![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 13, 2005, at 7:49:08
In this post http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/577960.html lil' jimi was blocked for two weeks for posting a quoted article which stated:
" Anyone who advocates the use of torture or inhumane treatment for any reason should be viewed with contempt. "Bob - I know you don't want posters to put down others, but doesn't this stop at any point? Are we not allowed to say that torture is a bad thing? Are we allowed to say encouraging seriel murder is a bad? What about child sexual abuse? Can I post something that says, "supporting men in their efforts to sexually abuse children is wrong"? Or is that putting down child sex offenders? I'm not being sarcastic...I really want to know.
emmy
Posted by verne on November 13, 2005, at 9:29:37
In reply to Question about lil' jimi's 2 week block, posted by TofuEmmy on November 13, 2005, at 7:49:08
We can say torture and inhumane treatment are wrong. The rub may be in saying, "Anyone who advocates xy or z for any reason should be viewed with contempt."
This issue isn't black and white. There's a debate, even in government, about what sort of prisoner treatment should be allowed in extreme situations. Somehow these discussions need to remain civil and each side respect the other's point of view.
It would be better to talk about what a good thing humane treatment and not torturing others is, rather than speak negatively about those with opposing views - no matter how extreme.
Verne
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2005, at 12:57:20
In reply to Re: Question about lil' jimi's 2 week block » TofuEmmy, posted by verne on November 13, 2005, at 9:29:37
Posted by zeugma on November 13, 2005, at 14:15:52
In reply to Re: Question about lil' jimi's 2 week block » TofuEmmy, posted by verne on November 13, 2005, at 9:29:37
> We can say torture and inhumane treatment are wrong. The rub may be in saying, "Anyone who advocates xy or z for any reason should be viewed with contempt."
>
> This issue isn't black and white. There's a debate, even in government, about what sort of prisoner treatment should be allowed in extreme situations. Somehow these discussions need to remain civil and each side respect the other's point of view.
>> It would be better to talk about what a good thing humane treatment and not torturing others is, rather than speak negatively about those with opposing views - no matter how extreme.
>Humane treatment is essential to protecting our soldiers in the field, as well as clandestine agents who are captured. Humane treatment sets an example for the rest of the world that there is a clear moral distinction between terrorist acts and actions taken by a government which respects its own, and international, laws. Humane treatment is beneficial for every member of the world community, inasmuch as anyone might be falsely accused of being a terrorist and wind up in Guantamono Bay or other such facility operated by the United States.
On another note, historically, intelligence breakthroughs (such as the British cracking of the German Enigma code during WWII) have been gained by the ingenuity of members of the intelligence community, not by information obtained by torture.
There is much, much more to say, but it necessarily involves criticism of leaders, so I will refrain.
-z
> Verne
>
>
>
>
Posted by zeugma on November 13, 2005, at 14:45:49
In reply to Re: Question about lil' jimi's 2 week block » verne, posted by zeugma on November 13, 2005, at 14:15:52
the crux of the issues debated on Politics and which resulted in blocks is simply that of honesty: were people systematically lied to? Are people still evading questions about torture and other matters, and are these evasions damaging America's moral standing? Are they also damaging from a strategic perspective? (If the latter, they raise serious issues of competency as well as of morality. Both are clearly necessary in operating a government that is to retain the trust of its people.)
The American Psychiatric Association has officially endorsed McCain's proposal to ban torture and forbidden any health professional from engaging in acts inconsistent with McCain's proposal.
I don't know how much more black and white it can get. If this board were in operation during the Watergate hearings, would discussion of Nixon's culpability be forbidden? If this board were in operation in 1933, would anyone predicting Hitler's coming atrocities be summarily blocked?
-z
Posted by 10derHeart on November 13, 2005, at 18:06:04
In reply to crux, posted by zeugma on November 13, 2005, at 14:45:49
Hi z,
just my 2 cents (probably worth about 1/4 cent these days)...
I appreciate and read your thought-provoking posts quite often. But in this case, I don't see Dr. Bob "forbidding discussions" on Babble.
I think asking posters to follow civility rules, albeit ones that seem very strict at times, actually allows more discussion and probably saves many more posters from being blocked at all.
