![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 96. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 15:59:12
In reply to Re: Lou's reply/request-tymizovtheesssenz » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 8, 2014, at 10:27:55
> Hi Lou.
>
> I apologize for not following up on your post. You ask good questions.
>
> > True or False:
>
> > A. The faith board is for people to post what could put down those of other faiths
>
> I don't think that this is the mission of the Faith board. However, many religions are exclusionist, and I think one must be able to tolerate this fact in order to participate on the board happily and with minimal stress.
>
> > B. The faith board is to post messages that elevate the poster's religion above other faiths
>
> There is a difference between describing accurately the tenets of a religion versus offering a personal opinion judging the worthlessness of the religions of others. Verbiage is important, of course. It is often difficult to compose posts that state one's beliefs without having others feel put-down. I think Dr. Bob has moderated the Faith board in a way that allows for the inclusion of exclusionist religions, but that minimizes the potential for participants to feel judged or put-down.
>
> > C. The faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenants {provided that what is posted does not put down those of other faiths or pressure others to adopt theirs}.
>
> I don't think that the Faith board is an invitation to agonize over the fact that there will be people expressing their subscription to alternate religions.
>
> D. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, is allowed to be posted here on the faith board.
>
> I am not in a position to judge this, especially when I don't know what you wish to express. If it is your desire to post without punitive sanction something that has already been adjudicated by the moderator, perhaps you should enquire of the moderator if his judgment regarding your posts have changed. You could use email to do this.
>
> If you were to post a belief in a personal revelation that all gentiles are descended from Neanderthals (not that there is anything wrong with that), I think that this would be uncivil because this belief is not to be found in Jewish scripture, and would be considered to be a put-down by many gentiles, as Neanderthals are generally regarded to be inferior.
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
You wrote what I think is that if I was to post something that could be thought to be putting down others on the faith board, as in your example using Neanderthals, it would be putting down those others on the basis that it is not in Jewish scripture. I have the following questions that I would like for you to post answers to:
A. If what puts down is in the Jewish scriptures, would then that be allowed by you as that you consider that since it is in those scriptures that it is civil to post such?
B. The rule here is as I read it, that being supportive takes precedence and unsupportive statements on the faith board that are even in the bible do not override that. If an unsupportive statement is posted on the faith board unsanctioned by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record, and it is in the scriptures used by Abrahamic faiths, would you say that Mr. Hsiung lied when he wrote that being supportive takes precedence even if what is in question is in the bible?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 16:36:16
In reply to Lou's reply-pantzohnphyer » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 15:59:12
> > Hi Lou.
> >
> > I apologize for not following up on your post. You ask good questions.
> >
> > > True or False:
> >
> > > A. The faith board is for people to post what could put down those of other faiths
> >
> > I don't think that this is the mission of the Faith board. However, many religions are exclusionist, and I think one must be able to tolerate this fact in order to participate on the board happily and with minimal stress.
> >
> > > B. The faith board is to post messages that elevate the poster's religion above other faiths
> >
> > There is a difference between describing accurately the tenets of a religion versus offering a personal opinion judging the worthlessness of the religions of others. Verbiage is important, of course. It is often difficult to compose posts that state one's beliefs without having others feel put-down. I think Dr. Bob has moderated the Faith board in a way that allows for the inclusion of exclusionist religions, but that minimizes the potential for participants to feel judged or put-down.
> >
> > > C. The faith board is an invitation to accept that people will subscribe to alternate religious tenants {provided that what is posted does not put down those of other faiths or pressure others to adopt theirs}.
> >
> > I don't think that the Faith board is an invitation to agonize over the fact that there will be people expressing their subscription to alternate religions.
> >
> > D. The foundation of Judaism as revealed to you, Lou, is allowed to be posted here on the faith board.
