Freedom of Thought

[Whitten]

As those reading this will probably have noticed I was recently restricted. The issue I am going to raise in this thread is not about the topic or cause of my restriction, it is about the cause of many other people's restriction.

It has come to my intention that a fair number of people on this forum get restricted for holding a moral, ethical or religious belief (usually concering abortion or homo-sexuality). Now I'll make this clear now I have nothing against homo-sexuals and consider myself pro-choice (you may disagree with that definition but thats not what this topic is here for). However if a person holds a personal moral belief (which may or may not have an origin in their religion) about (lets say) abortion, they believe that its wrong and that having an abortion is murder (again not me). As such they would never have an abortion themselves. They also, however, recognise that other people have the freedom to choose their own moral and religious beliefs, and that they should not take basis in law, and so believes her anti-abortion personal views should not be forced upon others. She maywell believe that she should attempt to spread her views to other people, but not by force.

People do get restricted for views such as this. Is that right in your opinion? Also how can people be banned for this, and yet you claim not ot ban people based on their religious views. So long as they dont seek to force them on other why should any person not be entitled to their own stricter personal moral code?


I am not asking, immediatly at least, for such members to be unrestricted, but rather call for a reasonable debate on whether holding a set or moral (or religious) reliefs which you do not enforce upon others should be valid grounds for a restriction. I would like a discussion by all members on this question.

[RedAnarchist]

You're having a Gent moment, arent you? "Sacrificing" yourself in the name of another members views, because you think this forum is more than a forum.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:48 pm
You're having a Gent moment, arent you? "Sacrificing" yourself in the name of another members views, because you think this forum is more than a forum.
Yeah exactly, because this is an internet forum, all we have to go on are ideas, so of course if we think someone's ideas are incompatible with leftism, we're going to have a go at that person or restrict them so that the rest of us have a space to talk about our ideas without the same old debates coming up, or because we just feel that those ideas are unacceptable for a leftist to have...

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:48 pm
You're having a Gent moment, arent you? "Sacrificing" yourself in the name of another members views, because you think this forum is more than a forum.
I didn't sacrifice myself at all. I was following a forum rule as it is now interpretated by most of the mods. I had previously not been aware that such draconian interpretation of the abortion rules were applied, and had not been secretive about my views before. I dont think this is more than a forum, I do, however, think this is a forum in which those running it have made some errors in judgement, and dont believe people should restricted for holding a personal belief which they do not attempt to enforce on others.

But my restriction, or protesting it, is not what this thread is about. It is about people getting restricted for a completly different reason, a thread which I had been intending to create anyway. Now please can we stay on topic?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+June 08, 2007 01:54 pm--> (Mujer Libre @ June 08, 2007 01:54 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 01:48 pm
You're having a Gent moment, arent you? "Sacrificing" yourself in the name of another members views, because you think this forum is more than a forum.
Yeah exactly, because this is an internet forum, all we have to go on are ideas, so of course if we think someone's ideas are incompatible with leftism, we're going to have a go at that person or restrict them so that the rest of us have a space to talk about our ideas without the same old debates coming up, or because we just feel that those ideas are unacceptable for a leftist to have... [/b]
Have you read what I posted at all? This isn't about people who's ideas are "incompatable with leftism", it is about people who are restricted based on their personal beliefs which they do not seek to force on others. Why should they be? The person I described in first post was by all definitions "Pro-choice", yet such people still get restricted, why?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Whitten+June 08, 2007 03:00 pm--> (Whitten @ June 08, 2007 03:00 pm)
Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 08, 2007 01:54 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 01:48 pm
You're having a Gent moment, arent you? "Sacrificing" yourself in the name of another members views, because you think this forum is more than a forum.
Yeah exactly, because this is an internet forum, all we have to go on are ideas, so of course if we think someone's ideas are incompatible with leftism, we're going to have a go at that person or restrict them so that the rest of us have a space to talk about our ideas without the same old debates coming up, or because we just feel that those ideas are unacceptable for a leftist to have...
Have you read what I posted at all? This isn't about people who's ideas are "incompatable with leftism", it is about people who are restricted based on their personal beliefs which they do not seek to force on others. Why should they be? The person I described in first post was by all definitions "Pro-choice", yet such people still get restricted, why? [/b]
Being pro-choice means supporting the right of a woman to have a pregnancy, without restricting her choice.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Makhno+June 08, 2007 02:04 pm--> (Makhno @ June 08, 2007 02:04 pm)
Originally posted by Whitten+June 08, 2007 03:00 pm--> (Whitten @ June 08, 2007 03:00 pm)
Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 08, 2007 01:54 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 01:48 pm
You're having a Gent moment, arent you? "Sacrificing" yourself in the name of another members views, because you think this forum is more than a forum.
Yeah exactly, because this is an internet forum, all we have to go on are ideas, so of course if we think someone's ideas are incompatible with leftism, we're going to have a go at that person or restrict them so that the rest of us have a space to talk about our ideas without the same old debates coming up, or because we just feel that those ideas are unacceptable for a leftist to have...
Have you read what I posted at all? This isn't about people who's ideas are "incompatable with leftism", it is about people who are restricted based on their personal beliefs which they do not seek to force on others. Why should they be? The person I described in first post was by all definitions "Pro-choice", yet such people still get restricted, why? [/b]
Being pro-choice means supporting the right of a woman to have a pregnancy, without restricting her choice. [/b]
Exacty.


