![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 43. Go back in thread:
Posted by Wendy B. on September 5, 2001, at 9:35:47
In reply to Re: Religion and the Board, posted by Dr. Bob on September 5, 2001, at 1:38:53
> Well, I don't think that's what he said,no, he didn't, it is my interpretation, though, of what he said about his evangelical brand of christianity... all evangelicals feel it's their calling to call others unto the religion, *as i understand it*.
>but if that were the case for someone, then I think my position would be that this wasn't the board for them.
maybe it would be a board for them, but like everyone else, they would have to be careful not to offend.
> > I am interested in civil rights, freedom of speech, etc.
>
> The civility section of the FAQ says, "your freedom of speech is limited here":
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
ok, i read it (again, sorry, i'd forgotten it was addressed on the FAQ pg.). personally, i think it's a little vague, but i guess this is on purpose, so you can censure those who break the rules of civility... management has its crosses to bear (no pun intended, that just came out!).hope london is still wonderful, i had a great time there. i know what you mean about the escalators. in general, the brits are much more concerned with polite behavior than americans are. it's very refreshing...
wendy
Posted by Simcha on September 5, 2001, at 13:38:19
In reply to Re: Religion and the Board Civil rights » Dr. Bob, posted by Wendy B. on September 4, 2001, at 22:48:54
Wendy,
If we are going Federal here then I have a right not to be preached to. Here he has a captive audience, so to speak. I for one will participate less here if I must read religious preaching in here. I have a right not to be harrassed. I have freedom of religion too. My religion does not have a problem with how I live my life. I am free to practice my religion here too without harrassment.
I know that the Feds do not have a nondiscrimination law that includes homosexuals. Chicago and Cook County do have such an ordinance and this board is administered there. Also I'm reading this in Davenport, Iowa. We have a similar ordinance here.
Therefore if Sal is allowed to harrass me with his condemnations and talk that I am going to Hell because of my G-d given sexual orientation then he is breaking the laws of where this board is founded and administered and where I read this.
Respectfully Yours,
Simcha.
> Sorry, but I disagree. Sal's version of Christianity says that *promotion* of the Gospel, as you call it, is what is required of him by his God. Please understand, I am not a practicing christian, but I am interested in civil rights, freedom of speech, etc. Dr. Bob, have you ever made a statement about civil rights, and whether the Board follows those principles (U.S. federal law)? Or since it is a private board, do other rules apply. I am curious, and not baiting or trying to cause disagreement... >
Posted by JahL on September 5, 2001, at 16:28:04
In reply to Re: Religion and the Board, posted by Dr. Bob on September 5, 2001, at 1:38:53
> > Sorry, but I disagree. Sal's version of Christianity says that *promotion* of the Gospel, as you call it, is what is required of him by his God.
>
> Well, I don't think that's what he said, but if that were the case for someone, then I think my position would be that this wasn't the board for them.And that's just the point. Some of us seem to have lost sight of *why* this site exists (ie NOT for the promotion of Christianity or any other religion for that matter).
Fact is Sal has *chosen*, of his own free will to follow a "version of Christianity" whose promotional tactics would appear to be at odds with board policy. His choice; he wasn't born Sally Army.
Were I a follower of say Timothy Leary would it be OK to advocate use of LSD here? Thought not.
J.
Posted by Cam W. on September 5, 2001, at 17:13:06
In reply to Re: Religion and the Board, posted by JahL on September 5, 2001, at 16:28:04
> Were I a follower of say Timothy Leary would it be OK to advocate use of LSD here? Thought not.
>
> J.LOL - Tune In, Turn On, and Drop Out....
...or Take In, Twirl Around, and Fall DownBTW - Tim really ruined it for everyone. - Cam
Posted by Wendy B. on September 5, 2001, at 20:39:11
In reply to Re: Religion and the Board Civil rights » Wendy B., posted by Simcha on September 5, 2001, at 13:38:19
> Wendy,
>
> If we are going Federal here then I have a right not to be preached to. Here he has a captive audience, so to speak. I for one will participate less here if I must read religious preaching in here. I have a right not to be harrassed. I have freedom of religion too. My religion does not have a problem with how I live my life. I am free to practice my religion here too without harrassment.
>
> I know that the Feds do not have a nondiscrimination law that includes homosexuals. Chicago and Cook County do have such an ordinance and this board is administered there. Also I'm reading this in Davenport, Iowa. We have a similar ordinance here.