> >
> > I am not in a position to judge this, especially when I don't know what you wish to express. If it is your desire to post without punitive sanction something that has already been adjudicated by the moderator, perhaps you should enquire of the moderator if his judgment regarding your posts have changed. You could use email to do this.
> >
> > If you were to post a belief in a personal revelation that all gentiles are descended from Neanderthals (not that there is anything wrong with that), I think that this would be uncivil because this belief is not to be found in Jewish scripture, and would be considered to be a put-down by many gentiles, as Neanderthals are generally regarded to be inferior.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> Scott,
> You wrote what I think is that if I was to post something that could be thought to be putting down others on the faith board, as in your example using Neanderthals, it would be putting down those others on the basis that it is not in Jewish scripture. I have the following questions that I would like for you to post answers to:
> A. If what puts down is in the Jewish scriptures, would then that be allowed by you as that you consider that since it is in those scriptures that it is civil to post such?
> B. The rule here is as I read it, that being supportive takes precedence and unsupportive statements on the faith board that are even in the bible do not override that. If an unsupportive statement is posted on the faith board unsanctioned by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record, and it is in the scriptures used by Abrahamic faiths, would you say that Mr. Hsiung lied when he wrote that being supportive takes precedence even if what is in question is in the bible?
> Lou
>
Friends,
Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
Posted by herpills on September 10, 2014, at 12:25:30
In reply to Lou's reply-pantzohnphyer-B, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 16:36:16
> Friends,
> Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> Lou
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
>Lou,
Could you provide an example where a statement from the bible should take precedence over being supportive?
Posted by SLS on September 10, 2014, at 13:04:16
In reply to Lou's reply-pantzohnphyer-B, posted by Lou Pilder on September 8, 2014, at 16:36:16
> Friends,
> Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> Lou> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
Do you see any problems with this?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 15:17:14
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-liarliarpantzohnphyer » Lou Pilder, posted by herpills on September 10, 2014, at 12:25:30
> > Friends,
> > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > Lou
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> >
>
> Lou,
>
> Could you provide an example where a statement from the bible should take precedence over being supportive?
>
> herpills,
You wrote,[...where a statement from the bible {should} take precedence over being supportive..]
Now if I understand the context from where your statement came from, it could have been written:
[..Lou, could you provide a link to where a bible verse is posted that is not supportive and is allowed to be seen as supportive as being unsanctioned?...]
Now if that is what you were asking for me to do, let us look at what is in this link from a post here:
https://www.ds.org/scriptures/nt/John/5.39?lang=eng#28
That link is in this post if it does not actuate
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20051105/msgs/656322.html
Now if we look at verse#39, that is an accusation made to those Jews. Accusations even if the poster is quoting someone else, is according to the rules t be not supportive.
Then in verse#42, another accusative statement that defames
Then in verse #46, a put down to those Jews
Then scrolling to verse #16, the false accusation of that the Jews were in a plot to kill Jesus is posted.
Then in verse #18, the same
Then in verse23, another accusation
Then in verse #38, another defamation
The bible verses are allowed to stand against my objections for years. They can arouse anti-Semitic feelings and I feel put down when I read them so other Jews could also feel put down when they read them. But it is much more than that. For this post is only one of many that defame the Jews or could lead a Jew to feel that their faith is being put down that are allowed to stand and be seen as civil, supportive and will be good for this community as a whole where they are originally posted.
The false characterization of the Jews depicted in those verses, could stereotype Jews here as being seen as validated by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record as not being sanctioned. The put down of the Jews in those verses being allowed to stand devalues Judaism and could dehumanize a Jewish reader here that is in depression to lead them down a vortex of hopelessness culminating in their suicide.
Mr. Hsiung wants you to try to trust him in that he is allowing the statements to be seen as that the will be good for this community as a whole according to his thinking and that he is doing his best to be fair. Others in the historical record said the same and the historical record shows that otherwise. If you want to try to trust him in his allowing of anti-Semitic propaganda to be allowed o be posted here as civil and supportive, remember the historical record where those that propagated that they were doing what will be good for the country as a whole in allowing anti-Semitic propaganda to be good for their country as a whole, and were proven to be liars.
