Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Lou's resply-knaledatphallacee used2b

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 11, 2013, at 6:31:30

In reply to Re: Lou's resply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou, posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 11:32:55

> Lou,
> I've not followed the details of this controversy, but from the rules as I see them represented in your post (posting what different faiths teach is allowed), this is another case where idiosyncratic rules of syntax at this site are at odds with standard syntax as would be endorsed by most experts in English language.
> If the rule allows claims about "what different faiths teach" the rule anthropomorphizes faith. A faith is a concept incapable of teaching anything. Organizations articulate faith concepts. Organizations comprise people.
> We can only speak accurately about what people teach. Those teachings are based on their individual beliefs. When a set of rules presumes to allow "what faiths teach" someone is neccessarily deciding whose beliefs are allowed as a "faith" and which are excluded. And even if the rule maker disallows all interpretive statements, selected citations from spiritual texts reflect the opinion of the second-hand source who selected the citation.
> How many people does it take for a belief to become a faith? One? Two? Four? Fourty? Four hundred? Four thousand? Were the Davidians a faith or a sect? Are all Christians one faith or do diverse denominations reflect diverse faiths?
> Courts have been somewhat successful in establishing which "organized religions" have legitimate standing in regard to matters like conscientious objection to warfare, and ordination of religious ministers for tax purposes. But their rules tread carefully around the first amendment (in the US).
> Any discrimination in dialogue about "what different faiths teach" rests purely on the authority of the individual so discriminating. Rational discourse is not built around protecting what people might feel in response to discourse. It seems odd to me the administrator of a site intended to support mental health systematically prefers emotional discourse over rational discourse, because some sources say mental disorders are often rooted in cognitive misperceptions that in turn fuel emotional disorders.

used2b and friends,
It is written here,[...mental disorders are often rooted in cognitive misperceptions that in turn fuel emotional disorders...].
It is plainly visible that what Mr Hsiung has posted here could cause misperceptions. For instance, Mr Hsiung has drafted a rule that states that support takes precedence and that it does not matter if what is posted, that is not supportive, is a belief of the author, or if the bible states it, or if the group that the author is quoting states it in their literature. There is also a rule that one can not post links to anti-Semitic content, period, which could cause the distorted thinking here when there is the other statement by Mr Hsiung about what a group teaches.
So what we have here is something that Mr Hsiung has in his rules here that could be the root of mental disorders, for is there a contradiction that others have the potential to entertain in their mind, that is that one could think that posting what could arouse anti-Semitic feelings is OK here if the group that the author is quoting has what could arouse anti-Semitic feelings in their literature, for that is what , according to the rules of Mr Hsiunbg, the group "teaches"?
What I see here is nothing more than a transparent attempt by Mr Hsiung to allow anti-Semitism to flourish here on the guise that the hatred toward the Jews in the literature of the groups that the authors of the posts in question, that have the statements that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings, are OK because it is what those groups "teach". But you nailed that fallacy rightly, stating that faiths do not teach. Could one post here that my faith teaches that the Jews (redacted by respondent), just because it is in that groups doctrines? Or could a hate-monger post here that their hate group has in their "teachings" that their members of their group are the only group of people that will be given forgiveness and eternal life? If so, that contradicts the mission of the forum as that support takes precedence and that one can not post anything that could lead another to feel put down/accused.
But it is much more than that, and I see that you see it. For members have the distortions from the rules allowing what is not supportive that could cause violence to be perpetrated against Jews and Islamic people and others. They could have the (false) idea planted in their minds that it is OK to post what insults Jews and Islamic people and others if it is part of the doctrines of the group quoted. And they could actually be fed that they are doing what will be good by posting insults to Judaism and Islam and other faiths here because Mr Hsiung states that he does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a a whole. Cognitive misperceptions can and do induce mental disorders. I am prevented from posting here, due to the prohibitions to me by Mr Hsiung, to show the historical basis for that. People could think that those prohibitions are supportive.




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Lou Pilder thread:7713