Unfair Restriction? [Archive]

Kwisatz Haderach

7th June 2007, 04:03

Is this the right place for me to offer constructive criticism on your restriction policy?

It appears that people are restricted for disagreeing with revolutionary socialism on one single issue (e.g. Israel, or abortion). I believe this approach is highly misguided. If someone agrees with revolutionary socialism on, say, 90% of issues, then (s)he is almost a revolutionary socialist, and we should be doing everything in our power to be friendly to such a person and persuade them to turn to revolutionary socialism 100%. Being hostile to people who agree with you on all but one or two issues is incredibly counter-productive. Judging from some of the comments I've seen, most comrades appear to believe that we can never persuade someone to join our side once they've openly expressed disagreement on one or two issues. Nonsense! People are not born socialists. They may not necessarily understand the implications of Zionism or the criminalization of abortion, and it is our duty to explain these things to them, not treat them like they're bloody capitalists.

I understand that revleft.com is primarily for discussion among revolutionary socialists, but surely we should be less hostile to people who have a good chance of being persuaded to share our views. Surely we should be acting less like a private club and more like a welcoming community that is eager to promote socialism!

If you must restrict people who are almost socialist, I suggest that they be allowed to post in the Learning forum in addition to Opposing Ideologies.

Friedrich Nietzsche

7th June 2007, 05:03

Um yes, what was I restricted for? I don't believe I've presented any views Big Brother here would consider "Reactionary" or "Counter-Revolutionary". Granted, I've defended those with disimilar views, but that's about it.

Jazzratt

7th June 2007, 13:07

Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 07, 2007 04:03 am
Um yes, what was I restricted for? I don't believe I've presented any views Big Brother here would consider "Reactionary" or "Counter-Revolutionary". Granted, I've defended those with disimilar views, but that's about it.
Mostly the defending cops and private property shit.

Friedrich Nietzsche

7th June 2007, 13:09

Originally posted by Jazzratt+June 07, 2007 12:07 pm--> (Jazzratt @ June 07, 2007 12:07 pm)
Friedrich [email protected] 07, 2007 04:03 am
Um yes, what was I restricted for? I don't believe I've presented any views Big Brother here would consider "Reactionary" or "Counter-Revolutionary". Granted, I've defended those with disimilar views, but that's about it.
Mostly the defending cops and private property shit. [/b]
Aha! So having a father whom is a cop, and a good person at the same time, is....bad?

Mein gott, you lot got pissed at me from defending a noble profession from you bloody fucking SAVAGES?

Jazzratt

7th June 2007, 13:19

Originally posted by Friedrich Nietzsche+June 07, 2007 12:09 pm--> (Friedrich Nietzsche @ June 07, 2007 12:09 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:07 pm

Friedrich [email protected] 07, 2007 04:03 am
Um yes, what was I restricted for? I don't believe I've presented any views Big Brother here would consider "Reactionary" or "Counter-Revolutionary". Granted, I've defended those with disimilar views, but that's about it.
Mostly the defending cops and private property shit.
Aha! So having a father whom is a cop, and a good person at the same time, is....bad? [/b]
ahahahahahahaha. "whom". I bet you were trying to look more educated by using "whom" instead of "who", shame it was the wrong context fuckdribble.

More seriously we couldn't give two shits what your father does, but the fact you defend the concept of pigs and of property rights indicates you are no revolutionary leftist. As, also, does your weird anti-materialist bullshit.

Oh yeah and having studied Nietzsche I know that he himself was no fan of socialism, so you're fucked on that count too.

Mein gott, you lot got pissed at me from defending a noble profession from you bloody fucking SAVAGES?

Noble profession? Guess you don't often end up at the wrong end of daddy's truncheon then?

Jazzratt

7th June 2007, 13:20

Oh yeah, and the Abortion discussion has been split again. Try very hard not to continue the damn argument in here.

Friedrich Nietzsche

7th June 2007, 13:32

Originally posted by Jazzratt+June 07, 2007 12:19 pm--> (Jazzratt @ June 07, 2007 12:19 pm)
Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 07, 2007 12:09 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:07 pm

Friedrich [email protected] 07, 2007 04:03 am
Um yes, what was I restricted for? I don't believe I've presented any views Big Brother here would consider "Reactionary" or "Counter-Revolutionary". Granted, I've defended those with disimilar views, but that's about it.
Mostly the defending cops and private property shit.
Aha! So having a father whom is a cop, and a good person at the same time, is....bad?
ahahahahahahaha. "whom". I bet you were trying to look more educated by using "whom" instead of "who", shame it was the wrong context fuckdribble.

More seriously we couldn't give two shits what your father does, but the fact you defend the concept of pigs and of property rights indicates you are no revolutionary leftist. As, also, does your weird anti-materialist bullshit.

Oh yeah and having studied Nietzsche I know that he himself was no fan of socialism, so you're fucked on that count too.

Mein gott, you lot got pissed at me from defending a noble profession from you bloody fucking SAVAGES?

Noble profession? Guess you don't often end up at the wrong end of daddy's truncheon then? [/b]
I never proclaimed to be a socialist! I proclaimed to be an Anarchist.

And my father has never actually, you know...been forced to beat the shit out of anyone who didn't deserve it. He's been a cop for 18 years, served in the Balkans Conflict(the one in the late 90s. I know it's hard to keep track of them.) as a UN Peace Keeper.

He is not a 'pig'. A good deal of them are...but that does not mean *all* of them are. The amount of gross generalization here is staggering to the imagination.

Jazzratt

7th June 2007, 13:38

Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 07, 2007 12:32 pm
I never proclaimed to be a socialist! I proclaimed to be an Anarchist.
You're closer to a classical liberal from your posts. What's with the weird nazi thing as well?

And my father has never actually, you know...been forced to beat the shit out of anyone who didn't deserve it. He's been a cop for 18 years, served in the Balkans Conflict(the one in the late 90s. I know it's hard to keep track of them.) as a UN Peace Keeper.

I'm sure you're very happy for him. As I said before no one cares.

He is not a 'pig'. A good deal of them are...but that does not mean *all* of them are. The amount of gross generalization here is staggering to the imagination.

It's a copper's job to be a ****, therefore they're ****s.

I'm getting fed up with your blathering, so I'll probably abandon this "discussion".

Kwisatz Haderach

7th June 2007, 15:42

Oh, congratulations Jazzratt, you've just made absolutely sure that Friedrich Nietzsche will always reject revolutionary socialism.

Honestly, am I the only person who is concerned about the level of hostility here?

Jazzratt

7th June 2007, 15:48

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 07, 2007 02:42 pm
Oh, congratulations Jazzratt, you've just made absolutely sure that Friedrich Nietzsche will always reject revolutionary socialism.
Yes of course, because everyone is thin skinned and unable to make a rational choice about their political ideology because someone didn't bother being ultra-polite to them.

Honestly, am I the only person who is concerned about the level of hostility here?

No but all the others are stupid ****s as well, so no worries.

Tower of Bebel

7th June 2007, 15:51

Honestly, am I the only person who is concerned about the level of hostility here?

No. I disagree with Coggy getting restricted, it only made it harder to persuade him.
He was no threat to the boards.

Whitten

7th June 2007, 16:32

I have to agree. Its no wonder that the numbers on the far left are so small if we reject potential allies based on one of their views (especially if its only a matter of wanting to reduce abortion limits by a few weeks, due to a different view on when life begins) instead of talking with them and trying to convince them over to our side. What happens here on this forum is just a sympton of negative tendency of elitism sectarianism within far left circles, and why no matter how much public suppory may grow against capitalism and war, it will never fall upon us.

MarxistFuture

7th June 2007, 16:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:32 pm
I have to agree. Its no wonder that the numbers on the far left are so small if we reject potential allies based on one of their views (especially if its only a matter of wanting to reduce abortion limits by a few weeks, due to a different view on when life begins) instead of talking with them and trying to convince them over to our side. What happens here on this forum is just a sympton of negative tendency of elitism sectarianism within far left circles, and why no matter how much public suppory may grow against capitalism and war, it will never fall upon us.
Life begins when a foetus emerges from the host, its mother - before this, it is a parasite, and the life and rights of the host are the only ones that should be considered ; in my opinion, there can be no other option acceptable for this board.

In addition, a certain level of hostility is prevalent on here, but it is aimed predominantly at the close-minded individuals who choose to post on this board but do not believe in true revolutionaty leftism ; who gives a fuck about them?

Whitten

7th June 2007, 18:08

Originally posted by MarxistFuture+June 07, 2007 03:48 pm--> (MarxistFuture @ June 07, 2007 03:48 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 03:32 pm
I have to agree. Its no wonder that the numbers on the far left are so small if we reject potential allies based on one of their views (especially if its only a matter of wanting to reduce abortion limits by a few weeks, due to a different view on when life begins) instead of talking with them and trying to convince them over to our side. What happens here on this forum is just a sympton of negative tendency of elitism sectarianism within far left circles, and why no matter how much public suppory may grow against capitalism and war, it will never fall upon us.
Life begins when a foetus emerges from the host, its mother - before this, it is a parasite, and the life and rights of the host are the only ones that should be considered ; in my opinion, there can be no other option acceptable for this board. [/b]
It doesn't matter what your opinion on this issue is. What would matter would be if they admitted that the fetus wasn't alive and still opposed choice. But thats not important. The point I was making is that if we start turning people away with hostility over an issue of a few weeks on abortions, or any other such issue, we are cutting the size of our movement into a fraction of what it could be. If you disagree with them debate them on it, but its not like they're fascists or capitalists, or even reformists, they are no threat to the quality of discussion on the board, and if anything could improve it, many members could develop a far greater understanding of our views if they see it contested in debate, and have the ability to defend it themselves.

In addition, a certain level of hostility is prevalent on here, but it is aimed predominantly at the close-minded individuals who choose to post on this board

Its sounds like we're the closed minded ones.

do not believe in true revolutionaty leftism

Many of them do, but are banished here because of some minor detail thats blown out of proportion.

I dont propose letting the cappies out, but lets at least make a tactical decision here if not a benevolent one.

NorthStarRepublicML

7th June 2007, 20:05

wow, you restricted Nietzsche for this:

(refering to police officers)

Oh yes, because wanting to protect and defend people is such an inhuman act.

good work ..... i feel better already ..... thank you for defending the real "revolutionary leftist" here by removing this counter revolutionary speech from the boards ...

no, but seriously, is this the only thing he got restricted for or is there more?

whos next?

luxemburg89

7th June 2007, 20:59

Aha! So having a father whom is a cop, and a good person at the same time, is....bad?

You were actually restricted for the misuse of 'whom'; it should be 'my father, who is a cop,'. I think the real Nietzsche would have known that...

Oedipus Complex

7th June 2007, 21:36

As, also, does your weird anti-materialist bullshit.

Now, I could have missed something but, from what I have seen Nietzsche has indicated no sign of "anti-materialist bullshit". However, if you think that it is anti-materialist to be an agnostic than you're completely wrong.

This is not to say that I don't agree with the restriction, just not this remark itself.

freakazoid

7th June 2007, 21:50

As I said in the abortion thread, I was restricted for something that isn't true. Which is that I was restricted for believing that abortion should be criminalized, which I don't!!!

Many of them do, but are banished here because of some minor detail thats blown out of proportion.

I dont propose letting the cappies out, but lets at least make a tactical decision here if not a benevolent one.

Yes!! I would consider myself a revolutionary leftist, I believe that we should be forming militias now while we still can for goodness sake! I think that the Anti-Minuteman Project Project, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65807 should seriously be done, and now I can't even respond in that thread anymore because I am restricted. <_<

Comrade J

7th June 2007, 22:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:50 pm
As I said in the abortion thread, I was restricted for something that isn't true. Which is that I was restricted for believing that abortion should be criminalized, which I don't!!!

Many of them do, but are banished here because of some minor detail thats blown out of proportion.

I dont propose letting the cappies out, but lets at least make a tactical decision here if not a benevolent one.

Yes!! I would consider myself a revolutionary leftist, I believe that we should be forming militias now while we still can for goodness sake! I think that the Anti-Minuteman Project Project, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65807 should seriously be done, and now I can't even respond in that thread anymore because I am restricted. <_<
Did, or did you not say:

I view the fetus as a human being, which would make an abortion murder.

You think that a woman's choice to abort a fetus is murder. Your restriction has been a long time coming (too long for my liking) but finally your reactionary beliefs have been conserved to the OI sub-forum, where they belong.

Janus

7th June 2007, 22:56

wow, you restricted Nietzsche for this:
No, he was restricted for his trollish tendencies concerning his sympathy with Nazis and his posts about "carving up living women".

NorthStarRepublicML

8th June 2007, 00:55

trollish tendencies

What of his have you highlighted as "trollish"? i surely haven't noticed anything above and beyond several others i have seen ....

sympathy with Nazis

the quotes i've seen from him that directly concern Nazis are not pro-nazi .... that would be a stretch ...

"carving up living women"

i noticed there were quotes around that phrase .... is that a quote from Nietzsche?

Janus

8th June 2007, 01:15

the quotes i've seen from him that directly concern Nazis are not pro-nazi .... that would be a stretch ...
Not really.

Originally posted by FN+--> (FN) It should also be noted that I've got some sort of uncontrolable obscession with Nazi Germany, and Germany in general. >_<...*drools over Panzer tanks*[/b]

One can be proud of the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe without being proud of the holocaust, no?

Duh. Any country that can kick Europe's collective asses not once, but *TWICE* in the same century, deserves some respect.

That, and the German language > all other languages.

is that a quote from Nietzsche?
Yes

FN
While pesonally, I would...love, to be able to carve up a human carcass(preferably female, and preferably...alive, whilst I am doing said carving. Willing, mind you. Something about that turns me on).

freakazoid

8th June 2007, 02:47

You think that a woman's choice to abort a fetus is murder.

As I told LSD, and I also stated in the abortion thread, I do not think that abortion should be criminalized! I did not state myself clearly enough when I said that it is "murder".

Your restriction has been a long time coming (too long for my liking) but finally your reactionary beliefs have been conserved to the OI sub-forum, where they belong.

Oh really, and why is that? Is it because I believe in a God? If so then that is rather stupid because it is because that I believe in a God that I feel that it is my duty to help the poor and to be an anarchist. Reactionary, lol it is your beliefs that are reactionary.

Kwisatz Haderach

8th June 2007, 02:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:48 pm
In addition, a certain level of hostility is prevalent on here, but it is aimed predominantly at the close-minded individuals who choose to post on this board but do not believe in true revolutionaty leftism ; who gives a fuck about them?
News flash: The vast majority of the working class does not currently believe in revolutionary leftism. But who gives a fuck about the working class, right? *

If you can't persuade non-revleftists to become revleftists, you are fucked and your ideology is doomed. It's as simple as that.

Policy question: May a restricted member apologize for his/her comments and be allowed back into the community? Or do we have a policy of "once a non-socialist, always a non-socialist"?

--------------------------------
* This comment is sarcastic; such notices are clearly necessary lest one's comments be taken out of context for restriction purposes.

NorthStarRepublicML

8th June 2007, 03:53

Not really.

none of those quotes states that he supports Nazi's, obsession is not the same as admire .... having a like for a type of machine that was used by the nazis does not mean support either ... thats like saying someone who likes volkswagens likes nazis .... just like the volkswagen is a good car the panzer was a good tank, not a good nazi.

those in the german army, navy, and airforce who are alive today are not nazis or at least are not controlled by a nazi government ..... those soldiers under the 3rd reich may or may not have been Nazis, he is not refering to the Nazis here, he is refering to the Army, Navy, and Airforces .....

you'll also notice that he is not proud of the Holocaust

and the third quote he is not refering to Nazis .... there were NO nazis in WWI ... he is refering to the Nation of Germany, germans are not forever and always have been Nazis as you seem to suggest here ....

the other quote about cannibalism was in a thread about cannibalism, obviously a joke in bad taste but what about the guy that posted the joke about getting a girl pregnant, was this more or less serious?:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67182&st=25

ok nobody got pregnant and this was just a stupid personal joke and a bet i made with Sovietpants.

oh .... i see ... this guy with the pregnant girlfriend is a member of the Commie Club .... does that have something to do with it?

first it says in the admin actions:

Restricted Friedrich Nietzsche - cappie.

then:

Mostly the defending cops and private property shit.

and most recently:

trollish tendencies concerning his sympathy with Nazis and his posts about "carving up living women".

so which is it? or are you just looking for something that will fit your criteria for restriction? the more shifting justifications that you give the more you sound like your trying to justify the war in Iraq ..... is it WMD's? is it Bin Laden? is it because he's a dictator?

which makes me think that you didn't really think it out at all, you had the support in your club, you knew you could do it, so you didn't bother with the justification and now your having to dig up these obscure quotes that don't really supoort anything you claim ....

bezdomni

8th June 2007, 05:07

Your "freedom to speech" isn't being taken away when you are restricted. You're still perfectly free to be an idiot, just in a different forum.

If you don't like it, don't post here. It's simple. Revleft.com is not a revolution, nor is it a country or anything of the sort. When a person is restricted it is not like they are completely ostracized from every leftist on Earth or something. Seriously, get over it.

Reactionaries get restricted. Being anti-choice to ANY degree is reactionary, therefore, being anti-choice will get you restricted.

And people who are restricted can still be argued with and reasoned with...it will just be done in the opposing ideologies forum.

It's not like we're purging and executing anti-choice people...we are just putting them with other reactionaries where they belong.

Like I said earlier, if Coggy said something like "I am a socialist, I just think black people should be allowed to vote" or "I consider myself a revolutionary leftist...I just don't think homosexuality should be legal" then there would be NO ISSUE.

But when he says women don't have the right to choose what goes on inside their own bodies, people somehow think he can still be a revolutionary and a leftist? That's not only incorrect, it's sickening.

Comrade J

8th June 2007, 06:36

You think that a woman's choice to abort a fetus is murder.

As I told LSD, and I also stated in the abortion thread, I do not think that abortion should be criminalized! I did not state myself clearly enough when I said that it is "murder".

Ok ok, so you think abortion is 'murder' but that it should not be criminalised? So basically, you think murder should not be criminalised. (This isn't a question btw, I'm pointing out the inherently fucking obvious flaws in your distorted logic.)
If you genuinely thought abortion was murder, and it was actually killing a human being, you would not support it being legal. It's evident to me, and probably anyone else gifted with having temporal lobes, that you are - and not for the first time - talking utter shit.

Your restriction has been a long time coming (too long for my liking) but finally your reactionary beliefs have been conserved to the OI sub-forum, where they belong.

Oh really, and why is that? Is it because I believe in a God? If so then that is rather stupid because it is because that I believe in a God that I feel that it is my duty to help the poor and to be an anarchist. Reactionary, lol it is your beliefs that are reactionary.

I really couldn't give a fuck whether you believe in God, Oscar the Grouch or fucking Mickey Mouse, it's only when you believe that God somehow inspired people to write a whole lot of reactionary shit over several hundred years a few millennia ago, that you believe to be literally true, that I become concerned. Having had the misfortune to read Biblical texts, and having seen the vile and horrific ideas and commands in it, I am of course naturally disinclined to offer my comradeship or support to somebody who admittedly thinks they are literally true.

It's not that you believe there is an invisible man in the sky, it really isn't. Like I've said before, the majority of the working class has the same delusion, but it doesn't deter me from wanting to work towards liberating them from the bonds of capitalism.

Prominent theologians across the world, who have studied Biblical texts in such detail, and have studied several thousands years of theological thought and ideas, consider Christians such as yourself to be an embarrassment to Christianity. They really do - just read any basic text from modern theologians like Peter Vardy, Keith Ward, Richard Swinburne etc.
Personally, I think the embarrassment should start at the basic concept of God, but I can't help but agree with these people that extremely deluded people such as yourself give Christianity an even worse name than it deserves. I mean, for fucks sake man, you believe the world is 6000 years old... I cannot begin to comprehend how somebody could be soooo deluded and brainless as to believe that. Really, I can't.

And as for saying my beliefs are reactionary, what a fucking puerile retort, surely even someone of your diminished intellect could have thought of a better argument than that. I know that evidence to back up claims isn't usually needed in your fantasy fucking dream world, but if you'd perhaps care to provide some evidence as to how my beliefs are 'reactionary' then I'd be delighted to hear. Do you even know the meaning of that word?

bezdomni

8th June 2007, 07:07

Policy question: May a restricted member apologize for his/her comments and be allowed back into the community? Or do we have a policy of "once a non-socialist, always a non-socialist"?

Yes, you thick dunce. Maybe you should understand the guidelines before you start making half-assed whiney complaints about them?

Thankfully, the majority of this board are materialists (unlike you) and thusly acknolwedge that mistakes can be corrected.

If you had taken the time to read several of my posts, I've said that coggy and all of his faux communist ilk can be unrestricted once they understand why they are wrong in opposing abortion rights.

bezdomni

8th June 2007, 07:08

As I told LSD, and I also stated in the abortion thread, I do not think that abortion should be criminalized! I did not state myself clearly enough when I said that it is "murder".
...so you think murder should be decriminalized? :blink:

I don't want to live in your socialism.

NorthStarRepublicML

8th June 2007, 08:10

When a person is restricted it is not like they are completely ostracized from every leftist on Earth or something.

thankfully the people here who seem to be in charge of deciding who is a "true" revolutionary leftist have little influence on planet earth ....

Tower of Bebel

8th June 2007, 08:21

A lot of people get restricted I see... having one false opinion can be regarded as being reactionary <_< .

graffic

8th June 2007, 10:30

I don't see how the Israel issue should get you restricted.

