![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 170 to 194 of 194. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 19:30:42
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 16:44:37
Dinah,
Could you clarify if you are saying that there has been a rule change and that now I can post:
[The Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance, said to me,...I am your God and you shall have no other Gods before me]?
If so, what was the change in the rules that would now allow the post tp be posted now, nd not before the rule change? If you could clarify that is the new way to look at my post, then could I consider this discussion to be moot or are you only saying that it is your opinion that I could post the post in question now? If you could clarify that it allowable or not now to post it, then if it is OK, then I could continue in completing The 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life .
Lou?
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 21:16:18
In reply to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 19:30:42
I'm sorry Lou, I wasn't clear. I meant that Dr. Bob just clarified the rules of the Faith Board to become more restrictive, and the statement that you wish to make is would appear to be not allowable under the current rules.
However, you are quoting statements made before the change in the rules to prove that Dr. Bob is being unfair. But those statements were made *before* the rule change.
It is only fair, in my opinion, to base any decisions about whether Dr. Bob is being fair in the application of the rules by looking at posts made after the rule clarification, not before.
That is what I meant. I'm afraid that the statement you wish to make does sound like it wouldn't be allowed under the new rules. But neither would any similar statement by those of a different faith.
I hope I was more clear this time, although I suspect that perhaps I wasn't. I'm sorry for any confusion caused by my former post.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 21:45:04
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 21:16:18
Dinah,
You wrote,[However, you are quoting statements made before the change in the rules to prove that Dr. Bob is being unfair. But those statements were made *before* the rule changes]
Are you saying that before the new rule, that Dr. Bob was unfair and that the new rules will make the future to be fair? If so, how will the new rule change the unfairness, if it was unfair before the change? If you can clarify that for me, then I could better communicate with you in this discussion.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 23:06:49
In reply to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 21:45:04
> Dinah,
> You wrote,[However, you are quoting statements made before the change in the rules to prove that Dr. Bob is being unfair. But those statements were made *before* the rule changes]
> Are you saying that before the new rule, that Dr. Bob was unfair and that the new rules will make the future to be fair? If so, how will the new rule change the unfairness, if it was unfair before the change? If you can clarify that for me, then I could better communicate with you in this discussion.
> Lou
>I'll be happy to clarify that Lou. I did not (of course) say that Dr. Bob was unfairly applying the rules either before or after the rule change. I said that Dr. Bob had clarified the rules for the relatively new faith board. I said that you were comparing posts from before the rule change with prospective posts after the rule change and concluding that Dr. Bob was being unfair to you. And that doing so was not fair to Dr. Bob, in my opinion.
Again, in my opinion only, Dr. Bob is only being unfair if he applied the old rules in a way that were unfair to you *before* the rule change. Or if he applies the new rules in a way that is unfair to you *after* the rule change. And that you can't compare posts from *before* and *after*.
As an example, suppose a school changes the dress code. Before the dress code was changed, it was ok to wear T-Shirts to school. After only shirts with collars are allowed. Now say a student wears a T-Shirt to school after the rule change and is sent home to change. That student can't claim that he is being unfairly treated because last year (before the change in the dress code) another student was allowed to wear a T-shirt. But he could claim that he is being unfairly treated if another student was allowed to wear a T-shirt after the change in the dress code, while he was not allowed to wear one.
Now mind you, the students can (and almost certainly would) complain that the change in dress code was a bad idea. Just as you can complain that you don't like the new rules on the faith board. Goodness only knows, I complained enough about the 2000 and 2001 boards. It didn't have an effect on the outcome, but I did complain.
But I am merely suggesting that you wait and watch for future posts on the faith board, and if you think someone is being treated differently from you under the new rules to ask for a rationale at that point.
The rationale at this point is that the new rules were not yet in place when the posts you keep referring to were made.
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 23:07:42
In reply to Re: Dinah, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 23:06:49
I obviously have a problem with this. Sorry for all the Oops posts. :(
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2002, at 23:58:52
In reply to Lou's response to Nikki's post (8), posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 13:08:28
> It is my understanding that the following statement would be restrained here:
> [The Rider said to me "I am your God amd you shall have no other Gods before me."]Yes, so posting it again will mean being blocked again.
