![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 494 to 518 of 795. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2014, at 6:10:03
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 20, 2014, at 23:14:54
> > by you posting the answer that you did, a subset of readers could think that you are evading the issue
>
> Sorry about that. Let me back up and try again:
>
> The goal of the policy is to respond to incivility and at the same time not to make those who have been uncivil feel too accused or put down. Not taking into account the feelings, or in general the well-being, of those who have been uncivil can have tragic consequences, too.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
The goal of the forum is for support and education. And you state that if there is a conflict, being supportive takes precedence.
A subset of readers could see what you have posted to me as a way for you to allow hate to be promulgated here. In the case at hand, hatred toward Jews, Islamic people and all other people that have a faith that has in their agenda a way for them to enter heaven without being a Christian. What you have posted here could be considered to be by a subset of reader an anti-Semitic policy on the grounds that you say that your policy will allow you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated by you and your deputies of record on the grounds that if you did post a repudiation, the poster of the anti-Semitism could feel too accused which could then have tragic consequences. The people that the tragic consequences could come to could be those that become victims of anti-Semitic violence or anti-Islamic violence as a result of readers seeing that you are refusing to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement which could lead a subset of readers to think that you and your deputies of record are ratifying the hatred toward Jews and the others by the fact that you state that if anything is not sanctioned, then it is not against your rules here and the goal here is to be civil at all times, and one match could start a forest fire.
A subset of readers could think that by you saying that your goal is not what you have posted here, could lead a subset of readers to consider that your intent here is to foster anti-Semitic hate. This is also because by looking at what you just posted, your statement is {after the fact} because your TOS states that you do enforce your rules by posting something to an uncivil post, and there is nothing in your rules that I can see, before you posted this to me, that states otherwise or allows you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated on some grounds that the feelings of the one that posted the anti-Semitism would be hurt and tragic consequences could result because you sanctioned what is not supportive. Your TOS states not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
There could be a subset of readers that see that by you taking this position, that your intent is to encourage others to post anti-Semitic hate. This is because if they read what you just posted to me, they could post anti-Semitic statements and feel that they have immunity to do so here on the grounds that what you just posted could mean that you will not sanction the anti-Semitism because if you do, the poster's feelings could be hurt. But you could post a repudiation to the statement, and not the poster if you wanted to and as of now, you have not. You could post something like:
[...the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and is not in accordance with our rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths...].
There could be a subset of readers , Mr. Hsiung, that see what you are doing as a transparent attempt to engender sympathy where no sympathy is deserved. And those readers could think that your intent here is to provide a venue for posting statements that could foster anti-Semitism and hatred toward the Jews and the others depicted in the post in question. You say your goal would be compromised in some way if you did sanction the anti-Semitic statement. I say bullsh*t.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2014, at 11:48:41
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-bulschid » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2014, at 6:10:03
> > > by you posting the answer that you did, a subset of readers could think that you are evading the issue
> >
> > Sorry about that. Let me back up and try again:
> >
> > The goal of the policy is to respond to incivility and at the same time not to make those who have been uncivil feel too accused or put down. Not taking into account the feelings, or in general the well-being, of those who have been uncivil can have tragic consequences, too.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> The goal of the forum is for support and education. And you state that if there is a conflict, being supportive takes precedence.
> A subset of readers could see what you have posted to me as a way for you to allow hate to be promulgated here. In the case at hand, hatred toward Jews, Islamic people and all other people that have a faith that has in their agenda a way for them to enter heaven without being a Christian. What you have posted here could be considered to be by a subset of reader an anti-Semitic policy on the grounds that you say that your policy will allow you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated by you and your deputies of record on the grounds that if you did post a repudiation, the poster of the anti-Semitism could feel too accused which could then have tragic consequences. The people that the tragic consequences could come to could be those that become victims of anti-Semitic violence or anti-Islamic violence as a result of readers seeing that you are refusing to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement which could lead a subset of readers to think that you and your deputies of record are ratifying the hatred toward Jews and the others by the fact that you state that if anything is not sanctioned, then it is not against your rules here and the goal here is to be civil at all times, and one match could start a forest fire.
