Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2014, at 9:46:27
In reply to Lou's reply-gaphic warning, posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2014, at 7:30:36
> > > >
> > > > A. What is it that Mr. Hsiung has said to me in relation to that you wrote, [I find it admirable that he doesn't override his concern for the community as he's said to Lou]?
> > >
> > > --- that he balances what's best for the individual and what's best for the community in making decisions
> > >
> > > > B. What do you mean by "overriding"?
> > >
> > > the dictionary defines "override" as:
> > >
> > > "use one's authority to reject or cancel (a decision, view, etc.).
> > >
> > > synonyms:disallow, overrule, countermand, veto, quash, overturn, overthrow"
> > > --
> > > > C. What is the principle that Mr. Hsiung is committed to that you are referring to here?
> > >
> > > -- that it is of great importance to the community for members to feel that their personal identities will not be violated and that their privacy is insofar as possible protected
> > > > Lou
> > > >
> > >
> > > pontormo,
> > You wrote,[...he balances what is best for the individual and what's best for the community in making decisions...].
> > I do not remember Mr. Hsiung saying to me anything like that. What he has said is that he does [...what in his thinking {will be} good for this community as a whole....]. The huge difference here is that in his use of {will be} verses what is best for the community at that moment, places a decision that could effect the community in the future. Those leaders that wanted slavery and genocide and infanticide and segregation and discrimination used that same argument, that it will be good for the community as a whole to commit mass-murder, have slavery, use discrimination and segregation and commit infanticide. Unless one can see the future, people could not know if that argument is a lie or not until the future arrives. This, then, demanded that the people have trust in that leader that made that claim that he/she could see into the future and after committing mass-murder, the country would be "good". And many people put their trust in those leaders that were committing mass-murder and slavery and infanticide and segregation and discrimination for the good of the state and when the future arrived and they found out that genocide and slavery and discrimination and infanticide did not make the state good, the leaders were executed along with their deputies by the people or the leaders committed suicide or were hanged as war-criminals. Some escaped justice
> > Here, there are posts that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and put down Jews and defame me that are allowed to be seen where they are originally posted as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking. And the mission of the forum in Mr. Hsiung's TOS is for support and to maintain a supportive atmosphere and that {support takes precedence}. What takes precedence is to be supportive, not what {will be} good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking, and that has not been taken back by Mr. Hsiung. In fact, Mr. Hsiung has posted that if something is not supportive, it should not be posted here and that there is not an excuse to post incivility because of something else.
> > To say that one can post anti-Semitism and defamation against me here with impunity because Mr. Hsiung thinks that anti-Semitic hate allowed to stand here will be good or this community as a whole could be considered to be a lie by a subset of readers. Those readers could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that they have read research in psychology/psychiatry that anti-Semitism is not civil or supportive in a community such as this one where hate implanted into the minds of impaired drug dependent, depressed people could induce suicidal and/or homicidal thoughts. A Jewish child reading here,{No non-Christian will enter heaven} and sees it as supportive where it is originally posted because it is not sanctioned as uncivil, and also sees that Mr. Hsiung has an excuse to allow it to stand, and that excuse is that he doesn't want the poster of the antisemitism to have their feelings hurt if he posts his tagline to please be civil to it, could feel devalued as a Jew, dehumanized, and go into a vortex of depression to kill themselves. A subset of readers could think that you are saying that it is in your thinking, that the anti-Semitic statement, and anti-Islamic as well, allowed to stand here will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that it could be that you agree that if Mr. Hsiung was to post his tagline to please be civil to it, that could not be good for this community a whole, which allows Mr. Hsuing to override the mission of the forum to provide a supportive environment by allowing of what is not supportive or civil and could induce antismeitic feelings as being supportive by Mr. Hsiung, then please say so now.
> > Lou
> >
> > Friends,
> You may be led, or misled to believe particular things as to why there are anti-Semitic statements being allowed by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to stand here where they are originally posted and also defamation toward me.
