![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 485 to 509 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 15, 2014, at 9:00:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- eyetinklushdbee » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on October 3, 2013, at 1:59:27
> Lou, I've been lurking around for the past 3-4 months. I will surf through here about every 3 weeks.
> I would like to express my feelings about your position here and your "issues".
> Lou, I've never seen anyone write a post that would be against your heritage and religion.
> I came here in 2002. In that length of time, I've never seen you post one supportive post to anyone here. Perhaps I've missed it but I don't think so.
> You and I emailed for a long time about 5 years ago. I was pleased to read your emails as you wrote in a normal manner and never mentioned your feelings of not being accepted here.I even tried to get you to support others and you were quite rational and appropriate in your emails.
> I'd like to give you some advice and hopefully some insight in what you are doing now and doing it well. I want you to stop beating a dead horse about being discriminated against. Lou, I'm just enough Choctaw indian that I am occasionally discriminated against. I am subjected to it especially if I am with other indians who are darker than I am. White people always want to know what I'm doing travelling with "injuns". I don't take it personally. I don't beleive that you are truly as invested in the 'discrimination' against you as you put in your posts. I believe that it keeps you front and center and you like that very, very much.
> Lou, the site needs you as a positive influence. I believe that you could be an very effective leader if you could see a way to stop posting about being jewish and take the time to offer support to other posters. Posters certainly have written some very nice and caring messages to you. I hope you can see a way to do a complete turnaround and be a help to the site so it can continue to go on and perhaps attract new posters.
> I have one more issue that I do want to address. Lou, I don't believe it is fair to the posters here for you to rail against the meds that people need and take. NO ONE criticizes anyone else's choice of meds and I would like to see you completely quit it. I don't think that it makes you look like an expert. I think it has other effects upon posters and especially new posters.
> I hope you can find it in your heart to change your approach to the regular posters. Some are quite nice to you and certainly others show a tolerance that not a lot of people could do. I hope you are thankful for those posters.
> There are lots of people in pain in this world and I believe that you could revitalize the site and I think you could completely turn things around by being invested in others and offering an helping hand. Sincerely, Fayeroe (Pat)Pat, you wrote,[... the discrimination against you...].
Discrimination could pump poison in reader's minds here. The poison of hate could drag a subset of readers into a vortex of depression downward into a pit of despair to kill themselves. The statements here that I am taking one post at a time that if a repudiation by Mr. Hsiung is posted to those that could foster anti-Semitism, could stop any thinking that this site is a promoter of hatred toward the Jews and others. As long as the posts that you see here are allowed to be seen as supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's own rules, then there could be a subset of readers to think that anti-Semitism is supportive and not only that, but anti-Semitism will be good for this community as a whole, for that is what is stated by Mr. Hsiung as in what he does in his thinking here.
A way that hatred toward the Jews can be fostered in a community is to allow the depiction of Jews as being in an inferior religion, or to depict Judaism as inferior to Christianity in that a depiction of Christianity is superior to Judaism which insults Judaism. The rule here is to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths or to not post anything that is disrespectful to another's faith. If that rule is not enforced to allow Judaism to be ridiculed or insulted, while the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me is not allowed to be posted, then discrimination could happen here. And discrimination is an abuse of power.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 15, 2014, at 18:35:56
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2014, at 14:29:49
> > D. The "good" that will come to this community by you, Mr. Hsiung, leaving the statement in question un repudiated by you, is:
>
> The goal of the policy is to respond to incivility and at the same time not to make those who have been uncivil feel too accused or put down.
>
> > I have thought that there could be a subset of people that are a little bit smarter than me that could understand what Mr Hsiung is saying. But after reviewing the issue, I find that by posting a repudiation of a vulgar word, that does not include repudiating the insult to Judaism and those other faiths that is plainly visible in the post in question. For one to think that, could not then those thinkers have to jump to a conclusion? And anyway, just because there could be a subset of readers just a little bit smarter than me, that does not mean that intelligence is what could have those in that subset think that repudiating a vulgar word automatically repudiate everything else that the poster wrote in other posts by the poster.
>
> I'm not smart enough to understand the tax code, and don't like parts of it, but still I accept it.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...the goal of the policy is to respond to incivility and at the same time not to make those who have been uncivil feel too accused or put down...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think from that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. The good that comes to the community by me and my deputies of record not sanctioning the anti-Semitic statement, Lou, is that the author of the post could feel good that I allowed it to stand un repudiated.
B. The good that could come to the community by me and my deputies of record allowing the anti-Semitic statement to remain un repudiated, Lou, is that others could see that support takes precedence as my policy states, so it is supportive to leave the anti-Semitic statement unsanctioned.
C. The good that could come to the community by me and my deputies of record not sanctioning the anti-Semitic statement, Lou, is that posters are to be civil at all times, so being civil at all times means that I will not sanction anti-Semitic posts because it could make the author of the anti-Semitic statement feel too put down which would be uncivil.
D. The good that could come to the community by me and my deputies of record leaving the anti-Semitic statement unsanctioned, is that I give a higher priority to the feelings of those that post anti-Semitic statements than to the tragic consequences that could come to a subset of readers by seeing that I have not sanctioned the anti-Semitism so that they could think that posting anti-Semitism is not against my rules.
