Certain topics should not be allowed on sciforums

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Epictetus, Jun 20, 2012.

  1. Epictetus here & now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    Moderator note: This thread has been split from a debate Proposal in the Formal Debates subforum. The particular proposal contends that no planes hit the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.
    ----

    He is on my ignore list. I just hate to see your and everyone else's time, and perfectly innocent cyber space being wasted on a troll. Steamy doesn't believe for a second that the Holocaust didn't happen or that Einstein never lived or that 9/11 never occurred. He just want to call attention to himself by upsetting people. It's sad and pathetic really. At any rate I'll take your advice and go on ignoring him. And you James you ought to go buff your nails or make sure all the recently done paint jobs in your neighborhood has dried properly. I can only ignore trolls, it is in your power to ban them permanently for offending reason and sensibility - not to mention common decency.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2012
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xotica Everyday I’m Shufflin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    456
    He is a conspiricist, historical revisionist, and attention-whore. The antithesis of intellectual honesty and valid inquiry. Why he is allowed to troll this board is beyond me.

    I expect to earn demerits for this post. So be it.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Epictetus here & now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554

    :bravo::bravo::bravo:​
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Because it it this board.
     
  8. Epictetus here & now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    Sorry, do you write with a lisp or something?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    Cesspool is not enough. This thread should be deleted entirely out of respect for the people who died or lost loved ones on that day.

    The entire nation witnessed the tragedy and it has been shown planes were hijacked and destroyed.

    Sciforums should not be a pedestal for crazy people when the subject is hurtful to so many.

    I vote for thread deletion, and permanent ban for the whacko who started it.
     
  10. Epictetus here & now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    I second kwhilborn's demand. I wrote as much in this same thread, as did others (one member even called steampunk an 'attention whore' LOL) but James R (I presume) deleted all such remarks because this is a Formal Debate :worship: so apparently anyone who is offended by the sheer stupidity of the topic is not permitted to participate.

    I was there. I saw both planes hit the towers, but I suppose steampunk on his high and mighty pedestal where he will deign to pick and choose and decide by his esoteric standards, unknown to us inferior (i.e., sane) people what constitutes real and acceptable evidence of existence is the one who gets to say whether 9/11 actually happened because this is a Formal Debate.

    I've asked before and I'll ask again, why are nutsoid trolls allowed to pose idiotic questions like 'Did Albert Einstein actually exist?' and then "invite" us to disprove his mad assertion as if he were some tiny god who gets to say what is true and what is false because he claims to understand logic and semantics better than anyone else? - And then we find that's not the case it at all, no it's just another ridiculous troll that feels orgasmic shivers when he sees a reply to something he posted on the net.
     
  11. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    Just to be clear, Chipz did that to point out the absurdity of a formal debate about gas chambers at Auschwitz.
     
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I don't necessarily have a problem with kooks asking kook questions or asking for kook debates, (though the logistics are problematic, as you've pointed out). My problem is that they're allowed to make assertions such as this one, which are so blatantly false and almost inevitably reliant on some form of bigotry. These kinds of conspiracy loons, if allowed to carry their arguments through to their natural conclusion, will say something like "Which is why the Jewish cabal needs to be stopped." I mean, did you hear this guy talking about how Nazi iconography makes him feel?

    In other words, these discussions are not initiated by interested-but-misguided people searching for a better understanding. Instead, they're started by hatemongers looking for a place where they can peddle their poison.
     
  13. Epictetus here & now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    Yes Dawg, I see your point. You're absolutely correct, but there's small choice in sour apples, ain't there?
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2012
  14. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    So this thing will never take off? I got my popcorn and soda ready...
     
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Too true, unfortunately.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,948
    I have split this thread from the Formal Debate proposal thread. It raises an interesting question concerning free speech and censorship.

    Perhaps it is easiest to reply to Epictetus's post...

    I suggest that Epictetus goes and reads the rules of the Formal Debates subforum. That forum is strictly moderated. There are three types of threads allowed there, and only three. In a debate Proposal thread, discussion of the actual topic of debate is prohibited.

    This has nothing at all to do with being offended by the proposed topic.

    And if we adopt your preferred course of action, then steampunk will be censored and simply not be allowed to express any view that disagrees with yours.

    I have to wonder: what are you so scared of here that you want to shut down a conversation just because it offends your sensibilities?

    I think you're heading down a dangerous slope once you start advocating the censorship of views that differ from your own or from those whose opinions your support.

    The measure of freedom of speech is not the protections you give to those with whom you agree, but the protections you give to those with whom you vehemently disagree - even dislike.

    What would you have done if you could? Burn all 9/11 conspiracy books? Shut down all 9/11 conspiracy sites on the web? Put people in jail for daring to express the blatantly silly view that airliners didn't hit the World Trade Centre?

    Nutsoid trolls are not proven by mere assertion, ridicule or dismissal by yourself and those with whom you agree. Who knows? Maybe other people may regard you as a nutsoid troll at some point, because you hold an unorthodox view on something.

    You are, of course, free to decline any invitation to debate somebody, here or anywhere else. If you think that mere dismissal of a claim is enough to refute it, or that refutation is self evident, then so be it. Don't get all hot under the collar. Just decline and move on.

    On the other hand, if you're really worried that some people may take a false claim seriously, then here's an idea: address the point. Don't seek to censor the person making it.

    So, you're an eyewitness to the planes hitting the Twin Towers? Great! What better way to respond to a ridiculous claim that no planes hit the towers than with a first-hand account of what happened?

    Why this need to resort to a demand for censorship?

    I really want to see your response here. And not just yours, but those of the other posters above who have called for steampunk to be banned outright for even daring to make certain unpalatable suggestions.
     
  17. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Well I did just that and nothing happened to stop the troll from getting even more time on the subject . If we do show that anyone is doing nothing more than just causing a problem by opening up issues that are already debated to death and resolved then when are you going to prevent this from going on and on and on? :shrug:
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,948
    I don't think we have ever had a Formal Debate at sciforums about anything to do with 9/11.

    Certainly, there have been prior discussions on such matters. It's a matter of opinion as to how "resolved" those discussions were. I don't recall many minds changing or many agreements being reached.
     
  19. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    About 3 or 4 years ago, Stryder got sick of constantly having to moderate 9/11 threads in pseudoscience. Eventually he had enough, and limited all 9/11 discussion to one thread...then banned all discussion of 9/11. I'm actually grateful for that...because it allowed me to discover the JREF forum.

    That rule has be softened in the last few years...and a few 9/11 threads have been allowed. I personally like debating the 9/11 nuts just to show how retarded and mentally ill they really are....so that impressionable teenagers or others who may have not been old enough to remember the events of 9/11 themselves won't think there's anything to this crazy 9/11 truth bullshit.
     
  20. Xotica Everyday I’m Shufflin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    456
    I do not advocate censorship. My overarching issue in this concerns thread location. Unless I'm guilty of badly misinterpreting your intention below, it seems to me that you yourself acted on this exact same concern.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2836693&postcount=28

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2837051&postcount=30
     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I think there should be a formal debate about what subjects aren't fit for a formal debate.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    it is this attitude, but much worse, that gallileo feared the most.

    it seems to me that the ones that have the most to hide would be the most fearful of discussion.

    and yes, hitler did indeed "have it in" for the jews.
    i can't imagine ANYONE saying german death camps weren't a reality.
    the only real questions are how many and the percentages of the rest.

    debates don't allow "guilt trips".
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Yes ...

    There are societal taboos that are so sensitive that they must be upheld by all costs ... to the point of not even clearing up what those taboos are ...
     

Share This Page