Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 677026

Shown: posts 1 to 25 of 40. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Lou gives definitions to antisemitism

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 8:59:29

Friends,
There are definitions of antisemitism given by the EUMC and would like to have dialog here to bring the ,what is called the 3-objection rule into focus here which will also bring into focus the 3- consecutive- post rule.
The EUMC has defined antisemitism in a group, like we have here, as it is antisemitic when Jews, or a single Jewish person in the group is being blamed for real or imagined wrongdoings. This is also defined as scapegoating in other definitions by other entities.
Another aspect of their definition is that Jews, or a single Jewish person in the group, is being demonized or called evil or bad. There could also be in the group demonizing or sterotypical allegations about a Jewish person or their motives. There is also the use of ex-post facto against a Jewish person while the others in the group are not subject to ex-post facto. There is also ad hoc allowed toward a jewish person, while that would be considered "flaming" if it was done to others in the group that were not Jewish.
In the what is called the 3- complaint- rule, and I do not consider a request to Dr. Hsiung to ask about his thinking to be a complaint, I feel terribly uncomfotable being in a group when I am threatened by the leader with expulsion if I ask him about what his thinking is about his rules.
But the issue here is if that rule and also the 3 consecutive post rule is antisemitic.
I will proceed to show you more so that you can make you oen decision.
I am not permitted her toshow posts concernoing this subject. If you would like for posts that could go to your understanding about this so that you can make your own decision, you can email me at
lpilder_1188@fuse.net

 

Lou gives definitions to antisemitism

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 9:40:00

In reply to Lou gives definitions to antisemitism, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 8:59:29

Friends,
Another definition given in liturature describes antisemitism as hostility or discrimination toward Jews or a a single Jewish person in a group. Another definition is ,making a Jewish person to be percieved as a alien in the group, unwelcome, lone.
Another definition is that the Jewish person is portreyd as that since they are Jewish, that that alone is cause for expulsion because they do not accept the claimes of Christianity and are accused of killing Christ and that they accept the corporate responsibility for that and their children.
Lou

 

Lou clarifies above post

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 9:56:18

In reply to Lou gives definitions to antisemitism, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 9:40:00

Friends,
To clarify wht has been used for 2000 years by antisemites to justify their murder of Jewish children, the antisemite claimes that the Jews accept the corpotate responsibility fot all time of killing Christ and their children also accept that responsibility continually in all generations in the past and in the future.
This doctrine arrises out of the Christian bible and even Mel Gibson redacted it in his movie,[..The Passion...].
Lou

 

Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder

Posted by crazy teresa on August 16, 2006, at 12:53:37

In reply to Lou gives definitions to antisemitism, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 8:59:29

Dear friend,

Should you not consider the fact that focusing on antisemitism is in itself uncivil on PB?

What about the Christians, the satanists, the agnostics, the athiests, the flat-footed, the right brained, the beedy-eyed, the buck-toothed, the unemployed, the vegetarians, the Teamsters, the cobblers, the undertakers, the butchers, the 2nd shift, the Nascar fans, or the children of the corn? They could be feeling very left out.

 

Lou's reply to crazy teresa » crazy teresa

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 14:23:14

In reply to Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder, posted by crazy teresa on August 16, 2006, at 12:53:37

ct,
You wrote something that could be thought to mean that there is the potential for one to think that,[...focusing on antisemitism is...uncivil on PB...]
I would not like being here if one was to say that the discussioin of antisemitism is uncivil,for could not that give rise to others having the potential to think that to make such a discussion to be uncivil would be trying to persecute Jews by not allowing them to protest antisemitism?
Lou

 

Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » crazy teresa

Posted by zenhussy on August 16, 2006, at 14:25:58

In reply to Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder, posted by crazy teresa on August 16, 2006, at 12:53:37

> ... or the children of the corn? They could be feeling very left out.

ty for remembering the children of the corn. = ) the admin board benefits from having thoughtful, kind, and witty folks like you around

 

Lou's reply to crazy teresa » crazy teresa

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 14:35:07

In reply to Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder, posted by crazy teresa on August 16, 2006, at 12:53:37

ct,
You wrote,[...what about christians...]
Are you aware that I have also objected to posts that defamed Christians and others that did not involve religious or ethnic affiliation?
Lou

 

Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder

Posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 15:08:15

In reply to Lou gives definitions to antisemitism, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 8:59:29

The EUMC also points out that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic".

I believe this concept would apply to regulation of the civility rules of this board as well. I say this because I believe it to be true. That is the basis for my assertion.

Prosecuting a Jewish bank robber is not persecuting a Jew. Unless Christian bank robbers were let go.

