Double Standards - Where is the line drawn? (page 3)

gsark

"education", except..er..uh..

I only finsihed tenth grade initially!!!

Self control means not continuing to read threads one finds offensive.
Self control means clicking off to another thread,not censoring anybody else.
It's really tough if some posts don't meet somebodys standards.
Self control means not whingeing and complaining if a poster doesn't 'do it your way'. How catastrophic.
Self control is understanding that the world just ain't gonna turn the way YOU want it too at times.How awful! How terrible!
Self control is using your personal power to make choices.Click on Click off-

Carl Sagan on balancing openness to new ideas with skeptical scrutiny..."if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense-you cannot distinguish useful ideas from worthless ones."

Abaddon

So, a patently dillusional woman (unless you reckon she really is inspired of God,rather than just inspired of odd), who not only has tickets to LaLa land but has the FRANCHISE, and fully expects the VAST majority of us to be DESTROYED by her Jah of Armies, is less offensive than Kent?

Isn't that like saying a racist or homophobe who THINKS and IMPLIES that certain people are scum and should/will be destroyed, but has this two-faced 'I mean no harm' voodoo going on, is less bad than someone who calls that person naughty words and makes attacks on them?

Oh, I don't think so. It's like saying it was okay for Hitler to invade Poland as he didn't mean any harm and had good intent, and that it was bad for the Allies to make a stand. Extreme example? Well, look at the motives, as they have been bought into discussion.

Germany had, from it's view, 'good' motives. The Allies had, from their view, 'good' motives. From either point of view the alternate point of view was making an unjustified attack with the sole purpose of harm.

So motives, when there is a wide disparity of view, can essentially mean bunk.

You might not approve of Kent's dialogue and methods, but I don't think he should be banned just because you disagree with them. You are assuming his motives are ill, whereas he might just being doing ill out of good motives.

She is free to state what she states in an open forum. If that attracts negative attention, then it is her responsibility

I think I am just enough of an adult for my head not to fall off when people use naughty words or make (justifiable) impassioned attacks.

I am not saying that those who object to Kent's style are not adults.

Do you watch movies with swearing and violent verbal discourse in them, that are just entertainment?

Isn't it then unreasonable to seek to have someone silenced for using the same forms of dialogue for far realer reasons than entertainment?

Haven't we all lived with enough censorship of opinion and shunning of those who don't agree with the 'party' line?

Do we need to reproduce our once-were attitudes in the here and now?

Sure, banning someone is a final resort, but I have to say if you think Kent has reached the final resort I violently disagree.

I don't agree with everything Kent says. Sometimes I think the stuff he posts is way tangental, and fails to take into full account that JW's are victims just as xJW's are victims. Sometimes his invective is a little spittle-flecked.

But to ban him is to break a butterfly on a wheel.

jelly

Interesting points you bring up Tina. I must ask however where was all this self control your talking about when you were applauding Simon’s booting of the homosexual basher ( I don’t remember his name, I never read his thread).

My point is that there is a double standard, its okay to attack some people but not others, and it’s ok to remove some people but not others. What a load.

My opinion is that let everyone post don’t boot anyone for any reason. I agree with Prisca in that I find many posters here to be unpleasant to put it mildly; however I don’t believe that any form of moderation will work so I just avoid certain posters threads.
Maybe a solution would be some kind of ignore button if possible (I am unfamiliar with the requirements for coding this DB).

Jelly

Tina

No double standard-There's no way I would ever equate Friday and Kent together. I think it is quite obvious to all just how different they are.Tina

Carl Sagan on balancing openness to new ideas with skeptical scrutiny..."if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense-you cannot distinguish useful ideas from worthless ones."

jelly

Kent attacks people ………………… Tina says you should all grow up and be adults
Friday attacks people gets disfellowshiped ……. Tina says hooray

This is the definition of a double standard, or maybe hypocrisy.

Jelly

JanH

jelly,

Kent attacks people ………………… Tina says you should all grow up and be adults
Friday attacks people gets disfellowshiped ……. Tina says hooray

What is this, Kindergarten? The word "attack" may well refer to actions ranging from saying "may God rebuke you" all the way to a thermonuclear attack. As such, your comparison is meaningless. What Kent did and what Friday did is not even remotely in the same universe.

Friday, if I am not much mistaken, intentionally ignored Simon's request to let a certain topic go. Simon owns the board. Which doesn't mean I supported the banning of Friday. But the difference is pretty obvious, only on this count.

- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets

jelly

No, not kindergarten. I had to use the kindergarten explanation to people who are either refusing or incapable of understanding. Jan your semantics are unimpressive, it was a simplification of the behavior on this board; if you don’t see meaning in it I don’t know what to tell you. It’s a double standard pure and simple; I am not even going to argue with you about it because if you don’t see it you are refusing to see it.

Jelly (I don’t suffer fools class, bye bye Jan)

msil

Jelly, only a damn fool would not see the DOUBLE standard.

JanH

jelly,

Jan your semantics are unimpressive, it was a simplification of the behavior on this board; if you don’t see meaning in it I don’t know what to tell you.

When you simplify, the whole idea is removed. There is no double standard, simply because the two situations were not comparable. Your kindergarten level attempt to make them similar did not make them so.

Of course, you did ignore my arguments pointing out some of the crucial differences. That was your chance to raise above kindergarten level, and you blew it. msil didn't even reach that high.

- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets

Double Standards - Where is the line drawn?

Share this