Lou>
>
>
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 19:49:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pantzohnphyer-B » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 10, 2014, at 13:04:16
> > Friends,
> > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > Lou
>
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
> Do you see any problems with this?
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
Problems in what area?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on September 10, 2014, at 20:30:52
In reply to Lou's reply-pruvnlyerz » herpills, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 15:17:14
Lou for some reason it seems that herpills meant and she or he may correct me if I totally misinterpreted it. That being supportive to others on the site. Is more important than reading a bible verse which by the way I don't read the bible. And no I'm not anti-semetic. I read it and see no reason to read it again. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on September 10, 2014, at 21:08:14
In reply to Lou's reply- » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 19:49:03
> > > Friends,
> > > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > > Lou
> >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > Do you see any problems with this?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> Scott,
> Problems in what area?
> LouWhat are my choices?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 21:21:02
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pruvnlyerz » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on September 10, 2014, at 20:30:52
> Lou for some reason it seems that herpills meant and she or he may correct me if I totally misinterpreted it. That being supportive to others on the site. Is more important than reading a bible verse which by the way I don't read the bible. And no I'm not anti-semetic. I read it and see no reason to read it again. Phillipa
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...being supportive to others on the site. (i)s more important than reading a bible verse which by the way I don't read the bible...I'm not antisemitic...see no reason to read it again...].
The grammatical structure of your post here could mean to a subset of readers that reading a bible verse is of less importance than some type of participation in this site. But there are generations upon generations upon generations of bible readers that have had their lives changed to have peace brought into their hearts and be delivered from death. This could lead members here in the depression of a living death of darkness out of the bondage of depression and addiction into a marvelous light of peace and joy.
Your post could be interpreted by a subset of readers to mean that just reading a bible verse is of less importance in relation to posting what could support another here. There are Jews that think that reading a bible verse is important to them, for one can offer support as well to them even if they read a bible verse. Both could be done. Some Jews study the bible that they use for their entire life. They read it again and again. I am not ashamed of reading the bible over and over. And I can post what could support others even if I do so.
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on September 10, 2014, at 21:24:29
In reply to Lou's reply-bagvsceym » Phillipa, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 21:21:02
Lou no offense I'm spiritualistic. Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 21:27:42
In reply to Re: Lou's reply- » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 10, 2014, at 21:08:14
> > > > Friends,
> > > > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > Do you see any problems with this?
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> > Scott,
> > Problems in what area?
> > Lou
>
> What are my choices?
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
Your choices are up to you as to what you had in your mind when you asked me if I had problem with it.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 10, 2014, at 22:35:10
In reply to Lou's reply-hzmynd » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 10, 2014, at 21:27:42
> > > > > Friends,
> > > > > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html> > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> > > Problems in what area?
> > What are my choices?
> Your choices are up to you as to what you had in your mind when you asked me if I had problem with it.
I think I see where I failed to make myself understood.
I am unsure as to what you mean by using the word, "area". I can't answer your question without first knowing how you define it. If you could list some of the areas contained in the post you cited, I might be better able to qualify where you could look for problems.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 5:56:11
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pruvnlyerz » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on September 10, 2014, at 20:30:52
> Lou for some reason it seems that herpills meant and she or he may correct me if I totally misinterpreted it. That being supportive to others on the site. Is more important than reading a bible verse which by the way I don't read the bible. And no I'm not anti-semetic. I read it and see no reason to read it again. Phillipa
Phillipa,
I would like for you to post your explanation for the following that you wrote. If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly. A. What was your reason, if any, for posting: [..I'm not anti-Semitic...]
B. [...I see no reason to read it (the bible) again...]
C. [..being supportive to others..{is more important} than reading a bible verse...]
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 7:11:19
In reply to Re: Lou - ansrthfrgnqustn » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 10, 2014, at 22:35:10
> > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
> > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
>
> > > > Problems in what area?
