A discussion on the rules.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Vague insinuations. Nice work.

If people search your posts for the word "Jew", they'll see a lot more than insinuations.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What does that even mean? It is somehow inappropriate for a man to be both Jewish and a Communist?

You were the one defending the statement. You know what context it was used in.

Brown Bomber

Sand wrote: »

He messed up the quote function I think.

Though you're right, if there's no such thing as Jewish communism, then there is no such thing as a Jewish communist. There can be communists, who are Jewish, in the same way that I am Catholic.

And yet I've never heard of anyone described as a Catholic Communist.

To the google machine Brown Bomber!

That would be because they are contradictory belief systems. Being Jewish doesn't require a belief in God.

K-9

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Oh, and ...



etc...

I think you are in the wrong thread or something!

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

Brown Bomber, you posted about the context of the thread earlier today. After all todays posts, do you now see why calling a Communist Jewish in relation to Stalins collectivisation policy and the famine was inappropriate or can you not see why it would cause offense?

I don't want to say too much because Conas has a dispute resolution thread but here is the thing: I came into this originally ignorant of the bigger picture. This has been explained to me through Nodin's links and your responses, which were very reasonable and I want to thank you for being civil, reasonable and helpful.

I've have already said that I now appreciate and understand where you are coming from. What I didn't appreciate was the false allegations, twisting of what I said and having to defend myself for requesting information on the rules in a thread titled "a discussion on the rules".

In answer to your question, yes, I do now see the bigger picture. It is never innapropriate to speak the truth, but the context is probably different to what I first understood.

Brown Bomber

K-9 wrote: »

I think you are in the wrong thread or something!

well no, Sand suggested it would be absurd to see Dawkins described as a "British Atheist". That article does exactly that and not a single compaint within the hundreds of comments.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

well no, Sand suggested it would be absurd to see Dawkins described as a "British Atheist". That article does exactly that and not a single compaint within the hundreds of comments.

He's described as a "British atheist" in a US paper.

Sand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

well no, Sand suggested it would be absurd to see Dawkins described as a "British Atheist". That article does exactly that and not a single compaint within the hundreds of comments.

I implied it wouldnt make anymore sense to describe Dawkins as a British atheist as to describe Michael Collins as a county Cork nationalist. Dawkins is an atheist. Barring the old joke about Irish atheists, there is no national or ethnic schools of atheism. And barring the jokes about Peoples Republic of Cork, there is no such thing as a Cork Nationalist.

Kaganov was a Stalinist, an almost slavish follower of Stalin's cult of personality. There is no indication whatsoever that he was Jewish in any real sense of the word. If you describe him as a Jewish Communist, then you must also describe Stalin as a Georgian Orthodox Communist, Lenin as a Russian Orthodox Communist and Trotsky as a Ukrainian Orthodox Communist.

If you routinely do follow and apply those designations when describing historical peoples political allegiances, then you might have a point. But I'd guess you only use "Jewish-..." as an important adjective for political views.

nesf

This is less a discussion on the rules but more of an example why the rules need to exist by this point.

Brown Bomber

Sand wrote: »

I implied it wouldnt make anymore sense to describe Dawkins as a British atheist ....

But it DOES "make sense" to describe Dawkins as a British atheist. What you don't understand is that it simply means British (and) Atheist. It makes sense to describe him as a British Atheist Scientist author and any other number of objectively accurate statements on his identity. They don't have to supplement each other. We all have multiple identities.

Where it is wrong is to unequivocally and without reason to declare that one negative identity is due to to other

Sand wrote: »

Kaganov was a Stalinist, an almost slavish follower of Stalin's cult of personality. There is no indication whatsoever that he was Jewish in any real sense of the word.

Yes there is. He was 100% ethnically Jewish and is fully Jewish according to every Jewish definition.

Sand wrote: »

If you routinely do follow and apply those designations when describing historical peoples political allegiances, then you might have a point. But I'd guess you only use "Jewish-..." as an important adjective for political views.

