Why I Left Speakfree Forum

[Guest]

First topic message reminder :

I left the very good speakfree because a moderator named "TheToryScum" deleted 2 threads where I labelled some convicted foreign criminals "scum".


He said the word was unnecessary and vulgar.

The second time he did it I immediately left - I felt there was nothing wrong with labelling such disgusting individuals scum and felt the reason he didn't like it was because they were foreign.

If you can't post the truth on a forum, what's the point? If you are challenged - nothing wrong with that, but moderators going behind your back changing posts and threads is just pointless.

Please discuss.

[eddie]

Jeeeezus, eddie.  Pleeeeeze.

FTL...you and Nems are two of the best mods I've ever seen.  Unfortunately, a bad mod undermines ten of the best mods, singularly, as we've seen.

You're doing fine, Ben.  You're a bit of a liberal, but I really don't think the conservatives have much to complain about.  One of the reasons why I oppose banning is it too easily gets caught up in the LW/RW debate.  You do a good job of skirting that, Ben.

I don't like it when LWers or RWers are exiled.  You need both to have life.  I still don't believe that RWers have an ounce of good thinking ability, but they are always there to raise good topics and give spirited talk until you defeat them finally...and inevitably.

Andy, you left Speakfree because you got your knickers in a knot.  Yes, there was one poster/mod who ran roughshod over you, but what you did was run.  Not cool.  Hardly admirable.  Political argument is a lot like fencing: You slice and parry until there is nothing left of your opponent.  Then you are satisfied with yourself, regardless of the bias of mods.  You know you did well...

Running?  You're never satisfied with yourself.

Nope, I left and I was happy to leave.

There was no political argument there - I like to post about sh1t bags making our country a dump.  I like to post about useless judges giving out cr4p sentences.

If I can't do that, i'll leave.

Nothing to whine about and no political argument there.

The second I realised a guy called "TheToryScum" wasn't going to allow the word scum used for dirty criminals who beat up old ladies I knew it was time to go.

Why didn't he allow the word "scum" seeing as it was a word within his username?
Everyone know that forum was biased anyway.

[Guest]

I'm gonna say this as it's true with a small minority on here...

A few on here are far more sympathetic toward paedophiles and rapists than they are of some folk in life who have gone wrong by way of thieving , assaults, fraud and some other crimes they have committed in life.

The former being far worse than any of the others.

If I were in prison and if I got to choose, I would rather be locked up with thieves , fraudsters than fcuking filthy garbage like rapists or paedophiles.

The only time I would like to be in the company of rapists etc is to give them a severe hiding.

[Raggamuffin]

I'm gonna say this as it's true with a small minority on here...

A few on here are far more sympathetic toward paedophiles and rapists than they are of some folk in life who have gone wrong by way of thieving , assaults, fraud and some other crimes they have committed in life.

The former being far worse than any of the others.

If I were in prison and if I got to choose, I would rather be locked up with thieves , fraudsters than fcuking filthy garbage like rapists or paedophiles.

The only time I would like to be in the company of rapists etc is to give them a severe hiding.

If you assaulted such a person, would that mean you'd "gone wrong"

[eddie]

I'm gonna say this as it's true with a small minority on here...

A few on here are far more sympathetic toward paedophiles and rapists than they are of some folk in life who have gone wrong by way of thieving , assaults, fraud and some other crimes they have committed in life.

The former being far worse than any of the others.

If I were in prison and if I got to choose, I would rather be locked up with thieves , fraudsters than fcuking filthy garbage like rapists or paedophiles.

The only time I would like to be in the company of rapists etc is to give them a severe hiding.

I agree.

Except I don't anyone on her is actually sympathetic toward paedos JD?

[Guest]

I'm gonna say this as it's true with a small minority on here...

A few on here are far more sympathetic toward paedophiles and rapists than they are of some folk in life who have gone wrong by way of thieving , assaults, fraud and some other crimes they have committed in life.

The former being far worse than any of the others.

If I were in prison and if I got to choose, I would rather be locked up with thieves , fraudsters than fcuking filthy garbage like rapists or paedophiles.

The only time I would like to be in the company of rapists etc is to give them a severe hiding.

What utter shite, no one on here has ever expressed sympathy for paedos

[Guest]

I'm gonna say this as it's true with a small minority on here...

A few on here are far more sympathetic toward paedophiles and rapists than they are of some folk in life who have gone wrong by way of thieving , assaults, fraud and some other crimes they have committed in life.

The former being far worse than any of the others.

If I were in prison and if I got to choose, I would rather be locked up with thieves , fraudsters than fcuking filthy garbage like rapists or paedophiles.

The only time I would like to be in the company of rapists etc is to give them a severe hiding.

If you assaulted such a person, would that mean you'd "gone wrong"

Assaulting someone as in hitting them can be forgiven , a lot of people have convictions for assault, but in general it can be put down to , 'doing wrong' and a lot more people have assaulted someone at some point with no conviction...

In society we allow such mistakes and stupidity, if the assault is severe, it deserves punishing, but often the offender is genuinely sorry for their actions, however rape and child molestation involve something far more sinister and the public need protecting more for that kind of thing.


Raping a child is not the kind of thing we should or can afford to accept as a 'mistake'.

I'm all for forgiving general criminals and giving them another chance, but not rapists and child molesters, I don't believe they ever change their ways.

[Raggamuffin]

If you assaulted such a person, would that mean you'd "gone wrong"

Assaulting someone as in hitting them can be forgiven , a lot of people have convictions for assault, but in general it can be put down to , 'doing wrong' and a lot more people have assaulted someone at some point with no conviction...

In society we allow such mistakes and stupidity, if the assault is severe, it deserves punishing, but often the offender is genuinely sorry for their actions, however rape and child molestation involve something far more sinister and the public need protecting more for that kind of thing.


Raping a child is not the kind of thing we should or can afford to accept as a 'mistake'.

