Posted by Lou Pilder on September 2, 2014, at 5:29:34
In reply to Re: Lou's request-ohpnehn, posted by pontormo on September 1, 2014, at 20:38:07
> >
> > A. What is it that Mr. Hsiung has said to me in relation to that you wrote, [I find it admirable that he doesn't override his concern for the community as he's said to Lou]?
>
> --- that he balances what's best for the individual and what's best for the community in making decisions
>
> > B. What do you mean by "overriding"?
>
> the dictionary defines "override" as:
>
> "use one's authority to reject or cancel (a decision, view, etc.).
>
> synonyms:disallow, overrule, countermand, veto, quash, overturn, overthrow"
> --
> > C. What is the principle that Mr. Hsiung is committed to that you are referring to here?
>
> -- that it is of great importance to the community for members to feel that their personal identities will not be violated and that their privacy is insofar as possible protected
> > Lou
> >
>
> pontormo,
You wrote,[...he balances what is best for the individual and what's best for the community in making decisions...].
I do not remember Mr. Hsiung saying to me anything like that. What he has said is that he does [...what in his thinking {will be} good for this community as a whole....]. The huge difference here is that in his use of {will be} verses what is best for the community at that moment, places a decision that could effect the community in the future. Those leaders that wanted slavery and genocide and infanticide and segregation and discrimination used that same argument, that it will be good for the community as a whole to commit mass-murder, have slavery, use discrimination and segregation and commit infanticide. Unless one can see the future, people could not know if that argument is a lie or not until the future arrives. This, then, demanded that the people have trust in that leader that made that claim that he/she could see into the future and after committing mass-murder, the country would be "good". And many people put their trust in those leaders that were committing mass-murder and slavery and infanticide and segregation and discrimination for the good of the state and when the future arrived and they found out that genocide and slavery and discrimination and infanticide did not make the state good, the leaders were executed along with their deputies by the people or the leaders committed suicide or were hanged as war-criminals. Some escaped justice
Here, there are posts that could arouse anti-Semitic feelings and put down Jews and defame me that are allowed to be seen where they are originally posted as conducive to the civic harmony and welfare of this community and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking. And the mission of the forum in Mr. Hsiung's TOS is for support and to maintain a supportive atmosphere and that {support takes precedence}. What takes precedence is to be supportive, not what {will be} good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking, and that has not been taken back by Mr. Hsiung. In fact, Mr. Hsiung has posted that if something is not supportive, it should not be posted here and that there is not an excuse to post incivility because of something else.
To say that one can post anti-Semitism and defamation against me here with impunity because Mr. Hsiung thinks that anti-Semitic hate allowed to stand here will be good or this community as a whole could be considered to be a lie by a subset of readers. Those readers could have a rational basis to think that on the grounds that they have read research in psychology/psychiatry that anti-Semitism is not civil or supportive in a community such as this one where hate implanted into the minds of impaired drug dependent, depressed people could induce suicidal and/or homicidal thoughts. A Jewish child reading here,{No non-Christian will enter heaven} and sees it as supportive where it is originally posted because it is not sanctioned as uncivil, and also sees that Mr. Hsiung has an excuse to allow it to stand, and that excuse is that he doesn't want the poster of the antisemitism to have their feelings hurt if he posts his tagline to please be civil to it, could feel devalued as a Jew, dehumanized, and go into a vortex of depression to kill themselves. A subset of readers could think that you are saying that it is in your thinking, that the anti-Semitic statement, and anti-Islamic as well, allowed to stand here will be good for this community as a whole on the basis that it could be that you agree that if Mr. Hsiung was to post his tagline to please be civil to it, that could not be good for this community a whole, which allows Mr. Hsuing to override the mission of the forum to provide a supportive environment by allowing of what is not supportive or civil and could induce antismeitic feelings as being supportive by Mr. Hsiung, then please say so now.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1070154
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1070664.html