> Since Mr. Hsiung has posted over years that this forum is for support, and that support takes precedence, and that anti-Semitism is uncivil and now he has said that he has "revised" his statement that if a post stands that what is in it is not against the rules here to now be that what is in an unsanctioned post could be uncivil and that he could leave it that way because it will be good for this community as a whole in his thinking to leave hatred toward the Jews as depicted in many posts that I am bringing to his attention in our discussion now. I say not. And I say that all of you that want to support Mr. Hsiung to allow hatred toward the Jews and me to stand here unsanctioned on the basis that you trust him that it will be good for this community as a whole to do so, then I say you that you could be ignorant of he historical record where others said to the community members that antisemitism will be good for their state as a whole and the record proved otherwise.
> The historical record shows what happened to states that allowed anti-Semitism to be considered to be good for their community as a whole. And the record shows what happened to those leaders and their deputies when they could not pull off the lie anymore. And here is a video showing what happened to one of those deputies where he murdered his 6 children and then him and his wife killed themselves and then had their bodies drenched with gasoline and set aflame by their deputies. Their bodies were still identifiable as you will see in the following video. Please skip this if you do not want to see what I have said as to what will be in this video.
> Now any of you that want to be in concert with Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record to go along with him in that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow anti-Semitism and defamation against me to stand where it is originally posted in the grounds that you also think that it will be good for this community as a whole to do so, I say to you to stand back and think. Do you really want to be a part of it?
> Lou
> This video is graphic.
> https://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%Fv%3D4qxTCM_dle0
>
>
> Friends,
There is a very dangerous IMHO mind-set being developed here by Mr. Hsiung and those that are in concert with him. What is being developed is that Mr. Hsiung's TOS is that the mission of the forum here is for support, having fairness and the Golden Rule incorporated in the enforcement of his rules.
Now fairness is generally accepted to mean that there is equality in the enforcement of rules. In the U.S Constitution and others, there is what is called the equal protection of the laws as in the 14th amendment. And the Golden Rule comes from Judaism and the Golden Rule that Mr. Hsiung has used is contrary to the meaning of the rule from the Jewish perspective. The Golden Rule is not just one statement, but a mind-set that the scriptures that the Jews use develops over many concepts found in the Torah that have their roots in equality and fairness. I am prevented by the prohibitions to me here from Mr. Hsiung to post to educate readers concerning the meaning of the Golden Rule from Judaism here even though the TOS states here that the forum is for education as well as support.
It is in the fairness claim here by Mr. Hsiung that is important. For Mr. Hsiung states that in enforcing his rules, he does not use as to who posted the unvivil statement to determine if what is in question is civil by him or not. But at the same time, he says that there could be an unsupportive statement that he will allow to be seen as supportive and civil on the basis that he will not post his tagline to please be civil to it. Then if the statement defames someone, or puts down Jews, the recipient of the defamation and antisemitism is not protected by the equal enforcement of his rules, which is unfairness, for the defamation and antisemitism is seen as civil and could inflict emotional harm to the recipient of the defamation and antisemitism as research by psychologists and psychiatrists have shown.
Now to make matters clearer to readers here, then Mr. Hsiung states only recently now, that by not sanctioning an uncivil statement, which means he could be denying equal protection of his rules, which is not fairness to those that hold that fairness means equality in he enforcement of rules, to the recipient of harmful statements on the grounds that he thinks that it will be good for the community as a whole to do so. This means that a subset of readers could think that if there is an anti-Semitic statement or defaming statement that is unsanctioned here, it is in Mr. Hsiung's mind that anti-Semitism and defamation will be good for this community as a whole to allow anti-Semitism and defamation to be developed here as civil. Those readers have a rational basis to think that because Mr. Hsiung says that he does what in {his thinking} will be good for this community as a whole. He has exposed his mind here and then intent can be shown not subjectively, but objectively, that IMHHHO is plainly visible.
Time after time, I have tried so hard to have readers understand that hate is not supportive. Psychologists have learned that hate being developed in a community is not good for that community as a whole. Mr. Hsiung wants you to try and trust him in what he does. He is now saying that he could leave anti-Semitism and defamation to be seen as civil and that he is doing that because in his thinking it will be good for this community as a whole. What part of one's mind does that type of thinking come from? There could be a subset readers that think that it comes from the backroads by the sewers of one's memory. They have a rational basis to think that, for to allow anti-Semitic hate and defamation to stand here in a mental health community on the basis that sometime in the future it will make this community good, can be found in the historical record to be put forth by psychopaths that hated Jews and used them as scapegoats to further the false justification to commit mass-murder.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1070154
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070670.html