Why guess? I have spoken critically and at length about Muslims, Christians, atheists and Jews.

Scofflaw

The adjectives people choose to use as part of the description of a person are chosen to highlight specific characteristics - they're not simply "anything that happens to be true of the person". Dawkins is described as a "British atheist" in a US publication in order to highlight the fact that he's not American to the American audience of the New York Times. There are a wide variety of other adjectives that could be used to describe Dawkins, and the journalist (or more likely editor) has chosen "British" on the assumption that his audience is not necessarily familiar with Dawkins, and might otherwise assume he's American. For his audience, it's a relevant adjective, or at least felt to be one.

Choosing to highlight "Jewish" in a description of Kagonov is similarly not just the result of a random trawl through all possible true facts about Kagonov (and Conas in any case goes well beyond that). The mere fact that it's true provides absolutely no explanation for its use in the context, since it's only one of a large number of other possible true facts, and I'm afraid the idea that it has been randomly selected frankly beggars belief. So the adjective is either superfluous because not relevant - or relevant. Which is it, in your view?

regards,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

The adjectives people choose to use as part of the description of a person are chosen to highlight specific characteristics - they're not simply "anything that happens to be true of the person". Dawkins is described as a "British atheist" in a US publication in order to highlight the fact that he's not American to the American audience of the New York Times. There are a wide variety of other adjectives that could be used to describe Dawkins, and the journalist (or more likely editor) has chosen "British" on the assumption that his audience is not necessarily familiar with Dawkins, and might otherwise assume he's American. For his audience, it's a relevant adjective, or at least felt to be one.

Choosing to highlight "Jewish" in a description of Kagonov is similarly not just the result of a random trawl through all possible true facts about Kagonov (and Conas in any case goes well beyond that). The mere fact that it's true provides absolutely no explanation for its use in the context, since it's only one of a large number of other possible true facts, and I'm afraid the idea that it has been randomly selected frankly beggars belief. So the adjective is either superfluous because not relevant - or relevant. Which is it, in your view?

regards,
Scofflaw

Relevant to what? You are asking more than one question.

The facts are:

1. Kaganovich was convicted of famine-genocide by a Ukranian court for his part played in the Holdomor in which millions of Ukrainians died.
2. Kaganovich was a Soviet leader.
3. Kaganovich was Jewish

My opinions on the various independent questions surrounding the relevance of his ethnicity are:

Relevance to current events in Israel/Palestine (The discussion topic): None.
Relevance to historic events during the Ukrainian famines: None.
Relevance to Conas' point: In summary - Jews aren't the sole victims of oppression and aggression in history. In fact, they have, at time been the oppressor and aggressor themselves. A pertinent example being the Jewish Soviet leader in the Ukraine, Lazar Zaganovich: Some relevance.

In my view the real question is not whether using the example of Zaganovich was relevant to illustrate his point - it was - but whether the point itself was relevant.

Arguably it was. It's not at all relevant to the actual topic. However, it wasn't just plucked out of the ether. It was, as I've said, a post which branched-out naturally through the course of conversation; something which happens on every single thread on boards.

It was a response to another who talked of the sadness of the victims of the Holocaust who once in a position of strength carry out atrocities on another defenseless people they consider as inferior.

Another thing to consider in all of this is that people are genuinely upset by this senseless mass-murder by the Jewish state of non-Jews. As people are writing they are observing Israelis butchering children, the disabled, women and the elderly.

RDM_83 again

I've posted in relation to this in AH, but RE the rules in Politics in relation to the Dublin Regulation, is it against the current rule to state that unless some one has travel documentation or is one of the exceptional cases like Snowden etc that unless one has travel documentation one is extremely likely to have breached the Dublin Convention.
e.g As far as I can see it is only possible to reach Ireland without breaching the Dublin Regulation by passing through a Hub airport in a country thats signatory to the Dublin Regulation and not leaving the post-security part of the airport, therefore the likelyhood of not having travel documentation for legitimate reasons is very low?