The religious belief of my parents, based upon their reading of the english language translation of the books that make up the Gospels in what Americans call the Holy Bible, is that Jesus was killed by the Romans at request of the Jewish religious and political leaders called pharisees. This was all part of God's ancient plan according to these books. What happened that day? Did that day happen? Some persons have used versions of this story as an excuse to hurt Jewish people. Jews mostly don't believe that Jesus is/was the Messiah. People's beliefs don't hurt anybody, only the actions they take based upon those beliefs.

I haven't myself seen any antisemitism published on Psychobabble. I also haven't detected any racial or religious bias in the enforcement of the civility rules. My perceptions, however, only work for me.

I've never violated the three consecutive post rule, (that I'm aware of), so It doesn't seem that onerous a rule to me. If we are discussing the three consecutive post rule and antisemitism, I hope my response makes sense as a response, nothing more. If we are discussing something else, I'm still happy for the chance to look up the EUMC.

James K

 

lou's reply to James K » James K

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:28:17

In reply to Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder, posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 15:08:15

James K,
You wrote,[...criticism of Israel ..like other countries is not regarded as antisemitism,,,]
I do not think that I ever brought up the country of Israel as being a subject of criticism here, have I? If so could you email me the URL? So if I did not bring up Israel, could you could explain what purpose that could have in this discussion? I would appreciate it.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net

 

Lou's reply to James K » James K

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:33:25

In reply to Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder, posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 15:08:15

James K,
You wrote,[...unless others were let go...]
The issues before us is one aspect of that, although there is much more than that involved. There are other posters here that have posted more than 3 consecutive posts and Dr. Hsiung has not sanctioned those posters for such. So are you saying that the rule would be antisemitic if I am being denied to post more than 3 consecutive posts and others are let off?
Lou
I could send you those instances by email if you would like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net

 

Re: lou's reply to James K » Lou Pilder

Posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 15:36:02

In reply to lou's reply to James K » James K, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:28:17

> James K,
> You wrote,[...criticism of Israel ..like other countries is not regarded as antisemitism,,,]
> I do not think that I ever brought up the country of Israel as being a subject of criticism here, have I? So if I did not bring up Israel, could you could explain what purpose that could have in this discussion?


----Sure, I was looking up the EUMC definition of antisemitism that you referenced, and the country of Israel came up a lot. Israel is the Jewish state, and the people who wrote the antisemitism definition you refered to also wrote about the country as well as the people and religion. I think their reasoning one on makes a good comparision to their thinking on the other. Since we are using their definition as a basis to make some points.

James K

 

Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » James K

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:38:22

In reply to Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder, posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 15:08:15

James K,
You wrote about the religious belief of your parents.
I'm sorry, but I can not repeat what you posted, for I feel accused and put down as a Jew and feel that if that belief is left unsanctioned, that it has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on this forum.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to James K » Lou Pilder

Posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 15:40:43

In reply to Lou's reply to James K » James K, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:33:25

So are you saying that the rule would be antisemitic if I am being denied to post more than 3 consecutive posts and others are let off?

--- I don't know if the others are Jewish or not. I don't think a rule can be antisemitic if it doesn't mention semites. I don't know if Dr. Bob knew if they were Jewish or not.

James K

 

Lou's reply to James K » James K

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:43:29

In reply to Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder, posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 15:08:15

James K,
You wrote,[...I...have not seen any antisemitism published on Psychobabble...]
I do not think that I am not allowed to post the URLs here as the new rule that was made a few days ago.
If you would like to see them, I have a catalog of them and could email them to you at your request
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net

 

Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder

Posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 15:48:14

In reply to Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » James K, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:38:22

> You wrote about the religious belief of your parents.
> I'm sorry, but I can not repeat what you posted, for I feel accused and put down as a Jew and feel that if that belief is left unsanctioned, that it has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings and foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on this forum.

--- I would never put you or anyone else down as a Jew. I don't believe that telling a story and mentioning some people's reactions to it is the same as promoting it. To say that Pilate didn't was his hands of the matter, according to the story, is to deny one of the main points of one of the world's major religions. A sad fact about religions, is that most of them negate the others. This should move to the faith board for that civil discussion. I brought it up in reference to antisemitism and its place on this board and in the rules.

James K

 

Re: Lou's reply to James K » Lou Pilder

Posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 15:51:42

In reply to Lou's reply to James K » James K, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:43:29

> You wrote,[...I...have not seen any antisemitism published on Psychobabble...]
> If you would like to see them, I have a catalog of them and could email them to you at your request


--- I hope you add my previous post which you said has the potential to arouse antisemitism to your catalog.