As for "summarily blocking" people, well, yes, he does it quickly and informally, which doesn't seem inherently bad to me, particularly in this type of online, close-to-real time forum. I mean, I wouldn't want to see a blocking process that is dragged out until it becomes useless and/or meaningless. And again, I don't notice him doing it because of the nature or substance of the discussion, but because of uncivil language or negative expressions and descriptions aimed at groups that may disagree with the poster. I realize others strongly disagree with my take on that.
I'm not saying - by a long shot - that I personally agree with each block - on politics or elsewhere. This far from the truth. Like other posters, some blocks have baffled me. Those have been addressed here in the past - exhaustively and extensively.
I'm questioning whether recent blocks are really being given all that (too?) quickly and discussions not being permitted at all. I'm just not seeing that.
peace.... 10derHeart
Posted by TofuEmmy on November 13, 2005, at 18:31:50
In reply to Re: I agree, thanks! (nm) » verne, posted by Dr. Bob on November 13, 2005, at 12:57:20
Can I post something that says, "supporting men in their efforts to sexually abuse children is wrong"? Or is that putting down child sex offender supporters and therefore uncivil?
emmy
Posted by henrietta on November 13, 2005, at 19:45:15
In reply to Re: Question about lil' jimi's 2 week block » verne, posted by zeugma on November 13, 2005, at 14:15:52
I agree. Thanks!!
Posted by Jakeman on November 14, 2005, at 20:04:14
In reply to Re: Question about lil' jimi's 2 week block » TofuEmmy, posted by verne on November 13, 2005, at 9:29:37
> We can say torture and inhumane treatment are wrong. The rub may be in saying, "Anyone who advocates xy or z for any reason should be viewed with contempt."
>
> This issue isn't black and white. There's a debate, even in government, about what sort of prisoner treatment should be allowed in extreme situations. Somehow these discussions need to remain civil and each side respect the other's point of view.
>
> It would be better to talk about what a good thing humane treatment and not torturing others is, rather than speak negatively about those with opposing views - no matter how extreme.
>
> Verne
>Verne,
In a small way I agree with your point and I credit Dr. Bob walking the rasor's edge on this issue. Torture, like slavery, is one of those practices that has received international condemnation and in my view has been decided by the world community and historians a long time ago to be unacceptable. And the US has initiated and signed accords which oppose it. Should we condemn those that do it, I think yes. Should we argue about it's permissiblity, I think no. What I find absolutely outrageous is that NOW we are suddenly discussing the rightness of torture. Yes, I do feel this issue IS BLACK AND WHITE. If it's not, then I am truly worried about the future of this country.
Verne, I think you are a great contributor to PB and appreciate your posts, but I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. I feel that sometimes we have to talk about the shadow it order to show the whole picture.
Besides, we all don't have to agree all the time. :-)
warm regards ~Jake
Posted by Jakeman on November 14, 2005, at 20:07:28
In reply to Re: Question about lil' jimi's 2 week block, posted by Jakeman on November 14, 2005, at 20:04:14
Forgot to direct my comment
> > We can say torture and inhumane treatment are wrong. The rub may be in saying, "Anyone who advocates xy or z for any reason should be viewed with contempt."
> >
> > This issue isn't black and white. There's a debate, even in government, about what sort of prisoner treatment should be allowed in extreme situations. Somehow these discussions need to remain civil and each side respect the other's point of view.
> >
> > It would be better to talk about what a good thing humane treatment and not torturing others is, rather than speak negatively about those with opposing views - no matter how extreme.
> >
> > Verne
> >
>
> Verne,
>
> In a small way I agree with your point and I credit Dr. Bob walking the rasor's edge on this issue. Torture, like slavery, is one of those practices that has received international condemnation and in my view has been decided by the world community and historians a long time ago to be unacceptable. And the US has initiated and signed accords which oppose it. Should we condemn those that do it, I think yes. Should we argue about it's permissiblity, I think no. What I find absolutely outrageous is that NOW we are suddenly discussing the rightness of torture. Yes, I do feel this issue IS BLACK AND WHITE. If it's not, then I am truly worried about the future of this country.
>
> Verne, I think you are a great contributor to PB and appreciate your posts, but I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. I feel that sometimes we have to talk about the shadow it order to show the whole picture.
