![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 515 to 539 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2014, at 9:35:28
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-nvrehygn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 17, 2014, at 18:25:15
> You could stop the spread of hate, in particular but not limited to, by posting a repudiation of the statement that can be seen as not against your rules because it is unsanctioned
True, it could be seen as unsanctioned, but I see it as sanctioned indirectly.
> As you state that you do not wait to put out the fire here, for one match could start a forest fire, I say to you that there could be a subset of readers to think that you are letting the fire of hate burn here that allows the hatred to spread from here.
True, one match could start a forest fire, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to cry fire in a crowded theater.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2014, at 9:00:21
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2014, at 9:35:28
> > You could stop the spread of hate, in particular but not limited to, by posting a repudiation of the statement that can be seen as not against your rules because it is unsanctioned
>
> True, it could be seen as unsanctioned, but I see it as sanctioned indirectly.
>
> > As you state that you do not wait to put out the fire here, for one match could start a forest fire, I say to you that there could be a subset of readers to think that you are letting the fire of hate burn here that allows the hatred to spread from here.
>
> True, one match could start a forest fire, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to cry fire in a crowded theater.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[....True, one match could start a forest fire, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to cry fire in a crowded theater...].
I am unsure as to what you want readers to think by that. If you could post responses to the following, then I could respond to you.
True or False involving that the statement here can be seen as not being sanctioned and could lead a subset of readers to think that you and your deputies then are validating what the statement could purport such as that Jews could feel put down when they read it. The statement is,[...No non-Christian will enter heaven...]:
True or False:
A. In my thinking, Lou, that statement as seen as not being notated by me as uncivil, could lead a subset of readers to think that myself and my deputies then consider that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow the statement to be seen as not notated by us as uncivil here.
B. Statements like that, Lou, that could lead Jews and Islamic people and the others depicted in the statement to feel insulted because there is not a notation by myself or my deputies that the statement is uncivil, are supportive.
C. Statements like that, Lou, do show disrespect to the faiths in question that the statement disallows Jews and the others to enter heaven, is disrespectful to those faiths and I will not post a repudiation to that statement in and of itself, because if I do post a repudiation directly to that statement, people in theaters could panic.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2014, at 10:19:44
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-yelphyer » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2014, at 9:00:21
> > True, one match could start a forest fire, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to cry fire in a crowded theater.
>
> True or False involving that the statement here can be seen as not being sanctioned and could lead a subset of readers to think that you ... then are validating what the statement could purport such as that Jews could feel put down when they read it.True, it could.
> A. In my thinking, Lou, that statement as seen as not being notated by me as uncivil, could lead a subset of readers to think that myself ... then consider that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow the statement to be seen as not notated by us as uncivil here.
True, it could.
> B. Statements like that, Lou, that could lead Jews and Islamic people and the others depicted in the statement to feel insulted because there is not a notation by myself ... that the statement is uncivil, are supportive.
True, it could.
> C. Statements like that, Lou, do show disrespect to the faiths in question that the statement disallows Jews and the others to enter heaven, is disrespectful to those faiths and I will not post a repudiation to that statement in and of itself, because if I do post a repudiation directly to that statement, people in theaters could panic.
False, that wasn't the right analogy. Let me try again:
Repudiations from me can be matches, too, and I didn't want to start, or stoke, a fire of hate.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 4, 2014, at 8:03:13
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on May 3, 2014, at 10:19:44
> > > True, one match could start a forest fire, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to cry fire in a crowded theater.
> >
> > True or False involving that the statement here can be seen as not being sanctioned and could lead a subset of readers to think that you ... then are validating what the statement could purport such as that Jews could feel put down when they read it.
>
> True, it could.
>
> > A. In my thinking, Lou, that statement as seen as not being notated by me as uncivil, could lead a subset of readers to think that myself ... then consider that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow the statement to be seen as not notated by us as uncivil here.
>
> True, it could.
>
> > B. Statements like that, Lou, that could lead Jews and Islamic people and the others depicted in the statement to feel insulted because there is not a notation by myself ... that the statement is uncivil, are supportive.
>
> True, it could.
>
> > C. Statements like that, Lou, do show disrespect to the faiths in question that the statement disallows Jews and the others to enter heaven, is disrespectful to those faiths and I will not post a repudiation to that statement in and of itself, because if I do post a repudiation directly to that statement, people in theaters could panic.
>
> False, that wasn't the right analogy. Let me try again:
>
> Repudiations from me can be matches, too, and I didn't want to start, or stoke, a fire of hate.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung
You wrote the above that validates that you agree that by you not posting a repudiation to the statement in question, {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, readers could think that it could be good for this community as a whole for the statement to stand as civil by you.
You state that one match could start a forest fire so that you do not wait to sanction statements here that are against your rules. And one of your rules here is to not post what could lead those of other faiths to feel put down which you agree that the statement in question can lead a Jew to feel put down when they read it and I as a Jew feel put down when I read it and even worse, I feel put down because you and your deputies of record will not post a repudiation to the statement.
The statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is anti-Jewish thought as it can allow readers to view Jews as inferior to Christians which is a definition of what {put down} entails. But it is much worse than that. For by you and your deputies of record allowing the statement to be seen as supportive, this site could make it possible for the seeds of anti-Semitism to flourish.