>
> > > What are my choices?
>
> > Your choices are up to you as to what you had in your mind when you asked me if I had problem with it.
>
> I think I see where I failed to make myself understood.
>
> I am unsure as to what you mean by using the word, "area". I can't answer your question without first knowing how you define it. If you could list some of the areas contained in the post you cited, I might be better able to qualify where you could look for problems.
>
>
> - Scott
> Scott,
What do you mean by "problem"?
Lou
>
>
Posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 8:21:54
In reply to Lou's reply- - ansrthfr*gnqustn » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 7:11:19
> > > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> >
> > > > > Problems in what area?
> >
> > > > What are my choices?
> >
> > > Your choices are up to you as to what you had in your mind when you asked me if I had problem with it.
> >
> > I think I see where I failed to make myself understood.
> >
> > I am unsure as to what you mean by using the word, "area". I can't answer your question without first knowing how you define it. If you could list some of the areas contained in the post you cited, I might be better able to qualify where you could look for problems.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> > Scott,
> What do you mean by "problem"?Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 8:51:13
In reply to Re: Lou - qustnansrd (wsntthtez?) » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 8:21:54
> > > > > > > > Friends,
> > > > > > > > Here is the post where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even over a statement that is in the bible. Look at the paragraph that starts with something like,[..Sometimes the goals of the forum conflict..]
> > > > > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> > >
> > > > > > Problems in what area?
> > >
> > > > > What are my choices?
> > >
> > > > Your choices are up to you as to what you had in your mind when you asked me if I had problem with it.
> > >
> > > I think I see where I failed to make myself understood.
> > >
> > > I am unsure as to what you mean by using the word, "area". I can't answer your question without first knowing how you define it. If you could list some of the areas contained in the post you cited, I might be better able to qualify where you could look for problems.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> > > Scott,
> > What do you mean by "problem"?
>
> Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
>
> Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
>
> So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence. This could mean that since there is not a statement that Mr.Hsiung makes to allow bible verses that are not supportive, that could, let's say, put down Jews, then there are posts with anti-Semitic content that are allowed to be seen here as supportive and civil and will be good for this community as a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking on the basis that those statements in question are allowed to stand unsanctioned which could lead a subset of readers to think that they are condoned here as civil and those readers also could think that Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record are validating the hate involved in anti-Semitism in those posts. This could create in a subset of readers a ratification of hatred toward the Jews as in the post that I cited here where the ancient hatred in propaganda against the Jews is allowed to be seen where it is posted as civil and will be good for this community s a whole in Mr. Hsiung's thinking. Now if readers see that a psychiatrist allows antisemitic propaganda to stand unsanctioned when they also see that he also states that being supportive takes precedence, then there could be a subset of readers that could think that anti-Semitism is supportive according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking. This could lead IMHHHO to Jews becoming victims of anti-Semitic violence from readers here that take Mr. Hsiung at his word, that being supportive takes precedence and that Mr. Hsiung does what in his thinking will be good for this community as a whole. So there could be Jew-haters that are gratified to see the anti-Semitic propaganda being allowed to stand and craw out of their holes to inflict harm against Jews.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 10:59:16
In reply to Lou's reply -heytpsuprtv » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 8:51:13
Lou,
Regarding:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> > > What do you mean by "problem"?
> > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> >
> > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> >
> > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html> The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
"Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
"Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 13:15:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 10:59:16
> Lou,
>
> Regarding:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
> > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
>
> > > > What do you mean by "problem"?
>
> > > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> > >
> > > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> > >
> > > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
>
> > The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
>
> Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
>
> "Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
>
> "Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
>
> Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
>
>
> - ScottScott,
I do not have objections to what Mr. Hsiung posted concerning not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down by posting that they are damned even if the poster believes that.