> I am asking for the desrimatory rational that says that my post will be restrained...
See my earlier posts in this thread.
> > "He (referring to Jesus) bcame the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him." - Hebrew 5:9 (Revised Standard version)
> The post ... has the imperitve implication, as I see it, that people that believe in their heart that there is no God are not going to be saved, for just believing is not enough for salvation, for it is to {obey Jesus} that is connected with salvation in that post. And the "our", to me, inplies that the obeying is to be done by all to get salvation.
Sorry, but I don't see any imperative there. It doesn't say that all *should* obey him. Neither, BTW, does it say that *only* those who obey him will receive eternal salvation.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2002, at 21:25:15
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 16:44:37
Dinah,
I am reading the many posts involved in this discussion and I was hopeing that you could clarify some of the things that you wrote in your posts in this discussion.
You wrote [the reason the quotes about Christianity were allowed, and your poposed is not, is all about timeing].
Could you clarify the following for me? If you could, I could better understand what you have posted relevant to this discussion and be better able to communicate with you.
According to what you posted, If the quotes about Christianity that were OK when they were posted were posted now, are you saying that they would be OK in relation to the modification that was recently made to the opening page of the faith board or would the modification restrain the post now; [...jesus became our eternal salvation... that obey Him...]? If you could clarify this, then I will have a better undestanding of what [...is all about timing] means in this dicussion.
BestRegards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2002, at 21:38:12
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 16:44:37
Dinah,
Although Dr. Bob commented that the post in question does not fall into the same rational for restraint as my proposed post, I am unclear as to whether the new rule for the faith board that you are referring to would restrain it on the basis of the new rules, for after reading all the posts, I think that I remember you writing in one of your posts that the new rules were [more] restrictive.
So if you could clarify as to whether the new rules change that, I could be better able to understand all the different "timing" situations that you ae writing about in your posts for this discussion and I will be better able to give better responses to your posts.
Best Regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2002, at 21:51:53
In reply to Re: Lou, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2002, at 16:44:37
Dinah,
You wrote: [the only way you can conclude that Dr. Bob is favoring one religion over another is if *future* posts made after the clarified rules, are allowed to be posted in favor of one religion but ones in favor of another religion are not]
Could you clarify why you are writing that there is only the way that you write of to determine if there is favoritism made to one poster over another?
If you could, then I could be better able to communicate with yo in this discussion.
Besr Regards,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 29, 2002, at 22:46:55
In reply to Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 29, 2002, at 21:51:53
I'm sorry Lou, but I clarified what I meant to the limits of my abilities. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be of more help to you.
At any rate, it probably doesn't make much difference. Dr. Bob has explained things to you in his above post, and so now you know what his rationale is. I'm sure that is more helpful to you than any posts I could make.
Dinah
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2002, at 8:14:32
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2002, at 23:58:52
Dr. Bob,
You have wrote to me when I asked you to write your rational for acceptablity or restraint in posting faith experiances here to, "see my earlier posts in this thread." Now I have done that and located so far the following:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7724.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7795.html
One of your rationals says that your rational is based on if the post puts down others. Another is if the post pressures others and the other is the use of an imperitive. If there are other parts that I have not discovered that you use in your rational , could you point them out to me with the URL? If there is one or more rationals in existance thatI have not located as of yet, then examining them would also help to determine acceptability before posting.
I would like to focus ,first, in relation to that you wrote in the post that I am answering ,"Sorry, but I don't see any imperitive there. It doesn't say that all *should* obey him. Niether, BTW, does it say that *only those that obey Him will recieve eternal salvation."
Could you clarify if you are saying that the proposed post of mine that you will restrain *does* imply that others *should* do something when in the proposed post the Rider is talking directly to me in my experiance? If so, could you point out the implication and clarify why the other post does not have an implication? If you could clarify that, then I could be better able to determine aceptability to future posts here because ther are posts that also use impertives and they have not been restrained.
Also , are you saying that in my proposed post that I am writing something in it that says that *only* is implied? If so, could you clarify that so that can have a better understanding of this rational in order to determine acceptability here for future posts?
