![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 275. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by teejay on May 21, 2006, at 19:24:44
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks » Estella, posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2006, at 16:25:57
> > i think the world would be a better place without religion.
>
> > i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations.
>
> Sorry, but the idea here is to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, so I'm going to block you for 4 weeks. But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
Bob, I have to say I find this block quite disgraceful. Estelle was tactful and gentle in what she said but she has views which you are completely disrespecting by not allowing her to air them. You are also in grave danger of hurting her feelings, and I'm sorry but your 'I dont think you are a bad person' routine balances any hurt you may cause.With respect, you seem rather biased in the way you police your 'sensitivity to feelings' rule. Let me give you an example; I spoke resently on a thread about iraq and saddam where I said his sons were purported to be blood thirsty monsters (or similar...I cant recall my exact words). This went unchallenged but you can be sure if I suggested donald rumsfeld was a blood thirsty war monger (for example) that I'd have fallen foul of potentially upsetting people.
Until things are more clear on the politics board, people simply wont engage in meaningful dialogue for fear of falling foul of the rules.
TJ
Posted by verne on May 21, 2006, at 21:44:39
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by teejay on May 21, 2006, at 18:34:13
Here's my take on the statement that led to the block:
Rather than say what the world would be better off *without*, wouldn't it be more civil to just say what the world would be better off *with*?
We can express ourselves and give our views from every imaginable angle. But when we try to adjust someone else's perspective, their view, their world, (belief in religion for example), we are no longer so much expressing our views but suppressing their's.
Nothing's clear in this forest, we can never quite see for all the trees. Let's go easy, share what we know, and help each other along.
verne
Posted by curtm on May 21, 2006, at 21:45:26
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by teejay on May 21, 2006, at 18:34:13
I have to agree that EVERYONE is entitlesd to their belief or disbelief in "religion." One person is not a CRUSADE against all, although I wish it were. Let 'em speak!
The board titled religion should allow points from both sides equivocally. I smell a rat!
Posted by Jakeman on May 21, 2006, at 22:45:53
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by teejay on May 21, 2006, at 18:34:13
> i think the world would be a better place without religion.
> i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations.
>Sorry, but the idea here is to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, so I'm going to block you for 4 weeks.
I'm confused. She used "I" statements. Does that not work anymore? How did she disrespect someone?
~sigh~ Jake
Posted by curtm on May 21, 2006, at 23:46:19
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by Jakeman on May 21, 2006, at 22:45:53
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2006, at 7:06:04
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by Jakeman on May 21, 2006, at 22:45:53
I realize you're busy right now, but could you please review that entire thread?
There appears to be some administrative inconsistency in it, and given that, I think Estella could have misconstrued what was ok to say.
In the interests of fairness, could you look it over again?
Not that I'm in any way suggesting that you didn't look at it the first time. Just that you may have been busy at the time.
Posted by zazenduck on May 22, 2006, at 8:10:59
In reply to Dr. Bob,, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2006, at 7:06:04
I agree. I can't see how it is fair to selectively enforce the rules. That of course applies to the whole board not just this post.
There is a post on the board right now that says "People s*ck". Couldn't that possibly offend the entire human race not just those who value religion?
When posting about politics in the 1850s am I allowed to say slavery is wrong and the world would be better off without it?
Dinah are you implying that I should have been asked to rephrase something I posted?
Anything can offend someone if they're in the mood to be offended but I'm willing to cooperate if someone complains. Just point it out.
Posted by verne on May 22, 2006, at 9:15:55
In reply to Administrative Inconsistency, posted by zazenduck on May 22, 2006, at 8:10:59
From atop the Faith Board:
"This is a message board for mutual support and education. It focuses on religious faith (according to the dictionary, "the service and worship of God or the supernatural").
Since the idea here is support, please don't pressure others to adopt your beliefs or *put them down for having theirs*. Sorry, but this may mean not posting some aspects of some beliefs.
TOLERANCE should be given to all *religions* that tolerate others."
It doesn't matter that the statement was made on the Politics Board since the thread evolved into a religious discussion (WWJVF and so on) and would have been redirected to the Faith Board. *Piggybacking* an anti-religious sentiment onto a thread about politics doesn't circumvent the Faith Board guidelines.
I've seen many past warnings and blocks involving posts that argued against the existence of God or for the abolishment of religion.
To the say the world would be better off *without* religion not only doesn't *tolerate* religion, it wants it eradicated.
This seems like a very consistent administrative ruling. I think the Bossman got it right.
reformed, sheepish, and just a little stockholmish -
verne
Posted by greywolf on May 22, 2006, at 10:21:25
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by teejay on May 21, 2006, at 18:34:13
Why even have a politics board? Even Gandhi couldn't go more than a few threads without violating the civility rules.
