Yes Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Relevant to this thread, A very interesting article. It's right on target! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 It's right on target! Speaking from what I have read of AJC's posts, the article comes to the same conclusions that AJC did. I have to propose banning Yes for supporting AJC by linking to an artilce that agreed with one of "these people". No for Yes! *sarcasm* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Speaking from what I have read of AJC's posts, the article comes to the same conclusions that AJC did. I have to propose banning Yes for supporting AJC by linking to an artilce that agreed with one of "these people". No for Yes! *sarcasm* You ignore the fact that I have stated many times that my problem with AutoJC was not primarily his conclusions, but his attitude. It was solely for his attitude that he was banned. You seem to share not simply his conclusions, but also his attitude. So if you want to stay, I suggest you cool it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Speaking from what I have read of AJC's posts, the article comes to the same conclusions that AJC did. I have to propose banning Yes for supporting AJC by linking to an artilce that agreed with one of "these people". No for Yes! *sarcasm* You ignore the fact that I have stated many times that my problem with AutoJC was not primarily his conclusions, but his attitude. It was solely for his attitude that he was banned. You seem to share not simply his conclusions, but also his attitude. So if you want to stay, I suggest you cool it. Andrew, some day you have got to learn to look beyond one's attitude towards, or against, issues. Look carefully to content instead. It's a very important part of one's learning experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 So if you want to stay, I suggest you cool it."Attitude" means that you are offended by his opinion of your site. I have the same "attitude" (or opinion to speak clearly and honestly), and so you will ban me if I even hint at expressing it again. How dare I state a opinion that does not compliment your work. Agree with my opinion of me, or leave. How can an opinion frighten you so much that you have to resort to this - an opinion? Before you try to intimidate someone into agreeing with you, make sure they value what you are using for leverage. If they reject it, you are left using force for compliance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Tell me, slave, if this forum is not of value to you, if you have such a low opinion of it, why are you here? What do you think the purpose of this message board is? Why should the owners and administrators of this site provide a forum for those who insult them? If I ban you, did I initiate force--or did you, by your continuing presence on someone else's property which you have no right to use in the way that you do? I suggest you think about these questions carefully, then answer them honestly. And then we will see what should be done with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Andrew, some day you have got to learn to look beyond one's attitude towards, or against, issues. Look carefully to content instead. It's a very important part of one's learning experience. If you want to get picky, you can say he was banned for his content--his attitude, after all, was expressed in the form of certain content. He was just not banned for the content that he and slave keep ridiculously insisting that he was, namely, that he was critical of George W. Bush. Well, so am I! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Dishonesty is an attitude, and it is THE leading factor in getting people banned. If a person posts fallacious content, but the fallacies are due to honest errors, he should not be banned for that. But if someone posts fallacious content out of intellectual dishonesty, that is reason enough for banning him. Being disrespectful is another reason for getting banned. So is questioning the right of the forum's owner to his property. So is insinuating that we ban people out of evasion. These are all various kinds of attitude. A person's attitude is the expression of his volitional choices, and volitional choices are the only legitimate target of moral evaluation. It would be a mistake NOT to evaluate posters based on their attitutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slave Posted June 21, 2004 Report Share Posted June 21, 2004 Tell me, slave, if this forum is not of value to you, if you have such a low opinion of it, why are you here? What do you think the purpose of this message board is? Why should the owners and administrators of this site provide a forum for those who insult them? If I ban you, did I initiate force--or did you, by your continuing presence on someone else's property which you have no right to use in the way that you do? I suggest you think about these questions carefully, then answer them honestly. And then we will see what should be done with you. I made a mistake in my response. I do value this board and the effect that it has on my intellect. I did not say I had a "low" opinion of your board. I am not even sure I have a "low" opinion of anything. I have opinions - those opinions that appear to be wrong I pursue w/o compromise. I believe you are making such an error. The only reason why you could possibly be insulted by AJC's opinion is because you value it more than your own. If you had no value for his oipinon, there would have been no insult. If I called you a fat pig, would you be insulted? It is obvious from you picture you are not fat. Likewise, it is obvious that it would be rejected before you could even think about it. Why did you think about what AJC said? Why was there an insult? Unless you are omniscient, you can also use this board to learn. If my honesty has exposed an error that you can learn from, it is appreciation from the lessons that I have learned while posting here. If my honesty is feared, I will be banned. What I should have said if I had written clearly was that I do not value it to the point where I have to hide my thoughts regarding it. I value nothing but my life that much. If you are suggesting that expressing one's opinion is a use of force, I do not accept that at all. Words are abstractions w/o dimensions. There is no possible way an dimensionless concept could result in force: Force = mass * Acceleration :: zero mass = zero force. You do not have to ban me. Tell me to go, I will respect your property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.