[aberdeenwriter]

Demonhood,

I'm under NO illusions as to the fact that the "brand" of free speech practiced here is a version of free speech. It's a blend with certain arbitrary and changeable limits imposed by those in charge. As such it is a commodity. And because this is a commercial establishment and we all agree to the rules...the interpretation of which is subject to their/your whims...those in charge can allow in anyone they feel like allowing in.

I'm very clear that this is not America's idea of freedom of expression. Ultimately it is yours. Your sandbox, your rules, your decisions. Arbitrary or not.

I'll take my lumps.

But I do want to say this.

If there is a lie I'm spreading then call me on it. If I'm stating what I believe to be a fact and I'm wrong, nail me.

But when I state a fact as I believe it and do so in the hope of establishing a MEANINGFUL dialogue with those who know what I'm saying is true, and you stop that communication process, then you are helping the ignorance and the mistrust and the bigotry to continue.

It's like asking a witness a question and the opposing counsel objects and the judge instructs the witness not to answer.

Although your action may not have been out of ignorance. It might have been due to the fact that you actually realize what I said is true. That Islamic expansion really is the direct cause of every major violent conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, but you realize the situation is hopeless. And like a terminal cancer patient, you know that our days are numbered and you just want to live out the rest of this forum's days in peace and with as much comfort as possible.

And if that is the case, then I'll have to agree that you are resigned to a reality I don't believe and hope isn't true.

I want to believe that hope IS possible but that we must begin talking to each other. However, if Muslims are unwilling or unable to admit or even discuss the difficult truths of their religion then you are right, there is no point in talking.

Ahhh, I just thought of another possibility. That you are being pressured or intimidated by our Muslim posters to silence me. That statement sounds very grandiose and very much like 007 foolishness. But there is no reason anyone interested in knowing the truth would ever take issue with my assertion without some hidden agenda, IMO. And if you were getting constant complaints from Muslims all the time, I think they might have eventually gotten you to the point where you just capitulate...surrender rather than put up with their naggings.

And especially since I never complain and I never give any of the mods or you any problems. It is easier to just ban abe rather than deal with the complaints.

IF that's the case.

Or else...

One last possibility.

You are a Muslim and I offend your desire to ignore the truth.

But, like I said.

Your sandbox.

[Demonhood]

i don't care one bit about your opinion regarding Muslims. your abe persona was banned from the political lounge. you posting as another user to bypass that is unacceptable. hence this username was also banned. simple as that.

all i was addressing in my post was the manner in which the debate was happening. generalizations were being tossed about, anger levels were rising, it was turning for the worse. you stepping in to assert that your broad generalization was TRUE, and therefore you were going to continue the same method of debate, was not helpful. but really, all it did was alert me to your presence in the political lounge, making it easier for me to kick you out again.

[rickey939]

[tooki]

Sheesh, abe. If you can't make your arguments in an acceptably polite manner, then you will be banned. It's not for the content of the posts, but because of the improper method of presenting your opinions.

tooki

[Railroader]

Why hasn't besson3c been banned for nearly the exact same things? Or SWG for his continual bashing of Christianity?

Seems hypocritical to me.

[Demonhood]

you're completely misunderstanding the issue.
he was banned for bypassing a previous ban (which also had nothing to do with bashing Muslims/Christians/Albinos/etc..).

[besson3c]

I constantly bash races in here... I've developed quite the reputation for being intolerant

[besson3c]

Hey Abe/Aberdeenwriter/Mojo2:

I think "Mojo3" would be a pretty clever disguise for your next nickname, should you decide to reincarnate yourself. Just a suggestion

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

all i was addressing in my post was the manner in which the debate was happening. generalizations were being tossed about, anger levels were rising, it was turning for the worse. you stepping in to assert that your broad generalization was TRUE, and therefore you were going to continue the same method of debate, was not helpful.

I disagree with your opinion about generalisations. Disallowing them disregards the possibility that they may actually be true and thus biases the discussion in favour of those who don't agree with the statement.