James K

 

Lou's reply to James K » James K

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:58:52

In reply to Re: Lou gives definitions to antisemitism » Lou Pilder, posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 15:48:14

James K,
You wrote,[...don't believe..is the same as promoting it...]
The issue IMO is that {if the statement is left unsanctioned}, there is the potential for others to be led to think that the administration endorses what was posted. If that happens then there is also the potential for Jews as I am, to feel defamed, and then if the statement is not sanctioned, there is the potential IMO for what was posted to be fostered.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to James K » Lou Pilder

Posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 16:12:44

In reply to Lou's reply to James K » James K, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 15:58:52

> The issue IMO is that {if the statement is left unsanctioned}, there is the potential for others to be led to think that the administration endorses what was posted. If that happens then there is also the potential for Jews as I am, to feel defamed, and then if the statement is not sanctioned, there is the potential IMO for what was posted to be fostered.

--- Do you believe that I shouldn't be allowed here, or anywhere? to make the statement that the story of Jesus Christ as told in the Bible references that the Jewish leaders had Jesus crucified after the Roman leader was willing to let him go?

You may be right about here. At the top of the faith board, it says that support may mean not posting about some aspects of a religious belief. That would be a fair determination for here. I'm open to it.

It may be that aspect of Christianity can't be discussed here for reasons that it might bother a Jew. It won't change the fact that, punishing all Jews for it is antisemitic, and that nothing in my parents' doctrine says that Jews are responsible and should be punished. Just that that year's leaders of the church were corrupt.

It is however a "fact" if you believe the bible is true. I don't.

If it is some other aspect of the post that is problematic, what is it?

James K

 

Re: Lou's reply to James K » James K

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 16:23:45

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to James K » Lou Pilder, posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 16:12:44

James K,
You wrote,[...XXX...]
There is a greater issue here and if you look further into the opening page of the faith board, could you give your opinion as to if it has the potential to lead others to think that Dr. Hsiung is saying that the foundation of Jewdaism puts down those of other faiths?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to James K » Lou Pilder

Posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 16:58:33

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to James K » James K, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 16:23:45

> There is a greater issue here and if you look further into the opening page of the faith board, could you give your opinion as to if it has the potential to lead others to think that Dr. Hsiung is saying that the foundation of Jewdaism puts down those of other faiths?

---I think the opening page of the faith board does have the potential to lead others to think various things about Dr. Hsiung's statements.

If Judaism's foundations (of which I only know the part that is in the Christian called Old Testement), require that its God be the only God worshipped, then Dr Hsiung would require that we don't discuss this fact using should words on this site.

That is what I was led to believe by his statements.

It is very tricky and complicated, but apparently necessitated by the behavior and feelings of the community. I feel it like many of the rules depends on a personal ability and willingness to restructure sentences. I do see requests to rephrase given often.

I don't see any attack on Jews or singling out of Jews in regard to following the guidelines, but again that is just me and my perceptions.

It is always interesting to have an excuse to dig back into the background, and past of PB.

James K

 

forgot this part

Posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 17:02:29

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to James K » Lou Pilder, posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 16:58:33

2. A primary goal of this site is to be supportive. If the foundation of a faith puts down those of other faiths, it's not in my view supportive, so as a general rule, I'd rather it were discussed elsewhere.

Bob

--- I interpret this to mean he'd rather the foundation be discussed elsewhere, not the faith. I haven't read every follow up post to see if this was covered.

James K

 

Re: Lou's reply to James K » James K

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 17:08:33

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to James K » Lou Pilder, posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 16:58:33

James K,
You wrote,[..if Jewdaism's foundation require that its God XXX].
I ask you, does what is prohibited concerning the above say, in your opinion, on its face that you see, say that Jews requier others to worship their god?
Or does it say, in your opinion, that Jews have a commandment from their God {to them}and not others?
Lou

 

Re: forgot this part-Lou's reply » James K

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 17:19:42

In reply to forgot this part, posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 17:02:29

James K,
You cited the part that says that the foundation of faiths that put down other faiths be taken elsewhere.
Now, in your opinion, is the foundation of Jewdaism one that is to go elsewhere?
Then do you see any posts that could be intepreted as to be the foundation of another faith, including but not limited to Christianty, and they are not sanctioned as being told to be taken elseware?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply to James K » Lou Pilder

Posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 17:29:04

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to James K » James K, posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 17:08:33

> James K,
> You wrote,[..if Jewdaism's foundation require that its God XXX].
> I ask you, does what is prohibited concerning the above say, in your opinion, on its face that you see, say that Jews requier others to worship their god?
> Or does it say, in your opinion, that Jews have a commandment from their God {to them}and not others?

---What is prohibited concerning the above doesn't address Jewdaism or the rider and its requirements or to whom its requirments are directed. On its face, it says how the statements we use on this site should be constructed.

 

Lou's request for James K not to post to me » James K

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 16, 2006, at 17:35:25

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to James K » Lou Pilder, posted by James K on August 16, 2006, at 17:29:04

James K,
Please do not post to me.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/677183.html


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.