> A subset of readers could think that by you saying that your goal is not what you have posted here, could lead a subset of readers to consider that your intent here is to foster anti-Semitic hate. This is also because by looking at what you just posted, your statement is {after the fact} because your TOS states that you do enforce your rules by posting something to an uncivil post, and there is nothing in your rules that I can see, before you posted this to me, that states otherwise or allows you to leave anti-Semitic statements un repudiated on some grounds that the feelings of the one that posted the anti-Semitism would be hurt and tragic consequences could result because you sanctioned what is not supportive. Your TOS states not to post anything that could put down those of other faiths.
> There could be a subset of readers that see that by you taking this position, that your intent is to encourage others to post anti-Semitic hate. This is because if they read what you just posted to me, they could post anti-Semitic statements and feel that they have immunity to do so here on the grounds that what you just posted could mean that you will not sanction the anti-Semitism because if you do, the poster's feelings could be hurt. But you could post a repudiation to the statement, and not the poster if you wanted to and as of now, you have not. You could post something like:
> [...the statement is not conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and is not in accordance with our rule to not post anything that could put down those of other faiths...].
> There could be a subset of readers , Mr. Hsiung, that see what you are doing as a transparent attempt to engender sympathy where no sympathy is deserved. And those readers could think that your intent here is to provide a venue for posting statements that could foster anti-Semitism and hatred toward the Jews and the others depicted in the post in question. You say your goal would be compromised in some way if you did sanction the anti-Semitic statement. I say bullsh*t.
> Lou PilderMr. Hsiung,
You wrote as to your reason why you will not post a repudiation to the statement that insults Judaism, Islam, and all other faiths that have in their agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian,[...The goal of the policy is to respond to incivility and at the same time not to make those who have been uncivil feel too accused or put down. Not taking into account the feelings, or the general well-being, of those who have been uncivil can have tragic consequences too...].
Here is the statement in question that is allowed to stand so that readers could think that it is not against your rules, is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community, supportive, and will be good for this community as a whole according to your terms of service. The statement in question is something like:
[...No non-Christian can enter heaven...].
It has been revealed to me that the statement is a lie. And what I know about the tragic consequences to others that can happen by a community allowing the statement to be considered to be validated by its leader, which a subset of readers could think that the statement is state-sponsored, is in the historical record. I know of nothing in the historical record that says that those that committed war-crimes should be allowed to go free because their feelings would be hurt if they were hanged. I know nothing in the historical record that says that hatred toward the Jews should be allowed to be published and to be seen as civil, because if the author of the the hate was sanctioned, their feelings could be hurt. I know nothing in the historical record that shows that published content that could insult Jews, Islamic people, and all others that have a faith that allows them to enter heaven as not being a Christian, that could contribute to those people's deaths, to be allowed to remain un disabled or unsanctioned unless the jurisdiction that the publishing is in is ratifying and fostering hatred toward the Jews and the others. There is a jurisdiction where you and your deputies could become accessories in any deaths that could be attributed to you and your deputies of record allowing the statement to stand. There are jurisdictions that you and your deputies could be violating their law against publishing anything that could insult their faith, and the statement in question insults all those that have a faith that has in their agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian. You say that there could be tragic consequences to the author of hate if you sanctioned what they wrote that you are allowing to be published as can be seen as civil to you and your deputies of record. I want to know right now what those tragic consequences could be. For I know outside of this forum why the statement is being refused by you and your deputies of record to have a repudiation posted to it. I know and your rules prohibit posting content from others, including your deputies then. And I know that the reason why is different from what you have posted here. And I know what could cause Jewish child that comes here in depression to see the hate that your rules could lead them to think that you are validating anti-Semitic hate here that could cause them to commit suicide because you and your deputies then are allowing the statement to be seen as that it will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to remain un repudiated. They then could think that you are not taking into account their feelings and have feelings of being insulted, ridiculed, debased, dehumanized by you and your deputies of record then.
