Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:13 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 14859
So, if somebody was standing outside Sears promoting what they deemed to be Sears material, it would be okay for fake Sears hawker to advertise on the official Sears' website? Official Sears has no control on what fake Sears sells or the quality of it. Isn't it just good business sense? I doubt any company that anybody works for here would deem it okay for others outside the company to represent something that they have no control over. And no matter how good the other material may be.

_________________
One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:14 am
Posts: 18680
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
As for:
1. Content - one should be banned, particularly on this site. I don't believe that FZ approve of censorship and so his site shouldn't behave that way. Decency and obscenity are terms that are long out of date (for adults anyway) and have lost all meaning.
2. Fights - Let em happen. People are gonna fight. Sometimes its entertaining, sometimes its sickening, but telling people that they can't fight or they'll be thrown out, is imo, censorship. Of course, fights that trickle into every thread, all day, can turn into trolling, therefore they could be banned.
3. Jerks and Assholes - Many people disagree with me on this, but imo they have as much right to be here as you and I. I really just see this as a combination of #'s 1 and 2.
4. Anti-ZFT material - I think they should be able to take whatever anyone dishes out.

Did you by, by chance, mean "no-one should be banned", or is there content that you believe is ban-worthy? (like poor proof-reading?)

_________________
You're probably wondering why I'm here
(not that it makes a heck of a lot of a difference to ya)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3042
Location: Between the Badges
Hmmm... thats food for thought Cal... I'll try to respond later.

jpd... noted and edited, thanx.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: re: banned name game
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 7:29 pm
Posts: 9582
tfka wrote:
...As for:
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...


1 2 & 3 agreed, item 4 can be split into:
- personal speculative attacks on the zf or site admin [not acceptable]
- zpz competition [not acceptable]
- anti-zft winging about liner notes, inferior packaging, shipping cost, release dates, downloads, roxy etc etc etc [acceptable]

no spam-bots, human or automated

any off-topic content is acceptable if other forum members engage in the discussion; don't be spreading the bitch-slapping to every other topic ... there's only 2 or 3 criteria to get your ass banned here, takes a bit of persistance

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5908
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
In physical public places assholes get thrown out or arrested. The fact that there is no physical presence involved in an internet forum doesn't make the behaviour of assholes any more acceptable.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 3134
F'r instance, You live next door to me and a crack dealer moves into the stoop on your brownstone. Every day, out the window, there he is, sellin crack.
Now I don't smoke crack and I don't really care if it's illegal or what. It's a free country and I don't own the stoop, I never open the window on that end of the building anyway and he's not trying to sell it to me every time I leave or come home.
Maybe it looked like he was sellin it to some kids one day after school. But they're not my kids.
I can call the cops but I know he'll be back the next day or two.
I can try and talk to him and see if he'll go somewhere else and if that doesn't work, eventually get around maybe to trying to out crazy or scare him. No go. Now he recognizes me. His 'friends' start looking at me funny when I leave or come home.
I can find out what his deal is and work at gaining his 'trust' so that he'll listen to what I'm saying to try to get him off the stoop, off the crack, maybe workin an icing annointment utensil somewhere. "But as you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you."
I also know that it is up to me to be offended or find fault with other people's behavior. My value judgement, I own it.

Arkay your stoop may as well be my stoop. I'd be happy being neighbors with you and most people here. Because I already know, by your behavior, that I would have to offend you first and you're not gonna get in my personal space and accost me over anything, unless I more than likely deserve it or you've figured out I can deal with it or we work out some understanding about those sorts of things. Like people everywhere do all the time. Some people need more practice to play well enough with others. Okay! I'm willing to accomodate, happily. But if everyone in the neighborhood has said to cut it out and grow up and they acknowledge but refuse to reciprocate?
I have to conclude that some people don't have the courtesy (that's what I call it) to accept that other people don't like to be flamed or accosted every time they walk around the neighborhood.
The guy with the crack can smoke his life away for all I care. I'd feel better if he didn't but know there's a million more to replace him. I'm not okay with him sellin crack on the stoop especially to kids who may not know any better. Pretty soon you've got addicts crawlin all over the place that don't know the difference between a curb and a morgue slab. Who wants to live in a bad scene?

There's also a world-outlook of difference between single wolves and tribals. People in the perimeter, in the tribe as it were don't want to be bothered by disturbances like scavengers. But the tribe comes up with a way of dealing with that or they slowly get eaten.

