Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:10 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: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
tweezers wrote:
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.

That is a sad thing, no doubt, but IMO the solution doesn't revolve around the curtailing of speech, but rather parental involvement. Parents need to be accessible for their children, unfortunately many are not, so there is no where for the child to turn, likewise many a teacher is neglectful of the child's needs.
But still, eliminating any given number of words will not solve the problem, if the bullying can't be done with words then pictures, no pictures, then gestures, no gestures, what will remain if you remove everything that could be done to bully, isolation, detachment. This experiment is being tried in California schools (I'm not making this up,) the children are not allowed to invade each other's personal space, ever. That means no holding hands when crossing the street to the school, no hugs for someone who has hurt their knee and is crying, no high fives because they are too violent. How on earth are these children ever going to be able to empathize with another human beings? But I guess at least they'll never feel the pain of a red mark on a test, and they'll never be left for last because they don't try as hard as the other kids when playing sports. They'll never experience human kindness, but they'll be safe from having their space invaded or their feelings hurt, it's pathetic if you ask me. JMO

_________________
"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 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5917
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
one of the uglies wrote:
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.

polydigm: You're making assumptions about me that are not implied in the little that I've said so far. Your assumptions are wrong. I'm purely saying that freedom of speech and freedom to be an arsehole are not the same thing. And it's not for any of us to determine in isolation what's appropriate when we live in a shared environment.

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.

polydigm: Again with the wrong assumptions. All I would say here is that you have to draw a line somewhere, surely you don't believe that anything goes will work? What about pedophiles, should they be free to rape our children and will that toughen them up? Toughen them up to be what?

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."

polydigm: More of the same, you still have to draw a line somewhere.

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.

polydigm: Do you think that being facetious will make your point well?

Your position seems to be that you are unwilling to take a position

_________________
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 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
polydigm wrote:
one of the uglies wrote:
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.

polydigm: You're making assumptions about me that are not implied in the little that I've said so far. Your assumptions are wrong. I'm purely saying that freedom of speech and freedom to be an arsehole are not the same thing. And it's not for any of us to determine in isolation what's appropriate when we live in a shared environment.

.............
The only assumption I made was that I may be more tolerant than you.

It is entirely appropriate for each and every one of us to determine for ourselves what is appropriate for ourselves to read (not up to the collective.) It is also entirely a personal responsibility issue if we choose to type something that others may find offensive, (the thought process is not determined by the collective.)

.............

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.

polydigm: Again with the wrong assumptions. All I would say here is that you have to draw a line somewhere, surely you don't believe that anything goes will work? What about pedophiles, should they be free to rape our children and will that toughen them up? Toughen them up to be what?

...............
We, are not talking about physical actions, merely words, and ideas. Rape is entirely unacceptable. But has no bearing on the issue. Can't you separate between reality and imaginary? The fact that you would equate words that tease and taunt with the physical act of rape is simply beyond me.
...............

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."

polydigm: More of the same, you still have to draw a line somewhere.

..............
I don't have to do any such thing, it is not my job to satisfy your sense of morality, nor is it my job to tell others what they can or can't say, or what they can or can't read. So I won't.
..............

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.

polydigm: Do you think that being facetious will make your point well?
I thought it was funny, if you didn't then

Your position seems to be that you are unwilling to take a position


............
:shock: Really, somehow I just don't think you like the position I took, and therefor have refused to acknowledge it, your prerogative, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
............



_________________
"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: Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5917
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
I'll try once more, I certainly don't have difficulty telling the difference between physical reality and this forum. I'm just trying to point out that time spent on an internet forum is just as valuable as time spent engaging in a physical activity. Internet forums provide a way for people that wouldn't otherwise meet to interact. If a forum becomes overrun by trolls it's not just a question of choosing not to read. Who has the time to wade through all the bullshit for a small amount of positive interaction? Allowing trolls a free reign destroys internet forums.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
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. 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."