Also, in your statement about "imperitve" that is in he link that I have listed in this post, are you saying that just by having the word [shall] in the post that that in and of itself makes the post to be restrained? If you could clarify that, then I could have a better understanding in regards to posting here because there are other posts on the faith board that have *shall* in an imperitive. Could you clarify if the following post is acceptable in regards to the rationals used o determin acceptability orresraint? If youcould, then it would help me to understand better your rational for posting on yhr faith board and could make a better decision on whether to post a post or not.
1)[....and you shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever]
2)[not evryone that says to me ,Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom of heaven...]
3) [..but the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,God has said, You shall not eat of it, niether shall you touch it, lest you die.],
4)[And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.]
Best Regards,
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2002, at 8:59:06
In reply to Lou's request for clarification from Dr Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2002, at 8:14:32
Dr. bob,
Could you clarify if your revised guidlines on the faith board now changes the rational for acceptance or restraint of a post on that board as to the acceptance or restraint of the previous posts before the revision or does the revision just give more clarification?
If it does, are you saying that the revised guidlines could restrict posts that were previously accepted before the revision and if so, could yo give an example of what will now be restrained that was not restrained before the revision ? If you could clarify that, then I will have a better understanding of what is acceptable and what will be restrained now, in regards to what was restrained or accepted before the revision, if there is any change, and that could help me in determing as to whether or not my post will be accepted or restraind before I post it.
Best Regards,
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2002, at 10:19:36
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2002, at 23:58:52
Dr. Bob,
In your admonishment to me in this post of yours that I am responding to, you highlight:
[...the post has imperative implications, as I see it, that.... implies , to me,...]. I stipulated that what I posted is what, to me, and was , as I see it, is an implication ,as I see it.
Your response was:
[Sorry, but I don't see any...., niether does it say...]
If this is the crux of the reason for equating me with uncivilness, could you clarify if it that I have a different view from yours, and that is the reason that you are equating me with uncivilness, or that there is some other reason that you are equating me with uncivilnes in this post and could you give me the other reason, if there is another reason, so that I can examine that reason in order that I can have a better understanding of your rational in regards to this post ? If you could, I could have a better understanding of what your rationals are for determining uncivilness and post accodingly to accomodate your rational.
Best Regards
Lou Pilder
Posted by Zo on October 30, 2002, at 18:15:27
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 18:47:15
> Ah ! I thought the PBC went to Nikki, now I see it was tina. They were saying the same thing, but I can detect (slightly) how one was less civil than the other.
. . .and this was a good use of your time? You do not resent having to study these fine shades of civil lest Smokey stomp on your ember?
Or an ember he even *suspects* you might be harboring.
Smokey the Bear a Fascisti? Shovel as fascist method of control? Amusing images. .
Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2002, at 19:07:37
In reply to Request for clarification from Dr. Bob(3) » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 30, 2002, at 10:19:36
> Also, in your statement about "imperitve" that is in he link that I have listed in this post, are you saying that just by having the word [shall] in the post that that in and of itself makes the post to be restrained?
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7871.html
> Could you clarify if your revised guidlines on the faith board now changes the rational for acceptance or restraint of a post on that board as to the acceptance or restraint of the previous posts before the revision or does the revision just give more clarification?
I differ a little with Dinah on this one, I don't think of them as revised, just as explained more.
> [...the post has imperative implications, as I see it, that.... implies , to me,...]. I stipulated that what I posted is what, to me, and was , as I see it, is an implication ,as I see it.
> Your response was:
> [Sorry, but I don't see any...., niether does it say...]The thing is, people don't always take what's posted the way the poster intends. So it comes down to me making a (subjective) decision. It isn't always easy, and I know I'm not perfect, but I do try to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2005, at 10:08:53
In reply to Re: guidelines and exceptions, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2002, at 1:30:13
> > Lou asked if he could say "the Rider said to me, "You shall have no other Gods before me"," and Dr. Bob says that is not OK, nor would it be OK to quote any particular scripture that states that only one God or one belief should be embraced, even if there is no insult implied to anyone else who follows a different belief.
>
> To say that one belief should be embraced is to say that others should not. Which puts down those other beliefs. I think it's more civil not to tell others what to believe.