You now say that repudiations from you could start a fire of hate. But without you specifying how that could happen and without you specifying what subset of readers could have hate induced into them if you sanction the anti-Semitic statement in question, you allow a subset of readers to think that you will post repudiations to other statements so that the fire of hate could not spread, but you will not post a repudiation to the statement in question that could lead a subset of readers to think that you and your deputies of record are validating what the statement could purport which could lead to Jews being depicted here by you as an inferior race.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2014, at 9:24:37
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-nvrehygen » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 4, 2014, at 8:03:13
> You now say that repudiations from you could start a fire of hate. But without ... specifying how that could happen and without you specifying what subset of readers could have hate induced into them if you sanction the anti-Semitic statement in question
I thought a subset of Semitic posters could have hate induced, or stoked, if I identified a post as anti-Semitic. Is that what you mean?
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 9, 2014, at 10:02:33
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2014, at 9:24:37
> > You now say that repudiations from you could start a fire of hate. But without ... specifying how that could happen and without you specifying what subset of readers could have hate induced into them if you sanction the anti-Semitic statement in question
>
> I thought a subset of Semitic posters could have hate induced, or stoked, if I identified a post as anti-Semitic. Is that what you mean?
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that a subset of Semitic posters could have hate induced, if you repudiated the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, and posted that the statement could lead a Jew to feel put down on the basis that the statement could be thought by a subset of readers to be analogous to:
A. No Jew will enter heaven
B. Only Christians will enter heaven, which are against your rules,
which is then an anti-Semitic statement on the basis that you agree that a statement that could lead a Jew to feel put down is an anti-Semitic statement, or a statement that puts down Jews is an anti-Semitic statement. The generally accepted meaning of the idiom, {put down}, is that a statement that puts down another faith is a statement that says that one faith is superior to another faith, or one faith is inferior to the other faith.
But the statement,{No on-Christian will enter heaven}, not only puts down Jews on the basis that the statement could mean that {only Christians will enter heaven}, but puts down Islamic people and all other people that have in their agenda of their faith that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian. Would not the statement be just as horrible for you to leave unsanctioned if you left, hypothetically, {No non-white person will enter heaven} to stand. In other words, for you to leave un repudiated, {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, a subset of readers could think that you are validating the statement as to think that Jews are an inferior race. And the statement hypothetically, {No non-white person will enter heaven}, if posted here and you allowed it to stand, could be thought by a subset of, let's say, people in religious and racial advocacy groups, to be analogous to hate being promulgated by you as that readers could think that you are ratifying the statement which could induce hatred toward non-white people on the basis that you state that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. I see that you not posting a repudiation to {No non-Christian will enter heaven} as being just as horrible as if you were to leave the hypothetical statement, {no non-white person will enter heaven}, un repudiated. If you think that Jews and Islamic people would hate anyone if you posted a repudiation to {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, please state who those people could be and why, and then I will post my response to you.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2014, at 19:56:25
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-hudehy » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 9, 2014, at 10:02:33
> > I thought a subset of Semitic posters could have hate induced, or stoked, if I identified a post as anti-Semitic. Is that what you mean?
>
> If you think that Jews and Islamic people would hate anyone if you posted a repudiation to {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, please state who those people could be and why, and then I will post my response to you.Say poster P is a member of group G and poster Q posts a post that I identify as anti-G. It think P could then have hate for Q induced or stoked. Why? I guess in self-defense.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2014, at 18:22:13
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2014, at 19:56:25
> > > I thought a subset of Semitic posters could have hate induced, or stoked, if I identified a post as anti-Semitic. Is that what you mean?
> >
> > If you think that Jews and Islamic people would hate anyone if you posted a repudiation to {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, please state who those people could be and why, and then I will post my response to you.
>
> Say poster P is a member of group G and poster Q posts a post that I identify as anti-G. It think P could then have hate for Q induced or stoked. Why? I guess in self-defense.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
I asked for you to identify the subset of readers that are Jews or Islamic people that could have hate induced into them if you posted a repudiation to the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, and why they would have hate induced into them. Your answer is coded by you using a general example. Here is how your general example could be if we use {No non-Christin will enter heaven}as the anit-Semitic statement that you have not posted a repudiation to.
You say that P is a member of G
That could transpose in the example in question as that:
"P" is a member of those that are not Christians, as "G" in your general example for a group. They could be Jews or Islamic people or anyone else that has in their faith the agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian.
"Q", then, is a member here that posts the anti-_Semitic statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} and you do post a repudiation to that statement.
You say that P could then have hate for Q {if you posted a repudiation of the anti-Semitic statement}.
Now P could be Jews or Islamic people or the others that are non-Christians. And Q is the member that posted the anti-Semitic statement.
Your rationale for making that claim that Jews or Islamic people or the others is not based on any fact, but your {guess}, for you write, "I guess in self-defense". If you made that a claim of fact, you would be jumping to a conclusion unless there was substantiation of your claim.
I have the following grave concerns here and if you could post answers to my questions, then I could post my response to you.