This is off-topic, I'm afraid but nevertheless...
A good read on this topic is "Denying the Holocaust" by Deborah Lipstadt- if you're interested have a look at it, if you havent already.
After researching Holocaust Deniers for some time I've come to the conclusion that, in my opinion, it is generally useless debating them. The common denominator that they all have is Antisemitism in some form or another. Roughly speaking, you can divide them into two groups
i) the group who know what they are saying is actually wrong (e.g. probably Irving), but continue denying for political/publicity/monetary considerations.
Any argument with these people is futile as you are never going to convince them of the truth as they already really know it is true and are continuing to deny due to ulterior motives, not connected with the argument.
ii) the group who believe their denial (e.g. Faurrisson, the idiots at Codoh,)
It is this second group you consider worthy of hearing. The only trouble is that they fiddle around constantly with the evidence themselves; no matter what evidence is produced they will deny its validity. Either, in their opinion, it has been faked (usually by Jews) or it is in some way inadequete. They are like little children with their fingers in their ears going "la la la, I can't hear you!". Debating them is fairly pointless.
I can think of only one convert from Holocaust Denial and that is Pressac and he converted because of his own research.
There are a couple of other arguments, some of them from Lipstadt, I would like to mention in this context -see what you think...
a) Debating them lends an air of respect that they would not otherwise have. You are basically accepting the fact that they have another point of view, when in fact they have a prejudice. Thus their views gain academic repectability.
b) In Germany, Austria and France denying the Holocaust is illegal, because it is said to reactivate National Socialism.
c) The above countries also argue (I tend to this view myself) that these people are actually defaming the memory of the dead and are thus libelling survivors and the families of the exterminated. Imagine if your mother was murdered and I said "You are a wicked liar. Your mother wasn't murdered at all. She's living rich and happy in Israel off the money the German government gave her for claiming to be dead". This would, in my view, come pretty close to libel and thus necessitate a criminal charge.
This sums up [i]my[i] present view. Lipstadt, who is a respected expert, refuses to debate them, basically because of point a), I find c) the most convincing argument, but I'm always open to discussion on whether one should debate them or not.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
Caputh wrote:
a) Debating them lends an air of respect that they would not otherwise have. You are basically accepting the fact that they have another point of view, when in fact they have a prejudice. Thus their views gain academic repectability.
b) In Germany, Austria and France denying the Holocaust is illegal, because it is said to reactivate National Socialism.
c) The above countries also argue (I tend to this view myself) that these people are actually defaming the memory of the dead and are thus libelling survivors and the families of the exterminated. Imagine if your mother was murdered and I said "You are a wicked liar. Your mother wasn't murdered at all. She's living rich and happy in Israel off the money the German government gave her for claiming to be dead". This would, in my view, come pretty close to libel and thus necessitate a criminal charge.

Let me say first that these are some of the best arguments that I have seen in regards to not opening the floor to debate of the given issue, although I disagree with them (I'll attempt to explain why below.) That being said, it still does not address the issue of the right of the individual to hold an opinion. Opinion by it's very nature denotes an element of bias, or prejudice if you prefer. By that what I mean to say is, I disagree with the premise that having a prejudiced view of any given topic invalidates the right of an individual to share his/her thoughts or words. Not all of conversation is based upon fact, and I would not think it wise to eliminate protection for non-factual/fictional speech. If words that are not based on verifiable facts are to be criminalized, then any opinion, fantasy, hypothesis, joke, or tall tale becomes a thought crime. Admittedly, this may be a touch overstatement, but not much of one. I think any study, even at the most basic level of how the NAZI's controlled language would prove that. Those who seek to control peoples behavior, over time tend to want more control and more power, hence the saying, "Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile." Also, "Power Corrupts." These simple truisms when applied to the issue of speech point clearly to an ever eroding right of the individual to express his/her self. This is the slippery slope argument, and I see no evidence to dissuade my belief that it is an accurate and legitimate concern.