I'm all for forgiving general criminals and giving them another chance, but not rapists and child molesters, I don't believe they ever change their ways.

So if you assaulted a rapist or paedophile, it would be just a slap in the heat of the moment? That's not how it sounded when you said you'd give them a "severe hiding".

[Guest]

I'm gonna say this as it's true with a small minority on here...

A few on here are far more sympathetic toward paedophiles and rapists than they are of some folk in life who have gone wrong by way of thieving , assaults, fraud and some other crimes they have committed in life.

The former being far worse than any of the others.

If I were in prison and if I got to choose, I would rather be locked up with thieves , fraudsters than fcuking filthy garbage like rapists or paedophiles.

The only time I would like to be in the company of rapists etc is to give them a severe hiding.

What utter shite, no one on here has ever expressed sympathy for paedos

Oh Right,

No , it's not...BA and Sphinx have in the past on ADO, Sphinx has not on here yet I have to admit...


Andy will attack a 'black criminal ' before he will a paedophile, as well as his and others backing up of Jimmy Savile and he did admit on ADO he would have no problem in taking his kid and paying to see Gary Glitter, despite what he has done.

Sorry Andy, nothing personal, but you do seem to accept paedophilia and rape are somehow 'lesser crimes'.    


Your jumping in with both feet again aren't you?

[Guest]

Assaulting someone as in hitting them can be forgiven , a lot of people have convictions for assault, but in general it can be put down to , 'doing wrong' and a lot more people have assaulted someone at some point with no conviction...

In society we allow such mistakes and stupidity, if the assault is severe, it deserves punishing, but often the offender is genuinely sorry for their actions, however rape and child molestation involve something far more sinister and the public need protecting more for that kind of thing.


Raping a child is not the kind of thing we should or can afford to accept as a 'mistake'.

I'm all for forgiving general criminals and giving them another chance, but not rapists and child molesters, I don't believe they ever change their ways.

So if you assaulted a rapist or paedophile, it would be just a slap in the heat of the moment? That's not how it sounded when you said you'd give them a "severe hiding".

A severe hiding sounds like a slap to you?

[Raggamuffin]

So if you assaulted a rapist or paedophile, it would be just a slap in the heat of the moment? That's not how it sounded when you said you'd give them a "severe hiding".

A severe hiding sounds like a slap to you?

No, it does not. You're the one who's trying to justify assault and implying that it's a trivial thing. If you gave someone a severe beating, how would that make you any better than them?

That's right - it wouldn't.

[Guest]

A severe hiding sounds like a slap to you?

No, it does not. You're the one who's trying to justify assault and implying that it's a trivial thing. If you gave someone a severe beating, how would that make you any better than them?

That's right - it wouldn't.

In the eyes of the law, you are most correct.


It would make feel much better knowing I had helped keep kids safer after I had paralysed him for life,that is why I would feel better.

[Raggamuffin]

No, it does not. You're the one who's trying to justify assault and implying that it's a trivial thing. If you gave someone a severe beating, how would that make you any better than them?

That's right - it wouldn't.

In the eyes of the law, you are most correct.


It would make feel much better knowing I had helped keep kids safer after I had paralysed him for life,that is why I would feel better.

OK, but it appears that you're attempting to take the moral high ground here - which is rather absurd as you've just expressed a wish to assault people to the extent that you do them permanent damage.

[Guest]

In the eyes of the law, you are most correct.


It would make feel much better knowing I had helped keep kids safer after I had paralysed him for life,that is why I would feel better.

OK, but it appears that you're attempting to take the moral high ground here - which is rather absurd as you've just expressed a wish to assault people to the extent that you do them permanent damage.

Yes so that my hiding would do far more than a court of law or the police would in keeping kids safe in the future!...

The law side of things was next wasn't it?

There's your answer in advance! 

[Raggamuffin]

OK, but it appears that you're attempting to take the moral high ground here - which is rather absurd as you've just expressed a wish to assault people to the extent that you do them permanent damage.

Yes so that my hiding would do far more than a court of law or the police would in keeping kids safe in the future!...

The law side of things was next wasn't it?

There's your answer in advance! 

One could say that it's you who's a danger to the public really. You're the one who wants to beat people up.

[Guest]

Yes so that my hiding would do far more than a court of law or the police would in keeping kids safe in the future!...

The law side of things was next wasn't it?

There's your answer in advance! 

One could say that it's you who's a danger to the public really. You're the one who wants to beat people up.

...only those who present a danger to kids, what's wrong with that?

[Raggamuffin]

One could say that it's you who's a danger to the public really. You're the one who wants to beat people up.

...only those who present a danger to kids, what's wrong with that?

So are you talking about beating up and maiming only those who have actually been convicted and are in prison, or are you talking about those who you think are guilty?

What do you define as paedophilia? Would you include a 20-year old man who had sex with a girl of 15?

Re rapists, do you mean a violent rapist who attacked a women in the street or at home at knifepoint, or a man who had sex with a drunk women who didn't remember giving consent?

[Guest]

What utter shite, no one on here has ever expressed sympathy for paedos

Oh Right,

No , it's not...BA and Sphinx have in the past on ADO, Sphinx has not on here yet I have to admit...
 

Andy will attack a 'black criminal ' before he will a paedophile, as well as his and others backing up of Jimmy Savile and he did admit on ADO he would have no problem in taking his kid and paying to see Gary Glitter, despite what he has done.

Sorry Andy, nothing personal, but you do seem to accept paedophilia and rape are somehow 'lesser crimes'.    


Your jumping in with both feet again aren't you?

I think if you are going to make statements like that you better have the evidence to back it up.

[Guest]

Oh Right,

No , it's not...BA and Sphinx have in the past on ADO, Sphinx has not on here yet I have to admit...
 

