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

Lou's reply-ehncurgheyt-inpsult

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2015, at 5:53:14

In reply to Lou's reply-ehncurgheyt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2014, at 16:00:15

> > > > > > And all those members that have their hands in wanting those statements to remain unsanctioned by there not being a tagline posted by the administration to be civil where the post is originally seen, could be thought by a subset of readers to be helping Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to keep statements that defame Jews and me and the others to be seen as supportive, which could stoke the furnace of hate by supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record
> > >
> > > > > Would you say that the behaviors of Dr. Hsiung and his deputies of record encourage antisemitism?
> > >
> > > But you asked only if I think that anti-Semitism is being encouraged here.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's what I asked.
> > >
> > > So, what do you think?
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> > Encouragement of hatred to the Jews can be effected by many posts here culminating is making that conclusion or not to a subset of readers. They could have a rational basis for making that conclusion if the factors that could lead one to think that are seen.
> > One factor is in anti-Semitism there is something against the Jews. And another factor is that statements could be allowed to be seen as civil that put down Jews. And another factor is that statements could be seen as civil that accuse Jews. And there are more factors than just those.
> > Let us look at this one post first to show what I mean in one instance.
> > Lou
> >
> Scott,
> One of the generally accepted meanings of {encourage} is to {support} what is in question. In this site, support is the major goal of the forum. Now support of anti-Semitism can be seen by a subset of readers that understand that Mr. Hsiung states that support takes precedence and to be civil at all times and that if a statement is not sanctioned it could be thought by readers to be supportive and not against Mr. Hsiung's rules. But what does encourage entail? By Mr. Hsiung saying that what is in question is good ,as in the post in question here, encouragement for what is in question could be seen as supportive. But supportive of what? The statement can be understood by a subset of readers that Judaism has been replaced (theological replacement) by Christianity.
> They have a rational basis for thinking that, because the statement says that the law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, which Mr. Hsiung added his tagline, {Thanks, I think that's good}. What is good as seen? A subset of Jewish readers could feel that their faith is being put down because I as a Jew feel put down so other Jews could also feel put down when they read it. Dinah of this forum posted that she does not accept {replacement theology} as her group does. My feeling put down is that Mr. Hsiung has encouraged the poster by saying that he thinks it is good and thanks her. The encouragement could be thought that what she posted is supportive and will be good for this community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's TOS here on the basis of the thank you to her from Mr. Hsiung. And if that type of thinking is encouraged, then Judaism could be thought to be inferior to Christianity as the statement could be thought that Jews could think that the statement says that they do not have grace or truth in their faith when they read the statement.
> This could lead a subset f readers to think that the site is against the Jews, which is what anti-Semitism entails. The statement puts down on the basis that the one faith supersedes the other and one is inferior to the other or one is superior to the other. And to put down another's faith is against the rules, but not in this case.
> And for the owner to ratify as being good in the statement, the owner himself takes the position of encouragement for what is posted. Not only does he allow the statement to be seen as civil, but he validates it as being good. But he does not validate the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me as being good. That is another issue here.
> But be it as it may be, the statement stands un repudiated and in fact good according to the owner here. This is greatly important when I write here about {neutrality}.
> I ask you:
> A. If it is good according to Mr. Hsiung that the poster believes the statement in question, does that in your opinion encourage others here to consider Jews in a different light that do not believe that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ?
> B. Could Mr. Hsiung's tagline lead others to think that anti-Semitism is state-sponsored here?
> C. If the poster gets encouragement from Mr. Hsiung, is he neutral in respect to Judaism?
> D. other aspects...
> Lou

I am wondering if you could continue the discussion that we are having here in this thread concerning the statements that can be seen here as being supportive where they are originally posted concerning that they could have the potential to arouse anti-Semitic feelings and anti Islamic feelings and also insulting to others of faiths that are non-Christian faiths. If you could, then I would like for you to comment on the following statement that can be seen as supportive where it is originally posted that I am attempting to have Mr. Hsiung post a repudiation to where it is originally posted. The statement in question which I think could be disrespectful to those of faiths that believe that they can enter heaven as not being a Christian is:
[..No non-Christian will...]
which is analogous to:
[..No Jew will...]
[..No Islamic person will...]
[..Only Christians will...]
If the statement could be felt by Jews and Islamic people and other non Christians that have in their faith that they can enter heaven without being a Christian to be insulting to them, do you think that anti-Semitism and anti Islamic feelings could be encouraged here while the statement in question can be considered to be supportive here on the basis that Mr. Hsiung states that being supportive takes precedence and that members are to be civil at all times and that Mr. Hsiung has posted that if a statement is not sanctioned,(and recently posted that he revised that, but I think it is too late to do that for it is after the fact and the revision is not in the FAQ/TOS) then it is not against his rules?




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

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

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


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

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

poster:Lou Pilder thread:1067704