People on the left support Israel, people on the right support a Palestinian state and vice versa. Even Jeremy Clarkson wants a Palestinian state

Tower of Bebel

8th June 2007, 11:31

Restriction

What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behaviour that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site.

Who is restricted?

In general, anyone who is ideologically opposed to the revolutionary leftist vision of this board is restricted to OI.

Anyone who defends capitalism or otherwise opposes worker liberation is automatically restricted. Anyone who opposes the rights of any other oppressed group is similarly restricted. This includes so-called "pro-lifers" or anyone else who opposes the right to abortion on demand.

Primitivists of all varieties are also restricted. Our vision on this board is the revolutionary reconstruction of civilized society, not its destruction. Anyone opposing structured society or technology in general is inherently anti-working class and so not welcome on this board. Primitivists are, however, tolerated in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

In addition, religious preachers of any sort are automatically restricted. Justifying religious hierarchy, preaching to or attempting to convert other members, or in any other way promoting religion is not tolerated on this board. If any religious sentiments are expressed, they obviously belong in the “Religion” subforum in OI but this is not to say that preaching is acceptable in "Religion".

Personal beliefs/positions on religion/spirituality should not affect an individual's overall status on RevLeft if kept within the Religion forum. Though this is not to say people won't be held accountable for otherwise unacceptable behaviour, nor that religious extremism is tolerated.

This person was restricted/banned, why?

In the daily happenings at the board, members sometimes make comments that are unacceptable at this site, comments that are racist, sexist or homophobic for example. This usually will result in a restriction, and if the problem is deemed serious enough by the membership, a ban. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, this is the case.

Is anyone ever unrestricted?

Yes, there have been many cases where a person has been forgiven and accepted back into the fold. It isn't easy however, because it usually requires genuine change for the membership to forgive and forget. It's hard for us to believe someone who says they are no longer racist/sexist/homophobic for example. However, as time passes by, and the person's comments continue to reflect a positive change, we become determined to see this member accepted after what then would become a learning experience for him/her.

Whitten

8th June 2007, 11:41

QUOTE
QUOTE
You think that a woman's choice to abort a fetus is murder.

As I told LSD, and I also stated in the abortion thread, I do not think that abortion should be criminalized! I did not state myself clearly enough when I said that it is "murder".

Ok ok, so you think abortion is 'murder' but that it should not be criminalised? So basically, you think murder should not be criminalised. (This isn't a question btw, I'm pointing out the inherently fucking obvious flaws in your distorted logic.)
If you genuinely thought abortion was murder, and it was actually killing a human being, you would not support it being legal. It's evident to me, and probably anyone else gifted with having temporal lobes, that you are - and not for the first time - talking utter shit.

Perhaps he personally views abortion is wrong, and would never condone one personally, but accepts that his view is not the word of god and is not law and that he cannot force that view upon other, expect by trying to convince them. He has the right to his own views and moral opinions beyond the law of the land and the principles of any movement, e does not seek to force them upon others.

Now on the case of Coggy:

QUOTE
I support abortions in cases such as rape and the like , also i think the line should be 8-12weeks while the foetus hasn't really developed at all in that time let alone have the ability to feel .

this comment got you restricted buddy

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). I've posted this view before (some time ago) and I believe there are a good number here who would agree with me (not just because I'm posting in OI).

So I'm going to give you a choice: Unrestrict him or restrict me.

Jazzratt

8th June 2007, 12:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:21 am
A lot of people get restricted I see... having one false opinion can be regarded as being reactionary <_< .
A lot of the cappies we restrict have "one false opinion" - an opinion on property rights. Whether you take a reactionary line on one issue or several is irrelevant, you're still taking a reactionary line and are therefore a reactionary.

cormacobear

8th June 2007, 12:31

Really :s

I defended theists right to participate one too many times. Three polls too ban believers from the CC on grounds they believe in a god, all lost by 5% or fewer votes. The next poll against a vocal proponent. Having read through nearly a thousand comments they found one to misconstrue. Asked the meaning and the meaning easily rendered innocuous on an already abandoned position…. Politics.

This ”Unfairly Restricted” thread is a joke. It’s an opportunity for those who restricted you to watch you whine. Nearly no-ones un-restricted. If you’re not a cappie the best revenge is to be a good contributing member. Fuck the politics be bigger. Post in OI what needs to be heard and when you have science that would settle a 3 month old argument you can’t comment on,…. their loss, let them waste time.

You needn’t be a CC member to contribute a suggestion: Why aren’t there CC comities recording Rebel radio with music , theory, and space for the “up-to-date leftist news”, preparing what goes to air a week before instead of playlist…… etc…etc……etc..

Or…. Malte has created a legacy here but malte is not immortal. Che-lives shoud have three servers and the CC should buy the site and democratically control where those servers are in the world. It would protect the legacy of the website and provide the membership an opportunity to flex it’s intnl. Muscle, and pass valuable organizing information from older members to younger. Two or three friends, a table in a park near a post secondary, can offer passers-by an opportunity to view Che-Lives, Rev-left, and if they’d like, join and contribute to the new drive to own ourselves and have host servers in multiple countries.

….. You know ideas.

Restricted members can post in OI,tech support, and Newswire which is proof-read for relevance and honesty (quite well by Conghaileach). But the internet touches a million minds a day. How many non-leftists did you share your opinion with today. Restriction is always an opportunity for us to stop preaching to the choir to venture out into the angry waters of the web and tell what we know, millions of sites too few voices.

Sectarianisms their game, you need not play. The ignorance of 51% of the CC is hardly a consensus.

Jazzratt

8th June 2007, 15:37

Oh yes, and finally I'm fed up of splitting the irrelevancies out of this thread so could you guys please try to carry the arguments on in the "abortion" thread, if it's not too much bother?

cormacobear

8th June 2007, 15:42

Again My thread paid little regaurd to my restriction, my thread was directed to the value of contributing to so many minds. If the best they can do is attack my indeciscion on abortion in the final months of gestation, well I certainly qualify to say what I'd like in this thread. <_<

8th June 2007, 16:03

A 7th or even 5th month fetus removed from it's mother isn't dependand and will as seen develop fine.

:lol: "will develop just fine" :lol:

um, no.

The youngest fetus to ever survive outside a womb was older than 5 months (21 weeks, and it was severely deformed and had a brain hemorrhage). It has never happened at 5 months. The vast majority of babies born at 6 months gestation will die, even in a neo-natal intensive care unit, and the less than 15% that live are typically mentally and physically impared. At 7 months most will survive (87%) if in an intensive neo-natal care unit, but they would die otherwise.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7217/1093#SEC3

All of these discussions on whether or not a fetus would survive as an infant outside of a womb are totally irrelevant though. Even if an fetus could be a perfectly healthy baby (say, full term at 37 weeks) a pregnant woman who does not want a child has no obligation to undergo a major, invasive surgery with a long recovery time (c-sections) or an average of 13 hours of torture in labour and childbirth. No one would demand that of anyone to save the life of any other person, so why is it acceptable with a pregnant woman and a baby/fetus?

Sure, a 37 week old fetus is basically a baby, a human being, that if removed could live outside the womb. I'm fine accepting that. But aborting a 37 week old fetus isn't murder, its self defense.

cormacobear

8th June 2007, 16:09

So you agree that at 7 months both the mother and the child have potetially decades of happy life. That's good. where are you on enfanticide?

Black Dagger

8th June 2007, 16:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:09 am
So you agree that at 7 months both the mother and the child have potetially decades of happy life. That's good. where are you on enfanticide?
Huh? What does infanticide have to do with abortion? No one is talking about killing new born infants.

8th June 2007, 16:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:09 pm
So you agree that at 7 months both the mother and the child have potetially decades of happy life. That's good. where are you on enfanticide?
I would also think that infanticide would be acceptable in cases of self-defense, those cases are however profoundly rare or non-existant.

Hypothetically, if a group of people were trapped in a small enclosed space, like an elevator, and someone tossed in a baby that had an air-born highly infectious, quick-onset and potentially fatal hemorrhagic fever, would it be wrong for them to smother it with a plastic bag in order to prevent air born transmission, thereby protecting themselves? I don't think so.

and i don't think a court would think so either, transmission of communicable disease can be considered assault and self-defense is considered a legal defense for assault

Huh? What does infanticide have to do with abortion? No one is talking about killing new born infants.

A full term fetus is not the same as a new born infant, they're actually quite different physiologically because breathing air causes significant changes in an infants body almost immediately...but...a full term fetus isn't that different from a baby (although, i would argue that it is *crucially* different in terms of consciousness because consciousness cannot come before awareness and awareness cannot come before intelligible sensory input).

But even so, it is politically dishonest to take the weak position in favour of abortion: abortion is okay because a fetus isn't a baby, we should be taking the strong position in favour of abortion: abortion would be okay even if a fetus was a baby.

Black Dagger

8th June 2007, 17:21

Originally posted by TC
A full term fetus is not the same as a new born infant, they're actually quite different physiologically because breathing air causes significant changes in an infants body almost immediately...but...a full term fetus isn't that different from a baby (although, i would argue that it is *crucially* different in terms of consciousness because consciousness cannot come before awareness and awareness cannot come before intelligible sensory input).

But even so, it is politically dishonest to take the weak position in favour of abortion: abortion is okay because a fetus isn't a baby, we should be taking the strong position in favour of abortion: abortion would be okay even if a fetus was a baby.

Are these comments directed at me? If so why?

By stating that abortion has nothing to do with infanticide i wasn't taking a 'weak position' in favour of abortion, but rather stating the facts - abortion is not a form of infanticide.

As i said, infanticide is the killing of infants, not of foetuses - i was (i thought obviously) pointing out the fallacious nature of cormacobears statement.

8th June 2007, 17:23

By stating that abortion has nothing to do with infanticide i wasn't taking a 'weak position' in favour of abortion, but rather stating the facts - abortion is not a form of infanticide.

Of course, but arguing along those lines gives an opening to anti-choice claims that a fetus is infact an infant, or its an infant at a certain point. It is a mistake for us to argue on that ground because even if a fetus were meaningfully an infant, it would still be okay to have an abortion, so it is not an argument that we should be having.

Tower of Bebel

8th June 2007, 17:32

Originally posted by Jazzratt+June 08, 2007 11:01 am--> (Jazzratt @ June 08, 2007 11:01 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 07:21 am
A lot of people get restricted I see... having one false opinion can be regarded as being reactionary <_< .
A lot of the cappies we restrict have "one false opinion" - an opinion on property rights. Whether you take a reactionary line on one issue or several is irrelevant, you're still taking a reactionary line and are therefore a reactionary. [/b]
You didn't understand what I wrote.
Coggy is no capitalist. He's a communist and now he seems to have a different opinion on abortion. This opinion is in conflict with our ideas. But that doesn't make him reactionary in general.

And you say a lot of capies have one false opinion... that's not true because they're capitalists. Their whole vision on society is in conflict with revleft, not one opinion.

Black Dagger

8th June 2007, 17:32

Originally posted by TC
Of course, but arguing along those lines gives an opening to anti-choice claims that a fetus is infact an infant, or its an infant at a certain point. It is a mistake for us to argue on that ground because even if a fetus were meaningfully an infant, it would still be okay to have an abortion, so it is not an argument that we should be having.

As i said, i was merely exposing what cormacobear had said as a red herring, that's all, really.

Eleftherios

8th June 2007, 17:34

I think Lenin summed it up pretty well when he said "Patiently explain."

While I am disgusted by graffic's Zionist beliefs, I think restricting him or anyone else who holds views different from us on just one one issue is extremely counter-productive because it puts them on the same side as the capitalist reactionaries. We should not push members away and isolate them from other revolutionary leftists just because they do not hold the 100% correct stance on every single issue.

If this forum is for spreading the idea's of revolutionary socialism, then we should try to convince certain members why their views are wrong in the hopes that they will eventually realize that the position they hold on certain issues is reactionary.

Black Dagger

8th June 2007, 17:38

Originally posted by alcaeos
If this forum is for spreading the idea's of revolutionary socialism, then we should try to convince certain members why their views are wrong in the hopes that they will eventually realize that the position they hold on certain issues is reactionary.

Of course, and several members have being doing this (and very eloquently); that a member is restricted does not mean that people will not try to convince them to abandon what reactionary positions they may have. The problem is convincing such members that their position is reactionary at all, at this stage, most (all?) seem relucant/refuse to do this; despite the eloquent refutations offered.

Coggeh

8th June 2007, 18:56

Sure, a 37 week old fetus is basically a baby, a human being, that if removed could live outside the womb. I'm fine accepting that. But aborting a 37 week old fetus isn't murder, its self defense.
:lol: .. sorry it just sounded a little funny the way you put it .

It amazes me that alot of the restricted members are communists with leftists avatars and the lot . I just think that if it came down to the mods and the admins on this forum to run a left movement they'd do a pretty lame-ass job of it .

It took a liberal(out of all people) to convince me about abortions and on the womens rights where as this board was so pre-occupied with labelling me as a reactionary and scoring points for in restricting me without the option of at least bringing it up before restriction.

This board has restricted too many comrades for stupid reasons. (Not that abortion and womens rights is stupid) but the exclusion of people who are only trying to learn more about socialism is counter productive and reactionary in itself . The term "revolutionary" is fast losing all its credibility on this site.

Janus

8th June 2007, 19:01

none of those quotes states that he supports Nazi's, obsession is not the same as admire ....
Maybe not but there's a thin line between the two and you seem to find nothing wrong with admiring/liking the German war machine?

having a like for a type of machine that was used by the nazis does not mean support either ... thats like saying someone who likes volkswagens likes nazis .... just like the volkswagen is a good car the panzer was a good tank, not a good nazi.
:blink: You just ignored the posts where he admitted to liking the Nazi military.

those in the german army, navy, and airforce who are alive today are not nazis or at least are not controlled by a nazi government ..... those soldiers under the 3rd reich may or may not have been Nazis, he is not refering to the Nazis here, he is refering to the Army, Navy, and Airforces .....
Which was the military arm of the Nazis during their rule.

you'll also notice that he is not proud of the Holocaust
Ok...

and the third quote he is not refering to Nazis .... there were NO nazis in WWI ... he is refering to the Nation of Germany, germans are not forever and always have been Nazis as you seem to suggest here ....
No, I was not trying to insinuate that but nice diversion. Let me ask you something, you find nothing troubling with any of those statements?

the other quote about cannibalism was in a thread about cannibalism, obviously a joke in bad taste
How do you know that?

so which is it? or are you just looking for something that will fit your criteria for restriction?
You never thought that it was a combination of those that got him restricted which is actually a much lighter sentence considering that we normally ban trolls.

the more shifting justifications that you give the more you sound like your trying to justify the war in Iraq ..... is it WMD's? is it Bin Laden? is it because he's a dictator?
Another nice diversion. :rolleyes: Pretty hypocritical considering what you said here:

Originally posted by you
just reactionary statement, a leftist comparing someone to george bush is like an evangelical comparing someone to the devil .... hey go for broke ... why not invoke hitler .... i'm sure it will strengthen your arguements ....

and now your having to dig up these obscure quotes that don't really supoort anything you claim ....
Obscure? You still find nothing troubling at all about them? Do you have any evidence to the contrary besides what you personally believe?

Connolly

8th June 2007, 19:31

freakazoid

8th June 2007, 19:54

If this site restricts people who are not "true revolutionary leftists" then who decides what is and isn't one? Are Leninists true revolutionary leftists? Are Moists true revolutionary leftists? Are Marxists true revolutionary leftists? Are Stalinists true revolutionary leftists? Are Technocrats true revolutionary leftists? Are Marxist-Leninists true revolutionary leftists? Are Trots true revolutionary leftists? Are anarchists true revolutionary leftists? Are Tomyists true revolutionary leftists, lol :P? Etc. etc. etc.. Which one of these are the true revolutionary leftists. If only one of these groups are true revolutionary leftists then that means that all of the other groups must be restricted because they fail the criteria of being a true revolutionary leftists. They can not all be true revolutionary leftists because each group has a different belief in how we are to achieve the main goal, and some even have different views on what that goal is.

Janus

8th June 2007, 19:54

It amazes me that alot of the restricted members are communists with leftists avatars and the lot . I just think that if it came down to the mods and the admins on this forum to run a left movement they'd do a pretty lame-ass job of it .
A lot of the restricted members are communists? Where did you get that from? Look, you can still support the economic tenets of communism without supporting abortion but I'd hate to see the type of "communist" society that you would attempt to set up in which people are prevented from having control over their own bodies.

It took a liberal(out of all people) to convince me about abortions and on the womens rights where as this board was so pre-occupied with labelling me as a reactionary and scoring points for in restricting me without the option of at least bringing it up before restriction.
Well, we're debating it right now aren't we? People are addressing it right now and it would be beneficial if you actually listened to them.

This board has restricted too many comrades for stupid reasons. (Not that abortion and womens rights is stupid) but the exclusion of people who are only trying to learn more about socialism is counter productive and reactionary in itself . The term "revolutionary" is fast losing all its credibility on this site.
You exaggerate the numbers. Look, we've restricted homophobic leftists as well. Is that a stupid reason? You can still learn and discuss here, something which we are currently doing at the moment but the fact that you are still adamantly holding onto your position shows that you aren't willing to learn anything from what the other members are trying to tell you.

Connolly

8th June 2007, 20:04

If this site restricts people who are not "true revolutionary leftists" then who decides what is and isn't one?

Well, to me, it seems totally arbitrary in that the restrictions are decided - without any common consistency of thought, by those who wield the button of restriction.

Any straight thinking person living in the real world can see how ridiculous these latest restrictions have been. And it shows in the amount of dissent to them.

Orwells nightmare has come through, at least here on RL, the "thought police" are very much alive.

bloody_capitalist_sham

8th June 2007, 20:09

Pro life people are not being silenced in any way, they can start abortion threads in OI if they feel they need to express their opinion. They can also make any other thread within reason.

Whitten

8th June 2007, 20:16

The point is that some people (not me) have been restricted while still by all definitions being "pro-choice", just because they personally feel abortion is wrong (maybe they're a christian?)

Connolly

8th June 2007, 20:29

Pro life people are not being silenced in any way, they can start abortion threads in OI if they feel they need to express their opinion. They can also make any other thread within reason.

I wouldnt go as far as to say the recent closing of Whittens thread in OI was vindicitive, but it certainly puts a dampener on what you have just said.

That thread - IMO - was making a very valid point indeed, and I think people are missing what Whitten is actually saying - which has great consequences on further expression on revleft.

I think its scandalous!!

Whitten

8th June 2007, 20:35

Originally posted by Janus
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).

Then why not move it? I guess if anyone wants to start the issue up again there they are more than free too? If someone does so let me know how it goes.

Janus

8th June 2007, 20:45

Then why not move it?
Move it to where? The Member's forum? There's already an ongoing thread about this.

Janus

8th June 2007, 20:50

Which is that I was restricted for believing that abortion should be criminalized, which I don't!!!
Yet that was the only practical interpretation of your post in which you identified abortion as murder. One would assume that you certainly don't support murder.

As I told LSD, and I also stated in the abortion thread, I do not think that abortion should be criminalized! I did not state myself clearly enough when I said that it is "murder".
So do you support the right of women to abort or not without a time limit?

freakazoid

8th June 2007, 20:54

Yet that was the only practical interpretation of your post in which you identified abortion as murder. One would assume that you certainly don't support murder.

True, that is the only conclusion that someone could come to. But it would of been nice to of been PMed to clarify. And like I said, in the abortion thread I think, I posted that in haste without really thinking about what words I was using.

So do you support the right of women to abort or not without a time limit?

You mean if it is ok for a late term abortion? I do not think it should be banned. For reasons that I stated in the abortion thread, I think.

Publius

8th June 2007, 21:03

The point is that some people (not me) have been restricted while still by all definitions being "pro-choice", just because they personally feel abortion is wrong (maybe they're a christian?)

I think a fitting 1: 1 analogy would be drug use.

Is it wrong to support the idea that people can choose to use drugs, and yet personally think drugs are bad, or even wrong to take?

I can't see any contradiction here, because there is nothing in one view that logically has anything to do with the other. They are separate ideas.

Similarly, if one supports a woman's choice to have an abortion but personally finds the idea unconscionable, so what? An abortion is 'just another medical procedure', right? If we accept that axiom, then it makes as much sense to oppose someone for personally finding it distasteful as it would to restrict someone for personally disliking (but who has no desire to prevent or restrict) other procedures like nose jobs or LASIK surgery. I think you yourself can point out the non-sensical nature of restricting people over the last 2 items, but why not the first?

If this actually is the policy of RevLeft, I would love to see someone defend it, because it literally doesn't make an ounce of sense.

Hell, it seems to me you're legislating morality. I think there's a quote about becoming what you hate, though might be from Star Wars...

Connolly

8th June 2007, 21:08

If this actually is the policy of RevLeft, I would love to see someone defend it, because it literally doesn't make an ounce of sense.

Hell, it seems to me you're legislating morality. I think there's a quote about becoming what you hate, though might be from Star Wars...

I wouldnt usually agree with you publius, but you hit the nail on the head.

The restrictions are bizzare in retrospect.

Tower of Bebel

8th June 2007, 21:11

I was thinking. Anarchists say that leninism is authoritarian and already bears within it failure. Failure of revolution because the party will take power and wont let it go. The state wont wither away, a bureaucracy will be created.

So why not getting leninists restricted?

NorthStarRepublicML

8th June 2007, 21:14

you seem to find nothing wrong with admiring/liking the German war machine?

oh is this about me now?