Andy will attack a 'black criminal ' before he will a paedophile, as well as his and others backing up of Jimmy Savile and he did admit on ADO he would have no problem in taking his kid and paying to see Gary Glitter, despite what he has done.

Sorry Andy, nothing personal, but you do seem to accept paedophilia and rape are somehow 'lesser crimes'.    


Your jumping in with both feet again aren't you?

I think if you are going to make statements like that you better have the evidence to back it up.

Your memory served you much better on ADO and SF Nems!

[eddie]

I don't remember sphinx ever showing sympathy to paedophiles, JD?

[Guest]

I don't remember sphinx ever showing sympathy to paedophiles, JD?

Wasn't so much direct sympathy Eds, it was arguing over Savile at the time and also a Gary Glitter thread.
The crimes committed by blacks seem to take priority over that of predators, stuff lie, that, it was near the demise of ADO 2 Eds, maybe you weren't around ?

[Guest]

I think if you are going to make statements like that you better have the evidence to back it up.

Your memory served you much better on ADO and SF Nems!

This is not ADO or SF. You have made that accusation in front of people who were not on ADO or SF.
Got sod all to do with my memory.
Not impressive JD not one little bit

[Guest]

Your memory served you much better on ADO and SF Nems!

This is not ADO or SF. You have made that accusation in front of people who were not on ADO or SF.
Got sod all to do with my memory.
Not impressive JD not one little bit

Alright then, here is a prime example of bias and racism on here and selectiveness on how one or two feel on rapists and child molesters....



Poster X ...see there is a white guy in the paper accused of being a paedophile

Poster Y....see there is a black guy with the same accusation

Poster X....Na the white guy is innocent, but the black guy must have done

Poster Y...I totally agree,the black child molester.

[Raggamuffin]

This is not ADO or SF. You have made that accusation in front of people who were not on ADO or SF.
Got sod all to do with my memory.
Not impressive JD not one little bit

Alright then, here is a prime example of bias and  racism on here and selectiveness on how one or two feel on rapists and child molesters....



Poster X ...see there is a white guy in the paper accused of being a paedophile

Poster Y....see there is a black guy with the same accusation

Poster X....Na the white guy is innocent, but the black guy must have done

Poster Y...I totally agree,the black child molester.

That's not the same as being a paedo sympathiser, is it?

[eddie]

I don't remember sphinx ever showing sympathy to paedophiles, JD?

Wasn't so much direct sympathy Eds, it was arguing over Savile at the time and also a Gary Glitter thread.
The crimes committed by blacks seem to take priority over that of predators, stuff lie, that, it was near the demise of ADO 2 Eds, maybe you weren't around ?

No I wasn't JD.

[Guest]

Alright then, here is a prime example of bias and  racism on here and selectiveness on how one or two feel on rapists and child molesters....



Poster X ...see there is a white guy in the paper accused of being a paedophile

Poster Y....see there is a black guy with the same accusation

Poster X....Na the white guy is innocent, but the black guy must have done

Poster Y...I totally agree,the black child molester.

That's not the same as being a paedo sympathiser, is it?

Kills about 3 birds with one stone, demonstrating how serious the issue of paedophiles is, then can become more or less serious of committed by a person of a different skin colour or religion.

But when some were playing down the seriousness of child molesters on ADO, you weren't there.

Ass well as one or two posters back then who admitted they would take their child to a Gary Glitter concert and pay, yet see no harm in targeting technic minorities...

I'm sorry to my buddy who knows who he is , but he was not the only one...

That halfwit a debunker there at the time too.

[Guest]

Wasn't so much direct sympathy Eds, it was arguing over Savile at the time and also a Gary Glitter thread.
The crimes committed by blacks seem to take priority over that of predators, stuff lie, that, it was near the demise of ADO 2 Eds, maybe you weren't around ?

No I wasn't JD.

Busy with BA- BA Eds??!  

[Raggamuffin]

That's not the same as being a paedo sympathiser, is it?

Kills about 3 birds with one stone, demonstrating how serious the issue of paedophiles is, then can become more or less serious of committed by a person of a different skin colour or religion.

But when some were playing down the seriousness of child molesters on ADO, you weren't there.

Ass well as one or two posters back then who admitted they would take their child to a Gary Glitter concert and pay, yet see no harm in targeting technic minorities...

I'm sorry to my buddy who knows who he is , but he was not the only one...

That halfwit a debunker there at the time too.

Saying that the white person must be innocent is not saying that it's less serious though. It's biased of course, but it's nothing to do with being a paedo sympathiser.

Why on earth were people discussing Gary Glitter concerts? When was the last time he did one?

[Guest]

Kills about 3 birds with one stone, demonstrating how serious the issue of paedophiles is, then can become more or less serious of committed by a person of a different skin colour or religion.

But when some were playing down the seriousness of child molesters on ADO, you weren't there.

Ass well as one or two posters back then who admitted they would take their child to a Gary Glitter concert and pay, yet see no harm in targeting technic minorities...

I'm sorry to my buddy who knows who he is , but he was not the only one...

That halfwit a debunker there at the time too.

Saying that the white person must be innocent is not saying that it's less serious though. It's biased of course, but it's nothing to do with being a paedo sympathiser.

Why on earth were people discussing Gary Glitter concerts? When was the last time he did one?

It was a poll question as there was obvious playing down the actions of paedophiles.
Well I'm about as stumped as you on when his concerts are, he does have a website though, they say it's ...' All about the music and not what he has done', worryingly a lot of fans still.

3 years ago or so the site was there.

[Guest]

And 3 years later this site is here.
As you constantly say yourself
Drap it!

Ben has already requested these accusations stop and I dont think accusing people of being paedo sympathisers is any better really.

[Guest]

And 3 years later this site is here.
As you constantly say yourself
Drap it!

Ben has already requested these accusations stop and I dont think accusing people of being paedo sympathisers is any better really.

Perhaps me and you both should not mention previous forums then Nems?