What I was showing is that anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here where they are originally posted could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung lied when he posted that, for the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen as supportive since there is not his tagline to please be civil linked to it where it is originally posted, nor have up to 6 deputies posted their tagline as acting as deputy for Mr. Hsiung. In examining the impact that could happen by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing what could be by a subset of readers considered to be anti-Jewish thought, those readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies are ratifying the anti-Jewish statement. That could make it possible for anti-Semitism to flourish here. Readers could think that Jews are an inferior race and the damage can not be erased by Mr. Hsiung posting that he did not mean what he posted when he says that he has revised that if a statement is not sanctioned that it is not against his rules, to that it could not be determined if it is or is not against the rules. How can readers view Jews here when the rule is to not post what is uncivil and anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive here?
When I came here and saw that support takes precedence, I took Mr. Hsiung at his word. Taking back what he wrote does not annul the fact that what is not supportive is still not supportive regardless if he takes back what he wrote. The issue here is that anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive which could wreck a subset of jewish people that come here for support IMHHO to kill themselves when they see that Jews are portrayed as an inferior race that they will not enter heaven because they are not Christians, for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven} or {only Christians will enter heaven}.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 16:07:19
In reply to Lou's reply-asphlorisch » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 13:15:41
> > Lou,
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> >
> > > > > What do you mean by "problem"?
> >
> > > > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> > > >
> > > > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> > > >
> > > > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > > The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
> >
> > Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
> >
> > "Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
> >
> > "Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
> >
> > Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> I do not have objections to what Mr. Hsiung posted concerning not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down by posting that they are damned even if the poster believes that.
> What I was showing is that anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here where they are originally posted could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung lied when he posted that, for the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen as supportive since there is not his tagline to please be civil linked to it where it is originally posted, nor have up to 6 deputies posted their tagline as acting as deputy for Mr. Hsiung. In examining the impact that could happen by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing what could be by a subset of readers considered to be anti-Jewish thought, those readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies are ratifying the anti-Jewish statement. That could make it possible for anti-Semitism to flourish here. Readers could think that Jews are an inferior race and the damage can not be erased by Mr. Hsiung posting that he did not mean what he posted when he says that he has revised that if a statement is not sanctioned that it is not against his rules, to that it could not be determined if it is or is not against the rules. How can readers view Jews here when the rule is to not post what is uncivil and anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive here?
> When I came here and saw that support takes precedence, I took Mr. Hsiung at his word. Taking back what he wrote does not annul the fact that what is not supportive is still not supportive regardless if he takes back what he wrote. The issue here is that anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive which could wreck a subset of jewish people that come here for support IMHHO to kill themselves when they see that Jews are portrayed as an inferior race that they will not enter heaven because they are not Christians, for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven} or {only Christians will enter heaven}.
> LouScott,
There is a poster here that has posted what could be relevant to this discussion. The poster goes by the handle of "Bryte".
What Bryte posted was:
[...Physicians do not ethically expose one person to harm for the benefit (of) others...(and) in no case create groups where avoidable harms are imposed when alternatives exist, then claim it might be best for some members to let the harm continue...].
I think that Bryte has a rational basis to post that on the grounds that, at least, he/she may have seen that Mr. Hsiung attempts to justify leaving the anti-Semitic statements as to be seen as supportive where they are originally posted when they could be addressed with his tagline to please be civil or just deleted as alternatives. The attempt to justify the statement that {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is by Mr. Hsiung saying something like that he did not want the poster to feel too bad if he was to post his tagline to please be civil to the statement. And in another attempted justification of anti-Semitic hate, he says that he is doing good for the community as a whole in his thinking by allowing hate so that there could be a discussion about it. The harm can continue when statements that can cause harm are allowed to be seen here as supportive, for support takes precedence. For one match could start a forest fire even if Mr. Hsiung has posted that he has taken back that he thought that.