I guess i better just state that: I do not support or like or admire Nazis

I wouldn't want you to restrict me for it

I happened to study history as an undergrad, germany was my focus, my parents are from Bavaria, and you need to realize that for the vast majority of german history there were NO NAZIS .... if you continue to insist that all Germans have and always have been nazis you are being a historical revisionist ....

You just ignored the posts where he admitted to liking the Nazi military.

how so? i addressed the quotes that you posted ... did you have others .... if you think that i ignored your points just point them out and i will respond, but as far as I can tell i already told you that:

obsession is not the same as admire

and that:

those soldiers under the 3rd reich may or may not have been Nazis, he is not refering to the Nazis here, he is refering to the Army, Navy, and Airforces

believe it or not .... the german army, like most armies of the day, were created by draft .... and although we are fairly certain some of them were members or at least supporters of the National Socialist Party (nazis) the constitution of the Weimar Republic states that no soldier was allowed to join a political party nor were they allowed to vote! http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php

also, although there was little resstance against the rise and authority of the Nazis in germany .... the one serious attempt to remove and assassinate Hitler was carried out by officers and commanders of the german army on july 20th 1944 ....

the point is that distinctions need to be made between the armed forces of a nation and their government ....

Which was the military arm of the Nazis during their rule.

it was the military arm before their rule as well .... and besides many people support soldiers even when their government is acting in an irresponsible way, i and many people in the USA have friends and family who are soldiers, calling all german soldiers nazis is like calling all US soldiers republicans ..... which we know is not the case .....

you find nothing troubling with any of those statements?

not particularly, remember i studied history and i've run into alot of people, some who like strategy, some who like WWII, and some who like tanks or other military aspects. Many look to the german army and commanders like Rommel or Guidarian, without expressing respect for nazi policies .....

i would find it troubling if he was being anti-semetic, quoting mein kampf, or expressing and supporting nazi policies .....

I do find it troubling is that you are so intent in branding him a Nazi lover ....

bottom line: none of the quotes you provided suggest that he supports Nazis, they merely mention Nazis or Germany and if that is all it takes to be declared a nazi you have quite a few nazis on this board ....

(refering to the cannibal post)

How do you know that?

i don't know... but its not like either of us asked him .... so its moot point .... how do you know that it was serious?

You never thought that it was a combination of those that got him restricted which is actually a much lighter sentence considering that we normally ban trolls.

well that would make sense .... if any of the reasons you cited were actually true

Another nice diversion.Pretty hypocritical considering what you said here:

HA! ok ... you got me there, you're right that was a cheap shot .... almost as cheap as these restrictions you've been pulling ....

Do you have any evidence to the contrary besides what you personally believe?

the burden of proof is on the accuser (you), you or your friends have yet to provide proof positive of any of the claims you have made

not sure what you are refering to ..... my personal beliefs are not in question, your restrictions are ..... you provided quotes i argue them in a rational method, if i have not you will have to be more specific with what you believe are "my personal beliefs" that are intruding on this discussion .....

besides .... lets not get started on personal beliefs .... we obviously differ considerably in terms of our definitions ....

freakazoid

8th June 2007, 21:15

I think there's a quote about becoming what you hate, though might be from Star Wars...

Are you talking about this quote?
"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate, and Hate leads to suffering."
Yoda

Publius

8th June 2007, 21:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:15 pm

Are you talking about this quote?
"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate, and Hate leads to suffering."
Yoda

That'll work.

And really, how can you disagree with that sentiment?

Janus

8th June 2007, 21:18

True, that is the only conclusion that someone could come to. But it would of been nice to of been PMed to clarify. And like I said, in the abortion thread I think, I posted that in haste without really thinking about what words I was using.
Ok, so you're saying that you don't see it as murder?

You mean if it is ok for a late term abortion? I do not think it should be banned. For reasons that I stated in the abortion thread, I think.
You haven't answered the question: would you support a women's right to have one then?

So why not getting leninists restricted?
Are you serious? This thread isn't for discussion on who you think should be restricted but on who has already been restricted.

StartToday

8th June 2007, 21:25

Well I hate to interrupt your conversation about Nazis, but I just thought I'd say...

I was unfairly restricted because of some apparently misleading statements I made in the Abortion thread. I've since made some more posts in an attempt to clear things up (I'm not against it!), but so far, nothing has come of it. <_< Hopefully one of the admins will clear this up...?

:(

freakazoid

8th June 2007, 21:29

^^ I believe that a member of CC has to bring it up for a vote. Good luck comrade, :D :(

Tower of Bebel

8th June 2007, 21:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:18 pm

So why not getting leninists restricted?
Are you serious?
No.

NorthStarRepublicML

8th June 2007, 21:53

I wouldnt go as far as to say the recent closing of Whittens thread in OI was vindicitive, but it certainly puts a dampener on what you have just said.

wow .... way to close a productive thread .....

do you see anything wrong with closing a thread entitled Freedom of Thought ?

Connolly

8th June 2007, 22:08

wow .... way to close a productive thread .....

do you see anything wrong with closing a thread entitled Freedom of Thought ?

Who's that to, me?

Janus

8th June 2007, 22:22

oh is this about me now?
No, it's an honest question. You really need to drop some of that paranoia.

if you continue to insist that all Germans have and always have been nazis you are being a historical revisionist ....
Again, you keep on saying this but nowhere have I made this claim.

the point is that distinctions need to be made between the armed forces of a nation and their government ....
The armed forces is an extension of the government. As a whole, it has the same ideology and goals as said government. You're making the same arguement that Southerners are making in regards to raising the Stars and Bars flag.

it was the military arm before their rule as well ....
There was always a German army but the Wehrmacht is a term used to specifically refer to the German army from 1933 to 1945 when it was under the control of the Nazis.

and besides many people support soldiers even when their government is acting in an irresponsible way, i and many people in the USA have friends and family who are soldiers, calling all german soldiers nazis is like calling all US soldiers republicans ..... which we know is not the case .....
Yes, there is a distinction between individual soldiers and the government but the army as whole always serves the purposes of said government and is simply another manifestation of it.

Many look to the german army and commanders like Rommel or Guidarian, without expressing respect for nazi policies .....
But what kind of person would be stating that on a revolutionary leftist board?

I do find it troubling is that you are so intent in branding him a Nazi lover ....
I haven't branded him anything, his posts speak for themselves.

bottom line: none of the quotes you provided suggest that he supports Nazis, they merely mention Nazis or Germany and if that is all it takes to be declared a nazi you have quite a few nazis on this board ....
There's a lot more than a little mentioning going on, something you continue to ignore.

i don't know...
So why did you state it?

but its not like either of us asked him .... so its moot point .... how do you know that it was serious?
I'm going to assume it was serious unless he says so otherwise which he hasn't said. If it was simply a joke, I would think that he would've admitted to it by now.

the burden of proof is on the accuser (you), you or your friends have yet to provide proof positive of any of the claims you have made
Yet you profess that he is totally innoncent. I'm not going to believe you until you stop ignoring my points and posting some actual evidence.

Janus

8th June 2007, 22:25

Hopefully one of the admins will clear this up...?
So you're saying that this comment was not representative of your views on abortion?

Same here. I'm no doctor or anything, so I don't know when the fetus develops a nervous system, but that's where I'd draw the line. I think that if people didn't have to jump through so many hoops, it would be rather easy to make their decision and get it over with within two months of conceiving, so that's as far as I support, really...

Kwisatz Haderach

8th June 2007, 22:28

Whitten

8th June 2007, 22:30

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 08, 2007 09:28 pm
With regard to the people who said that OI is not for policy discussions and Whitten should post in the Members Forum, I'd like to point out that, as a restricted member, he cannot post in the Members Forum.
Oh he knows, If I could I doubt he would of suggested it.

NorthStarRepublicML

8th June 2007, 22:38

Who's that to, me?

did you close the thread?

no .... i was talking to janus .... but if you feel as though there is something wrong with closing Whittens thread please make yourself heard ....

freakazoid

8th June 2007, 22:40

but if you feel as though there is something wrong with closing Whittens thread please make yourself heard ....

YEA!, /me raises his hand.

Janus

8th June 2007, 22:55

With regard to the people who said that OI is not for policy discussions and Whitten should post in the Members Forum, I'd like to point out that, as a restricted member, he cannot post in the Members Forum.
Restricted members aren't allowed to decide on administrative issues. They ceded that right when they were restricted. If you have a problem with that then you can raise the issue in the appropriate thread.

Kwisatz Haderach

8th June 2007, 23:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:55 pm
Restricted members aren't allowed to decide on administrative issues. They ceded that right when they were restricted. If you have a problem with that then you can raise the issue in the appropriate thread.
Ah, but we are not talking about them making decisions on administrative issues, we are merely talking about them having a place to discuss administrative issues. Clearly, Whitten wishes to discuss administrative issues (without making any claims to having a right to decide on them). Is he allowed to do so, and, if yes, where?

Janus

8th June 2007, 23:14

Ah, but we are not talking about them making decisions on administrative issues, we are merely talking about them having a place to discuss administrative issues. Clearly, Whitten wishes to discuss administrative issues (without making any claims to having a right to decide on them). Is he allowed to do so, and, if yes, where?
Opposing Ideologies was created for a very specific purpose: to discuss ideologies that we do not agree with. Just like we don't discuss administrative issues in Politics, they are not welcome here either. However since this is the only place that restricted members can post (asides from Technical Support) we do have a thread in which people can raise issues concerning their restriction or that of others.

NorthStarRepublicML

8th June 2007, 23:18

As a whole, it has the same ideology and goals as said government.

are you blind? you are making generalizations and ignoring the evidence provided, here is is again:

believe it or not .... the german army, like most armies of the day, were created by draft .... and although we are fairly certain some of them were members or at least supporters of the National Socialist Party (nazis) the constitution of the Weimar Republic states that no soldier was allowed to join a political party nor were they allowed to vote! http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php

following orders and sharing the same ideology is not the same thing

the Wehrmacht is a term used to specifically refer to the German army from 1933 to 1945 when it was under the control of the Nazis.

look, its obvious you are just puking up what you saw on the history channel .... you are not completely wrong, but not entirely correct either ..... sorry for assuming that you knew this but .... Wermacht is a general term for armed forces (literal translation = defence forces) and was used before the Nazis it was also used to describe the armed forces of foreign nations ..... the only thing that changed was in 1935 (not 33) when the armed forces official name was changed from Reichswehr to Wehrmacht ... it was the same organization under a diffrent official name ....

the army as whole always serves the purposes of said government and is simply another manifestation of it

again, read the post and you will see the evidence provide, here it is again:

the one serious attempt to remove and assassinate Hitler was carried out by officers and commanders of the german army on july 20th 1944 ....

of course they serve the purposes of the government, they follow orders like you would expect any army to do .... but clearly they are not the same .... do you hold individual soldiers responsible for the actions of their government? the german army was the one organization that stood up to hitler and critisized his treatment of prisioners ....

what kind of person would be stating that on a revolutionary leftist board?

well, it was always my belief that all so-called "revolutionary" leftists should be well educated in terms of military history .... how else do you expect to wage revolutionary warfare?

his posts speak for themselves.

i agree .... but they don't speak Nazi

something you continue to ignore.

if anyone here thinks i have ignored any points in this discussion please speak up, if you continue to believe that i am ignoring you .... you have to be more specific ....

i addressed your misconceptions about germany and about nazis and about the diffrences between the army and the government .... what else do you have? you think that i am not looking deep enough into these quotes, that FN had some kind of underlying nazi tendencies ..... sorry i just don't see it ... i see some posts that mention nazis, that mention that he likes german tanks, that he is obsessed (again this does not mean admire), that his father is a police officer and he respects him, and he made a joke in bad taste .... your arguement is defeated.....

You really need to drop some of that paranoia.

maybe when your restiction process is more transparent, just noticed you guys knocked off three more members for supposedly "anti-choice" stances ....

I'm not going to believe you until you stop ignoring my points and posting some actual evidence.

innocent until proven guilty ..... that seems right eh? i don't have to provide evidence or "prove" anything .... you do ...you are the one making the accusations.

Janus

8th June 2007, 23:45

following orders and sharing the same ideology is not the same thing
The army as a whole simply serves as the physical manifestation of the government's ideology and goals. If they didn't then there's no reason why it would exist in the first place. All the leaders of the Army were ideologically in step with the Nazi high command and thus loyal to it. Anyone who showed any dissent was purged or demoted.

Wermacht is a general term for armed forces (literal translation = defence forces) and was used before the Nazis it was also used to describe the armed forces of foreign nations ..... the only thing that changed was in 1935 (not 33) when the armed forces official name was changed from Reichswehr to Wehrmacht ... it was the same organization under a diffrent official name ....
Yes, it was still the army but when most people refer to the Wehrmacht, they're referring to the German army from 1933-1945 and not the Bundeswehr or Reichswehr.

but clearly they are not the same .... do you hold individual soldiers responsible for the actions of their government?
No though I would imagine it would depend on the soldier. However, the army as a whole is simply another tool of the government. It doesn't have a separate identity and in a fascist state, that is something that the leaders are quite keen on.

the german army was the one organization that stood up to hitler and critisized his treatment of prisioners ....
Yet here you are making no delineation between individual soldiers and the entire army itself. Soldier dissent is actually pretty common in war but they don't necessarily speak for the entire army itself.

Look, it's pretty clear that this history debate is pointless and that Frederich Nietzsche needs to come here himself in order to clairfy the picture here. You seem to have no problems with his professed admiration of the Nazi war machine so I would like him to personally address this rather than listen to you attempt to represent his position.

i addressed your misconceptions about germany and about nazis and about the diffrences between the army and the government .... what else do you have? you think that i am not looking deep enough into these quotes, that FN had some kind of underlying nazi tendencies ..... sorry i just don't see it ... i see some posts that mention nazis, that mention that he likes german tanks, that he is obsessed (again this does not mean admire), that his father is a police officer and he respects him, and he made a joke in bad taste .... your arguement is defeated.....
I'm sorry but you haven't refuted anything and his restriction will remain in place until he comes here and explains himself. His behavior is generally typical of most fascist trolls. Frankly, I'm baffled that you find nothing strange about someone posting such things on a revolutionary leftist site.

it was always my belief that all so-called "revolutionary" leftists should be well educated in terms of military history
There's a major difference between discussing revolutionary strategy and stating admiration for a fascist controlled army.

Janus

8th June 2007, 23:52

maybe when your restiction process is more transparent, just noticed you guys knocked off three more members for supposedly "anti-choice" stances ....
Care to tell us how it could be more "transparent"?

As far as the 2 other members go, would you like me to post the quotes that reveal their positions?

innocent until proven guilty ..... that seems right eh? i don't have to provide evidence or "prove" anything .... you do ...you are the one making the accusations.
Well, you aren't do anything except trying to debate a historical issue here with me and trying to clear up Nietzsche's name that way. Until you provide evidence that actually refutes Nietzsche's earlier statements or he himself comes here then this little debate is a bit pointless.

Whitten

9th June 2007, 00:05

Its occured to me that we are supposedly restricted to preserve the quality of discussion between "real" revolutionary leftists here, yet I (along with many of us) are only restricted due to a view on abortion law, something which is dicussed almost exclusivly in OI. So by confining us here you do nothing to improve the quality of discussion here at all, we still have access to the abortion threads, while we have been denied access to the threads which we weren't disrupting with our evil free thinking. Just some constructive criticism.

freakazoid

9th June 2007, 00:15

Dr Mindbender

9th June 2007, 00:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:05 pm
Its occured to me that we are supposedly restricted to preserve the quality of discussion between "real" revolutionary leftists here, yet I (along with many of us) are only restricted due to a view on abortion law, something which is dicussed almost exclusivly in OI. So by confining us here you do nothing to improve the quality of discussion here at all, we still have access to the abortion threads, while we have been denied access to the threads which we weren't disrupting with our evil free thinking. Just some constructive criticism.
I think the mods point is that the ultimate purpose of this forum is the promotion of a revolutionary reality.

Entertaining or legitimising the stance of the pro-lifers is counterproductive to that purpose.

BTW. You should be grateful in my opinion, any of the reactionary or pro-capitalist forums I've visited dont even have a restricted board for political opposers at all. Most of them just IP ban you right away.

Janus

9th June 2007, 00:24

something which is dicussed almost exclusivly in OI.
It's also discussed in the Discrimination thread. We usually only have abortion threads when someone is restricted due to their position like Coggy.

So by confining us here you do nothing to improve the quality of discussion here at all, we still have access to the abortion threads, while we have been denied access to the threads which we weren't disrupting with our evil free thinking.
Except we don't want people to stop discussing these kinds of issues or improve the quality of debate in OI. As you can see, the only reason any of the other members are even bothering to post in the abortion thread in here is to attempt to persuade anti-choice members otherwise.

Originally posted by freakazoid
take part in the Anti-Minuteman Project Project thread anymore
You still haven't answered my question on the previous page.

NorthStarRepublicML

9th June 2007, 00:32

You seem to have no problems with his professed admiration of the Nazi war machine so I would like him to personally address this rather than listen to you attempt to represent his position.

there is no professed admiration of the nazi war machine, you are using backdoor logic to justify your own misguided decision .....

Janus logic: FN likes german army, german army is always and forever will be nazis, thus FN admires nazis .... conviently forgetting that he said:
One can be proud of the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe without being proud of the holocaust, no?

doesn't have a separate identity

i would say that it does, again based upon the events that i mentioned ... the army didn't even use the hitler salute until after the july 20th plot when they were forced to ....

it's pretty clear that this history debate is pointless

why is it pointless? because you can't justify your arguement with it? seems like you want to believe that the German army was a Nazi army which was not the same as being under the authority of the Nazis ..... the point is that there is a disconnect between the German armed forces and the Nazi government ....

Frederich Nietzsche needs to come here himself in order to clairfy the picture here.

wow ... i guess this would have been alot easier if you would have asked him his stance on nazis instead of just assuming he was a nazi ..... maybe you should have done that for all the people that feel you unfairly restricted them....

haven't seen a post my FN in a while, did he quit?

anyway the whole point of this discussion is not specifically the restriction of FN, its the method of justification that mods and whatnot have been using to restrict socialists based upon dubious evidence ....

There's a major difference between discussing revolutionary strategy and stating admiration for a fascist controlled army.

you ever heard the phrase: know your enemy ....

and besides .... just because military strategy happens to be utilized by a government you don't agree with does not diminish its value, if you were to disregard all tactics and strategies that were used by governments and nations that you didn't agree with politically you would be a severe disadvantage .....

until he comes here and explains himself

i'll consider that an admission of fault on your part ... why was he not asked to explain himself before the restriction? why were none of the other recent restrictions asked to clarify their politics before they were cast out to OI .... ? sounds like you fucked up ....

even if he was to return i'll wager that even if he has a coherent and logic response ( somthing like: no i do not admire the nazis) he will not be returned to full membership status ....

freakazoid

9th June 2007, 00:38

You still haven't answered my question on the previous page.

I haven't? I thought that I answered all of your questions. What were they?

edit - Never mind, I found them, :D

Ok, so you're saying that you don't see it as murder?

Yes

You haven't answered the question: would you support a women's right to have one then?

I haven't? I thought that I made myself clear already. How is saying that it shouldn't be banned not clear enough?

NorthStarRepublicML

9th June 2007, 00:45

As far as the 2 other members go, would you like me to post the quotes that reveal their positions?

yes, the whole postings should be posted and not just quotes taken out of context

Until you provide evidence that actually refutes Nietzsche's earlier statements

i don't have to refure anything, there is nothing to refute .... your so called "evidence" of nazi support is highly questionable .... i provided a logical arguement why your accusations are not proof positive they are assumptions ....

dude, go back and read the posts, this time with your eyes open ....

Janus

9th June 2007, 01:02

there is no professed admiration of the nazi war machine, you are using backdoor logic to justify your own misguided decision .....

Janus logic: FN likes german army, german army is always and forever will be nazis, thus FN admires nazis .... conviently forgetting that he said:
And all you're doing is setting up strawmen to misrepresent my arguement. Nowhere have I stated that is the case yet you keep repeating it.

One can be proud of the Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe without being proud of the holocaust, no?
Once again, why would anyone profess such admiration for these forces on this board? It's simply something that only trolls do.

the army didn't even use the hitler salute until after the july 20th plot when they were forced to ....
So what would've happened to army officials if they had made decisions contrary to the Nazi high command's wishes? What would happen to any current army officer if they had opposed their leader's decisions?

why is it pointless? because you can't justify your arguement with it?
Because it's something that suits the history forum.

seems like you want to believe that the German army was a Nazi army which was not the same as being under the authority of the Nazis .....
Of course not every German soldier during WWII was a Nazi but the fact that the army operated as a unit and was under the control of the Nazis makes any individual opposition insignificant in light of the overriding authority of the whole.

the point is that there is a disconnect between the German armed forces and the Nazi government ....
So all the actions of the German army were totally separate from the Nazi government? Look, I just pointed out to you that this is the same thing that some Southerners are doing in order to justify their attempts to wear the Stars and Bars.

i guess this would have been alot easier if you would have asked him his stance on nazis instead of just assuming he was a nazi ..... maybe you should have done that for all the people that feel you unfairly restricted them....
Well, this thread is here right now isn't it? And no, I'm not sure if Nietzsche is a neo-Nazi or not but I definitely think there are some matters that he himself needs to address.

haven't seen a post my FN in a while, did he quit?
He posted yesterday.

anyway the whole point of this discussion is not specifically the restriction of FN, its the method of justification that mods and whatnot have been using to restrict socialists based upon dubious evidence ....
In regards to all of the people who have been restricted recently or simply Nietzsche himself? What you may see as "dubious evidence" is actually pretty clear to the rest of us.

and besides .... just because military strategy happens to be utilized by a government you don't agree with does not diminish its value, if you were to disregard all tactics and strategies that were used by governments and nations that you didn't agree with politically you would be a severe disadvantage .....
Yet no one was discussing revolutionary strategy, were they?

i'll consider that an admission of fault on your part ...why was he not asked to explain himself before the restriction? why were none of the other recent restrictions asked to clarify their politics before they were cast out to OI .... ?
What else needs to be clarified? As far as the anti-choice members go, their statements were pretty clear. What more clarity do you want?