What if Abe's generalisations are actually true? How would you have him present that truth without making a generalisation?

Sure, anger levels rise when perceived generalisations are made. That's how it works, and that's how some people argue - this tactic is inherent in all "hot" discussions. For example, here in the UK we cannot now mention "immigration" without getting hammered down by angry folks shouting "racism!", even if the person mentioning immigration is referring to all races. That's the tactic - call something a generalisation and thus prevent discussion of it via political correctness.

Just a heads-up... ...Your board, your rules after all.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Sure, anger levels rise when perceived generalisations are made. That's how it works, and that's how some people argue - this tactic is inherent in all "hot" discussions. For example, here in the UK we cannot now mention "immigration" without getting hammered down by angry folks shouting "racism!", even if the person mentioning immigration is referring to all races. That's the tactic - call something a generalisation and thus prevent discussion of it via political correctness.

I would say the people shouting "racism!" are the ones making the generalization there — that all people who talk about immigration are racists. And that's what Demonhood means when he says it's not productive for the conversation.

[Kevin]

There are "personas" in the PL that are a lot worse than abe that do nothing but make trollish threads to start flames that have never been banned.

That's all I have to say about the matter.

As soon as people accept like I have that MacNN isn't "fair" or "unbalanced" and just get over it the better their forum experience will be.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I've developed quite the reputation for being intolerant

Well besson you are hardly a bastion of tolerance.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I would say the people shouting "racism!" are the ones making the generalization there — that all people who talk about immigration are racists.

Good point. It works both ways so that was probably a bad example... ...since this ain't the PL I was trying to avoid examples using lefties. But hey I've said it now so... ...to argue against a generalisation is a normal leftie argument because hey, we're all different, everything is relative, all the other leftie stuff, etc.. In fact, it's one of the left's most used secret weapons in any argument, used to try to close the conversation down before it gets going.

Stating that a generalisation in invalid simply because it's a generalisation is a classic leftie tactic.

Being subject to around six hours politics per day, I see it all the time. Anyone wishing to maintain impartial arguments needs to recognise that it's a much-used tactic.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There are "personas" in the PL that are a lot worse than abe that do nothing but make trollish threads to start flames that have never been banned.

That's all I have to say about the matter.

My point exactly.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There are "personas" in the PL that are a lot worse than abe that do nothing but make trollish threads to start flames that have never been banned.

I can't think of anyone whose outrageously inflammatory post history even approaches abe's except Monique, and I think she's actually being sincere. (Which is not to say other people don't troll, there's just not the sheer mass of flame-baiting I see.)

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I can't think of anyone whose outrageously inflammatory post history even approaches abe's except Monique, and I think she's actually being sincere. (Which is not to say other people don't troll, there's just not the sheer mass of flame-baiting I see.)

You must have besson3c on ignore.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I can't think of anyone whose outrageously inflammatory post history even approaches abe's except Monique, and I think she's actually being sincere.

What makes you think that Abe isn't being sincere?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy

What makes you think that Abe isn't being sincere?

The fact that he'll actively contradict what he said the day before in order to keep an argument going. I don't think he's always insincere, but he often seems more interested in arguing with certain people than he is in actually coming to any conclusions. That's why I say he trolls.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I can't think of anyone whose outrageously inflammatory post history even approaches abe's except Monique

I am sure you can't

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The fact that he'll actively contradict what he said the day before in order to keep an argument going. I don't think he's always insincere, but he often seems more interested in arguing with certain people than he is in actually coming to any conclusions. That's why I say he trolls.

examples?

Originally Posted by Railroader

You must have besson3c on ignore.

Yeah I've stopped really reporting people anymore.

Looks like I am gonna have to start again.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

i don't care one bit about your opinion regarding Muslims. your abe persona was banned from the political lounge. you posting as another user to bypass that is unacceptable. hence this username was also banned. simple as that.

all i was addressing in my post was the manner in which the debate was happening. generalizations were being tossed about, anger levels were rising, it was turning for the worse. you stepping in to assert that your broad generalization was TRUE, and therefore you were going to continue the same method of debate, was not helpful. but really, all it did was alert me to your presence in the political lounge, making it easier for me to kick you out again.

