true as I am very tolerant of free speech. And particularly the free speech of those who think differently to me
I do not believe in denying anyone their right to self expression whoever they may be or whatever they have to say

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[surreptitious57]

I draw the line at the consequences of free speech rather than free speech itself. That is my cut off point
And so as long as that line is not crossed then anyone should have the freedom to say whatever they want

[Animavore]

I draw the line at the consequences of free speech rather than free speech itself. That is my cut off point
And so as long as that line is not crossed then anyone should have the freedom to say whatever they want

Consequences like an uptick in violence towards POCs and homosexuals because of the intolerant speech of Trump and his worthless, Nazi supporters?

[Seth]

I draw the line at the consequences of free speech rather than free speech itself. That is my cut off point
And so as long as that line is not crossed then anyone should have the freedom to say whatever they want

Consequences like an uptick in violence towards POCs and homosexuals because of the intolerant speech of Trump and his worthless, Nazi supporters?

Mostly lies and false reports concocted by snowflake liberal fascists and yet another example of your intellectually-bankrupt Alinsky style lies.

And you of course completely ignore the many documented attacks on Trump supporters, including dragging a white man out of his car and beating him up and then stealing his car and almost killing him while accusing him of being a Trump voter...which he wasn't.

[surreptitious57]

I draw the line at the consequences of free speech rather than free speech itself. That is my cut off point
And so as long as that line is not crossed then anyone should have the freedom to say whatever they want

Consequences like an uptick in violence towards POC and homosexuals because of the intolerant speech of Trump and his worthless Nazi supporters

Any violence that is invoked as a consequence of free speech I condemn without reservation. Regardless of who is responsible for it. Now Trump
supporters have also been attacked so that has to be condemned too. You cannot just condemn the violence of one side while ignoring the other

[Animavore]

I draw the line at the consequences of free speech rather than free speech itself. That is my cut off point
And so as long as that line is not crossed then anyone should have the freedom to say whatever they want

Consequences like an uptick in violence towards POC and homosexuals because of the intolerant speech of Trump and his worthless Nazi supporters

Any violence that is invoked as a consequence of free speech I condemn without reservation. Regardless of who is responsible for it. Now Trump
supporters have also been attacked so that has to be condemned too. You cannot just condemn the violence of one side while ignoring the other

Who said I don't condemn violence against Trump supporters?

The fact is Trump's hate speech is empowering racists and homophobes to bully and intimidate minorities. This is a longer lasting consequence than some spur of the moment voter anger from Dems.

[Seth]

I draw the line at the consequences of free speech rather than free speech itself. That is my cut off point
And so as long as that line is not crossed then anyone should have the freedom to say whatever they want

Consequences like an uptick in violence towards POC and homosexuals because of the intolerant speech of Trump and his worthless Nazi supporters

Any violence that is invoked as a consequence of free speech I condemn without reservation. Regardless of who is responsible for it. Now Trump
supporters have also been attacked so that has to be condemned too. You cannot just condemn the violence of one side while ignoring the other

I agree. Violence is unacceptable as a response to free speech. It's illegal too. Moreover, the fact that some people with abhorrent right-wing ideologies support Trump is no more proof that Trump supports them or their ideologies (he doesn't, and has said so repeatedly) than support of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders by violent factions of radical left-wing groups can be laid at their feet.

This is the fallacy of guilt by association. Just as Trump can't stop neo-Nazis from supporting him...or committing crimes in his name...Clinton and Sanders can't stop radical leftists from fomenting violence in their names. In both cases, neither are responsible for the actions of violent fringe radicals and it's pure Alinsky slander to suggest they are.

[pErvinalia]

I am a biologist

and I am a male supermodel

You know Dave if you were a liberal no one would be questioning your occupation. However because you
are regarded by some here as Nazi scum this automatically makes you a liar. But I never felt the need to
doubt you. And neither do I now. And a more ridiculous example of a non sequitur would be hard to find

He's not doubted because of his views. He's doubted because he is a one trick pony that just posts the same incoherent rant over and over again and somehow thinks he is an intelligent debater. Whatever university gave him a BSc needs its funding removed.