E. The good that could come to the community by me and my deputies of record allowing the anti-Semitic statement to stand, Lou, is that since one match could start a forest fire, the fire of hate indicated by the anti-Semitic statement being allowed by us is not as great a concern to us as the feelings of the poster that posted the anti-Semitic statement.
F. The classic argument that a child that killed his parents should be allowed to escape punishment because he is now an orphan, applies to this situation also, Lou.
G. something else.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2014, at 17:24:32
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-oarphan » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 15, 2014, at 18:35:56
> D. The good that could come to the community by me and my deputies of record leaving the anti-Semitic statement unsanctioned, is that I give a higher priority to the feelings of those that post anti-Semitic statements than to the tragic consequences that could come to a subset of readers by seeing that I have not sanctioned the anti-Semitism so that they could think that posting anti-Semitism is not against my rules.
Not taking into account the feelings, or in general the well-being, of those with different beliefs, or values, can have tragic consequences, too.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 17, 2014, at 7:15:01
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2014, at 17:24:32
> > D. The good that could come to the community by me and my deputies of record leaving the anti-Semitic statement unsanctioned, is that I give a higher priority to the feelings of those that post anti-Semitic statements than to the tragic consequences that could come to a subset of readers by seeing that I have not sanctioned the anti-Semitism so that they could think that posting anti-Semitism is not against my rules.
>
> Not taking into account the feelings, or in general the well-being, of those with different beliefs, or values, can have tragic consequences, too.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to lead readers to think from what you wrote here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or false:
A. By me not posting a response to your questions to me here, Lou, except for D, readers could be led to think what I want them to believe. If I did answer those other questions, readers could have a better understanding of the issues here and why I have not posted a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement.
B. By me not specifying who the people are in my answer to D, Lou, then readers could think that the poster of anti-Semitism is allowed to be immune from my sanctioning their anti-Semitic statement because their belief is different from Judaism and their general well-being could be harmed if I was to sanction the anti-Semitic statement.
C. By me not specifying what the tragic consequences could be, Lou, readers could think that the tragic consequences could be that if I was to post a repudiation to the statement that insults Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that are not Christian that do have in their agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian, that readers could think that I welcome all faiths here and do not allow posts that claim that Jews and Islamic people and the others are excluded from heaven because they are non-Christians, that the Christians that promulgate such could have tragic consequences to their well-being.
Fill in:
D. I agree with you, Lou, that my reply could be ambiguous as to who the people are with different beliefs, and what the tragic consequences could be to them and what could constitute taking into account the feelings of those in question. So here is a more definitive response to your question to me in D.
_______________________________________________Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 18, 2014, at 0:30:42
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-obfue » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 17, 2014, at 7:15:01
> D. I agree with you, Lou, that my reply could be ambiguous as to who the people are with different beliefs, and what the tragic consequences could be to them and what could constitute taking into account the feelings of those in question.
I was ambiguous on purpose. Because I'd like people to reflect on who I might mean.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 18, 2014, at 13:05:50
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 18, 2014, at 0:30:42
> > D. I agree with you, Lou, that my reply could be ambiguous as to who the people are with different beliefs, and what the tragic consequences could be to them and what could constitute taking into account the feelings of those in question.
>
> I was ambiguous on purpose. Because I'd like people to reflect on who I might mean.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...I'd like people to reflect on who I might mean...](as the reason that you posted an ambiguous response to me).
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think when they read that. If you could post answers to the following, then readers could have a better understanding of your intentions here.
True or false:
A. I might mean that the people with different beliefs are the Christians that purport that Jews and Islamic people and the others that have faiths that in their agenda they can enter heaven as not being a Christian, and so I will not post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement so that they could feel good by seeing the statement stand by me and my deputies of record.
B. I might mean that I am taking into consideration the feelings of the Jews and the Islamic people and the others in that a posting by me of a repudiation of the claim that insults their faith could stop any thinking that I am validating the claim that puts down Jews and the others. And that I am not concerned about the feelings of the Jews and the Islamic people and the others that could cause a subset of readers here that come here in depression to go deeper in depression and commit suicide when they see the statement allowed by me to stand un repudiated which could lead them to think that I and my deputies of record ratify the claim that says that Judaism and Islam and the other faiths involved are inferior to Christianity because of what the statement purports.
C. I might mean that the people in question are those that want to see anisemitism have the potential to be fostered here by the fact that the statement that puts down Jews is allowed to stand.
D. I might want readers to reflect on who I am referring to, Lou, as to be those readers that want hatred toward all those that are excluded from heaven that are in the statement in question to be maimed and killed by Jew-haters and others that want to see anti-Semitism encouraged here by me and my deputies of record leaving the statement to stand because this is one way that we can control the content to persuade readers to hate Jews and others by determining what is supportive or not by sanctioning or not statements here. And since one match could start a forest fire, as long as we do not post a repudiation of the statement, the fire of hate can still remain burning.
E. something else which is:_______________...
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2014, at 2:16:57
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-fyrofhy » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 18, 2014, at 13:05:50
> > I was ambiguous on purpose. Because I'd like people to reflect on who I might mean.
