Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2
Author: Subject: Politics, religion, flame wars and the "Whimsy" sub forum-
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10340
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 6-1-2016 at 15:14


Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu  

Why we all can't refrain from calling names over other politics I don't know, but there you have it.


I don't think there's much of a mystery there, TBH.

In politics there's no such thing as 'objective truth', yet most of us feel passionately about this issue or that issue. That's a recipe for heightened passions to float to the top and fires to start.

Look also at sites specifically for political debate: many don't accept 'other side' views because of the inevitable back biting, bitching and flaming!




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
********




Posts: 3803
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline

Mood: Triturated

[*] posted on 6-1-2016 at 15:14


Legal and Societal Issues by nature will still allow political threads as long as they are strictly related to amateur science. That means if there is any tangent that goes off topic and into dangerous waters, it will be swiftly pruned. I'll be keeping a close eye on it when I'm online.

And if the climate change thread comes back (though I would recommend just starting a new one at this point), I will monitor it and prune it as necessary.




Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
They're not really active right now, but here's my YouTube channel and my blog.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 6-1-2016 at 21:20


Living in an alternate universe will allow for denying the nexus between gun rights and other liberties and regulations on chemicals in light of the state security concerns about nefarious activities and what countermeasures are justified which has direct bearing on the liberty to pursue amateur science.

The terrorists have won. They have forced the imposition of "regulations" that destroy the liberty of everyone as a countermeasure against terrorism that won't work anyway, just like gun control won't work either. The criminals will be resourceful and get around every countermeasure, and only the law abiding will be affected by the regulations and interference and loss of liberty. The disruptive effect of terrorism and crime has resulted in governments of states being a "force multiplier" for the terrorists.

And what is the nature of the terrorists? Well you can't talk about that because that would be talking about a religion and that would be bigoted to just speak the truth about who is the problem ...oh that would be hate speech to speak the truth.

There is no "politically correct" or neutral way to describe reality so no one will be "offended". IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

People don't want to hear the truth because they can't handle it. Truth is too grownup a subject and must be sugar coated so the medicine can't be tasted, and the sugar content has to be increased and increased some more until all there is is sugar ........sugar.

I have seen this movie and I already know how it plays and ends. I have tried again and again repeatedly to factually describe the realities involved and it always gets the same denial and fruitcake kind of response that it is "politics" well duh.....of course it is, and the concern can't be discussed in its particulars while a zero tolerance policy about politics is the rule. No way can you have your cake and eat it too on this one .....but go ahead and try and try try again.

Good luck with all that. I already laid it out and stand by every word.

If I was wrong I would have said so a long long time ago. I am NOT wrong.

I suppose stating the truth is "politics" ????? Now what?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
********




Posts: 3803
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline

Mood: Triturated

[*] posted on 6-1-2016 at 21:49


Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
If I was wrong I would have said so a long long time ago. I am NOT wrong
Well of course you would say that. I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

However, there is no "nexus between gun rights and regulations on chemicals." If anything about gun control comes up again even if it is as some sort of analogy to chemical laws, it will be moved to detritus. It is 100% possible to have a thread about laws affecting chemistry without mentioning guns once.




Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
They're not really active right now, but here's my YouTube channel and my blog.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 07:00


I'm sure all of this may seem convoluted, but try to bear with me if you even want to try to understand. The following is not meant to be "political" but dispassionately analytical as a global sort of "intel analysis" from someone able to do this very thing in a verifiable (not "certifiable") way.

There is a perfect nexus between liberty in general and basic freedoms, the most basic of all among which basic rights you deny, which is the natural right of self defense, so that ideological view compromises the entire analysis and distorts perspective in a way the nexus that does exist is also denied.

Perception is reality ....surely it must be so in the alternate universe where it would be inconvenient to allow analyses of regulations for exactly what purposes they serve and examine the ideologies and strategies that are accountable. Many regulations are countermeasures meant to address actual dangers and so have factual basis that has validity, but the strategy is incorrect so the ultimate purpose is not realized and the collateral effect of unintended consequences is a cost to liberty that is worse than the threat meant to be addressed, which is not really effectively addressed, and the net effect may be counterproductive. That is more usual than unusual.

So in the alternate universe of course it is forbidden to correctly identify a nexus that does factually exist and is entirely obvious, and to identify correctly with a full bill of particulars any truth that would be politically incorrect and counter to the governing premise for that alternate universe that perception is reality.

