Thought police

[nutronjon]

There are some people here who appear to believe they are authorized thought police, and it is their job to put down all those who have a thought of which they, the thought police, do not approve. Their defense is, that because this is a science forum, being insulting to those who hold a thought of which the thought police do not approve, is a good and defensible thing. Yet when I said something about someone's head being trapped in a box, I was given a warning for making a personal attack. This leads me to believe those who have long term, established relationships in these forums will be protected from those who do not, not because of rules, but because of relationships. I consider this an injustice. I believe the rules should apply to everyone equally, and I love what this has to do with democracy.

 

I think there are excellent reasons for having rules. If I read someone's insult to another person, I feel uncomfortable, and if the only thing I get from the insulting post, is that person doesn't approve of what the other said, then the insulting person is just being insulting, and is not making a logical argument. If a logic argument were made, I would learn something besides one person doesn't like what another person said. I would learn why what was said is not the agreed truth. It doesn't matter that is a science forum, being insulting, instead of making a logical and informative argument is a violation of rules. Good manners are more important then good laws. Liberty depends to a large degree on this understanding. Our knowledge of truth, and our rule by reason, depends to a large degree on this understanding.

 

This is the theology forum. Usually in theology forums I am arguing religious beliefs are based on superstition and myth, and self serving ideas. I think many of us do this because of our knowledge of history, and the terrible things done in the name of God, by superstitious and ignorant people. But now it is the people with knowledge of science who are doing the persecuting, and who are silencing people, and who are making ideas taboo. They are not doing so by making logical and informative arguments, but by insulting people, and ganging up against the person who dares not conform to their approved thoughts. There is a serious difference, between social attacks and logical arguments, and those who make social attacks instead of logical arguments, are not as superior as we like to think we are. They are as human and faulted as the religious people who also have tried to be thought police.

 

Arguments need to contain information. If a person is ignoring the information and still arguing, it is extremely frustrating to the person providing information. I have recently experienced this and did break down with insults, instead of making logical argument for why believing God exist is not equal to belieing in the tooth fairy, when we understanding Cicero and the ancient Greek philosophy about reason controlling the universe. However, when someone is ignoring information, we should follow the advice to not argue with ignorance. Keeping in mind the word ignore, is the cause of ignorance, therefore nothing we say will change the condition of ignorance. I think we all tend to ignore information to protect our own beliefs, including those who are very proud of knowing something of science, and act as though they have the unquestioned right to be thought police, because the main focus of these forums is science.

[InfiniteNow]

But are you not here trying to be a "thought police" on the way OTHERS think and respond? Beware the mirror.

[freeztar]

I'm sorry you feel that way Nutron.

 

Can you point out some specific examples of where the staff of this forum have acted as "thought police"?

[Nitack]

But are you not here trying to be a "thought police" on the way OTHERS think and respond? Beware the mirror.

 

touché :hihi:

[nutronjon]

I'm sorry you feel that way Nutron.

 

Can you point out some specific examples of where the staff of this forum have acted as "thought police"?

 

I do not know who is staff and who is not. My knowledge is limited to the intolerance, expressed in insults, and knowing when this happens, there is not an informative argument.

 

I know this intolerance expressed as insults, has been justified by saying these are science forums, and that the problem has arisen in the theology forum, where thoughts should not be limited to scientific opinions, by the very rules for this forum, which includes the discussion of reason of which I speak.

 

I could be wrong, but I believe relationships are influencing judgements.

 

What I have said are cognitive thoughts, 2+2=4, not a feeling. To clarify, (1) an insult is not an informative argument.

 

(2) Theology is not limited to scientific informative.

 

(3) Relationships are influencing judgements.

 

The subject of my argument is a great way to enter a discussion of democracy and talking about liberty and freedom.

 

And in response to Infinite's question, what subject of thought do you accuse me of policing? Being insulting is a behavior, not a subject of thought. God is a subject of thought, not a behavior.

[freeztar]

I do not know who is staff and who is not.

 

Staff members all have a symbol to the right of their user name in any post. Most of us also announce our staff-ism by saying things such as "Hypography Forum Moderator" as a part of our signatures.

 

My knowledge is limited to the intolerance, expressed in insults, and knowing when this happens, there is not an informative argument.

 

An "informative argument" is subjective.

If you sincerely feel that there is intolerance at play, please contact any mod or admin.