>
> A. I might mean that the people with different beliefs are the Christians
> B. I might mean that I am taking into consideration the feelings of the Jews and the Islamic people and the others
> D. I might want readers to reflect on who I am referring to
> E. something else which is:_______________...All of the above.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 20, 2014, at 12:08:06
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2014, at 2:16:57
> > > I was ambiguous on purpose. Because I'd like people to reflect on who I might mean.
> >
> > A. I might mean that the people with different beliefs are the Christians
> > B. I might mean that I am taking into consideration the feelings of the Jews and the Islamic people and the others
> > D. I might want readers to reflect on who I am referring to
> > E. something else which is:_______________...
>
> All of the above.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote [... all of the above...] as a reply to my request to you to answer as to if the questions that I asked of you are true or false.
I am unsure as to what you are wanting readers to think by that you did not answer as to if the questions from me are true or false, but posted, "All of the above."
Now your answer does not tell readers if you are wanting to mean that the questions from me to you are either true or false, for the phrase {All of the above} does not declare either.
But it is much more than that. For by you posting the answer that you did, a subset of readers could think that you are evading the issue that concerns the allowing of the anti-Semitic statement to remain un repudiated by you. As to what your intent is by doing so, those readers could also think that if you had posted as to if one of the questions from me was either true or false, that by you posting one of those, those readers could see if your intent is to foster hatred toward the Jews or not, by allowing the statement in question to stand. Also, a subset of readers could be lead to think that you are using this forum to foster anti-Semitism if by you not posting as to if the statement is true or false, a subset of readers could think that it is your intent not to post a repudiation of the anti-Semitism so that they could think that anti-Semitism posted here is not against your rules, is also supportive, and also will be good for this community as a whole according to you TOS here.
I have the following concerns and if you could post answers to them, I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. I did not answer those questions from you as to if they were either true or false, Lou, so that I could lead some readers that are ignorant of the tactic of evasion to think that I answered your questions to me.
B. I did not answer those questions from you as to if they are true or false because, Lou, because if I did, a subset of readers could think that my intent is to humiliate and ridicule and defame Jews here by allowing anti-Semitic statement to stand.
C. I did not answer your questions to me as to if they are true or false, Lou, because as long as I allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand here, a subset of readers could think that the fire of hatred toward the Jews can be still burning here and that hatred could be carried outside of this forum as like embers blowing in the wind, to start an inferno of hatred toward the Jews and the others depicted in the anti-Semitic statement in question.
D. I did not answer your questions to me as to be true or false, Lou, because as long as I leave the anti-Semitic statement un repudiated, then the fostering of anti-Semitism by me and my deputies of record , Lou, could be thought to be by a subset of readers, which could lead them to think that myself and the deputies of record are not concerned about the feelings of the Jews feeling ridicule and debasement as a result after reading the statement in question as being un repudiated. Those subset of readers could also think that the souls of the millions of Jewish children murdered by those that harbored anti-Semitic feelings was justified by those leaders that promulgated hatred toward the Jews and led their country to think that hatred toward the Jews was state-sponsored because they allowed antisemitic hate to be published. Those souls of the murdered Jewish children can not speak here today. I will speak for them.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2014, at 23:14:54
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-eehvay » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 20, 2014, at 12:08:06
> by you posting the answer that you did, a subset of readers could think that you are evading the issue
Sorry about that. Let me back up and try again:
The goal of the policy is to respond to incivility and at the same time not to make those who have been uncivil feel too accused or put down. Not taking into account the feelings, or in general the well-being, of those who have been uncivil can have tragic consequences, too.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2014, at 6:10:03
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2014, at 23:14:54
> > by you posting the answer that you did, a subset of readers could think that you are evading the issue
>
> Sorry about that. Let me back up and try again:
>
> The goal of the policy is to respond to incivility and at the same time not to make those who have been uncivil feel too accused or put down. Not taking into account the feelings, or in general the well-being, of those who have been uncivil can have tragic consequences, too.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
The goal of the forum is for support and education. And you state that if there is a conflict, being supportive takes precedence.
A subset of readers could see what you have posted to me as a way for you to allow hate to be promulgated here. In the case at hand, hatred toward Jews, Islamic people and all other people that have a faith that has in their agenda a way for them to enter heaven without being a Christian. What you have posted here could be considered to be by a subset of reader an anti-Semitic policy on the grounds that you say that your policy will allow you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated by you and your deputies of record on the grounds that if you did post a repudiation, the poster of the anti-Semitism could feel too accused which could then have tragic consequences. The people that the tragic consequences could come to could be those that become victims of anti-Semitic violence or anti-Islamic violence as a result of readers seeing that you are refusing to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement which could lead a subset of readers to think that you and your deputies of record are ratifying the hatred toward Jews and the others by the fact that you state that if anything is not sanctioned, then it is not against your rules here and the goal here is to be civil at all times, and one match could start a forest fire.
A subset of readers could think that by you saying that your goal is not what you have posted here, could lead a subset of readers to consider that your intent here is to foster anti-Semitic hate. This is also because by looking at what you just posted, your statement is {after the fact} because your TOS states that you do enforce your rules by posting something to an uncivil post, and there is nothing in your rules that I can see, before you posted this to me, that states otherwise or allows you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated on some grounds that the feelings of the one that posted the anti-Semitism would be hurt and tragic consequences could result because you sanctioned what is not supportive. Your TOS states not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
There could be a subset of readers that see that by you taking this position, that your intent is to encourage others to post anti-Semitic hate. This is because if they read what you just posted to me, they could post anti-Semitic statements and feel that they have immunity to do so here on the grounds that what you just posted could mean that you will not sanction the anti-Semitism because if you do, the poster's feelings could be hurt. But you could post a repudiation to the statement, and not the poster if you wanted to and as of now, you have not. You could post something like:
[...the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and is not in accordance with our rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths...].