As to the arguments themselves.
a)I am willing to take the risk of lending an air of credibility to imbeciles more so than I am willing to stifle the marketplace of ideas.
b)Words are representations of ideas, they are symbols, not actions. Therefor I can find no value in the argument that the use of particular words will by their simple utterance reactivate and actions of the ruthless extermination of the Jewish, homosexuals, gypsys, or other peoples by the NAZI party.
c)I am no scholar of libel law here in the US, let alone in Europe. As such I can't really speak of this issue from a legal point of view. However, I do not find that defaming the dead is somehow intrinsically unforgivable. Also it is not my opinion that people should be prosecuted for being unintelligent, or misinformed, or having poor taste. JMO

_________________
"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: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5917
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
one of the uglies wrote:
Can't you separate between reality and imaginary? The fact that you would equate words that tease and taunt with the physical act of rape is simply beyond me.
I was not doing that at all. That comment was inspired by the following.
one of the uglies wrote:
... 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."
There's a boarding school in NSW where, not very long ago, young boys were being bullied, involving sodomy with various objects. The perpetrators have since been arrested and charged, but how edifying do you think it was for the victims and how well do you think they're coping. These sick bastards were hiding behind a curtain of acceptable bullying and their victims were too ashamed to report them.

Now I realise this is a long way from the original point under discussion, but this is an example of how things come up during the course of a debate. I mentioned bullying, you claim it's character building, I beg to differ. You don't have to make disparaging remarks about whether or not I can "separate between reality and imaginary".

Bullying was a relevant point to make, as I teach, and one of the issues we are currently dealing with in schools is cyber bullying. Now, in your view it may not be physical and therefore nothing to worry about, but it is real that young people today spend a lot of time interacting in cyber space and becoming alienated there is no less emotionally painful than being alienated in the school yard.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Where is JOEL? :?
Very interesting arguements with free speech! I agree and second that emotion.
JO is dd and dd is banned
DD<>JO They(DZpZ) skipped your towne and still no sound? Where is,who is dd now,eh? Could he be only "the Shallow Blows",naa. Whats next? More FOX news with no facts just hate? El Bummo,no mas,por`favor.I got a TV.
Aren't we being bullied now? By dd,Isaac,ect.?{:~{- :mrgreen:

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
punknaynowned wrote:
last year plus there was a big war between isaac and zombie or to say it better, isaac was pulling his usual and zombie decided to sick on him. It lasted a long time and disrupted everybody. You missed it and it wasn't any fun.
you know about jimmie d.
The 2009 forum has been beset by a bunch of actual spammers selling phar-ma-ceuticals, vi-a-gra you name it. I think that's a side effect of the int'l recession...
We also have a group of people (or at least one active member) masquerading as a number of people who drank the Limbaugh/FOX/WND kool-aid and I don't even want to talk about it >shudder< but it's been a source of consternation and not a little confusion for or friends across the ponds. I think you missed it.

I agree in principle with the idea of not banning people. Ostracism is a heavy toll and from a zappa forum is just absurd.
But 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 that the wrecking crews are too busy editing video (or whatever) 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. I don't read trendy's posts but I also only will talk to him when he's not in the pulpit. And they took down the chat room so the chance for an actual conversation is much slimmer now.

You pretty much captured my sentements punknayowned,damded decent oratory. 8) :mrgreen:

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
polydigm wrote:
one of the uglies wrote:
Can't you separate between reality and imaginary? The fact that you would equate words that tease and taunt with the physical act of rape is simply beyond me.
I was not doing that at all. That comment was inspired by the following.
one of the uglies wrote:
... 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."
There's a boarding school in NSW where, not very long ago, young boys were being bullied, involving sodomy with various objects. The perpetrators have since been arrested and charged, but how edifying do you think it was for the victims and how well do you think they're coping. These sick bastards were hiding behind a curtain of acceptable bullying and their victims were too ashamed to report them.