True or false:
A. You will not post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement because if you do, the readers that are Jews could have hate induced into them toward the poster.
B. If so, what is your rationale for making that claim?
C. If you do not post a repudiation to the statement, would those Jews not have hatred induced into them toward the poster, and if so, why?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2014, at 8:56:54
In reply to ou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilderdiscussion-phalzrezun? » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 10, 2014, at 18:22:13
> A. You will not post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement because if you do, the readers that are Jews could have hate induced into them toward the poster.
True. And not just readers who are Jews.
> B. If so, what is your rationale for making that claim?
My rationale for thinking P could hate Q?
> C. If you do not post a repudiation to the statement, would those Jews not have hatred induced into them toward the poster, and if so, why?
They still might have hatred induced into them, for example, by the poster, or others, including you, but I wouldn't be stoking it, or inducing it myself.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2014, at 20:42:19
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2014, at 8:56:54
> > A. You will not post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement because if you do, the readers that are Jews could have hate induced into them toward the poster.
>
> True. And not just readers who are Jews.
>
> > B. If so, what is your rationale for making that claim?
>
> My rationale for thinking P could hate Q?
>
> > C. If you do not post a repudiation to the statement, would those Jews not have hatred induced into them toward the poster, and if so, why?
>
> They still might have hatred induced into them, for example, by the poster, or others, including you, but I wouldn't be stoking it, or inducing it myself.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that you would not post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, as you state that Jews and others could have hate induced into them toward the poster if you did. As your rationale is not stated, you ask if the rationale that you use to make that claim concerns P hating Q.
P is a member of the group, "G". The group is the set of people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven without being a Christian which includes Jews which makes that statement an anti-Semitic statement on the basis that it could lead readers to think that Judaism is inferior to Christianity and Jews could feel put down due to that you will not post a repudiation to it even though it is against your rules for that type of statement to be posted.
The overriding question that I have to you is what is your rationale for saying that if you did post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement, Jews and others could have hate induced into them toward the poster, and we are in discussion here about {P hating Q} if you post a repudiation to the statement in question. If you see that you can see something else other that P hating Q, please post what it is and your rationale for such.
You also state that you would not be stoking hatred toward the Jews by allowing the anti-Semitic statement to stand. Your TOS says otherwise unless we go over the following and find something that could mean you do not by leaving the anti-Semitic statement to stand:
True or false:
A. It will be good for this community as a whole for me to allow anitsemitic statements to stand, Lou so hatred toward the Jews could be stoked by me, Lou, by allowing it to stand.
B. Anti-semitic statements are supportive by me here, which could stoke that furnace of hatred toward the Jews and I will continue to allow those type of statements, Lou.
C. One match could start a forest fire, Lou, so the fire of hate toward the Jews and the others in,{ No non-Christian will enter heaven} could come from here because I am allowing it by not posting a repudiation to the statement in question and I will continue to allow analogous statements that insult Jews and Islamic people and others in the statement being allowed here.
D. My prohibitions to you here, Lou, keep you from posting a repudiation yourself to the statement.
E. As long as the anti-Semitic statement is allowed to stand by me here, Lou, readers could think that the statement is supportive because my TOS says that being supportive takes precedence and therefor hate could be stoked by me, Lou, and I will continue to allow it.
F. Propaganda against the Jews in the likeness of the statement in question will be allowed to be posted here, Lou, because I am allowing {No non-Christian will enter heaven} to stand, so a subset of readers could think that I am ratifying what the statement could purport, which could lead a subset of readers to have hatred induced into them toward the Jews, Lou, because I say that I do what in my thinking will be good for this community as a whole and for readers to try and trust me, Lou, as here that I am allowing the anti-Semitic statement to stand, Lou.
Never again
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2014, at 17:55:04
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-eevehy » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 11, 2014, at 20:42:19
> > > A. You will not post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement because if you do, the readers that are Jews could have hate induced into them toward the poster.
> >
> > True. And not just readers who are Jews.
> >
> > > B. If so, what is your rationale for making that claim?
> >
> > My rationale for thinking P could hate Q?
> >
> > > C. If you do not post a repudiation to the statement, would those Jews not have hatred induced into them toward the poster, and if so, why?
> >
> > They still might have hatred induced into them, for example, by the poster, or others, including you, but I wouldn't be stoking it, or inducing it myself.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote that you would not post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, as you state that Jews and others could have hate induced into them toward the poster if you did. As your rationale is not stated, you ask if the rationale that you use to make that claim concerns P hating Q.
> P is a member of the group, "G". The group is the set of people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven without being a Christian which includes Jews which makes that statement an anti-Semitic statement on the basis that it could lead readers to think that Judaism is inferior to Christianity and Jews could feel put down due to that you will not post a repudiation to it even though it is against your rules for that type of statement to be posted.
> The overriding question that I have to you is what is your rationale for saying that if you did post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement, Jews and others could have hate induced into them toward the poster, and we are in discussion here about {P hating Q} if you post a repudiation to the statement in question. If you see that you can see something else other that P hating Q, please post what it is and your rationale for such.
