Posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 7:45:30
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined, posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 3:07:39
> > Where do you draw the line? Should lines be drawn? Should political correctness be the driving force behind favoring protection of one phrase over another? Should quantum mechanics be protected with the same vigor as creationism?
> >
> > When, if ever, does an exercise in logic and semantics lose its relevance to civility?> Consideration of the question of whether creationism should be treated equally with prevailing scientific theories of evolution might not be instructive in this cirumstance.
Why not?
> We are not talking about carriculums of public schools where best available scientific evidence, along with respect for cultural traditions should govern what youth are forcibly taught
Regardless of what is or is not taught in public schools, civility here is enforced in a manner that is general and not specific - most of the time. I do not yet understand the justification of the moderator to allow the "creepy" post remain unsanctioned, but a dichotomy of evolutionism versus creationism is really that of belief systems, and not of religion, despite the history of the synthesis of each. However, I would question whether posts involving creationism as being deemed creepy would be tolerated. Political correctness might influence a moderators choice to act quickly to sanction posts regarding creationism.
> -- we are talking about a private web site,
Of what import is the difference between public institutions and private websites?
> where the primary risk would be harm to individuals who might be vulnerable due to the nature of the site to attract emotionally vulnerable guests.
There are many different reasons why an individual would be vulnerable to suggestion. Ignorance and lack of experience leaves people vulnerable. I believe this is why so many young people find themselves indoctrinated into various cults. Scientology is often described as a cult, regardless of what the US court system has adjudicated so far. Law and Truth are very often in conflict, right? Dissent is what made the U.S. a viable nation and continues to do so. Of what import is the difference between public institutions and private websites?
Is scientology a cult or is it a religion? I don't know. At the moment, I don't much care. What does it matter? Calling a group of people creepy is either civil or it is not.
> In public administration, consistency is usually a preferred approach. Inconsistent administration of policies erodes confidence in policy.
Agreed.
This is not a public administration, remember? Erode away, Dr. Bob!
When attempting to assess consistency, it is necessary to compare two examples that are treated differently by the moderator. To what degree are these two samples similar? To what degree is there a consistency of moderation when treating these two posts when there differencies are considered?
> In the case of calling members of a particular religion creepy
Again, should the moderator's protocol for judging civility differentiate between groups that are considered religions versus those that are not. Perhaps the moderator does differentiate and adjudicates so. If the moderator does differentiate, and does not recognize scientology as a religion, your arguments remain moot. As you so eloquently reminded us, this is a private website.
> Am I creepy?
I haven't yet decided. However, you are smarter than the average bear, even when polar bears are introduced into the equation.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:529057
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529429.html