>
> Therefore if Sal is allowed to harrass me with his condemnations and talk that I am going to Hell because of my G-d given sexual orientation then he is breaking the laws of where this board is founded and administered and where I read this.
>
> Respectfully Yours,
> Simcha.dear simcha:
just to set the record straight:
i couldn't disagree more strongly with Sal's condemnation of gays. he is way out of line. dr. bob should make it clear, and i think he has (? - not sure it's enough), but my response to Sal is to laugh at the absurdity of it all. in other words, i know i am not going to hell and eternal damnation for my so-called sins, as someone like Sal might call certain behaviors of mine.for example, he wouldn't have liked my participation in a rally in upstate ny in 1981, when we celebrated the 10th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. we were posted in the front lobby of the local abortion clinic, and others of Sal's ilk stood outside the lobby on the sidewalk, in sub-zero temperatures and shouted 'baby-killers!' and other nonsense, holding signs with pictures of damaged fetuses. the irony was that they brought their children, dressed in thin coats and knee socks and no boots, and had their precious, non-aborted offspring pass out anti-abortion fliers to passing pedestrians. they thought nothing of their own children freezing to death while out there doing their parents' dirty work for them. for years, we escorted women into the clinic when the Randall Terry group harassed us and the patients out on the sidewalks, or chained themselves to the doors of the building. i believe the women seeking abortion advice or treatment had the right to not be harassed. but if Randall Terry wrote an editorial in the local paper, which he did regularly (as much as the paper allowed him to), i had the option of not reading it, just as you have that option here on the babble boards...
or are we just going to have to agree to disagree? :-]in my own view, one which i know is not necessarily shared by others, no matter what intolerant thing might be said to me, it doesn't change my behavior. i am not a victim. let him think his antiquated thoughts. it doesn't affect me or what i do.
however, if someone like Sal is *asked* what his opinions are, he will be sure to tell you. i think this happened re: same-sex marriages. didn't someone ask him point blank what he thought, and then when he replied, everybody went berserk... don't give him the forum, and we won't have to read such intolerant banter. i don't like any of the stuff he is spouting, but he will respond when asked.
my other point is, and i repeat the simple advice: we don't have to read his posts. we are NOT a 'captive audience,' as you call it. i am not captive to his words. i can choose to never look at any of his postings again. but we can't choose not to listen to someone in the street who is shouting obscenities, or baiting us about our sexual preferences. i do think it's different, and i do then think it's a civil rights issue. (however, dr bob has pointed out that the FAQ page tells us our civil rights are limited on the board, so there goes that issue...)
sorry for the long-winded reply. i respect your views very much, by the way, and wish no one ill will by expressing my views.
yours sincerely,
wendy
Posted by Cam W. on September 5, 2001, at 20:58:14
In reply to Re: Religion and the Board Civil rights » Simcha, posted by Wendy B. on September 5, 2001, at 20:39:11
(however, dr bob has pointed out that the FAQ page tells us our civil rights are limited on the board, so there goes that issue...). - wendy
...so that's why this place feels like Canada. - Cam
Posted by Wendy B. on September 5, 2001, at 21:04:32
In reply to Re: Religion and the Board » JahL, posted by Cam W. on September 5, 2001, at 17:13:06
>
> > Were I a follower of say Timothy Leary would it be OK to advocate use of LSD here? Thought not.
> >
> > J.JahL, are you kidding? there have been many posts advocating the supposed therapeutic use of many controlled substances... see the following thread for just one example of exactly that, called "let's do drugs."
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000401/msgs/28725.html
> LOL - Tune In, Turn On, and Drop Out....
> ...or Take In, Twirl Around, and Fall Down
>
> BTW - Tim really ruined it for everyone. - CamCam, see the above thread for your post saying that you had in fact yourself done research on the therapeutic use of LSD for a paper you had written in college...
just keepin' ya on the straight and narrow...
:-]
no offense intended,
wendy
Posted by JahL on September 5, 2001, at 21:36:39
In reply to Re: Religion Board, Jah Cam, posted by Wendy B. on September 5, 2001, at 21:04:32
>
> >
> > > Were I a follower of say Timothy Leary would it be OK to advocate use of LSD here? Thought not.
> > >
> > > J.
>
>
>
> JahL, are you kidding? there have been many posts advocating the supposed therapeutic use of many controlled substances... see the following thread for just one example of exactly that, called "let's do drugs."
>
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000401/msgs/28725.html< Sigh >
Noone in that thread *advocates* (illicit) drug-use. Noone suggests others go out & take drugs. If they did they'd get jumped on just like Sal has been.