> You also state that you would not be stoking hatred toward the Jews by allowing the anti-Semitic statement to stand. Your TOS says otherwise unless we go over the following and find something that could mean you do not by leaving the anti-Semitic statement to stand:
> True or false:
> A. It will be good for this community as a whole for me to allow anitsemitic statements to stand, Lou so hatred toward the Jews could be stoked by me, Lou, by allowing it to stand.
> B. Anti-semitic statements are supportive by me here, which could stoke that furnace of hatred toward the Jews and I will continue to allow those type of statements, Lou.
> C. One match could start a forest fire, Lou, so the fire of hate toward the Jews and the others in,{ No non-Christian will enter heaven} could come from here because I am allowing it by not posting a repudiation to the statement in question and I will continue to allow analogous statements that insult Jews and Islamic people and others in the statement being allowed here.
> D. My prohibitions to you here, Lou, keep you from posting a repudiation yourself to the statement.
> E. As long as the anti-Semitic statement is allowed to stand by me here, Lou, readers could think that the statement is supportive because my TOS says that being supportive takes precedence and therefor hate could be stoked by me, Lou, and I will continue to allow it.
> F. Propaganda against the Jews in the likeness of the statement in question will be allowed to be posted here, Lou, because I am allowing {No non-Christian will enter heaven} to stand, so a subset of readers could think that I am ratifying what the statement could purport, which could lead a subset of readers to have hatred induced into them toward the Jews, Lou, because I say that I do what in my thinking will be good for this community as a whole and for readers to try and trust me, Lou, as here that I am allowing the anti-Semitic statement to stand, Lou.
> Never again
> Lou Pilder
>
Mr. Hsiung,
Your primary argument to allow the statement to have immunity to your sanctioning , {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, which is analogous to:
A. No Jew can enter heaven
B. Only Christians will enter heaven
and insults:
C. persons that has a faith that could allow them to enter heaven as not being a Christian,
is that readers such as Jews could have hate induced in them toward the poster of the anti-Semitic statement.
If you are wanting me to accept that reasoning, your request is denied. This is on the basis that if the statement was repudiated by you to the post in the thread where it appears, then readers could know that you and your deputies of record are not ratifying what the statement could purport as it is not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths. The evidence shows that statements that put down or accuse others are not immune to you sanctioning what is not in accordance with your rules here.
Since you have not explained further your reasoning as to what you base your claim that if you did sanction the statement Jews could have hate induced to the poster of the anti-Semitic statement, readers could think that you really can not substantiate your claim, for a subset of readers could think that any claim to allow the anti-Semitic statement could be irrational.
And worse, failure for you to do so deprives me to post my response to you so that readers could review your claim and see my response, which I am denied to post until you post your rationale for your claim.
A subset of readers could think that your contention misrepresents the goals of the forum, which is for support and education. For by you allowing the statement to stand, readers could think that it is supportive because your TOS here state that being supportive takes precedence. And you have also stated that putting down is not supportive.
Such an act by you could be seen by a subset of readers as that you are intentionally creating and developing anti-Semitic hate here. This has a basis on the fact that your TOS states that whatever is not sanctioned is supportive. The fact that a third-party posted the anti-Semitic statement, and you say that it is supportive because any post that is not sanctioned has its content to be not against your rules, could lead a subset of readers to think that you are designing and enabling and encouraging the posting of hatred toward the Jews and the others depicted in the statement. Readers could be seriously misled as long as the statement remains un repudiated by you.
This all could be a moot point if your conduct was neutral in respect to allowing others to post counter-arguments the poster's claim that readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating. But the site is loaded because you prohibitions to me deny me to post my own repudiation to the statement from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. That leads me to think that you are responsible for the statement just as if you posted it yourself. This could lead a subset of readers to think that your are stoking the furnace of hatred toward the Jews and the others because I am denied by you to post from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, which could be thought by a subset of readers to be inconsistent with sound mental-health practices because it could seen that you are ratifying the Christian perspective while denying the Jewish perspective as revealed to me. And anyway, not all Christian accept the claim in question. A subset of readers could think that this shows that you are playing a significant role in the creating and development of anti-Semitic hate that could spread like a forest fire.
Your rules are to provide protection to those that could feel hurt, and you have posted that you are sorry when one is hurt by what is in a post that puts down. Yet today, readers could think that it can not be said that you are neutral with respect to the claim that {No non-Christian will enter heaven} which could be seen as that you are effectively ratifying and adopting the hatred toward the Jews indicted by the claim in the statement by not posting a repudiation to it.
When a leader plays a significant role in the development of anti-Semitic propaganda, the historical record shows the tragic consequences that could come to the Jews.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 16, 2014, at 11:20:23
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-develp, posted by Lou Pilder on May 14, 2014, at 17:55:04
> > > C. If you do not post a repudiation to the statement, would those Jews not have hatred induced into them toward the poster, and if so, why?
> >
> > They still might have hatred induced into them, for example, by the poster, or others, including you, but I wouldn't be stoking it, or inducing it myself.
>
> If you see that you can see something else other that P hating Q, please post what it is and your rationale for such.Of course other outcomes are possible, too. For example, P could welcome a different point of view.
