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: 908

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You can thank philosophy for almost all the critical thinking going on here and throughout history since the presocratics.

@Unseen:

"You can thank philosophy for almost all the critical thinking going on here and throughout history since the presocratics."

OR

You can thank critical thinking for philosophy. :)

@GM:

"...if there is a hell, you, Reg and I are probably damned to it already."

What do you mean "if"??? (I've got a front row seat.)LOL

This conversation took a much more interesting turn than they usually do on non-atheist sites.

@Gregg: Here's what I do know from my brief time getting to know The Civ.

I believe he was a good man. Happily married with a good life. I believe he wanted to seek honest forthcoming debate. I believe that he had given a great deal of thought to his arguments, but I believe he did so with limited information. I believe that he came to TA to "test" his ideas, and I'm not convinced that even he acknowledges he may have some doubt about his own philosophies. But I don't believe for a second that he ever intended for ANY of his comments to be labeled "racist" or "hate speech," but mere "discussion" of really tough subjects to discuss under even the best of circumstances. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he would agree with me.

But this brings us to the crux of the issue about hate speech. Even if Civ didn't mean for his comments to be viewed that way, (he honestly thought he was trying to "speak the truth") ...the way people perceived his language was hurtful. The sad part (to me) is that he likely didn't know it, didn't intend it that way, likely both. So it's a loss for the TA community because we might have learned from each other.

I remember when I first joined TA the types of discussions I started, and I got my ass kicked, but I also learned from it. I would have liked to see that happen here. All I'm saying is that the intention of an individual when they speak their mind is worth considering, but the speaker must also always consider the message heavily, no matter who is in the audience.

@Belle Rose:

I went back and look, here is where Civ began his decline;

"Civ said:

Prevention is better than cure. I really don't think we should focus our resources on rehabilitation of existing violent criminals - I think realistically that cause is hopeless. A better approach is to stop the dysfunctional social mechanics which caused this problem in the first place."

I certainly agree with the part in bold.

"Civ continues:

There is an atavistic module in female sexuality..."

And down the rabbit he went.

From that point on he picked up steam and it was off to the racism races.

Belle, did Civ know what he was doing?

Belle, was it on purpose?

Belle, did he comprehend what his posts and links were describing?

Belle, at the beginning of your post you had a lot of sentences that started with "I believe...", you may want to reexamine those beliefs.

In the end Civ may want to reexamine his own ideology.

The people that come to us offer many challeges. Would it help to have a little more 'free-will' in our labels we place upon each other, and a little more 'reserving judgement' as we converse?

Maybe a few lessons from Socratic Method might be helpful.

a) ask more questions.

b) test answers to see what they might imply.

c) stay away from personal attacks.

d) offer evidence, where possible, to control 'wild' accusations.

e) test answers against the metric 'is it just?'. 

There's a difference between honestly seeking debate and just hoping that people will jump on board and support you. There's a difference between trying to find out what people think, and just trying to make everyone agree with you. Posts like this one, where he suggests one must agree with him or one is closed-minded, don't sit well with me.

I think a person can have good intentions but still commit hate speech or even abuse. The best intentions in the world are useless if you're not willing to learn from the people around you. So you think your words are not hateful--but other people think they are? Learn why! Listen to what they have to say.

I really appreciate you, Belle, that ability to look for the best in everybody is very important.

@ Gregg:The problem (from my own perspective) from day one has been his one-sided thinking.

Let me give you an example:

Ok. I've worked with violent criminals. Some of them REFUSE to be rehabilitated, some of them most definitely CANNOT be rehabilitated.

But notice: his statement was focusing purely on "resources."

Money...

Where he went one nudge too far was to say, "I think that realistically that cause is hopeless."

Ok

But does he mean "ALL" violent criminals?

SOME violent criminals?

We don't know.

We do know that he doesn't support allocating money towards them. Why?

Look, I can't pretend to know what Civ would say, or thinks. But I am simply saying that his debating style needed some work, but that's exactly why he joined TA (I think.)

He didn't leave because of "losing" a debate. He left because he felt he was being censored. Truthfully though I didn't get the impression that he knew anything he said hurt people. I think he was just saying it the way he honestly saw it.
The reason I started my post with my "beliefs" is based on my interactions with him, on and off the forum (from private message) and based on his responses to my question/debate over the last few weeks. I purposefully used the word "believe" to emphasize the fact that I may be wrong. But I do think I had some ground to stand on.

Despite his inflamatory language, and his racist sounding undertones, I maintain my position that I do not believe he is racist, just needs a little work on the "absolutes" and "extremes" department, and to read some real psychology/sociological literature....and...........well ok, so maybe a little more than that even. But again - I think that's possibly why he was here in the first place.


I kinda liked the guy. Fundie? Maybe. But he kept things interesting.

I kinda liked the guy. Fundie? Maybe. But he kept things interesting.

I find it interesting that he was moaning about censorship after he apparently deleted six pages of public discussion about the nature of free will (which now exists only in Google cache.)

Hypocrite? Definitely.

Sorry Gallup. I missed it from those links. What makes him a hypocrit? I don't see the connection. I'm a little slow, lol

I always see the good in people. All people. I don't like watching anyone get dragged through the mud. Anyone. I have empathy for all people, even people who have committed horrendous crimes. Afterall I used to escort murderers and rapists to the hospital...

All people have some good.

Sorry Gallup. I missed it from those links. What makes him a hypocrit? I don't see the connection. I'm a little slow, lol

A hypocrite acts in contradiction to his own stated beliefs or feelings.

Civi quit over what he called censorship (quashing or destroying the expression of others) after apparently torching six pages of material authored mostly by other TA members.

I always see the good in people. All people. I don't like watching anyone get dragged through the mud. Anyone. I have empathy for all people, even people who have committed horrendous crimes. Afterall I used to escort murderers and rapists to the hospital... All people have some good.

Civi may be a great guy in every other respect. But in this one, he's a racial bigot. Whatever mud he ended up in was his own doing.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Kairan Nierde 20 minutes ago. 96 Replies

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service