Like Sal you seem to confuse discussion with promotion.Discussion of any *substance* that has (potential) 'therapeutic uses' has a place on this board. As has discussion of drug-abuse generally since it is so often a symptom of underlying mental illness, and often amounts to self-medication (& *PB* is a medication, not religion site after all).
Rgds,
J.
Posted by Shar on September 5, 2001, at 22:45:08
In reply to Re: Religion Board, Jah Cam, posted by JahL on September 5, 2001, at 21:36:39
Maybe we should ask dr. bob to make a board for those who want to talk about religion. Psycho-Religion, where it is stipulated that God exists and can heal all who will do x.
The x of course changes depending on the poster and/or his/her religion.
S
> >
> > >
> > > > Were I a follower of say Timothy Leary would it be OK to advocate use of LSD here? Thought not.
> > > >
> > > > J.
> >
> >
> >
> > JahL, are you kidding? there have been many posts advocating the supposed therapeutic use of many controlled substances... see the following thread for just one example of exactly that, called "let's do drugs."
> >
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000401/msgs/28725.html
>
> < Sigh >
> Noone in that thread *advocates* (illicit) drug-use. Noone suggests others go out & take drugs. If they did they'd get jumped on just like Sal has been.
> Like Sal you seem to confuse discussion with promotion.
>
> Discussion of any *substance* that has (potential) 'therapeutic uses' has a place on this board. As has discussion of drug-abuse generally since it is so often a symptom of underlying mental illness, and often amounts to self-medication (& *PB* is a medication, not religion site after all).
>
> Rgds,
> J.
Posted by Mitchell on September 5, 2001, at 23:43:26
In reply to Re: Religion Board, Jah Cam, posted by JahL on September 5, 2001, at 21:36:39
Two distinct views of advocacy seem to evolve in this thread. In one view, recognition of merit is seen as advocacy. In another, advocacy begins at the level of recommendation. Some would prohibit an assertion that "God is good," and especially would prohibit an assertion that a good god hates some people. Another view would allow "God is good," but might disallow the statement "You should beleive God is good." One says "I believe this to be true..." the other says "I believe you should..."
Dr. Bob hinted in a recent thread that he is contemplating role of motivational language in his limitations of the board.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1888.html
There, he hints that "promotional" speech is innappropriate in this setting. In the FAQ on civility, posted sometime this summer, he now says "Please don't ... put pressure on others."
Of course, determining what is promotional can be complicated. If promotional speech were regulated here as strictly as it is in sponsorship messages of U.S. public broadcasting outlets, it would not be permissible here to say "You should try Prozak." Acceptible statements could include "I tried Prozak and it worked for me," or "many people have tried Prozak and it helped them." But that is not the rule that is in place here, at least not at this time.
In the "Let's take drugs" thread mentioned in this thread, one person says "I smoke cannibas," and others advocate research into benefical effects of some illegal drugs. That could be considered promotional, too. In general, pressure, promotion, ridicule and accusations have been tolerated at this site as long as they are not directed at other people who post at the site. The real rub with this religious discussion, for many people, seems to be that it is perceived as an indirect attack on the traits of some people on the board. If it were a discussion of Bhuddism, it might not be so offensive to so many people. If we were all united against some common enemy, maybe a civilization from space, as Pres. Reagan said, intollerence toward an accepted enemy would probably not raise any questions, (except from a few peace-niks).
For whatever reason, the board administrator has favored, by the design of the front page and by other means, a focus on pharmaceuticals. That is fair enough, all discussions need to be focused. Another set of rules could be drawn more narrowly, allowing only a focus on legal doctor-prescribed drugs, though such a focus would tend to hamper an intelligent discussion of co-morbid substance and psychiatric problems. But when the discussion expands beyond the focus of psychopharmaceuticals, and approaches the vague concept of human rights - which is what we are really talking about here, human rights not civil rights, the boundaries become vague. But then violations of human rights might account for a major proportion of whatever cognitive components underly mental diseases in our population. If we cower from the discussion, defense and advance of human rights, there will never be enough psyhciatric drugs manufactured to cure all the ails that will continue to afflict our species.
Do I have a recomendation, regarding religion and drugs on a medicine board? Far be it from me... there's a war going on - a war on drugs. My lips are sealed. I'm just sharing my observations.