There could be a subset of readers , Mr. Hsiung, that see what you are doing as a transparent attempt to engender sympathy where no sympathy is deserved. And those readers could think that your intent here is to provide a venue for posting statements that could foster anti-Semitism and hatred toward the Jews and the others depicted in the post in question. You say your goal would be compromised in some way if you did sanction the anti-Semitic statement. I say bullsh*t.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2014, at 11:48:41
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-bulschid » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2014, at 6:10:03
> > > by you posting the answer that you did, a subset of readers could think that you are evading the issue
> >
> > Sorry about that. Let me back up and try again:
> >
> > The goal of the policy is to respond to incivility and at the same time not to make those who have been uncivil feel too accused or put down. Not taking into account the feelings, or in general the well-being, of those who have been uncivil can have tragic consequences, too.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The goal of the forum is for support and education. And you state that if there is a conflict, being supportive takes precedence.
> A subset of readers could see what you have posted to me as a way for you to allow hate to be promulgated here. In the case at hand, hatred toward Jews, Islamic people and all other people that have a faith that has in their agenda a way for them to enter heaven without being a Christian. What you have posted here could be considered to be by a subset of reader an anti-Semitic policy on the grounds that you say that your policy will allow you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated by you and your deputies of record on the grounds that if you did post a repudiation, the poster of the anti-Semitism could feel too accused which could then have tragic consequences. The people that the tragic consequences could come to could be those that become victims of anti-Semitic violence or anti-Islamic violence as a result of readers seeing that you are refusing to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement which could lead a subset of readers to think that you and your deputies of record are ratifying the hatred toward Jews and the others by the fact that you state that if anything is not sanctioned, then it is not against your rules here and the goal here is to be civil at all times, and one match could start a forest fire.
> A subset of readers could think that by you saying that your goal is not what you have posted here, could lead a subset of readers to consider that your intent here is to foster anti-Semitic hate. This is also because by looking at what you just posted, your statement is {after the fact} because your TOS states that you do enforce your rules by posting something to an uncivil post, and there is nothing in your rules that I can see, before you posted this to me, that states otherwise or allows you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated on some grounds that the feelings of the one that posted the anti-Semitism would be hurt and tragic consequences could result because you sanctioned what is not supportive. Your TOS states not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
> There could be a subset of readers that see that by you taking this position, that your intent is to encourage others to post anti-Semitic hate. This is because if they read what you just posted to me, they could post anti-Semitic statements and feel that they have immunity to do so here on the grounds that what you just posted could mean that you will not sanction the anti-Semitism because if you do, the poster's feelings could be hurt. But you could post a repudiation to the statement, and not the poster if you wanted to and as of now, you have not. You could post something like:
> [...the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and is not in accordance with our rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths...].
> There could be a subset of readers , Mr. Hsiung, that see what you are doing as a transparent attempt to engender sympathy where no sympathy is deserved. And those readers could think that your intent here is to provide a venue for posting statements that could foster anti-Semitism and hatred toward the Jews and the others depicted in the post in question. You say your goal would be compromised in some way if you did sanction the anti-Semitic statement. I say bullsh*t.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
You wrote as to your reason why you will not post a repudiation to the statement that insults Judaism, Islam, and all other faiths that have in their agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian,[...The goal of the policy is to respond to incivility and at the same time not to make those who have been uncivil feel too accused or put down. Not taking into account the feelings, or the general well-being, of those who have been uncivil can have tragic consequences too...].
Here is the statement in question that is allowed to stand so that readers could think that it is not against your rules, is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole according to your terms of service. The statement in question is something like:
[...No non-Christian can enter heaven...].
It has been revealed to me that the statement is a lie. And what I know about the tragic consequences to others that can happen by a community allowing the statement to be considered to be validated by its leader, which a subset of readers could think that the statement is state-sponsored, is in the historical record. I know of nothing in the historical record that says that those that committed war-crimes should be allowed to go free because their feelings would be hurt if they were hanged. I know nothing in the historical record that says that hatred toward the Jews should be allowed to be published and to be seen as civil, because if the author of the the hate was sanctioned, their feelings could be hurt. I know nothing in the historical record that shows that published content that could insult Jews, Islamic people, and all others that have a faith that allows them to enter heaven as not being a Christian, that could contribute to those people's deaths, to be allowed to remain un disabled or unsanctioned unless the jurisdiction that the publishing is in is ratifying and fostering hatred toward the Jews and the others. There is a jurisdiction where you and your deputies could become accessories in any deaths that could be attributed to you and your deputies of record allowing the statement to stand. There are jurisdictions that you and your deputies could be violating their law against publishing anything that could insult their faith, and the statement in question insults all those that have a faith that has in their agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian. You say that there could be tragic consequences to the author of hate if you sanctioned what they wrote that you are allowing to be published as can be seen as civil to you and your deputies of record. I want to know right now what those tragic consequences could be. For I know outside of this forum why the statement is being refused by you and your deputies of record to have a repudiation posted to it. I know and your rules prohibit posting content from others, including your deputies then. And I know that the reason why is different from what you have posted here. And I know what could cause Jewish child that comes here in depression to see the hate that your rules could lead them to think that you are validating anti-Semitic hate here that could cause them to commit suicide because you and your deputies then are allowing the statement to be seen as that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to remain un repudiated. They then could think that you are not taking into account their feelings and have feelings of being insulted, ridiculed, debased, dehumanized by you and your deputies of record then.