The statement in question has been revealed to me to be a lie. And your message along with your deputies that do your wishes, could show to a subset of readers hostility and prejudice toward Jews, as those readers could think that by you using your rationale that if you sanctioned the statement the feelings of the author could be hurt, that Jews in that subset of readers could feel that Jews are in an inferior group according to you and your deputies of record. Those in that subset could also think when they read what is in question here that you are using the tactic of discrimination, that is an abuse of power, to foster anti-Semitism. This is because of the fact that you state that being supportive takes precedence, and these subset of readers could think that anti-Semitism is supportive by you and your deputies of record. This could lead that subset of readers to think that Jews will be judged by a different standard than the author that posted the anti-Semitic statement. And also that the readers that are in concert with you to be in your camp to allow the statement that could foster antisemitic feelings on the grounds that if you did post a repudiation the author of the hate could feel too put down/accused, could IMHO create a {collective psychopathy} here of hatred toward Jews, Islamic people and all other people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven as being a non-Christian because of the fact that they could trust you in that what you do in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole, and if it could be good for this community, they could think that it would be good for the community that they are in also. This is part of the tragic consequences that could be as a result of a subset of readers taking you at your word. The statement has been revealed to me to be a lie. You are allowing it to be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole. I know what happened in the historical record when the leader of the country also allowed that to be seen as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole, and permitted people to publish anti-Semitic hate.
Never again.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2014, at 2:31:26
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-eyenoe, posted by Lou Pilder on March 22, 2014, at 11:48:41
> A subset of readers could see what you have posted to me as a way for you to allow hate to be promulgated here.
True. And a subset could also see what I posted as promulgating love.
> the poster of the anti-Semitism could feel too accused which could then have tragic consequences. The people that the tragic consequences could come to could be those that become victims of anti-Semitic violence
If you want to put it that way, what I was thinking was a poster who was seen as anti-Semitic could become a victim of Semitic violence.
> It has been revealed to me that the statement is a lie.
"Lie" implies intent to deceive, which could lead the poster to feel accused. One way to rephrase that would be:
> > It has been revealed to me that the statement is untrue.
Would you be willing to accept that?
> I know of nothing in the historical record that says that those that committed war-crimes should be allowed to go free
1. Being anti-Semitic isn't a war crime.
2. That poster didn't go free.
> There is a jurisdiction where you ... could become accessories in any deaths that could be attributed to you ... allowing the statement to stand. There are jurisdictions that you ... could be violating their law against publishing anything that could insult their faith
So there could be tragic consequences for me, too. I accept the risk. I see the probability of that as low.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2014, at 8:42:37
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2014, at 2:31:26
> > A subset of readers could see what you have posted to me as a way for you to allow hate to be promulgated here.
>
> True. And a subset could also see what I posted as promulgating love.
>
> > the poster of the anti-Semitism could feel too accused which could then have tragic consequences. The people that the tragic consequences could come to could be those that become victims of anti-Semitic violence
>
> If you want to put it that way, what I was thinking was a poster who was seen as anti-Semitic could become a victim of Semitic violence.
>
> > It has been revealed to me that the statement is a lie.
>
> "Lie" implies intent to deceive, which could lead the poster to feel accused. One way to rephrase that would be:
>
> > > It has been revealed to me that the statement is untrue.
>
> Would you be willing to accept that?
>
> > I know of nothing in the historical record that says that those that committed war-crimes should be allowed to go free
>
> 1. Being anti-Semitic isn't a war crime.
>
> 2. That poster didn't go free.
>
> > There is a jurisdiction where you ... could become accessories in any deaths that could be attributed to you ... allowing the statement to stand. There are jurisdictions that you ... could be violating their law against publishing anything that could insult their faith
>
> So there could be tragic consequences for me, too. I accept the risk. I see the probability of that as low.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote that could be seen as civil and supportive by you;
[...what I was thinking was a poster who was seen as anti-Semitic could become a victim of Semitic violence...]
Saying that the poster could be seen as anti-Semitic could lead the poster to feel accused and jumps to a conclusion that if a statement that is anti-Semitic is posted, then the poster of such is anti-Semitic. You are allowing the statement,{No non-Christian can enter heaven}, to be seen as un repudiated by you but that does not mean that you are anti-Semitic.
A better way for you to have phrased what could lead the poster to feel accused as being anti-Semeitic could have been;
[...what I was thinking was a poster who was seen as having a statement that puts down Jews being allowed by me to remain un repudiated could have a subset of readers think that I was validating and fostering anti-Semitism...].
Would you be willing to accept that?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2014, at 13:46:28
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discus-wilngtuexcept » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 27, 2014, at 8:42:37
> Saying that the poster could be seen as anti-Semitic could lead the poster to feel accused and jumps to a conclusion that if a statement that is anti-Semitic is posted, then the poster of such is anti-Semitic. You are allowing the statement ... to be seen as un repudiated by you but that does not mean that you are anti-Semitic.
That's a good point, thanks.