As for Nietzsche, I'm willing to re-examine his case if he explains himself (which is what this thread is for!); something which you certainly haven't done.

sounds like you fucked up ....
Sounds more like you don't know what you're talking about again. This whole thread is devoted to "unfair restrictions".

even if he was to return i'll wager that even if he has a coherent and logic response ( somthing like: no i do not admire the nazis) he will not be returned to full membership status ....
How do you know? Once again, all you're doing is making wild guesses.

Janus

9th June 2007, 01:16

yes, the whole postings should be posted and not just quotes taken out of context
Ok.

Originally posted by Tiparith+--> (Tiparith)I'm pro-life as long as that life will be filled with love, freedom, fun, and life lived to its fullest. If that is not the life that the child will have then I'm pro-choice, but only until the second trimester, after that its just bloody cruel.[/b]

Originally posted by [email protected]
Same here. I'm no doctor or anything, so I don't know when the fetus develops a nervous system, but that's where I'd draw the line.

Whitten
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).

i don't have to refure anything, there is nothing to refute .... your so called "evidence" of nazi support is highly questionable .... i provided a logical arguement why your accusations are not proof positive they are assumptions ....

dude, go back and read the posts, this time with your eyes open ....
Once again, you're not convincing anyone here. I have read your posts and I see no reason why Nietzsche should be unrestricted until you or he (preferably him since you've done enough damage) posts something to the contrary.

freakazoid

9th June 2007, 01:17

:( You didn't respond to my posts, :(

As far as the anti-choice members go, their statements were pretty clear. What more clarity do you want?

While mine might of seemed clear when I stated that it is "murder", that is not what I meant and I still should of been messaged asking me to clarify!

Look, I just pointed out to you that this is the same thing that some Southerners are doing in order to justify their attempts to wear the Stars and Bars.

Interesting thing is how similar the Stars and Bars looks to the US flag, the Stars and Stripes. The real Stars and Bars, not what some people mistake for the Stars and Bars which is actually the Confederate Battle Flag, which came about because of people mistaking the Stars and Bars flag with the Stars and Stripes flag. And these flags, the Stars and Bars and the Confederate Battle Flag, are not symbols of slavery and such, they are symbols of revolution.

Yet no one was discussing revolutionary strategy, were they?

I would like to but... here I am in the Restricted Members section, :(

Kwisatz Haderach

9th June 2007, 01:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:24 am

something which is dicussed almost exclusivly in OI.
It's also discussed in the Discrimination thread. We usually only have abortion threads when someone is restricted due to their position like Coggy.
...which raises the question, why restrict pro-lifers who were not trying to promote their views? Why restrict someone just for saying "I am pro-life"? Surely people should only be restricted for trying to promote reactionary views. Someone who is pro-life but almost never talks about it should not be restricted.

Except we don't want people to stop discussing these kinds of issues or improve the quality of debate in OI. As you can see, the only reason any of the other members are even bothering to post in the abortion thread in here is to attempt to persuade anti-choice members otherwise.
Speaking of which, it does not seem like anyone believes people who say they have changed their previous reactionary views. This seems very odd to me. Even if they are lying, why does it matter? As long as they don't talk like reactionaries, they are not disturbing the forums.

In any case, if the abortion issue is so contentious, maybe we should have special restriction rules regarding pro-lifers who are otherwise revolutionary. They could be banned from Discrimination but allowed to post anywhere else.

freakazoid

9th June 2007, 01:21

I think that restricted people should at least be allowed to post in the Learning section if nothing else.

Kwisatz Haderach

9th June 2007, 01:23

Originally posted by Janus+June 09, 2007 02:16 am--> (Janus @ June 09, 2007 02:16 am)
Originally posted by Tiparith+--> (Tiparith)I'm pro-life as long as that life will be filled with love, freedom, fun, and life lived to its fullest. If that is not the life that the child will have then I'm pro-choice, but only until the second trimester, after that its just bloody cruel.[/b]

[email protected]
Same here. I'm no doctor or anything, so I don't know when the fetus develops a nervous system, but that's where I'd draw the line.

Whitten
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). [/b]
Again, I must object to the policy that one single reactionary comment is sufficient to get someone restricted. People should only be restricted for trying to promote reactionary views, not just for holding them.

In other words, in the case of abortion, people should only be restricted for trying to persuade others to join the pro-life camp, not just for saying, once, that they are pro-life.

Coggeh

9th June 2007, 01:27

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 09, 2007 12:18 am

...which raises the question, why restrict pro-lifers who were not trying to promote their views? Why restrict someone just for saying "I am pro-life"? Surely people should only be restricted for trying to promote reactionary views. Someone who is pro-life but almost never talks about it should not be restricted.

Speaking of which, it does not seem like anyone believes people who say they have changed their previous reactionary views. This seems very odd to me. Even if they are lying, why does it matter? As long as they don't talk like reactionaries, they are not disturbing the forums.

In any case, if the abortion issue is so contentious, maybe we should have special restriction rules regarding pro-lifers who are otherwise revolutionary. They could be banned from Discrimination but allowed to post anywhere else.
Comrade why bother? , I've already made the point about abortions that i now support them 100% but does this board of perfectionist revolutionaries care ? NO

If it were up to them the whole of the world wide leftist group would be full of the people who grasped marxist theory from the get go and not those who tried to learn about it or who didn't even know their position was reactionary .

To be casted aside with capitalists and bourgeois is a complete insult to anyone on the verge of being a complete socialist but this board doesn't seem to care either way .

freakazoid

9th June 2007, 01:34

Maybe it is time to see who the true revolutionary leftists really are? ;)

Coggeh

9th June 2007, 01:40

Well i don't know you so i don't know if your right- wing/ left wing or what. But something has to be changed about this forum because the restrictions at sometimes are just plain out stupid and taken completely out of hand

NorthStarRepublicML

9th June 2007, 01:45

Originally posted by Janus+June 09, 2007 12:16 am--> (Janus @ June 09, 2007 12:16 am)
yes, the whole postings should be posted and not just quotes taken out of context
Ok.

Originally posted by Tiparith+--> (Tiparith)I'm pro-life as long as that life will be filled with love, freedom, fun, and life lived to its fullest. If that is not the life that the child will have then I'm pro-choice, but only until the second trimester, after that its just bloody cruel.[/b]

[email protected]
Same here. I'm no doctor or anything, so I don't know when the fetus develops a nervous system, but that's where I'd draw the line.

Whitten
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).

i don't have to refure anything, there is nothing to refute .... your so called "evidence" of nazi support is highly questionable .... i provided a logical arguement why your accusations are not proof positive they are assumptions ....

dude, go back and read the posts, this time with your eyes open ....
Once again, you're not convincing anyone here. I have read your posts and I see no reason why Nietzsche should be unrestricted until you or he (preferably him since you've done enough damage) posts something to the contrary.[/b]
ha!

whoa ......

remember when i posted this: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67272&st=0&hl=

i didn't think you had the balls to restrict them all, what about me ... is there some reason i'm still standing?

anyway there is an obvious disconnet between the personal preferences of these members and their support of policy .... none of them were advocating or attempting to argue that abortions should be restricted .... they were stating opinions ....

and i think that is where the conflict is .....

if your going to question neitzche to clarify his stance on the issue you might as well invite these members to do so as well ....

because if they personally believe that they would not engage in abortions in 100% of the cases but do not advocate a loss of female autonomy or a change of leftist policy then .... in my view and the views of many others ..... they should not be restricted .....

and if in the course of this debate i have offended anyone, i apologize

Kwisatz Haderach

9th June 2007, 01:46

Originally posted by freakazoid+June 09, 2007 02:34 am--> (freakazoid @ June 09, 2007 02:34 am) Maybe it is time to see who the true revolutionary leftists really are? ;) [/b]
No, no, no. Comrades accusing other comrades of not being "true" revolutionaries is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Coggy
Comrade why bother? , I've already made the point about abortions that i now support them 100% but does this board of perfectionist revolutionaries care ? NO
I bother because I know that even the perfectionist revolutionaries on this board have the interests of the working class in mind, and because I know that we are all on the same side even when they (or you) seem to forget. Remember, it's not the whole board that decided to restrict you - many people here have come out against the unnecessarily strict restriction rules.

Coggeh

9th June 2007, 01:56

Of course and i thank them for voicing out against the restriction . Every comrade here i know has the working class ideals at heart but just lacks the knowledge to go about recruiting at least other comrades and even turning a few comrades off leftism! .

I agree though with your stance about showing the rights and wrongs of both sides .

bezdomni

9th June 2007, 04:26

JUST STOP BEING AN IDEALIST, ADMIT THAT WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO ABORT AT ANY TIME AND YOU WILL GET UNRESTRICTED.

It is very fucking simple.

freakazoid

9th June 2007, 04:32

I believe that we already have.
How I so wish to be unrestricted, :(

bezdomni

9th June 2007, 17:05

No, you have been vague and ambiguous and most of your posts complain about how revleft is some sort of stalinist state that restricts people for committing thought-crime.

As usual, your posts contain very little actual content and mostly evade questions and arguments made by others.

freakazoid

9th June 2007, 17:40

Not my posts, I have answered every question that someone asked me.

Coggeh

9th June 2007, 18:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:26 am
JUST STOP BEING AN IDEALIST, ADMIT THAT WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO ABORT AT ANY TIME AND YOU WILL GET UNRESTRICTED.

It is very fucking simple.
Read my above posts

I already fucking have.

Calling someone an idealist makes you no better than cappie scum who call all socialists Utopian idealist's fools

bezdomni

9th June 2007, 19:32

Calling someone an idealist makes you no better than cappie scum who call all socialists Utopian idealist's fools
Do you even know what idealism is? :blink:

Read my above posts

I already fucking have.

Link?

I've been able to find nothing but faux communist garbage, evasive and illogical argumentation, and petty whining in your previous posts. Of course, I'm human and more than capable of making mistakes...so please link me to the post where you corrected your stance on abortion so I may also stand corrected.

It's not like I want you as a person to be restricted...nobody wants that. You must certainly understand how refusing to acknowledge women's rights can lead to a restriction?

bezdomni

9th June 2007, 19:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:40 pm
Not my posts, I have answered every question that someone asked me.
No, you haven't. You almost never directly answer a question.

The Young Earth Creationism thread comes immediately to mind, where all you did was explain how you can't answer questions because you don't have regular access to a computer and linked to long, tedious essays written by thick-headed morons like yourself.

Your style of "argumentation" (if it can really be called that) is fundamentally evasive because you know that what you are saying is nonsense. The trouble with this is not so much that you're incorrrect...but that you will never admit to it and thusly will never be correct in your analysis.

Lenin wrote a really great book called "Materialism and Empirio-criticism". It's incredibly long and dense, there are large sections of it that I haven't even read yet...but I think you would do well to read at least a few parts of it, because if there is any person on this forum who needs a better understanding of materialism - it's you.

Coggeh

9th June 2007, 19:36

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67381

I think my post(s) show my position on the matter .

And I still do hold the opinion that my restriction was not right and alot of the restrictions on this site are total b*llocks

freakazoid

10th June 2007, 04:33

No, you haven't. You almost never directly answer a question.

The Young Earth Creationism thread comes immediately to mind, where all you did was explain how you can't answer questions because you don't have regular access to a computer and linked to long, tedious essays written by thick-headed morons like yourself.

Your style of "argumentation" (if it can really be called that) is fundamentally evasive because you know that what you are saying is nonsense. The trouble with this is not so much that you're incorrrect...but that you will never admit to it and thusly will never be correct in your analysis.

I thought that this thread was about how we were restricted? I didn't know that it also was dealing with my YEC belief. Oh wait... it's not, <_< I am talking about my responses to the questions posed to me about the abortion. WHICH I ANSWERED EVERY ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you seem to not notice them, and still seem to mis them even though I put them all in one post for you in the Abortion thread. Here I'll even post them here,

QUOTE
QUOTE
You think that a woman's choice to abort a fetus is murder.

As I told LSD, and I also stated in the abortion thread, I do not think that abortion should be criminalized! I did not state myself clearly enough when I said that it is "murder".

QUOTE
QUOTE
Yet that was the only practical interpretation of your post in which you identified abortion as murder. One would assume that you certainly don't support murder.

True, that is the only conclusion that someone could come to. But it would of been nice to of been PMed to clarify. And like I said, in the abortion thread I think, I posted that in haste without really thinking about what words I was using.

QUOTE
So do you support the right of women to abort or not without a time limit?

You mean if it is ok for a late term abortion? I do not think it should be banned. For reasons that I stated in the abortion thread, I think.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Ok, so you're saying that you don't see it as murder?

Yes

QUOTE
You haven't answered the question: would you support a women's right to have one then?

I haven't? I thought that I made myself clear already. How is saying that it shouldn't be banned not clear enough?

QUOTE
QUOTE
As far as the anti-choice members go, their statements were pretty clear. What more clarity do you want?

While mine might of seemed clear when I stated that it is "murder", that is not what I meant and I still should of been messaged asking me to clarify!

Janus

10th June 2007, 04:33

You didn't respond to my posts,
Was that addressed to me? I have no further questions.

While mine might of seemed clear when I stated that it is "murder", that is not what I meant and I still should of been messaged asking me to clarify!
Except that post was in no way ambiguous.

And these flags, the Stars and Bars and the Confederate Battle Flag, are not symbols of slavery and such, they are symbols of revolution.
:blink: The Southern secession was in no way a revolution. The lower classes of the South had no interest in revolting against the Union, they were dragged into the war by the upper elite. And as far as the Stars and Bars flag goes, it may be a battle flag but what interests and goals was it fighting for?

which raises the question, why restrict pro-lifers who were not trying to promote their views? Why restrict someone just for saying "I am pro-life"? Surely people should only be restricted for trying to promote reactionary views. Someone who is pro-life but almost never talks about it should not be restricted.
So we shouldn't restrict capitalists unless they actively promote their views? Look, once again, all this is in the guidelines, if you want to try and change it then go ahead but until then, it stays.

Speaking of which, it does not seem like anyone believes people who say they have changed their previous reactionary views. This seems very odd to me. Even if they are lying, why does it matter? As long as they don't talk like reactionaries, they are not disturbing the forums.
Because most people want an assurance that said member has changed in some way. You don't find it suspicious if someone were to change their views immediately after being restricted? They haven't learned anything except to stay silent in the future.

In any case, if the abortion issue is so contentious, maybe we should have special restriction rules regarding pro-lifers who are otherwise revolutionary. They could be banned from Discrimination but allowed to post anywhere else.
Once again, that's irrelevant to the current debate. Rule proposals don't belong in this thread.

I think that restricted people should at least be allowed to post in the Learning section if nothing else.
Maybe, but it depends on what they were restricted for.

Janus

10th June 2007, 04:44

Again, I must object to the policy that one single reactionary comment is sufficient to get someone restricted. People should only be restricted for trying to promote reactionary views, not just for holding them.
We have restricted capitalists who did not necessarily actively promote their views.
On this board, the membership are encouraged to debate and defend their ideas and when anti-choice members have been confronted on their views, they usually actively defend and attempt to convince others that they are right. So, it's not really a problem of simply not promoting their ideas but that certain comments are missed and no discussion concerning them ensue.

what about me ... is there some reason i'm still standing?
I don't know, should you be?

anyway there is an obvious disconnet between the personal preferences of these members and their support of policy .... none of them were advocating or attempting to argue that abortions should be restricted .... they were stating opinions ....
Except when someone says that they don't support abortions past a certain point or if they call it "murder" then it usually signifies that they would like something done about it. Now, if someone said that they personally wouldn't want an abortion but support the right of others to then that's a different matter.

if your going to question neitzche to clarify his stance on the issue you might as well invite these members to do so as well ....
This thread is open for them to do so.

because if they personally believe that they would not engage in abortions in 100% of the cases but do not advocate a loss of female autonomy or a change of leftist policy then .... in my view and the views of many others ..... they should not be restricted .....
Yet none of the recently restricted members made such a delineation.

freakazoid

10th June 2007, 05:02

The Southern secession was in no way a revolution.

This is completely off topic of this thread but, it was in no way a revolution? :o I would imagen that it was a HUGE revolution. These weren't some people being told to go fight by some elites, these where regular armies and militias fighitng to secced, fighting for something that they believed in.

They haven't learned anything except to stay silent in the future.

Is that really a bad thing? The whole reason for the OI section is to keep cappies, and other oi people, from disturbing actuall debates and such. If they remain silent on their oi beliefs then they are not disturbing the ain flow of things.

Except that post was in no way ambiguous.

The original post that got me in trouble or the one where I said that I didn't state myself clearly?

Was that addressed to me? I have no further questions.

Oh, I was hoping for some kind of feedback to my responses.

Kwisatz Haderach

10th June 2007, 05:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:33 am

which raises the question, why restrict pro-lifers who were not trying to promote their views? Why restrict someone just for saying "I am pro-life"? Surely people should only be restricted for trying to promote reactionary views. Someone who is pro-life but almost never talks about it should not be restricted.
So we shouldn't restrict capitalists unless they actively promote their views? Look, once again, all this is in the guidelines, if you want to try and change it then go ahead but until then, it stays.
I don't know - an argument could certainly be made that we should not restrict people who are "capitalists by default" (= people who simply go along with the status quo because they have never been properly informed about socialism). But that is neither here nor there; I do not object to the restriction of capitalists.

By the way, how does one go about trying to change the guidelines?

Speaking of which, it does not seem like anyone believes people who say they have changed their previous reactionary views. This seems very odd to me. Even if they are lying, why does it matter? As long as they don't talk like reactionaries, they are not disturbing the forums.
Because most people want an assurance that said member has changed in some way. You don't find it suspicious if someone were to change their views immediately after being restricted? They haven't learned anything except to stay silent in the future.
Yes, but isn't the whole point of restriction to ensure that no one voices reactionary opinions in the main forums? Isn't "staying silent" really the only thing we require of reactionaries?

I must agree that I am not convinced that Coggy and freakazoid have changed their views. However, I am convinced that they will never voice pro-life opinions again, so I don't see the harm in allowing them to post in our main forums.

I think that restricted people should at least be allowed to post in the Learning section if nothing else.
Maybe, but it depends on what they were restricted for.
I strongly believe that there should be different "levels" of restriction. If you agree, I can only be glad about it. :)

freakazoid

10th June 2007, 05:30

I must agree that I am not convinced that Coggy and freakazoid have changed their views.

!? I have said over and over again that what I said isn't what I meant. :( I was answering a question that had nothing to do with the topic at all and so didn't put much thought into it.

Kwisatz Haderach

10th June 2007, 05:41

Don't take this personally, I really don't know much about the incident that got you restricted beyond the fact that you seem to have had a very sudden change of heart.

In any case, it doesn't matter, I still think you should be unrestricted.

Janus

11th June 2007, 17:55

By the way, how does one go about trying to change the guidelines?
It needs to be decided through a CC vote.

Isn't "staying silent" really the only thing we require of reactionaries?
No, as you can see, they're pretty "loud" in here.

However, I am convinced that they will never voice pro-life opinions again, so I don't see the harm in allowing them to post in our main forums.
You're right, they probably never will but most people will probably want some guarantee that they've actually changed their views.

I strongly believe that there should be different "levels" of restriction.
I'm not sure about creating a whole new member group just for the handful of problematic members out there.

Janus

11th June 2007, 18:01

These weren't some people being told to go fight by some elites, these where regular armies and militias fighitng to secced, fighting for something that they believed in.
It was not a mass movement, secession and the war itself was coordinated and enacted by the elite of the South. Besides, a revolution by definition is carried out as a massive grassroots movement as opposed to a reform which is carried out by those at the top. The only thing that changed due to secession was a change in the status of the Southern states, there was absolutely no major social or economic shift.

Anyways, this debate probably belongs better in a separate thread.

The original post that got me in trouble or the one where I said that I didn't state myself clearly?
Yes, the original one.

Oh, I was hoping for some kind of feedback to my responses.
What more do you want me to say? This is an internet forum, I can only judge you based on your posts, nothing else. There's no way for me to verify if you've actually changed your views or not.

Kwisatz Haderach

11th June 2007, 22:35

Originally posted by Janus+June 11, 2007 06:55 pm--> (Janus @ June 11, 2007 06:55 pm)
Isn't "staying silent" really the only thing we require of reactionaries?
No, as you can see, they're pretty "loud" in here. [/b]
I mean staying silent everywhere other than OI. As I understand it, the point of restriction is to prevent reactionary arguments being put forward in non-OI forums. If a certain reactionary user voluntarily refrains from putting forward reactionary arguments in non-OI forums, we have achieved our goal and there is no need to restrict that user. Am I correct?

Janus

However, I am convinced that they will never voice pro-life opinions again, so I don't see the harm in allowing them to post in our main forums.
You're right, they probably never will but most people will probably want some guarantee that they've actually changed their views.
Very well, but how does one go about proving that one's views have changed?