Originally Posted by Demonhood

you're completely misunderstanding the issue.
he was banned for bypassing a previous ban (which also had nothing to do with bashing Muslims/Christians/Albinos/etc..).

Your answer when I asked you why I was originally banned was an ambiguous, 'we think you need to take a break.' Or something. And, without giving me any more than that to go on what you did was set me up for future bans if I'm only left to guess at what I've done in violation of the rules.

Unless, of course I DIDN'T actually violate the rules at all but only hurt some feelings or egos or got on someone's bad side or they may have disliked my content or someone influenced you that I needed banning and they were the one who used somewhat less than stand-up reasons for the first ban.

But that's all water under the bridge.

The only reason I'm posting back in this "Feedback" thread is because I want to show my appreciation for the principle which so many have come here to try to uphold. Frankly, I was surprised to see that anyone had posted here, including you.

As I said before it's your game and you can and will do as you wish. But if you really believe you are acting fairly and neutrally and without bias toward anyone, I will present these posts for you to make of them what you will.

-----------------------
Anti-Muslims: always missing the point
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...66#post3032166
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Do you recognize the Koran instructs followers to achieve the goal of global expansion and domination and that that is the primary cause behind ALL of the violence in the world involving Muslims?

I'll produce substantiation for my statement.

You refute it with sources.

Let's see what happens.

Whattya say?
-------------------

And as far as I am concerned I do not bring these things up to diss Islam or bash Muslims. I do, however, think that once Muslims are able to discuss their religion openly and honestly with non-Muslims that will be when real progress might start to be made.

It does no good for non-Muslims to cover our ears and close our eyes and zip our lips and hope that the followers of Islam will stop following the Koran. They will silently thank Allah for the ease with which they were able to do His work and continue on.

It does no good for modern or moderate Muslims to pretend that the danger of Islamic global expansion is only a few crazy wackos. We know it is the Koran which inspires their actions. Before and after every terrorist attack they cry out the name of Allah and cite scripture. There are Islamic scholars and former Muslims and even some practicing Muslims who point to a common message, that there is a global agenda. And in every war in history it was only a small fraction of the population who decided the contest.

Even though there may be a billion Muslims on Earth no one really expects all 1,000,000,000 to take up arms in any potential fatwa. But as Muslims it WOULD be their duty to answer the call as best they could.

However, short of that it is a small fraction of the highly committed and highly motivated who would wage a war. And in this war we have seen that every suicide terrorist kills many people and so you do the math. 19 hijackers killed more than 3,000. The average suicide bomber in Iraq kills what, 10 -20 people?

And after killing "only" 2,500 Americans in three years time the insurgent/terrorists have so influenced American public opinion that the President of the United States has been forced to apply pressure to the fledgling Iraqi government's President Malicki to step up their efforts to take on a greater share of the fighting more quickly. And though there is nothing wrong with this as long as they aren't allowed to fail so we can cut and run, the fact is that a small force of committed jihadists are absolutely able to influence the outcome of a war against the most powerful military force on Earth.

If you doubt it maybe you need to educate yourself as to the nature of war and the ratio of fighters to the population in past wars.
__________________

What do you think is the cause of all* of the violence Muslims are engaged in with non-Muslims around the world?

* Feel free to substitute the words: 'any,' 'every instance,' 'some,' 'most' and etc.
__________________


I would suggest that by examining the major flash points around the world where Muslims are involved in violent clashes with non-Muslims a surprising truth might arise.

It is hard to have a substantive debate if people jump to the conclusion that someone is over generalizing without looking at the facts.

We may not like the facts. We may wish they weren't so. But it's time to call a spade a spade.

Prove my assertion incorrect.

And to give you some point of comparison here is a similar statement which is as much a generalization based on what I believe to be true as the previous statements I made and there has been no uproar and no hints that anything was of an improper nature.