>
> Besides, we all don't have to agree all the time. :-)
>
> warm regards ~Jake
Posted by verne on November 14, 2005, at 22:46:22
In reply to Re: Verne, torture, etc. » Jakeman, posted by Jakeman on November 14, 2005, at 20:07:28
When I said it's not "black and white", I'm not suggesting I condone torture or there's any room for doubt in my own mind, but only that there's enough gray area for discussion. That, in many circles, including the government, it's being debated. That, in some minds, at least, there's room for discussion. (The original topic also included inhumane treatment of prisoners)
Then the question becomes, how is this topic discussed civilly? Even though, we may not think there's anything to debate about, how do we talk about the unspeakable, if the discussion already exists?
We can say torture and inhumane treatment are wrong but what we can't say, is, anyone who disagrees with me should be "viewed with contempt". Such comments end any sort of civil discussion and don't really further our argument anyway.
What if we don't really see any room for discussion, that our side is wholly right, and their's, wholly wrong? And what we really want to do, is throw red dye on their fur coats, cut their tuna nets, or yell at them - not discuss the matter! Like hockey, psychobabble has rules - well, maybe hockey was a bad example.
We can say x, y and z are always bad in every way imaginable, we can describe our position at length, we can unmercifully win the argument with well-crafted wit, superior debating skills, and unrelenting logic, we can outquote and outreference them, but what we can't do, is attack those who disagree with us. We can't get personal.
This is the point I try to be making.
Verne
Posted by AuntieMel on November 15, 2005, at 9:22:16
In reply to Tree Frogs, Quilts, and Pine Cones » Jakeman, posted by verne on November 14, 2005, at 22:46:22
Point very well worded, I might add.
Posted by 10derHeart on November 15, 2005, at 13:49:50
In reply to Re: Tree Frogs, Quilts, and Pine Cones » verne, posted by AuntieMel on November 15, 2005, at 9:22:16
Yes, I totally agree. Verne has an excellent way with words.
Posted by verne on November 15, 2005, at 15:17:22
In reply to Re: Tree Frogs, Quilts, and Pine Cones » AuntieMel, posted by 10derHeart on November 15, 2005, at 13:49:50
Posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 21:22:51
In reply to Now I'm unadministratively blushing (nm), posted by verne on November 15, 2005, at 15:17:22
thanks for trying to help me out over on politics...
it just took a long while... for the point to sink in. and... well... sometimes i'm a little like that with things. they come, and seem obvious; then they go, and seem far from obvious.
sigh.
i'll get the hang of it one day...
:-)
Posted by verne on November 15, 2005, at 21:44:01
In reply to Re: yeah verne, you are good at this :-), posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 21:22:51
Hey Alexandra,
I'm sorry that I may have played a part in getting us both painted into a corner over on the politics board. If I can't beat a dead horse I like to find at least one corner I can paint myself into.
You may have cringed when I quoted the post that got you into trouble, and by quoting you, I kept it alive and seemed to contribute to even more difficulties.
I'm sorry. I can lay a trap with the best of them but I didn't mean to snare you. Actually, I'm a really poor trapper. I just like to feed and look at the critters and trap the odd metaphor.
Yet I feel guilty for amplifying what you had been asked to rephrase. I feel like I did more harm than good - unless, there's a greater good I'm probably not aware of.
I live to end sentences with "of".
Verne
Posted by alexandra_k on November 15, 2005, at 22:01:25
In reply to Who Me? » alexandra_k, posted by verne on November 15, 2005, at 21:44:01
> I'm sorry that...
?
You don't have to be sorry for anything. You were trying to help me. I appreciated (and still appreciate that).> You may have cringed when I quoted the post that got you into trouble...
Oh. No, that wasn't what I meant. What I meant with my comment was... That we should try not to repeat incivilities. But... I think that is a time when it is okay. When we are trying to see why it is uncivil. I was just teasing you was all.
> and by quoting you, I kept it alive and seemed to contribute to even more difficulties.
Nope. You don't have anything to be sorry for. I was doing a fairly good job of keeping it alive all by myself...
> I'm sorry. I can lay a trap with the best of them but I didn't mean to snare you.Thats okay.
I don't feel snared.
Though I do feel...
A little like I snared CrazyT
:-(
so I get what you mean...> I feel like I did more harm than good - unless, there's a greater good I'm probably not aware of.