first post
if a person holds a personal moral belief (which may or may not have an origin in their religion) about (lets say) abortion, they believe that its wrong and that having an abortion is murder (again not me). As such they would never have an abortion themselves. They also, however, recognise that other people have the freedom to choose their own moral and religious beliefs, and that they should not take basis in law, and so believes her anti-abortion personal views should not be forced upon others.

Yet people are still restricted who support a woman's right of choice yet personally believe abortion violates their own moral beliefs.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Whitten+June 08, 2007 03:09 pm--> (Whitten @ June 08, 2007 03:09 pm)
Originally posted by Makhno+June 08, 2007 02:04 pm--> (Makhno @ June 08, 2007 02:04 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:00 pm

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 08, 2007 01:54 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 01:48 pm
You're having a Gent moment, arent you? "Sacrificing" yourself in the name of another members views, because you think this forum is more than a forum.
Yeah exactly, because this is an internet forum, all we have to go on are ideas, so of course if we think someone's ideas are incompatible with leftism, we're going to have a go at that person or restrict them so that the rest of us have a space to talk about our ideas without the same old debates coming up, or because we just feel that those ideas are unacceptable for a leftist to have...
Have you read what I posted at all? This isn't about people who's ideas are "incompatable with leftism", it is about people who are restricted based on their personal beliefs which they do not seek to force on others. Why should they be? The person I described in first post was by all definitions "Pro-choice", yet such people still get restricted, why?
Being pro-choice means supporting the right of a woman to have a pregnancy, without restricting her choice. [/b]
Exacty.


first post
if a person holds a personal moral belief (which may or may not have an origin in their religion) about (lets say) abortion, they believe that its wrong and that having an abortion is murder (again not me). As such they would never have an abortion themselves. They also, however, recognise that other people have the freedom to choose their own moral and religious beliefs, and that they should not take basis in law, and so believes her anti-abortion personal views should not be forced upon others.

Yet people are still restricted who support a woman's right of choice yet personally believe abortion violates their own moral beliefs. [/b]
Moral beliefs? Are you a Christian? I've never heard of anyone who wasnt religious having "moral beliefs".

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Makhno+June 08, 2007 02:11 pm--> (Makhno @ June 08, 2007 02:11 pm)
Originally posted by Whitten+June 08, 2007 03:09 pm--> (Whitten @ June 08, 2007 03:09 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:04 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:00 pm

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 08, 2007 01:54 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 01:48 pm
You're having a Gent moment, arent you? "Sacrificing" yourself in the name of another members views, because you think this forum is more than a forum.
Yeah exactly, because this is an internet forum, all we have to go on are ideas, so of course if we think someone's ideas are incompatible with leftism, we're going to have a go at that person or restrict them so that the rest of us have a space to talk about our ideas without the same old debates coming up, or because we just feel that those ideas are unacceptable for a leftist to have...
Have you read what I posted at all? This isn't about people who's ideas are "incompatable with leftism", it is about people who are restricted based on their personal beliefs which they do not seek to force on others. Why should they be? The person I described in first post was by all definitions "Pro-choice", yet such people still get restricted, why?
Being pro-choice means supporting the right of a woman to have a pregnancy, without restricting her choice.
Exacty.


first post
if a person holds a personal moral belief (which may or may not have an origin in their religion) about (lets say) abortion, they believe that its wrong and that having an abortion is murder (again not me). As such they would never have an abortion themselves. They also, however, recognise that other people have the freedom to choose their own moral and religious beliefs, and that they should not take basis in law, and so believes her anti-abortion personal views should not be forced upon others.