> [...what I was thinking was ... a statement that puts down Jews being allowed by me to remain un repudiated could have a subset of readers think that I was validating and fostering anti-Semitism...].
> Would you be willing to accept that?In general, yes. But that doesn't mean I accept that the particular statement we're discussing puts down Jews.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2014, at 18:19:50
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2014, at 13:46:28
> > Saying that the poster could be seen as anti-Semitic could lead the poster to feel accused and jumps to a conclusion that if a statement that is anti-Semitic is posted, then the poster of such is anti-Semitic. You are allowing the statement ... to be seen as un repudiated by you but that does not mean that you are anti-Semitic.
>
> That's a good point, thanks.
>
> > [...what I was thinking was ... a statement that puts down Jews being allowed by me to remain un repudiated could have a subset of readers think that I was validating and fostering anti-Semitism...].
> > Would you be willing to accept that?
>
> In general, yes. But that doesn't mean I accept that the particular statement we're discussing puts down Jews.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...that doesn't mean I accept that the particular statement we're discussing puts down Jews...].
Your Terms of Service for the faith forum is a subset of your overriding TOS here, which is to not post anything that could lead others to feel put down or accused. It is not that you feel put down when you read it, but posters are not to post anything that could lead *others* to feel put down. Over and over, you use the slang phrase, {put down}, which is generally understood to be something written that could insult another. Then there are derivatives of how a phrase could be insulting to another by ridicule, debasement, humiliating statements, devaluing, depreciating and more.
Now your rules do not say to not post what {you} could feel put down by when {you} read it, but to not post *anything* that could lead {others} to feel put down. And your off-shoot of your rule on the faith board states not to post what could pressure a reader to adopt your religion or to {put others down for having theirs}. In {putting others down for having theirs}, that rule comes into play in your allowing to be seen as civil and supportive by you,[...no non-Christian can enter heaven...].
Now who are the non-Christians? They are Jews, Islamic people, and all other people that have in their faith's agenda that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian.
The statement could be interpreted by those readers that are of those faiths including Jews, that they can not enter heaven because they are not Christians.
Now the major religions cited by me here all have in their doctrine that they can enter heaven without being a Christian. So when they read the statement that is not repudiated by you and your deputies of record, those readers could feel put down and I as a Jew feel put down when I read it. And if I feel put down because the statement stands un repudiated, I think of that you state here that statements unsanctioned are not against your rules. And if a Jewish child reads it, they could feel put down on the basis that the statement is a claim against what they have been taught about their religion that does say that Jews can enter heaven and could think that you are ratifying the claim against Judaism and ignoring your own rule to{ not pressure others to adopt your religion or put others down for having theirs}. And this could cause a downward vortex into deep depression and suicide.
Now you say that you do what in your thinking will be good for this community as a whole. I ask:
A. What good will come to this community by the statement being allowed to be seen as supportive and conducive to the civic harmony and welfare here?
B. If you were in Saudi Arabia, hypothetically, and you were speaking to a large group of Islamic people about your best of two worlds book, and a man stood up and said to you, "The statement that no non-Christian can enter heaven that this Lou guy is trying to get you to post a repudiation to, insults Islam and you have not posted a repudiation to it on your site. In Islam, insulting Islam is punishable by death. Why should you be allowed to live?"
Your answer would be:
P. The statement does not insult Islam
Q. Your belief that you can go to heaven is false
R. Only Christians can go to heaven
S. I did not want the poster of the statement to feel too bad , so I left it stand.
T. Something else which is ________________
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2014, at 0:45:01
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 28, 2014, at 18:19:50
> B. If you were in Saudi Arabia, hypothetically, and you were speaking to a large group of Islamic people about your best of two worlds book, and a man stood up and said to you, "The statement that no non-Christian can enter heaven that this Lou guy is trying to get you to post a repudiation to, insults Islam and you have not posted a repudiation to it on your site. In Islam, insulting Islam is punishable by death. Why should you be allowed to live?"
> Your answer would be:By sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't necessarily validate that poster's statements.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2014, at 7:04:55
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2014, at 0:45:01
> > B. If you were in Saudi Arabia, hypothetically, and you were speaking to a large group of Islamic people about your best of two worlds book, and a man stood up and said to you, "The statement that no non-Christian can enter heaven that this Lou guy is trying to get you to post a repudiation to, insults Islam and you have not posted a repudiation to it on your site. In Islam, insulting Islam is punishable by death. Why should you be allowed to live?"