Now I realise this is a long way from the original point under discussion, but this is an example of how things come up during the course of a debate. I mentioned bullying, you claim it's character building, I beg to differ. You don't have to make disparaging remarks about whether or not I can "separate between reality and imaginary".

Bullying was a relevant point to make, as I teach, and one of the issues we are currently dealing with in schools is cyber bullying. Now, in your view it may not be physical and therefore nothing to worry about, but it is real that young people today spend a lot of time interacting in cyber space and becoming alienated there is no less emotionally painful than being alienated in the school yard.

At this point I will say I am sorry for mistaking what you said, I had not heard of, and had no way of knowing that your comments were based on a tragedy of that nature, just thought I should say that. My apologies for misunderstanding you intention. Now back to our previously scheduled debate.

At the point at which it became a physical act, in which the child being bullied was no longer simply being teased and taunted it became assault. Assault is physical, taunting is mental, emotional. Assault sexually with a foreign object against ones will is rape and is in no way comparable to verbal, or written ideas.
No one can type you a bloody nose over the internet. You can say you wanna, but you can't actually do it, there is a difference there. No one can tell you they're gonna hit you and give you a bloody nose by way of simply having said it to you in person, they have to take the next step and actually physically hit you. At the point where it leaves the realm of imaginary and enters the realm of actual physical harm is the place where I choose to draw the line. There is another old saying, "Your rights end, where my nose begins."

On the other hand, this validates my other comment about a lack of supervision by the teachers that allowed it to get this far. I might also add it shows a lack of teaching basic social skills, humility and respect for others by the parents of the children that committed this crime. But that gets into an issue of causality. And ultimately a discussion of that would go nowhere because the final decision to commit the crime was made by the children themselves, so they are responsible for their actions.

Now before you convince yourself that I'm defending these little shits, allow me to assure you I am not. What they did was wrong, and they should be punished. The child who was assaulted, and raped, must have suffered terribly. There is no excuse for what they did. They should be punished for the physical assault legally. Not for verbal taunts however, not legally anyway, things of that nature are the responsibility of the parent or guardian, not the responsibility of the government or magistrate.

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
one of the uglies wrote:
c)I am no scholar of libel law here in the US, let alone in Europe. As such I can't really speak of this issue from a legal point of view. However, I do not find that defaming the dead is somehow intrinsically unforgivable. Also it is not my opinion that people should be prosecuted for being unintelligent, or misinformed, or having poor taste. JMO


I am no scholar of libel law either, but it seems to me to be legitimate to expect that when for instance, a newspaper or other media outlet puts out a story about a person or group and it is proved that the story is untrue, that the person/group has the right to take this media outlet to court, make them retract what was said and pay a fine/suffer a penalty. In the case of holocaust deniers it has been repeatedly proven that what they say is both factually wrong and that evidence has been manipulated by them; they're like repeat libellers, who won't shut up. This does not seem to me to be an encroachment by government of a freedom of speech, rather it constitutes protection by the courts and the legal system of the rights of individuals and groups that only the proven truth should be told about them.
I'm not necessarily in agreement with the extension of this argument, but it does make one think: The extension would be - the Internet and this forum, which is open to the whole world, is a kind of media outlet. If untruths about others are knowingly and maliciously spread, they reach a pretty big audience. Couldn't one therefore argue that this forum is in itself a media outlet, in which unpaid columnists deliver their views and opinions. If their opinions are libellous, shouldn't some kind of sanction be the result?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
Caputh wrote:
one of the uglies wrote:
c)I am no scholar of libel law here in the US, let alone in Europe. As such I can't really speak of this issue from a legal point of view. However, I do not find that defaming the dead is somehow intrinsically unforgivable. Also it is not my opinion that people should be prosecuted for being unintelligent, or misinformed, or having poor taste. JMO