Would such a post violate the rules?

FreudianSlippers

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I've posted in relation to this in AH, but RE the rules in Politics in relation to the Dublin Regulation, is it against the current rule to state that unless some one has travel documentation or is one of the exceptional cases like Snowden etc that unless one has travel documentation one is extremely likely to have breached the Dublin Convention.
e.g As far as I can see it is only possible to reach Ireland without breaching the Dublin Regulation by passing through a Hub airport in a country thats signatory to the Dublin Regulation and not leaving the post-security part of the airport, therefore the likelyhood of not having travel documentation for legitimate reasons is very low?

Would such a post violate the rules?

I don't think it would be necessarily fair to blame the asylum seeker in all circumstances, however, I think there is broad international criticism of many aspects of the Dublin Regulation, including the potential need to attempt to 'skip' registration in an outlier country in order to keep families together and failure of outlier countries to register people in order to 'balance' their level or asylum seekers.

It is legally presumed that if asylum seekers are unable to produce documentation or are not registered on the system that they are not registered as per the Dublin Regulation.

jank

If a poster or a thread is given direction by a moderator to stay on topic and refrain from discussing certain subjects, why then is it OK to discuss other subject matter that does not pertain to the topic on had.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92083102&postcount=61

The mod here has given a direction to keep the discussion within the limits of asylum seekers and to refrain from bringing Muslim migration into it, yet the mod has no problem bringing an incident by a Catholic Priest 100 years ago into the discussion. Isn't this a clear play of double standard?

Nodin

The reference to the Muslim cleric has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. The reference to the incident involving the priest was to do with an Irish reaction to a minority coming here seeking refuge.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

The reference to the Muslim cleric has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. The reference to the incident involving the priest was to do with an Irish reaction to a minority coming here seeking refuge.

You wrong as the mod in question stated that it was allowed under the condition that the topic stayed on point i.e. not Muslims but asylum seekers.
The fact that the Muslim Cleric had certain views about integration and assimilation was in the vein of the thread not the fact that he was a Muslim Cleric.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

You wrong as the mod in question stated that it was allowed under the condition that the topic stayed on point i.e. not Muslims but asylum seekers.
The fact that the Muslim Cleric had certain views about integration and assimilation was in the vein of the thread not the fact that he was a Muslim Cleric.

He wasn't an asylum seeker.

K-9

jank wrote: »

If a poster or a thread is given direction by a moderator to stay on topic and refrain from discussing certain subjects, why then is it OK to discuss other subject matter that does not pertain to the topic on had.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92083102&postcount=61

The mod here has given a direction to keep the discussion within the limits of asylum seekers and to refrain from bringing Muslim migration into it, yet the mod has no problem bringing an incident by a Catholic Priest 100 years ago into the discussion. Isn't this a clear play of double standard?

My post was outlining the history of asylum seekers in Ireland. Apologies for mentioning the priest, I'd also like to apologise to any people from Limerick for referencing the Jewish pogrom there!

FreudianSlippers

Can I just clarify regarding the Irish Water thread: there is a lot of Freeman on the Land stuff coming up more and more frequently. It's absolute bollocks and their main argument tends to be the fallacious onus probandi argument. In terms of the OP Mod warning, I just wanted to clarify whether calling out these arguments as Freeman nonsense breaches the warning, vis-à-vis the ban on calling things conspiracy theories.

K-9

Apologies, never thought of that! I'm on the phone atm so can't go into detail but that would be fine because well, freeman stuff is often based on CT stuff. The warning was more general for civility purposes, I'll take a look tonight.

FreudianSlippers

K-9 wrote: »

Apologies, never thought of that! I'm on the phone atm so can't go into detail but that would be fine because well, freeman stuff is often based on CT stuff. The warning was more general for civility purposes, I'll take a look tonight.

Mainly, I went through a long thing about Irish Water which was filled with Freeman concepts regarding contract, etc.; I basically provided quotes from the Act and just called some parts "Freeman nonsense" (etc.) but then I realised it might breach the Mod Warning, so I thought I'd check.

