Under politics - military strikes thread
"Are nukes still an option? "
Moderators i find this post highly offensive. What is CFIs policy on speech that advocates mass murder?
I said this in the thread too… Unless you have a clear reason as to why you are offended. Saying “I’m offended” isn’t a clear reason. Please state how and why you are offended by the statement, because the statement doesn’t say if it is for or against nukes.
I already explained. Its advocating the final solution - a nuclear strike. Pro speech for genocide
I did not see that in the post. I did read sarcasm and a question, but nothiner pro or against. It seems to me that you are reading more into it then was said.
So Moderators here are ok with talk of genocide as a trival. normalised matter.
How would they respond to someone raising the question on whether the USA should be nuked to resolve their political differences
No one is talking about it as trivial or normalizing it. I have no clue as to how you got that out of that post.
You didnt respond to the question
How would they respond to someone raising the question on whether the USA should be nuked to resolve their political differences?
Yes, you did. You said “I’m offended!” That is responding and you read more into it than was said, without asking questions.
So Moderators here are ok with talk of genocide as a trival. normalised matter. --mgIf 3 generations in several countries did not support their governments in creating nuclear weapons, then I could see this as offensive. We discuss world issues in this forum. That includes sending drones to small villages in poor countries, sending our young people to die for our safety, allowing polluters to harm unknown numbers of people indiscriminately, and many other controversial topics. Our representatives vote for these measures. Your tax dollars go to support them. I can't make a rule about this that could somehow be applied to a hundred other topics.
You are asking me to take a political position. To you it’s genocide. I stood with a million other people in Central Park against Ronald Reagan, so I agree 100%. But if I took this position, then you would be telling me that I could sanction you for some other political position. This forum would be an echo chamber for me. My mother would be the only member.
You provide disjointed and unresolved conversations. You are very frustrating to talk to
BTW, I found some help with using the forum. I saved this under the “CFI Forums Feedback” sub-forum too.
You provide disjointed and unresolved conversations. You are very frustrating to talk to -- mgSorry you're not happy. I do tend to ramble on sometimes, but I thought my story was relevant. Can you explain a way that I could make a ruling on someone who is pro-nuclear weapons and also make a ruling on someone who is pro-abortion or who is for highly restrictive border protection or who is for something practiced in a more than one Muslim country but generally not acceptable here in the US?
I’m looking for some consistent criteria that I could formulate into a rule.
Here are examples from the rules (I did not write them):
To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not. Since they risk degenerating into flame wars, abusive forum threads or posts are subject to immediate editing or deletion.Threads and posts are not allowed that in the opinion of Moderators are impolite, vulgar, nasty, uncivil, or otherwise disruptive to the good functioning of the either the Forum or to CFI’s mission. Free inquiry is only possible if we maintain civility. Abuse of forum members will not be permitted. In particular, abuse of Moderators for performing their responsibilities will not be permitted. What constitutes abuse will be determined by Moderators on a case-by-case basis, however in general it amounts to any racist, sexist, homo-sexist, threatening, harassing, or other personally offensive, vulgar or derogatory comments. Abuse would include so-called hate speech and fighting words.
and also make a ruling on someone who is pro-abortion
Hey! It’s pro-choice and you can’t make such a rule without another mod to break the tie, because it could be one for the rule and one against. lol
Seriously though, part of CFI is debating the issues and sometimes it does get heated. If you offend easily with simple statements as "Are nukes still an option?” Then maybe you shouldn’t be in the discussion. It was just a question, maybe even mixed with sarcasm. The author wasn’t suggesting that nukes are an option. If you had asked, instead of taking offence then you’d know this. That is called discussion.
Serious or lighthearted conversations about genocide which is what a nuclear strike means should not be permitted or at least policed.
You wont want the Jews to know there is an appetite for said talk on this platform.
OK next you’re going to get bent about serious or lighthearted discussions about abortion, calling it genocide. rolling eyes The comment about nukes wasn’t about genocide and policing comments about nukes isn’t going to happen. That said, would you actually police a discussion concerning Smallpox blankets, the Trail of Tears, and Wounded Knee? That was genocide. The U.S.'s genocide campaign that rivaled Hitler’s and Stalin’s. Would you get this bent if the commenter sarcastically said, “Blankets infected with smallpox/forced relocation/masacre is an option?” Another genocide committed by the U.S. “Enslaving others is an option?” Of course it’s not an option, but sadly it’s been done. Why was this particular sarcastic statement more upsetting to you? Where does it all end? When there is no more discussion about anything? As I said before, it seems to me someone is getting offended about something all the time. The fact is these things have happened and they will come up in discussion. The line is drawn with abusive wording, racism, sexism, arguing with mods after a decision has been made, but not drawn because one person gets offended.
Analogy with abortion is a poor one. We are talkng about the annihilation of a country from a single action.
It wasn’t an analogy. I was trying to come up with a rule that covers a set, not just some specific thing that one person finds offensive. The set of things we are talking about, in the broadest terms is; things humans have done in the past and still could do.
I would draw the line at things that are universally, or nearly so, banned and considered vulgar, like child porn or beastiality or medieval torture. Nuclear weapons are still an option however, maintained by several countries. It’s sad, but it’s reality.
I agree with Lausten.
Nuclear weapons never an option unless you consider genocide is not a crime against humanity.