DRAP -IT!!!!  

[Beekeeper]

I'm gonna say this as it's true with a small minority on here...

A few on here are far more sympathetic toward paedophiles and rapists than they are of some folk in life who have gone wrong by way of thieving , assaults, fraud and some other crimes they have committed in life.

................................

  

UTTER bullshit, JD !!!

That's the silliest thing you have said on here this year !

I haven't yet seen anybody on here show any "sympathies towards paedo's and rapists ..".

[Guest]

I'm gonna say this as it's true with a small minority on here...

A few on here are far more sympathetic toward paedophiles and rapists than they are of some folk in life who have gone wrong by way of thieving , assaults, fraud and some other crimes they have committed in life.

................................

  

UTTER bullshit, JD !!!

That's the silliest thing you have said on here this year !

I haven't yet seen anybody on here show any "sympathies towards paedo's and rapists ..".

..no it's not Bee, I should re-phrase it really....

Some have more an issue with thieves, blacks, immigrants etc than they do with child molesters, and if you believe otherwise, then you've had your eyes closed for too long.

Not sure if you were around posting on ADO at that time?

And if we do hear of child molesters,mots the non white ones we hear of mostly, colour should never matter, it is the gross act itself.

[Guest]

I'm gonna say this as it's true with a small minority on here...

A few on here are far more sympathetic toward paedophiles and rapists than they are of some folk in life who have gone wrong by way of thieving , assaults, fraud and some other crimes they have committed in life.

................................

  

UTTER bullshit, JD !!!

That's the silliest thing you have said on here this year !

I haven't yet seen anybody on here show any "sympathies towards paedo's and rapists ..".

Sorry..ON HERE, yes as I said, thieves and immigrants of a non white colour are highlighted before child molesters, we even have one or two who still think s
Savile done no wrong, insulting his victims in the process.

[Guest]

And 3 years later this site is here.
As you constantly say yourself
Drap it!

Ben has already requested these accusations stop and I dont think accusing people of being paedo sympathisers is any better really.

Perhaps me and you both should not mention previous forums then Nems?

DRAP -IT!!!!  

Fair enough flower
perhaps we all should
You get to tell Phil though!
    

[Beekeeper]

  

UTTER bullshit, JD !!!

That's the silliest thing you have said on here this year !

I haven't yet seen anybody on here show any "sympathies towards paedo's and rapists ..".

..no it's not Bee, I should re-phrase it really....

Some have more an issue with thieves, blacks, immigrants etc than they do with child molesters, and  if you  believe otherwise, then you've had your eyes closed for too long.

Not sure if you were around posting on ADO at that time?

And if we do hear of child molesters,mots the non white ones we hear of mostly, colour should never matter, it is the gross act itself.

  

HOW many times do you have to be reminded, JD !

This is the Newsfix site, not that near-defunct ADO site !!!   

[Guest]

Perhaps me and you both should not mention previous forums then Nems?

DRAP -IT!!!!  

Fair enough flower
perhaps we all should
You get to tell Phil though!
    

Ach, yes ,we should all not bicker for at least a day!!!  

Some are coming over to goad him though Nems, but he does sometimes go OTT in his replies , I did say that I thought his comment regards Edmund's wife was well out of order, he is seeing red mist at times I think, but that is definitely a no-no.

[Guest]

..no it's not Bee, I should re-phrase it really....

Some have more an issue with thieves, blacks, immigrants etc than they do with child molesters, and  if you  believe otherwise, then you've had your eyes closed for too long.

Not sure if you were around posting on ADO at that time?

And if we do hear of child molesters,mots the non white ones we hear of mostly, colour should never matter, it is the gross act itself.

  

HOW many times do you have to be reminded, JD !

This is the Newsfix site, not that near-defunct ADO site !!!      

But we can both say that Bee,you sometimes mention spats from SF, we are both guilty!!!  

[Guest]

Fair enough flower
perhaps we all should
You get to tell Phil though!
    

Ach, yes ,we should all not bicker for at least a day!!!  

Some are coming over to goad him though  Nems, but he does sometimes go OTT in his replies , I did say that I thought his comment regards Edmund's wife was well out of order, he is seeing red mist at times I think, but that is definitely a no-no.

I like to give a little bit extra when i return serve JD, and Moletrousers is a turd, plain and simple.

[Fred Moletrousers]

If you assaulted such a person, would that mean you'd "gone wrong"

Assaulting someone as in hitting them can be forgiven , a lot of people have convictions for assault, but in general it can be put down to , 'doing wrong' and a lot more people have assaulted someone at some point with no conviction...

In society we allow such mistakes and stupidity, if the assault is severe, it deserves punishing, but often the offender is genuinely sorry for their actions, however rape and child molestation involve something far more sinister and the public need protecting more for that kind of thing.


Raping a child is not the kind of thing we should or can afford to accept as a 'mistake'.

I'm all for forgiving general criminals and giving them another chance, but not rapists and child molesters, I don't believe they ever change their ways.

The problem is, JD, that human nature or simple ignorance can intervene.

Don't you remember the case of an inflamed mob attacking the home of a suspected "paedophile" only for it to be discovered that what they had actually attacked was the home of a paediatrician?

That arose, as I recall, because the woman doctor's name, address and speciality had been published in a national newspaper. Someone, obviously lacking a few brain cells, mistakenly believed that she was (I hesitate to use the phrase under the current circumstances) a kiddie-fiddler, and the attack on her property could so easily have developed into an attack on her person.

Having said that, I would never forgive a paedophile either...but violence isn't within my nature, so I wouldn't go and beat the crap out of him or her - if for no other reason that I, too, might have got things wrong.

[Guest]

Assaulting someone as in hitting them can be forgiven , a lot of people have convictions for assault, but in general it can be put down to , 'doing wrong' and a lot more people have assaulted someone at some point with no conviction...