The Marijuana Conspiracy

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lounge/300418/the-marijuana-conspiracy/

Show me an intoxicating substance which enhances brain function and increases someone's ability to perform physical or mental tasks better than without the substance and which has no deleterious health or mood or behavioral affects and I'll agree that that substance should be made legal.

If you call this inflammatory then I guess I should go to Wikipedia and introduce a new definition. And while I'm re-defining inflammatory maybe you could go to the Wikipedia page for "invitation to engage in an exchange of ideas" and re-define it.

Because that all I thought I was doing. And I thought that's what WAS allowed here.

Does it remain true, that you encourage exchanges of ideas in a civil manner, such as I've evidenced here?

Or have you felt the "Islamic influence?"

[aberdeenwriter]

And, by the way thanks to all of you who came to visit. Even those who came to 'bury' me. At least you care! That says something. And I hope to be able to 'rough you up' in the P/L again very soon!

[aberdeenwriter]

Here's something from an Islamic website.

Impartial Search For Truth, Avoiding Bias And Observing The Accepted Ethics Of Debate
Shaykh Saleh Abdullah bin Humaid

Islamic Principles and Rules of Debate
© Al-Manara 1994

What ensures a straightforward and fruitful debate is a resolute search for truth, not allowing one's own desires or the public's to take control. A sensible person, Muslim or non-Muslim, is expected to seek truth and to avoid error sincerely.

Most of the well-known Muslim scholars were very careful in this regard. Al-Imam al-Shafi`i, for instance, used to say: "I never talked with someone but sincerely wished that Allah keep him, protect him from sin and misdeed and guide him; and I never debated with someone but sincerely wished that we would come upon truth, regardless of whether he or I should be the one to think of it first."

Abu Hamed al-Ghazali says also in this connection: "Cooperation in seeking truth is inherent to religion, but sincerity in the pursuit of truth can be distinguished by certain conditions and signs. A diligent seeker of truth may be compared to one who is looking for his lost camel. It would be immaterial for him if he or another person should be the one to find it. Likewise, a sincere truth-seeker would perceive his partner as a helper rather than an adversary, and would be grateful to him if he should guide him to truth."

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=574

[aberdeenwriter]

This article, directed at Muslims new to the West, instructs them to RESIST assimilation. And we all know that assimilation is a key to preventing religious violence.

It advises Muslims that non-Islamic governments are bad. Rather than learning to speak English or the language of the new nation where the immigrant lives, they are advised that Arabic must be the first language.

Muslim education is ok except when you realize what is in the Koran. And when he talks about being apart from and not trusting kuffars and instructing newbies to be disloyal to kuffars, it is kuffars who kept the Serbs from ethnically cleansing the Bosnian Muslims off the map.

Kuffar
9 up, 2 down
Also spelled 'kafir' or 'kaffir', Kuffar is a highly derogatory Arabic term used to refer to non-Muslims, though it is usually directed less against "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews) and more against others (Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, etc).

Separate laws govern Muslims and kuffars in an Islamic state with kuffars being viciously suppressed. For example: the blood payment to the family of a murdered Muslim man in Saudi Arabia is 1,000,000 Riyals; the payment to the family of a murdered Hindu woman is 3,333 Riyals.

Against kuffars make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike terror into the (hearts of) the Enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside, whom you may not know, but whom Allah does know. Whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid to you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. (Qur'an: 8:60)

Now, if immigrants come to America and act like this and adopt these attitudes and ways of thinking and acting and being, how much assimilation do you imagine there would be? How much resentment might one day erupt, from one segment of society toward the other?

And where ISN'T this same formula being employed when it comes to Muslims?

And that is what's behind my statement which you call a generalization.

But if you need more proof, I'll keep searching.

www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=188

Priorities of Islamic Activities in the West
Shaykh `Abdul Rahman `Abdul Khaliq

Priorities of Islamic Activities in the West
© Dar Ihyaa at-Turath

Muslim minorities in the West need urgent help to preserve their identity, religion and their very existence. To achieve this, Muslims must:

1 -- Re-establish unity in this nation all over the world. Muslims must be loyal to other Muslims and disloyal to all Kuffar. This unity must be implemented by deed and not only by tongue.