>
> As a general guideline. There may, however, be exceptions, depending on the context, etc.
>
> > So is it true that you could not say "The New Testament says that you should have faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour" or "The Koran teaches that there is no God but God".
>
> A discussion of what different faiths teach would be a good example of such an exception. For one thing, various points of view would be represented, so there wouldn't be any implication that any one road was the only "right" one.
>
> > Hmm, kind of does away completely with the idea of the faith board.
>
> I think it should be possible to discuss faith respectfully. It's worth a try, at least...
>
> > So one couldn't quote the first commandment, even if one was an atheist?
>
> Telling people what to do is different than telling them what to believe -- but can be tricky, too. And would depend partly on what it was that people were being told to do.
>
> > Is it so different than someone saying "My doctor told me that no one should ever prescribe antidepressants for an anxiety disorder?" Would that be a put down to anyone who is using antidepressants for an anxiety disorder?
>
>
>
> Another factor might be the likelihood of reaching a compromise. After discussion of evidence, etc.
>
> > So if I were to say, "I was reading the Bible one day, and I read "I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no gods before me" and I was really struck by that passage and decided to adopt that as my belief." would that or wouldn't that be allowed.
> >
> > If I were to say "I was reading the Bible one day and I read "I am the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no gods before me" and I don't really believe that because I am a nature worshipper" would that or wouldn't that be allowed.
>
> It would depend partly on the context, but would the quote really be necessary? Why not just "I was reading the Bible one day, and I was really struck by a passage and decided to have no gods before Him" or "I was reading the Bible one day and didn't really believe all of that because I am a nature worshipper"?
>
> > After all, we are allowed to quote other literature, or tell our experiences with people other than the Rider freely.
>
> Well, not totally freely... There was that quote from Apocalypse Now, for example...
>
> > Could I say that my mother told me I should believe in Jesus? Would it matter whether I was saying it in a positive or negative way?
>
> Maybe just say she taught you to believe in Jesus?
>
> > Talk about slippery slopes, Dr. Bob. You're standing at the top of the peak with slopes to each side of you. :)
>
> 1. If there are slopes to each side, then there's balance, which is good.
> 2. So I don't have to climb any farther? :-)
>
> > The very nature of faith is that if you believe in one thing (including agnosticism or atheism) that you don't believe in other things.
>
> Yes. And it's fine to talk about what you believe -- as long as you don't put down other beliefs.
>
> Sorry about having vacillated on this. I think the questions you and IsoM asked really helped me clarify my thinking on this, thank you. I know I'm not perfect, but I do try to be open to feedback and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole. Thanks for your patience,
>
> Bob
DR. Hsiung,
In your reply to me as to my request to you as to if the guidlines for the faith board have been suspended, you offered the link that has the above.
In the link, it is written,[...a discussion of what different faiths teach would be... an example...of an exception...].
You have not addressed two statements by posters on the faith board and so as per Dinah's statement as a deputy that if you do not address a statement after you have [....made a pass...] on the board, then it could be considered to be acceptable here. So I am not requesting a determination as to acceptability, for by nature of your not addressing the statements, I consider that you are allowing them as acceptable.
But the statements have in the past been determined as unacceptable here. So are you saying that the statements in question are being allowed because you are making an exception because they are[...in a discussion about what different faiths teach...]?
If so, does not at least one poster write that it is [...what they believe...], not about what different faiths teach? And have you not in the past written that it is the foundation that can not be podsted if it has the potential to put down those of other faiths and that whether the poster believes it or not is not relevant to its acceptability or not here?
Lou PIlder
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 11:32:55
In reply to Lou's resply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2005, at 10:08:53
Lou,
I've not followed the details of this controversy, but from the rules as I see them represented in your post (posting what different faiths teach is allowed), this is another case where idiosyncratic rules of syntax at this site are at odds with standard syntax as would be endorsed by most experts in English language.
If the rule allows claims about "what different faiths teach" the rule anthropomorphizes faith. A faith is a concept incapable of teaching anything. Organizations articulate faith concepts. Organizations comprise people.