In society we allow such mistakes and stupidity, if the assault is severe, it deserves punishing, but often the offender is genuinely sorry for their actions, however rape and child molestation involve something far more sinister and the public need protecting more for that kind of thing.


Raping a child is not the kind of thing we should or can afford to accept as a 'mistake'.

I'm all for forgiving general criminals and giving them another chance, but not rapists and child molesters, I don't believe they ever change their ways.

The problem is, JD, that human nature or simple ignorance can intervene.

Don't you remember the case of an inflamed mob attacking the home of a suspected "paedophile" only for it to be discovered that what they had actually attacked was the home of a paediatrician?

That arose, as I recall, because the woman doctor's name, address and speciality had been published in a national newspaper. Someone, obviously lacking a few brain cells, mistakenly believed that she was (I hesitate to use the phrase under the current circumstances) a kiddie-fiddler, and the attack on her property could so easily have developed into an attack on her person.

Having said that, I would never forgive a paedophile either...but violence isn't within my nature, so I wouldn't go and beat the crap out of him or her - if for no other reason that I, too, might have got things wrong.

Ah yes Ed, it has to be proven by all means, not always necessarily through a court of law, but proof that is overwhelming,i would never want the wrong person accused of that, as the person you described being a paediatrician, one who actually is looking after children , rather than harm them, yes some are too quick to believe anything , and people like that are a danger to many.

[Fred Moletrousers]

The problem is, JD, that human nature or simple ignorance can intervene.

Don't you remember the case of an inflamed mob attacking the home of a suspected "paedophile" only for it to be discovered that what they had actually attacked was the home of a paediatrician?

That arose, as I recall, because the woman doctor's name, address and speciality had been published in a national newspaper. Someone, obviously lacking a few brain cells, mistakenly believed that she was (I hesitate to use the phrase under the current circumstances) a kiddie-fiddler, and the attack on her property could so easily have developed into an attack on her person.

Having said that, I would never forgive a paedophile either...but violence isn't within my nature, so I wouldn't go and beat the crap out of him or her - if for no other reason that I, too, might have got things wrong.

Ah yes Ed, it has to be proven by all means, not always necessarily through a court of law, but proof that is overwhelming,i would never want the wrong person accused of that, as the person you described being a paediatrician, one who actually is looking after children , rather than harm them, yes some are too quick to believe anything , and people like that are a danger to many.

Sadly, JD, that danger would always exist if we allowed an atmosphere of vigilante retribution to prevail.

[Guest]

The problem is, JD, that human nature or simple ignorance can intervene.

Don't you remember the case of an inflamed mob attacking the home of a suspected "paedophile" only for it to be discovered that what they had actually attacked was the home of a paediatrician?

That arose, as I recall, because the woman doctor's name, address and speciality had been published in a national newspaper. Someone, obviously lacking a few brain cells, mistakenly believed that she was (I hesitate to use the phrase under the current circumstances) a kiddie-fiddler, and the attack on her property could so easily have developed into an attack on her person.

Having said that, I would never forgive a paedophile either...but violence isn't within my nature, so I wouldn't go and beat the crap out of him or her - if for no other reason that I, too, might have got things wrong.

Ah yes Ed, it has to be proven by all means, not always necessarily through a court of law, but proof that is overwhelming,i would never want the wrong person accused of that, as the person you described being a paediatrician, one who actually is looking after children , rather than harm them, yes some are too quick to believe anything , and people like that are a danger to many.

And JD, as in the case Lord M mentioned, some people are just plain thick

[Guest]

Ah yes Ed, it has to be proven by all means, not always necessarily through a court of law, but proof that is overwhelming,i would never want the wrong person accused of that, as the person you described being a paediatrician, one who actually is looking after children , rather than harm them, yes some are too quick to believe anything , and people like that are a danger to many.

And JD, as in the case Lord M mentioned, some people are just plain thick

Absolutely Nems, confusing those words, drop - of - a - hat thugs.

[Guest]

I left the very good speakfree because a moderator named "TheToryScum" deleted 2 threads where I labelled some convicted foreign criminals "scum".


He said the word was unnecessary and vulgar.

The second time he did it I immediately left - I felt there was nothing wrong with labelling such disgusting individuals scum and felt the reason he didn't like it was because they were foreign.

If you can't post the truth on a forum, what's the point?  If you are challenged - nothing wrong with that, but moderators going behind your back changing posts and threads is just pointless.

Please discuss.

[Original Quill]

Yet, you offer no discussion, Didge.  I offer you, yourself, as evidence.  That's what is wrong with conservatives.  They can't think, ergo they can't explain themselves.  They are not mentally dynamic.

Let's face it, Conservatives live in a world of labels and jingos.  They think in static symbols.  They have no flexible self-language by which they can move around ideas, compare and weigh, and make independent judgments.  Everything is in the past, hence there is no need for actual cerebral activity.  It's too bad, because some of them would do quite well.

Actually you offer opinion, not evidence, because you cannot formulate evidence off the back of a political concept that varies Quill or how each person may hold some of those views not all, where all you are doing is placing many people into this category you have formulated and again offer no view as to why it is wrong and now you claim they live in a world of labels, when you are thus now guilty of doing the same, showing again how absurd your claim is. Again everyone is different and even those on left and right will find views they agree on and where people on the left will different to views with other people on the left, the same with those on the right. You are thus casting a poor again prejudice view, based on a concept, that is absurd, that is as bad as to claim all religious people would be idiots, or blacks are criminally minded, you use the same flawed logic.

Well, it's in the nature of political theory to draw a lot upon your own experience it political discussions, didge.  For years I taught political ideas at both the undergraduate university level and the graduate level.  In that job, as you can imagine, I read a lot and I had a lot of discussions.  Suffice it to say that I had a lot of experience with the ways in which politicos--left, right and center--not only think, but formulate their thoughts.