The statement in question has been revealed to me to be a lie. And your message along with your deputies that do your wishes, could show to a subset of readers hostility and prejudice toward Jews, as those readers could think that by you using your rationale that if you sanctioned the statement the feelings of the author could be hurt, that Jews in that subset of readers could feel that Jews are in an inferior group according to you and your deputies of record. Those in that subset could also think when they read what is in question here that you are using the tactic of discrimination, that is an abuse of power, to foster anti-Semitism. This is because of the fact that you state that being supportive takes precedence, and these subset of readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive by you and your deputies of record. This could lead that subset of readers to think that Jews will be judged by a different standard than the author that posted the anti-Semitic statement. And also that the readers that are in concert with you to be in your camp to allow the statement that could foster antisemitic feelings on the grounds that if you did post a repudiation the author of the hate could feel too put down/accused, could IMHO create a {collective psychopathy} here of hatred toward Jews, Islamic people and all other people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven as being a non-Christian because of the fact that they could trust you in that what you do in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole, and if it could be good for this community, they could think that it would be good for the community that they are in also. This is part of the tragic consequences that could be as a result of a subset of readers taking you at your word. The statement has been revealed to me to be a lie. You are allowing it to be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. I know what happened in the historical record when the leader of the country also allowed that to be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, and permitted people to publish anti-Semitic hate.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2014, at 2:31:26
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-eyenoe, posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2014, at 11:48:41
> A subset of readers could see what you have posted to me as a way for you to allow hate to be promulgated here.
True. And a subset could also see what I posted as promulgating love.
> the poster of the anti-Semitism could feel too accused which could then have tragic consequences. The people that the tragic consequences could come to could be those that become victims of anti-Semitic violence
If you want to put it that way, what I was thinking was a poster who was seen as anti-Semitic could become a victim of Semitic violence.
> It has been revealed to me that the statement is a lie.
"Lie" implies intent to deceive, which could lead the poster to feel accused. One way to rephrase that would be:
> > It has been revealed to me that the statement is untrue.
Would you be willing to accept that?
> I know of nothing in the historical record that says that those that committed war-crimes should be allowed to go free
1. Being anti-Semitic isn't a war crime.
2. That poster didn't go free.
> There is a jurisdiction where you ... could become accessories in any deaths that could be attributed to you ... allowing the statement to stand. There are jurisdictions that you ... could be violating their law against publishing anything that could insult their faith
So there could be tragic consequences for me, too. I accept the risk. I see the probability of that as low.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2014, at 8:42:37
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2014, at 2:31:26
> > A subset of readers could see what you have posted to me as a way for you to allow hate to be promulgated here.
>
> True. And a subset could also see what I posted as promulgating love.
>
> > the poster of the anti-Semitism could feel too accused which could then have tragic consequences. The people that the tragic consequences could come to could be those that become victims of anti-Semitic violence
>
> If you want to put it that way, what I was thinking was a poster who was seen as anti-Semitic could become a victim of Semitic violence.
>
> > It has been revealed to me that the statement is a lie.
>
> "Lie" implies intent to deceive, which could lead the poster to feel accused. One way to rephrase that would be:
>
> > > It has been revealed to me that the statement is untrue.
>
> Would you be willing to accept that?
>
> > I know of nothing in the historical record that says that those that committed war-crimes should be allowed to go free
>
> 1. Being anti-Semitic isn't a war crime.
>
> 2. That poster didn't go free.
>
> > There is a jurisdiction where you ... could become accessories in any deaths that could be attributed to you ... allowing the statement to stand. There are jurisdictions that you ... could be violating their law against publishing anything that could insult their faith
>
> So there could be tragic consequences for me, too. I accept the risk. I see the probability of that as low.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that could be seen as civil and supportive by you;
[...what I was thinking was a poster who was seen as anti-Semitic could become a victim of Semitic violence...]
Saying that the poster could be seen as anti-Semitic could lead the poster to feel accused and jumps to a conclusion that if a statement that is anti-Semitic is posted, then the poster of such is anti-Semitic. You are allowing the statement,{No non-Christian can enter heaven}, to be seen as un repudiated by you but that does not mean that you are anti-Semitic.
A better way for you to have phrased what could lead the poster to feel accused as being anti-Semeitic could have been;
[...what I was thinking was a poster who was seen as having a statement that puts down Jews being allowed by me to remain un repudiated could have a subset of readers think that I was validating and fostering anti-Semitism...].
Would you be willing to accept that?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2014, at 13:46:28
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discus-wilngtuexcept » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2014, at 8:42:37
> Saying that the poster could be seen as anti-Semitic could lead the poster to feel accused and jumps to a conclusion that if a statement that is anti-Semitic is posted, then the poster of such is anti-Semitic. You are allowing the statement ... to be seen as un repudiated by you but that does not mean that you are anti-Semitic.
