< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

An Immediate request of all Sam Harris.org members

 
zelzo
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  2029
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
15 November 2008 10:41
 
teuchter - 14 November 2008 11:39 PM

Actually I’m this annoying in person.

Really, well the thought never crossed my mind. LOL

 
 
isocratic infidel
 
Avatar
 
 
isocratic infidel
Total Posts:  1054
Joined  08-10-2007
 
 
 
18 November 2008 11:04
 

One thing can be said for Immediate Suppression, her/his chosen moniker certainly fits.  smirk
Are you getting it yet Immediate Suppression of Expression?

ISofE: There is a pattern of negativity that has consistently infected this forum.

LOL hahahahahahahahaha!

This isn’t a yoga class or a church for atheists where everyone should:

stop all unnecessary condescending comments, personal smears, or derogatory language directed towards any other members.  You are free to disagree with people, but please do it in a civil, respectful manner.

You remind me of the former, frequent, pedophile-defending muslim, Jack Shooter. He made this same request… it appears to be a characteristic of certain individuals who think it’s their job to control others.
“You are free to disagree…” well, how magnanimous of you ISofE to tell us we what we are “free” to do. Are you this controlling in your personal relationships as well?

You and principal Keep should go out together and wallow in “civility” together and quit telling other posters how to express themselves. The only truly offensive posters are the ones who think they have a right not to be offended and tell others to quit being offensive.

Either sit back and enjoy the diversity of opinions and ideas and styles of expression here or do what Sander said in post #2.

 
 
SidewalkCynic
 
Avatar
 
 
SidewalkCynic
Total Posts:  279
Joined  13-12-2007
 
 
 
18 November 2008 13:58
 
Dee - 14 November 2008 06:18 AM

Then last but not least, think of Sam Harris . I’m grateful for him and admire him. He’s the reason this forum exists . So with respect to him,don’t turn this privlege into a teen-age chat room.  Give this board some due class…in honor of Sam Harris if nothing else.

Yes, this would seem to be a consideration. And I am certain I made a comment to the effect that some of the “reasoning” around here must be embarrassing to Harris, but there has not been any moderation. I’m not sure, but I think it comes down to if you don’t like it, ignore it.

 
 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
19 November 2008 15:30
 
little baby cheeses - 12 November 2008 04:39 PM
Immediate Suppression - 11 November 2008 09:39 PM

  You are free to disagree with people, but please do it in a civil, respectful manner.

little baby cheeses - 12 November 2008 04:39 PM

Explain why should anyone be respectful when their intelligence is being insulted?

So that the conversation remains civil.  When conversations become uncivil, both sides typically become polarized, the name-calling becomes a distraction, and the discussion becomes unproductive.

Some people in this forum resort to name-calling just to kill the conversation out of frustration of not being able to change the other persons mind.  They use the insults as an excuse to not continue the dialogue because they are frustrated with the lack of success of their efforts. 

little baby cheeses - 12 November 2008 04:39 PM

Sam Harris said, in effect, that we should not tolerate idiots and their ideas and that this a major part of the world’s problem.

 
So you do everything that Sam Harris tells you to?  And by the way, that is not, in effect, what Sam Says.  He is more of an advocate of confronting irrational ideas, not expressing intolerance.

little baby cheeses - 12 November 2008 04:39 PM

I seem to remember his description of Sarah Palin as a “rapture ready idiot” as very respectful and civil.

You misremembered.

little baby cheeses - 12 November 2008 04:39 PM

Oh yes, let us be most respectful of the stoning to death of women who look at a man and therefore bring dishonour on their family.  Female circumcision anyone?

Attempting to change the subject, anyone?

little baby cheeses - 12 November 2008 04:39 PM

Bloody idiot.

Bloody bad post.

[ Edited: 19 November 2008 16:12 by Immediate Suppression]
 
 
zelzo
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  2029
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
19 November 2008 17:05
 

Some people in this forum resort to name-calling just to kill the conversation out of frustration of not being able to change the other persons mind.  They use the insults as an excuse to not continue the dialogue because they are frustrated with the lack of success of their efforts

There is (sometimes)  a passive-aggressive nature to the tactic when people use foul language to engage in an argument.  I’ve seen it used here to intimidate and dismiss other people’s views. IMO it clearly weakens a person’s argument and credibility in these kinds of instances, but there is no sense in trying to suppress it.  Instead use it as a means of information about your opponent so that you can develop your own stronger counter argument.