Janus

11th June 2007, 23:32

I mean staying silent everywhere other than OI. As I understand it, the point of restriction is to prevent reactionary arguments being put forward in non-OI forums. If a certain reactionary user voluntarily refrains from putting forward reactionary arguments in non-OI forums, we have achieved our goal and there is no need to restrict that user. Am I correct?
Except that's never happened so it's a moot point.

Very well, but how does one go about proving that one's views have changed?
Debating/discussing them. How else?

StartToday

13th June 2007, 09:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:25 pm

Hopefully one of the admins will clear this up...?
So you're saying that this comment was not representative of your views on abortion?
That's what I'm saying. I'm not afraid to admit that I've been wrong about stuff before. I previously thought that everything I support should cause the least amount of pain to all sentient beings. However, after a bit of thinking, I realised that it's better than an unwanted child is aborted, no matter what the stage of pregnancy, because it is unfair to the woman and the child. Also, if the child is raised in an unloving environment and becomes violent or otherwise displays some sort of anti-social behavior, it's not fair to the people that he/she affects. There are also millions of people already alive that aren't being taken care of. The list goes on...

So yeah, I think I was unfairly restricted, especially since that post you quoted was posted before I came to my current beliefs about what is best for both society as a whole and individual rights.

Besides, I wasn't restricted for that particular post, oddly enough, and it was far more "reactionary" than anything I've ever said on this site before.

I used to come to this site so that people could point out that certain opinions I have aren't really for the best, or don't make sense, and explain why. And I thought that would happen; I thought I would learn a lot of things here. Now I know that if I step out of line, or want to discuss something controversial, I'll likely be restricted (well, I already have been). That's really uncool because I think this is a great site... but now I won't be able to participate. I don't know any lefties at all in real life, so now I'm pretty much on my own as far as open-minded political discussions go.

13th June 2007, 10:27

How were you "unfairly restricted" starttoday? even if you miraculously changed your mind a day after being restricted (which i'm sure is totally genuine :rolleyes: ) your original comments were:

Originally posted by StartToday
Same here. I'm no doctor or anything, so I don't know when the fetus develops a nervous system, but that's where I'd draw the line. I think that if people didn't have to jump through so many hoops, it would be rather easy to make their decision and get it over with within two months of conceiving, so that's as far as I support, really...

After getting restricted you first tried to avoid even appearing to change your position by claiming that you were speaking merely for yourself and not for other people, something that is clearly untrue in your original comments...so this is now your third change of position in a few days.

My suggestion is that instead of comments to the effect of "i just don't think that way anymore" people give more of a theoretical explanation of the evolution of their position (what arguments worked, didnt work, etc,) so it doesn't look like they're just b.s.ing thanks.

freakazoid

14th June 2007, 00:48

Debating/discussing them. How else?

Isn't that what we are doing now? And since this discussing is what we are doing and that that is how we show that we no longer believe in what we had said, or in my case didn't even believe in to begin with <_<, and you say that you do not believe us, how can we show you that we are telling the truth?

Janus

14th June 2007, 01:52

Isn't that what we are doing now?
We're discussing your restriction.

how can we show you that we are telling the truth?
Like I said, the best way is to argue your views with others in order to show that you do believe in them.

freakazoid

14th June 2007, 20:45

Why post i think abortion is murder if you dont believe it? I think your lying.

!!!? Have you not been reading my posts?!

luxemburg89

15th June 2007, 00:34

!!!? Have you not been reading my posts?!

With great interest and I agree with STJ - I think you're lying, you have changed your mind very quickly and I do not think, while it is possible, that you have changed your mind so quickly. I think it is a product of your religious beliefs and, as a result, what else can we expect to come from your religious beliefs? I think you oppose abortion as a result of your faith, and, as such, see no reason why there may not be other products of your religion that contradict leftist politics. We've all read your posts and come to the same concludion, so what does that suggest about your posts?

freakazoid

15th June 2007, 20:11

That you said it but did not mean it and i think thats bullshit.

With great interest and I agree with STJ - I think you're lying, you have changed your mind very quickly and I do not think, while it is possible, that you have changed your mind so quickly.

I didn't "change" my mind, I didn't believe in what I was accused of to begin with! Like I have said before, when I said that it is "murder" I was responding to a question that had nothing to do with the topic at hand, and therefore did not go into a lengthy explanation about what I believed on the subject. In case you didn't notice my response was a very short, vague, one sentence response.

I think it is a product of your religious beliefs and, as a result, what else can we expect to come from your religious beliefs? I think you oppose abortion as a result of your faith, and, as such, see no reason why there may not be other products of your religion that contradict leftist politics. We've all read your posts and come to the same concludion, so what does that suggest about your posts?

Exactly your a hardcore christian you buy into all that other crazy stuff and being anti abortion goes hand in hand with all your other crazy christian beliefs.

Funny, I didn't know that in order to be a Christian one had to also be a staunch pro-lifer.
Crazy stuff as in being an anarchist? If so then yes, being a Christian does play a part in it.

luxemburg89

16th June 2007, 13:39

what is to say he does?

Well the fact he harbours one reactionary belief - on abortion - oh and another about the world being 10,000 years old give more weight to suggest that he has other reactionary beliefs, rather than he has no more.

I know what you're trying to do and it's degrading the discussion. It's really quite pathetic, it's the type of argument used by children in primary schools.

do you honestly believe that all people whom hold religious beliefs have reactionary beliefs towards women?

Once again you are trying to make yourself seem more intelligent than you are, you are losing an argument so you try to through in a term associated with intelligence; 'whom'. However, you've used 'whom' incorrectly, as I think Jazz and I pointed out to you before. You are looking to use 'who' as in 'those who hold religious beliefs'. 'Whom' is the object of a verb whereas 'who' is the subject. In other words 'to whom', 'for whom', 'by whom;. Your attempt to try and make yourself out to be more intelligent than us has failed. We're all of equal intelligence more or less (wtfm8lol doesn't count) so grow up and realise that.

Get off your high horse, stop imagining that you have the moral highground here and please stop trying to make yourself out to be some kind of intellectual, you obviously aren't.

freakazoid

17th June 2007, 00:35

Well the fact he harbours one reactionary belief - on abortion

Except I don't.

oh and another about the world being 10,000 years old give more weight to suggest that he has other reactionary beliefs, rather than he has no more.

I never said that. I have never even given an age. Also the general held belief among YEC are that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, not 10,000 :P

Also you say that it is reactionary, exactly what does reactionary mean, what does it take for someone to hold a reactionary view?

NorthStarRepublicML

17th June 2007, 07:12

I know what you're trying to do and it's degrading the discussion. It's really quite pathetic, it's the type of argument used by children in primary schools.

explain it then sally, because i seriously doubt that you have either an understanding of my arguement or what i'm trying to do .....

did you even go to primary school?

Well the fact he harbours one reactionary belief

you have no idea until you ask him to explain himself, don't just assume you know everything about someone because they happen to have a set of beliefs or even a single belief that you don't agree with .....

its stupid and it shows the depth of your rabid desire to put someone down

are all muslims suicide bombers? are all christians crusaders? are all jews capitalists?

obviously not .... get it through your head that having a certain religious belief system does not automatically place you into the catagory of reactionary ....

just because a member here happens to have religious beliefs (and there is a whole lot to be said of sprectum of adherence of beliefs, from fairly benign to extreme) is not grounds for you to call them a reactionary ....

how likely do you think it is that at some point you will be forced to work with someone that has religious beliefs?

oh .... wait ... here it is: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

losing an argument

Ha! i suppose thats why you have to resort to chopping up my arguements into multiple threads, its really comical seeing as through it was you who started talking about religion .....

Exactly your a hardcore christian you buy into all that other crazy stuff and being anti abortion goes hand in hand with all your other crazy christian beliefs.

I think it is a product of your religious beliefs and, as a result, what else can we expect to come from your religious beliefs? I think you oppose abortion as a result of your faith, and, as such, see no reason why there may not be other products of your religion that contradict leftist politics

I have never met a single hardcore christian like yourself that wasn't also anti abortion.

why aren't these posts in there? especially since they are addressing the same topic .... oh btw larry, the thread was split from OI not introductions ... do your job right or don't do it at all ...

you are trying to make yourself seem more intelligent than you are

how so? by using whom ... look i didn't think twice about it, i didn't sit there and think how i could appear more intelligent ... to impress you or make myself feel better ... thats your department chuck ... as the next quote shows:

However, you've used 'whom' incorrectly, as I think Jazz and I pointed out to you before. You are looking to use 'who' as in 'those who hold religious beliefs'. 'Whom' is the object of a verb whereas 'who' is the subject. In other words 'to whom', 'for whom', 'by whom;

now who is trying to appear "more intelligent"?

seriously this sort of flame has been around since the early days of BBS's, complaining about spelling and grammer in an attempt to make persons look less educated .... oh ... and its definatly not a substitute for a good arguement against my positions ....

if i wanted to be critiqued for spelling and grammer i would go to a message board dedicated to spelling and grammer .... not one dedicated to politics .... so why don't you argue the points i have made not the misspelling and whatnot ...

oh ... i guess i'll just assume that you nodded off and forgotten those points i made in the posts that were maliciously split:

why are the rules applied to members that are supposedly "pro-lifers" and not to other persons that are unquestionably repeated violators of the guidelines?

stop imagining that you have the moral highground here and please stop trying to make yourself out to be some kind of intellectual

do you have tourettes or something?

Fascinating, just a shame that no one really cares that much about the rules on flaming - especially against reactionaries and restricted members.

why is it still in the guidelines then? if the guidelines are illegitimate then why are people being restricted according to violations of the guidelines?

do you believe that you should be able to pick and choose the rules that apply to you while the rest of us are not?

these are legitimate questions related to the thread why have you split the thread?

oh right .....

you will split the thread when it suits you ... or, perhaps more accurately, when you are unable to argue your positions ....

must be psychic or something .....

go ahead split this or just ignore the points above ..... it will only prove the spineless strength of your argumenative skills .....

good luck ...

Jazzratt

17th June 2007, 11:27

You know what, fuck it, you can keep your off topic "debate" going in here eventually you'll shut the fuck up and it will be buried under relevant posts.

did you even go to primary school?

Did you even make a point with your post?

oh btw larry, the thread was split from OI not introductions ... do your job right or don't do it at all ...

Here's an idea: Fuck off, no one can be bothered with your asinine bollocks. Considering it's an easy mistake to make when your mind is on more important things than whether some pissant thread about how much you hate communism or whatever the fuck you were talking about has the right fucking description.

why are the rules applied to members that are supposedly "pro-lifers" and not to other persons that are unquestionably repeated violators of the guidelines?

Because the guidelines do not call for the restriction of people who flame or ban, try to keep up.

do you have tourettes or something?

How would tourettes syndrome affect his posting in such a way as to make him ask you to stop pretending to be intellectual. Personally I think he was too soft on you, I think you should fuck off and stop pretending to be intelligent.

Now die of Ebola, scumfuck.

NorthStarRepublicML

17th June 2007, 13:52

you can keep your off topic "debate" going in here

this debate concerns restriction and why certain persons are singled out and others are allowed to operate with free reign ....

how is this off topic?

i was not the one to go off topic concerning religion or split the topic like a child when it wasn't going my way .....

how much you hate communism or whatever the fuck you were talking about has the right fucking description.

try to keep up chuck ... this is not a thread about communism ...it's about unfair restrictions

Did you even make a point with your post?

please read the questions i asked ... if you are unable to comprehend them i will explain them using small and simple words

Because the guidelines do not call for the restriction of people who flame or ban, try to keep up.

flame or ban? are you so irrate that you cannot create coherent posts?

Fuck off, no one can be bothered with your asinine bollocks.

i thought you were unemployed? what else are you doing?

besides it seems you are more then bothered by the questions i am asking because you have consistantly ignored my arguements as well as used your mod postion to scatter my posts

Now die of Ebola, scumfuck.

is that the best arguement you can muster? sad sad sad .....

btw good job derailing the thread to talk about yourself, i asked some serious questions and if your not up to answering them just quit posting in this thread and leave it to someone that can keep themselves composed ......

now back on topic ... can someone actually try to answer these questions?

(refering to flame posts)
why is it still in the guidelines then? if the guidelines are illegitimate then why are people being restricted according to violations of the guidelines?

do you believe that you should be able to pick and choose the rules that apply to you while the rest of us are not?

luxemburg89

17th June 2007, 16:59

QUOTE
However, you've used 'whom' incorrectly, as I think Jazz and I pointed out to you before. You are looking to use 'who' as in 'those who hold religious beliefs'. 'Whom' is the object of a verb whereas 'who' is the subject. In other words 'to whom', 'for whom', 'by whom;

now who is trying to appear "more intelligent"?

seriously this sort of flame has been around since the early days of BBS's, complaining about spelling and grammer in an attempt to make persons look less educated .... oh ... and its definatly not a substitute for a good arguement against my positions ....

if i wanted to be critiqued for spelling and grammer i would go to a message board dedicated to spelling and grammer .... not one dedicated to politics .... so why don't you argue the points i have made not the misspelling and whatnot ...

The point I'm making is that YOU threw 'whom' into a sentence to make yourself appear more intelligent than us. I pointed out your attempt failed because you used the word wrong - that's all.

QUOTE

Fuck off, no one can be bothered with your asinine bollocks.

i thought you were unemployed? what else are you doing?

Don't be such a twat. If someone's unemployed that doesn't mean that they don't do anything.

do you believe that you should be able to pick and choose the rules that apply to you while the rest of us are not?

I'll tackle this question. I'll let someone who's been here longer answer your first question. Whenever some posts something against the guidelines it is brought up and debated, and they are dealt with in a manner befitting the post. The is no preferential treatment whatsoever.

bezdomni

17th June 2007, 20:58

do you believe that you should be able to pick and choose the rules that apply to you while the rest of us are not?

No, that is what the CC is for - to establish and enforce the guidelines. It isn't perfect, but it is the most democratic and most reasonable way to get things done on a message board.

That said, it is very simple to determine who should be restricted, who should be banned and who is allowed to post freely.

People who hold counterrevolutionary or reactionary opinions are restricted. Usually these opinions deal with property rights (eg: the bourgeoisie have the right to own property and the workers should not/cannot take it from them). Although sometimes, faux leftists will come out and get restricted for holding one or several reactionary opinions. (eg: women do not have the right to control what goes on inside their body, revolutions are bad, socialism won't work...).

This is not the first time a person who claims to be a leftist has been restricted for holding "one false opinion". In the past, there have been several anti-semitic "leftists" that were restricted or banned.

People who get banned are usually nazis, trolls or scum of a very high caliber. Holocaust denial, racism, preaching and essentailly being a waste of bandwidth will get you banned. Spambots are also banned.

Revolutionary leftists are allowed to post freely on this forum.

On the subject of abortion, revolutionary leftists do not oppose abortion. It is very simple. Opposing abortion (even when done for "right to life" reasons) is reactionary. Anti-choice is not even an acceptable view on the left of centre, it is patently absurd that we would even begin to consider it acceptable on the communist left!

freakazoid

18th June 2007, 02:00

Considering it's an easy mistake to make when your mind is on more important things than whether some pissant thread about how much you hate communism or whatever the fuck you were talking about has the right fucking description.

I repeat,

Considering it's an easy mistake to make when your mind is on more important things...

Hmmm.... this sounds familiar, ;)

Like I said, the best way is to argue your views with others in order to show that you do believe in them.

We're discussing your restriction.

I think that you had missed the point of what I was trying to say, don't worry that seems to be easy to do, :(
See, the thing is is that you people seem to refuse to believe what we are saying. And all we have are our posts trying to show that we do believe what we are saying. So arguing our views seems to be pointless. I have alread

And I ask a question again that I would like to see answered but seems to of have been skipped over,

"Also you say that it is reactionary, exactly what does reactionary mean, what does it take for someone to hold a reactionary view?"

y explained why I had said the thing about murder and I am still not believed. :(

edit - I also do not understand why restricted members are not allowed in the Live Chat. :(

freakazoid

18th June 2007, 10:09

In response to my two threads being locked.

Enough transparent attempts to get unrestricted. Locked.

Transparent attempts to get unrestricted? In case you didn't notice, I was already active in that thread BEFORE I was restricted!!!!!!! This has nothing to do with trying to get unrestricted, I had something to say!!!! <_< <_<

You're restricted for a reason. Locked. Any more threads like this will be trashed.

There is no F%$#&^#G reason for those to be locked. :angry: :angry: What does me being restricted have ANYTHING to do with these being lock? NOTHING, Except to give yourself some kind of power trip. I actually have something to say in those threads! How DARE you try to stifle what I have to say on the subject! Did I say something anything "reactionary" in those to threads? I DON'T F%&($#G THINK SO!!!! :angry: :angry:

luxemburg89

18th June 2007, 15:22

edit - I also do not understand why restricted members are not allowed in the Live Chat.

Think about it. If restricted members, like wtfm8lol, who do nothing but post pathetic attempts at making fun of us, are allowed into live chat, don't you think that would sort of ruin the conversation? Unless of course you think you're special...

freakazoid

18th June 2007, 16:39

like wtfm8lol, who do nothing but post pathetic attempts at making fun of us,

You know you can mute people. Don't forget that if a user is exceptionally annoying the op can just boot him. Also I'm used to pathetic attempts at making fun of me on Live Chat :P
And are you saying that I would post attempts at making fun of you guys? I am one of you guys, you know, an anarchist.

don't you think that would sort of ruin the conversation?

You mean the conversations that go like this,

random user leaves
<freakazoid> :(
<user> Stop being so damn emotional.
<user> /me kicks freakazoid in the face.
<freakazoid> ack!
<user> Stop it.
<freakaoid> /me runs and hides in a trash can.
<freakazoid> /me pokes tech with a stick.

XD good times :D
Can you name one time where I ruined a conversation in Live Chat? In fact I remember when I first was restricted and I went on the Live Chat, I didn't know that restricted people couldn't get on, and Janus got on he said that restricted people can't be on the chat and everybody else that was in the chat said that they did not care that I was there.

edit - I forgot the conversations in my sig, lol

[17:06] <TAKN> someone sig something I say

[17:11] <RevMARKSman> new subject
[17:11] <RevMARKSman> without peo;ple randomly sigging each other

cormacobear

21st June 2007, 20:53

This is kind of long and probably needs more smileys to lighten the atmosphere as it was not written to be aggressive but anyway.
A number of people from other restricted members right up to current CC members (who could I suppose read it all themselves but it’s probably hundreds of pages of related material now) have PM’d me or Msn messengered me asking me to disclose the events of my restriction. So far I’ve refrained from doing so for a number of reasons, on the principle that it is more of a nuisance than an impediment to continued activity, and my knowledge of at least two former CC members whose defence of me has contributed to their own kicking from CC or even restriction. With such a shortage rational rather than fanatical minds in the CC I feel enough has been lost in defence of my position. So rather than respond individually which may compel others to act, I’ll post here on the bully pulpit my analysis of the whole ordeal and hope this is an end to it.

2 attempts by the CC’s anti-religionist faction to kick religious believers from the CC on those grounds alone were both lost by 1 or 2 votes after weeks of intense debate, which included several defensive posts by myself. In about 5 or 6 months. Following the second within a few days a poll was started to kick myself specifically on the grounds I am a Catholic. This too was lost by about 5 votes of about 60 or 80 total. After that followed a week or so of blessed peace in which a couple of the anti- religionists decided to analyse nearly a thousand posts over 3 years. In which they found two posts taken out of context that could be construed as sufficient for restriction. The accusation that I am a homophobe and against gay rights- from a statement where I said I find homosexuality repugnant but was entirely for equal treatment for all. When asked what I meant by repugnant I answered the act being gross, whereby a dozen people opened their thesaurus and debated the meaning of repugnant the anti-religionists maintaining that they are psychic and could read what I meant in that several year old post.

They also put forward my temporarily held position that civil unions were more achievable for homosexual equality than changing the definition of marriage. This position was clearly abandoned in numerous other posts on this topic. I put forward that my actions and activity in working for gay rights spoke to any misgivings regarding my intentions on that early held position. And that at the time many of the Gay rights movements most prolific and respected members shared that position until the NDP began to sway the liberals and all energy was put into the task of changing the definition of marriage.

Pro life, already discussed here where I stated my belief that a woman has a right to an abortion but am uncomfortable with unnecessarily terminating a viable baby on the grounds this devalues the value of life but not saying I objected to any abortion but was uncomfortable with that particular scenario.

So I contend that while my moral indecision may not be to your liking it has never failed that my political opinion was in line with both rev-left and even the CC”s more stringent requirements. My position on the religion and politics issue is the same as that held by Luxembourg and James Connelly.

In none of these attacks was the thread link provided, as is costmary but not required in such trials. So it appears to me a clown court set to change the narrow margin in favour of the anti religionists position. While that may just be me developing a Martyr complex this interpretation was shared by many many good people some who’ve suffered for having defended me. Knowing of several attempts to re-plead my case all clearly failed and losses suffered I hope no one else will bother bringing me up in the CC again. Though I remain sceptical that with a thousand posts over three years any of the other long time members with prolific post counts could not be fried under such a magnifying glass of misinterpretation.

