Posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 20:23:17
In reply to Lou's response to Beckett's post-getbak, posted by Lou Pilder on July 5, 2014, at 13:04:21
> > > wrote,[...your ..way of running Babble can be harmful...].
> > > I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by that. This is all because your *way* is not defined and your *harmful* don't have examples.
> > > If you could post answers to the following, then readers could know what the way is and wat the harm is.
> > > True or False:
> > > A. The harm is what could befall Jews as a result of antiemetic statements being allowed to be seen as civil here in the post where they are posted originally.
> > > B. The harm is the emotional /psychological harm from the infliction of emotional distress by allowing libel against you Lou, to stand un repudiated in the post where it is originally made.
> > > C. The harm is the humiliation that Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians could have inflicted upon them by the fact that their faith is degraded by that the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen here un repudiated in the post where it is originally posted, by the fact that there is not a post linked to it by Mr. Hsiung or one of his deputies of record then to the post where it is originally made to state that the statement could lead those of other faiths to think that their faith is being degraded and that their faith is being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to be put down.
> > > D. Readers could be harmed by the fact that Mr Hsiung says that he can allow members to defame another here by putting them down or accusing them, if in his thinking the community will benefit by allowing the defamation so that in his thinking, it will be good for this community as a whole to allow him to disregard his own rules.
> > > E. The way that the site is run, by Mr. Hsiung having a provision for notifications to be responded to members, but that he gives himself the option to respond to yours, Lou, or not, is discriminatory and could lead to harm inflicted upon you, Lou, as discrimination is an abuse of power.
> > > F. more of your choice
> > > Lou
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure how this tangle of accusations started or how Dinah became a target of accusations. The issues of antisemitism on the board, and by extension, harm to members of the Jewish faith and race, is overrated as to be happening at babble. Likely people could use more information in order to appreciate the profundity of the Jewish faith, and their unique place in world history.
> >
> > However, can you see how targeting (a military term) particular individuals such as Dinah can go against some of the tenets you may hold important? I hope you can find ways not to target individuals at babble. In the past Dinah has been a true supporter of your views. I read some of these exchanges on the faith board a year or two ago. We are often called to draw upon our faith in trying times to seek what is wise action. Could not a down regulation of conflict be seen as wise as people suffer and begin to post impulsively and not wisely, and as people begin to feel unjustly accused, they feel,that their only defense is to leave.
> >
> > There has been a decided departure of posters, and not all of them are because of your threads nor the hostile or defensive reaction to them, but these threads have a strong influence in this IMO. They certainly vex the forum members. All this is to say to back off Dinah.
> > .
> > This will be my only exchange in these threads, and I will not discuss them again. With respect, Beckett.
>
> Friends,
> It is written above. And what is written could influence you to be hostile to me on the basis that there are the satems concerning my character as:
> A.[...a target of accusations...] (that I can be seen as the subject person targeting)
> B.[...targeting Dinah could go against some of my tenants (which could be thought to be Judaism
> C.[ could not a down regulation of {conflict}..as pope *suffer*...]
> D.[..your threads have a strong influence (the departure of posters)...]
> E.[...Back off Dinah...].
> Friends, the overriding aspect of the post here is that it carries a message to a subset of readers that I object to. The message is nothing new, but an old message, entrenched in the dogma of European fascism that some readers could know here starting with the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau where modern fascism starting in 1922 took hold of European political thought.
> Many of you already know the horrors that came from that type of thinking as it had it's core in what the fascists called {the common good}. That is analogous to:
> [..doing what will be good for the community as a whole...]. You see, in that type of thinking, what is right or wrong is put aside and what will be good for the country trumps all morality, all laws, and a subset of people could think that the concept of the common good to be the deciding factor as to what stands, degrades the human condition and has ruled to be a crime against humanity when that type of thinking leads to the justification of slavery, infanticide, segregation, discrimination, genocide and other abuses of power by a government. There is a rational basis for considering that type of thinking to be a crime against humanity because when you examine the doctrine, it says that in the case of , let's say, discrimination, that the discrimination allowed will be good for the community as a whole. But when? During the lifetime that the leaders are controlling the community? When war criminals were being hanged for saying that they were doing those things for the common good, their last words of some of them were that even though they were being hanged to their death, that what they did will be proven to be good for the country after their death.
> And what is the good that is supposed to come from what abuses they did? And what is the good that is to come in some future time to this community for allowing anti-Semitic statement to be seen as civil in the thread where they are originally posted?
> more...
> Lou
>
> Friends,
Now what if something happens to show that the leaders that said to trust them and that they were doing what they are doing for the common good was against all law and morality? They could say that it (will be) good for the country as a whole. SO the judgment is deferred to the future. But what future? Those leaders using the mind-set of {the common good} could continue on the basis that they can't show any time frame for their actions to become fruitful, so they rely on the hope of telling the citizens to "trust me". Those that accept that actually put faith in the leader that says that. Even beyond their faith in the God that they give service and worship to. This could lead to actual worship of those that say that they are doing whatever they are doing for the common good, when what they are doing is against their own laws.
So they change their laws, or use {selective enforcement} of their laws. And protect those that worship them by allowing them to break the laws. And worse, those that see through it all, are stigmatized derogatorily and silenced or even killed. The citizens are told to ignore them.
But how long can they continue on deceiving the citizens? It can go on until circumstances arise so that the people start to see that the payoff promised by doing what will be good for the community as a whole starts to be seen as too far off and unachievable. Then they are either arrested and tried as criminals for their crimes committed under doing what will be good for the community as a whole, (the common good), or they commit suicide or are executed by the citizens themselves as they see that they were betrayed.
The hand of justice sometimes is stayed in many of the historical examples of this to give those that have allowed Jews to be humiliated and persecuted an opportunity to repudiate anti-Semitism. In any war-crimes trials, those that had an opportunity to save their lives instead killed themselves or accepted execution rather than admit that what they really wanted was to use the population to reap power and control of others. The psychology is well-documented.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1067704
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1067950.html