> > Your answer would be:
>
> By sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't necessarily validate that poster's statements.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...By sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't validate that poster's statements...].
I do not think so. If you could post answers to the following, then I could post my response to you.
True or false:
A. Could a reader think that what you have posted here could be a pretext to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand? If not, could you complete item "B" below?
Fill in:
B. Lou, the reason that a reader could not think that what I have posted here as a pretext for me to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand is:______________________________________
Lou PIlder
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2014, at 21:53:10
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-preategss » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2014, at 7:04:55
> > > B. If you were in Saudi Arabia, hypothetically, and you were speaking to a large group of Islamic people about your best of two worlds book, and a man stood up and said to you, "The statement that no non-Christian can enter heaven that this Lou guy is trying to get you to post a repudiation to, insults Islam and you have not posted a repudiation to it on your site. In Islam, insulting Islam is punishable by death. Why should you be allowed to live?"
> > > Your answer would be:
> >
> > By sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't necessarily validate that poster's statements.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...By sanctioning a later statement, I made it clear that I didn't validate that poster's statements...].
> I do not think so. If you could post answers to the following, then I could post my response to you.
> True or false:
> A. Could a reader think that what you have posted here could be a pretext to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand? If not, could you complete item "B" below?
> Fill in:
> B. Lou, the reason that a reader could not think that what I have posted here as a pretext for me to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand is:______________________________________
> Lou PIlderMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...By sanctioning a later statement, I made it *clear* that I didn't (necessarily}validate that poster's statements.
I say that sanctioning a word that a dictionary says is a vulgar word is different from sanctioning a statement that could lead Jews, Islamic people and all other people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven without being a Christian to feel put down, for I feel put down as a Jew when I read it. The statement in question, {...no non-Christian can enter heaven..] could be thought by a subset of readers to be analogous to {no Jew can enter heaven}, or {no Islamic person can enter heaven} or {only Christians can enter heaven} or {the concept of entering heaven that Islamic people and Jewish people believe in is false}. And even worse, a subset of readers could think that you and your deputies of record then *are* validating the statement on the grounds that you state that if a statement is not sanctioned, that it is not against your rules. And also that you state that being supportive takes precedence and that one match could start a forest fire and you do not wait to put it out.
Necessarily? That means that it may or may not be what you are ratifying. But your rule is what *could* lead one to feel put down or accused and what *could* put down those of other faiths, and what *could* be disrespectful to another's faith and what *could* be insensitive to another's feelings and what *could* be jumping to a conclusion about another. Your rule is what *could*, not what *must*. Your admission that the statement does not mean that you necessarily validate the statement, shows that the statement is what *could* lead a subset of readers to think that you and your deputies of record then *are* validating the statement because those readers could think that since you will not at this time post a repudiation to the statement, that you *could* be validating what the statement *could* purport. Those readers *could* also think that you are allowing the fire to spread because you are not putting it out by letting it stand.
I ask :
Would you be willing to post where the statement appears in the thread something like:
[...The statement is one that puts down those that do have in their religion that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian, such as Jews and Islamic people, and myself and the deputies of record do not ratify what the statement could purport because the statement could be analogous to {only Christians can enter heaven} which is against the rules. The fact that the poster used a vulgar word later does not annul what the statement in question could purport.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2014, at 1:43:19
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-preategss » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 9, 2014, at 7:04:55
> A. Could a reader think that what you have posted here could be a pretext to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand?
Yes, readers could, but I think they're unlikely to.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 10, 2014, at 9:24:12
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 10, 2014, at 1:43:19
> > A. Could a reader think that what you have posted here could be a pretext to allow the anti-Semitic statement to stand?
>
> Yes, readers could, but I think they're unlikely to.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...readers could,(think that by me sanctioning the vulgar word and saying that then the anti-Semitic statement is also sanctioned, is a pretext to allow anti-Semitism to be fostered here), but I think that they're unlikely to...].
