The politics of being banned

[Justin Bieber]

I was wondering when somebody would figure this out......

Your an Idiot buddy Prospector doesn't have banning powers only m0nty has those powers. Maybe you should apologise to Prospector for starting this thread because it wasn't him.

Just get over it. You got banned and not by Prospector but by Monty. I hope Monty sees this and extends your ban for life.

Pros is a moderator for the FORUM only but he still doesn't have any power to Ban users. M0nty is the only one with the power to do so on the site or the forum, so no need to attack Pros ;).

flower me BratPack, how many of those things do you have lmao

+ a million to that... where the hell do you even find them alll???

I think he makes them if he can't find any :P.

Got to say this was a funny thread. Read for the first few until it became a debate on free speech and bringing out all this racist and whatever (as you can tell I gave up after like reading the first 10-20 posts).

*Peace Out Pplz.

[RiOtChEsS]

[AFEV]

Isn't it wrong to for god to kill kittens? 0:-)

[Cicjose]

please think of the children

[hawk_88]

Ignoring the obvious trolling continuing, there is a very interesting debate within this. Personally I think that both sides here have taken rather concrete views on the nature fascism, but that is just my opinion.

For those who want a really interesting read: http://www.ronjoneswriter.com/wave.html

It is a true story and well worth reading the entire article. There was also a documentary made on it which is fascinating as well. I think there is a free copy of the movie on Google Video somewhere.

[Bluke]

Have you heard of the Milgrim experiment Hawk_88?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

It was designed to test how people react to authority figures when challenged to do something morally detestable and conducted when ethical considerations where at the back of most psychologists minds.

Check it out.

[hawk_88]

I had heard of that one before, mainly as one of the inspirations of this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment.

I read through the full Milgram wiki article though. I didn't know someone thought that the participants suspected/knew is was a recording which was the reason they continued. So they used a real victim in a puppy!! And people still did it!

Ignoring the horror of shocking a PUPPY like that, the psychology behind the construction of that variation is quite disturbing. There is no way humans can be that morally weak, lets try a version of the experiment where we actually hurt a puppy to prove otherwise.... What?!

[korza]

WTF !!!


I dont think Hitler, Mussolini or even Elvis has seen a game of Aussie rules, to use these famous and infamous names on a site like this, shows how shower other social networks are. When slandering FanFooty and using these names in the same sentence, take a step back and understand the mess you are making of yourself.

PS: To attack Prospector, the way some of our members did in this thread and on chat is a disgrace.   


KORZA

[Master Q]

I'm sorry but this pic is just so relevant:

[RiOtChEsS]

[McRooster]

I have been spirited by the inocuosness of this conjecture  ;D

[Prospector_1]

This is one of the best debates ever at this website - but it ain't footy! It should be in the bar over a beer, not in feedback, but I can't move it!

First, how it concerns me ...

Others (Fenno eg.) already pointed out that I have no banning power,and, for dwite's info, I don't even know who Luke Adams is, let alone make any comment.

Second, on some history, and what little I know ...

As I understand it, the German population had no idea what was necessary, so it seems unfair to blame them. As others pointed out, they were very oppressed by the reparations (which were OTT),following the First WW.

Bluke has answered most of incog's arguments extremely well. I recognise Bluke's political and philosophical education - onya Bluke! I agree that there is no necessity for evil in this world!

I would also like to recognise incog's naive revolutionary approach - I see myself in the mirror! I would like to also acknowledge his humour ... "Five me liberty or give me death!"

While a winning strategy, I challenge incog's argument that "It is only the outcome that matters" - this rejects morals, and is very much the Machiavellian approach. Maybe you mean it is only the INCOME that matters?

I challenge anyone to produce a solid example of Prospector trivialising millions of deaths. Please produce in full, and in context!

I like this one from Talsiman "If you are certain that someone will take offence to a statement, in my humble opinion, that statement no longer falls under the guise of freedom of speech, instead it is simply a mean/nasty (take you pick) comment. That does not amount to heathly debate, but rather humiliation &/or hurt feelings. So the question must then be: why make that comment when no positivity, only hurt, will come of it?"

That, I think, shows some true compassion - more power to you, Talsiman!

I too love a good debate, and this has all the hallmarks of a beauty!

Let's not stop now ...

BTW, what happened to the Original Poster?

[hawk_88]

I challenge anyone to produce a solid example of Prospector trivialising millions of deaths. Please produce in full, and in context!

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

From now on everyone is going to see if they and spin something you say.

[Prospector_1]

"spin"? That would surely be "out of context"?

[hawk_88]

I believe there is a slight difference in definition.

As far as I can tell there are two ways to trap you. The first would be to apply a fallacy cleverly such that it isn't noticed. However that would be, to put it bluntly, weaksauce. The way to properly trap you would be to find a time when you fail to communicate some of the context explicitly, which leaves it up to interpretation. That would still in the full context of what you communicated.