It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crossing Moral Boundaries on ATS : Promoting and Excusing Murder, Torture and War Crimes

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Prior to becoming a staff member, I had a few of these threads myself.

This was one that I authored on the racism towards immigrants in the United States that I felt was unjust and improper for this board.

It is no secret that the terms and conditions of use govern these boards, not the opinions of it's members, staff, administration, or owners. Under the terms and conditions, members are protected to voice their opinions. We do not tolerate members abusing one another, but we do allow members to voice their opinion. Some of these opinions that are being expressed may not be widely accepted or politically correct. But if they are not violating the terms and conditions, they will stand.

The death of an innocent child is something that will invoke excessive knee-jerk reactions from all involved. Some express sympathy while others do not. In these varying responses, we'll see members looking at one another trying to figure out how they could believe something let alone speak publicly about it.

But "ignorance" is not against the terms and conditions.

We do not seek to silence ignorance based on the fact that it is ignorance. We seek to deny that ignorance with logic and above average intelligence through positive discussion. That is what we do and that is how we think.

With that said, if you see something that you feel deserves the attention of the staff; please submit a formal complaint. The staff will review it and if action is necessary, it will be taken.

But we do not take action on posts that are ignorant. Opinions of all side are welcomed.

The "moral boundaries" listed in the title, who owns these moral boundaries? What is a boundary for myself may not be for you, another staff person, or the owners. So how would we moderate these boards based on moral boundaries? It would be way too subjective and an absolute nightmare.

Which is why the terms and conditions of use is the end all be all.




posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


I can understand your amazement about the reactions is some topics.

But i do think it is importand to keep n open discussion about all these subjects.

Without an other side to the argument there is now discussion.

Some of the statements are realy bad in my opinion, but every one has a right to his own.

I have not seen any one break a law, as far as i seen, and i am sure if some one does they get moderated.

And Morals, every one has different ones, i can not force mine onto any one, even rude or voilent people.

In the case of the 10 year old girl, i get deeply disturbed by people justifying her killing, but what right do i have to shut these peoples opinions down.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Holygamer
 


I don't agree. I think this is a good thread since it summarizes a phenomenon that we have all seen and can be found in several threads at the moment. Ironically though, this thread will also get posters who condone torture and the killing of innocents.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
ATS has in its T&C the minimum of morality and that's how its should be, because, this is necessary to secure broad and fluent discussions and because, moral boundaries vary from person to person.

You apparently have a problem with some of ATS member's posts and views. Because we have an open discussion, it does not matter, if what they are contributing to a discussion thread is useful information, BS or personal opinion. If you do not agree with the poster you can always challenge him to an open debate, where you and him/her will present and defend your cases in orderly fashion in front of seasoned judges. That's why we have The Debate Forum.


On more personal note:
Does anybody remember the epic battles of Souljah vs. "The ATS Patriot Brigade"? Now those were some nasty (but great) discussions. What I find interesting is that complaints and threads like this were then made mostly by simmilar members that OP has a problem with.

And the circle is complete.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 



Originally posted by marg6043
Now jsobecky what you posted is part of our constitutional rights in this nation so don't even get me started


Really, marg? Which part of the constitution gives you the right to shoot gov't officials if you disagree with their policies? And which part gives you blanket approval to carry firearms to a protest in Washington, D.C.?



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I never said in my post anything about shooting anybody, please tell me where does it say that.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I never said in my post anything about shooting anybody, please tell me where does it say that.



No, but *I* did, and you objected to it.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Crossing Moral Boundaries on ATS : Promoting and Excusing Murder, Torture and War Crimes



Please stay on topic guys.

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by goatboy
 



I indeed did replied to the orgiginal thread quiet angry but guess what the full post got deleted ..


Too much of the truth really pisses people off ..


Your post was deleted because you decided to express yourself in a way that was offensive to the entire membership of this forum.

In case you're not sure why, let me elaborate it for you and make it real easy. It is not your right to post that "all you fat lazy americans should kill yourselves, it would be doing us a favor".

Such a hideous statement will not be tolerated by anyone, regardless of who is saying it and regardless of who it is directed at. There is nothing further to discuss about it. Whatever your topic was, it was completely lost due to your inability to discuss things in a civil manner. That is why your post was deleted and that is why future posts of that nature will be deleted as well. I hope I've made this very clear.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The mod's concern is how posters treat each other. So here's a question... How do you respond to someone crying for genocide, rampant murder, ethnic cleansing, justifying the murder of innocents... without coming across as "rude"?

