Or maybe the mods have actually researched the lynch mob’s complaints in “The Despotic War On Drugs” thread …
… And found that it is the mob itself that couldn’t handle the valid substance of the lynched’s perspective, they attacked the lynched first, and when the lynched defended less brutally but more effectively, the mob embarrassingly cried out to “God” for a smiting.
Last I looked, despite the mob’s fantasies, it simply isn’t a bannable offense to be justifiably in support of the drug war or realize the truth that a human being, a person, begins to live at the moment of conception.
These are the subjects on which I receive nearly all of my unprovoked mob attacks. It doesn’t take a Carl Jung to grasp the attackers’ motivation: to run from guilt. Nor does it take an equally proficient sociologist to understand that realtime society at large is where they run from, and here is where they run to.
A quick glance at all other topics reveals that I’m simply not that “controversial”.
The mob would do well to realize that you simply can’t ban people because you don’t like their valid on-topic ideas … or because they are better at defensively playing the initiating mob’s own game than the mob is.
What’s this “we” you’ve been complainingly involved with for “some time”?!
Lynch mobs.
This is all about losing what the guilt-harboring mob calls “debates” at the hands of a more articulate artist.
That’s what sticks in your craw … that along with having your suppressed guilt brought to the forefront of a discussion, which, of course is not my fault at all.
I strongly suggest that people who can’t handle certain valid presentation, that drugs are damaging and deadly to others than just the using addict and that abortion is the killing of a human being, simply not read or participate in those threads.
That would be the classy thing to do.
Asking for the ban on a poster merely because of perspective, trumping up false charges of initiating or using attacks, is classless.
I actually agree with Sabrina. You can PM the mod’s as much as you want. If they ban her, then we won’t have to ignore her. If they don’t, then we will see that we were wrong about her being a pain-monger and that she was right about us being a lynch-mob on the prowl.
Even is she does get banned, I still think we should face her offense. It seems retarded to me to ignore something just because it bothers you. If we ignore her, she might go away, but those ends (her going away) don’t justify the means (us acting like an asinine crew of captains at the first sign of dissent).
At the same time, I would love it if Sabrina were able to give up her hate-mongering ways and join us in a thoughtful, creative, and intelligent discussion.
And Sabrina, we’re/I’m not mad at you for disagreeing; I’m mad at you for the slander and widely known logical fallacies that (apparently to me) you commonly employ. If you were willing to stop insulting us, then we/I would be fine with your views. It doesn’t make sense (at least to me) for you to continue with your slanderous behavior, when you could be acting in a way that will allow you to actually learn, or at least help others learn.
Hey, thats a great post thezeus18. I’m going to have to learn to spend more time here on mundane babble. I think they should take all the threads on all the topics and move them here to mundane babble.
In fact, I think they should change the name of this forum from “I love philosophy” to “I love mundane babble.”
shaneytiger, dude, you should go to law school. You ever think of working for the ACLU? Sabrina could be your client.
Well, I’m just a nuts and bolts type of guy. Maybe they should treat Mrs. “S” like an employee of a corporation. How about a 3 day lay off (meaning a 30 day ban) instead of a permanent ban. Hey, that’s reasonable, ain’t it?
Shaneytiger, your false allegations made under the pretensive disguise of rational judgment to claim a right to those false allegations are still false allegations initiated for the sake of doing damage to someone against whom your only real and rightful complaint is that you disagree with her perspective about the drug war.
Linking anti drug war people to the proven high percentage of addicts justifies asking the question of the poster if he is doing illegal drugs and is thus an addict. It’s germane to the matter. If you have a hang-up with the word “addict”, that’s your issue, not mine.
What truly isn’t allowed is a thread of by and for the anti drug war gang in attempt to get the pro drug war girl banned.
That’s all this is … and I’m surprised the moderators allow it.
If you are concerned about being non-polite with your continuing insults to me, the rest of the members of this forum, and the moderators, I suggest you drop the matter.
I didn’t say you used ad hominem attack. I said you used ad hominem, which is against the forum rules, so stop. And by the way, all ad hominem usage would fall under the category of fallacy, and should therefore be avoided.
You call people who have said they don’t want to and haven’t done drugs addicts. That is offensive to them. Not all people on that thread are for the drug war, yet all of them are against you. No, Sabrina, I’m surprised to see that the mod’s allow you to continue your ad hominem and slander.
If I am being non-polite to anyone, including you, then why are complete strangers and newcomers to the thread complaining about you, and not me, even when they are for the drug war and against my views?
No, Sabrina. Have you ever thought that maybe it’s your fault? When everyone who’s commented is against the way you act, it might not just be the “addicts.” Attacks should be avoided. Please avoid them.
