:smile: :up:

:lol:

Ubanned @emancipate because he came back in sockpuppet form to say he wasn't being serious. Fine, just remember we're not mind-readers. If we don't know your posting history, we're likely to take what you say at face value.

Couldn't care less. I'm not censoring Schopenhauer. You can quote him to show what a complete dick he was re women or even to twist yourself into a pretzel defending him because you can't accept that he said what he meant and meant what he said. Doesn't matter. The point is where you say "I agree with X that Y" (where Y is a prima facie bannable statement as per the rules on this site in this current time) then that is equivalent to saying "I agree that Y" which = "Y" = bannable = ban. The "with X" part is irrelevant as is who X is.

To put it as simply as possible, you don't get to say bannable stuff just because a famous philosopher once said it. And there's hardly anything a famous philosopher hasn't once said, so that should have been obvious.

To state (by proxy) something bannable through a famous philosopher's words gives you no protection from banning. Whether that philosopher be Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Aristotle, Nietszche or whoever. All would have been banned themselves for espousing Nazism, sexism, slavery, and/or misogyny if they chose to do so here. Neither being famous nor hiding behind someone famous gives you protection from the rules. We're fairly equal opportunities on that score. So, thanks for the test. You're banned. Do I get an A?

And so on. Where's the line? — baker

As a general matter, we don't render declaratory judgments, meaning there must be an actual case in controversy for us to rule. That means we don't entertain hypotheticals and then declare some sort of binding precedent. What we do is when there is an actual case, we read the rules and we interpret them, relying to some extent upon the way they were interpreted before.

To do otherwise would result in our continually responding to "what ifs," which we don't have time for, and which often wouldn't be helpful anyway because actual cases have all sorts of nuances that have to be considered. — Hanover

See above. But if there's some specific group you actually (not hypothetically) wish to express hatred towards and you're worried you'll get banned for it, feel free to run your proposed comment by us and we'll apply a common sense interpretation of the guidelines to it.

For example, if a poster were to express a very negative view of, say, New Age, would that make them a New-Age-phobe, and thus, bannable (instantly)? — baker

Don't be bloody ridiculous.

:lol:

Love Billy Kristol. "You look... mahvelous!" Haha! :heart:

The Saudi judicial system is not an institution you ever want to come into remote contact with.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/saudi-arabia#:~:text=Saudi%20authorities%20in%202019%20continued,rights%20activists%2C%20and%20independent%20clerics.&text=Most%20of%20the%20women%20faced,Arabia's%20discriminatory%20male%20guardianship%20system.

"Saudi authorities ... continued to repress dissidents, human rights activists, and independent clerics.

.... opened individual trials of prominent Saudi women before the Riyadh Criminal Court and dismissed all allegations that the women faced torture or ill-treatment in detention. Most of the women faced charges that were solely related to peaceful human rights work, including promoting women’s rights and calling for an end to Saudi Arabia’s discriminatory male guardianship system.

Prosecutors also accused the women of sharing information about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia with journalists based in Saudi Arabia, diplomats, and international human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, deeming such contacts a criminal offense....

Saudi prosecutors in 2019 continued to seek the death penalty against detainees on charges that related to nothing more than peaceful activism and dissent."

Mandatory vaccination is essentially a tax on wilful COVID spreaders. It's not like the government is holding you down and forcing a fucking needle into you.

But after extensive journalistic investigation and analysis, NOS4A2 has singlehandedly demolished the theory that Sean Hannity and Brian Kilmeade were conspiring to violently overthrow the US government and install themselves as Trump's dictator princes. What now have we left??

it's not like he's been gutted and carved up yet. — James Riley

Psychologically, he's been given the full discipline and punish treatment. But, sure, they won't be allowed to waterboard him. Probably.

And I'm going to flag yours - have done; I'm curious to see what happens to it. — tim wood

Flag it for what?

(None of this is to say you're necessarily wrong on the facts, of course. It just seems fair to mess with you sometimes.)

OK, maybe I'll just do this then.

If you’ve seen this administration’s my propaganda, you know they’ll I'll stoop to any level to paint themselves the Dems in a certain light, even though it is comes off as phoney as a three dollar bill. — the real NOS4A2

Better?

You shouldn't be, it'll keep on happening until you start to be consistent and not a naughty little propagandist. :naughty:

Of course, Trump would never do this. Instead of trying to subtley spin stories, he just directly called Fox News and told them to lie for him. If you'd complained about that, you might have some credibility. But you didn't, so you don't.

Henry IV. Shame on me for not having read it before.

:up: The impulse to protect the aggressor here puzzles me too.

Baden might be leaving it open to catch some more misogynists. — jamalrob

Wanted to give a little warning before closing as it had become popular. Then it became funny. Will close soon and try not to steal the last word. :smile:

Would that the gobstopper had fulfilled its employment, our martyr may never have been banned. :cry:

Nice try but meh... Try an Oompah song though and you might pass muster. :strong:

Absolute power corrupts absolutely — Leghorn

'Tis sad indeed what has become of jamalrob. But ne'er fear the tyrant shall be deposed one day and in his place we shall install the fairest and most equitable of democracies... ruled over with an iron first by me.

:lol:

:up: My message to Zwingli and his ilk. :point:



"You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!"

What if he rises again in three days? — Noble Dust

Why, we'll bury him again, good sir. Along with all apostles we root out, and we'll do so mercilessly and with heaping sods of mockery and disdain, for none of these are men; they are but sad urchins so insecure in their physical and mental fortitude that the notion of a woman of even the minimal moral and intellectual qualities wanted to dwarf all that they are sends them quaking, tiny-booted, back to the foetid basements of their souls from whence they scream absurdities they insult to call "philosophy". No, we shall not listen nor shall we mourn them; no sir, no more than the vector flea whose disease dies with it!

So, from what I can gather, Jesus was peacefully strolling around PF waxing philosophically on his hatred and contempt for half the human race, but, tragically, before his teachings could further enlighten an ignorant populace, he was hunted down by a bloodthirsty moderator who banished him, allowed him to be crucifed by.a baying mob, and then defended these actions with some prejudiced views on equality that would never pass muster in the good old days of wanking and shitting in public.

Many questions follow: What have we learned from this shameful debacle? How can we improve ourselves? Will PF ever recover? Who will make the womenfolk iron our shirts now that our lord and saviour is no longer with us?

Seems like both sides have presented their views to the point of steeply diminishing returns so please file your final thoughts if you have any before we move on and reclose the thread.

The hates women guy was Jesus? Tell me more. [Breaks out popcorn].

:naughty:

You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace.

Anyhow, said my piece, goodnight all!

Exactly, and not going to be guilt-tripped into indulging the premise either.

Sorry to hear that, TIff.

We're fairly limited in the good we can do society but I do think providing a moderated discussion space is some kind of good and an achievable one as opposed to the fantasy we can or should try to reform bigots by being nice to them.

It's not quite the same — Janus

Distinction without a difference.

I would have though deletion of offensive posts would be enough to get offensive posters to change their tune at least, and perhaps even, with luck, their minds. Banning them might just make them double down, which won't be the forum's problem, because they are gone from here, but it may become a greater problem for their partners, family or society. — Janus

So deleting their posts could make them change their minds but banning them will make them worse? Sounds like a hopelessly gerrymandered argument to me. Is it just a random thought you've had or based on something?