I am no scholar of libel law either, but it seems to me to be legitimate to expect that when for instance, a newspaper or other media outlet puts out a story about a person or group and it is proved that the story is untrue, that the person/group has the right to take this media outlet to court, make them retract what was said and pay a fine/suffer a penalty. In the case of holocaust deniers it has been repeatedly proven that what they say is both factually wrong and that evidence has been manipulated by them; they're like repeat libellers, who won't shut up. This does not seem to me to be an encroachment by government of a freedom of speech, rather it constitutes protection by the courts and the legal system of the rights of individuals and groups that only the proven truth should be told about them.
I'm not necessarily in agreement with the extension of this argument, but it does make one think: The extension would be - the Internet and this forum, which is open to the whole world, is a kind of media outlet. If untruths about others are knowingly and maliciously spread, they reach a pretty big audience. Couldn't one therefore argue that this forum is in itself a media outlet, in which unpaid columnists deliver their views and opinions. If their opinions are libellous, shouldn't some kind of sanction be the result?

No, because the difference is that on this forum we know that for example, DD claiming that any given member of this community is a faggot, is merely his opinion. Where as a professional media outlet has a reasonable expectation of reporting the truth, there is no such expectation inherent in this medium.
Mind you I'm not saying that it couldn't be done, I have very little faith in the judicial system to be sure. But even having said that, IMO the claim would be unfounded.
One other point, we are talking about an individual vs. an individual, as opposed to an organization vs. an individual. Organizations should not have the same rights as individuals. For instance, we would never tell an individual that he had to allow a person into his home regardless of the color of that person's skin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, etc. However if an organization, or business discriminated in that manner there would most likely be cause for legal action.
I would again air on the side of protecting the right of each individual to speak their mind freely, rather than an attempt to manipulate the court system to strip one individual of that right for the benefit of the other. However, in the example that you gave of the news papers my answer would be opposite and I would side with you.

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Interesting reply, however, I'm not sure whether DD's statement that someone was a "faggot" (in England these are, amusingly enough, little bundles of wood) is an opinion; isn't it an insult?
In Germany it is illegal for individuals to verbally insult other individuals. Therefore, if I call someone an asshole, I am liable to a fine. Entertainingly enough, insults are graded by degree e.g. "wanker" is worse than "dummy" and you have to pay more. In fact it is even illegal to tap the side of your head with your finger, if a fellow motorist drives in a manner that you consider dangerous.
Now, I'm not saying we should punish these kinds of language usage like that here, what I think I'm saying is that there is difference between opinion - which must have some vague basis in fact- and insults - which are merely intended to annoy and distress and have no factual basis at all.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5917
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
The point I don't seem to be making clear is about the difference between physical abuse and verbal abuse. In an isolated incident I would agree that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". But, it is well established, especially in familial relationships, that psychological abuse can be just as damaging as physical abuse. As I mentioned above, cyber space is an important meeting ground for the youth of today and getting on well in that sphere is just as important as getting on in the playground. Alienation can be just as harmful as physical pain in the long run and has detrimental effects on psychological development. Now, I'm just saying this to emphasise that mental well being is just as important as physical well being if not more so.

Getting back to the main issue, I'm not saying that anyone might suffer psychological harm from written abuse on this forum, but it does make the place quite unpleasant when there are several arseholes going at it hell for leather. It's not just a question of not reading it: when the forum becomes dominated by that kind of behaviour it becomes difficult to dig out the conversations you do want to be a part of especially when the dick heads will post anywhere and everywhere. Maybe the fact that I don't want to put up with that makes me less tolerant than some, but I've got a lot going on in my life and this forum is just a small but still significant part of that but I don't have time to deal with other people's bad behaviour. I have responsibilities to my wife and children and I shoulder a fair bit of emotional weight as a teacher, I'm not sure why I should also shoulder emotional responsibility for someone like Isaac.