Posted by Sobriquet Style on May 22, 2006, at 11:22:25
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by greywolf on May 22, 2006, at 10:21:25
>Even Gandhi couldn't go more than a few threads without violating the civility rules.
Ghandi was once asked this question...
Reporter: “Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?”
Gandhi: “I think it would be a good idea!”
~
Posted by curtm on May 22, 2006, at 12:13:19
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by greywolf on May 22, 2006, at 10:21:25
Maybe we could re-combine the Faith and Politics boards. Remember the Apostolic monarchies? Then we could call the new board the "Martyrs Board."
Posted by Dinah on May 22, 2006, at 21:39:54
In reply to Administrative Inconsistency, posted by zazenduck on May 22, 2006, at 8:10:59
Not that I recall.
But I wasn't calling for more blocks, you know.
So how are you doing? Which I suppose is not an admin question.
Posted by Jakeman on May 22, 2006, at 22:19:26
In reply to Re: Administrative Inconsistency » zazenduck, posted by verne on May 22, 2006, at 9:15:55
To the say the world would be better off *without* religion not only doesn't *tolerate* religion, it wants it eradicated.
SHE DIDN'T SAY THAT.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by Declan on May 22, 2006, at 22:32:33
In reply to Re: blocked for 4 weeks, posted by Jakeman on May 21, 2006, at 22:45:53
My (very civil) victorian rationalist grandmother would have agreed with Estella in saying that the world would be a better place without religion. So she had no church funeral service, and gave her body to science.
OK.
And I can say that we are dangerous primates in need of religion to keep us in line.
Anyone feel offended by being called a dangerous primate?
If not, why not?
Is this any different from being blocked for your attitude? Not that I'm complaining about that, if it is so. I think that would be OK. After all, I'm a parent. I'd ban myself for my attitude, but as this is my support group I won't.
Declan
Posted by verne on May 23, 2006, at 0:11:58
In reply to Re: Administrative Inconsistency » verne, posted by Jakeman on May 22, 2006, at 22:19:26
If we say the "world is better off without xyz", how are we *tolerating* xyz, and how, is it not eradicated, if the world is *without* it?
that's what *I* be saying.
verne
Posted by Declan on May 23, 2006, at 0:21:01
In reply to Administrative Consistency » Jakeman, posted by verne on May 23, 2006, at 0:11:58
Given the sorts of things people here report saying to, and feeling about, themselves, I'd be surprised if anything much hurt us here that did not relate to some personal complex (meaning undefined).....some personal need perhaps. Like to be popular, or to be vindicated, or to be respected, and so on and so forth tediously.
Much love to all
Declan
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 23, 2006, at 0:39:10
In reply to Dr. Bob,, posted by Dinah on May 22, 2006, at 7:06:04
> I realize you're busy right now, but could you please review that entire thread?
>
> There appears to be some administrative inconsistency in it, and given that, I think Estella could have misconstrued what was ok to say.
>
> In the interests of fairness, could you look it over again?I'd be happy to. If you could let me know what seems inconsistent to you, that would help... Feel free to email me that if you'd prefer not to post it.
Bob
Posted by teejay on May 23, 2006, at 6:39:12
In reply to Re: administrative inconsistency, posted by Dr. Bob on May 23, 2006, at 0:39:10
I think its quite obvious Dr Bob.
The politics board is pretty much empty but estelle gets blocked and we suddenly have a great lengthy thread on the issue. Its clear to me that people WANT to debate issues but the current rules strangle that debate before it gets going. Nothing like a climate of fear to make people apathetic.
Posted by zazenduck on May 23, 2006, at 7:47:10
In reply to What really hurts us anyway?, posted by Declan on May 22, 2006, at 22:32:33
>
> Anyone feel offended by being called a dangerous primate?Where is Waylong Jennings Bryan when we need him?
Prairie avenger mountain lion Bryan Bryan Bryan Bryan
I'm not offended but I can concieve of some of the people in Bob's head (to use Estellas phrase) being offended. And that's the test isn't it?
I'm not offended because it's just your opinion. Not being offended isn't an endorsement of your opinions.
Posted by ClearSkies on May 23, 2006, at 9:17:47
In reply to Re: What really hurts us anyway? » Declan, posted by zazenduck on May 23, 2006, at 7:47:10
OK, so I have a thing about civility.
For me, the idea with civility is that I don't post anything that I wouldn't say to someone face to face. I have a difficult time restraining myself with what I often read on the Politics board - mostly because if I was with people who said these things out loud, I'd be highly offended, and probably leave the room.