The CC is not the villain many feel it is, yes a few of us have been screwed over but that’s politics. Every issue is debated and discussed thoroughly and the CC has many members who are rational and even just willing to play devil’s advocate just to see justice is done. And with thousands of members not screwed over the CC’s record is better than many give credit for. Opening the CC’s actions to full member viewing would create chaos and create hundreds of these non-beneficial discussions. That would harm the site and therefore the left.

luxemburg89

21st June 2007, 21:55

Opening the CC’s actions to full member viewing would create chaos and create hundreds of these non-beneficial discussions. That would harm the site and therefore the left.

Thank you for clearing that up. Maybe they'll actually listen if it comes from a restricted member. Although I must say I would be pretty suspicious of a post such as the one you were restricted for, and to be honest I probably would have voted you out, no offence. I am an anti-religious member of the CC, but that is a political issue and, I can assure you, not a personal one. Your post is appreciated.

Lux :)

freakazoid

22nd June 2007, 04:23

How would opening up the CC to regular member viewing create chaos?

22nd June 2007, 04:29

freakazoid you should be lucky we didn't ban you. You can still post in the religion forum, which of course is what you're all about. You're welcome.

freakazoid

22nd June 2007, 04:38

freakazoid you should be lucky we didn't ban you.

Is there a reason I should of been banned?

You can still post in the religion forum, which of course is what you're all about.

I am? Funny, I remember posting about other subjects too. One of them being in the A.M.P.P. thread, which I feel very strongly about, and which NoXion seems to support the M.P. because he locked the thread. <_<

luxemburg89

22nd June 2007, 17:17

How would opening up the CC to regular member viewing create chaos?

Are you just messing with us now? You can't actually be that stupid!! cormacobear explained perfectly well. Think about it. If members are allowed to view the CC then any stormfront troll would be able to join the site and look at what was going on with the running of the board. Secondly, and this concerns regular leftists, prospective CC members would be able to see who was voting for whom, especially if it was their own poll. This could easily create tensions within the site, as a member may then become bitter against other members who voted against them being in the CC, and as such the general atmosphere would descend into chaos - with members attacking other members needlessly. The only possible way for a new member of the CC, or an unsuccessful member, to find out which members of the CC voted against them would be for a current CC member to tell them, which is, of course, against the CC guidelines. This confidentiality protects the confidence of leftists with regard to others on the site, and prevents any unecessary hostility towards fellow comrades. If you still fail to understand, and continue with this idiotic question, I will find you and shoot you :lol: .

Publius

22nd June 2007, 18:34

Are you just messing with us now? You can't actually be that stupid!! cormacobear explained perfectly well.

Yes, and we can all see how his deference to the CC paid off handsomely.

And really, he's just lucky he WAS a member, for if he were not he would have been thrown to the wolves without any chance for discussion.

I think it's funny that attempts are supposedly made to 'reassess' restrictions, when the restricted can't even take part in the process. How can assess someone's positions if you don't know what they are? How can you know what they are without asking? And it seems that even in cases where the person is in the CC, it doesn't seem to matter one bit, they get fucked over anyway.

Think about it. If members are allowed to view the CC then any stormfront troll would be able to join the site and look at what was going on with the running of the board.

And?

Secondly, and this concerns regular leftists, prospective CC members would be able to see who was voting for whom, especially if it was their own poll.

Wikipedia has admin votes where anyone and everyone (Even Stormfront!) can see the voting tally.

And this makes no sense, for our comrade Corma could very easily see who disliked him and who didn't. For this to make any sense at all, you would have conduct ALL CC activity in absentia, even if the defendant were a CC member.

So this defense makes no sense at all.

This could easily create tensions within the site, as a member may then become bitter against other members who voted against them being in the CC, and as such the general atmosphere would descend into chaos - with members attacking other members needlessly.

This already happens. So you're defending a policy that doesn't even exist.

CC members can already see who votes for or against them, which means that you only see a problem where non-CC members are involved. OF course, you happen to be a CC member, which is rich. Yes, please go and tell us, CC member, how allowing other people to see votes that relate to us will fuck up the fragile non-Democracy you've crafted. I'd love to hear it.

The only possible way for a new member of the CC, or an unsuccessful member, to find out which members of the CC voted against them would be for a current CC member to tell them, which is, of course, against the CC guidelines.

And so of course it never happens.

This confidentiality protects the confidence of leftists with regard to others on the site, and prevents any unecessary hostility towards fellow comrades.

What's wrong with hostility? If someone doesn't like me, fuck them. I want to know about it so I can attack them publicly and defend myself.

Your only defense is "If you knew who was screwing over, you'd get angry, so we won't tell you"? That's weak as hell, and the fact that you can't realize it is even weaker.

If you still fail to understand, and continue with this idiotic question, I will find you and shoot you :lol: .

Well, go ahead in his case.

The simple fact is, you can't make something that IS undemocratic seem democratic just by playing around with a bunch of bullshit justifications. No, it's not fair that non-CC members can't see threads that relate to them. Period. Now if you want to say "It's unfair, yeah, but it's our site, fuck off" then go right ahead. In fact, please do that, because it would at least show a shred of honesty on your part, instead of this patronizing bullshit about how I'm too stupid to deal with criticism or too emotionally fragile to read what other's say about me and defend myself accordingly.

freakazoid

22nd June 2007, 21:20

What Publis said, because he said it a lot better than I could of.

If you still fail to understand, and continue with this idiotic question, I will find you and shoot you .

:P I'd love to see someone try. Remember now, I'm a survivalist, ;) :P

NorthStarRepublicML

22nd June 2007, 22:24

If you still fail to understand, and continue with this idiotic question, I will find you and shoot you .

oooooo

threats huh? you are a joke .....

2 attempts by the CC’s anti-religionist faction to kick religious believers from the CC on those grounds alone were both lost by 1 or 2 votes after weeks of intense debate, which included several defensive posts by myself. In about 5 or 6 months. Following the second within a few days a poll was started to kick myself specifically on the grounds I am a Catholic. This too was lost by about 5 votes of about 60 or 80 total. After that followed a week or so of blessed peace in which a couple of the anti- religionists decided to analyse nearly a thousand posts over 3 years.

that is interesting, i mean i always just assumed that some members of the CC acted in this way to stifile thier perceived opponents ..... i guess its nice to know all that critisism i was throwing around concerning the restriction of members such as Coggy, Fredrich Nietzsche, Tiparith, and StartToday wasn't entirely wrong ....

I contend that while my moral indecision may not be to your liking it has never failed that my political opinion was in line with both rev-left and even the CC”s more stringent requirements. My position on the religion and politics issue is the same as that held by Luxembourg and James Connelly.

being not only restricted but kicked out the CC for personal preferences and not his political actions ......

So it appears to me a clown court set to change the narrow margin in favour of the anti religionists position.

based on this analysis i would tend to agree

create hundreds of these non-beneficial discussions.

the only thing that makes these discussion non-beneficial is the top-down nature of the process ....

Publius, you have made some excellent points here .... as far as i am aware other sites that do not have these sort of policies and as far as i've seen it doesn't "create chaos" i'm pretty sure that Stormfront only bans people that spam, when leftists are more restrictive then nazis something is off ....

the closed door nature of the restriction process also allows for huge blindspots and contributes to the lack of transparity and loss of confidence that several members have experienced concering the CC ....

"If you knew who was screwing over, you'd get angry, so we won't tell you"

more likely this is kept in place to protect the persons doing the "screwing over" from having to defend their positions with the person they are "screwing"

members attacking other members needlessly.

this already happens on a daily basis, just ask phillip (Jazzarat)

The simple fact is, you can't make something that IS undemocratic seem democratic just by playing around with a bunch of bullshit justifications. No, it's not fair that non-CC members can't see threads that relate to them. Period. Now if you want to say "It's unfair, yeah, but it's our site, fuck off" then go right ahead. In fact, please do that, because it would at least show a shred of honesty on your part, instead of this patronizing bullshit about how I'm too stupid to deal with criticism or too emotionally fragile to read what other's say about me and defend myself accordingly.

100% yes.

i'm sure that we will hear some of those same tired justifications before this thread is concluded ....

luxemburg89

23rd June 2007, 00:37

QUOTE
If you still fail to understand, and continue with this idiotic question, I will find you and shoot you .

oooooo

threats huh? you are a joke .....

I was joking. You haven't shown any signs of having a sense of humour so far so I was perhaps foolish to believe that the ' :lol: ' would be any indication to you whatsoever.

guess its nice to know all that critisism i was throwing around concerning the restriction of members such as Coggy, Fredrich Nietzsche, Tiparith, and StartToday

Friedrich Nietzsche was certainly not a leftist, so why should we allow him to stay on the site? It is a site for leftists after all.

this already happens on a daily basis, just ask phillip (Jazzarat)

*SIGHS* Again you display a total lack of a sense of humour. Equally I believe the statement contained 'needlessly'. Jazzratt, if that is the member you are referring to ;) , is normally justified in his insults.

NorthStarRepublicML

23rd June 2007, 03:03

I was joking.

still not approporiate and unnecessary, threats with a smile are still threats ...

check this (only an example, nothing personal):

if you keep ignoring the issues and continue to act like a jackass i'm going to stalk and kill you and your whole family while you all sleep and then burn down all things you hold dear :lol: :lol: :lol:

just keep it in your pants and stick to the points raised, I know its hard to talk about anything but yourself so i'll just post them again for you

here ya go chuck:

Yes, please go and tell us, CC member, how allowing other people to see votes that relate to us will fuck up the fragile non-Democracy you've crafted.

How can assess someone's positions if you don't know what they are? How can you know what they are without asking?

Your only defense is "If you knew who was screwing over, you'd get angry, so we won't tell you"?

also:

Friedrich Nietzsche was certainly not a leftist, so why should we allow him to stay on the site?

i have debated his restriction previously in this thread please review it if you wish to discuss this once again, i am more then willing ....

cormacobear

23rd June 2007, 08:22

The Chaos? Why Not?

Anyone who was here for TsP's Rebel-ion will remember how pervasive action can be to disrupt the site strictly from protest. And advertisment of the often very personal debates of the CC which several high ranking members chose to disclose. That hurt the site badly and neared the level of chaos that could end this endeavor entirely.

I commented only once, on the first page I believe, in three pages of debate over me. CC policy is that while a member of the CC is being reviewed, (rare but not uncommon) that person is restricted from accessing the CC catagory. I didn't make a fuss and let my thousand comments and those whove collaberated with me over the years on leftist or Che-Lives projects to defend me, and because I didn't respond and no one mentioned it I did watch the whole thread, that however is not the norm.

That's why this thread is here and that's how come my case has been reviewed possibly twice this year.

Do what you believe, be who you are and regular members will notice if your activity shows a change of oppinion THEY will back your redemption. That's why this thread is here and that's how come my case has been reviewed possibly twice this year.

I've never disclosed, even to close friends who've demmanded I allow them to defend me, who it was that singled me out, or who lead the charge. How would more conflict and petty revenge serve the greater good?

If you truly feel you were wrongly restricted and are posting here ask yourself why?
- The range of topics and they're oppinion or title aren't restricted in this thread
- Is it your pride? Were you offended?...Isn't retalliation petty and unproductive?
- If redemption relies in advocates won't a mature forgiving outlook be noticed?
(that's how you got into the CC) or why you were restricted.
- and who cares,If you're a true revolutionary you will be turned off by
politics over and again. And invigorated in more hands on endeavors. Take what
you learned here and spread your efforts. With so few we on the left can never
do too much. Whenever you discuss anything with anybody politics is ocurring
despite our distaste for it even in victory there is the politics to discuss.

NorthStarRepublicML

23rd June 2007, 09:03

If you truly feel you were wrongly restricted and are posting here ask yourself why?

i believe that is the reason some members post here, but have come to the conclusion that reason was unfair and thus the title of the thread ..... many of these people also believe that the answer to why is not a matter of personal reflection but a matter of them being treated unfairly .....

it seems that you should recognize this but you have decided to fall on your sword and capitulate to those who have wronged you, the world isn't going to get anywhere with people turning the other cheek when injustice is afoot .....

stand up for yourself man, i know you don't want to risk fracturing the so called community of rev left but if you need to hack off an arm to save the patient you do it ....

i'm sure your sentiment concerning reconcilliation is appreciated but what is the point, no one will learn from dropping these issues and nothing will change either, if i understand your point you are saying that everyone should just fall into line and stop disputing the restriction policy? .....

are you saying that its best to have a broken system then to risk destroying it ? i say the risk is worth it if we can build a better medium for our communications .....

I've never disclosed, even to close friends who've demmanded I allow them to defend me, who it was that singled me out, or who lead the charge. How would more conflict and petty revenge serve the greater good?

why not? if these people made poor decisions then their leadership is in question and they should be called to account for their rash or incorrect actions, what is the incentive for them to not act in such a way again? by going along with their decision like a good little soldier and promising to not make trouble?

i'm just having a hard time understanding your logic ....

Is it your pride? Were you offended?...Isn't retalliation petty and unproductive?

this could be easily applied to the persons that conspired to boot you from the CC as well .....

With so few we on the left can never do too much

which is why forums like rev left should not be in the hands of exclusionary persons, it is the duty of leftists to oppose secretarianism in all its forms .... being purged for being Catholic is something i would call blatant secretarianism .....

If redemption relies in advocates won't a mature forgiving outlook be noticed?

maybe this capitulation will get you back in the CC's good graces .... but as of this posting all of your forgiveness and mature outlooks hasn't got you unrestricted or allowed back into the CC .....

Tower of Bebel

23rd June 2007, 09:27

Does this still go on?

cormacobear

23rd June 2007, 10:30

many of these people also believe that the answer to why is not a matter of personal reflection but a matter of them being treated unfairly ...

if they were treated unfairly will complaining help? Does it matter? Will their unrestriction change the debates?

I am standing up for myself what I believe is never persue conflict, always espouse truth and never decide on an uninformed position.

We're all here fighting injustice. Endeavoring to create strife among the left despite our difference on religious freedom will not serve my endeavor; ending sectarianism amongst leftists.

Turn the other cheek or perpetuate the cycle of aggression?

This thread is to state your case. Any defense I can surmise from years in the CC was proposed.

But ask yourself how does avenging my personal injustice benefit the left?

In my case being vindicated would have moved the CC back into the theological freedom socialist dogmatism, from the now, slightly Stalinist leaning 'guilt by association' crowd. but it will sway should the site survive given the rightness and majorative nature of my position.

I could point fingers and my accusers would face the scrutiny I did. But I agree with them save for one issue and that's insufficient to justify an attempt at redemption that will split the CC if not the forum.

this could be easily applied to the persons that conspired to boot you from the CC as well .....

I hope to be a better man.

We are the better few we can do more to justify our claim to inclusion by contributing without acknowledging they're claims that we're dogmatically impure.

If we defend our circumstances we provide their biggotry a forum.
BE BETTER THAN YOUR OPPONENT

Type A personalities even on the left will ignore morals to acheive the goal they've set, should they feel objectionable activity will acheive their end result they will do so. They're wrong, every single negative action ripples, (it may achieve the set goal) and continues to effect every action following....because it occured.

I've had opponents and defenders in the five most respected members. I don't want back in the CC it's more responsibility over comrades than anyone would ever wish to have. Being unrestricted would be snappy but I intend to keep posting till they ban me If one person reads what I posted then I'M 2.

NorthStarRepublicML

23rd June 2007, 11:41

But ask yourself how does avenging my personal injustice benefit the left?

this isn't just about you

Endeavoring to create strife among the left despite our difference on religious freedom will not serve my endeavor; ending sectarianism amongst leftists.

capitulating won't serve your endevor either .... you are not going to end secretarianism by laying down and refusing to debate just as you can never end capitalism without engaging in revolutionary activity ....

but it will sway should the site survive given the rightness and majorative nature of my position.

why are you right? you need to tell us why you are correct and others are not, nothing is going to change if you don't argue your position

I could point fingers and my accusers would face the scrutiny I did.

people that have conspired against you for secretarian reasons should face scrutiny how else will they learn such actions are unacceptable and not without consequences .... ?

I don't want back in the CC it's more responsibility over comrades than anyone would ever wish to have.

thats exactly why you should be in there

TsP's Rebel-ion

what was this?

But I agree with them save for one issue and that's insufficient to justify an attempt at redemption that will split the CC if not the forum.

well they obviously thought the one issue was sufficent to conspire to boot you from the CC and restrict you to OI ....

I've had opponents and defenders in the five most respected members.

who are the five most respected members?

also i had a couple of unanswered questions from my previous posting and i would appreciate them being addressed:

are you saying that its best to have a broken system then to risk destroying it ?

if these people made poor decisions then their leadership is in question and they should be called to account for their rash or incorrect actions, what is the incentive for them to not act in such a way again?

Sentinel

23rd June 2007, 13:09

are you saying that its best to have a broken system then to risk destroying it ? i say the risk is worth it if we can build a better medium for our communications .....

Etc. I wasn't going to say anything, but I feel I can't 'hold my peace' anymore. :rolleyes:

NorthStarRepublicML, you have been a member here one month, and have 80 posts. At least half of them must consist of complaints over how our site is organised and run, at least that's basically all I've seen by you. Perhaps, if you posted and followed the ongoings here for a little longer, you would come to reach a better understanding about that?

When a member has 150 posts they can be considered for CC membership. Now, if you'd concentrate more on the political debate the site exists for, and less on the complaint department, you'd have a good enough chance to be voted in soon and actually have a chance to participate in site administration and changing things you're unhappy about -- through the democratic processes by which the CC functions.

If this option doesn't interest you, there are other boards on the internet, some of which are actual attempts to create a perfectly democratic society on the internet. This isn't one of them, though. Our aim here is to keep the perhaps largest message board discussing how to create one in the real world a functional resource, and that allows only as much 'internet democracy' as we currently have.

Believe me, this has been discussed thoroughly, into exhaustion, in the past and we really feel that there are more important topics to use this fantastic resource for than discussing how the board itself should function.

Like I said, we have the CC for administrative discussions -- apply when you meet the requirements, or in the case of a veritable emergency address the CC in the members forum. But like the opening post by the forum moderator indicates, this is a thread for restricted members (which you are not) to discuss their restrictions -- it's purpose is not to discuss the way our site is, or should be, run.

Comradely,

Sentinel

cormacobear

23rd June 2007, 14:06

Nope I disagree any thread or post not an add or porn has a place in OI.

He's a member he outranks me a lowly restricted member. (i'm in OI a vilian OOOOga-boooooga) {sorry one rarely finds the oppertunity to do that}

and if he wishes to discuss and debate the sites administration this is a good thread he can learn a great deal about coordinating and attempting to appease 10,000 people a day.

ahhh fuck Nuts!! why's shit always more mucked up than need be.

Oh by the way i'm off on a paid holiday being eaten by the planets feircest bugs planting sapplings so one day we'll have rain generating forests again.

Very...Very straight replanted rainforest,,,,,,,

Hmmm whose taking odds on how that works out. ;) :P

be bsck in a few weeks :wub:

"...." bless B.C. and the left everywhere

NorthStarRepublicML

23rd June 2007, 22:15

NorthStarRepublicML, you have been a member here one month, and have 80 posts. At least half of them must consist of complaints over how our site is organised and run, at least that's basically all I've seen by you.

read my posts, if your interested i like to debate topics concerning german history, nationalism in general and specifically the balkans and the former ottoman empire, ethnicity and how people define it, religion as people define it, as well as local events in the minneapolis area ....

the reason that i have been posting here is that it seems more important and worthwhile in the short term to resolve the issues that will allow persons with leftist views that are considered inconsitent with some persons that level restrictions for things such as religionious beliefs .....

everytime i feel like i am discussing abortion or another issue like religion i feel as though i am under scrutiny and as soon as the restriction issue is resolved i can post without worry ....

if you'd concentrate more on the political debate the site exists for, and less on the complaint department, you'd have a good enough chance to be voted in

i would be very suprised if after all the concerns i have raised that i would be allowed to participate, especially because i am also Catholic (although not as Catholic as most, church only twice a year) and i believe in a utilitarian arguement for unconditional abortion not unconditional womens soverignty .....

it became clear to me that once i stated these positions and defended some of the people that were restricted but non-threatening i would not be allowed to be a member of the CC, if you want to start a poll for me when i reach 150 posts be my guest, but i won't hold it against you if you decline.

But like the opening post by the forum moderator indicates, this is a thread for restricted members (which you are not) to discuss their restrictions -- it's purpose is not to discuss the way our site is, or should be, run.

look polly, i'm asking fair and valid questions for this topic .... although i am not restricted it seems as though you believe me to be a hinderence to this topic and that i should discontinue posting here .... why whould that be?

why shouldn't i be allowed to discuss how restriction policy works? especially if arguing within the existing policy proves to be unbalanced it is only right to question the policy itself ....

edit: changed a sentence mistake that made it appear as though i was against abortions, as previously stated I support abortions on demand

luxemburg89

24th June 2007, 00:48

check this (only an example, nothing personal):

if you keep ignoring the issues and continue to act like a jackass i'm going to stalk and kill you and your whole family while you all sleep and then burn down all things you hold dear

just keep it in your pants and stick to the points raised, I know its hard to talk about anything but yourself so i'll just post them again for you

Actually I consider that last paragraph a personal attack. That's fine as I have personally criticised you. I understand senses of humour is different for different people, and you may not have been on my wavelength; it was certainly not a threat, I'm not that stupid.

ook polly, i'm asking fair and valid questions for this topic

Please stop using people's first names, if that is that person's first name. This is mainly for security reasons.

everytime i feel like i am discussing abortion or another issue like religion i feel as though i am under scrutiny and as soon as the restriction issue is resolved i can post without worry ....