Yet people are still restricted who support a woman's right of choice yet personally believe abortion violates their own moral beliefs. [/b]
Moral beliefs? Are you a Christian? I've never heard of anyone who wasnt religious having "moral beliefs". [/b]
As I said the peoson in the example wasn't me (they're made up). No I'm not religious, and this in no way relates to my restriction. But if the person is religious (I see no reason why you can't hold moral beliefs and be an atheist) is it a problem? There are a number of religious forum members who arn't restricted, including christians, as it is not a grounds for restriction (on its own atleast).

[RedAnarchist]

Whitten, if, somewhere, a woman had a late-term abortion, how would it affect you personally? (We'll say for arguments sake that you don't know the woman).

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:17 pm
Whitten, if, somewhere, a woman had a late-term abortion, how would it affect you personally? (We'll say for arguments sake that you don't know the woman).
I'm not quite sure how this relates to the topic of the thread (the thread having nothing to do with me or late-term abortions) but its unlikely to affect me personally at all. I dont get all weepy over all the genocides and people starving to death every day, I'm not gonna change that for a late-term abortion.

[pusher robot]

I think I see Whitten's point - let me see if I can illustrate with a hypothetical:

Suppose a woman becomes pregnant. While she fully supports the legal right of other women to have abortions, she doesn't morally agree with it and decides to birth the child even though she feels it will be a burden on her.

Is her belief and her choice incompatible with leftism? I would have thought the answer would be "no," but it does seem that even voicing that personal opinion is grounds for restriction now. The attitude appears to be that it isn't enough to simply support the rights of people to decide for themselvs; you apparently must also believe it is good yourself.

A similar strand was taking place in the religion section. According to some, it isn't good enough to simply support the right of people to be religious or not as they see fit; religion must actively be supressed and destroyed.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 08, 2007 02:27 pm
I think I see Whitten's point - let me see if I can illustrate with a hypothetical:

Suppose a woman becomes pregnant. While she fully supports the legal right of other women to have abortions, she doesn't morally agree with it and decides to birth the child even though she feels it will be a burden on her.

Is her belief and her choice incompatible with leftism? I would have thought the answer would be "no," but it does seem that even voicing that personal opinion is grounds for restriction now. The attitude appears to be that it isn't enough to simply support the rights of people to decide for themselvs; you apparently must also believe it is good yourself.
Thats exactly what I'm saying.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I have to say I agree with Whitten and pusher robot here. Personal opinions and morality are in no way inherently anti-leftist, especially if those holding these opinions keep them to themselves. Makhno, your point that this is merely an internet forum anbd thus should be treated as no more than that, while sometimes valid, does not apply here. This is, as you said, a forum; it is a place for people to come and discuss leftist politics and issues. Outside the OI, it is a place for productive inference on mutual premises. However, I feel that many of those who have recently been restricted a) accept a vast majority of the fundamental premises of this board, namely the ideals of anti-capitalism and workers' struggle, and b) hold no ideals or intentions to actively oppose any of the beliefs held in high importance by this board (including abortion). I think that if they promised not to discuss issues such as abortion outside the OI, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to post in the other forums again; indeed, these people have repeatedly made it clear that they do not oppose the woman's right to abortion.

Of course, the above applies only to those who do not personally agree with abortion, but do support the right of the woman to abort at any point.

BTW I'm not asking to be restricted here, just so you know.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 08, 2007 02:27 pm
I think I see Whitten's point - let me see if I can illustrate with a hypothetical:

Suppose a woman becomes pregnant. While she fully supports the legal right of other women to have abortions, she doesn't morally agree with it and decides to birth the child even though she feels it will be a burden on her.
Ok.


Is her belief and her choice incompatible with leftism? I would have thought the answer would be "no,"

And you would have been correct.


but it does seem that even voicing that personal opinion is grounds for restriction now. The attitude appears to be that it isn't enough to simply support the rights of people to decide for themselvs; you apparently must also believe it is good yourself.