[pErvinalia]

Calling another member a Nazi is a vicious personal attack that violates the FUA and for which you should be suspended

Given how thick skinned everybody here is then there is really no need to have any rule against personal attacks
There is plenty of name calling any way that is usually taken without offence which is another reason for no rule

Well of course I agree with you fully, but the problem is that when there is moderation here it is only exercised against those who express right-of-center political viewpoints.

I've reported nearly a dozen direct personal attacks in the last week or so and absolutely nothing has been done about them except to dismiss them. I get the email saying it's been dealt with, but clearly its not by sanctioning those (animavore and Feck in particular) who are doing it.

But, If I were to say to either of them what they have said to me I would be INSTANTLY suspended for the maximum amount of time without any warning or opportunity to argue my case at all. I've even been suspended for voicing objections to a particular moderator's misuse of power, since it seems that being critical of a moderator's improper actions is deemed to be a personal attack in and of itself. If one cannot be critical of the moderation that is taking place without being suspended this is just an ordinary run-of-the-mill dictatorship and unworthy of respect.

I really don't care if there's no personal attack rule or not, though I prefer to fight my own battles in that regard, but I do strenuously object to biased moderation, something which is clearly a cancer imported here from RatSkep.

No one gives a shit about your whining any more. You reap what you sow. Deal with it, Princess.

[Hermit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Yes, as Popper said, it is paradoxical that people should become intolerant in the name of tolerance. But why should they? He says, because unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. Must it? Popper does not even attempt to prove that it must. He merely repeats the same assertion in the next sentence. It is exactly the same as the preceding one except for the use of more words. You'll have a tough time arguing that unlimited tolerance was ever the prime reason for its own destruction, let alone that this must happen.

When it comes to freedom of speech I see no distinction between people who are intolerant to protect tolerance and those who are intolerant for any other reason. There is a tendency in all of them to expand the set of things that must not be said.

[Hermit]

I am a biologist

and I am a male supermodel

You know Dave if you were a liberal no one would be questioning your occupation.

Agreed.

[Hermit]

...the problem is that when there is moderation here it is only exercised against those who express right-of-center political viewpoints.

I've reported nearly a dozen direct personal attacks in the last week or so and absolutely nothing has been done about them except to dismiss them. I get the email saying it's been dealt with, but clearly its not by sanctioning those (animavore and Feck in particular) who are doing it.

But, If I were to say to either of them what they have said to me...

That is very much my impression too. Both animavore and Feck keep knowingly transgressing the forum rules. They said so when each of them announced that they will continue to break them regardless of the consequences. And what are the consequences? All I've seen so far are two courteously phrased reminders to cease their unacceptable behaviour. Though I have not bothered to keep a tally of their infringements I am of the impression that there have been way more than a dozen of them since you resumed flooding the forum with your stentorian sermons eight days ago. The uneven treatment is as obvious as it is appalling.

[pErvinalia]

I am a biologist

and I am a male supermodel

You know Dave if you were a liberal no one would be questioning your occupation.

Agreed.

Bullshit. He's questioned because the level of intellect and English comprehension displayed in his posts is incompatible with the level required to do a BSc.

[Animavore]

...the problem is that when there is moderation here it is only exercised against those who express right-of-center political viewpoints.

I've reported nearly a dozen direct personal attacks in the last week or so and absolutely nothing has been done about them except to dismiss them. I get the email saying it's been dealt with, but clearly its not by sanctioning those (animavore and Feck in particular) who are doing it.

But, If I were to say to either of them what they have said to me...

That is very much my impression too. Both animavore and Feck keep knowingly transgressing the forum rules. They said so when each of them announced that they will continue to break them regardless of the consequences. And what are the consequences? All I've seen so far are two courteously phrased reminders to cease their unacceptable behaviour. Though I have not bothered to keep a tally of their infringements I am of the impression that there have been way more than a dozen of them since you resumed flooding the forum with your stentorian sermons eight days ago. The uneven treatment is as obvious as it is appalling.

I think they've decided not to entertain my attempts to get suspended.

So be it. I'm not arsed now. All Trump supporters are on ignore. That's enough.