This forum may not be a physical entity but it is still real. Real people communicate, some more genuinely than others and it's just not right that certain individuals choose to fuck it up. But, as I've said before, life banning is too extreme and I think that suspensions would be more suitable with a certain number of strikes before you're out and full explanations given to everybody as to why.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
Caputh wrote:
Interesting reply, however, I'm not sure whether DD's statement that someone was a "faggot" (in England these are, amusingly enough, little bundles of wood) is an opinion; isn't it an insult?
In Germany it is illegal for individuals to verbally insult other individuals. Therefore, if I call someone an asshole, I am liable to a fine. Entertainingly enough, insults are graded by degree e.g. "wanker" is worse than "dummy" and you have to pay more. In fact it is even illegal to tap the side of your head with your finger, if a fellow motorist drives in a manner that you consider dangerous.
Now, I'm not saying we should punish these kinds of language usage like that here, what I think I'm saying is that there is difference between opinion - which must have some vague basis in fact- and insults - which are merely intended to annoy and distress and have no factual basis at all.

In no way does opinion need to be based on fact, only on personal perception. Yes they are insults, but they are also an opinion of the other persons character based on the comments of the other individual.

I thought about this last night after I made my post, before I leave anyone with the wrong impression, my assertion that I would be on your side in the issue against the news papers, that is based purely on an outright lie and falsification of evidence perspective, my point of view would be quite different if as an example, it was done within a cartoon as satire. As a satirical work in which a snide view of any individual or group was portrayed I would not be willing to legislate against an individuals (this may read as cartoonist's) sense of humor, poor taste, etc. Also I would not support legal action if it was part of an opinion column. It would only apply if it was an actual news story that was presented as fact by said news paper.

To explain my point of view on the law within Germany that criminalizes an insult, in what way does it differ from any government or elected, or appointed official passing a law that says you are not allowed to insult or criticize the government? Just because the target of the law is an individual, as apposed to an official or a government body doesn't lend any more value or credibility to the law. It is still the same limiting of the right of the individual to speak freely their mind. Does the law in fact apply to political leaders? Could it be used as a way of preventing the citizenry from criticizing the government in an open way?
Any such law should be fought IMO.

*EDIT*
Quote:
Do the people of Germany see each other as being beyond reproach in the same way that the NAZI party or for that matter the Bush administration saw itself and it's leader as beyond reproach?

I would like to offer a general apology to any of the German citizens who read and were terribly offended by this, I read it again today, and realized that without giving my view on the question it could be misconstrued as a great insult. That was not my intention.
My intention was to point out that the average citizen knows that he/she makes mistakes and therefor everyone makes mistakes. So any law designed to prevent an insult such as calling a person who cuts you off in traffic an asshole is quite unnecessary. I had that kind of thing in mind, but it was not translated well to the fingertips. I have removed it from the above portion as it is not required, but I feel it is better to leave it and acknowledge the mistake I made than try to hide it. Sincerely, I apologize for having offended anyone.

_________________
"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.


Last edited by one of the uglies on Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
polydigm wrote:
The point I don't seem to be making clear is about the difference between physical abuse and verbal abuse. In an isolated incident I would agree that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". But, it is well established, especially in familial relationships, that psychological abuse can be just as damaging as physical abuse. As I mentioned above, cyber space is an important meeting ground for the youth of today and getting on well in that sphere is just as important as getting on in the playground. Alienation can be just as harmful as physical pain in the long run and has detrimental effects on psychological development. Now, I'm just saying this to emphasise that mental well being is just as important as physical well being if not more so.

Getting back to the main issue, I'm not saying that anyone might suffer psychological harm from written abuse on this forum, but it does make the place quite unpleasant when there are several arseholes going at it hell for leather. It's not just a question of not reading it: when the forum becomes dominated by that kind of behaviour it becomes difficult to dig out the conversations you do want to be a part of especially when the dick heads will post anywhere and everywhere. Maybe the fact that I don't want to put up with that makes me less tolerant than some, but I've got a lot going on in my life and this forum is just a small but still significant part of that but I don't have time to deal with other people's bad behaviour. I have responsibilities to my wife and children and I shoulder a fair bit of emotional weight as a teacher, I'm not sure why I should also shoulder emotional responsibility for someone like Isaac.