2 -- Affirm the basic belief that Muslims are members of the best nation ever that was introduced to humanity. Affirm the correct Islamic beliefs that will make Muslims feel pride in their religion and feel the sweetness of Iman in their hearts. This can be accomplished by teaching the correct belief end knowing the ways of the Kuffar, to avoid them. Muslims must feel the great bounty of Allah that He guided them to the correct religion. Religion must be understood and believed in. Muslims must study Christian beliefs. The struggle between Islam and Christianity will last till the end of time. Muslims must also preserve the Islamic code of dress, Islamic foods and marry Muslim women and, if they wish, only pure and good Christian women.

3 -- Arabic must be the first language for all Muslims again. Learning Arabic during childhood and giving it its due place in the religion is a must. Arabic is a necessity of Islam that must be preserved.

4 -- Muslims must Perform Da'wah (propagate Islam) wherever they me be, (Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining righteousness and forbidding evil. And it is those who are the successful.) [3: 104].Religion must be held to be the reason behind our existence,

(And I (Allah) created not the Jinn and mankind except they should worship Me (Alone).) [51:56].

5 -- Ahlu As-Sunnah Wa Al-Jama'ah and the way and understanding of the companions are what Muslims should call for. Muslims should warn of all misguided groups and define the one righteous group. To fight against misguided groups and off-shoot sects is a necessity. This means that Muslims will fight against all five major misguided groups who have corrupt beliefs: Al-Khawarij, Shiites, Al-Jahmiyah, Al-Qadariyah and Al-Murji'ah.

6 -- Muslims of the West must be united in every matter. They must call to Islam and preserve their loyalty to Muslims and be disloyal to the disbelievers. Arabic must be their first language. Muslims should seek to socialize with, marry from and meet other Muslims in lectures, mosques, universities, picnics and general activities. Muslims must not be isolated from other Muslims.

7 -- Muslims must be concerned with Islamic education for their children from primary to secondary education.Muslims must establish Islamic schools that will preserve and teach Islam to their children in their first years. The first years of life are what will shape the beliefs and ways of later years.

8 -- Muslims must seek to preserve Muslim presence in Eastern Europe and strengthen this presence. Muslims in Albania and Bosnia must be provided with material help so they can defend themselves. Muslims must also help Muslims of Eastern Europe using all means possible. Also, Muslims everywhere must seek to protect the religious, educational and social rights of Muslim minorities in the West. Muslims of the West must not be prevented from practicing and propagating Islam, the true religion.

9 -- A higher authority for the benefit of Muslim immigrants must be established to protect the rights of Muslim minorities. This authority will coordinate between all Islamic organizations that operate in the West. Coordination will benefit and organize the activities of Islamic organizations and will provide them with vital and firsthand information about needs and the situation of Muslim minorities.

10 -- Establish committees composed of Muslim scholars that will teach the religion to Muslim immigrants and solve their problems according to the Qur’an and the Sunnah. These committees will have firsthand knowledge of the situation of Muslims and provide answers to their problems. These solutions will seek to preserve the religion, identity and existence of Muslim immigrants.

11 -- Establish a sound economic system that will benefit Muslim immigrants in the West. This economic system will provide an honorable life and financial independence for Muslims. This is better than the way that many Muslims of the West live, by seeking the help of the Kafir government or engaging in usury, prostitution, gambling or dishonorable acts.

Articles
• Illuminating the Way: Priorities in Calling to the Message by Abu `Abdil Kareem
• The Necessity of Putting the Fundamentals in Order by Shaykh Salman al-`Awdah

Audio Lectures
• The Principles of Da`wah by Dr. Ali Al-Timimi
• Islamic Education and Establishing Islam in the West by Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips

All From This Author
• Shaykh `Abdul Rahman `Abdul Khaliq

More From This Section
• Challenges

 

[aberdeenwriter]

And while we've seen that the Islamic position on exchange of ideas supports my expressions here is what the Supreme Court says about unpopular speech.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment", the decision of the court read, "it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

So, whoever it was who influenced you to remove my voice from the forum wasn't abiding by the principles of Islam. They weren't guided by the principles of the US Constituation.