Stipulated truths agreed upon by convention as a concensus proclamation are the "Big Lie" that becomes by wide acclaim "authorized truth" and it no longer matters what is factual reality among all those who agree to the stipulated lie, that becomes ideologically governed and proscribed truth, that is the fiat currency and coin of the realm where no gold standard for truth exists anymore. It is an ideological fiction, made for convenience, an expediency that is a "legal fiction" indulged for political reasons.

No illusion may be made subject to examination that will expose it being an illusion. It has been decided and proclaimed by the Supreme Authority that there is no nexus where factually a nexus does exist, so then the subject will be taboo and can not be discussed. And of course, once gone down that slippery slope of "taboo subjects" for protecting various illusions in the alternate universe, a growing list of "trigger subjects" will accumulate which are things not to be discussed because the facts about such subjects would expose the illusions held to be "sacred truths and precepts" in the alternate universe where perception is reality.

Absolutely then, truth becomes "politics" and one in the same.

Recognizing this simple nexus is exactly why I in a moment of clarity about what is afoot here just simplified it to observing
Truth cannot be spoken here ....because it is too "political" or too "offensive" or too "controversial" or too something ....it is never quite "right" or compliant in agreement with some view held "sacred" by another as "their truth" and their ideological correctness and political "correctness" that they hold to be "proper".

I try but can never be "the proper stranger" but am forever the "visiting alien" surveying it all from orbit. I have no "toxic world view" but often have a very wide angle eye in the sky view of a toxic world, like a remote viewer just watching from altitude.
If I'm in a bubble then it's one hell of a Hubble :D like being on the outside looking in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CUcXH2wXlQ

So then the disagreeing person who cites different facts and observations and has a differing analysis must be a "trouble maker" for asserting a "truth" that differs from the "authorized" truth that is the proclamation of the Supreme Authority. I mean to make no trouble but only tell it like it is.

None of what I have observed over the course of time that is 3 or 4 times the entire lifetimes of those who would "correct" me about "reality" makes any difference ...what could I possibly know with all my "outdated views", I mean I am such a dinosaur and an anachronism, and I am so "unscientific" that I actually believe in an "imaginary friend in the sky" so then ALL of my observations and conclusions must lack validity ....just consider the source and the "impairment" there is obvious, correct? Suppose that premise for dismissal is what lacks validity.

Go ahead, onward to Shangri La where perception is reality for the "enlightened" and the modern and don't listen to me, not ever, who would dare to speak the blasphemy that perception is not reality and that a nexus you deny exists for a plain fact obviously in many respects of direct correlation does in fact exist. It is not my intel analysis that is faulty, but is your ideology which rejects examination because of facts that show yours and others perception is not in fact reality. When your illusions are threatened by facts, you bring down the hammer that silences what you simply refuse to hear. No evidence would be sufficient to cut through the conditioned defense mechanisms of your conditioned mind. And in that world where you assert there is no nexus between natural rights and general liberty, every aspect of life is and will be governed and is decided by many men with many guns, while you have none, but of course that tiny distinction must be somehow different another way between those who say what will be and those who are subject to make it so .....while denying the obvious "forbidden" distinction that the guns have anything to do with who is who as the actors in that scene. But of course, who could ever imagine the preposterous idea that all political power flows from the barrel of a gun?

That simple truth and many others can't be discussed here because it is counter to "authorized doctrine" as proclaimed by the Supreme Authority and dialogue controllers and thought police, revisionist historians and mini propaganda minister / enforcers of "ideological purity" which has "protected status" on this board.

I get it completely. There is a practical goal of "peace keeping" that allows for discretion deciding what is at any given point in any discussion "politics" or some other "forbidden subject" where discussion must be curtailed because someone got angry or someone got offended, even though that is really their little "personal problem" but we must for expediency not personalize an indictment that could "offend" further and will tell the "white lie" that it was the subject matter that was the issue and not the immaturity of those who "lose it" and "go off" on others simply to trash a discussion about a topic they can't psychologically manage and maintain self control.

So we stipulate the problem is a "taboo subject" to put out the fire, and it is the taboo subject that is the "bad actor" and the whipping boy that takes blame. The safe zone is then recreated .....until next time :D Rinse, lather, and repeat.

You see I do understand completely.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10340
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 07:28


Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  

You see I do understand completely.


What I understand is that you have a near-infinite capacity to spin 'theories' that have no evidential basis, then present these as 'truths'.

How 'Blogfast controls this forum' is one of the many.

[Edited on 7-1-2016 by blogfast25]




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Pyro
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1305
Registered: 6-4-2012
Location: Gent, Belgium
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 07:37


You start flinging shit at people and flaming them which gets threads you don't approve of closed down. Go look at the last 5 closed threads and see who first started insulting...