This forum may not be a physical entity but it is still real. Real people communicate, some more genuinely than others and it's just not right that certain individuals choose to fuck it up. But, as I've said before, life banning is too extreme and I think that suspensions would be more suitable with a certain number of strikes before you're out and full explanations given to everybody as to why.

We are not discussing this as a domestic issue, rather as a public discourse issue. There is a great deal of difference between a stranger telling you that you are completely fucking worthless on the street corner, and a parent or guardian continually telling you that you are a worthless piece of shit on a daily basis.
If anyone can't take an insult from a complete stranger on this site, my suggestion is to toughen the fuck up. I would suggest that if you take it to heart you have allowed that person control over you. Choose not to instead.

Quote:
Maybe the fact that I don't want to put up with that makes me less tolerant than some, but I've got a lot going on in my life and this forum is just a small but still significant part of that but I don't have time to deal with other people's bad behaviour.

This is precisely the point, you are saying that you feel your time is more valuable than the right of free speech of another individual, on that we will have to agree to disagree.

The potential problem I see from the point of view of a person who might operate a website to your last point is that any explanation could ultimately open the administrators to the potential of an unjustified lawsuit. From their point of view, silence would be the safer position I think as the administrators of the website are relatively in a position of authority here, they have to contend with the potential claim that they abused that authority. That would be my guess as to why no reason is given at any rate, just a guess.

_________________
"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: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5917
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
one of the uglies wrote:
We are not discussing this as a domestic issue, rather as a public discourse issue. There is a great deal of difference between a stranger telling you that you are completely fucking worthless on the street corner, and a parent or guardian continually telling you that you are a worthless piece of shit on a daily basis.

polydigm: It would help if you actually read what I was saying. I made it pretty clear that I realise that these two issues are not the same.

If anyone can't take an insult from a complete stranger on this site, my suggestion is to toughen the fuck up. I would suggest that if you take it to heart you have allowed that person control over you. Choose not to instead.

polydigm: I have not taken anything to heart and I don't need your patronising suggestions, in fact I'm not even talking about insults in the first place. Were you frequenting this forum when Isaac and Zombie were regulars before they got banned? I wasn't one of the people calling to get Isaac banned or pointlessly slagging him off and I spent time trying to help him out but to no avail. I won't say anything more about this until I know what you know about that period on this forum, I don't want to jump to any conclusions about what you are or are not familiar with.

This is precisely the point, you are saying that you feel your time is more valuable than the right of free speech of another individual, on that we will have to agree to disagree.

polydigm: I am not saying that. You are oversimplifying and trivialising what I'm trying to say. You like things black and white don't you?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Where is Joel Osteen? Not BANNED I'll bet. Fat yes. :mrgreen:

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
polydigm wrote:
one of the uglies wrote:
We are not discussing this as a domestic issue, rather as a public discourse issue. There is a great deal of difference between a stranger telling you that you are completely fucking worthless on the street corner, and a parent or guardian continually telling you that you are a worthless piece of shit on a daily basis.

polydigm: It would help if you actually read what I was saying. I made it pretty clear that I realise that these two issues are not the same.

I read what you wrote, but IMO your way of putting it muddied the issue.

If anyone can't take an insult from a complete stranger on this site, my suggestion is to toughen the fuck up. I would suggest that if you take it to heart you have allowed that person control over you. Choose not to instead.

polydigm: I have not taken anything to heart and I don't need your patronising suggestions, in fact I'm not even talking about insults in the first place. Were you frequenting this forum when Isaac and Zombie were regulars before they got banned? I wasn't one of the people calling to get Isaac banned or pointlessly slagging him off and I spent time trying to help him out but to no avail. I won't say anything more about this until I know what you know about that period on this forum, I don't want to jump to any conclusions about what you are or are not familiar with.

