OK - I give in

[ban-all-sheds]

It is now absolutely clear that the moderator(s) share Slogger's views.

Over and over again they permit him to come here boasting that he would like to carry out violent and murderous criminal attacks on people.

Over and over again they fail to see anything wrong with violence, and yet decide that I am not allowed to voice my loathing of him.

Freedom of speech, it seems, is extended to those who want to incite murder, not to those who want to say how vile they think revelling in violence is.

So be it.

 

[Softus]

b-a-s, I'm aware that some of the content of your recent posts has been removed, but I didn't get a change to see it first.

Trying to keep an open mind at this end, outragious as most of Slogger's posts are (and you probably already know how I feel about him), is it possible that some of the words you used were unacceptable, even thought Slogger's sentiments were, in my view, unassailably unacceptable?

If not, then I suspect that you're right - the moderator who saw fit to censor your words has not remained impartial regarding the content of the topic.

If that's true, then I suppose it's a fact of life that power corrupts.

 

[notb665]

It is now absolutely clear that the moderator(s) share Slogger's views.

Over and over again they permit him to come here boasting that he would like to carry out violent and murderous criminal attacks on people.

Over and over again they fail to see anything wrong with violence, and yet decide that I am not allowed to voice my loathing of him.

Freedom of speech, it seems, is extended to those who want to incite murder, not to those who want to say how vile they think revelling in violence is.

So be it.

The process of democracy should see people like Slogger for what they are and keep them down, largely by ignoring them. You can't have someone saying "You can say this, you can't say that" - that leads to censorship and eventually martyrdom. If his posts are blocked, he ain't gonna think "I must be wrong", it will make him worse because he thinks he is right and fighting for a cause.

Obviously there is a line, the worrying thing is when the democracy lets him cross it.

 

[paulbrown]

It is now absolutely clear that the moderator(s) share Slogger's views.
So be it.

it aint to me which posts which posts were the mods aggressive in?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Trying to keep an open mind at this end, outragious as most of Slogger's posts are (and you probably already know how I feel about him), is it possible that some of the words you used were unacceptable, even thought Slogger's sentiments were, in my view, unassailably unacceptable?

That's the whole point.

Slogger is allowed to use words to advocate acts of extreme violence.

I am not allowed to use words to describe the state of extreme loathing that I have for him because of his views.

Slogger is allowed to say he wants to use axes, pliers, blowtorches etc on people.

I am not allowed to say that because of that I find him vile, uncivilised and barbaric.

If not, then I suspect that you're right - the moderator who saw fit to censor your words has not remained impartial regarding the content of the topic.

If you consider, truly, what the content of Slogger's posts is - not the words he uses, but the true meaning behind them - the true content, then I don't think I've ever encountered such a lack of impartiality.

I'd like everyone reading this to just take a step back, and have a long hard think about the kind of society we would have if Slogger's views prevailed, and wonder why it is that his views are considered acceptable.

And wonder why it is that the mods protect him.

 

[Bazdaa]

The mods are a bunch of muppets. I know that only too well, and as some of you know, have been on the receiving end of thier finger extensions!

 

[Freddie]

BAS have you ever considered for one tiny moment that you may fall for it every time?

In which case you bite and snap like a starving shark

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The process of democracy should see people like Slogger for what they are and keep them down, largely by ignoring them. You can't have someone saying "You can say this, you can't say that" - that leads to censorship and eventually martyrdom.

But the mods aren't telling him what he can and cannot say. They allow him to peddle his violent and abusive views without let or hindrance.

And without criticism from others.

 

[Softus]

...I suspect that you're right - the moderator who saw fit to censor your words has not remained impartial regarding the content of the topic.

If you consider, truly, what the content of Slogger's posts is - not the words he uses, but the true meaning behind them - the true content, then I don't think I've ever encountered such a lack of impartiality.