> You also state that you would not be stoking hatred toward the Jews by allowing the anti-Semitic statement to stand.
False, I said I wouldn't be stoking hatred *in* Jews.
> Your primary argument to allow the statement to have immunity ... is that readers such as Jews could have hate induced in them toward the poster of the anti-Semitic statement.
It wasn't immune to sanctioning. It was sanctioned indirectly.
> you have not explained further your reasoning as to what you base your claim that if you did sanction the statement Jews could have hate induced to the poster of the anti-Semitic statement
It could be in self-defense. If poster Q posts a post that I identify as anti-group G, then members of G could hate Q to ready themselves for an attack by Q.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 19, 2014, at 9:15:18
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on May 16, 2014, at 11:20:23
> > > > C. If you do not post a repudiation to the statement, would those Jews not have hatred induced into them toward the poster, and if so, why?
> > >
> > > They still might have hatred induced into them, for example, by the poster, or others, including you, but I wouldn't be stoking it, or inducing it myself.
> >
> > If you see that you can see something else other that P hating Q, please post what it is and your rationale for such.
>
> Of course other outcomes are possible, too. For example, P could welcome a different point of view.
>
> > You also state that you would not be stoking hatred toward the Jews by allowing the anti-Semitic statement to stand.
>
> False, I said I wouldn't be stoking hatred *in* Jews.
>
> > Your primary argument to allow the statement to have immunity ... is that readers such as Jews could have hate induced in them toward the poster of the anti-Semitic statement.
>
> It wasn't immune to sanctioning. It was sanctioned indirectly.
>
> > you have not explained further your reasoning as to what you base your claim that if you did sanction the statement Jews could have hate induced to the poster of the anti-Semitic statement
>
> It could be in self-defense. If poster Q posts a post that I identify as anti-group G, then members of G could hate Q to ready themselves for an attack by Q.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...It was sanctioned indirectly, (No non-Christian will enter heaven)...].
The statement in question, (No non-Christian will enter heaven), by you allowing it to be seen without a repudiation by you that is to the statement in the thread where it appears, could lead a subset of readers to think that your rules say that the statement it not against your rules, since it is not sanctioned. The fact that you say that you sanctioned it indirectly, does not annul the fact that the statement can be seen as not against your rules because in the thread where it is posted, you have not posted a repudiation to what the statement could purport. A sanction generally incudes that the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of the community and, that in this case, not to post what could put down those of other faiths as the rule that the statement in not in accordance with. The statement is anti-Jewish thought that a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies of record are ratifying the anti-Semitic thought in the statement, for Jews believe that they can enter heaven without being a Christian, and the insult to Judaism could be thought that you are validating what could put down Jews on the basis that the statement in not in accordance with your rule to not post what could put down those of other faiths. Judaism is not inferior to Christianity as the statement makes that claim as that the statement could be thought to be analogous to:
{ Only Christians will enter heaven } which is against your rules to post here.
Your rationale for allowing the statement to stand by what you say is *indirectly* sanctioning the statement by sanctioning a vulgar word by the poster, can be seen by a subset of readers to be considered to be a pretext by you to allow anti-Semitic damage to flourish in your site. The basis for that is that your TOS sates that not until one sees it can they know it. And in the sanction of the vulgar word, there is nothing in that sanction that has to do with the anti-Semitic statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, and one is not to jump to conclusions in your TOS, which I think one would have to do in order to accept your *indirect* sanction. This could lead a subset of readers to think that this site of yours is allowing a statement that could lead readers to think that Jews are an inferior race. And worse, if those readers see this discussion here, they could think that you and your deputies then are allowing Jews to be viewed here as people rejected from heaven because they are Jews and not Christians. That anti-Semitic thought has resulted in millions of Jewish children murdered because they were Jews.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2014, at 2:27:39
In reply to Lou' reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-'ihndyrk' » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on May 19, 2014, at 9:15:18
> The fact that you say that you sanctioned it indirectly, does not annul the fact that the statement can be seen as not against your rules
True, it doesn't.
> Your rationale for allowing the statement to stand by what you say is *indirectly* sanctioning the statement by sanctioning a vulgar word by the poster, can be seen by a subset of readers to be considered to be a pretext by you to allow anti-Semitic damage to flourish in your site.
True, it can be.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2014, at 17:42:13
In reply to Re: Lou's response-uhnpsean, posted by SLS on October 14, 2013, at 9:23:32
> > The intent is not an issue here, for I can not know one's intent when they post statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings. What is at issue here is that there could be harm to Jews inflicted by the statements here that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings...
>
> "Could" this and "could" that...
>
> These are your hypotheses for which you never demonstrate evidence of occurrence.
>
> Can you replace the word "could" with the word "does" in your posits of antisemitism. Do you know of anyone on Psycho-Babble who has been harmed by the posts you cite as promoting civic disharmony?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
As to your concern here, let us look at this article about hate groups and how anti-Semitism is fostered.
I am prevented from posting what I need to in order for your questions to be answered due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung, but in a discussion concerning this, I may be able to bring it out to you.
