1 edit
Dodger11 has informed us at FW that he has been banned from RHP despite my eloquent defense of the toad. He has also written a contrite apology for all his misdeeds and I invite all to go the FW and read this emotionally, heart rending atonement.
http://michaeldweber.com/forumwars/viewtopic.php?t=800
Originally posted by Yozzer
Freedom of speech
What is it, and do we want or need it?
The simplest interpretation says that everyone who has the power of speech has freedom of speech: we can say whatever we wish to. Unfortunately, although most people might consider what we say reasonable and acceptable, there may be some who disagree so strongly that conflict results. In this case ...[text shortened]... f speech? Yes, I think so. Should this freedom be limited to courteous speech? Yes, I think so.
Great post Yozzer. I've rec-ed it.
I hope to see more of you on the "Debating" forums soon ....
Originally posted by xsAgreed. Dodger's remarks at FW have nothing to do with this
I'm not defending Dodger, but if you are going to judge people at RHP by what they post a FW, You'd better start a list.
site.
He is entitled to his flawed opinions about the nature of the world.
What he is not entitled to is make inflammatory racial remarks.
If he wants to say things like 'Blacks cause more crime,' that should
be permitted, as disgusting as its implications are. I find people who
say 'You won't be saved' disgusting as well. But, remember people
like xs think people who voted for Clinton are disgusting.
If he uses the n-word, fine, toss him. If he expresses himself with
decorum, even if his ideas are offensive, he shouldn't be dismissed
from this site.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI am usually in agreement with most things you write in the forums and have rec'd many of them but on this one you are dead wrong in my opinion.
Agreed. Dodger's remarks at FW have nothing to do with this
site.
He is entitled to his flawed opinions about the nature of the world.
What he is not entitled to is make inflammatory racial remarks.
If he wants to say things like 'Blacks cause more crime,' that should
be permitted, as disgusting as its implications are. I find people who
say ...[text shortened]... decorum, even if his ideas are offensive, he shouldn't be dismissed
from this site.
Nemesio
Dodger has admitted in these forums that he participates in an hate forum on another site.What better way to say that I accept your vocation in life, than to allow him to stay as long as he words his hate appropriatley to fit the decorum here at RHP.
Someone who says that blacks cause more crime,and possibly has data to back his claim but has nothing against blacks by admission is ,as you say acceptable,and should and will be debated.
Someone who admits he participates in the spewing of hate is an entirely different matter.You will never debate with this person and there are no comparrisons that you can use to justify letting him stay.
Hate is hate,and you don't give it a forum to. grow and elicite new members to your cause.You shun it so that those that hate find there is nobody to listen to their rantings.
This is a privately owned site and I applaud Russ for his decision.
Regards Mike
Originally posted by Windsor MikeWell said.
I am usually in agreement with most things you write in the forums and have rec'd many of them but on this one you are dead wrong in my opinion.
Dodger has admitted in these forums that he participates in an hate forum on another site.What better way to say that I accept your vocation in life, than to allow him to stay as long as he words his hate a ...[text shortened]... tings.
This is a privately owned site and I applaud Russ for his decision.
Regards Mike
P
Originally posted by YozzerI disagree, I would prefer to have nazi's and racists express their oppinions in public. This way you will know who you are talking to and you will have a chance to confront them about it, and maybe try to talk some sense into them.
Freedom of speech
What is it, and do we want or need it?
The simplest interpretation says that everyone who has the power of speech has freedom of speech: we can say whatever we wish to. Unfortunately, although most people might consider what we say reasonable and acceptable, there may be some who disagree so strongly that conflict results. In this case ...[text shortened]... f speech? Yes, I think so. Should this freedom be limited to courteous speech? Yes, I think so.
I disagree with dodger11's idee's but I also disagree with his banning.
Maybe he's banned now but he's still a racist. And his hate has probably only increased.
Also this courteous speech wont help anything because there are lots of subtle ways of insulting people. I could insult people by just ignoring them...
Originally posted by no1marauderI also stand with no1 in opposition to this effort, for the reasons he stated.
I don't support this thread. While everything Darvlay says is true, I don't like the idea of a bunch of subscribers banding together to try to get someone kicked off the site. It was successfully done before, albeit in a sneakier manner, and I opposed it then so it would be hypocritical not to oppose it now. There are many people on this site wh ...[text shortened]... should be censored are sufficient to ban such person. Therefore, I do not support this effort.
Originally posted by royalchickenIf you and dr.scrib would like, you can join his racist forums to talk with them all you like. There are plenty places to talk about hate.... It is not needed here at RHP.
Agreed, with the caveat that if we are listened to, as much latitude is allowed us in personally attacking Dodger11 (not merely his views) as he is allowed in expressing himself.
P
Originally posted by PhlabibitWhy would I want to join a racist forum?
If you and dr.scrib would like, you can join his racist forums to talk with them all you like. There are plenty places to talk about hate.... It is not needed here at RHP.
P
I'm alluding to the fact that several people were personally attacked by Dodger11, in contravention of the ToS, so he should be allowed back only if the clause about personal attacks is removed from the ToS -- my post had little to do with his racism.
Originally posted by royalchickenI'll take the hit on that, I thought you were saying he should be able to state his case, as long as we can personally attack him.
Why would I want to join a racist forum?
I'm alluding to the fact that several people were personally attacked by Dodger11, in contravention of the ToS, so he should be allowed back only if the clause about personal attacks is removed from the ToS -- my post had little to do with his racism.
Sorry, as you know... that is not the first time I didn't get one of your posts.
P
Originally posted by PhlabibitWill this "banning people who talk about hate" policy extend to some of our posters who regularly post homophobic statements and slurs? Will it include those who voice the sentiment that all those who do not share their religious beliefs will be eternally punished by God? Finally, will it include those of us who publicly post that we hate playing against the Center Counter or the Caro-Kann?
If you and dr.scrib would like, you can join his racist forums to talk with them all you like. There are plenty places to talk about hate.... It is not needed here at RHP.
P
In Clarificationship,
2BitLawyer
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course it will, if Phlab's position has any hope of not crumpling under contradiction, and not planting its foundation on a political soapbox from which all other views and values are deemed inferior, with the administration of justice taking place by force from atop said box.
Will this "banning people who talk about hate" policy extend to some of our posters who regularly post homophobic statements and slurs? Will it include those who voice the sentiment that all those who do not share their religi ...[text shortened]... Caro-Kann?
In Clarificationship,
2BitLawyer
In myenemy'senemy'smyfriendship,
Dr. S
"You find me offensive. I find you offensive for finding me offensive." -- Mathers