We can only speak accurately about what people teach. Those teachings are based on their individual beliefs. When a set of rules presumes to allow "what faiths teach" someone is neccessarily deciding whose beliefs are allowed as a "faith" and which are excluded. And even if the rule maker disallows all interpretive statements, selected citations from spiritual texts reflect the opinion of the second-hand source who selected the citation.
How many people does it take for a belief to become a faith? One? Two? Four? Fourty? Four hundred? Four thousand? Were the Davidians a faith or a sect? Are all Christians one faith or do diverse denominations reflect diverse faiths?
Courts have been somewhat successful in establishing which "organized religions" have legitimate standing in regard to matters like conscientious objection to warfare, and ordination of religious ministers for tax purposes. But their rules tread carefully around the first amendment (in the US).
Any discrimination in dialogue about "what different faiths teach" rests purely on the authority of the individual so discriminating. Rational discourse is not built around protecting what people might feel in response to discourse. It seems odd to me the administrator of a site intended to support mental health systematically prefers emotional discourse over rational discourse, because some sources say mental disorders are often rooted in cognitive misperceptions that in turn fuel emotional disorders.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2005, at 18:09:50
In reply to Lou's resply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2005, at 10:08:53
> are you saying that the statements in question are being allowed because you are making an exception because they are[...in a discussion about what different faiths teach...]?
Right.
> If so, does not at least one poster write that it is [...what they believe...], not about what different faiths teach?
But they believe it because their faith teaches it?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 13, 2005, at 0:33:10
In reply to Re: Lou's resply, posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2005, at 18:09:50
The distinction between that and what I suggested be allowed escapes me. And I'm usually pretty good with your distinctions.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2005, at 17:02:53
In reply to Re: Lou's resply » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 13, 2005, at 0:33:10
> The distinction between that and what I suggested be allowed escapes me.
Sorry, is it the difference between:
My faith teaches x.
My faith says I should believe x.that’s in question?
Bob
Posted by graceneeded on September 5, 2005, at 7:16:07
In reply to Re: distinction, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2005, at 17:02:53
Is this site up and running or just straining at gnats and inhaling camels? Danny
Posted by schleprock on September 13, 2012, at 19:24:38
In reply to Re: please be civil » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2002, at 23:58:52
> > It is my understanding that the following statement would be restrained here:
> > [The Rider said to me "I am your God amd you shall have no other Gods before me."]
>
> Yes, so posting it again will mean being blocked again.
>
> > I am asking for the desrimatory rational that says that my post will be restrained...
>
> See my earlier posts in this thread.
>
> > > "He (referring to Jesus) bcame the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him." - Hebrew 5:9 (Revised Standard version)
>
> > The post ... has the imperitve implication, as I see it, that people that believe in their heart that there is no God are not going to be saved, for just believing is not enough for salvation, for it is to {obey Jesus} that is connected with salvation in that post. And the "our", to me, inplies that the obeying is to be done by all to get salvation.
>
> Sorry, but I don't see any imperative there. It doesn't say that all *should* obey him. Neither, BTW, does it say that *only* those who obey him will receive eternal salvation.
>
> BobBIG HELLO FROM 2012!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 7, 2012, at 7:35:06
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by schleprock on September 13, 2012, at 19:24:38
schleprock,
You wrote,[...big hello from 2010...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What is meant by "big hello"?
B. Does the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me have anything to do with what you wrote and if so, what?
C. In your opinion, is there an indoctrination fostered here by Mr. Hsiung as to what you see in what he write here?
D. If so, what is being indoctrinated here by Mr Hsiung?
E. Could what Mr Hsiung wrote, in your thinking,have the potential to arouse antisemitic feelings here?
F. redacted by respondent
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 11, 2013, at 6:31:30
In reply to Re: Lou's resply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou, posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 11:32:55
> Lou,
>
> I've not followed the details of this controversy, but from the rules as I see them represented in your post (posting what different faiths teach is allowed), this is another case where idiosyncratic rules of syntax at this site are at odds with standard syntax as would be endorsed by most experts in English language.
>
> If the rule allows claims about "what different faiths teach" the rule anthropomorphizes faith. A faith is a concept incapable of teaching anything. Organizations articulate faith concepts. Organizations comprise people.