Not such a crazy theory.




all above information is intellectual property of Pyro. :D
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hyfalcon
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1004
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 07:41


How about the first time someone gets personal, they take a week sabbatical. If when they come back it starts again then give them a month off, if there's a third time, you just ban them.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10340
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 07:49


Quote: Originally posted by Pyro  
You start flinging shit at people and flaming them which gets threads you don't approve of closed down. Go look at the last 5 closed threads and see who first started insulting...


When people start flinging shit at entire Peoples, religions and other assorted groups they should expect some counter-fire from those who disagree with that. After having insulted half the world, these racists should then perhaps not cry 'ad hominem' when some one calls them a name.

You somehow laughably pretend to be 'objective' while anyone can see where your sympathies lie.

Had I known about the 9 year old policy on 'no politics!' I would have reported these violations to the mods here, well within my rights.

[Edited on 7-1-2016 by blogfast25]




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 07:55


Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  

You see I do understand completely.


What I understand is that you have a near-infinite capacity to spin 'theories' that have no evidential basis, then present these as 'truths'.

How 'Blogfast controls this forum' is one of the many.

[Edited on 7-1-2016 by blogfast25]


Evidence you want, okay you asked for it.

Evidence of tag team elder abuse at this board.

The coordinated attack evidences a constructive conspiracy.

Review the thread in which the linked post appears for evidence.

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=63065&...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10340
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 08:06


Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  


The coordinated attack evidences a constructive conspiracy.



You obviously don't know what a conspiracy is, which may explain why you see them everywhere.

Political threads are now prohibited after finally and much belatedly enforcing a policy that was in place for 'ONLY' NINE YEARS! Nothing else.

As suggested elsewhere:

Please start your own blog, Rosco.

They’re:

• Free
• Take 5 minutes to set up
• Can be closed (‘membership only’)
• Moderate out the ‘children’ to your heart’s content
• Recruit here or generally on the Net
• Write what you want without any restrictions whatsoever
• 'Censor' any opposition
• Have massive food fights with opposing blogs


Simples.

[Edited on 7-1-2016 by blogfast25]




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 08:10


Say something smart wise guy would you like dozens of more examples ?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10340
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 08:15


Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
Say something smart wise guy would you like dozens of more examples ?


Unless you want that possibly pruned too, go right ahead.

People are tired of this sh*t, Rosco. You're not helping yourself.




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 08:20


I'm sure the tag team has its methods in place to dismiss valid complaints.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10340
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 08:21


I'll also remind you of this:

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  

If someone were a rules-lawyering robot they might claim that calmly insulting different religions, political parties, dearly held ideologies etc. is fine according to the letter of the law, and it's people who can't argue back without anger who are really at fault. But everybody here is mere flesh and blood -- I checked! -- so this argument is hereby rejected by The Management.




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Metacelsus
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2499
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 08:36


Blogfast, Rosco: please stop flaming. (That's what this thread is about, right?)



As below, so above.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 08:44


No it is not about flaming at all. It was an appeal to conscience and clarity, that went nowhere.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrHomeScientist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1806
Registered: 24-10-2010
Location: Flerovium
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-1-2016 at 08:45


Ironic (or perhaps inevitable) that a thread about stopping flame wars has instead incited one. All we need is franklyn to make an appearance and we've got the whole crew.

It's not about "suppressing truth" or a "conspiracy" or whatever it is you all are rambling about. It's very simple, really: This is a forum about amateur chemistry. If your post is not at least tangentially related to that, then it doesn't belong here. I don't care what your views are on subjects other than chemistry. You are free to post them on other, more appropriate forms, but please leave everything else at the door when you come here. Simple.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
Thread Closed
7-1-2016 at 09:36
Bert
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 2744
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".

[*] posted on 16-1-2016 at 00:50


I have banned at least 4 members from posting, (but not from U2U) in the last 24 hours.

Essentially, if you would not say something to another person's face, do not post it here. If you are the kind of asshat that actually WOULD insult other people to their faces over religion, politics, sexual preferences or other NON SCIENCE RELATED MONKEY POO FLINGING, make an exception for this area of the internet and DON'T.

If you have a problem with someone else and their statements, activities or views, call a moderator on it if they are doing something that violates site policy. Otherwise, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STAY OUT OF EACH OTHERS FACES.

If you feel the need to discuss politics, find a different forum for that. This is not negotiable. Anywhere.

And U2U me if you're banned but want to not be.

http://youtu.be/eRnoUNwFOkE


[Edited on 16-1-2016 by Bert]




Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:

1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).

View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2

  Go To Top