I cannot participate in a forum where I am censored. The admins here are censoring my right to free speech out of a ridiculous sense of PC-soaked idiocy (based probably on requests for censorship raised by Reg the Fronkey Farmer and Gallup's Mirror)

The fact that the welfare state induces dysgenics based on IQ has been proven many times over. Human biological diversity is also true. If I am not even allowed argue my case, then what is the point of having a debate? I am not even allowed to reply to accusations of racism that have been levelled against me.

I have no doubt that Reg and Gallup will continue thinking of themselves as open-minded even after this incident - they have the ability to believe whatever it is they want to believe.

Views: 971

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Pretty sure the only 'right to free speech' you have is that the government won't arrest you for what you say. Companies can stop you from saying it. Like what A&E did to the 'Duck Dynasty' guy.

EDIT: Online forums have every right to do as they please with comments they don't like. Don't like that? Try another forum.

EDIT 2: Obviously, it's entirely possible that you could be arrested if you threaten to kill or do harm to someone.

Thank you!

No one has censored you. You were called out by a mod for violating rules/ guidelines for posting racist remarks. Free speech has nothing to do with it.

When you signed up you agreed to the TOS and our rules. It is your responsibility to adhere to them. When a moderator calls you out on a violation ,as Reg did, it had nothing to do with free speech. There were several reports of your remarks from different members. Pointing fingers at a moderator and an upstanding member of our community does not make it right.

Dan

Administrator.

I cannot participate in a forum where I am censored. The admins here are censoring my right to free speech out of a ridiculous sense of PC-soaked idiocy (based probably on requests for censorship raised by Reg the Fronkey Farmer and Gallup's Mirror)

Ah, a classic 'rage quit' on the heels of protesting "unfair" censorship. (Did I call it or what, Reg?)

The fact that the welfare state induces dysgenics based on IQ has been proven many times over.

Remember, folks. The statement above is pronounced, 'black people have inferior genetics and welfare programs cause it'.

When asked to show his "proof", Civi produced the following series of claims where each ended ignominiously (with Civi no longer responding) as indicated;

Debunked (as fraudulent), debunked (non sequiter fallacy), debunked (burden of proof fallacy), (Debunked) unsourced claim, Debunked (no causality), Debunked (anecdotal), Protesting being debunked, Debunked (as fraudulent), Debunked (no causality), Debunked (straw man fallacy), Protesting being debunked again, Debunked (ambiguity fallacy), Debunked (straw man fallacy), Debunked, (straw man fallacy, burden of proof fallacy).

Human biological diversity is also true. 

That's a composition fallacy.

Your argument is that black people have inferior genetics and welfare programs cause it. That "human biological diversity" is true has no bearing on that claim in any way you have demonstrated.

If I am not even allowed argue my case, then what is the point of having a debate?

You mean "not allowed" except for the fifteen times you quit responding after attempting to argue your case with a barrage of logical fallacy, faulty reasoning, blank repetition and fraudulent research.

I am not even allowed to reply to accusations of racism that have been levelled against me.

Racism is the belief that members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race which distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race. In your case, you attempted (and failed) to argue in support of your belief that blacks are inferior to whites based on genetics and welfare.

I'm not accusing you of racism. I don't have to. You stated it clearly yourself many times.

For example, you referred to "black women from the projects" who "line up to have sex with" the "drug peddling thugs" as an example of a "barbaric environment" where "a female barbarian is sexually attracted to a male barbarian."

"There is an atavistic module in female sexuality that is attracted to barbaric dominant thugs. In a barbaric environment, such genes would be beneficial for survival. The welfare state induces dysgenics. If you're a honest, hard working black man, black women from the projects will not give you the time of the day. If you're a drug-peddling thug with flash and bling, black women from the projects will line up to have sex with you. There is some research showing that blacks with prison record have fathered more children than blacks without criminal sentences. The welfare state induces this problem by making male provisioning redundant, thereby allowing black females from the projects to go for the thugs who turn them on."Civilizationalist

"If such an experiment had been conducted on whites, asians, jews or anybody, the results would be the same - An upsurge in criminal behaviour and barbarism." -Civilizationist

You are a racist.

I have no doubt that Reg and Gallup will continue thinking of themselves as open-minded even after this incident - they have the ability to believe whatever it is they want to believe.

You're attacking Reg and I falsely for doing what you yourself are doing: believing what you want, not what is demonstrably true as supported by evidence and reason.

Your claims failed to hold up under scrutiny and you had no answer each time they collapsed, yet for you not a single thing has changed. It's your beliefs that are firmly fixed and your mind that shuts down whenever you're confronted with that, not mine or Reg's.

Free Speech does not entitle anyone to use terms that can be considered “Hate Speech”. Any speech that can be seen to disparage or intimidate a group of people based on their race or ethnicity is considered to be Hate Speech.

It was me that suspended any further commentary on your post. It was not because I was trying to censor your right to free speech on an open forum. It was because I was trying to prevent an escalation in what I considered to be Hate Speech.

As a site moderator I have a responsibility to decide when commentary is likely to be deemed offensive. In this case it was a clear cut decision. You used commentary that no fair minded person would consider to be anything but racist, especially when it descended into crude stereotyping of entire ethnic groups.