That's why I don't even bother with the board. It's not that the threads are triggering or necessarily a personal affront. It's how the opinions are written - sometimes in an infammatory way. Maybe people feel so strongly that they feel the need to speak in absolutes, but that can be such a dangerous thing. PBCs are issued, and blocks are issued, and I would have thought that these actions would reinforce the civility guidelines.
Please, please - think about how we phrase our thoughts on the Politics board. Do we really feel so strongly about issues that we're willing to express them with such disregard for others' own opinions?
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 23, 2006, at 9:33:59
In reply to Re: administrative inconsistency, posted by Dr. Bob on May 23, 2006, at 0:39:10
> > I realize you're busy right now, but could you please review that entire thread?
> >
> > There appears to be some administrative inconsistency in it, and given that, I think Estella could have misconstrued what was ok to say.
> >
> > In the interests of fairness, could you look it over again?
>
> I'd be happy to. If you could let me know what seems inconsistent to you, that would help... Feel free to email me that if you'd prefer not to post it.
>
> BobIf Bob would explain how this specific occurrence came to result in a blocking, the specific arguments that contributed to the decision that was made, that would be illuminating.
I don't wish to express myself about this, until he expresses himself.
If I knew why he felt this I statement was worthy of this sanction, I could also speak to the debate.
She appeared to have sincerely made an effort to meet the guidelines, IMHO. I recall, very early on in my experience here, falling afoul of the civility standards by failing to express myself in I-statement form. I recall that I obtained more than one opportunity to rephrase, but that was because I was sincerely trying.
I think that sincerely trying, absent any kind of guidance, should not result in a block, in any case. If the student hasn't learned, then the teacher hasn't taught.
Lar
Posted by Sobriquet Style on May 23, 2006, at 10:04:29
In reply to This thread - argh., posted by ClearSkies on May 23, 2006, at 9:17:47
>For me, the idea with civility is that I don't post anything that I wouldn't say to someone face to face.
Thats the exact same idea I try to use too. Its kept me block-free so far.
:-)
~
Posted by verne on May 23, 2006, at 10:07:55
In reply to This thread - argh., posted by ClearSkies on May 23, 2006, at 9:17:47
Remember that movie, "Cool Hand Luke"? Luke's *time outs*, a night in the box, escapes, digging a hole for the Bossman, filling up the same hole for the Bossman, until he finally got his "mind right"?
Insert "civil" for getting one's "mind right", imagine Babble as a kind of camp like the one Luke was in (except the analogy collapses a bit when we consider Luke was in a prison camp and Babble doesn't try to keep anyone prisoner) Nevertheless...
The camp Luke found himself in had rules and punishment just like Babble. Again the analogy breaks down (crashes and burns really) when we consider that Dr Bob is nothing like the Bossman. Although, *some* may think his rules, like the Bossman's, are arbitrary and *crazy making*. How crazy making is digging a hole and filling it up again until you get your mind right?
And even though I've already whipped three dead horses back to life, made metaphors to mix unnaturally, and violated every kind of Logic (except Tarzan's), I push on with my *analogy*. Even stopped clocks tell time twice a day.
Actually, I don't know where I was going with this analogy. I can't count the times I've been reminded of this movie while participating at Babble. Perhaps, someone else can better explain the connection.
Verne
Posted by curtm on May 23, 2006, at 11:02:48
In reply to Re: administrative inconsistency, posted by teejay on May 23, 2006, at 6:39:12
>> I think its quite obvious Dr Bob.
>> The politics board is pretty much empty but estelle gets blocked and we suddenly have a great lengthy thread on the issue. Its clear to me that people WANT to debate issues but the current rules strangle that debate before it gets going. Nothing like a climate of fear to make people apathetic.
Believe it or not, we are adults here and have the ability to control ourselves, even in controversial, volatile situations. If you extinguish the flame bofore shutting off the hot gas, you risk having an explosion. Poof! (charred face, smoking hair)
Posted by Declan on May 23, 2006, at 13:41:23
In reply to This thread - argh., posted by ClearSkies on May 23, 2006, at 9:17:47
Hi All
I think one reason people speak in absolutes on the Politics Board is that politics is more complicated and multifaceted than any other subject under discussion here, and there is only so much time and space.
If the idea is to discuss these issues as you would with a group of diverse people who you don't know well.........mmmmm, well, would you discuss politics at all?
I've been known plenty of (too many?) times to say of a conversation in progress...'O This conversation!" But that wouldn't be civil in a group of people who do not know each other well, would it?
There is so much opportunity with this medium for people to cause each other, and feel, unneccessary hurt because we are not sure of the tone in which the post was written.
The only time I've felt hurt here (that I can with justice complain of) is where I have felt misinterpreted.
Declan
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.