I do not know how you determine what other people could think. In a subset of readers that look at what could be your intent here by you and your deputies of record then being unwilling to post a repudiation to the anti-Semitic statement in question, {...No non-Christian can enter heaven...}, they could speculate that your rationale for allowing the statement to stand is a pretext in order for anti-Semitism to be fostered here by you and your deputies of record then. These subset of readers could make that conclusion by the fact that your saying that you sanctioned a word that the poster posted later that was vulgar, that by you doing so means that the statement in question is also sanctioned could not be accepted by those subset of readers as the statement that could lead Jews and Islamic people and the others depicted in the statement to feel put down. There could be a subset of readers that could see differently from what your rationale for allowing the anti-Semitic statement to stand here. Let us look at this example:
Let us suppose there was a break-in to a house and the robber was confronted by the resident and the robber shot and killed the home owner. The police were on their way as an alarm was tripped and apprehended the robber on the grounds.
Then at trial, the robber was given a warning concerning that he parked his get-away car in front of a fire hydrant. The wife of the murdered man asked why the man that murdered her husband was not prosecuted for murder in commission of a robbery. The prosecutor then told the wife of the murdered man;
"We gave him a warning ticked for that he parked his car in front of a fire hydrant in front of your house, so that means that murdering your husband is also a crime, but by us giving him the warning ticket for the parking violation, we do not necessarily have to arrest him for murdering your husband."
I ask you:
A. Would you be willing to delete the thread and then repost it if an impartial mediator agrees with you that you could leave the anti-Semitic statement to stand?
Lou PIlder
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2014, at 22:34:30
In reply to Lou's reply- The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-deeleet » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 10, 2014, at 9:24:12
> Let us look at this example:
> Let us suppose there was a break-in to a house and the robber was confronted by the resident and the robber shot and killed the home owner. ...One big difference is that no one was killed here. Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2014, at 18:57:43
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2014, at 22:34:30
> > Let us look at this example:
> > Let us suppose there was a break-in to a house and the robber was confronted by the resident and the robber shot and killed the home owner. ...
>
> One big difference is that no one was killed here. Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...One big difference is that no one was killed here. Compared to the real world, it's very safe here...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Let us use the statement in question, [...No non-Christian will enter heaven...].
The statement can be seen by a subset of readers as being un repudiated by you and your deputies of record then. Those readers could also know that you state here that if a statement is not sanctioned, then it is not against your rules. And these readers could think that you are contradicting yourself because your rules on the faith board are that statements are not to disrespect another's faith. These subset of readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating what the statement could purport. And I see nothing in the thread where anything could annul the fact of what the statement could purport.
The statement in question could be thought by those readers as being analogous to:
[...No Jew will enter heaven...]
[...only Christians will enter heaven...]
[...Christianity is superior to Judaism...]
[...Judaism is inferior to Christianity...]
[...The God that the Islamic people believe in that says that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian has deceived those believers and then the statement in question insults Islam and puts down the Islamic faith and therefore is not respectful to that faith...].
Then the question here now is about those killed. There could be a robbery here but not a robbery where they pull out a gun. And there could be a murder here, but it would be outside the walls of this community but the motive could come from here, the fire of hate could come from here, the furnace of hate could be stoked here, Jews and the others could be stigmatized by you because you are allowing the statement in question to be seen as that you and your deputies of record are ratifying what the statement could purport by a subset of readers thinking that Jews and the others depicted in the statement are not as good as Christians because the statement excludes Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian. The disrespect of their faiths as being seen here by a subset of readers as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole could bring back the horrors of the crimes against humanity. And who are you to say that there has been no one killed here. How could you make such a claim? How could you know of any deaths that are a result of the years of anti-Semitic statements being allowed by you and your deputies of record to be seen as not against your rules and as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 13, 2014, at 17:29:38
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-nvreygn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2014, at 18:57:43
> > > Let us look at this example:
> > > Let us suppose there was a break-in to a house and the robber was confronted by the resident and the robber shot and killed the home owner. ...
> >
> > One big difference is that no one was killed here. Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...One big difference is that no one was killed here. Compared to the real world, it's very safe here...].
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Let us use the statement in question, [...No non-Christian will enter heaven...].
> The statement can be seen by a subset of readers as being un repudiated by you and your deputies of record then. Those readers could also know that you state here that if a statement is not sanctioned, then it is not against your rules. And these readers could think that you are contradicting yourself because your rules on the faith board are that statements are not to disrespect another's faith. These subset of readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating what the statement could purport. And I see nothing in the thread where anything could annul the fact of what the statement could purport.
> The statement in question could be thought by those readers as being analogous to:
> [...No Jew will enter heaven...]
> [...only Christians will enter heaven...]
> [...Christianity is superior to Judaism...]