That's a good point, thanks.
> [...what I was thinking was ... a statement that puts down Jews being allowed by me to remain un repudiated could have a subset of readers think that I was validating and fostering anti-Semitism...].
> Would you be willing to accept that?In general, yes. But that doesn't mean I accept that the particular statement we're discussing puts down Jews.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2014, at 18:19:50
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2014, at 13:46:28
> > Saying that the poster could be seen as anti-Semitic could lead the poster to feel accused and jumps to a conclusion that if a statement that is anti-Semitic is posted, then the poster of such is anti-Semitic. You are allowing the statement ... to be seen as un repudiated by you but that does not mean that you are anti-Semitic.
>
> That's a good point, thanks.
>
> > [...what I was thinking was ... a statement that puts down Jews being allowed by me to remain un repudiated could have a subset of readers think that I was validating and fostering anti-Semitism...].
> > Would you be willing to accept that?
>
> In general, yes. But that doesn't mean I accept that the particular statement we're discussing puts down Jews.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...that doesn't mean I accept that the particular statement we're discussing puts down Jews...].
Your Terms of Service for the faith forum is a subset of your overriding TOS here, which is to not post anything that could lead others to feel put down or accused. It is not that you feel put down when you read it, but posters are not to post anything that could lead *others* to feel put down. Over and over, you use the slang phrase, {put down}, which is generally understood to be something written that could insult another. Then there are derivatives of how a phrase could be insulting to another by ridicule, debasement, humiliating statements, devaluing, depreciating and more.
Now your rules do not say to not post what {you} could feel put down by when {you} read it, but to not post *anything* that could lead {others} to feel put down. And your off-shoot of your rule on the faith board states not to post what could pressure a reader to adopt your religion or to {put others down for having theirs}. In {putting others down for having theirs}, that rule comes into play in your allowing to be seen as civil and supportive by you,[...no non-Christian can enter heaven...].
Now who are the non-Christians? They are Jews, Islamic people, and all other people that have in their faith's agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian.
The statement could be interpreted by those readers that are of those faiths including Jews, that they can not enter heaven because they are not Christians.
Now the major religions cited by me here all have in their doctrine that they can enter heaven without being a Christian. So when they read the statement that is not repudiated by you and your deputies of record, those readers could feel put down and I as a Jew feel put down when I read it. And if I feel put down because the statement stands un repudiated, I think of that you state here that statements unsanctioned are not against your rules. And if a Jewish child reads it, they could feel put down on the basis that the statement is a claim against what they have been taught about their religion that does say that Jews can enter heaven and could think that you are ratifying the claim against Judaism and ignoring your own rule to{ not pressure others to adopt your religion or put others down for having theirs}. And this could cause a downward vortex into deep depression and suicide.
Now you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. I ask:
A. What good will come to this community by the statement being allowed to be seen as supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here?
B. If you were in Saudi Arabia, hypothetically, and you were speaking to a large group of Islamic people about your best of two worlds book, and a man stood up and said to you, "The statement that no non-Christian can enter heaven that this Lou guy is trying to get you to post a repudiation to, insults Islam and you have not posted a repudiation to it on your site. In Islam, insulting Islam is punishable by death. Why should you be allowed to live?"
Your answer would be:
P. The statement does not insult Islam
Q. Your belief that you can go to heaven is false
R. Only Christians can go to heaven
S. I did not want the poster of the statement to feel too bad , so I left it stand.
T. Something else which is ________________
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2014, at 0:45:01
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2014, at 18:19:50
> B. If you were in Saudi Arabia, hypothetically, and you were speaking to a large group of Islamic people about your best of two worlds book, and a man stood up and said to you, "The statement that no non-Christian can enter heaven that this Lou guy is trying to get you to post a repudiation to, insults Islam and you have not posted a repudiation to it on your site. In Islam, insulting Islam is punishable by death. Why should you be allowed to live?"
> Your answer would be:By sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't necessarily validate that poster's statements.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2014, at 7:04:55
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2014, at 0:45:01
> > B. If you were in Saudi Arabia, hypothetically, and you were speaking to a large group of Islamic people about your best of two worlds book, and a man stood up and said to you, "The statement that no non-Christian can enter heaven that this Lou guy is trying to get you to post a repudiation to, insults Islam and you have not posted a repudiation to it on your site. In Islam, insulting Islam is punishable by death. Why should you be allowed to live?"
> > Your answer would be:
>
> By sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't necessarily validate that poster's statements.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...By sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't validate that poster's statements...].
I do not think so. If you could post answers to the following, then I could post my response to you.
True or false:
A. Could a reader think that what you have posted here could be a pretext to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand? If not, could you complete item "B" below?
Fill in:
B. Lou, the reason that a reader could not think that what I have posted here as a pretext for me to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand is:______________________________________
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2014, at 21:53:10
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-preategss » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2014, at 7:04:55
> > > B. If you were in Saudi Arabia, hypothetically, and you were speaking to a large group of Islamic people about your best of two worlds book, and a man stood up and said to you, "The statement that no non-Christian can enter heaven that this Lou guy is trying to get you to post a repudiation to, insults Islam and you have not posted a repudiation to it on your site. In Islam, insulting Islam is punishable by death. Why should you be allowed to live?"