Could we stop talking about restrictions on revleft as if they were indicative of the left's views on certain things? Could you also show where these people have supported the legal right to choose after 20 weeks?


A similar strand was taking place in the religion section. According to some, it isn't good enough to simply support the right of people to be religious or not as they see fit; religion must actively be supressed and destroyed.

Destroyed? Yes. Suppressed? To a given (and minute) value of "suppression".

[Whitten]

Could we stop talking about restrictions on revleft as if they were indicative of the left's views on certain things?

Well there must be some logic behind them, right?


Could you also show where these people have supported the legal right to choose after 20 weeks?

We're not talking about such people.

[Forward Union]

The purpose of this forum is progressive left wing discussion. It is not a debate forum, as such, we need to keep discussion focused. That means keeping pointless debate like "Is capitalism ok" out of the forum. Not too objectionable is it?

Other groups have their own forums in which they impose their own rules afterall.

The problem is people interpret that as a model for how we want to see a communist society function. But that's a total fallacy. Im sure very few here advocate the imprisonment of others for holding opposing religious or ethical beliefs. So long as those beliefs don't manifest in a way detrimental to others.

So calm down.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 08, 2007 04:59 pm
The purpose of this forum is progressive left wing discussion. It is not a debate forum, as such, we need to keep discussion focused. That means keeping pointless debate like "Is capitalism ok" out of the forum. Not too objectionable is it?

Other groups have their own forums in which they impose their own rules afterall.

The problem is people interpret that as a model for how we want to see a communist society function. But that's a total fallacy. Im sure very few here advocate the imprisonment of others for holding opposing religious or ethical beliefs. So long as those beliefs don't manifest in a way detrimental to others.

So calm down.
Stop claiming we dont understand. We're not accusing you of wanting to create a socialist society in this way. What we accuse you of is unreasonable grounds for restriction on this forum. Why is it unreasonable for people to hold seperate personal beliefs which they don't believe should be forced upon others? How does that make them not "progressive revolutionary leftists?"

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:34 pm
What we accuse you of is unreasonable grounds for restriction on this forum.
Which grounds specifically do you refer to? there are several grounds for restriction. From open support of the capitalist system, to zionism or religious fanaticism.


Why is it unreasonable for people to hold seperate personal beliefs which they don't believe should be forced upon others? How does that make them not "progressive revolutionary leftists?"

I was not aware that anyone had been restricted on such grounds. At least, im not familiar with any cases happening to my memory.

But I shan't be naive. I get the subtle impression that you may be referring to your own restriction. You advocated forcing women to go through with pregnancy past 20 weeks in the gestation period. Against their will. So in your case it wasn't a matter of not believing that your views "should be forced upon others" In case you have forgotten;


I support the womans right to have an abortion, up until a certain time limit (I'm not a doctor, I cant say what it should be for sure, something in the 20+ weeks range though).

And to clarify. We do not restrict people who no not want to have an abortion, or even people that don't want other people to have abortions (so long as they accept that it is not their place to prevent such acts), we restrict people who advocate the prohibiting of it, or preventing it in any way. As it denied women their right to being treated as a human being, and from individual autonomy.

Also. I find this image strangely fitting

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l130/fritzmaster18/kittensm.gif

[Janus]

However if a person holds a personal moral belief (which may or may not have an origin in their religion) about (lets say) abortion, they believe that its wrong and that having an abortion is murder (again not me). As such they would never have an abortion themselves. They also, however, recognise that other people have the freedom to choose their own moral and religious beliefs, and that they should not take basis in law, and so believes her anti-abortion personal views should not be forced upon others. She maywell believe that she should attempt to spread her views to other people, but not by force.
We don't restrict people like this. We restrict people who want to infringe on a woman's right to abortion.


I am not asking, immediatly at least, for such members to be unrestricted, but rather call for a reasonable debate on whether holding a set or moral (or religious) reliefs which you do not enforce upon others should be valid grounds for a restriction. I would like a discussion by all members on this question.
Sorry, but OI is not for discussion on administrative issues, we already have a thread in the Member's forum discussing this at the moment. If you have a problem with your restriction or someone else's then bring it up in the appropriate thread (the unfair restriction one).

Thread closed.