One of the truths I have come across is the lack of bi-laterality in the political ideologies we call LW and RW.  They are not just two brands of the same essential product.  In fact, it's almost incidental that they are in opposition in any way.  They are in opposition by accident.  I know, it's the trite thing to say that all politicians lie, or all of them seek power, or all of them engage in trickery and evasion...indeed, it is from such substance-less cocktail party appeaser sayings we convince ourselves of the veracity of such sayings.  But the tail wags the dog in such matters.  Left and Right are not just different brands, but wholly different phenomena.

The Left speaks for the humanism of mankind, and the potential for its expansion.  The Right speaks to the evil of mankind, and therefore the need for repression, rules and discipline.  This--as opposed to, anti-humanism, on the one hand, or anti-rule-making, on the other--is the true alignment of the two political parties.  As you can see, they are not even remotely riding on the same see-saw.  They are adverse only by way of accidental opposition, not diametrical.

This goes a long way in understanding why political opposition is in such a state of untidiness today.  The two sides are not only talking past one another, but they don't even know where the other camp is located...or what is important, essential or dear to the other.  Indeed, they have no common language.  And because they don't even understand one another, the rift of distrust ever widens.

The Left derives its philosophy from Christian charity--no, I don't mean the old man in the sky, but the real worldly, human empathy and compassion espoused by that very human, real person.  Christ was a social philosopher, if you will.  It was a later philosophy, but a much more enlightened one that requires some thinking and deducing conclusion.

The Right derives its philosophy from the ever-present potential for conflict between and among humankind.  It is a far more primitive idea, as expressed by Mel Brooks in his comedy album, The 2,000-year Old Man:

Carl: What language did you speak then?

Mel: They spoke Rock, basic Rock.

Carl: Basic rock. That was before Hebrew

Mel: Yes, was two hundred years before Hebrew, was the Rock language, the
Rock talk.

Carl: Could you give us an example of that?

Mel: Yes, "Hey don't throw that rock at me. Hey what are you doing with that
rock? I'll call a policeman for God's sake, put that rock away..."

Carl: I see.

Mel: That was the Rock.

http://jaylipp.fatcow.com/Fun/ClassicComedy/two1000yearold.html

The two sides have different aims, based upon their different perceptions of the world.

What does that have to do with politics and economics in the present day?  Humanism made the Left become more concerned about the betterment of mankind; hence, thinking about how to make mankind more comfortable, more healthy and more safe.  On the other hand, a perception of a threatening world made the Right build defenses and eschew projects for the betterment of mankind.  Hence, their affinity toward conservatism and stagnation in ideas.

Hence, their unfamiliarity with thinking and dynamic ideas...and ultimately, their atrophied minds.  Plus, of course, their hostility toward academia and education in general.  But do they love their defenses, and wars...do they ever.

Now, I'm not writing to condemn the Right.  I'm hoping to awaken one or two of them, and bring them over to the dynamic use of mind.  I agree with Ben that you have the best of the conservative minds, didge, hence I take the time with you.  I am, after all, a teacher.

[Eilzel]

To me I am not suprised and what politics does is all about the smear campaign, more so than being there for the actual people. I just think people easily stereotype people into groups whether it be anything that constitutes a prejudice vuew Ben and all are guilty of this at times, just the ones that stand out get more attention like racism or homophobia, but even people with left wing views as seen will hold prejudice views onto others.

.................

 
   WHEN visualising where people may fall on the "political spectrum", I often like to use the idea of a "political compass" rather than simply imagining them sitting at one point along a straight line...

IN this view of people's opinions you put their political and economic beliefs along one axis and their social/humanitarian feelings along another at right angles ~ dividing a circle into four quadrants ~ roughly equivalent to those notions of :
* the more 'conservative' (i.e. inflexible..) Liberals and Socialists;
* Radical/progressive Liberals, humanists, democratic socialists (and communists out on the extremes);
* conservative and ultra-con' Tories and republicans, i.e. "reactionaries";
* the more liberal-minded and progressive Tories & Repub's..  

CHECK it out @  http://www.politicalcompass.org

On their test I end up in the lower-left quadrant => midway between Mahatma Ghandhi more to the left and Nelson Mandela slightly below, and the centre of the "compass"..

EVERYONE should give it a burl and see if they place where they might have hoped !   

I have done this before but always nice to see where I'm at (2 years on I think) -9.25- almost as Left as you can get   

As Authoritarian as Gandhi   

[Guest]

Actually you offer opinion, not evidence, because you cannot formulate evidence off the back of a political concept that varies Quill or how each person may hold some of those views not all, where all you are doing is placing many people into this category you have formulated and again offer no view as to why it is wrong and now you claim they live in a world of labels, when you are thus now guilty of doing the same, showing again how absurd your claim is. Again everyone is different and even those on left and right will find views they agree on and where people on the left will different to views with other people on the left, the same with those on the right. You are thus casting a poor again prejudice view, based on a concept, that is absurd, that is as bad as to claim all religious people would be idiots, or blacks are criminally minded, you use the same flawed logic.

Well, it's in the nature of political theory to draw a lot upon your own experience it political discussions, didge.  For years I taught political ideas at both the undergraduate university level and the graduate level.  In that job, as you can imagine, I read a lot and I had a lot of discussions.  Suffice it to say that I had a lot of experience with the ways in which politicos--left, right and center--not only think, but formulate their thoughts.


One of the truths I have come across is the lack of bi-laterality in the political ideologies we call LW and RW.  They are not just two brands of the same essential product.  In fact, it's almost incidental that they are in opposition in any way.  They are in opposition by accident.  I know, it's the trite thing to say that all politicians lie, or all of them seek power, or all of them engage in trickery and evasion...indeed, it is from such substance-less cocktail party appeaser sayings we convince ourselves of the veracity of such sayings.  But the tail wags the dog in such matters.  Left and Right are not just different brands, but wholly different phenomena.