Oh.
Well... You seem to have found a calling :-)
You are very good at explaining this...
And... What you said was correct. I just had a hard time seeing it... But I can be a little like that sometimes
<sigh>
But thats my stuff.:-)
Posted by Jakeman on November 15, 2005, at 22:54:02
In reply to Tree Frogs, Quilts, and Pine Cones » Jakeman, posted by verne on November 14, 2005, at 22:46:22
> When I said it's not "black and white", I'm not suggesting I condone torture or there's any room for doubt in my own mind, but only that there's enough gray area for discussion. That, in many circles, including the government, it's being debated. That, in some minds, at least, there's room for discussion. (The original topic also included inhumane treatment of prisoners)
>
> Then the question becomes, how is this topic discussed civilly? Even though, we may not think there's anything to debate about, how do we talk about the unspeakable, if the discussion already exists?
>
> We can say torture and inhumane treatment are wrong but what we can't say, is, anyone who disagrees with me should be "viewed with contempt". Such comments end any sort of civil discussion and don't really further our argument anyway.
>
> What if we don't really see any room for discussion, that our side is wholly right, and their's, wholly wrong? And what we really want to do, is throw red dye on their fur coats, cut their tuna nets, or yell at them - not discuss the matter! Like hockey, psychobabble has rules - well, maybe hockey was a bad example.
>
> We can say x, y and z are always bad in every way imaginable, we can describe our position at length, we can unmercifully win the argument with well-crafted wit, superior debating skills, and unrelenting logic, we can outquote and outreference them, but what we can't do, is attack those who disagree with us. We can't get personal.
>
> This is the point I try to be making.
>
> VerneIt was not my intention to cut off any discussion about the pros or cons of torture on this board. And I didn't make any derogatory personal statements toward others on this board. Let's talk, by all means! I want to hear all sides.
I was referring to policies advocated by some in our admistration. I DO think it is a is black and white issue for our government, and they are deciding it now. Are our reps in favor or not? We, (US citizens) are making a historic decision here that affects many people. It's one of those black and white questions of all time. Can one ask, where do you stand? Yes, by all means, let's discuss it here, civilly of course.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 16, 2005, at 1:55:15
In reply to Re: Torture, a clarification » verne, posted by Jakeman on November 15, 2005, at 22:54:02
> It was not my intention to cut off any discussion about the pros or cons of torture on this board.
How about if it's on Politics that it's not cut off? :-) Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/579224.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by lil' jimi on November 26, 2005, at 3:07:01
In reply to Question about lil' jimi's 2 week block, posted by TofuEmmy on November 13, 2005, at 7:49:08
hi emmy,
> In this post http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/577960.html lil' jimi was blocked for two weeks for posting a quoted article which stated:
>
>
> " Anyone who advocates the use of torture or inhumane treatment for any reason should be viewed with contempt. "
>
> Bob - I know you don't want posters to put down others, but doesn't this stop at any point? Are we not allowed to say that torture is a bad thing? Are we allowed to say encouraging seriel murder is a bad? What about child sexual abuse? Can I post something that says, "supporting men in their efforts to sexually abuse children is wrong"? Or is that putting down child sex offenders? I'm not being sarcastic...I really want to know.
>
> emmy
>i agree with dr. bob.
viewing torture with contempt is acceptable.
viewing torturers with contempt is not.
the civil challenge will be to bring the appropriate level of condemnation to the policies supporting the use of torture,
and to torture itself, for pete's sake,
while at the same time, not transgressing dr bob's "thou shall be civil" commandment against these would-be self-described torturers ...even they, along with any other putatively objectionable folks are not to be offended, nor to be made to feel put down nor degraded by what we write here.
at least that is how i interrupt the rules here.
i can always stand to be corrected.
and i do think the rules serve a very useful purpose.
i deserved my block for my ineptitude in posting the quote without a more discerning eye toward the quotation.i apologize.
to the torturers.
not!no, i apologize to our babble community for failing to express myself in a civil manner.
sorry 'bout that.~ jim
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 26, 2005, at 23:43:53
In reply to Re: Question about lil' jimi's 2 week block » TofuEmmy, posted by lil' jimi on November 26, 2005, at 3:07:01
This is the end of the 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.