It is also used as a bullying device, a defense mechanism and as a last resort—to parade one’s narcissistic belief that they are intellectually superior. It’s all actually a sham but it’s like the emperor who wore no clothes, the (foul-mouthed)  poster keeps strutting around like he/she is above reproach.

Having said that, as I mentioned before, there are cases when foul language is appropriate, humorous and points out interesting ironies.  The difference is the former results in personal attacks on people and the latter simply describes a situation. The former is a tirade of emotion the latter is often a rational response and description of reality.

 
 
ooo
 
Avatar
 
 
ooo
Total Posts:  240
Joined  02-09-2008
 
 
 
19 November 2008 20:23
 

I like a civil conversation too, just like a civil war - the most bloody of engagements known to humanity.

Good stuff often comes out of such “civil” engagements.  Your own nation state came into being as an act of civil disobedience which became a civil war.  Granted you have redefined an English colonial civil war to be a ‘revolution’, but to try and narrow the definition of what is ‘civil’ and claim it as your own is a disingenuous monoculture of mind.

So by all means let’s have a civil discussion, and please be respectful of the diverse meaning of the term and peoples on this forum.  So that means being respectful of people telling you that you’re an idiot, or worse.

IS, I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend until death your right to say it (Voltaire).  So contribute by all means and also pretty please piss off and leave me alone, as I don’t have time for narrow minded control freaks trying to impose their views of civility on the world.

 
isocratic infidel
 
Avatar
 
 
isocratic infidel
Total Posts:  1054
Joined  08-10-2007
 
 
 
20 November 2008 09:40
 

Good post lbcheeses!  Good use of simile to segue into an analogy. And “spot on” as the english say.

And now… to go a little off topic, you said:

Granted you have redefined an English colonial civil war to be a ‘revolution’,

Make that, ‘historical myth makers re-labeled the English colonial civil war as a “revolution.”’ It seems it is the birthright of a nation to put a nation-embracing spin on the causus beli and the war in the aftermath of said war.
Although, Thomas Paine, one of the major advocators for this war, called for a revolution prior to the start of the war later known as the revolution. Would Paine himself have preferred a bloodless revolution where ideas went to battle instead of bodies? Safe to say, “you betcha” wink My off-topic point here is that the “winner” of the war gets to name (even re-name) it whatever the fuck it wants.
I always found it annoying that these same “historical myth makers” allowed Jackson’s blatant and brutal massacre of the Creek indians to be included as ‘just another battle’ in the war of 1812, rather than the racially motivated wanton slaughter that is was.

And now back on point: This forum is a bastion of free speech; not a forum for would-be censors. All those bemoaning the lack of moderators here bemoan the notion of a free markekplace of ideas as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis and Alexander Meikeljohn argued for.  Now these guys understood that an insult is not a threat and should not be punishable expression.

Just for fun, I’d also like to discuss the fans of the “ignore” option. Isn’t ignoring a post the equivalent of sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears whilst sticking one’s tongue out between one’s pursed lips and blowing out air, causing one’s tongue to vibrate and spray spittle? Kind of a thou Shalt Not Listen to other’s ideas mentality, don’t you think?

Many of the long-time posters on this forum, ImmediateS, are secure enough in their own personality and sense of self that they can read, or “listen to” the ideas of others and not feel threatened…. the whole “ignore” button option seems a little childish to me:<indignantly with hands on hips> “Well, I don’t like what you said; or You swore!; or well, you’re just a stupid idiot; or that was just so mean, so I’m just going to ignore you from now on! So there!” <sticks out tongue and clicks “ignore” button>

Okay, I’m done now.
Oh, and lindajean, excellent observations in all your posts.

 
 
ooo
 
Avatar
 
 
ooo
Total Posts:  240
Joined  02-09-2008
 
 
 
20 November 2008 14:00
 
isocratic infidel - 20 November 2008 02:40 PM

My off-topic point here is that the “winner” of the war gets to name (even re-name) it whatever the fuck it wants.

Absolutely, have just returned from a country that won what they call the “the American war”.  The Vietnamese are delightful people btw. 