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 7:29 pm
Posts: 9582
the recent apparently unprovoked bans are likely r.o.t.s.o. previously banned members trying to slide in under the radar

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 13652
Location: Billy, the mountain...
Many wise words above. But still, I wish they would have let jimmie_d's offense be. It feels like the abuse of power (doesn't mean you should, just because you can). One who does not rebuke and take action against those who offended you, displays a behaviour of true superiority and evolution...

_________________
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true Art and Science. - Albert Einstein

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:53 am
Posts: 2190
Location: Hamilton, NJ
Hey, Joel, if you are DD, you should be booted. DD was vile.

_________________
If we're dumb . . .
Then God is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little bit ugly on the side)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:53 am
Posts: 2190
Location: Hamilton, NJ
punknaynowned wrote:
F'r instance, You live next door to me and a crack dealer moves into the stoop on your brownstone. Every day, out the window, there he is, sellin crack.
Now I don't smoke crack and I don't really care if it's illegal or what. It's a free country and I don't own the stoop, I never open the window on that end of the building anyway and he's not trying to sell it to me every time I leave or come home.
Maybe it looked like he was sellin it to some kids one day after school. But they're not my kids.
I can call the cops but I know he'll be back the next day or two.
I can try and talk to him and see if he'll go somewhere else and if that doesn't work, eventually get around maybe to trying to out crazy or scare him. No go. Now he recognizes me. His 'friends' start looking at me funny when I leave or come home.
I can find out what his deal is and work at gaining his 'trust' so that he'll listen to what I'm saying to try to get him off the stoop, off the crack, maybe workin an icing annointment utensil somewhere. "But as you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you."
I also know that it is up to me to be offended or find fault with other people's behavior. My value judgement, I own it.

Arkay your stoop may as well be my stoop. I'd be happy being neighbors with you and most people here. Because I already know, by your behavior, that I would have to offend you first and you're not gonna get in my personal space and accost me over anything, unless I more than likely deserve it or you've figured out I can deal with it or we work out some understanding about those sorts of things. Like people everywhere do all the time. Some people need more practice to play well enough with others. Okay! I'm willing to accomodate, happily. But if everyone in the neighborhood has said to cut it out and grow up and they acknowledge but refuse to reciprocate?
I have to conclude that some people don't have the courtesy (that's what I call it) to accept that other people don't like to be flamed or accosted every time they walk around the neighborhood.
The guy with the crack can smoke his life away for all I care. I'd feel better if he didn't but know there's a million more to replace him. I'm not okay with him sellin crack on the stoop especially to kids who may not know any better. Pretty soon you've got addicts crawlin all over the place that don't know the difference between a curb and a morgue slab. Who wants to live in a bad scene?

There's also a world-outlook of difference between single wolves and tribals. People in the perimeter, in the tribe as it were don't want to be bothered by disturbances like scavengers. But the tribe comes up with a way of dealing with that or they slowly get eaten.


That's a fair way, and a careful way, to put things in perspective.

I don't know what Jimmy d did either. But I don't look at all the threads, and I don't look for trouble.

_________________
If we're dumb . . .
Then God is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little bit ugly on the side)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3042
Location: Between the Badges
Sorry for the delay, holiday season ya know...

OK, so analogies, lots of em...
Sears, crack house, front stoop, public places, well, analogies are nice, but by definition, at best, are only like something else, not the same as something else. In this instance, a forum.

Sears - Lets hope this isn't like Sears, but you mentioned advertisement, Cal. I think that falls under spam, which I am against. But, you did also mention promotion. I think that is a valid point when it over-reaches from fandom into spamdom. It is one level to say "I like (fill in the band)". The next level would be "I'm going to see (fill in the band) at such and such venue". The 3rd level is "Click here to buy the new (fill in the band) cd." We do these things all the time. As fans. The difference to make it fall into the spam category is someone signing on to the forum to do nothing but promote, or to do it in unreasonable quantity. Alas, as much as I love jimmie d, I can understand the ZFT saying that he overdid it. As often happens in real life, when someone overdoes a privilige, it gets taken away and I miss the privilige of mentioning certain bands without getting my posts deleted. I think it could have been handled better.

Crack - Much of the your post, punknaynowned deals with illegality. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what illegality you are relating to here. Are you comparing crack with the things that the host considers against protocol? Isn't that a stretch? Most of the things that people have a problem with here have to do with taste such as tweezers comment that "DD was vile". This is a taste issue, and for me, sorta falls under the FZ "Warning/Guarantee" statement that we are all familiar with, as opposed to crack which has real-life repercussions that are legislated against.