The fire of hate spreads even if one thinks that it can't, for the historical record shows how one man's thinking can spread the fire of hatred toward the Jews that culminated in millions of Jews being murdered.
Never again.
Lou
Posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 20:28:41
In reply to Lou's reply-asphlorisch » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 13:15:41
> > Lou,
> >
> > Regarding:
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> >
> > > > > What do you mean by "problem"?
> >
> > > > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> > > >
> > > > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> > > >
> > > > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> >
> > > The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
> >
> > Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
> >
> > "Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
> >
> > "Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
> >
> > Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> I do not have objections to what Mr. Hsiung posted concerning not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down by posting that they are damned even if the poster believes that.
> What I was showing is that anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here where they are originally posted could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung lied when he posted that, for the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen as supportive since there is not his tagline to please be civil linked to it where it is originally posted, nor have up to 6 deputies posted their tagline as acting as deputy for Mr. Hsiung. In examining the impact that could happen by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing what could be by a subset of readers considered to be anti-Jewish thought, those readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies are ratifying the anti-Jewish statement. That could make it possible for anti-Semitism to flourish here. Readers could think that Jews are an inferior race and the damage can not be erased by Mr. Hsiung posting that he did not mean what he posted when he says that he has revised that if a statement is not sanctioned that it is not against his rules, to that it could not be determined if it is or is not against the rules. How can readers view Jews here when the rule is to not post what is uncivil and anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive here?
> When I came here and saw that support takes precedence, I took Mr. Hsiung at his word. Taking back what he wrote does not annul the fact that what is not supportive is still not supportive regardless if he takes back what he wrote. The issue here is that anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive which could wreck a subset of jewish people that come here for support IMHHO to kill themselves when they see that Jews are portrayed as an inferior race that they will not enter heaven because they are not Christians, for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven} or {only Christians will enter heaven}.
> LouI understand your concerns and the logic of your arguments.
Can you list here the actions that you would like Dr. Hsiung to perform in order to address these concerns?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 20:37:12
In reply to Lou's reply-Bryte, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2014, at 16:07:19
> > > Lou,
> > >
> > > Regarding:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> > >
> > > > > > What do you mean by "problem"?
> > >
> > > > > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> > > > >
> > > > > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > > The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
> > >
> > > Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
> > >
> > > "Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
> > >
> > > "Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
> > >
> > > Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > I do not have objections to what Mr. Hsiung posted concerning not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down by posting that they are damned even if the poster believes that.
> > What I was showing is that anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here where they are originally posted could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung lied when he posted that, for the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen as supportive since there is not his tagline to please be civil linked to it where it is originally posted, nor have up to 6 deputies posted their tagline as acting as deputy for Mr. Hsiung. In examining the impact that could happen by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing what could be by a subset of readers considered to be anti-Jewish thought, those readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies are ratifying the anti-Jewish statement. That could make it possible for anti-Semitism to flourish here. Readers could think that Jews are an inferior race and the damage can not be erased by Mr. Hsiung posting that he did not mean what he posted when he says that he has revised that if a statement is not sanctioned that it is not against his rules, to that it could not be determined if it is or is not against the rules. How can readers view Jews here when the rule is to not post what is uncivil and anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive here?
> > When I came here and saw that support takes precedence, I took Mr. Hsiung at his word. Taking back what he wrote does not annul the fact that what is not supportive is still not supportive regardless if he takes back what he wrote. The issue here is that anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive which could wreck a subset of jewish people that come here for support IMHHO to kill themselves when they see that Jews are portrayed as an inferior race that they will not enter heaven because they are not Christians, for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven} or {only Christians will enter heaven}.
> > Lou
>
> Scott,
> There is a poster here that has posted what could be relevant to this discussion. The poster goes by the handle of "Bryte".
> What Bryte posted was:
> [...Physicians do not ethically expose one person to harm for the benefit (of) others...(and) in no case create groups where avoidable harms are imposed when alternatives exist, then claim it might be best for some members to let the harm continue...].
