PART I - Intellectual honesty and courtesy, not dogmatic adherence to a principal seems to me to be the most important values to promote at SI.
It is not enough to be compassionate, you must act. I commend those on this thread and elsewhere for acting and contacting SI Bob with their concerns about E Charters. Did you contact SI Bob to ask for his reinstatement? Please at least try to demonstrate some compassion on this thread (as Wizzer has towards you) and control your anger.
You said: "I think you might do well to meditate on the risks to your nervous and gastric systems inherent in the futile effort to control the speech of others I suspect that you are less concerned with my health than making some point.
If you consider attempts to improve the quality of discourse at SI an attempt to control the speech of others, so be it. If I was at a quality restaurant and someone was farting or smoking a cigar, I would ask them to stop it or leave. If they refused I would change my seat. I'm still not sure SI will ever possess the quality I seek, I can only hope to identify those individuals within the SI community that share my vision.
Somehow you overlooked the fact that in my attempts to "control the speech of others,"
It was I that contacted SI Bob and got his TERMINATION changed to a suspension. You will note that my post was the first to announce his return: "E. Charters has had his termination reduced to a 14-day Suspension", reference: Message 5745896 .
Indeed, who is the proponent of free speech? SI Bob is a member of this community. You attack THEIR RIGHT to freely communicate with him when they do not agree with your dogma regarding "Free speech."
I have received some training in dealing with hate crimes and identifying prejudice. Believe me it takes no expert to conclude that the language used in E Charter's Post that you reference is typical RACIST. Sure you can say that there is a hidden non-racist meaning, however on the face of it, it is clear. What is it that you know that makes you say:
I don't think Charters is any racist, imho he was speaking
figuratively in pointing up the obvious fact that longterm
religiously-instilled hatreds could easily blow up the Middle East
and that in such an event gold would be a safe haven for wealth.
Here is what he said:
What racist? It is racist to defend your country? Look when it comes to defending America every gook and camel jockey is dead meat. I am not prejudiced merely effectively survivalist paranoid. Don't get me wrong, if there were not a fundamental disagreement that the world is too small for both of us, I would have a herd of camels in my backyard just to lure them over for a few non alcoholic drinks and shoot the camel dung. And I am sure they aren't all bad. But to keep it simple and make sure we don't miss any, we kill em all. No offense meant towards the innocent ones in the process. It's
up to them to get it straight with their buddies in the very short meantime and do an abrupt and very contrite change in policy. Again it's not about race. It's about. "You wanna kill me. Ooooo kay.. but I have to trust an unknown per centage of your kind while murdering the rest? Sorry haven't got time for a program. Waste of valloooyable time." Besides crews missiles are not that discriminatory, especially when nuclear tipped. If you want to say racist, well you wil die saying it so, that is too bad. Too bad. I am genuinely sorry, but it's not my fault for wanting to survive.
Right, when someone says lets put all the jews, homosexuals, gypsies, jehovah's witnesses, communists, socialists, vagrants, lesbians, and emigrants into "Protective Custody," we should not consider that they might mean death camps. But, when someone explicitly says, "But to keep it simple and make sure we don't miss any, we kill em all." It actually only means, as you say, ". . . in such an event gold would be a safe haven for wealth." A bit of a stretch for an untrained gold bug like me.
Marcos, thank you for continuing to be a catalyst for reflection and discussion on the topic of this thread. I find it a useful device to explore the most extreme logical extensions of an idea. However, it would be a lot more productive if you were able to answer simple questions.
My simple and direct question:
Message 5757868
Your response that doesn't answer the simple question but merely repeats your dogma and insults others:
techstocks.com
My reply again asking for an honest answer:
techstocks.com
And no reply from you, a signal that you do not seek to increase your understanding nor mine.
Yes, as you say, "Here is some background to flesh out the story . . ." I insist on intellectual honesty. Otherwise you have nothing for me that I'm interested in. BTW, it was my requirement that the (as you say) Moronista be intellectually honest, in addressing me. It took me a little longer to figure out he was just farting. techstocks.com Notice, if you can, his failure to support any of his assertions nor to answer any questions that are directed towards seeking the truth.
I suppose using the same standard you must conclude that I am attempting to control your speech. I have no desire to do that. However, I will control mine. Until I see evidence of you reforming your ways, I will try to not discuss this topic with you any further. Maybe you'll be more helpful on my gold positions. BTW, you are 100% right about tortious. I had no idea it was actually a legal term of art. However, you have now admitted that, "some of my best friends are tortuous." Unfortunately, they are also SI Members.
|