Lou
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/opinion/blee-hate-groups/index.html
Posted by SLS on May 23, 2014, at 20:54:18
In reply to Lou's reply-phozdr » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 23, 2014, at 17:42:13
Do you feel that hate is institutionalized on Psycho-Babble in the same way it is in the social groups described in the CNN article?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2014, at 13:28:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-phozdr » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on May 23, 2014, at 20:54:18
> Do you feel that hate is institutionalized on Psycho-Babble in the same way it is in the social groups described in the CNN article?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
Your question is as how this site, organized and administrated by Mr Hsiung and his deputies, is in some way like the hate groups described in the article from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/opinion/blee-hate-groups/index.html
When a group shapes racial hatred, it then is like what the author describes. This is done by teaching and persuading readers in a way that can lead to, as in this case, hatred toward the Jews. When that happens, the readers could tragically act out what they have been led to believe by the owner of the web site.
Hate groups against Jews are spawned when the site intentionally develops or contributes to anti-Jewish thought. In the case right now, the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, although just one of many anti-Semitic statements allowed to be seen as civil here and also will be good for this community as a whole as being allowed to stand without the owner posting a repudiation to the post where the statement appears in its thread, could lead to having a subset of readers think that the site is allowing degradation of the Jews, dehumanizing the Jews as the statement is analogous to:{Jews will not enter heaven or even, {only Christians will enter heaven}. The statement is a part of the foundation of hatred toward the Jews, as the statement puts down Jews as inferior to Christians.
By allowing the statement to be seen as that it will be good for this community as a whole as not having a repudiation posted to it in the thread where it appears, could induce other defamatory statements against the Jews, for Mr. Hsiung's rule is that if there is not a sanction to the post, then it is not against the rules by him, and a subset of readers could see that it is not sanctioned visibly, and not jump to a conclusion that because Mr. Hsiung sanctioned a vulgar word by the poster, then that constitutes a sanction to the post in question. They may be of the intellect that not until they see it can they know it, and the sanction that Mr. Hsiung says is a "indirect" sanction, can not be seen by them, for there is not an explanation in the thread where the statement appears to lead to that conclusion that Mr. Hsiung says sanctions the statement in question. The potentially offending word is separate from the put down of the Jews as can be seen in {No non-Christian can enter heaven}, for there is not mention of that in the "indirect" sanction by Mr. Hsiung that he is attempting other readers to accept here. This is important because {redacted by respondent}.
But be it as it may be, readers could see the statement as it can be seen, could lead other to think that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record are responsible for developing anti-Semitic hatred here as that Mr Hsiung not only states that he does what will be good for this community as a whole, but asks for readers to trust him at that. Now if Mr. Hsiung was neutral in respect to posting here, that could be different. But when the site is loaded against Jews, in particular but not limited to the fact that I am prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, which prevents me from posting a repudiation to the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, then readers could be persuaded in one way of thinking by not allowing readers to be informed by me from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. And it is so easy to persuade the uninformed. Its so easy.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on May 25, 2014, at 11:01:02
In reply to Lou's reply-itzpsoeezee » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on May 24, 2014, at 13:28:13
> > Do you feel that hate is institutionalized on Psycho-Babble in the same way it is in the social groups described in the CNN article?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> Your question is as how this site, organized and administrated by Mr Hsiung and his deputies, is in some way like the hate groups described in the article from CNN:
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/opinion/blee-hate-groups/index.html
> When a group shapes racial hatred, it then is like what the author describes. This is done by teaching and persuading readers in a way that can lead to, as in this case, hatred toward the Jews. When that happens, the readers could tragically act out what they have been led to believe by the owner of the web site.
> Hate groups against Jews are spawned when the site intentionally develops or contributes to anti-Jewish thought. In the case right now, the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, although just one of many anti-Semitic statements allowed to be seen as civil here and also will be good for this community as a whole as being allowed to stand without the owner posting a repudiation to the post where the statement appears in its thread, could lead to having a subset of readers think that the site is allowing degradation of the Jews, dehumanizing the Jews as the statement is analogous to:{Jews will not enter heaven or even, {only Christians will enter heaven}. The statement is a part of the foundation of hatred toward the Jews, as the statement puts down Jews as inferior to Christians.
> By allowing the statement to be seen as that it will be good for this community as a whole as not having a repudiation posted to it in the thread where it appears, could induce other defamatory statements against the Jews, for Mr. Hsiung's rule is that if there is not a sanction to the post, then it is not against the rules by him, and a subset of readers could see that it is not sanctioned visibly, and not jump to a conclusion that because Mr. Hsiung sanctioned a vulgar word by the poster, then that constitutes a sanction to the post in question. They may be of the intellect that not until they see it can they know it, and the sanction that Mr. Hsiung says is a "indirect" sanction, can not be seen by them, for there is not an explanation in the thread where the statement appears to lead to that conclusion that Mr. Hsiung says sanctions the statement in question. The potentially offending word is separate from the put down of the Jews as can be seen in {No non-Christian can enter heaven}, for there is not mention of that in the "indirect" sanction by Mr. Hsiung that he is attempting other readers to accept here. This is important because {redacted by respondent}.