Public Places - Yes, assholes get thrown out of public places as they apparently do here. But, arrested? Polydigm, what online actions are you referring to by mentioning getting arrested? As for people being assholes, I think the only way to show people not to be an asshole is to stand up to them. Prove them wrong. Online insults are sorta ridiculous. Someone who spends alot of time calling names is kinda pathetic, not scary, not insulting, except probably to themselves. If a given member goes too far on something and they are thrown out, they only learn to be pariahs. I think Isaac is a good case in point. He was a young kid well on his way to becoming a complete social outcast. Now, he has been cast out from the FZ site. I maintain that he learned something from his battles as he grew up. He wasn't a finished product, but he was still growing up. Sure, he pissed off alot of people, but that can happen with free speech. I think the ZFT would do well to keep free speech ideals on their forum, more so that many other music fan sites. A free speech site is NOT all about having a pleasant experience here, rather more about being a haven for people to say pretty much whatever they feel like, even if it pisses off people. Ultimately, if I have to choose, I lean towards free speech over nice-and-polite, as much as I'd hope for asshole people to take a n-a-p position.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 3134
punknaynowned wrote:
I agree in principle with the idea of not banning people. Ostracism is a heavy toll and from a zappa forum I think is just absurd. But it should be said that's how WE interpret part of some 'perfect zappaworld'. It's our interpretation out here in the outside world...
But in the online world, what do you do with trolls? Ignoring is good but everyone else has to stay on the same page and treat the troll the same way or it won't work and there will always be someone new who hasn't a clue giving the troll the attention they crave and the behavior continues.
We can laugh at the joker who gets in a new car every day and blows up the engine, day after day, but pretty soon you can't drive on the roads with all the heaping junkers lying around that the wrecking crews are too busy doing something else to come out and haul them away.

As despicable as anyone is I don't think they should be forced out but then again I think people should have enough decency not be an actual turd or a willfull tard and I know that's too much to expect from some. And they took down the chat room so the chance for an actual conversation is much slimmer now.

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5908
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
Arkay, I didn't mention the arrested thing to make a point, just in passing because that does happen. My point was about the throwing out part. Mind you, just for instance, if you posted kiddie porn on an internet forum and the feds traced your IP, you'd get arrested. Admittedly, the actual arrest would take place physically, but the crime itself would have taken place on the internet.

Freedom of speech is a very important issue which is not about the freedom to be a pain in the arse for the sake of it. If you think someone is being a pain in the arse because you don't agree with their opinion then too bad, but there's a difference between being free to express your opinion and being free to ram it down someone's throat or be nasty with it.

I have to disagree with you about Isaac, the boy had big problems, he was not developing like a reasonably healthy teenager and indulging him wasn't helping. The right to free speech is not the right to be an attention whore.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3042
Location: Between the Badges
punknaynowned - I understand that we disagree on some things and thats fine. I am willing to suffer the regular gridlock of destroyed cars in exchange for being able to say whatever I want, and slowly that trade is being cancelled. The majority of people will likely remain quiet on that matter.

Polydigm - I don't make the case for Isaac because I think he would eventually become more acceptable to me, rather that I want anyone to have the chance to make communication mistakes and learn from them, even the Isaacs.

Since are so many analogies today - Banning someone for being an attention whore is like excommunication and lifetime jail sentence for someone stealing a candy bar.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Broomed FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:14 am
Posts: 3134
Arkay, no. We agree with the principle. But it is a different matter applying a principle to reality. What I'm trying to do and probably failing is open things up and give examples of similar circumstances by analogy so people can use their imaginations and think about solutions. My question to you is what do you do when someone keeps yelling 'Fire!' at that crowded theater?

Principles have to be defended but I'm concerned that with enough people screaming that up is down and us living in a democracy and ignorance being so cool and everything, fear traded and bought and sold like comfort food, no one will know what 'sense' or 'principle' is anymore.

We're already there in a lot of ways. So what do we do in virtual-reality? We can say 'I will fight to the death to uphold your right to say anything I disagree with' , but if you spend all your time refuting what the other guy says, he has already taken away your right to say or the freedom to frame the argument to say it how you want.

I see it as a freedom-to vs freedom-from argument, yet that opens another can of worms. How much does your freedom to do what you want to do impose upon the ability of others to be free? And vice versa. If we are equal citizens in a state that allows for the freedom of all (nice in principle), how much freedom can I have to do what I want be imposed on or limit the freedom of others? How does this translate in reality? If it can't be translated from principle to reality it's just talk.

In a society where we use words to combat each other instead of force (if that principle still holds true and we're not under martial law), words have power, despite Frank's famous statement. "They're just words." And if it's a public arena designed to let people speak, say and someone else hasn't had a chance to speak and you won't give up the bullhorn -- it doesn't really matter what you're saying anymore. It's a power struggle.