I'd like everyone reading this to just take a step back, and have a long hard think about the kind of society we would have if Slogger's views prevailed, and wonder why it is that his views are considered acceptable.

I don't really feel a need to take a step back, since I think I'm already viewing this from a nicely independant position. Are you really so worked up that you can't see that I was sharing your opinon?

 

[paulbrown]

b-a-s, I'm aware that some of the content of your recent posts has been removed, but I didn't get a change to see it first.

Trying to keep an open mind at this end, outragious as most of Slogger's posts are (is it possible that some of the words you used were unacceptable, even thought Slogger's sentiments were, in my view, unassailably unacceptable?

If not, then I suspect that you're right - the moderator who saw fit to censor your words has not remained impartial regarding the content of the topic.

If that's true, then I suppose it's a fact of life that power corrupts.

Could you tell me why you think the mod's are not being impartial, given that they have warned and deleted posts from both ban-all-sheds and slogger?

I notice you said this

and you probably already know how I feel about him),

which to me says you seem to have a personal problem with slogger himself rather than is comments.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS have you ever considered for one tiny moment that you may fall for it every time?

In which case you bite and snap like a starving shark

Unlike you, of course, who never reacts when I say what I think of your mate Slogger.

Tell me - which is worse - to want to call someone names, or to want to kill them?

 

[Softus]

Could you tell me why you think the mod's are not being impartial, given that they have warned and deleted posts from both ban-all-sheds and slogger?

Hang on - I didn't say I thought it, I said "If" etc. However, I wasn't aware that some of Slogger's posts were also deleted. If that's the case, I stand prepared to retract my comment.

I notice you said this

and you probably already know how I feel about him),

which to me says you seem to have a personal problem with slogger himself rather than is comments.

To be frank, I don't think it's relevant what this particular part said to you, because it was aimed specifically at b-a-s. I wanted to convey something without going into details, because the details would have distracted from my point and also would have led to another argument on this topic.

I'm tempted to point out that a forum member's views are inseparable from that member's personality, and thereby from them as a person, whereas you appear to be implying that the views are an entity in their own right and the holder of those views should somehow be immune from criticisism. However, I'm starting to get the feeling that you're just looking for an argument on this point, but I think I will decline to get drawn into that one, thank you.

 

[Freddie]

BAS have you ever considered for one tiny moment that you may fall for it every time?

In which case you bite and snap like a starving shark

Unlike you, of course, who never reacts when I say what I think of your mate Slogger.

Tell me - which is worse - to want to call someone names, or to want to kill them?

I do react--i am not perfect-- slogger or joe isnt my mate--i just think that anybody should be able to express their view on a forum as long as its within the rules--i thought attacking other forum members is against the rules besides wrecking the forum

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I notice you said this

and you probably already know how I feel about him),

which to me says you seem to have a personal problem with slogger himself rather than is comments.

Yes, I do, because there comes a point where "comments" are not something completely unrelated to the person who makes them

There is far too much belief that somehow you can have an opinion, and express an opinion, and for that opinion to have an abstract and independent existence that is nothing to do with you, as if an opinion is something you can put on and take off like a hat, not something that is an aspect of the person you are.

This is complete b*ll*cks.

If someone were to say "In my opinion all black people are criminals", the correct response is not "Well in my opinion your opinion is flawed, and in my opinion your opinion is a racist opinion". That's just pussyfooting around. A response of "You are wrong" or "You are a racist" is quite OK. It's not the opinion that is wrong, it's the person that is wrong.

If people wish to express their views then that is perfectly OK, I will not stop them expressing them, but I really do find the idea of individuals going after criminals and attacking them with hammers, blowtorches and pliers abhorrent and detestable. It isn't like enjoying Marmite or thinking that darts makes entertaining TV - I really do think that people who agree with killing and violence are abhorrent and detestable people.

 

[Softus]

Ok, I'm lost. Who's replying to who now?

And who is you and who is me? Am I The Walrus?