"Why my good sir, even though you are justifying the death of children and are, in fact, wishing for more as you say, "dead ragheads so we can win" I must say I find your opinion to be lacking in merit. GOod day to you sir"



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Translation:
I don't like what those who disagree with me have to say so, they shouldn't be allowed to say it.

Fancy dress, but that's the argument.


Yeah ok.

I said my part. You people are choosing to interpret it as a call for censorship. That's fine.

If you want to allow political smut to run rabid on a conspiracy forum : again, that's fine. I am not a moderator or a staff member.

Just keep in mind that the kind of posts mentioned in my OP are made not by one person, but a group of individuals who are NOT HERE TO DISCUSS CONSPIRACY. They involve themselves EXCLUSIVELY in political threads to push an agenda, constantly promoting the war in Iraq, constantly excusing war crimes etc.

They are trolls. They bait the politically sane ATS members into drawn out arguments about the war in general - they are political tools who add nothing to this site except pro-war , pro-death agenda.

Enjoy. They are a neat demographic


[edit on 14-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



How do you respond to someone crying for genocide, rampant murder, ethnic cleansing, justifying the murder of innocents... without coming across as "rude"?


Fair question... In my opinion the answer is prove him wrong. Attack his point, his opinion. That behavior is encouraged... I've been here more than 5 years and have seen people perfectly able to do that without resorting to personal attacks on a member or group of members. Certainly without telling multiple members to kill themselves...



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


When you opened a thread last week on people having to zip their lips, thats not censorship at all then?



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Djarums
 


And then I look at the post that got NewWorldOver a warning... and I look at a few of the warnings I've received... And I can't help but wonder, what is the precise standard?



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
When you opened a thread last week on people having to zip their lips, thats not censorship at all then?


How am I capable of censoring people? I'm just a normal member...

That thread was about pro-military and pro-government posters turning threads into personal battles... taking topics involving the military to a personal level in order to discredit or disrupt threads.

How am I calling for censorship?

I've had enough of these accusations. Once again, I've said my part. Not once did I mention censorship in either thread.

/retire



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I said my part. You people are choosing to interpret it as a call for censorship. That's fine.


Actually, that's exactly what you did. You tried to define what was acceptable terms of speech, something going beyond the minimal morality of the T&C, because you were "appalled" by someone else's opinion. You attempted to restrict speech and opinions to your own very narrow definition.

You immediately defined the death of the little girl as murder and an illegal act. You then defined anyone who disagreed as advocating murder and illegal acts. In doing so, you made an argument that there was no room for debate over whether it was an illegal act or an accident or an unforunate tragedy of war; you then essentially said that anyone who disagreed should be banned/censored/etc. That is a call for censorship; you wanted no discussion, no debate, you wanted an echo-chamber.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Actually, that's exactly what you did. You attempted to restrict speech and opinions to your own very narrow definition.


That is a lie.

Show me a single line where I called to restrict speech. Show me a single line where I called for censorship of ANY statement...

Show me.

Or you can keep resorting to desperation and unfounded accusations.

I already know your choice.


Political smut. That's all this is.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
If you want to allow political smut to run rabid on a conspiracy forum : again, that's fine.

Just keep in mind that the kind of posts mentioned in my OP are made not by one person, but a group of individuals who are NOT HERE TO DISCUSS CONSPIRACY. They involve themselves EXCLUSIVELY in political threads to push an agenda, constantly promoting the war in Iraq, constantly excusing war crimes etc.

They are trolls. They bait the politically sane ATS members into drawn out arguments about the war in general - they are political tools who add nothing to this site except pro-war , pro-death agenda.


This is why we call it censorship.

You believe that no one is allowed to have an honest disagreement with you. You believe that no one should be allowed to believe the War in Iraq is justified, or to support the ongoing occupation/struggle. You've said it with your own words -- they are trolls, political-tolls, etc.

And thus, you think they should be banned, their views restricted because they have a disagreement with you.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


You want me to show you the title of your last thread in this Forum? It was "people should zip their lips".

Enough said.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I think the main thing to keep in mind here is that there are always going to be different opinions on things and different interpretations as well.

This does not change when discussing topics that bring about a lot of emotion, in fact if anything it makes it worse.

The best thing that we can do as members is to do our best to keep it from getting personal. I may find something you say utterly appalling, however for me to attack YOU for it would be wrong. The proper reaction would be for me to attack what you said.

Now, I know there will be some occasions where you feel a staff member has been a bit overly zealous in a warning and that's why we have the complaint button. The point of that is for the member who feels like he was wronged to submit why and for the senior members of staff to be able to review the incident. The staff does the best job they can in resolving such issues and to be quite honest with you considering the amount of members and the amount of posts I think the amount of incidents like that is pretty small...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join