The Left speaks for the humanism of mankind, and the potential for its expansion.  The Right speaks to the evil of mankind, and therefore the need for repression, rules and discipline.  This--as opposed to, anti-humanism, on the one hand, or anti-rule-making, on the other--is the true alignment of the two political parties.  As you can see, they are not even remotely riding on the same see-saw.  They are adverse only by way of accidental opposition, not diametrical.

This goes a long way in understanding why political opposition is in such a state of untidiness today.  The two sides are not only talking past one another, but they don't even know where the other camp is located...or what is important, essential or dear to the other.  Indeed, they have no common language.  And because they don't even understand one another, the rift of distrust ever widens.

The Left derives its philosophy from Christian charity--no, I don't mean the old man in the sky, but the real worldly, human empathy and compassion espoused by that very human, real person.  Christ was a social philosopher, if you will.  It was a later philosophy, but a much more enlightened one that requires some thinking and deducing conclusion.  The Right derives its philosophy from the ever-present potential for conflict between and among humankind.  It is a far more primitive idea, as expressed by Mel Brooks in his comedy album, The 2,000-year Old Man:

Carl: What language did you speak then?

Mel: They spoke Rock, basic Rock.

Carl: Basic rock. That was before Hebrew

Mel: Yes, was two hundred years before Hebrew, was the Rock language, the
Rock talk.

Carl: Could you give us an example of that?

Mel: Yes, "Hey don't throw that rock at me. Hey what are you doing with that
rock? I'll call a policeman for God's sake, put that rock away..."

Carl: I see.

Mel: That was the Rock.

The two sides have different aims, based upon their different perceptions of the world.

What does that have to do with politics and economics in the present day?  Humanism made the Left become more concerned about the betterment of mankind; hence, thinking about how to make mankind more comfortable, more healthy and more safe.  On the other hand, a perception of a threatening world made the Right build defenses and eschew projects for the betterment of mankind.  Hence, their affinity toward conservatism and stagnation in ideas.

Hence, their unfamiliarity with thinking and dynamic ideas...and ultimately, their atrophied minds.  Plus, of course, their hostility toward academia and education in general.  But do they love their defenses, and wars...do they ever.

Now, I'm not writing to condemn the Right.  I'm hoping to awaken one or two of them, and bring them over to the dynamic use of mind.  I agree with Ben that you have the best of the conservative minds, didge, hence I take the time with you.  I am, after all, a teacher.

]No its called your own perception Quill which as seen is already heavily biased against people with a view of conservatism, that means already you have a prejudice which will cloud any sensible outlook you might have had on the matter, that is the psychology side of why what you are saying is flawed from the start. Reading is one thing, something I also do often, but interaction is key also to understanding people without judging them based upon a political view or indeed many other aspects.

Again your evidence is as flawed as the new thread on intelligence levels and conservatism, it shows a poor balance upon looking at the political view and not the individual. This is again what racists and homophobics do, they judge purely on a specific view point about an individual and then will condemn all other aspects about them. Yes you are an excellent teacher Quill but as stated when you hold already a prejudice view of a very broad political concept, you will find then any attempt you try to make on viewing this impossible, because already you have come to your own conclusions on the concept without again understanding within each individual they will view many aspects different.

If anything many Conservatives will claim christian values, that again from either side is something I find flawed, as whilst Jesus has taught some decent principles, decent morals and actual equality did not come from any Christian teaching but actually standing against the religion itself, because it has commands which restrict again any conscious ability to be objectionable. There has been plenty of examples of those with left wing views that are very militant and extreme to the point of conflict, you find this on both ends of the spectrum, there is no difference here or one right or wrong over the other, because again no matter the political view point each person again will be individual in their view points. You seem to have a false philosophy that war or conflict only stems from those with right wing views, it does not and whenever anyone who is in power left or right are all easily corruptible, of which is part of human nature when people obtain greater power. It has little to do with any political concepts but what humans strive and aim to achieve, you are confusing much of this with politics whilst ignoring the psychology of the individuality of each human

[Original Quill]

Well, it's in the nature of political theory to draw a lot upon your own experience it political discussions, didge.  For years I taught political ideas at both the undergraduate university level and the graduate level.  In that job, as you can imagine, I read a lot and I had a lot of discussions.  Suffice it to say that I had a lot of experience with the ways in which politicos--left, right and center--not only think, but formulate their thoughts.


One of the truths I have come across is the lack of bi-laterality in the political ideologies we call LW and RW.  They are not just two brands of the same essential product.  In fact, it's almost incidental that they are in opposition in any way.  They are in opposition by accident.  I know, it's the trite thing to say that all politicians lie, or all of them seek power, or all of them engage in trickery and evasion...indeed, it is from such substance-less cocktail party appeaser sayings we convince ourselves of the veracity of such sayings.  But the tail wags the dog in such matters.  Left and Right are not just different brands, but wholly different phenomena.

The Left speaks for the humanism of mankind, and the potential for its expansion.  The Right speaks to the evil of mankind, and therefore the need for repression, rules and discipline.  This--as opposed to, anti-humanism, on the one hand, or anti-rule-making, on the other--is the true alignment of the two political parties.  As you can see, they are not even remotely riding on the same see-saw.  They are adverse only by way of accidental opposition, not diametrical.

This goes a long way in understanding why political opposition is in such a state of untidiness today.  The two sides are not only talking past one another, but they don't even know where the other camp is located...or what is important, essential or dear to the other.  Indeed, they have no common language.  And because they don't even understand one another, the rift of distrust ever widens.

The Left derives its philosophy from Christian charity--no, I don't mean the old man in the sky, but the real worldly, human empathy and compassion espoused by that very human, real person.  Christ was a social philosopher, if you will.  It was a later philosophy, but a much more enlightened one that requires some thinking and deducing conclusion.  The Right derives its philosophy from the ever-present potential for conflict between and among humankind.  It is a far more primitive idea, as expressed by Mel Brooks in his comedy album, The 2,000-year Old Man:



The two sides have different aims, based upon their different perceptions of the world.