> [...Judaism is inferior to Christianity...]
> [...The God that the Islamic people believe in that says that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian has deceived those believers and then the statement in question insults Islam and puts down the Islamic faith and therefore is not respectful to that faith...].
> Then the question here now is about those killed. There could be a robbery here but not a robbery where they pull out a gun. And there could be a murder here, but it would be outside the walls of this community but the motive could come from here, the fire of hate could come from here, the furnace of hate could be stoked here, Jews and the others could be stigmatized by you because you are allowing the statement in question to be seen as that you and your deputies of record are ratifying what the statement could purport by a subset of readers thinking that Jews and the others depicted in the statement are not as good as Christians because the statement excludes Jews and Islamic people and all other people that have in their faith that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian. The disrespect of their faiths as being seen here by a subset of readers as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole could bring back the horrors of the crimes against humanity. And who are you to say that there has been no one killed here. How could you make such a claim? How could you know of any deaths that are a result of the years of anti-Semitic statements being allowed by you and your deputies of record to be seen as not against your rules and as supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by you?
> Lou Pilder
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
Hate crimes have an origin. I will be posting later on how hate could be promulgated in a community, but let us look at this:
Lou Pilder
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/13/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2014, at 17:48:08
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-nvreygn » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2014, at 18:57:43
> > Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
>
> there could be a murder here, but it would be outside the walls of this community but the motive could come from here, the fire of hate could come from here, the furnace of hate could be stoked hereTrue, the fire of hate could be stoked here, but no murder can happen inside the walls of this community.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2014, at 6:04:52
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2014, at 17:48:08
> > > Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
> >
> > there could be a murder here, but it would be outside the walls of this community but the motive could come from here, the fire of hate could come from here, the furnace of hate could be stoked here
>
> True, the fire of hate could be stoked here, but no murder can happen inside the walls of this community.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...True, the fire of hate could be stoked here, but no murder can happen inside the walls of this community...].
You say you have a furnace of hate here that is stoked (by allowing the anti-Semitic statements to stand un repudiated by you and your deputies of record), yet today, you consider yourself to be the operator of this community to allow the furnace of hate to be stoked and say to the readers here that no murder can happen inside the walls of this community.
But the hate could be spread outside of this community where the fire of hate spreads like a forest fire and the embers drift to other communities to start the fire of hate there, outside of the walls of this community. And those fires of hate can originate here by readers seeing what is plainly visible in that statements that put down, in particular but not limited to, Jews are allowed to stand un repudiated by you and your deputies of record. And readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating what those statements could purport. They could take the hate outside the walls here to schools, universities, shopping malls, their workplace, their homes, and even go to a Jewish center and murder Jews and yell out, "Hiel (redacted by respondent.)"
Here is the unfolding of the murdering of Jews last night outside of where he lived. And where did the hater of Jews that did the murdering get his hate? Did he not get it where the fire of hatred toward the Jews was allowed to burn? Here is the ongoing situation of the murdering of Jews last night in Kansas.
Lou Pilder
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/index.html/?hpt=hp_t1
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2014, at 6:12:23
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-duhwalz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2014, at 6:04:52
> > > > Compared to the "real" world, it's very safe here.
> > >
> > > there could be a murder here, but it would be outside the walls of this community but the motive could come from here, the fire of hate could come from here, the furnace of hate could be stoked here
> >
> > True, the fire of hate could be stoked here, but no murder can happen inside the walls of this community.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote,[...True, the fire of hate could be stoked here, but no murder can happen inside the walls of this community...].
> You say you have a furnace of hate here that is stoked (by allowing the anti-Semitic statements to stand un repudiated by you and your deputies of record), yet today, you consider yourself to be the operator of this community to allow the furnace of hate to be stoked and say to the readers here that no murder can happen inside the walls of this community.
> But the hate could be spread outside of this community where the fire of hate spreads like a forest fire and the embers drift to other communities to start the fire of hate there, outside of the walls of this community. And those fires of hate can originate here by readers seeing what is plainly visible in that statements that put down, in particular but not limited to, Jews are allowed to stand un repudiated by you and your deputies of record. And readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating what those statements could purport. They could take the hate outside the walls here to schools, universities, shopping malls, their workplace, their homes, and even go to a Jewish center and murder Jews and yell out, "Hiel (redacted by respondent.)"