>
> We can only speak accurately about what people teach. Those teachings are based on their individual beliefs. When a set of rules presumes to allow "what faiths teach" someone is neccessarily deciding whose beliefs are allowed as a "faith" and which are excluded. And even if the rule maker disallows all interpretive statements, selected citations from spiritual texts reflect the opinion of the second-hand source who selected the citation.
>
> How many people does it take for a belief to become a faith? One? Two? Four? Fourty? Four hundred? Four thousand? Were the Davidians a faith or a sect? Are all Christians one faith or do diverse denominations reflect diverse faiths?
>
> Courts have been somewhat successful in establishing which "organized religions" have legitimate standing in regard to matters like conscientious objection to warfare, and ordination of religious ministers for tax purposes. But their rules tread carefully around the first amendment (in the US).
>
> Any discrimination in dialogue about "what different faiths teach" rests purely on the authority of the individual so discriminating. Rational discourse is not built around protecting what people might feel in response to discourse. It seems odd to me the administrator of a site intended to support mental health systematically prefers emotional discourse over rational discourse, because some sources say mental disorders are often rooted in cognitive misperceptions that in turn fuel emotional disorders.used2b and friends,
It is written here,[...mental disorders are often rooted in cognitive misperceptions that in turn fuel emotional disorders...].
It is plainly visible that what Mr Hsiung has posted here could cause misperceptions. For instance, Mr Hsiung has drafted a rule that states that support takes precedence and that it does not matter if what is posted, that is not supportive, is a belief of the author, or if the bible states it, or if the group that the author is quoting states it in their literature. There is also a rule that one can not post links to anti-Semitic content, period, which could cause the distorted thinking here when there is the other statement by Mr Hsiung about what a group teaches.
So what we have here is something that Mr Hsiung has in his rules here that could be the root of mental disorders, for is there a contradiction that others have the potential to entertain in their mind, that is that one could think that posting what could arouse anti-Semitic feelings is OK here if the group that the author is quoting has what could arouse anti-Semitic feelings in their literature, for that is what , according to the rules of Mr Hsiunbg, the group "teaches"?
What I see here is nothing more than a transparent attempt by Mr Hsiung to allow anti-Semitism to flourish here on the guise that the hatred toward the Jews in the literature of the groups that the authors of the posts in question, that have the statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, are OK because it is what those groups "teach". But you nailed that fallacy rightly, stating that faiths do not teach. Could one post here that my faith teaches that the Jews (redacted by respondent), just because it is in that groups doctrines? Or could a hate-monger post here that their hate group has in their "teachings" that their members of their group are the only group of people that will be given forgiveness and eternal life? If so, that contradicts the mission of the forum as that support takes precedence and that one can not post anything that could lead another to feel put down/accused.
But it is much more than that, and I see that you see it. For members have the distortions from the rules allowing what is not supportive that could cause violence to be perpetrated against Jews and Islamic people and others. They could have the (false) idea planted in their minds that it is OK to post what insults Jews and Islamic people and others if it is part of the doctrines of the group quoted. And they could actually be fed that they are doing what will be good by posting insults to Judaism and Islam and other faiths here because Mr Hsiung states that he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a a whole. Cognitive misperceptions can and do induce mental disorders. I am prevented from posting here, due to the prohibitions to me by Mr Hsiung, to show the historical basis for that. People could think that those prohibitions are supportive.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 2, 2013, at 7:49:16
In reply to Lou's resply-knaledatphallacee » used2b, posted by Lou Pilder on April 11, 2013, at 6:31:30
> > Lou,
> >
> > I've not followed the details of this controversy, but from the rules as I see them represented in your post (posting what different faiths teach is allowed), this is another case where idiosyncratic rules of syntax at this site are at odds with standard syntax as would be endorsed by most experts in English language.
> >
> > If the rule allows claims about "what different faiths teach" the rule anthropomorphizes faith. A faith is a concept incapable of teaching anything. Organizations articulate faith concepts. Organizations comprise people.