Why take this so personally? It was a general statement, I made sure to make the statement about anyone. I did not imply that you could not take an insult from someone on this site.

This is precisely the point, you are saying that you feel your time is more valuable than the right of free speech of another individual, on that we will have to agree to disagree.

polydigm: I am not saying that. You are oversimplifying and trivialising what I'm trying to say. You like things black and white don't you?

No, I'm clarifying what you did say. In the context of your statement the behavior that you do not have time for is the words and opinions of other people on this forum that you have judged to be somehow lacking in value.

*EDIT*
As after thought, in a situation of debate such as this it would be inadvisable for me to begin my argument from a compromised position, it would already be giving you ground. If I have already conceded half of what you want, then that weakens my position. I am taking this debate rather seriously, because I believe in the rights of people to think and speak for themselves without the interference of anyone. I will however give you the last word.

*EDIT* Oh who am I kidding, no I won't, not on this subject, not on THIS day.


_________________
"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.


Last edited by one of the uglies on Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:44 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
Whittle that tree to a toothpick. :roll:

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 590
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
Whittle that tree to a toothpick. :roll:

WWFZD?

_________________
"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: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
one of the uglies wrote:
[I would like to offer a general apology to any of the German citizens who read and were terribly offended by this, I read it again today, and realized that without giving my view on the question it could be misconstrued as a great insult. That was not my intention.
My intention was to point out that the average citizen knows that he/she makes mistakes and therefor everyone makes mistakes. So any law designed to prevent an insult such as calling a person who cuts you off in traffic an asshole is quite unnecessary. I had that kind of thing in mind, but it was not translated well to the fingertips. I have removed it from the above portion as it is not required, but I feel it is better to leave it and acknowledge the mistake I made than try to hide it. Sincerely, I apologize for having offended anyone.



You don't need to apologize; in this kind of discussion anyone could slightly overstep the mark, or think he or she had.
Anyway, most of us remember some of the people who were banned, such as dear old DD, mature and wise Isaac, reasonable and forgiving Zombie/HIR/Sinister Midget, not to forget Saggynuts' tasteful and thoughtful pearls of wisdom. All of them posted things that REALLY deserved an apology. Yet despite all their good qualities, they remained strangely reticent (except for Isaac, whose definition of the word 'apology' was to use it a number of times in a post whilst simultaneously shirking any responsibility for the offence he was apologizing for - rather like Albert Speer really...) :wink:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
one of the uglies wrote:
KAPT.KIIRK wrote:
Whittle that tree to a toothpick. :roll:

WWFZD?

Why he'd write a song about it. :mrgreen:

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: BANNED FOR LIFE
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
"Return of the Son of Montana"?

Toothpicks replacing dental floss, the Schwarzwald replacing Montana?

_________________
"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 Jan 19, 2010 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:05 pm
Posts: 142
Location: UK
Having not been on for a while, busy with other things, i was shocked to see that jimmie d has been banned, i have no idea why he was ,i have tried the suggested search criteria and nothing was forth coming, so could someone enlighten me as to the why? I always enjoyed Jimmie d and his political cartoons even though i'm on the other side of the pond and some of his posts were down right entertaining, so please tell me why.

as for the banning of someone, to me it depends on what they have done, if they have just gone and had a very heated debate with which the zft dont like then that, i would think is a bit harsh cos now they take it to the outside world and say that the zft cant stand a bit of criticism. If however they have come in, spat in your face and called you a C*** and meant it with a lot of venom then they should go. I would reply to that by saying "I have been insulted by experts and you dont even come close" but to me the forum is a place where a lot of things are said and people tend to get a bit irate and start insulting others and it gets out of hand, but i dont think it would be so bad if the Zft were to put in more input and state things more clearly. I also believe that in the real world it wouldnt get so heated cos we are all reasonably sane, with maybe a few exceptions.

Love to all

waiting for the melt down to arrive

myxy

_________________
from the fifth dimension


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 1 guest


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