I also have a responsibility to ensure that this website is not considered to be a “Hate Site”.

Both I and Gallup’s Mirror are more than capable of engaging in sustained debates with anyone. I think you have probably noticed that. We have no issues telling people that their facts are false when they are false. We have no problem pointing out fallacious arguments and flawed reasoning in anyone’s arguments. We will do the same to each other’s arguments and have no qualms about doing so. In fact we would not have it any other way.  

That is the essence of mature and reasoned debate. Insisting ones argument is the truth because it is published in a book does not make it so. It certainly won’t work on an Atheist website where books get special pleading every day.  Repeating the same claims over and over does not make them correct. They are still just opinions. Repeating the opinions of other people whose work has being debunked should make you want to consider why it has been, especially in the world of academia.

The Right to Freedom of Speech is an entitlement that has responsibilities attached to it. Nobody on this site is trying to curtail that on you. If that was the case your account would have been closed. Instead it was left open and you were allowed to publish this post as a right to reply. We are willing to debate with you on this but without Ad hominem remarks. Anything posted that I deem to be hate speech will end it.  Apart from that caveat feel free to discuss anything you wish.

@Reg:

The term "Hate Speech" and it's attached description and required censorship has always disturbed me.

Because unreasoned ideas exposed to the light of day for all to see and hear will rot and die, unreasoned ideas pushed into the dark will fester and grow.

If members of a society find something offensive and ugly, then the worst thing they can do is label it, hide it away and pretend it's gone.

The only tested method for destroying unreasoned ideas is to expose them to reasoned argument for all to see, the light of logic is a powerful tool but only when turned on.

The term "Hate Speech" and it's attached description and required censorship has always disturbed me.

Because unreasoned ideas exposed to the light of day for all to see and hear will rot and die, unreasoned ideas pushed into the dark will fester and grow.

If members of a society find something offensive and ugly, then the worst thing they can do is label it, hide it away and pretend it's gone.

The only tested method for destroying unreasoned ideas is to expose them to reasoned argument for all to see, the light of logic is a powerful tool but only when turned on.

I understand what you mean, Gregg. But let's be fair about this. Reg could have shut Civi down at the first reference to inferior genetics in blacks, the first stereotype that blacks are barbarians on welfare, that Jews want to marry doctors, that Indians work in IT, or at the first complaint from other members. Reg could have edited (or deleted) everything Civi wrote. He could have banned him.

But, no.

Reg allowed the conversation to take place. He allowed the "reasoning" to be presented and dismantled. He waited until it dead-ended (as increasingly frustrated, ugly and escalating repetition of racial stereotypes). Then he acted. He left the material up and only padlocked it instead, and issued a warning. That's it.

Reg showed restraint here. Cut the guy a little slack.

@GM and all:

"Reg showed restraint here. Cut the guy a little slack."

I wasn't intending to slam Reg.

I wasn't speaking directly to this case with Civ, I was speaking about the bigger picture of general censorship and the overall health of societies.

As far as the crybaby Civ goes the longer he went on the sillier he looked, there is value in exposure.

I wasn't intending to slam Reg. I wasn't speaking directly to this case with Civ, I was speaking about the bigger picture of general censorship and the overall health of societies.

Thanks for clarifying that, Gregg. Looking back at what you said, I understand you were writing in the indefinite sense (not necessarily to Reg about this specific case) when you talked about censorship as "the worst thing" one can do.

(I don't think it is the worst thing, by the way, for some of the reasons Reg explains here.)

As far as the crybaby Civ goes the longer he went on the sillier he looked, there is value in exposure.

I agree there is value in exposure, in part because of the shaming that goes along with it, which I think was your intended point all along.

I'm also uncomfortable with banning hate speech because I don't believe institutionalized censorship can resist corruption over the long term. It's too much potentail power. I prefer private censorship. 

On the other hand, I don't think all hate speech deserves to see the light of day because it's redundant and toxic. After the general ideas behind hate speech are brought to light and rejected, we don't need to put up with people's malicious stereotyping, slurs, or threatening behavior. Social tolerance of hate speech perpetuates generational bigotry too.

I like the American system of legal freedom of speech and private/social censorship because it prevents government censorship and the type of heavy repression that leads to culturally stagnate societies. In my neck of the states, you can say anything you want but you're going to get hell for it if you cross certain lines. That's the social reprecussion of exercising your right to be vocal bigot. 

Unfortunately I cannot see the removed material, though to be honest I have had a look at a number of your other statements and I do feel a racist vibe Along with strong sexist undertones from them.

forum is a community and cam make whatever rules they wish on posting.  Here the 'right to free speech' is has limits, racism is one of them.  Perhaps there's a forum for chauvinistic white supremacists you could enjoy?

Bye.

RSS

Atheist Sites

Forum

Parents: help?

Started by Lee in Advice. Last reply by Lee 3 hours ago. 1 Reply

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Gary Clouse 3 hours ago. 69 Replies

Analyzing Ferguson

Started by Unseen in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Unseen yesterday. 11 Replies

Blog Posts

In Avoidance of Anger

Posted by Pope Beanie on November 27, 2014 at 4:59pm 0 Comments

The plane that never crashed

Posted by Brazillian atheist on November 27, 2014 at 12:17pm 1 Comment

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service