01 May 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtTry and elevate your thought just a little above Dasa and ask yourself whether you can condemn someone for thinking 'stuff' and expressing it.
Here are a small selection of recent threads Dasa started, along with their titles, bits in square brackets are my addition to explain context:
Threads about Islam:
Thread 168243 270 million murdered [allegedly by Muslims]
Thread 168157 Cologne attacks
Thread 168069 Lovers of terrorism [anyone not support ...[text shortened]... osts, but this is systematic. I really think that Dasa had overstepped the mark by a barn mile.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIt takes no more bravery to condemn someone for statements that are deemed to be politically incorrect than it does to view Squiggly the adorable squirrel all dressed up for dinner with Roger Rabbit and Fluffy the Ferret. On the other hand, to stand up to thought police and to champion freedom of thought and freedom of expression even for those whose views we abhor takes not only a greater degree of bravery but also a greater degree of tolerance.
As luck would have it, Robbie didn't read any of that so couldn't possibly condemn it or take a stance against it. At the time he was in the kitchen making a cup of tea; was in the garden deadheading roses, was in the garage polishing his girly pink bicycle, up a tree chasing a squirrel, at the hospital having his spine surgically removed.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
01 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCalls for genocide sir are a tad more than political incorrectness.
It takes no more bravery to condemn someone for statements that are deemed to be politically incorrect than it does to view Squiggly the adorable squirrel all dressed up for dinner with Roger Rabbit and Fluffy the Ferret. On the other hand, to stand up to thought police and to champion freedom of thought and freedom of expression even for those whos ...[text shortened]... iews we abhor takes not only a greater degree of bravery but also a greater degree of tolerance.
Boy, when you are wrong, you really go to town with it.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeLudicrous calls for genocide that have no real basis in any reality, that are never likely to be realised by anyone in a squillion zillion years. You have condemned a man for expressing a total fantasy! Its only a matter of time before you start monitoring day dreamers for signs of thoughtcrimes! and hauling them off to room 101 for correction!
Calls for genocide sir are a tad more than political incorrectness.
Boy, when you are wrong, you really go to town with it.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117372
01 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's your thread about one of the most offensive posters ever seen at rhp, it's your reputation you're staking on it and your ideas which are driving it. Carry on robbie...
So far I don't think I have suggested a single thing that you suggest I have suggested. Are you running out of ideas?
Originally posted by divegeesterthere you go, pandering to fear. Why are you so afraid divegeester, are you afraid the thought police will get you too? actually my thread is about freedom of thought and condemning people for thinking 'stuff', I have repeated it to you about three times now and still you have failed to grasp it. I doubt you will ever really be able to grasp it, its somehow impossible for you to divorce the personalities from the arguments that they make, everything you see is seen through a kind of world of personalities where abstract thought and objective reasoning cannot exist independently. Are you aware of what Devils advocate is?
It's your thread about one of the most offensive posters ever seen at rhp, it's your reputation you're staking on it and your ideas which are driving it. Carry on robbie...
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further. In taking this position, the individual taking on and playing the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such a process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses, if possible, in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance. The background of this word comes from an official position within the Catholic Church, in which a canon lawyer called the Advocatus Diaboli (Latin for "Devil's Advocate) also known as the Promoter of Faith, "argued against the canonization (sainthood) of a candidate in order to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentation evidence favoring canonization."
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe entire second paragraph of this post is plagiarized, robbie.
there you go, pandering to fear. Why are you so afraid divegeester, are you afraid the thought police will get you too? actually my thread is about freedom of thought and condemning people for thinking 'stuff', I have repeated it to you about three times now and still you have failed to grasp it. I doubt you will ever really be able to grasp it, it ...[text shortened]... te in order to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentation evidence favoring canonization."
02 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you have been blanking out observations and questions you find inconvenient, you have been dodging or misrepresenting responses to what you have posted, your "argument", such as it is, has been shifting and inconsistent, and you have been dishing out silly little attempted insults instead of addressing what's been put to you. To try to pass it off as "devil's advocacy" doesn't work. Depicting yourself as engaging in "devil's advocacy" is just a cop out after 8 pages of refusing to discuss something properly.
actually my thread is about freedom of thought and condemning people for thinking 'stuff', [...] Are you aware of what Devils advocate is?
02 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes. There are limits to free speech, "I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.", really cannot apply to things like calls for genocide. Had he been arguing for a ban on immigration of Muslims then I'd disagree and it would be a fairly extreme position, but it wouldn't exceed the limits of free speech.
Try and elevate your thought just a little above Dasa and ask yourself whether you can condemn someone for thinking 'stuff' and expressing it.
I disagree with your statement in reply to another poster that "no one would act on such a fantasy". There are two difficulties. The first is that while I agree that 99% or 99.9% of people would not, that one in a hundred or one in a thousand would. In the UK 0.1% of the population is 60,000 people. The second problem is that if such calls are tolerated they become normalized so that a call for genocide becomes an extreme, but normal position. This makes an actual genocide attempt far more likely. It has happened before.
Further he'd clearly and repeatedly violated the Terms of Service which are pretty clear on this type of behaviour, it contains the words: "Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;"
His call for the annihilation of all Muslims was probably illegal and certainly hateful. He'd broken the implicit agreement we all make with the site not to break the rules, so the moderators were entitled to act. There are limits to free speech and calls for genocide clearly overstep that mark.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
02 May 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtExcellent post.
Yes. There are limits to free speech, "I disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.", really cannot apply to things like calls for genocide. Had he been arguing for a ban on immigration of Muslims then I'd disagree and it would be a fairly extreme position, but it wouldn't exceed the limits of free speech.
...[text shortened]... tled to act. There are limits to free speech and calls for genocide clearly overstep that mark.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf a headmaster was chairing a meeting of his school's parent teacher association and
Ludicrous calls for genocide that have no real basis in any reality, that are never likely to be realised by anyone in a squillion zillion years. You have condemned a man for expressing a total fantasy! Its only a matter of time before you start monitoring day dreamers for signs of thoughtcrimes! and hauling them off to room 101 for correction!
[1] he fantasized about having sex with all the mothers at the meeting but kept this thought to himself
[2] he said to the assembled meeting that he wished he could have sex with the mothers at the meeting
[3] he showed a power point slide to the meeting with the text: "I wish I could have sex with all the mothers attending this meeting" but said nothing out loud
...in your view, should any of these, [1], [2], or [3], result in any condemnation and/or punishment of, or restrictions placed upon, the headmaster?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117372
02 May 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI think you can see know why Robbie is the forum pariah that he is.
As luck would have it, Robbie didn't read any of that so couldn't possibly condemn it or take a stance against it. At the time he was in the kitchen making a cup of tea; was in the garden deadheading roses, was in the garage polishing his girly pink bicycle, up a tree chasing a squirrel, at the hospital having his spine surgically removed.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117372
02 May 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut dasa did express it!
Try and elevate your thought just a little above Dasa and ask yourself whether you can condemn someone for thinking 'stuff' and expressing it.
As I asked you previously but you declined to respond; if you want to discuss a hypothetical scenario of "thought crimes" then why use dasa as an example? Dasa "expressed" his thoughts publibpcally, repeatedly and vociferously.