Posted by SalArmy4me on September 6, 2001, at 0:21:16
In reply to Maybe Psycho-Religion Board?, posted by Shar on September 5, 2001, at 22:45:08
I thought segregation was outlawed years ago. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHH
Posted by Cam W. on September 6, 2001, at 1:25:22
In reply to Re: Maybe Psycho-Religion Board? » Shar, posted by SalArmy4me on September 6, 2001, at 0:21:16
> I thought segregation was outlawed years ago. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHH
Bob - I suggest that you collect all of the SalArmy4Me postings from the last month and print them off. When you have time, read each of them though, in a chronological order.
Afterward, I'd like to hear any professional comments you may have. - Cam
Posted by Willow on September 6, 2001, at 7:23:13
In reply to Re: Maybe Psycho-Religion Board? Dr.Bob?, posted by Cam W. on September 6, 2001, at 1:25:22
> Afterward, I'd like to hear any professional comments you may have. -
Cam
I think the boss would need to pay for a consult in order to get a professional opinion.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
100% CANUCK
ps did you know when god made man she was joking
Posted by Wendy B. on September 6, 2001, at 7:29:23
In reply to Re: Religion Board, Jah Cam, posted by JahL on September 5, 2001, at 21:36:39
> >
> > >
> > > > Were I a follower of say Timothy Leary would it be OK to advocate use of LSD here? Thought not.
> > > >
> > > > J.
> >
> >
> >
> > JahL, are you kidding? there have been many posts advocating the supposed therapeutic use of many controlled substances... see the following thread for just one example of exactly that, called "let's do drugs."
> >
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000401/msgs/28725.html
>
> < Sigh >
> Noone in that thread *advocates* (illicit) drug-use. Noone suggests others go out & take drugs. If they did they'd get jumped on just like Sal has been.
> Like Sal you seem to confuse discussion with promotion.
>
> Discussion of any *substance* that has (potential) 'therapeutic uses' has a place on this board. As has discussion of drug-abuse generally since it is so often a symptom of underlying mental illness, and often amounts to self-medication (& *PB* is a medication, not religion site after all).
>
> Rgds,
> J.Well, Jah, sigh all you want to, but having done a lot of reading and writing for a living, my reading of some of those posts on that link (and many others) leads me to believe that some are in fact advocating 'going out and taking drugs.' I'm not making it up...
Also, I do know the difference between discussion and promotion, thanks very much. I actually used the word 'advocating', and that's also different from 'promotion.' Just because I disgree with accepted wisdom on a couple of issues does not mean that I in any way support Sal's views...
Best,
Wendy
Posted by JahL on September 6, 2001, at 8:33:30
In reply to Re: Religion Board » JahL, posted by Wendy B. on September 6, 2001, at 7:29:23
> Well, Jah, sigh all you want to, but having done a lot of reading and writing for a living, my reading of some of those posts on that link (and many others) leads me to believe that some are in fact advocating 'going out and taking drugs.' I'm not making it up...
My Leary remark was off-the-cuff & meant little. The fact that your argument now concentrates upon this demonstrates to me how weak yr original argument was. I have better things to do than pointlessly trawl thru the archives.
> Also, I do know the difference between discussion and promotion, thanks very much. I actually used the word 'advocating', and that's also different from 'promotion.'
How different? In my dictionary 'advocate' is defined thus: "To speak in favour of; recommend." Isn't this how one promotes? Indeed, definition 3 of 'promote' is 'advocate'.
Anyway, time to finish this non-argument.
Rgds,
J.
Posted by sar on September 6, 2001, at 8:37:10
In reply to Re: Maybe Psycho-Religion Board? Dr.Bob?, posted by Willow on September 6, 2001, at 7:23:13
dear Willow,
thanks for a good buzzed guffaw at 8:30 in the morn.
the HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHHH part really set me off--
sar
> > Afterward, I'd like to hear any professional comments you may have. -
>
> Cam
>
> I think the boss would need to pay for a consult in order to get a professional opinion.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>
> 100% CANUCK
>
> ps did you know when god made man she was joking
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 6, 2001, at 10:49:41
In reply to Re: Maybe Psycho-Religion Board? Dr.Bob? » Willow, posted by sar on September 6, 2001, at 8:37:10
individuals pitting against individuals. we've had philiosophical arguments on social babble, why not religious ones? but it's called a debate, not a fight, for a reason.
surely other sites do this. why can't we?
(sorry, know this needs to be redirected to social, but some parties here don't seem to go there...)
- K.