> > > Your answer would be:
> >
> > By sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't necessarily validate that poster's statements.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...By sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't validate that poster's statements...].
> I do not think so. If you could post answers to the following, then I could post my response to you.
> True or false:
> A. Could a reader think that what you have posted here could be a pretext to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand? If not, could you complete item "B" below?
> Fill in:
> B. Lou, the reason that a reader could not think that what I have posted here as a pretext for me to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand is:______________________________________
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...By sanctioning a later statement, I made it *clear* that I didn't (necessarily}validate that poster's statements.
I say that sanctioning a word that a dictionary says is a vulgar word is different from sanctioning a statement that could lead Jews, Islamic people and all other people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven without being a Christian to feel put down, for I feel put down as a Jew when I read it. The statement in question, {...no non-Christian can enter heaven..] could be thought by a subset of readers to be analogous to {no Jew can enter heaven}, or {no Islamic person can enter heaven} or {only Christians can enter heaven} or {the concept of entering heaven that Islamic people and Jewish people believe in is false}. And even worse, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies of record then *are* validating the statement on the grounds that you state that if a statement is not sanctioned, that it is not against your rules. And also that you state that being supportive takes precedence and that one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait to put it out.
Necessarily? That means that it may or may not be what you are ratifying. But your rule is what *could* lead one to feel put down or accused and what *could* put down those of other faiths, and what *could* be disrespectful to another's faith and what *could* be insensitive to another's feelings and what *could* be jumping to a conclusion about another. Your rule is what *could*, not what *must*. Your admission that the statement does not mean that you necessarily validate the statement, shows that the statement is what *could* lead a subset of readers to think that you and your deputies of record then *are* validating the statement because those readers could think that since you will not at this time post a repudiation to the statement, that you *could* be validating what the statement *could* purport. Those readers *could* also think that you are allowing the fire to spread because you are not putting it out by letting it stand.
I ask :
Would you be willing to post where the statement appears in the thread something like:
[...The statement is one that puts down those that do have in their religion that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian, such as Jews and Islamic people, and myself and the deputies of record do not ratify what the statement could purport because the statement could be analogous to {only Christians can enter heaven} which is against the rules. The fact that the poster used a vulgar word later does not annul what the statement in question could purport.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2014, at 1:43:19
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-preategss » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2014, at 7:04:55
> A. Could a reader think that what you have posted here could be a pretext to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand?
Yes, readers could, but I think they're unlikely to.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 10, 2014, at 9:24:12
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2014, at 1:43:19
> > A. Could a reader think that what you have posted here could be a pretext to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand?
>
> Yes, readers could, but I think they're unlikely to.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...readers could,(think that by me sanctioning the vulgar word and saying that then the anti-Semitic statement is also sanctioned, is a pretext to allow anti-Semitism to be fostered here), but I think that they're unlikely to...].
I do not know how you determine what other people could think. In a subset of readers that look at what could be your intent here by you and your deputies of record then being unwilling to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement in question, {...No non-Christian can enter heaven...}, they could speculate that your rationale for allowing the statement to stand is a pretext in order for anti-Semitism to be fostered here by you and your deputies of record then. These subset of readers could make that conclusion by the fact that your saying that you sanctioned a word that the poster posted later that was vulgar, that by you doing so means that the statement in question is also sanctioned could not be accepted by those subset of readers as the statement that could lead Jews and Islamic people and the others depicted in the statement to feel put down. There could be a subset of readers that could see differently from what your rationale for allowing the anti-Semitic statement to stand here. Let us look at this example:
Let us suppose there was a break-in to a house and the robber was confronted by the resident and the robber shot and killed the home owner. The police were on their way as an alarm was tripped and apprehended the robber on the grounds.
Then at trial, the robber was given a warning concerning that he parked his get-away car in front of a fire hydrant. The wife of the murdered man asked why the man that murdered her husband was not prosecuted for murder in commission of a robbery. The prosecutor then told the wife of the murdered man;
"We gave him a warning ticked for that he parked his car in front of a fire hydrant in front of your house, so that means that murdering your husband is also a crime, but by us giving him the warning ticket for the parking violation, we do not necessarily have to arrest him for murdering your husband."
I ask you:
A. Would you be willing to delete the thread and then repost it if an impartial mediator agrees with you that you could leave the anti-Semitic statement to stand?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2014, at 22:34:30
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-deeleet » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 10, 2014, at 9:24:12
> Let us look at this example:
> Let us suppose there was a break-in to a house and the robber was confronted by the resident and the robber shot and killed the home owner. ...One big difference is that no one was killed here. Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2014, at 18:57:43
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2014, at 22:34:30
> > Let us look at this example:
> > Let us suppose there was a break-in to a house and the robber was confronted by the resident and the robber shot and killed the home owner. ...
>
> One big difference is that no one was killed here. Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...One big difference is that no one was killed here. Compared to the real world, it's very safe here...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Let us use the statement in question, [...No non-Christian will enter heaven...].
The statement can be seen by a subset of readers as being un repudiated by you and your deputies of record then. Those readers could also know that you state here that if a statement is not sanctioned, then it is not against your rules. And these readers could think that you are contradicting yourself because your rules on the faith board are that statements are not to disrespect another's faith. These subset of readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating what the statement could purport. And I see nothing in the thread where anything could annul the fact of what the statement could purport.