 

I know this intolerance expressed as insults, has been justified by saying these are science forums, and that the problem has arisen in the theology forum, where thoughts should not be limited to scientific opinions, by the very rules for this forum, which includes the discussion of reason of which I speak.

 

I don't know what to tell you NJ. :(

This *is* a science forum. Your plea is similar to a call for religious freedom.

I could be wrong, but I believe relationships are influencing judgements.

Can you clarify and substantiate this claim?

 

The subject of my argument is a great way to enter a discussion of democracy and talking about liberty and freedom.

How so?

[nutronjon]

The subject of my argument is a great way to enter a discussion of democracy and talking about liberty and freedom.

 

How so?

 

Ideally democracy is rule by reason, rather than rule by the powerful over the subjects of those in power.

 

Originally, the people of Athens thought it was the immortals who made things happen. That is, they believed in supernatural beings, who argued among themselves like humans do, and made things happen, depending on their feelings. Christianity picks this up, only instead of several God it has only one God who rules by whim, depending on his feelings of anger or pleasure with a person. When the people believed in these Gods, they had kings and slaves, and thought it only natural to live by brute force, with the most powerful ruling over the weaker.

 

Then comes Pythagoras and Socrates and other such thinkers who conclude, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are controlled by reason. From this, the idea of democracy springs. It begins with believing the gods argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning, and democracy is in imitation of this new idea of the gods. The new idea progressed to a more scientific idea about why things are as they are, and eventually the belief in the gods was dropped, but Socrates is killed before people drop their superstitious notions. That the people of Athens turned on him in such a way, really distressed him. Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and the democracy. No man knew the failure of that democracy better, than the man who died because of democracy gone bad.

 

Essential to democracy is to understand the reason of things, why things are as they are. It means learning bacteria and viruses make people sick and cause disease and infections, not a punishing god or Satan or witch. It means learning people do evil things under certain conditions and how to prevent these conditions. It means the ability to govern ourselves with reason, the knowledge of why things are as they are and how to make them better.

 

Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we please, or say whatever we want, anywhere we please, whenever we please. To do so would be immoral, as order would be destroyed and bad things would happen. Liberty means the freedom to decide what is right and the freedom to act on that decision, and other side of liberty is accountability. Part of this liberty means being safe from insults, so we can speak our minds without fear of being someone destroying our dignity and honor. Good manners are more important than good laws, because laws can only restrict our freedom, and with good manners, makes authority over the people is unnecessary. So we don't insult people, and silence them with fear of being ridiculed and humilitated.

 

Now when people are safe to speak, their reasoning may be in error, and than it is a good thing to correct the reasoning, but telling someone what s/he thinks is ludicrous or equal to believing in unicorns and the tooth fairy, is insulting, and not corrective reasoning. The better reasoning is not existent in the insult. Now follow this with people in positions of power, such as the moderators have, defending someone who is attacking and insulting, and warning the person who reacts to being offend, and the threat of banning people who are deemed offensive by moderators, and liberty is lost. With lost liberty, the ability to discuss truth is lost. When the ability to discuss truth is lost, you have democracy gone bad.

 

In the past it was religious people who caused a problem and today it is those with knowledge of science who are causing the problem, and this is what happened in Germany and gave rise to the NAZI. Scientist without God, did terrible things to achieve their goals. The decision to exclude God from science, drove religious people to act without reason, and those with reason to act without good moral judgement. What happened was very ugly and the US is poised to repeat this history.

 

In several days, we are no closer to understanding God as reason, as Cicero and Jefferson understood God. This concept of God is nothing like believing in unicorns and the tooth fairy, but is compatible with science. Ideally democracy is rule by reason, and another word for that is God. The person who wrote the rules for this forum, seemed who hold an understand of this, but no one posting appears to have such an understanding. Human laws not based in higher reasoning are not worthy of self governing people. Our democracy is a mess, because that is no longer understood. We can't even have a discussion that could lead to that understanding, with people who prevent such a discussion from happening with insults, and then warnings. with the possibility of a disliked person being banned, without the protection of a trail and jury of peers. We have returned to rule by power, which is not rule by reason. We understand owner's rights, but not democracy as rule by reason and the role God plays in this.

[freeztar]

The subject of my argument is a great way to enter a discussion of democracy and talking about liberty and freedom.

 

How so?

 

Ideally democracy is rule by reason, rather than rule by the powerful over the subjects of those in power.

 

Democracy is when everyone has an equal voice. Hypography, fortunately, is not a democracy (neither is Science).