Posted by Zo on September 6, 2001, at 15:46:52
In reply to Re: Maybe Psycho-Religion Board? » Shar, posted by SalArmy4me on September 6, 2001, at 0:21:16
Posted by Shar on September 6, 2001, at 23:58:23
In reply to Geez...it's turning into a real pitty party..., posted by Krazy Kat on September 6, 2001, at 10:49:41
Is the 'pitty party' used to mean 'pitting against individuals' or pitty misspelled meaning pity?
In case it means the last, I think the phrase 'pity party' or 'pity pot' should be made against the law.
S
> individuals pitting against individuals. we've had philiosophical arguments on social babble, why not religious ones? but it's called a debate, not a fight, for a reason.
>
> surely other sites do this. why can't we?
>
> (sorry, know this needs to be redirected to social, but some parties here don't seem to go there...)
>
> - K.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2001, at 8:17:09
In reply to Re: Religion Board, posted by JahL on September 6, 2001, at 8:33:30
> we were posted in the front lobby of the local abortion clinic, and others of Sal's ilk stood outside the lobby on the sidewalk...
> wendyPlease, was it necessary, or even accurate, to link him to them?
> My Leary remark was off-the-cuff & meant little. The fact that your argument now concentrates upon this demonstrates to me how weak yr original argument was...
> J.Please, it isn't constructive to refer to what someone else says as weak. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2001, at 8:18:15
In reply to Maybe Psycho-Religion Board?, posted by Shar on September 5, 2001, at 22:45:08
> Maybe we should ask dr. bob to make a board for those who want to talk about religion.
Like I don't have enough to worry about already? :-)
Bob
Posted by Wendy B. on September 7, 2001, at 9:25:17
In reply to Re: please be civil » Wendy B., JahL, posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2001, at 8:17:09
>
> Please, was it necessary, or even accurate, to link him to them?
Dear P-babble community & Dr. Bob,
I don't want to be difficult, and I accept the warning. But I do stand by what I said... However, I will refrain from this thread and its topic in the future.
Sincerely,
Wendy
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 8, 2001, at 17:12:35
In reply to Re: Geez...it's turning into a real pitty party..., posted by Shar on September 6, 2001, at 23:58:23
It was meant as a turn on the phrase "pity party" which I'm sure we've all heard many times before - "I'm so tired of your pity party" - when in a depression, etc.
I just meant to point out that folks are bound to have differing beliefs on this site and we can't take things too personally. I am included in those folks.
I wish this would move to social babble and a 'sensible' debate would get going. Otherwise, I wish it would go away.
Posted by Elizabeth on September 15, 2001, at 17:32:33
In reply to Re: Religion and the Board, posted by JahL on September 5, 2001, at 16:28:04
> Were I a follower of say Timothy Leary would it be OK to advocate use of LSD here? Thought not.
At least it'd be topical (psychopharmacology). I have trouble with the idea of censoring topical posts on the grounds that they express politically unpopular ideas.
-e
Posted by Elizabeth on September 15, 2001, at 18:02:04
In reply to Re: Religion and the Board » Dr. Bob, posted by Wendy B. on September 5, 2001, at 9:35:47
Replies to a couple of your posts:
> no, he didn't, it is my interpretation, though, of what he said about his evangelical brand of christianity... all evangelicals feel it's their calling to call others unto the religion, *as i understand it*.
Have you ever heard the expression, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?" It applies here.
and from another post:
> JahL, are you kidding? there have been many posts advocating the supposed therapeutic use of many controlled substances... see the following thread for just one example of exactly that, called "let's do drugs."It was a discussion of self-medication, and completely on-topic IMO. There was no recommendation that people buy drugs illegally; the author was asking for book recommendations. There's nothing illegal about writing or reading scientific information about illegal drugs.
The title of that thread appears to be tongue-in-cheek. Although I can't read the author's mind, it seems pretty obvious to me that he wasn't suggesting that anyone go out and illegally buy street drugs.
You should be aware that a lot of the drugs that are FDA-approved for the treatment of mental illnesses, or are used off-label with good results, are in fact "controlled substances." There have been a number of on-topic, reasonable posts in which people have spoken favourably about some of these controlled substances (for example, the efficacy and mild side-effect profile of benzodiazepines compared with antidepressants for anxiety).
And yes, to answer a question posed in the post you cited, it is thought that some (perhaps most) people who use or abuse alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc. are self-medicating. These drugs are effective for certain conditions (social phobia, panic disorder, ADD, depression) but safer alternatives are available (such as benzodiazepines, amphetamines and similar stimulants, and opioid partial agonists).
Religious proselytising is not on-topic by a long shot. IMHO, it's also kind of tacky.
-elizabeth
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.