I'm happier to edit my post to comply with the warning than receive an infraction for breaking the rules. My 2c is that referring to certain arguments as "Freeman nonsense" in the thread should not be prohibited.

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Mainly, I went through a long thing about Irish Water which was filled with Freeman concepts regarding contract, etc.; I basically provided quotes from the Act and just called some parts "Freeman nonsense" (etc.) but then I realised it might breach the Mod Warning, so I thought I'd check.

I'm happier to edit my post to comply with the warning than receive an infraction for breaking the rules. My 2c is that referring to certain arguments as "Freeman nonsense" in the thread should not be prohibited.

As far as I recall, we came to a general decision on Freeman stuff quite a while ago, and it's not problematic to call it for what it is.

However, if that descends into tit for tat "no it isn't, yes it is" stuff, then obviously that can be an issue. If you're sure that someone is offering Freeman-based 'advice', report it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I recall, we came to a general decision on Freeman stuff quite a while ago, and it's not problematic to call it for what it is.

However, if that descends into tit for tat "no it isn't, yes it is" stuff, then obviously that can be an issue. If you're sure that someone is offering Freeman-based 'advice', report it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's not so much that anyone if offering advice per se, it's that it seems a lot of people genuinely believe what they have seen elsewhere is true and are posting about it in the thread.

Godge

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not so much that anyone if offering advice per se, it's that it seems a lot of people genuinely believe what they have seen elsewhere is true and are posting about it in the thread.

I agree, there are a number of posters reporting nonsensical stuff as fact.

Godge

This sequence of posts shows how posters even when their question is answered, ignore the answer come back with similar rubbish.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92414051&postcount=1528

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92414072&postcount=1530

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92414230&postcount=1539


Then there is stuff like this:


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92423792&postcount=1582

Or this:


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92432803&postcount=1651

Or this:


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92449603&postcount=1679


A discussion on the merits of different forms of taxation, the progressivity, the environmental reasons for the tax, a compartive analysis of set-up costs, all would have been useful contributions to the thread but this is what the forum gets.

Sand

Godge wrote: »

This sequence of posts shows how posters even when their question is answered, ignore the answer come back with similar rubbish.

Welcome to the internet, tbh.

Nobody enters a discussion forum like this to be educated or to have a debate. They enter to have their own opinions reaffirmed by having them repeated back to them in a slightly different accent, or to reaffirm them by defending them against all criticism, rationally or otherwise. If either fails, then ignore and repeat in the new thread. Never concede defeat. Never change your mind. Never surrender.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

Welcome to the internet, tbh.

Nobody enters a discussion forum like this to be educated or to have a debate. They enter to have their own opinions reaffirmed by having them repeated back to them in a slightly different accent, or to reaffirm them by defending them against all criticism, rationally or otherwise. If either fails, then ignore and repeat in the new thread. Never concede defeat. Never change your mind. Never surrender.

Speak for yourself!

I was away all day, I'll have a look at the water charges stuff. If somebody goes to the bother of providing detailed answers and it gets ignored, it'll be dealt with.

FreudianSlippers

Sand wrote: »

Welcome to the internet, tbh.

Nobody enters a discussion forum like this to be educated or to have a debate. They enter to have their own opinions reaffirmed by having them repeated back to them in a slightly different accent, or to reaffirm them by defending them against all criticism, rationally or otherwise. If either fails, then ignore and repeat in the new thread. Never concede defeat. Never change your mind. Never surrender.

Well I think that's the issue, there seems to be an influx of people who are putting out a viewpoint as fact, ignoring evidence and then refusing to accept other points without people proving negatives.

Sand

I don't think there has ever been a golden age of civil, evidence based debate and almost co-operative investigation of the issues of the day. There's always been screaming, emotive, adversarial frozen trench warfare. And its always been tolerated to one degree or another. People put out their views as facts, demand that others must disprove their views or accept them them as true, and then completely ignore evidence offered because they can.