Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: Solon	8/31/2005 2:57:13 AM
	Read Replies (2) of 28931

I will put my EDIT at the top. THIS DAMN freedom of expression! If SI continues in her role of insulting "ignores" and "bannees" and depriving equal members of expressing a free opinion--because they may not speak...then there will be NO value to SI. The only value SI has is in free exprression and argument--including the freedom to "truly" not read a post (out of thousands)...unless they TRULY WANT TO!! Such children do NOT need any gratuitous weapons for what is clearly phoney and childish. Intelligent men and women can respond to civilized posts or they can report them as violations of TOU if they are afraid to argue whatever point. SI HAS restrictions on free speech. Good for them. I am in full support. I do not support mindless social insects destroying dialogue (regardless of the passion) because they already know EVERYTHING! A word about free speech as it has become an issue recently with all the discussions of "ignores" and "bannings". These "features" have reduced SI to a circus ground of clowns and playground bullies. Honest polemic (the only way to learn) is being replaced by cheap shots delivered between phoney "ignores" and capricious and calculated "bannings". Well, why can't people be arbitrary and capricious in their own home? The answer, of course, is that they CAN. But SI is not a private home. It is a home to many people. One of the expectations of people on a public membership forum devoted to the free interchange of ideas and the pursuit of knowledge--is that any restrictions on free speech ought be tolerable and consistent--and justifiable before the Court of REASON. Following the rationally derived TOU's as guidelines would certainly be consistent with such fairness and justice. However, the practice of allowing ANYONE who starts a thread to arbitrarily treat all posters with prejudicial access and prejudicial input and prejudicial JUSTICE--this flies in the face of the entire democratic concept of equal rights and equal opportunity and freedom of expression within the limits of rational experience and consensus. Anyone can easily be ignored on any thread by simply spending from 1/2 to one second to skim their post and moving to the next (the posts are being read in series. The latter is far quicker than either clicking on the "ignores to hypocritically read them...or from simply moving past them in the normal methodology). On the other hand, banning someone who has not offended the terms of use is akin to a declaration that dictators are the arbiter of what opinions are worthy or unworthy, intelligent or foolish...not the common folk. Not the people that walk and talk and throw rocks--and win Nobel prizes when the monkeys are kept off their backs. Banners that go beyond the terms of use are DICTATORS. Now show me one example in history of a dictator you would have LOVED to live under--while still loving the American Way Of Life??! A person who consistently violated the "spirit" of a thread WOULD be violating the TOU's. I am therefore NOT saying that bannings are out of bounds. But it is clear that thesis, antithesis, and synthesis requires that we are permitted to listen to other opinions even when poorly or rudely constructed or expressed. A thread moderator (somebody who starts a thread) is pissed at some opinion so he/she capriciously deprives ALL OTHER thread followers of dialogue with that person?? Absolutely ridiculous. ANYBODY can INDIVIDUALLY decide to respond or not respond to a posting JUST AS IF THEY WERE ADULTS WITH A BRAIN. And even if they ask the thread moderator to "ban" somebody they dislike (as if they were the only person on the thread who needed to be pampered)...HOW is that fair to all the scores of other people on the thread who wish to engage in honest dialogue--with or without sarcasm, insult, or expression of values and feelings (OH! We mustn't express our feelings or values!). What people do NOT realize in their (honest) attempts to improve the world, is that letting others decide who can talk publicly on a paid forum and coercing what they may say...is no different in principle than the INQUISITION. I would urge people to grasp the bigger picture. Some of you are grasping a wonderful picture--one that will be CRUSHED and ANNIHILATED if you lose what is fundamental.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next