 

Originally, the people of Athens thought it was the immortals who made things happen. That is, they believed in supernatural beings, who argued among themselves like humans do, and made things happen, depending on their feelings. Christianity picks this up, only instead of several God it has only one God who rules by whim, depending on his feelings of anger or pleasure with a person. When the people believed in these Gods, they had kings and slaves, and thought it only natural to live by brute force, with the most powerful ruling over the weaker.

 

Then comes Pythagoras and Socrates and other such thinkers who conclude, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are controlled by reason. From this, the idea of democracy springs. It begins with believing the gods argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning, and democracy is in imitation of this new idea of the gods. The new idea progressed to a more scientific idea about why things are as they are, and eventually the belief in the gods was dropped, but Socrates is killed before people drop their superstitious notions. That the people of Athens turned on him in such a way, really distressed him. Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and the democracy. No man knew the failure of that democracy better, than the man who died because of democracy gone bad.

 

Reason did not die with Socrates. It lives on!

 

Essential to democracy is to understand the reason of things, why things are as they are. It means learning bacteria and viruses make people sick and cause disease and infections, not a punishing god or Satan or witch. It means learning people do evil things under certain conditions and how to prevent these conditions. It means the ability to govern ourselves with reason, the knowledge of why things are as they are and how to make them better.

Ok, I agree with this.

 

Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we please, or say whatever we want, anywhere we please, whenever we please. To do so would be immoral, as order would be destroyed and bad things would happen. Liberty means the freedom to decide what is right and the freedom to act on that decision, and other side of liberty is accountability. Part of this liberty means being safe from insults, so we can speak our minds without fear of being someone destroying our dignity and honor. Good manners are more important than good laws, because laws can only restrict our freedom, and with good manners, makes authority over the people is unnecessary. So we don't insult people, and silence them with fear of being ridiculed and humilitated.

I would suggest aboloshing fear first. It's the biggest obstacle to obtaining reason, and subsequentially freedom.

 

Now when people are safe to speak, their reasoning may be in error, and than it is a good thing to correct the reasoning, but telling someone what s/he thinks is ludicrous or equal to believing in unicorns and the tooth fairy, is insulting, and not corrective reasoning. The better reasoning is not existent in the insult. Now follow this with people in positions of power, such as the moderators have, defending someone who is attacking and insulting, and warning the person who reacts to being offend, and the threat of banning people who are deemed offensive by moderators, and liberty is lost. With lost liberty, the ability to discuss truth is lost. When the ability to discuss truth is lost, you have democracy gone bad.

Hypography is not a democracy. :)

Moderators do not intentionally limit liberties. When people misuse their liberties, moderators step in. If something is unscientific, moderators step in. If there is conflict, moderators step in. Otherwise, you'll just see posts like this.

 

In the past it was religious people who caused a problem and today it is those with knowledge of science who are causing the problem, and this is what happened in Germany and gave rise to the NAZI. Scientist without God, did terrible things to achieve their goals. The decision to exclude God from science, drove religious people to act without reason, and those with reason to act without good moral judgement. What happened was very ugly and the US is poised to repeat this history.

This shows a vast ignorance and misunderstanding of science Nutron.

During WWII, science was a *tool* much like anything else that would be at a commander's expense. Science did not cause Nazism, nor did it promote "terrible things".

 

In several days, we are no closer to understanding God as reason, as Cicero and Jefferson understood God. This concept of God is nothing like believing in unicorns and the tooth fairy, but is compatible with science.

 

How so?

 

Ideally democracy is rule by reason, and another word for that is God.

So God = rule by reason? :eek2:

 

The person who wrote the rules for this forum, seemed who hold an understand of this, but no one posting appears to have such an understanding.

 

Again, please give an example.

 

Human laws not based in higher reasoning are not worthy of self governing people. Our democracy is a mess, because that is no longer understood. We can't even have a discussion that could lead to that understanding, with people who prevent such a discussion from happening with insults, and then warnings.

 

You're hung up on the "warning" bit when really, it's nothing! InfiniteNow received an infraction for his interaction. You received a warning. :shrug:

 

with the possibility of a disliked person being banned, without the protection of a trail and jury of peers.

 

Again, this is not a democracy. No one will ever be banned unless they spam incessantly or are found to be a nuisance.

 

We have returned to rule by power, which is not rule by reason. We understand owner's rights, but not democracy as rule by reason and the role God plays in this.