> I think that Bryte has a rational basis to post that on the grounds that, at least, he/she may have seen that Mr. Hsiung attempts to justify leaving the anti-Semitic statements as to be seen as supportive where they are originally posted when they could be addressed with his tagline to please be civil or just deleted as alternatives. The attempt to justify the statement that {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is by Mr. Hsiung saying something like that he did not want the poster to feel too bad if he was to post his tagline to please be civil to the statement. And in another attempted justification of anti-Semitic hate, he says that he is doing good for the community as a whole in his thinking by allowing hate so that there could be a discussion about it. The harm can continue when statements that can cause harm are allowed to be seen here as supportive, for support takes precedence. For one match could start a forest fire even if Mr. Hsiung has posted that he has taken back that he thought that.
> The fire of hate spreads even if one thinks that it can't, for the historical record shows how one man's thinking can spread the fire of hatred toward the Jews that culminated in millions of Jews being murdered.
> Never again.
> LouLots to think about.
- Scott
Posted by pontormo on September 11, 2014, at 22:04:52
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Bryte » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 20:37:12
What factors or events led to any particular occurence of genocide,--whether the genocide of the Mao's Cultural Revolution, of the Khmer Rouge, or in Bosnia, and Rwanda.
So I think it is hasty to claim that religious belief preclaimed on this website, or any other individual act that could be pointed to, could besymptomatic of or instrumental in cultivating, much less causing, the genocidal tendencies of our or any society.
I do also think, given the genocides that are known to have occurred in the 20th century since the holocaust, the phrase "never again" is not appropriate. It seems to suggest that only the Jewish genocide is of importance. Therefore I suggest it be dropped in favor of some other phrase that acknowledges that there have been repetitive outbreaks of genocidal violence, all during the 20th century and that, perhaps, this has occurred all through history. Perhaps a quest for some small beginning understand of genocides would be more helpful than assuming that anything in particular should be stopped in order somehow to prevent one.
Posted by bryte on September 11, 2014, at 23:46:23
In reply to Outbreaks of mass violence are not understood, posted by pontormo on September 11, 2014, at 22:04:52
> It seems to suggest that only the Jewish genocide is of importance.
Literally, it suggests only that the Jewish genocide is of importance. It is. Add whatever you want to that.
> Therefore I suggest it be dropped...
>Perhaps a quest for some small beginning understand of genocides would be more helpful than assuming that anything in particular should be stopped in order somehow to prevent one.
Your argument that "never again" should be "dropped" is that we should find something "more helpful than assuming that anything in particular should be stopped?"
Lou is forthright about his motivation, however misguided or ineffectual one might claim his reasoning to be.Whatever his motivation, the relevant topic is not Lou's motivation but the consistency with which a medical professional chooses to publicly label his guests' behaviors uncivil, knowing that to do so can embarrass people more so than simply removing from his Website content he finds to be inappropriate or which readers reasonably flag as inappropriate.
We do not need a final solution to mass outbreaks of violence to discuss the extent to which a medical professional should be consistent in whom he chooses to embarrass.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2014, at 20:27:38
In reply to Re: Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 11, 2014, at 20:28:41
> > > Lou,
> > >
> > > Regarding:
> > >
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > > > > > Do you see any problems with this?
> > >
> > > > > > What do you mean by "problem"?
> > >
> > > > > Within the context of my sentence, I would define "problems with" as:
> > > > >
> > > > > Disagreeing with or have an objection to.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, do you have any problems with the content of the post you cited and provided the following URL link to?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020627/msgs/6477.html
> > >
> > > > The link brings up that I cited the part where Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence even if one believes what they post or even if there is truth in it in some way. That means that even bible verses are not exempt from that support take precedence.
> > >
> > > Are the following excerpts the passages that you are referring to?