> Here is the unfolding of the murdering of Jews last night outside of where he lived. And where did the hater of Jews that did the murdering get his hate? Did he not get it where the fire of hatred toward the Jews was allowed to burn? Here is the ongoing situation of the murdering of Jews last night in Kansas.
> Lou Pilder
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/index.html/?hpt=hp_t1corrected link
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2014, at 0:45:10
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-duhwalz » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 14, 2014, at 6:04:52
> > True, the fire of hate could be stoked here, but no murder can happen inside the walls of this community.
>
> You say you have a furnace of hate here that is stoked (by allowing the anti-Semitic statements to stand un repudiated by you and your deputies of record)No, that's not how I see it. I see this community as hate-resistant. But not hate-proof, so hate could potentially be stoked here.
And I guess I see you as a furnace of anxiety, stoked by anti-Semitic statements -- and actions -- outside these walls.
Just as I don't see this community the way you do, you may not see yourself the way I do. Which I accept.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 16, 2014, at 10:07:14
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2014, at 0:45:10
> > > True, the fire of hate could be stoked here, but no murder can happen inside the walls of this community.
> >
> > You say you have a furnace of hate here that is stoked (by allowing the anti-Semitic statements to stand un repudiated by you and your deputies of record)
>
> No, that's not how I see it. I see this community as hate-resistant. But not hate-proof, so hate could potentially be stoked here.
>
> And I guess I see you as a furnace of anxiety, stoked by anti-Semitic statements -- and actions -- outside these walls.
>
> Just as I don't see this community the way you do, you may not see yourself the way I do. Which I accept.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...hate potentially could be stoked here...].
The fire of hate could spread from here to other places, for the walls of this community are permeable via the internet. Readers can see through the walls instantly with their devices electronically. The embers from the fire of hate could spread and be seen as being good for this community as a whole according to your policy that if a statement is not sanctioned, then it can be seen as not against your rules and being supportive takes precedence. That could lead a subset of readers to think that you and your deputies of record are validating what the hate could purport in the anti-Semitic statements, but not limited to those, that are allowed to stand un repudiated by you.
A subset of readers could be persuaded to think that anti-Semitism will be good for their community if they think that anti-Semitism is conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of your community here by the nature of seeing anti-Semitic statements un repudiated by you. The statement, [...No non-Christian will enter heaven..], that can be seen as supportive by you here, is part of the foundation of the historical hatred toward the Jews that has resulted in millions of murders of Jews. And the hate can be stoked here for others to continue to think that the statement that precludes Jews from heaven as being un repudiated by you will be good for this community as a whole by you, and readers could be persuaded to think that it will be good for their community also. I am prevented from posting my repudiation to the statement due to your prohibitions posted to me here. So a subset of readers could be uninformed as to the Jewish perspective as revealed to me that does say that Jews can enter heaven as not being a Christian. Because you prohibit me from posting from a Jewish perspective as revealed to me here, readers could be uninformed and only see what you and your deputies of record allow to be posted. And it is so easy to persuade the uninformed. It's so easy.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2014, at 12:05:13
In reply to Lou's reply-The Hsiung-Pilder discussion-itzsoezy » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 16, 2014, at 10:07:14
> The fire of hate could spread from here to other places, for the walls of this community are permeable via the internet.
True, hate, and anxiety, could spread from here. I suppose love and hope could, too.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 17, 2014, at 18:25:15
In reply to Re: The Hsiung-Pilder discussion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2014, at 12:05:13
> > The fire of hate could spread from here to other places, for the walls of this community are permeable via the internet.
>
> True, hate, and anxiety, could spread from here. I suppose love and hope could, too.
>
> BobMr. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...True, hate and anxiety could spread from here...].
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, [...No non-Christian will enter heaven...]. A subset of readers could think that you and your deputies of record are validating what the statement could purport because it is not sanctioned by you and your deputies of record. By posting that you do not consider the statement to be supportive, that type of thinking could be stopped. The statement could give rise to the thinking that Jews and the others depicted in the statement are inferior to Christians and lead a subset of readers to have hatred aroused toward the Jews and others by the nature that the statement claims superiority of Christianity over Jews and the others by the nature that the statement precludes Jews and the others from entering heaven because a subset of readers could think that the statement is analogous to [...only Christians can enter heaven...].
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. And there is historical parallels to what can be seen here by you allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand. The world should not allow you to do this.
Lou Pilder
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
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.