The statement in question could be thought by those readers as being analogous to:
[...No Jew will enter heaven...]
[...only Christians will enter heaven...]
[...Christianity is superior to Judaism...]
[...Judaism is inferior to Christianity...]
[...The God that the Islamic people believe in that says that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian has deceived those believers and then the statement in question insults Islam and puts down the Islamic faith and therefore is not respectful to that faith...].
Then the question here now is about those killed. There could be a robbery here but not a robbery where they pull out a gun. And there could be a murder here, but it would be outside the walls of this community but the motive could come from here, the fire of hate could come from here, the furnace of hate could be stoked here, Jews and the others could be stigmatized by you because you are allowing the statement in question to be seen as that you and your deputies of record are ratifying what the statement could purport by a subset of readers thinking that Jews and the others depicted in the statement are not as good as Christians because the statement excludes Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian. The disrespect of their faiths as being seen here by a subset of readers as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole could bring back the horrors of the crimes against humanity. And who are you to say that there has been no one killed here. How could you make such a claim? How could you know of any deaths that are a result of the years of anti-Semitic statements being allowed by you and your deputies of record to be seen as not against your rules and as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2014, at 17:29:38
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-nvreygn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2014, at 18:57:43
> > > Let us look at this example:
> > > Let us suppose there was a break-in to a house and the robber was confronted by the resident and the robber shot and killed the home owner. ...
> >
> > One big difference is that no one was killed here. Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...One big difference is that no one was killed here. Compared to the real world, it's very safe here...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Let us use the statement in question, [...No non-Christian will enter heaven...].
> The statement can be seen by a subset of readers as being un repudiated by you and your deputies of record then. Those readers could also know that you state here that if a statement is not sanctioned, then it is not against your rules. And these readers could think that you are contradicting yourself because your rules on the faith board are that statements are not to disrespect another's faith. These subset of readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating what the statement could purport. And I see nothing in the thread where anything could annul the fact of what the statement could purport.
> The statement in question could be thought by those readers as being analogous to:
> [...No Jew will enter heaven...]
> [...only Christians will enter heaven...]
> [...Christianity is superior to Judaism...]
> [...Judaism is inferior to Christianity...]
> [...The God that the Islamic people believe in that says that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian has deceived those believers and then the statement in question insults Islam and puts down the Islamic faith and therefore is not respectful to that faith...].
> Then the question here now is about those killed. There could be a robbery here but not a robbery where they pull out a gun. And there could be a murder here, but it would be outside the walls of this community but the motive could come from here, the fire of hate could come from here, the furnace of hate could be stoked here, Jews and the others could be stigmatized by you because you are allowing the statement in question to be seen as that you and your deputies of record are ratifying what the statement could purport by a subset of readers thinking that Jews and the others depicted in the statement are not as good as Christians because the statement excludes Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian. The disrespect of their faiths as being seen here by a subset of readers as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole could bring back the horrors of the crimes against humanity. And who are you to say that there has been no one killed here. How could you make such a claim? How could you know of any deaths that are a result of the years of anti-Semitic statements being allowed by you and your deputies of record to be seen as not against your rules and as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you?
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
Hate crimes have an origin. I will be posting later on how hate could be promulgated in a community, but let us look at this:
Lou Pilder
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/13/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2014, at 17:48:08
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-nvreygn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2014, at 18:57:43
> > Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
>
> there could be a murder here, but it would be outside the walls of this community but the motive could come from here, the fire of hate could come from here, the furnace of hate could be stoked hereTrue, the fire of hate could be stoked here, but no murder can happen inside the walls of this community.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2014, at 6:04:52
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2014, at 17:48:08
> > > Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
> >
> > there could be a murder here, but it would be outside the walls of this community but the motive could come from here, the fire of hate could come from here, the furnace of hate could be stoked here
>
> True, the fire of hate could be stoked here, but no murder can happen inside the walls of this community.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...True, the fire of hate could be stoked here, but no murder can happen inside the walls of this community...].
You say you have a furnace of hate here that is stoked (by allowing the anti-Semitic statements to stand un repudiated by you and your deputies of record), yet today, you consider yourself to be the operator of this community to allow the furnace of hate to be stoked and say to the readers here that no murder can happen inside the walls of this community.
But the hate could be spread outside of this community where the fire of hate spreads like a forest fire and the embers drift to other communities to start the fire of hate there, outside of the walls of this community. And those fires of hate can originate here by readers seeing what is plainly visible in that statements that put down, in particular but not limited to, Jews are allowed to stand un repudiated by you and your deputies of record. And readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating what those statements could purport. They could take the hate outside the walls here to schools, universities, shopping malls, their workplace, their homes, and even go to a Jewish center and murder Jews and yell out, "Hiel (redacted by respondent.)"
Here is the unfolding of the murdering of Jews last night outside of where he lived. And where did the hater of Jews that did the murdering get his hate? Did he not get it where the fire of hatred toward the Jews was allowed to burn? Here is the ongoing situation of the murdering of Jews last night in Kansas.
Lou Pilder
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/index.html/?hpt=hp_t1
Go forward in 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.