What does that have to do with politics and economics in the present day?  Humanism made the Left become more concerned about the betterment of mankind; hence, thinking about how to make mankind more comfortable, more healthy and more safe.  On the other hand, a perception of a threatening world made the Right build defenses and eschew projects for the betterment of mankind.  Hence, their affinity toward conservatism and stagnation in ideas.

Hence, their unfamiliarity with thinking and dynamic ideas...and ultimately, their atrophied minds.  Plus, of course, their hostility toward academia and education in general.  But do they love their defenses, and wars...do they ever.

Now, I'm not writing to condemn the Right.  I'm hoping to awaken one or two of them, and bring them over to the dynamic use of mind.  I agree with Ben that you have the best of the conservative minds, didge, hence I take the time with you.  I am, after all, a teacher.

No its called your own perception Quill which as seen is already heavily biased against people with a view of conservatism, that means already you have a prejudice which will cloud any sensible outlook you might have had on the matter, that is the psychology side of why what you are saying is flawed from the start. Reading is one thing, something I also do often, but interaction is key also to understanding people without judging them based upon a political view or indeed many other aspects.

This rather confirms my point that the two sides are not merely talking past one another, but they have no common language.

Again your evidence is as flawed as the new thread on intelligence levels and conservatism, it shows a poor balance upon looking at the political view and not the individual. This is again what racists and homophobics do, they judge purely on a specific view point about an individual and then will condemn all other aspects about them. Yes you are an excellent teacher Quill but as stated when you hold already a prejudice view of a very broad political concept, you will find then any attempt you try to make on viewing this impossible, because already you have come to your own conclusions on the concept without again understanding within each individual they will view many aspects different.

Who said anything about intelligence levels?  It is one thing to say one has low intelligence, and quite another to say that one is essentially lazy and doesn't use his intelligence.  The latter is what I believe about conservatives.  Their program permits them to avoid thinking.  No one would be more happy than I if andy or drinky or shady gave me back solid reasoning instead of slogans and labels, but it's not the conservative way.  Also, we were not discussing racists and homophobics so I suggest we don't go there...just to avoid confusion.

If anything many Conservatives will claim christian values, that again from either side is something I find flawed, as whilst Jesus has taught some decent principles, decent morals and actual equality did not come from any Christian teaching but actually standing against the religion itself, because it has commands which restrict again any conscious ability to be objectionable. There has been plenty of examples of those with left wing views that are very militant and extreme to the point of conflict, you find this on both ends of the spectrum, there is no difference here or one right or wrong over the other, because again no matter the political view point each person again will be individual in their view points. You seem to have a false philosophy that war or conflict only stems from those with right wing views, it does not and whenever anyone who is in power left or right are all easily corruptible, of which is part of human nature when people obtain greater power. It has little to do with any political concepts but what humans strive and aim to achieve, you are confusing much of this with politics whilst ignoring the psychology of the individuality of each human

By Christian charity, didge, I don't mean organized religion.  I have said enough here to demonstrate that I am not a believer in the metaphysics of religion.  But I am an historian of political theory, and I believe that Christ was among the best social philosophers.  Christ is best read in very simple terms (not through the prism of the overwork of 2,000-years of metaphysical  preachers).  And equality?  Decent morals?  I didn't say Christ wrote everything.  I said he taught a very specific thing: humanism.  Freedom?  Equality?  Individualism?  Those are all things that fell to post-Renaissance thinkers.

As said, Christ's message was very simple: put yourself in the other person's shoes.  S/he is human, just like you.  By such empathy, you elevate your morality.  It wasn't every message but it was the start of the leveling movement that allowed everything from emphasis on the human, not god, in art, science, astronomy, economics, sociology and politics...even coming back to religion itself.

This, in turn, got us away from emphasis on the evil of man, and transitioned us onto exploring the potential of man...the progressive message. Therein is why I associate conservatives with wars, and progressives with advancement of the potential of man. Compare these two documents:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Filled with expressions of the potential of man.

Now, look at the conservative document:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This document reeks of fear, and foreboding. It speaks to the need for a justice system, peace and quiet (from what?), military defense, and other objects of fear.

My point is that we have yet to fully transition to the hopes and dreams of the Declaration, and we are still burdened by the fears of the Constitution. But the Declaration is the positive hope, begun by Christ, in the potential of man.

[Guest]

You maybe in political theory Quill but not psychology

Christ said many things, many good, but it was not his views that brought about change in society from people, but how people have evolved themselves away from what was once thought of as divinely inspired.   

 Again I think you believe it was his views, but for years his views were not taken in any shape of love and that is what it boils down to, people themselves realised they had a voice and a right to stand up for their freedoms, this came not from what he said but other great people willing to make a stand for their rights or a belief in themselves they could.

But again you look in part of what Jesus taught because he also did condemn people, that is thus not inspiring, it shows again prejudice, to those he deemed as wrong, which is what you do now, someone who looks at others without prejudice is truly inspiring

Jesus message was on of self sacrifice, and evil is only evil to those on opposing views as to what is right or wrong


Again you do form a concept based again with a view that is in itself prejudice and true character is seeing past someone past poor stereotypes, many have poorly mistaken me for example off the back of views, why, because people Judge, whether left or right wing, that is human nature. Much of which does show flaws in your argument because of human nature people will say one thing and also mean another

[Original Quill]

Well, as I said, the metaphysics have been overworked and twisted to mean anything. In particular, the Roman Church held the movement hostage for 1,500 years. They even censored the Bible. Where is the gospel of James? Of Mary the Magdalen?

No, I'm asking you to focus on the very simple man and his teachings. When you do, the overwhelming message is humanism. It's the message caught by Gandhi and by Mother Teresa, not Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.

[Sponsored content]