> >
> > We can only speak accurately about what people teach. Those teachings are based on their individual beliefs. When a set of rules presumes to allow "what faiths teach" someone is neccessarily deciding whose beliefs are allowed as a "faith" and which are excluded. And even if the rule maker disallows all interpretive statements, selected citations from spiritual texts reflect the opinion of the second-hand source who selected the citation.
> >
> > How many people does it take for a belief to become a faith? One? Two? Four? Fourty? Four hundred? Four thousand? Were the Davidians a faith or a sect? Are all Christians one faith or do diverse denominations reflect diverse faiths?
> >
> > Courts have been somewhat successful in establishing which "organized religions" have legitimate standing in regard to matters like conscientious objection to warfare, and ordination of religious ministers for tax purposes. But their rules tread carefully around the first amendment (in the US).
> >
> > Any discrimination in dialogue about "what different faiths teach" rests purely on the authority of the individual so discriminating. Rational discourse is not built around protecting what people might feel in response to discourse. It seems odd to me the administrator of a site intended to support mental health systematically prefers emotional discourse over rational discourse, because some sources say mental disorders are often rooted in cognitive misperceptions that in turn fuel emotional disorders.
>
> used2b and friends,
> It is written here,[...mental disorders are often rooted in cognitive misperceptions that in turn fuel emotional disorders...].
> It is plainly visible that what Mr Hsiung has posted here could cause misperceptions. For instance, Mr Hsiung has drafted a rule that states that support takes precedence and that it does not matter if what is posted, that is not supportive, is a belief of the author, or if the bible states it, or if the group that the author is quoting states it in their literature. There is also a rule that one can not post links to anti-Semitic content, period, which could cause the distorted thinking here when there is the other statement by Mr Hsiung about what a group teaches.
> So what we have here is something that Mr Hsiung has in his rules here that could be the root of mental disorders, for is there a contradiction that others have the potential to entertain in their mind, that is that one could think that posting what could arouse anti-Semitic feelings is OK here if the group that the author is quoting has what could arouse anti-Semitic feelings in their literature, for that is what , according to the rules of Mr Hsiunbg, the group "teaches"?
> What I see here is nothing more than a transparent attempt by Mr Hsiung to allow anti-Semitism to flourish here on the guise that the hatred toward the Jews in the literature of the groups that the authors of the posts in question, that have the statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, are OK because it is what those groups "teach". But you nailed that fallacy rightly, stating that faiths do not teach. Could one post here that my faith teaches that the Jews (redacted by respondent), just because it is in that groups doctrines? Or could a hate-monger post here that their hate group has in their "teachings" that their members of their group are the only group of people that will be given forgiveness and eternal life? If so, that contradicts the mission of the forum as that support takes precedence and that one can not post anything that could lead another to feel put down/accused.
> But it is much more than that, and I see that you see it. For members have the distortions from the rules allowing what is not supportive that could cause violence to be perpetrated against Jews and Islamic people and others. They could have the (false) idea planted in their minds that it is OK to post what insults Jews and Islamic people and others if it is part of the doctrines of the group quoted. And they could actually be fed that they are doing what will be good by posting insults to Judaism and Islam and other faiths here because Mr Hsiung states that he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a a whole. Cognitive misperceptions can and do induce mental disorders. I am prevented from posting here, due to the prohibitions to me by Mr Hsiung, to show the historical basis for that. People could think that those prohibitions are supportive.
> LouFriends,
If you read the post here, I think that lives could be saved, life-ruining conditions and addictions could be avoided and you could have a better understanding of what could free you from depression and addiction.
Be not deceived. When hate is allowed to stand here by Mr Hsiung and his past deputies and deputy now, that hate could allow you to think that it is supportive because Mr Hsiung states that support takes precedence and that he does not wait to sanction what is not supportive for one match could start a forest fire. As long as the posts here by me, which are requests to Mr Hsiung and his deputies remain outstanding, then hate could be seen as supportive. And it has been revealed to me that if one harbors hate, they can transfer that hate to others and kill themselves and/or others and even commit mass-murder.
You readers that have depression/addiction that see the defamation heaped upon me here and that can be seen as supportive, I pity you for you are led to believe that hate is supportive and you could remain in you depression and addiction.
Lou
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.