> But be it as it may be, readers could see the statement as it can be seen, could lead other to think that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record are responsible for developing anti-Semitic hatred here as that Mr Hsiung not only states that he does what will be good for this community as a whole, but asks for readers to trust him at that. Now if Mr. Hsiung was neutral in respect to posting here, that could be different. But when the site is loaded against Jews, in particular but not limited to the fact that I am prohibited by Mr. Hsiung to post from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me, which prevents me from posting a repudiation to the statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, then readers could be persuaded in one way of thinking by not allowing readers to be informed by me from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me. And it is so easy to persuade the uninformed. Its so easy.
> Lou
>
Friends,
The statement in discussion, {No non-Christian will enter heaven}, that can be seen as being civil here and also that it will be good for this community as a whole to not have a repudiation posted to it in the thread where it appears, for that is what Mr. Hsiung's stated rationale for what he does here. But what rationale could be used by anyone to say that anti-Semitism in posts unsanctioned will be good for this community as a whole?
Now here is partial outline of some of the statements being also allowed to be posted here without a repudiation posted to it in the thread where the statement appears, which could lead readers to think that the anti-Semitic statements are not against Mr. Hsiung's rules here. And because those statements are allowed to stand, readers could think that not only are the anti-Jewish thoughts that the statements could purport are being validated and ratified by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record, but since not even one of the up to 6 deputies posted any objection there to the statements, that a subset of readers could think that a complicity as a design to humiliate and ridicule Jews could be the intention of Mr. Hsiung and those deputies that went along with leaving those statements to stand.
Lou
[ admin, 1046351 ]
Now when you use the search box at the end of the page here, look for the 1046351 in the colored strip URL, not in the subject line.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 5, 2014, at 23:12:04
Mr. Hsiung,
In regards to your reminder policy, there are an additional 7 outstanding notifications from me.
Now you say that it will be good for this community as a whole if you do not respond to my requests to you here that are outstanding. But I say to you, that I have never seen good come from discrimination, for discrimination is an abuse of power. And what can be seen is plainly visible. And a subset of readers could think that the good that you are thinking that will come to this community as a whole is that the un responded to requests to you from me that could be concerning the allowing of anti-Semitic statements to be seen as civil here, could foster and encourage the thinking that anti-Semitism is supportive, for you say that support takes precedence and unsanctioned posts could mean that what is there in those posts is civil and supportive.
Time will be the judge as to if what you are doing is good for this community as a whole. And I say to you that greater men than you have ignored the voice of a Jew pleading to have anti-Semitism stopped in their community. The tragic consequences can not be ignored from then or here now.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2014, at 1:52:14
In reply to Lou's reminder to Mr. Hsiung and his deputy-psehvn, posted by Lou Pilder on June 5, 2014, at 23:12:04
> In regards to your reminder policy, there are an additional 7 outstanding notifications from me.
Could you choose one for me to start with?
> Time will be the judge as to if what you are doing is good for this community as a whole.
I appreciate your unending efforts to do what you see as good for this community,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 8, 2014, at 11:43:37
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2014, at 1:52:14
> > In regards to your reminder policy, there are an additional 7 outstanding notifications from me.
>
> Could you choose one for me to start with?
>
> > Time will be the judge as to if what you are doing is good for this community as a whole.
>
> I appreciate your unending efforts to do what you see as good for this community,
>
> Bob
>Mr.Hsiung,
You wrote,[...could you choose one for me to start with?...]
There are years of outstanding notifications from me. The reminder from me to you about the 7 most recent outstanding notifications can be responded to by you in any order that you choose. If you are asking about if there are other outstanding notifications that you would address outside of the recent 7, then so state and I will make a list. But be it as it may be, the recent 7 could be a start for you to address all of the outstanding notifications from me.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2014, at 22:20:28
In reply to The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-uchuz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 8, 2014, at 11:43:37
> There are years of outstanding notifications from me. The reminder from me to you about the 7 most recent outstanding notifications can be responded to by you in any order that you choose.
I'd prefer for you to choose, thanks,
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2014, at 6:35:53
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2014, at 22:20:28
> > There are years of outstanding notifications from me. The reminder from me to you about the 7 most recent outstanding notifications can be responded to by you in any order that you choose.
>
> I'd prefer for you to choose, thanks,
>
> Bob
Mr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...you..choose...(the posts that you, Lou, want me to address)...].
The privilege of posting here the statements that have gone un responded by you and your deputies of record imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs that I seek to condemn and to have notated by you as against your rules here, could be seen by a subset of readers as being so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that a subset of readers could not tolerate them being ignored because they could cause a repeating of racial hatred that the world can not allow to be resurrected. If I was to allow you and your deputies of record to continue to ignore my pleas to you to sanction the statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, or lead a Jew to feel put down/accused, then this site could renew the strength of hatred toward the Jews and gratify hatreds toward those marked as scapegoats.
The statements in question can give readers the idea that you and your deputies of record ratify that there is the master religion, which implies serfdom to others including the Jews. The statement {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is just one of many that can allow the fruits of sinister forces to flourish from here.
How can we ignore, year after year, what the record here shows. This just did not happen. A subset of readers could see that the allowing of statements that could induce hatred toward the Jews and others is a calculated plan with you and your deputies of record acting in concert.
