Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

This website, MLW, was started with grants from a Canadian university, was it not?

Its guidelines states: "Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way."

That would seem to me that it would operate in a fashion that represents, respects, mirrors academic discussion. That means a scientific approach, one that follows the tenets of science. Is this not a logical and reasonable approach? One that we all should/would want to see. 

The first guiding principle means, to me at least, that one addresses any science put forward in a scientific fashion. That has not been the case in many threads here.

[Full disclosure: I will be the first to admit that I have not always rigorously followed the wisdom found in this guideline.] 

Can't we all do better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "reputation" system is highly misleading, completely unscientific. It serves no useful purpose. Because, have I mentioned, it is unscientific?

I have wildly jumped, a number of times, from high positives to low teen negatives to high positives. It is a system equivalent to young teens' junior high school ratings.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

The "reputation" system is highly misleading, completely unscientific. It serves no useful purpose. Because, have I mentioned, it is unscientific?

I have wildly jumped, a number of times, from high positives to low teen negatives to high positives. It is a system equivalent to young teens' junior high school ratings.  

So, ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That too, is unscientific, completely foreign to western principles of honesty and openness. 

Why does this seem to be a guiding principle for so many of you who like to brag about how honest and open we western nations are?

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The "reputation" system is highly misleading, completely unscientific. It serves no useful purpose. Because, have I mentioned, it is unscientific?

I have wildly jumped, a number of times, from high positives to low teen negatives to high positives. It is a system equivalent to young teens' junior high school ratings.  

It's not just misleading, it's completely out to lunch.  Shady was gone long before it was added as a feature.  I made it my goal to put him on top, but I've had a lot of help.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

And as I mentioned, childish. "I made it my goal to put him on top, but I've had a lot of help."

You're right about childish.  The whole point of putting Shady on top was to show that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You're right about childish.  The whole point of putting Shady on top was to show that.

Couldn't that have been attained by discussing this with the reasonable moderators at MLW? In a thread such as this one.

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Couldn't that have been attained by discussing this with the reasonable moderators at MLW? In a thread such as this one.

Call me artistic!

Actually, I think it was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Call me artistic!

Actually, I think it was. 

Okay, we'll go with "artistic". However, I must take exception to your, what appears to be a faulty conclusion, "Actually, I think it was."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hot enough said:

Okay, we'll go with "artistic". However, I must take exception to your, what appears to be a faulty conclusion, "Actually, I think it was."

I'm fairly certain there might have been one.  I vaguely remember it, but I have, of course, slept since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those we despise, we don’t believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Isn't this something we should all take to heart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hot enough said:

[Full disclosure: I will be the first to admit that I have not always rigorously followed the wisdom found in this guideline.] 

Indeed. You've posted over a thousand times now and not one single post had any meaningful content. If this was my web site I'd have banned you for repeatedly trying to take every single topic onto the same dreary subject of your anti-American anti-Western obsession.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

"If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those we despise, we don’t believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

Isn't this something we should all take to heart?

Something on which we can completely agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Indeed. You've posted over a thousand times now and not one single post had any meaningful content. If this was my web site I'd have banned you for repeatedly trying to take every single topic onto the same dreary subject of your anti-American anti-Western obsession.

Thank you for your reasoned response, Argus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You are so cryptic, BCS.

I most certainly am not.  Freedom of expression/speech is something I value very highly.  Even that which disgusts me.  Of course, expressing disgust is also freedom of expression. 

 

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I most certainly am not.  Freedom of expression/speech is something I value very highly.  Even that which disgists me.  Of course, expressing disgust is also freedom of expression. 

 

And after this Thomas Paine speech, no comment from you on Argus's comment. No comments from you in all the threads on 911 where you not only encouraged others to degrade the level of "something I value very highly", you did so yourself, ie. degrade that which is "something I value very highly".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hot enough said:

And after this Thomas Paine speech, no comment from you on Argus's comment. No comments from you in all the threads on 911 where you not only encouraged others to degrade the level of "something I value very highly", you did so yourself, ie. degrade that which is "something I value very highly".

You really don't know what freedom of speech means, do you?  Don't worry too much.  A lot of people don't.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

And here I mistakenly thought that we might all do better. Silly me. 

There's nothing wrong with setting an example, and hoping others follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You really don't know what freedom of speech means, do you?  Don't worry too much.  A lot of people don't.

I'd like to see a thread on this. And your ideas. You should start one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hot enough said:

I'd like to see a thread on this. And your ideas. You should start one. 

I don't often start threads.  I'm always afraid no-one will answer it.

I think Noam Chomsky's quote says it very well, without the obvious provisors about incitement to violence and shouting "fire" etc.  Most people accept those as a given. 

A couple of examples come to mind.  A long time poster who has now, sadly, left of hs own free will, used to post this cartoon to illustrate his views on Freedom of Speech:

free_speech.png

Which also seems to state the case very well.  Of course, the right to call those doing the boycotting assholes is equally valid.

The other example is the strange case of the student and Fabrice Muamba.  Fabrice was a footballer for Bolton Wanderers who died during a game against Spurs a few years back.  He was brought back to life by the prompt attendance of emergency crews and a doctor who happened to be attending the game.  A student at the University of Swansea, I believe, tweeted about how happy he was Fabrice had died, and included some awful racial slurs into the bargain. (Fabrice is black)  

Twitter banned him.  Fair enough, see the cartoon. 

The University of Swansea kicked him out. Fair enough, see the cartoon. 

He was charged with hate speech, found guilty, and sent to jail.  Utterly, completely ridiculous.  See the cartoon.  See what Noam said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hot enough said:

The first guiding principle means, to me at least, that one addresses any science put forward in a scientific fashion. That has not been the case in many threads here.

You're problem here is that you seem only embrace the "science" that supports your somewhat blinkered view of 9/11 events.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hot enough said:

That would seem to me that it would operate in a fashion that represents, respects, mirrors academic discussion. That means a scientific approach, one that follows the tenets of science. Is this not a logical and reasonable approach? One that we all should/would want to see. 

No. 

A logical and reasonable approach is for members to ignore everything believed to violate the forum rules and guidelines. Do not respond to whatever-you-believe fails to "promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion."

 

Quote

Can't we all do better?

Yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...