I think it was Winston Churchill who said “History will be kind to me because I intend to write it.”  His later seven volume opus of WW2 proved the point.

 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
20 November 2008 21:21
 
little baby cheeses - 20 November 2008 01:23 AM

IS, I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend until death your right to say it (Voltaire).

No, you absolutely will not.  You have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with defending my freedom of speech.  Nothing.  Zilch.  Nada.  Quit pretending.  Don’t give yourself credit for something you have absolutely nothing to do with.

[ Edited: 20 November 2008 21:25 by Immediate Suppression]
 
 
ooo
 
Avatar
 
 
ooo
Total Posts:  240
Joined  02-09-2008
 
 
 
20 November 2008 22:24
 
Immediate Suppression - 21 November 2008 02:21 AM
little baby cheeses - 20 November 2008 01:23 AM

IS, I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend until death your right to say it (Voltaire).

No, you absolutely will not.  You have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with defending my freedom of speech.  Nothing.  Zilch.  Nada.  Quit pretending.  Don’t give yourself credit for something you have absolutely nothing to do with.

Really?  I also love the assumptions and the presumptions of the pissed off, but again feel free to speak for me and contradict that as well. 

Anyway,

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me ....... Nah, na, na, nah, na, na, nah!  At this juncture an advanced lesson in tolerance is needed, but I regress.

 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
20 November 2008 23:03
 
little baby cheeses - 21 November 2008 03:24 AM
Immediate Suppression - 21 November 2008 02:21 AM
little baby cheeses - 20 November 2008 01:23 AM

IS, I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend until death your right to say it (Voltaire).

No, you absolutely will not.  You have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with defending my freedom of speech.  Nothing.  Zilch.  Nada.  Quit pretending.  Don’t give yourself credit for something you have absolutely nothing to do with.

Really?  I also love the assumptions and the presumptions of the pissed off, but again feel free to speak for me and contradict that as well. 

Anyway,

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me ....... Nah, na, na, nah, na, na, nah!  At this juncture an advanced lesson in tolerance is needed, but I regress.

Did I call you a name, little cheese?  Please point it out, and I will promptly apologize.  My post was not an example of intolerance, it was an example of calling out irrational claims.  You have absolutely nothing to do with defending my freedom of speech.  If you think you do, which you clearly do not, please feel free to elaborate.

 
 
ooo
 
Avatar
 
 
ooo
Total Posts:  240
Joined  02-09-2008
 
 
 
21 November 2008 01:58
 

Immediate, I don’t really know how to say this without insulting you, but your command of the English language is somewhat lacking.  Please read Voltaire’s credo again paying attention to the tense.  You will notice that the credo is a statement of intent to protect your right to free speech in the future should it be threatened.  This makes your response seem silly quite frankly, which in turn makes me an idiot for even bothering to respond to it.

As for the name calling: whilst I agree my message was a little obtuse, the childhood lesson in a ditty was for all those on the forum that have forgotten it, and you appear to be one of them.

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14484
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
21 November 2008 06:18
 
little baby cheeses - 21 November 2008 06:58 AM

This makes your response seem silly quite frankly, which in turn makes me an idiot for even bothering to respond to it.

I wouldn’t put it to you so bluntly or harshly, but I think you’re onto something there, man!

Byron

 
 
Immediate Suppression
 
Avatar
 
 
Immediate Suppression
Total Posts:  205
Joined  19-10-2008
 
 
 
21 November 2008 07:53
 
little baby cheeses - 21 November 2008 06:58 AM

Immediate, I don’t really know how to say this without insulting you, but your command of the English language is somewhat lacking.  Please read Voltaire’s credo again paying attention to the tense.  You will notice that the credo is a statement of intent to protect your right to free speech in the future should it be threatened.

Sorry about the misunderstanding, I was simply responding to a sentence you wrote in which it appeared you might be trying to take some credit for defending for defending my freedom of speech, and I just wanted to make sure you weren’t.  Thanks for confirming that you have absolutely nothing to do with defending my freedom of speech, and that you never will.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
21 November 2008 09:22
 
Immediate Suppression - 21 November 2008 12:53 PM

you have absolutely nothing to do with defending my freedom of speech, and that you never will.

For my money, I wouldn’t defend your freedom of speech, unless you could first be institutionalized.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›