It is not too late to influence the tragic course of events that could come from the anti-Semitic statements that I denounce being allowed to be seen as supportive by you.
Let there be no misunderstanding. A subset of readers could see that there is a continuous plan and design that allows anti-Semitism here to be seen as being promoted by you and your deputies of record that could result in mass- violence toward Jews.
And here is the first post that you ask for. It brings out the allowing of the humiliating tactic of "scapegoating" as I am the subject person in the post. And I say with shame, that a community here allows me to be progressively devalued and seen in open ridicule as a scapegoat for the person's real or imagined ills. The use of scapegoating in a mental-health community being allowed turns my stomach. By such means, defamation could be incited and directed against me.
I am asking that you take this opportunity to post to the post in question identifying the statement that is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and that your rule to not post what could lead someone to feel put down or accused is what is at issue.
Lou Pilder
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1031618.html
Posted by 10derheart on June 12, 2014, at 20:10:20
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-scpgt » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2014, at 6:35:53
...that you sure are amazingly consistent, Lou Pilder. You never waver from your habit of periodically posting vile things about Dr. Bob and me and other former deputies revolving around imagined anti-Semitism.
Thanks for being so reliable in never stopping your thinly veiled, outrageous accusations...which really aren't veiled at all, come to think of it. It just makes me feel so comfy, warm and at home here. So very supported and respected, too.
Do you think prefacing your unfounded, evil, nastiness with some sort of disclaimers like, "A subset of readers could see..." or "...can give readers the idea..." fools anyone? please.
It's sad that Dr. Bob allows this. Really disappointing to the nth degree.
The only difference between the two statements:
"I feel Dr. Bob has gone too far" (standard example of a non-I-statement) in the FAQ
and
"a subset of readers could see that the allowing of statements that could induce hatred toward the Jews and others is a calculated plan with you and your deputies of record acting in concert"
is that the former is a mild, mild, statement - technically uncivil under the "old" rules but hardly very offensive to Dr. Bob - and the latter is a false, libelous allegation of the worst kind. Your allegations of this type make you the poster man for incivility.
And **you** worry about being defamed or scapegoated here? That's damn funny.
Have you submitted your "evidence" of our dangerous conspiracies against Jewish people on PB to the ADL yet? Why haven't they gone to the media about these horrible things "Dr. Bob and his deputies" did here? When will you get them to expose our awful crimes?
Well, I could go on and on, but I'd better get back to my nefarious doings before some Jewish posters on Babble feel that one day has gone by without Dr. Bob and me/us fomenting racial hatred against them...
...oh, wait...ALL the days, EVERY SINGLE DAY BABBLE HAS EVER EXISTED has already gone by without Dr. Bob, me, or any other former or current deputies doing that.
Did you know it begins to hurt the muscles in the back of the eyeballs when one has to roll their eyes so often?
Lou = A. Piece. Of. Work.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2014, at 20:58:13
In reply to A subset of readers could see.... » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on June 12, 2014, at 20:10:20
> ...that you sure are amazingly consistent, Lou Pilder. You never waver from your habit of periodically posting vile things about Dr. Bob and me and other former deputies revolving around imagined anti-Semitism.
>
> Thanks for being so reliable in never stopping your thinly veiled, outrageous accusations...which really aren't veiled at all, come to think of it. It just makes me feel so comfy, warm and at home here. So very supported and respected, too.
>
> Do you think prefacing your unfounded, evil, nastiness with some sort of disclaimers like, "A subset of readers could see..." or "...can give readers the idea..." fools anyone? please.
>
> It's sad that Dr. Bob allows this. Really disappointing to the nth degree.
>
> The only difference between the two statements:
>
> "I feel Dr. Bob has gone too far" (standard example of a non-I-statement) in the FAQ
>
> and
>
> "a subset of readers could see that the allowing of statements that could induce hatred toward the Jews and others is a calculated plan with you and your deputies of record acting in concert"
>
> is that the former is a mild, mild, statement - technically uncivil under the "old" rules but hardly very offensive to Dr. Bob - and the latter is a false, libelous allegation of the worst kind. Your allegations of this type make you the poster man for incivility.
>
> And **you** worry about being defamed or scapegoated here? That's damn funny.
>
> Have you submitted your "evidence" of our dangerous conspiracies against Jewish people on PB to the ADL yet? Why haven't they gone to the media about these horrible things "Dr. Bob and his deputies" did here? When will you get them to expose our awful crimes?
>
> Well, I could go on and on, but I'd better get back to my nefarious doings before some Jewish posters on Babble feel that one day has gone by without Dr. Bob and me/us fomenting racial hatred against them...
>
> ...oh, wait...ALL the days, EVERY SINGLE DAY BABBLE HAS EVER EXISTED has already gone by without Dr. Bob, me, or any other former or current deputies doing that.
>
> Did you know it begins to hurt the muscles in the back of the eyeballs when one has to roll their eyes so often?
>
> Lou = A. Piece. Of. Work.
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...You never waiver..posting..revolving around imagined anti-Semitism...].
A subset of readers could see what is plainly visible here. This is because the rule here is not until one sees it can they know it.
Lou
.
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.