You are under scrutiny because you are attacking a restriction policy that the majority of the site supports.

freakazoid

24th June 2007, 19:31

I support it 100% i think freakazoid should have been restricted a long time ago.

And your reason is...?

You are under scrutiny because you are attacking a restriction policy that the majority of the site supports.

The majority of the site or the majority of CC?

Also, some people have said that they do not believe us because we have supposedly changed our view so fast, which isn't the case like I have said before but that is besides the point. Now, what is the minum amount of time a restricted member should wait before they say that they no longer believe something and they will be believed? Is it a week? A month? How about a year?

25th June 2007, 01:23

i would be very suprised if after all the concerns i have raised that i would be allowed to participate, especially because i am also Catholic (although not as Catholic as most, church only twice a year) and i believe in a utilitarian arguement against abortion not unconditional womens soverignty .....

So, you believe that there are certain circumstances or scenarios where you would hypothetically justify forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? Thats the implication of saying that women don't have unconditional sovereignty over their bodies, if its not unconditional, it then must be conditional, meaning that there are conditions in which it could be violated, meaning that you're anti-choice and should also be restricted. :P

NorthStarRepublicML

25th June 2007, 09:19

you believe that there are certain circumstances or scenarios where you would hypothetically justify forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term?

nope, i believe it is better to have legal abortions then illegal abortions .... they should be availiable upon demand because the result of declaring them illegal would have far more negative consequences ......

Thats the implication of saying that women don't have unconditional sovereignty over their bodies

not its not, there is no such thing as inherient or natural rights, the only motivating factor is the greater good .... meaning that it is more beneficial for society to grant unconditional abortions then is to restrict aboritons .... rights have nothing to do with it .....

your arguement concerning womens rights is alsmost as flawed as an arguement in favor of property rights ......

meaning that you're anti-choice and should also be restricted.

here is my statement on the subject: I support abortions on demand

listen billy, you're just acting like a fool ..... and in case i need to remind you .... you have a couple threads going on abortion at the moment and this is a discussion that is better discussed there as opposed to a thread concering Unfair Restriction ....

as i seem to recall Publius and Invader Zim did a good job of providing a utilitarian arguement for abortion .... which you were unable to refute ....

in the future try to respond to what i posted instead of drawing childish conclusions and assumptions ..... it is a waste of our time to have to respond to persons such as yourself that merely assume our positions and respond with flames when we would rather it is to debated in a civil and intelligent manner .....

lets hear your justification for a womans natuaral right to have aborition on demand ..... where is this supposedly natural right come from?

luxemburg89

25th June 2007, 15:26

not its not, there is no such thing as inherient or natural rights, the only motivating factor is the greater good .... meaning that it is more beneficial for society to grant unconditional abortions then is to restrict aboritons .... rights have nothing to do with it .....

In that case, for the greater good stop creating splits in revleft. Perhaps 'split' is the wrong word, splinter fits better, as you are quite alone in your argument, except Freakazoid and some other reactionaries. Talking of Freakazoid, I think that the majority of revleft will, in fact, support a decision to restrict creationist reactionaries like him.

lets hear your justification for a womans natuaral right to have aborition on demand ..... where is this supposedly natural right come from?

As a man perhaps it is not my position to comment, but I will anyway. Equally I hate to respond to a question with another question, but again, I will - in a minute. I shall simply put it to you thus: A women, late in her pregnancy, is stricken with poverty, her job, her home, her income are all gone, she must scrounge for food, with little success; she has a baby on the way. If she gives birth to the baby her own life it is put at risk, as she must provide for him/her as well (this she cannot do). Is it right that, given the status quo in many countries, that she does not have the RIGHT to abort this child? The mother's right to live, in this case, is far greater than the child's 'right to birth' (as many pro-lifers have termed it).

To give you another example, yet equally relevant. A young couple get married, in a foolish act of young lust, and he has quickly made his wife pregnant. The marriage fades and they fall out of love. Yet the father, in this example a repressive chauvanist, demands the child be born, so that he may have a child, and as that is the way things are done; even if this is directly against the wishes of the mother. As the pregnancy continues and develops, the father is becoming increasingly vicious in his repression of her cries for an abortion. Late into her pregnancy she gains the courage to divorce him and is free to be her own woman, and enjoy the rest of her life. Yet she is stuck with his child, as a reminder of the relationship she fought for ages to get out of. As this child would hinder her desires for an enjoyable life, it is not what she wants, should she not have a RIGHT to enjoy her life? Simply because someone else was forcing her so late into the pregnancy?

In my opinion, and TC will be able to provide a more adequate response as she knows more on this subject, the whole question of abortion boils down the a woman's control of her body. The question is not about the child, or the father, or the family, it is about a woman and the fact she should be able to do what she wishes with her body. As a man I cannot know the burden of pregnancy unless, and so do I really have a say in denying a woman control of her body?

listen billy, you're just acting like a fool .....

That statement does two things for you:

1. It shows that you are just making people's names up.
2. It qualifies you as a candidate for the Hypocrit of the Year Award.

And this one just shows your utter stupidity:

you have a couple threads going on abortion at the moment and this is a discussion that is better discussed there as opposed to a thread concering Unfair Restriction ....

It is totally relevant to the discussion as you are criticising a policy of a site which restricts people with reactionary anti-choice beliefs.

freakazoid

25th June 2007, 21:12

I am all for that.

Thanks for answering my questions, <_<

Talking of Freakazoid, I think that the majority of revleft will, in fact, support a decision to restrict creationist reactionaries like him.

How is it reactionary?

NorthStarRepublicML

25th June 2007, 21:43

Is it right that, given the status quo in many countries, that she does not have the RIGHT to abort this child?

As this child would hinder her desires for an enjoyable life, it is not what she wants, should she not have a RIGHT to enjoy her life?

it is not right that women are restricted in having abortions in many regions of the world, but that does not mean that they have RIGHTS ..... you did not answer the question .....

Where do obective or natural womens rights (or any rights for that matter) come from?

The mother's right to live, in this case, is far greater than the child's 'right to birth'

how do you quantify that? which "rights" supercede others?

there are other cases where the "rights" of a "child" supercede the "rights" of a mother (south dakota?) .... rights are subjective because they are created by persons who are falliable with beliefs and opinions ..... one region (portugal?) could see the "right" of a "child" superceding the rights of a mother .... while we may not see this as being correct (i personally do not see it as correct) it is a "right" that is bestowed upon a "child" (or fetus) by those who have drafted the subjective rights of a region .....

again i will state that there are several threads on the abortion topic and this topic is more revelent to those threads as we are not discussing the circumstances of anyones restriction by talking about my personal beliefs.....

i am also uncomfortable with going into too much depth on the subject as several persons have been restricted for expressing their personal beliefs on the issue of abortion ....

the whole question of abortion boils down the a woman's control of her body.

this is where we disagree, i happen to think that the question of abortion boils down to utility ..... and although we disagree on the reasoning behind abortion we both agree that abortions should be available on demand ..... correct?

It qualifies you as a candidate for the Hypocrit of the Year Award.

how so? TC is a fool if he believes in "natural rights" for women or anything else ....

It shows that you are just making people's names up.

your powers of deducation are staggering

support a decision to restrict creationist reactionaries like him

as far as i know he wasn't restricted for being a creationist .... he was restricted for alleged anti-abortion views .....

see my response to your last post on the subject of religious stereotyping here: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292338774 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67648&st=25&#entry1292338774)

NorthStarRepublicML

25th June 2007, 22:05

I understand your sentiments and like I send there is an ongoing discussion in the CC concerning this.

can we get an update on how this discussion is going?

Mujer Libre

26th June 2007, 00:01

Jesus fuck- a woman's "natural right" to an abortion comes from her right to autonomy over her body. It's only if you think that the 'rights' of a foetus- i potential life, outweigh the right to autonomy of a grown woman, that you seek to deny that right.

Furthermore- I always thought that individual autonomy was one of the key principles of the revolutionary left? I guess that doesn't apply to pregnant women?

Kwisatz Haderach

26th June 2007, 02:57

Look, let's not turn this into yet another argument about abortion...

And let us also stop treating fellow comrades as if they are the enemy. NorthStar, you know I mostly agree with you, but if the problem with the current way things are done is that we are restricting and alienating comrades whose views on some issues are different from those of the CC, then the solution is certainly not to alienate our comrades in the CC instead.

freakazoid

26th June 2007, 21:25

About this thread, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68029

edit - ^^ Thread is now in the trash, guess they don't like there decisions being questioned, <_<

This thread is pointless, locked.

It is not pointless! The point was to bring awareness to the idiocy of the closing of those two threads. And you didn't even address any of my points. <_< WHY THE F!@K WAS THOSE TWO THREADS LOCKED!

Consider this a formal warning to stop spamming the board with your crap freak.

Spamming it with crap? I find it crap that two legitimate threads were locked for no reason other than because someone doesn't like the fact that I can be an anarchist and a Christian and wishes to have me silenced.

Kwisatz Haderach

26th June 2007, 21:43

Among the three threads by freakazoid that got locked, I am most concerned about this one:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67706

I have two points to make:

First, regardless of freakazoid's motivation for posting it, the thread seemed like a useful source of links and information. Why lock it?

Second, I thought restricted members were not only allowed, but expected to make pro-left posts in order to prove that they have reformed and thus deserve to be unrestricted. Even if freakazoid was indeed attempting to get unrestricted... are restricted members forbidden to make such attempts? If yes, then restricted members are effectively stripped of any opportunity to ever get unrestricted, which is absurd.

NorthStarRepublicML

27th June 2007, 22:37

a woman's "natural right" to an abortion comes from her right to autonomy over her body.

where does that "right" come from?

the solution is certainly not to alienate our comrades in the CC instead.

some of them deserve to be called out on for their desicions ..... others need to be more progressive in balancing the decisions of their misguided "comrades" ... and others appear to be absent .....

then restricted members are effectively stripped of any opportunity to ever get unrestricted, which is absurd.

yes, exceedinly absurd ..... what threat to the board was a posting and providing links against the minuteman project ? i'm sure that most of the board would agree that the minuteman project is moving in the wrong direction, would you agree?

i'd like to hear NoXions explaination of this .....

luxemburg89

27th June 2007, 23:22

some of them deserve to be called out on for their desicions ..... others need to be more progressive in balancing the decisions of their misguided "comrades" ... and others appear to be absent .....

Why do we deserve to be called out? A decision was debated, and made, and has been debated since. We always consider everyones views, and the view seems to be that the restriction policy should stay. Obviously we cannot always get things right. However, as the abortion issue has caused so much offence, and is a very serious issue, we believe that our decision to restrict people over the issue of abortion is justified. There was a discussion and a poll on it. Like I said before, stop trying to take the moral highground.

NorthStarRepublicML

28th June 2007, 02:22

Why do we deserve to be called out?

because several of the restrictions have dubious justification, some of them are based upon a single line of text, none of the members restricted were questioned concerning their views (or asked to clarify), and several were restricted for posting that they Personally would not have abortions but would not work to restrict others from having them .....

seems like you have made some poor decisions to me ....

There was a discussion and a poll on it.

we have only your word that such a "discussion" took place and we have no indication of how many members supported such a decision .... excuse me if i doubt you and your motives .....

we believe that our decision to restrict people over the issue of abortion is justified.

it would seem that the entire issue of what restriction means should be clarified ..... how is having a personal preference to avoid abortion but still supporting abortions on demand warrent a restriction?..... how is being catholic grounds for restriction?

stop trying to take the moral highground.

you are the one that continues to assign that stigma to me and others, why? is it because you cannot justify your decisions any other way then to claim it is merely a member who sees himself as morally superior .....

you continue to throw morals into arguements, why?

apathy maybe

28th June 2007, 09:19

NorthStarRepublicML, kindly fuck off. There was a discussion in the CC, which you can't access. There was a poll. The result of the poll was some enormous amount of people voting to restrict anti-choice people, and about 5 voting not to. It isn't just Lux's word, it is anyone who is in the CC and thus has access to that thread.

I wasn't in the CC at the time the poll was taken, but I can still browse that forum and find the thread.

Yes I agree there are problems about how some members have been restricted, even though they don't appear anti-choice. But, it isn't your place to be an arsehole about it, especially when you only joined just over a month ago and have just over 100 posts.

Therefore, this is a request to you, and to everyone else. If you are restricted and have had the reason explained, kindly shut up. If you change your views, it will be noticed (eventually) and you will be uncaged.
If you aren't restricted and aren't in the CC, also kindly shut the fuck up unless you actually have something new to add.
If you are in the CC, well I hardly need to tell you to shut up, because you probably already have.

The summary, unless you have something new to say, don't say it. And that applies to everyone.

I also direct people to the remarks made by Sentinel in this very thread, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292337598 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67327&view=findpost&p=1292337598)

NorthStarRepublicML

28th June 2007, 09:49

Therefore, this is a request to you

granted

luxemburg89

28th June 2007, 20:24

we have only your word that such a "discussion" took place and we have no indication of how many members supported such a decision .... excuse me if i doubt you and your motives .....

And here we can analyse your idiocy. You begin by using 'we' and yet finish with 'I'. What is evident here is the fact that YOU don't like the restriction, and neither do the restricted members, yet the vast majority of non-restricted members have not complained about being unable to see such a poll. So, once again, you are taking 'we' (which you claim to be representative of the whole of revleft) to actually mean 'I' (which is just your view - as you think this will make you some kind of hero, and if you get restricted for it you'll view yourself as some sort of martyr - when common opinion will just be that you are a 'cumbucket'*). Thank you for wasting our time, and please follow apathy maybe's instructions.

*Jazzratt's insults, Jazzratt, Bloomsbury Publishing 2007

NorthStarRepublicML

28th June 2007, 21:11

I would like to state that once again it is comfortably predictable that you have ignored the questions in my previous posting and decided to degenerate self-important slurs and insults as well as grammatical critiques

You begin by using 'we' and yet finish with 'I'

sadly your best arguements are all centered around grammer and spelling structure, perhaps if you had anything worthwhile saying i wouldn't mind you fixing my sentence mistakes .....

What is evident here is the fact that YOU don't like the restriction

see postings in this thread

yet the vast majority of non-restricted members have not complained about being unable to see such a poll.

maybe not the majority, i'm not sure, but several persons in this thread and several others have complained ..... see here:

Yes, please go and tell us, CC member, how allowing other people to see votes that relate to us will fuck up the fragile non-Democracy you've crafted. I'd love to hear it.

How would opening up the CC to regular member viewing create chaos?

also there is a whole thread with people posting sugested changes to the restriction policy here: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67318

you are taking 'we' (which you claim to be representative of the whole of revleft)

actually, i never claimed anything .... post the quote where i claim this .... i was talking about freakazoid, perhaps publius, edric o maybe, whitten, coggy, starttoday, fredrich neitzche ..... or those persons that have expressed an interest in changing restriction policy ....

you think this will make you some kind of hero, and if you get restricted for it you'll view yourself as some sort of martyr

wow .... do you know me or something? or is your whole life based upon assumptions and sterotypes of people ...... believe what ever you want, it doesn't make your arguements any less bankrupt .....

please follow apathy maybe's instructions.

i had said i would discontinue (see my previous post), you are the one that needs to follow instructions .... Apathy Maybe also said this:
If you are in the CC, well I hardly need to tell you to shut up, because you probably already have.

Jazzratt's insults, Jazzratt, Bloomsbury Publishing 2007

so is jazzarat your boyfriend or something? you sure talk about how great he is alot .... are you in love with him?

i was prepared to stop posting here concerning restrictions but i don't ignore self-important posts like yours .....

so Apathy Maybe i apologize for responding again, i am prepared to cease my critisism (as i believe there will be plenty of time for it later) if you will please control your pet,

apparently you need to tell him (luxenburg88) to "kindly shut the fuck up" because he seems intent on continuing while at this time i am not ....

luxemburg89

28th June 2007, 21:49

You begin by using 'we' and yet finish with 'I'

What I meant by this was not grammatical issues but rather you are using 'we' instead of 'I' as you criticised me for doing in the other thread. I am content to stop arguing with you.

If you are in the CC, well I hardly need to tell you to shut up, because you probably already have.

It was hyporthetical, as you are criticising the CC, I'm pretty sure if apathy maybe wanted to discuss it with me I'd receive a PM.

i was talking about freakazoid, perhaps publius, edric o maybe, whitten, coggy, starttoday, fredrich neitzche

they are restricted members, I am talking about actual members, like you and me.

so is jazzarat your boyfriend or something? you sure talk about how great he is alot .... are you in love with him?

Lol, the whole comrade thing doesn't buy with you eh?

self-important posts

No, sorry I'm responding to your arrogance, don't think this is the other way round, and this clearly demonstrates it:

if you will please control your pet,

apparently you need to tell him (luxenburg88) to "kindly shut the fuck up" because he seems intent on continuing while at this time i am not ....

I am not criticising the site - I am defending it from would-be splitters like you.

This is my last post on this, say what you like, but I won't respond any further.

freakazoid

30th June 2007, 19:19

Any reason yet on why these threads of mine are being closed?

About this thread, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68029

Jazzratt

1st July 2007, 15:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:19 pm
Any reason yet on why these threads of mine are being closed?

About this thread, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68029
The first two were transparent attempts to get immediatly unrestricted and were duplicates of threads found elsewhere on the board, the third one was just a platform for you to whine.

freakazoid

1st July 2007, 19:43

The first two were transparent attempts to get immediatly unrestricted

They were? You do realise that I had posted in the AMMP thread BEFORE I was restricted right? And did I say something reactionary in those threads?

were duplicates of threads found elsewhere on the board,

I was responding them, because since I am restricted I can't that in the actual thread.

the third one was just a platform for you to whine.

The third was me trying to find out why they were closed.

dasright60

3rd July 2007, 23:24

So let's see here HMMM! I post something, in response to my post i get qouted and asked a question by a member. I then reply to that question and from that reply arises another question and so on. During the time of going back and forth with this someone decides to attack me by calling me a liar. I respond and at the sametime responding to the questions i was being asked by the original member whom i was speaking to. I then get qouted again by the same member who attacked me, but this time quotes like 7 different lines from my response to him as well as from my answers to the original members questions. It gets taken out of context, I get accused of being a racist by this same member and then all of a sudden i get restricted and get accused of being a racist yet again by and Admin.

I just have one question if i may ask. Is the drug ACID and Ideology on here, or is it that whoever is in charges likes shooting everybody down? No warnings, No explination, No nothing. So much for a first day as a new member. If the restriction is not lifted then oh well screw it. Just always remember The Baath

luxemburg89

4th July 2007, 00:52

Do you have an example of this. I mean without the example you might as well be a liar for all we know. Provide the link and no, actually, ACID is not an ideology, stupidity is a pain in the arse though...

dasright60

4th July 2007, 08:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:52 pm
Do you have an example of this. I mean without the example you might as well be a liar for all we know. Provide the link and no, actually, ACID is not an ideology, stupidity is a pain in the arse though...
Here you go.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47671&st=0

Besides argueing with the member that attacked me, I was answering another members question. You will notice that in more than one of my answers i would use the words FOR EXAMPLE as try and make it easier for the member to understand what i was trying to explain. Servirian was the Admin. I sent him a message and from his response it didn't seem like he read the whole post. I doubt he even notice how the guy that was argueing with me would qoute a sentence from the whole picture and just nit pick with smart ass answers. I wasn't stating opinion, I was just answering. It's all good no big deal now. Fuck it.

apathy maybe

4th July 2007, 10:45

Question, what sort of a username is "dasright60"?

Because to me it seems to suggest that you are "of the right".

Anyway, you bumped a thread that was over a year old and post a lot of rubbish about The Baath Party. You appear to support the actions of Saddam Hussain in suppressing resistance to his rule. I'm not sure, but you also appear to oppose an independent Kurdistan.

Anyway, it is enough for me that you support the Baath Party for you to be restricted, let alone the other rubbish that you appear to support.

(On Servirian, he is a bit that way...)

dasright60

4th July 2007, 11:37

Well i ran into that forum and noticed the question about who was running the resistance or number of groups. All i did was post a statement from the Baath that they had made a few years back.

The word "support" anything i did not mention. I answerd questions and defended myself when i was being attacked. I was only stating FACTS and even challenged the guy that called me a liar to show me otherwise or move on. In my previous post on here I did say that "I wasn't stating opinion, I was just answering".

Your words......

"You appear to support the actions of Saddam Hussain in suppressing resistance"

For your informaion my friend, I'm Palestinian.

Dimentio

7th July 2007, 00:41

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 04, 2007 09:45 am
Question, what sort of a username is "dasright60"?

Because to me it seems to suggest that you are "of the right".

Anyway, you bumped a thread that was over a year old and post a lot of rubbish about The Baath Party. You appear to support the actions of Saddam Hussain in suppressing resistance to his rule. I'm not sure, but you also appear to oppose an independent Kurdistan.

Anyway, it is enough for me that you support the Baath Party for you to be restricted, let alone the other rubbish that you appear to support.

(On Servirian, he is a bit that way...)
To be fair, TragicClown was actually a lot more outspoken defendant of Halabja in the following debate.

So, since TC supports Halabja being a conspiracy, and everyone disagreeing with her being labelled a "fascist", "non-leftist" and whatever, then everyone who thinks that ba'athism is fascism, is a fascist. According to the supreme, infallable logic of TC.

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Janus

8th July 2007, 01:14

The posts concerning posting problems have been split to Technical Support which is where all technical problems should be addressed.

freakazoid

10th July 2007, 02:38

And I'm back, :D

8 days and still no answer to my questions?

Here's some more questions. I hope that these get answered.

