Posted on 05/29/2002 8:32:25 AM PDT by cornelis
But maybe you'll succeed in getting me banned. Good luck.
Apparently you thought the place was reserved for conservative Christian-naysaying. "Oh, those foolish, intellectually shallow, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, superstition-laden religionists. How dare they oppose the One True Science!"
You might have thought that because you have succeeded so brilliantly and well in driving them out of most other public fora.
What you found instead is that they are allowed roughly equal space here. I believe that is good and healthy. You apparently disagree.
Well, I wish you luck in getting us--or any of us--banned. As I said, I will not protest or whine. I will just get on with life.
But maybe you'll succeed in getting me banned. Good luck.
Neither do I, and I hope you don't get banned. I think Admin Moderator went way overboard in banning EL. But if post 174, which as I recall didn't impugn the character or integrity of Christians, should be deleted, then your post 236, which directly attacks my character and integrity, should also be deleted. I don't think post 174 was enough to ban EL, and neither 236 for you. But whatever, I just think it's unfair that the two posts, let alone the posters who posted them, are being treated so very differently.
Again, if EL made other inappropriate posts or showed him/herself to be a DU-style disruptor on other threads, then that's different. But I think we deserve an explanation.
That's the sad part. I'm reduced to fuming and relying on a fading memory. EsotericLucidity's post is in a real sense indefensible--it's gone and so is he. Even if I had it, I might be banned myself for reposting an unperson's deleted text. My post would at minimum be deleted like the original and I'd get a 1-day suspension.
EL's posts perked me up. I'd much rather see EL answer Buggman than answer Buggman myself. Been there, done that. EL met people from a philosophical perspective, one that I normally ignore because I like the rocks and fossils. Nevertheless, he was good, very good. I liked to watch.
FR is the poorer, and not just because he's not here. FR is poorer because it's the kind of place that's afraid of EL.
Nothing I saw was worth more than maybe, maybe deleting the post in question. I go that far only because we have an explicit rule against "Christian-bashing." Even there, I do not interpret "No Christian-bashing" as "Offend thou not Christians." Bashing someone is actually attacking them and is easy not to do. Offense, by comparison, is impossible to calculate in advance. No post of EL's that I saw bashed or attacked anyone at any time.
I agree and it sucks. Much soul-searching here.
Calm down. We can live with what's going on. It's true that the creo side gets away with stuff that we can't. That may be mostly because we don't complain all that much via the abuse button. Perhaps our lack of complaining is because we don't take some of the creos -- the worst abusers -- all that seriously. I guess it's a compliment that they feel compelled to resort to extraordinary measures to silence our side. Stick it out, you're doing fine. I'll go when I'm told to go, not earlier.
The evos like to think that they are the only ones at FR who read books or have degrees. It's really kind of pathetic.
IMHO, yendu bwam, your posts have been wonderfully and skillfully argued. Although Mr. Tortoise doesn't seem to realize it, you anticipated all of his objections before he even posted to you.
What we can live with is not the whole question. If Free Republic is becoming Christian Republic or Free-to-Approved-Nutjobs-Republic, that might as well be made explicit rather than conveyed though Bigfoot moderators and glum official silence.
I need more evidence. Your one-day suspension was an eye-opener, no doubt, but let's give it some time to sort itself out. In due course the policy will become clear. Right now I don't think it is.
It's becoming pretty clear now. Bigfoot rules.
The problem, however, is how it is decided and especially who decides what is detrimental behaviour. Because there are always humans who decide this it can happen that their preferences influence their decisions. But this is a characteristic of every totalitarian regime and not only restricted to communism (it's also the case in absolutistic monarchies, theocracies, banana republics, etc.).
The difference between western democracies and the totalitarian regimes that have existed ever since is the fact that in western societies criticism is allowed and the decision making of the authorities is transparent (or at least to a great deal) so it is extremely difficult to misuse your position to secure your privileges because this is what really happens in totalitarian societies those in charge try to keep their privileges by misusing the legal system since they are able to do so. Therefore they never murder or steal but execute or confiscate. They claim that it is for the good of the country or society or because it's the will of some god whereas in reality that person was only a threat to their privileges. Of course they didn't want the populace to behave this way but they expected them to follow the rules they (sometimes) disregard.
The communist states wanted their people to be moral and sometimes they could even be compared to Christian morals. They wanted people to get along with each other and altruistic behaviour was sometimes more emphasized than in the West. Children were thaught to help older people and if they were old enough they were required to help with the harvest or to collect medical herbs or do similar stuff without being paid for. Also I've often heard from people from former communistic countries that people from western countries show a more selfish and less moral behaviour and I must admit that this is generally true (from my observations). Therefore I'd say there are no communist morals, since communism is only an economical system.
So in order to judge the morals of a society you have to look how the average people behave and not those in power because they often enough put themselves above the law according to the motto: "quod licet jovi non licet bovi". In our western societies this principle doesn't apply any more (or let's say it has been reduced to a quantité négligeable) and so we have the most personal freedom without the society falling appart (and I think the success of our societies speaks for itself).
Now, that were my 0.02$
JOHNNY FONTAINE: A month ago he bought the movie rights to this book. A bestseller -- and the main character, it's a guy just like me. I uh -- I wouldn't even have to act -- just be myself. Oh, Godfather, I don't know what to do. I don't know what to do.VITO CORLEONE: You can act like a man! [then, after slapping Johnny on the face] What's the matter with you? Is this how you turned out? A Hollywood finocchio that cries like a woman? [then imitating Johnny] "What can I do?! What can I do?!" [then] What is that nonsense? Ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.