In economics, how much does the freedom of Wall Street to generate credit impose itself on or limit my ability to have and use credit? That's not of or by or for democracy ;) But neither is the opacity of bank statements. The Freedom of Information Act doesn't mean we can find out which bank to invest in based on what their holdings are. They make it rather difficult to know what's going on as that is what is in their interest. See, it's the reverse 'principle', but just as important to the 'holders of privilege'. They're not yelling 'Fire' they're saying 'We're back on track! Pay no attention to the doom and gloomer's, give us our money!' Again.

They're Nation-Wide.

So seriously, talk about freedom of speech principles on something like a zappa forum despite how those varnished or unvarnished principles aren't actually found in reality, only a version of them depending on the circumstance and that depending on who and for-what you speak of, shows, I think, we are talking about power, not how to apply principles.

I want to talk about applying the spirit of our principles to the reality as we find it. Cuz our reality out in the world is pretty fuct up.

_________________
" . . . On the outside now . . ."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 14859
Well, I guess my point wasn't directly about spam, more about the business sense that it makes to not have advertisements of something the ZTF doesn't control on the official forum. I don't think it's spam, it's more like malicious adware (to Gail, at least.)

_________________
One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
Read my sig line.
Now apply that same idea to songs, photographs, drawings, paintings, internet, movies, novels, etc.
If you feel yourself worthy of the task for anyone other than yourself, then I trust you won't mind if someone else decides for YOU. Because surely you can realize that I am far more qualified to decide for you than you are to decide for yourself. That's really all I feel the need to say at this time.

Oh, one more thing. I, in my infinite wisdom have just decided that "Penguin in Bondage" glorifies bestial sadomasochistic behavior and as such is undoubtedly obscene, for this reason I have forced the cancellation of the Roxy and Elsewhere DVD release. Oh and if you happen to already own a copy of the album, you should immediately destroy it, we wouldn't want some poor innocent child hearing it accidentally and going insane and fucking penguins for the rest of their life now would we? Thank you, and have a nice day. :P

_________________
"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read and what we must believe?" T.J.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5908
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Polydigm - I don't make the case for Isaac because I think he would eventually become more acceptable to me, rather that I want anyone to have the chance to make communication mistakes and learn from them, even the Isaacs. Since are so many analogies today - Banning someone for being an attention whore is like excommunication and lifetime jail sentence for someone stealing a candy bar.
I think the attention whore thing should be dealt with by a suspension, not a life time ban. Isaac was banned and let back in several times before he was finally life time banned. He can't say he wasn't given many chances.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:14 am
Posts: 18680
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
polydigm wrote:
...He can't say he wasn't given many chances.

But, he will, anyway.

_________________
You're probably wondering why I'm here
(not that it makes a heck of a lot of a difference to ya)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5908
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
just plain doug wrote:
polydigm wrote:
...He can't say he wasn't given many chances.
But, he will, anyway.
That about sums it up.

        Image

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4756
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
On the one hand, I do agree with the point of view that it is the ZFT's forum so therefore I suppose they decide.
On a personal level, I found a lot of the people who were banned entertaining. Isaac's petulant defensiveness, his lack of humour, his desire to be loved and to be right at the same time was (for me) amusing.
Even DD had his positive side-effects for us Europeans - he introduced me to the infinitely perverse world view of Michael Savage and other right-wing dorks I wouldn't otherwise have heard of, even if a nice link, rather than a whole copied tract of fascist rantings on the forum would have been preferable. After an initial period of insults, we seemed to have silently agreed to an uneasy truce in which he actually displayed something approaching a sense of humour. Unfortunately, his downside was his boringly insulting persecution of other forum members (I can think of at least two, where his constant 'homo' references were neither amusing nor edifying).
IMO, freedom of speech does have its limits; when you cross the border from insult to libel, basically (Holocaust Denial springs to mind). On the other hand, I would not like to be the person who has to make the decision.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
Caputh wrote:
IMO, freedom of speech does have its limits; when you cross the border from insult to libel, basically (Holocaust Denial springs to mind). On the other hand, I would not like to be the person who has to make the decision.

I understand your sentiment, however, it is far better to have the opinion voiced, and be open for discussion. In that manner any given topic can be reviewed and people who have been mislead can be informed. Imagine that someone has parents for instance, who have always told them that the holocaust never happened (I'm moderately sure this isn't uncommon in the middle east,) now if you forbid this idea from being stated in a public forum (by means of some law or other form of censorship, perhaps a word filter on a website as an example) this individual will never have the chance to voice their idea, and therefore will never be able to have a meaningful conversation with someone that may in fact be able to show them evidence to the contrary of what they have always been taught.
Remember that the truth, which you take for granted, is denied to people for various reasons at various times, by various people, with various agendas. And as such they will not take it for granted, in fact, when confronted with it they may react very violently, because it challenges their perception of reality.