> > >
> > > "Sometimes the goals of these boards conflict. One goal is of course that they be supportive. Another is that people feel free to post, since how else are they going to be supported? But being supportive takes precedence. My approach to civility is, it doesn't matter if someone really believes something -- or to some extent even if it's true -- if it's uncivil, they shouldn't post it. It's a tradeoff, that person can't vent or receive support themselves (at least not here), but the overall atmosphere is (IMO) more supportive for others."
> > >
> > > "Someone may really believe someone else will be damned, but it keeps the overall atmosphere more supportive not to post that"
> > >
> > > Okay. What are your objections to this verbiage?
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > I do not have objections to what Mr. Hsiung posted concerning not to post what could lead one to feel that their faith is being put down by posting that they are damned even if the poster believes that.
> > What I was showing is that anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand here where they are originally posted could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung lied when he posted that, for the statement, {No non-Christian will enter heaven} is allowed to be seen as supportive since there is not his tagline to please be civil linked to it where it is originally posted, nor have up to 6 deputies posted their tagline as acting as deputy for Mr. Hsiung. In examining the impact that could happen by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record allowing what could be by a subset of readers considered to be anti-Jewish thought, those readers could think that Mr. Hsiung and those deputies are ratifying the anti-Jewish statement. That could make it possible for anti-Semitism to flourish here. Readers could think that Jews are an inferior race and the damage can not be erased by Mr. Hsiung posting that he did not mean what he posted when he says that he has revised that if a statement is not sanctioned that it is not against his rules, to that it could not be determined if it is or is not against the rules. How can readers view Jews here when the rule is to not post what is uncivil and anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive here?
> > When I came here and saw that support takes precedence, I took Mr. Hsiung at his word. Taking back what he wrote does not annul the fact that what is not supportive is still not supportive regardless if he takes back what he wrote. The issue here is that anti-Semitism is allowed to be seen as supportive which could wreck a subset of jewish people that come here for support IMHHO to kill themselves when they see that Jews are portrayed as an inferior race that they will not enter heaven because they are not Christians, for the statement in question is analogous to {no Jew will enter heaven} or {only Christians will enter heaven}.
> > Lou
>
> I understand your concerns and the logic of your arguments.
>
> Can you list here the actions that you would like Dr. Hsiung to perform in order to address these concerns?
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
You are interested in what I am asking Mr. Hsiung to do about that there are years of outstanding notifications from me that address the concerns that we are discussing here. He has the archives of the notifications and could act on those.
But I am not concerned that he has of yet acted on the years of outstanding requests from me. You see, the God that I give service and worship to, allows rulers to be, such as rulers of countries, or universities, or businesses or even internet communities like this one here. And this God says that He will punish those rulers that disregard justice. For this God says that it is the leader's responsibility to provide justice to protect the innocent.
But it is much worse than that. For it has been revealed to me that the Wrath of this God is so great that he says that unless one repents, they shall perish.
I have offered Mr. Hsung and is deputies opportunities to address the anti-Semitism and the defamation against me where those posts are originally posted. If they want to turn a blind eye to my requests, and leave the hate to be seen as civil and supportive and will be good for this community as a whole by doing that, then the God that I give service and worship to could think that they are committing injustice toward the Jews. Then they will not deal with me, but with the God that dealt with all those that allowed hatred toward the Jews to be fostered in their community. And if they say in That Day that they were doing what would be good for the community as a whole by allowing anti-Semitic hate to be seen as supportive, it has been reveled to me that He will say to them, "Get away from me, you that work iniquity, for if you do injustice to the least of these my brethren, you have done it to me."
Lou
Posted by BrYTe on September 13, 2014, at 0:23:54
In reply to Lou's reply-theleast » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2014, at 20:27:38
> "Get away from me, you that work iniquity, for if you do injustice to the least of these my brethren, you have done it to me."
> Lou
>And the Hippocratic Oath ends with this self-imposed put-down:
"If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life."
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.