And I increasingly believe it was not your primary decision to have me banned in the first place, nor did you come upon my recent statement which you categorized as a 'generalization,' on your own. I think you were alerted to my post by someone (for their own secretive, mean spirited, desperate or ignoble reasons) who don't want me to share my ideas in this forum.

Demonhood, take notice of who brought this to your attention. Then ask yourself, "why would they do this?"

As you are well aware there are people who play the system and as the one who is at the heart of this system called MacNN, the people who play the system are only able to do so if they are able to convince you that they are impartial and acting fairly.

And if they are able to deceive you into believing this, they aren't just playing the system...

Demonhood, they are playing you.

And as offensive as my posts might be, I've ALWAYS played straight with you.

So, now I'll go back to my search for information.

[Demonhood]

you continually defend your muslim comments, even after i said that i don't care. either you are forgetful, illiterate, or hoping to gain support by changing the subject. one last time: you were violating a ban.
my comment regarding generalizations and that thread had to do with the direction it was headed. i didn't single you out for anything but your "Prove my assertion incorrect." statement. which, i might add, you've conveniently ignored. the tactic of making a statement and then putting the onus of proof on someone to disprove something you never proved in the first place, is a rather irritating practice. half the time the other users will not spend the time looking up links, enabling the initial poster to claim victory. the rest of the time they'll post their own links, only to be dismissed, as the original poster had no intention of being receptive to views/facts they weren't already supporting. this happens on both sides of contentious issues.

if you see a violation on the forums, report it. if you get banned/warned, don't respond with "but so & so is so much worse!!!1!!" if that's all you can do to defend yourself, you'll not get far.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

you continually defend your muslim comments, even after i said that i don't care. either you are forgetful, illiterate, or hoping to gain support by changing the subject. one last time: you were violating a ban.
my comment regarding generalizations and that thread had to do with the direction it was headed. i didn't single you out for anything but your "Prove my assertion incorrect." statement. which, i might add, you've conveniently ignored. the tactic of making a statement and then putting the onus of proof on someone to disprove something you never proved in the first place, is a rather irritating practice. half the time the other users will not spend the time looking up links, enabling the initial poster to claim victory. the rest of the time they'll post their own links, only to be dismissed, as the original poster had no intention of being receptive to views/facts they weren't already supporting. this happens on both sides of contentious issues.

if you see a violation on the forums, report it. if you get banned/warned, don't respond with "but so & so is so much worse!!!1!!" if that's all you can do to defend yourself, you'll not get far.

Yes, you are right and that's why I don't resort to such forms of "defense."

By your reply I can see that the matter of my banning is only slightly more than just one of many to you, which may explain your misattributing the, "but so & so is so much worse" defense to me.

That is what others might do. I have not and probably will not.

So, please think of my particular case. And to what you have rightly pointed out is at the heart of this matter.

When you originally banned "abe" you never gave me much reason, though I'll concede you need not provide me any reason for doing what you choose to do with your forum, at all. However, since you have twice referred to my original ban and my bypassing that ban as the cause for this recent action, I would like to address the original 'offense,' (assuming there was one).

Please tell me specifically why was I originally banned?

Without this knowledge it will be impossible for me to self manage my expressions such that I might avoid your future disciplinary attentions.

The only reason you would deny me this information is if the decision was made capriciously or if revealing this information would cause you embarrassment. However, I would like to believe neither is true and so there must have been some rule I broke or some thing you can point to that I should avoid in the future to remain a P/L poster in good standing.

If you'd be so kind as to share this information with me I will exercise the greatest care not to offend in such a manner again, and I'll be able to stop taking up your time and space in this pursuit.

Thanks.

abe

[Demonhood]

the rest of this can be handled via pm. no need for a thread.