"The answer to bad speech is always more speech."

_________________
"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read and what we must believe?" T.J.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5908
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
one of the uglies wrote:
Caputh wrote:
IMO, freedom of speech does have its limits; when you cross the border from insult to libel, basically (Holocaust Denial springs to mind). On the other hand, I would not like to be the person who has to make the decision.
I understand your sentiment, however, it is far better to have the opinion voiced, and be open for discussion. In that manner any given topic can be reviewed and people who have been mislead can be informed.
There's more than one point here - it's not just about freedom of speech. You are still side stepping the issue of acceptable behaviour. Take bullying for example. Should we allow bullying so as to give the bully freedom to express himself?

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:53 am
Posts: 2190
Location: Hamilton, NJ
Here's where I come down on the freedom of speech thing. I value freedom of speech more than any other freedom.

BUT, what Diesel Dummy turned into is not like protecting a Klan march in Skokie (while hideous, it is free speech), he punished individuals and hounded them unmercifully. People are committing suicide over things written about them on blogs. DD ain't that important or effective, but if the ZFT want a blog where people can speak their minds, they may have to rein in people who attack others for speaking their minds.

If the ZFT wants to toss DD, they are not inhibiting free speech.

_________________
If we're dumb . . .
Then God is dumb . . .
(An' maybe even a little bit ugly on the side)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
polydigm wrote:
one of the uglies wrote:
Caputh wrote:
IMO, freedom of speech does have its limits; when you cross the border from insult to libel, basically (Holocaust Denial springs to mind). On the other hand, I would not like to be the person who has to make the decision.
I understand your sentiment, however, it is far better to have the opinion voiced, and be open for discussion. In that manner any given topic can be reviewed and people who have been mislead can be informed.
There's more than one point here - it's not just about freedom of speech. You are still side stepping the issue of acceptable behaviour. Take bullying for example. Should we allow bullying so as to give the bully freedom to express himself?

I'm not sidestepping it at all, I simply don't recognize your qualification to determine for me or anyone else what is or is not acceptable. I'll determine that for myself, thank you very much. Now, I may in fact be more tolerant of certain behaviors than you are, but that is my choice to make. Just as on this here forum, it is the ZFT's choice to make, but just because they make a decision doesn't mean that anyone here is by default a compulsory supporter of their decision. The choice remains for each and every individual here to agree or disagree with the decision, once that choice has been made other various choices follow, stay or go? Speak out against or for? etc. If someone feels that a particular banning was unjustified, it is an issue of free speech that they be able to express that opinion, and just as valuable of a sentiment as your opinion that any particular behavior is unacceptable.

On the issue of bullying:

"Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Sound at all familiar?
Maybe, the people that engage in bullying should receive reciprocal treatment, there is no need to force them to silence themselves. There is no need to force those who laugh at what they say to deny there own sense of humor. Just treat them as they treat you.
If all else fails, just ignore them.
Better yet, toughen up kiddies, there's a whole world of people out there who think differently than you, and don't give a fuck about your feelings. Deal with that reality.
And being told you aren't the greatest thing since the shit I took this morning might just help build character. Or perhaps you adhere to the belief that any sort of criticism is detrimental to the psychological well being of young people.

Bullying in many instances is a need for affection, and a desire to feel superior because of a lack of self respect. Self respect is learned and earned through the overcoming of adversity. Bullying being a form of adversity that most people go through, is a primary way in which we learn to empathize with others and learn self respect. In other words the reason you understand the pain of a person being bullied is that you yourself have been, to some degree, at some time.
I would prefer to have the young understand pain and suffering and reject doing it to others, rather than having been completely sheltered and therefor as adults incapable of empathizing with other individuals and their suffering. I think that might make for a slightly better society than say detached unemotional thoughtless people who think only of their own happiness. That means that regardless of the issue of freedom of expression bullying is a beneficial experience in my view, because of the effect it has on the development of character, to be completely banal and cliche "No pain, no gain."

You oo oo ooo act like dork, most of the time.
Double dork, double dork, double dork butt rash.
"Luigi and the Wise Guys" F.Z.

I, in my infinite wisdom have decided that since some young person might recite this here line to a peer on the schoolyard playground that this too must be eliminated immediately from our reality, because of the possible detrimental effects it may have. :roll:

_________________
"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read and what we must believe?" T.J.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group