I have been accused of being a "pro-lifer". Can someone provide a link to where I actually make this claim? Can someone provide a link to where I say, "I support the banning of abortion", because unless someone can then I have been unfairly restricted! I don't see how it can even be claimed that I do support it. I am an anarchist! What government is going to enforce this banning!?

dasright60

10th July 2007, 06:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:38 am
And I'm back, :D

8 days and still no answer to my questions?

Here's some more questions. I hope that these get answered.

I have been accused of being a "pro-lifer". Can someone provide a link to where I actually make this claim? Can someone provide a link to where I say, "I support the banning of abortion", because unless someone can then I have been unfairly restricted! I don't see how it can even be claimed that I do support it. I am an anarchist! What government is going to enforce this banning!?
Don't even bother. Your going to have to try and get over some of the contradictory attitudes when it comes to the guidelines. So much for being leftist.

Coggeh

10th July 2007, 11:55

Were forever doomed to OI!?! :o

Jazzratt

10th July 2007, 21:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:38 am
And I'm back, :D
Oh joy <_<

8 days and still no answer to my questions?

Which ones?

Here's some more questions. I hope that these get answered.

Will you shut the fuck up if they are?

I have been accused of being a "pro-lifer". Can someone provide a link to where I actually make this claim? Can someone provide a link to where I say, "I support the banning of abortion", because unless someone can then I have been unfairly restricted!

We went through this on your restriction thread, the evidence pointed toward you being a preaching, pro-life ****.

I don't see how it can even be claimed that I do support it. I am an anarchist! What government is going to enforce this banning!?

What is this shit, do you understand anarchism at all? You don't need a government, correct, but there will still be punishable actions - you would have no state apparatus to deal with, say, child molesters, but they would still be punished.

luxemburg89

10th July 2007, 21:33

What is this shit, do you understand anarchism at all?

To be honest I find the idea of a Christian Anarchist laughable. You reject all masters yet pay homage to the root of all heirarchy - a diety. Early man created gods to explain that which they do not understand, now we understand it - we don't need gods. Religion is just a hangover from a drunken age. Anyway Freak - by name and nature - claims to believe in no masters, yet worships a god - I cannot see the difference. He is either pretending to be an Anarchist or pretending to be a Christian. I expect it's the former. The best advice we can offer Freak is to fuck off, no one responds to his questions because they aren't worth answering. It's best for all of us, and Freakazoid himself, if he just leaves the site. No one is calling for you to unrestricted except you, I should hope the chances of Freakazoid being unrestricted are about the same as Jazzratt becoming the next Dalai Lama.

Coggeh

11th July 2007, 05:41

I was restricted for the same thing as freakizoid , altough im pro-choice now , i never viewed the abortion issue as that big until it was explained to me by my party , also alot of people don't come on this site with a position or an understanding of abortion .

I asked all the youth comrades in my local branch about it and they said the same as i used to say about it should be legal in certain aspects , and until the older comrades explained it we were none the wiser.

You can't go around restricting people straight off about this issue , the pro-life camp pulls at the heart strings of people and it pulls them into a backward logic of thinking wihtout them even realising .

Freakizoid has clearly shown A) hes changed/or is willing to his opinion on this matter . B) hes also willing to discuss it more . But mods simply don't seem to be interested anymore .

Its all well and good to restrict people but when their already leftists a certain effort should be made to helping them understand the issue their restricted for without slagging/name calling or any insults for a change .

No comrade grasps socialist theory straight off 100% and this site should be used as a tool to help raise peoples conciousness more and not to restrict straight away.

luxemburg89

11th July 2007, 09:59

Freakizoid has clearly shown A) hes changed/or is willing to his opinion on this matter . B) hes also willing to discuss it more . But mods simply don't seem to be interested anymore .

Freakazoid has nothing worthwhile to add to revleft. He was unpopular when he was on the forums and for the most part all he does is complain about something. His literal interpretation of a book that praises heirarchy and total obedience to God also adds some cause for concern. Seriously he should just leave the site.

Coggeh

11th July 2007, 20:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:59 am

Freakizoid has clearly shown A) hes changed/or is willing to his opinion on this matter . B) hes also willing to discuss it more . But mods simply don't seem to be interested anymore .

Freakazoid has nothing worthwhile to add to revleft. He was unpopular when he was on the forums and for the most part all he does is complain about something. His literal interpretation of a book that praises heirarchy and total obedience to God also adds some cause for concern. Seriously he should just leave the site.
Well all leftists complain lol . And god is a touchy subject for some who have been brought up in tightly religious houses and if someones wants to worship god , still doesn't mean hes not a leftist .

ECD Hollis

16th July 2007, 14:14

I am a conservative, and I was wondering why I can only post in here?

Tower of Bebel

16th July 2007, 14:26

Restriction

What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behaviour that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site.

Who is restricted?

In general, anyone who is ideologically opposed to the revolutionary leftist vision of this board is restricted to OI.

Anyone who defends capitalism or otherwise opposes worker liberation is automatically restricted. Anyone who opposes the rights of any other oppressed group is similarly restricted. This includes so-called "pro-lifers" or anyone else who opposes the right to abortion on demand.

Primitivists of all varieties are also restricted. Our vision on this board is the revolutionary reconstruction of civilized society, not its destruction. Anyone opposing structured society or technology in general is inherently anti-working class and so not welcome on this board. Primitivists are, however, tolerated in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

In addition, religious preachers of any sort are automatically restricted. Justifying religious hierarchy, preaching to or attempting to convert other members, or in any other way promoting religion is not tolerated on this board. If any religious sentiments are expressed, they obviously belong in the “Religion” subforum in OI but this is not to say that preaching is acceptable in "Religion".

Personal beliefs/positions on religion/spirituality should not affect an individual's overall status on RevLeft if kept within the Religion forum. Though this is not to say people won't be held accountable for otherwise unacceptable behaviour, nor that religious extremism is tolerated.

On revolutionary left, people who disagree with the emancipation of the working class by social revolution are sent to OI (because otherwise they could disrupt our debates). OI is not neccessairly for bad people only.

PS: Underlined by myself.

ECD Hollis

16th July 2007, 14:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:26 pm

Restriction

What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behaviour that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site.

Who is restricted?

In general, anyone who is ideologically opposed to the revolutionary leftist vision of this board is restricted to OI.

Anyone who defends capitalism or otherwise opposes worker liberation is automatically restricted. Anyone who opposes the rights of any other oppressed group is similarly restricted. This includes so-called "pro-lifers" or anyone else who opposes the right to abortion on demand.

Primitivists of all varieties are also restricted. Our vision on this board is the revolutionary reconstruction of civilized society, not its destruction. Anyone opposing structured society or technology in general is inherently anti-working class and so not welcome on this board. Primitivists are, however, tolerated in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

In addition, religious preachers of any sort are automatically restricted. Justifying religious hierarchy, preaching to or attempting to convert other members, or in any other way promoting religion is not tolerated on this board. If any religious sentiments are expressed, they obviously belong in the “Religion” subforum in OI but this is not to say that preaching is acceptable in "Religion".

Personal beliefs/positions on religion/spirituality should not affect an individual's overall status on RevLeft if kept within the Religion forum. Though this is not to say people won't be held accountable for otherwise unacceptable behaviour, nor that religious extremism is tolerated.

On revolutionary left, people who disagree with the emancipation of the working class by social revolution are sent to OI (because otherwise they could disrupt our debates). OI is not neccessairly for bad people only.

PS: Underlined by myself.
So............you guys only debate with other leftists? How is that a debate?

bloody_capitalist_sham

16th July 2007, 14:28

I will break it down for you.

This website is called Revolutionary left.

We leftists want a place to talk and discuss our ideas among ourselves.

Opposing Ideologies is where people who are not revolutionary leftists can challenge our ideas.

If you want a liberal or conservative forum, then there are plenty out there.

We are not liberals here and they are restricted too. So, its not just conservatives. Whatever you mean by that.

ECD Hollis

16th July 2007, 14:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:28 pm
I will break it down for you.

This website is called Revolutionary left.

We leftists want a place to talk and discuss our ideas among ourselves.

Opposing Ideologies is where people who are not revolutionary leftists can challenge our ideas.

If you want a liberal or conservative forum, then there are plenty out there.

We are not liberals here and they are restricted too. So, its not just conservatives. Whatever you mean by that.
Well, most "liberals" consider themselves to be leftists.

bloody_capitalist_sham

16th July 2007, 14:33

we consider them socially leftist, in a superficial way, but economically rightwing. Therefore, they are restricted.

This site is for Communists and anarchists only really. Opposing ideologies is for the rest.

Jazzratt

16th July 2007, 14:34

Originally posted by ECD [email protected] 16, 2007 01:27 pm
So............you guys only debate with other leftists? How is that a debate?
If you take the time to read through the debates we have on here in the various forums you will notice that though we agree on one or two major points (worker emancipation, destruction of capitalism) there is a lot of disagreement between leftist currents.

ECD Hollis

16th July 2007, 14:44

I don't get it. Leftists can post in here, but we can't post in the other forums?

Jazzratt

16th July 2007, 14:48

Originally posted by ECD [email protected] 16, 2007 01:44 pm
I don't get it. Leftists can post in here, but we can't post in the other forums?
It's overwhelmingly simple: this forum (Opposing Ideologies) is here so that those who oppose us can argue with us rather than being banned outright. You cannot post in the other forums because they are for leftists to debate leftist issues and having the same cappie arguments shat at us repeatedly would become annoying but we do not want to ban you outright - thus this forum.

Split and Merged.

Tower of Bebel

16th July 2007, 14:50

Originally posted by ECD [email protected] 16, 2007 02:44 pm
I don't get it. Leftists can post in here, but we can't post in the other forums?
we cannot post on the capitalist forum. I even think there is no OI on the capitalist forum. You seem to me a friendly person, but we have to follow our guidlines to make sure no cappies or fascist try to slip through.

EDIT: correct a major mistake.

ECD Hollis

16th July 2007, 14:53

Originally posted by Raccoon+July 16, 2007 01:50 pm--> (Raccoon @ July 16, 2007 01:50 pm)
ECD [email protected] 16, 2007 02:44 pm
I don't get it. Leftists can post in here, but we can't post in the other forums?
we cannot post on the capitalist forum. I even think there is no IO on the capitalist forum. You seem to me a friendly person, but we have to follow our guidlines to make sure some cappies or fascist try to slip through. [/b]
Cappies? I assume you mean capitalist? Which I happen to be, but that is besides the point. Where is the capitalist forum then?

Jazzratt

16th July 2007, 14:55

Originally posted by ECD Hollis+July 16, 2007 01:53 pm--> (ECD Hollis @ July 16, 2007 01:53 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:50 pm

ECD [email protected] 16, 2007 02:44 pm
I don't get it. Leftists can post in here, but we can't post in the other forums?
we cannot post on the capitalist forum. I even think there is no IO on the capitalist forum. You seem to me a friendly person, but we have to follow our guidlines to make sure some cappies or fascist try to slip through.
Cappies? I assume you mean capitalist? Which I happen to be, but that is besides the point. Where is the capitalist forum then? [/b]
Please keep this discussion in the Unfair Restrictions sticky, moving posts from this thread to that one is time consuming and annoying. Thank you.

apathy maybe

16th July 2007, 15:50

ECD Hollis: Your first post, and five out of your 13 posts so far have been in this thread. (Perhaps other posts were originally here too, before they were split out, I don't know.)

Basically, if you have a problem with the way this board is setup, don't post here. Don't visit, and we will quickly forget you. However, if you continue to only post in this thread, questioning the structure of this board (an argument that has happened many many times before in this boards history, no we won't change it for you, the alternative is to ban all right-wingers...), then you will get banned for trolling. If you want to debate other matters, feel free, if you are intelligent, articulate and have an interesting topic to debate, then we will even enjoy having you around. But spamming this thread, or only posting about how this board is run, well that means you aren't interested in debate, and such people are eventually banned.

So, feel free to read the rest of the forum, and if you see something you want to discuss, start a thread about it. But keep it to OI.

Tower of Bebel

16th July 2007, 15:56

Originally posted by ECD Hollis+July 16, 2007 02:53 pm--> (ECD Hollis @ July 16, 2007 02:53 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:50 pm

ECD [email protected] 16, 2007 02:44 pm
I don't get it. Leftists can post in here, but we can't post in the other forums?
we cannot post on the capitalist forum. I even think there is no IO on the capitalist forum. You seem to me a friendly person, but we have to follow our guidlines to make sure some cappies or fascist try to slip through.
Cappies? I assume you mean capitalist? Which I happen to be, but that is besides the point. Where is the capitalist forum then? [/b]
Capitalists are the people who own the means of production and live from capital, not labor. And also the people who're here and stubornly support capitalism and want to be a real capitalist one day. If you're a liberal, social-democrat, christian-democrat or whatever-minded person you don't neccessairly have to be a capitalist.

The cap-forum is not a section on this board. It's a forum with the same intensions as revleft, but for capies.

ECD Hollis

17th July 2007, 20:06

Originally posted by Raccoon+July 16, 2007 02:56 pm--> (Raccoon @ July 16, 2007 02:56 pm)
Originally posted by ECD [email protected] 16, 2007 02:53 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:50 pm

ECD [email protected] 16, 2007 02:44 pm
I don't get it. Leftists can post in here, but we can't post in the other forums?
we cannot post on the capitalist forum. I even think there is no IO on the capitalist forum. You seem to me a friendly person, but we have to follow our guidlines to make sure some cappies or fascist try to slip through.
Cappies? I assume you mean capitalist? Which I happen to be, but that is besides the point. Where is the capitalist forum then?
Capitalists are the people who own the means of production and live from capital, not labor. And also the people who're here and stubornly support capitalism and want to be a real capitalist one day. If you're a liberal, social-democrat, christian-democrat or whatever-minded person you don't neccessairly have to be a capitalist.

The cap-forum is not a section on this board. It's a forum with the same intensions as revleft, but for capies. [/b]
:lol: This is the wrong board for me then. I am a conservative-Christian. :lol:

Black Cross

17th July 2007, 20:17

Originally posted by ECD [email protected] 17, 2007 07:06 pm
:lol: This is the wrong board for me then. I am a conservative-Christian. :lol:
How, exactly, did you end up on a revolutionary left forum when you're a conservative christian?

RevMARKSman

17th July 2007, 22:13

Originally posted by Marxist-rev+July 17, 2007 02:17 pm--> (Marxist-rev @ July 17, 2007 02:17 pm)
ECD [email protected] 17, 2007 07:06 pm
:lol: This is the wrong board for me then. I am a conservative-Christian. :lol:
How, exactly, did you end up on a revolutionary left forum when you're a conservative christian? [/b]
He googled "Jesus" and came up with all of freakazoid's posts.

luxemburg89

18th July 2007, 22:19

He googled "Jesus" and came up with all of freakazoid's posts.

Haha - I'm sure a conservative-christian would find them appealing! (They're probably around the same high level of stupidity as the bible itself).

freakazoid

19th July 2007, 06:53

He googled "Jesus" and came up with all of freakazoid's posts.

lol, :P

We went through this on your restriction thread, the evidence pointed toward you being a preaching, pro-life ****.

I also do not think that people should smoke, and yet I think that people should be able to smoke if they choose, gasp, :o.

It's best for all of us, and Freakazoid himself, if he just leaves the site.

Why?

Freakazoid has nothing worthwhile to add to revleft.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59660&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61308&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61426&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36094&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59388&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59712&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65604&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65543&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63719&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63390&hl= And then there are the threads that was locked, such as the AMPP, that isn't important?

Just to name a few. <_< And then there are all of the conversations in the Live Chat, which I am no longer allowed in for some reason.

What is this shit, do you understand anarchism at all? You don't need a government, correct, but there will still be punishable actions - you would have no state apparatus to deal with, say, child molesters, but they would still be punished.

Why don't you actually refute the main point!
"have been accused of being a "pro-lifer". Can someone provide a link to where I actually make this claim? Can someone provide a link to where I say, "I support the banning of abortion", because unless someone can then I have been unfairly restricted!"

Is that why you, and others, resort to name calling? Because you actually can't do it?

Coggeh

19th July 2007, 12:05

Freakizoid its not going to do much good to rant in this thread , I've tried that , its best to demonstrate your real beliefs in the other threds in OI . Why exactly your pro-choice/life.

OI can be used as a way to ask all the hard questions or the doubts you have about leftism and seek answers from other leftists .

Your already in OI so whats stopping you asking these questions ?.

I'm sure sooner or later a mod will see if you have really shown a true taking to proper leftism and in-turn you should be un-restricted .

Dean

22nd July 2007, 20:37

Any interest in maybe unrestricting me?

I think it was clear from before that I was not a bigot, look to the records you may or may not have if you care to review it. It'd be nice, when I come here, to debate with communists and anarchists instead of capitalists and fascists who can't get past fundamental ideology and thus offer more contradiction than discussion.

luxemburg89

22nd July 2007, 22:35

I'm sure sooner or later a mod will see if you have really shown a true taking to proper leftism and in-turn you should be un-restricted .

Lol! What would we want someone who takes the bible literally on the site for? The bible can be summed up using two F-words: Fiction and Fascism.

Any interest in maybe unrestricting me?

What were you restricted for, and when?

freakazoid

22nd July 2007, 22:49

Lol! What would we want someone who takes the bible literally on the site for? The bible can be summed up using two F-words: Fiction and Fascism.

Umm... No. In fact it is quite a historical document. The things that are recorded in it have been discovered. And Fascism? Ha. Are you calling me a fascist? Because I am an anarchist.

Dean

24th July 2007, 06:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:35 pm
What were you restricted for, and when?
It was last year sometime. The claim was sexism, because I said in an essay that women have a tendancy to be more nurturing than men because they birth children and are the primary individuals who raise them (at least in the youngest years).

I discussed the charge of sexism, and was restricted within hours of posting despite having not been warned or asked to explain how I am not sexist. I even changed my mind to some degree on the issue when discussing it, but that was only after the restriction occured.

I'll note that the essay I posted was written years before, when I was in high school, and I didn't even claim to possess all the ideas at the present that were in it.

luxemburg89

27th July 2007, 02:20

The things that are recorded in it have been discovered.

Yes, like the Garden of Eden? And don't talk about that conservatory in Cornwall...

Dean: Can you find me a link and I'll take a look at it for you.

freakazoid

27th July 2007, 05:33

Yes, like the Garden of Eden?

Ooh, didn't see that one coming, <_< Funny how in order to discredit it you pick something like that and yet ignore all of the things that have.

edit - Also to throw in a random example, http://www.deadpress.org/forum/index.php?topic=443.0

And why is everything being ignored? Is it because what I am saying is true? I will post them again,

QUOTE
We went through this on your restriction thread, the evidence pointed toward you being a preaching, pro-life ****.

I also do not think that people should smoke, and yet I think that people should be able to smoke if they choose, gasp, ohmy.gif.

QUOTE
It's best for all of us, and Freakazoid himself, if he just leaves the site.

Why?

QUOTE
Freakazoid has nothing worthwhile to add to revleft.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59660&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61308&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61426&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36094&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59388&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59712&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65604&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65543&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63719&hl= http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63390&hl= And then there are the threads that was locked, such as the AMPP, that isn't important?

Just to name a few. dry.gif And then there are all of the conversations in the Live Chat, which I am no longer allowed in for some reason.

QUOTE
What is this shit, do you understand anarchism at all? You don't need a government, correct, but there will still be punishable actions - you would have no state apparatus to deal with, say, child molesters, but they would still be punished.

Why don't you actually refute the main point!
"have been accused of being a "pro-lifer". Can someone provide a link to where I actually make this claim? Can someone provide a link to where I say, "I support the banning of abortion", because unless someone can then I have been unfairly restricted!"

Is that why you, and others, resort to name calling? Because you actually can't do it?

And Fascism? Ha. Are you calling me a fascist? Because I am an anarchist.

It has been 8 days since I posted the first stuff and yet there is still no response. <_<

Tower of Bebel

27th July 2007, 11:02

They laugh at your Bible and pro-life(?) arguments. No need for them to answer.

Avtomat_Icaro

29th July 2007, 06:04

Why am I restricted?

Janus

29th July 2007, 06:51

You were restricted by vote of the CC. The main reasons presented were your support of property rights and your views on transexuality.

Avtomat_Icaro

29th July 2007, 14:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:51 am
You were restricted by vote of the CC. The main reasons presented were your support of property rights and your views on transexuality.
You got to be kidding me right? Just because I wouldnt be comfortable when I find out my girlfriend used to be a guy got me restricted? What support of property? <_<

Jazzratt

29th July 2007, 15:07

Originally posted by Avtomat_Icaro+July 29, 2007 01:21 pm--> (Avtomat_Icaro @ July 29, 2007 01:21 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 05:51 am
You were restricted by vote of the CC. The main reasons presented were your support of property rights and your views on transexuality.
You got to be kidding me right? [/b]
Yes we're fucking kidding, we restricted you as a joke :rolleyes:

Just because I wouldnt be comfortable when I find out my girlfriend used to be a guy got me restricted?

Stop being an obtuse little shit, it's not whether or not you would go out with a trans person that is the problem - it's the fact you believe that physical sex mystically determines gender. Also your right-populist whinges about some "political correctness" strawman didn't help your case. I seem to recall that there was some thread in which you supported some stupid bullshit which me and Dick Dastardly challenged.

What support of property? <_<

Something to do with graffiti I believe, I didn't pay too much attention to that as I was more concerned about your poorly disguised disgust for trans people and for the struggles of discrimination victims in general.