 

And therein lies the crutch....

[nutronjon]

Democracy is when everyone has an equal voice. Hypography, fortunately, is not a democracy (neither is Science).

 

 

 

Reason did not die with Socrates. It lives on!

 

 

Ok, I agree with this.

 

 

I would suggest aboloshing fear first. It's the biggest obstacle to obtaining reason, and subsequentially freedom.

 

 

Hypography is not a democracy. :)

Moderators do not intentionally limit liberties. When people misuse their liberties, moderators step in. If something is unscientific, moderators step in. If there is conflict, moderators step in. Otherwise, you'll just see posts like this.

 

 

This shows a vast ignorance and misunderstanding of science Nutron.

During WWII, science was a *tool* much like anything else that would be at a commander's expense. Science did not cause Nazism, nor did it promote "terrible things".

 

 

 

How so?

 

 

So God = rule by reason? :eek2:

 

 

 

Again, please give an example.

 

 

 

You're hung up on the "warning" bit when really, it's nothing! InfiniteNow received an infraction for his interaction. You received a warning. :shrug:

 

 

 

Again, this is not a democracy. No one will ever be banned unless they spam incessantly or are found to be a nuisance.

 

 

 

And therein lies the crutch....

 

 

I know this forum is not a democracy. That is why I mentioned relationships are influencing judgement, and spoke of the power of giving warnings and banning people without a trail by a jury of peers. Awareness is a good thing, right? and you did ask me to explain why my subjects of argument are a good way to enter a discussion of democracy, so I did. One way of understanding democracy is by understanding the opposite. Privately owned forums are the opposite.

 

This shows a vast ignorance and misunderstanding of science Nutron.

During WWII, science was a *tool* much like anything else that would be at a commander's expense. Science did not cause Nazism, nor did it promote "terrible things".

 

I did not say science caused Nazism, but science separated from God. Did you watch the Public Boardcasting channel Secrets of Dead, telling the story of German research during WWII and the Manhatten Project to get that reseach and the scientist conducting it? Did you see all the starving people forced to work on a major research project and hear their story? How about the research done on Jews? What do you know of the German model of education for technology, verses liberal education, and the different cultural results of the two educations? If you don't know what I am talking about, on what grounds do you say I display ignorance and misunderstanding? If you do know what I am talking about and want to offer an opposing argument, please demonstrate your better reasoning, instead of insulting me.

 

And yes, democracy is ideally rule by reason, and reason can be considered God. Gravity is the reason things fall to earth. Bacteria and viruses make people sick and cause infections, that is the reason of sickness and infection, not a punishing god, Satan or witches. This is what Socrates was offering people when they killed him. This is what Cicero and Jefferson spoke of when they spoke of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. And what I am saying is not equal to believing in unicorns and the tooth fairy.

[Moontanman]

I know this forum is not a democracy. That is why I mentioned relationships are influencing judgement, and spoke of the power of giving warnings and banning people without a trail by a jury of peers. Awareness is a good thing, right? and you did ask me to explain why my subjects of argument are a good way to enter a discussion of democracy, so I did. One way of understanding democracy is by understanding the opposite. Privately owned forums are the opposite.

 

 

 

Did you watch the Public Boardcasting channel Secrets of Dead, telling the story of German research during WWII and the Manhatten Project to get that reseach and the scientist conducting it? Did you see all the starving people forced to work on a major research project and hear their story? How about the research done on Jews? What do you know of the German model of education for technology, verses liberal education, and the different cultural results of the two educations? If you don't know what I am talking about, on what grounds do you say I display ignorance and misunderstanding?

 

I am curious Nutronjon, you have mentioned the Manhattan Project in the same breath as Nazi death camps and slave labor before. Do you really draw a significant parallel between the two? If so please explain in detail this connection.

[InfiniteNow]

:shrug:

 

:)

 

:eek2:

[Tormod]

Ideally democracy is rule by reason, rather than rule by the powerful over the subjects of those in power.

 

I disagree with this definition. "Democracy" means "rule by the people" and has nothing to do with reason. Rather, it means that the rulers are elected by (a large group of) the citizens.

 

Here at Hypography we have no democracy in this sense, because we neither have rulers nor citizens. This is not a country or a member's club, but an informal meeting place. We do have rules, which anyone is free to comment upon and suggest changes to. Those rules are based on two things: The desire to make sure this place is fairly friendly and social, and the desire to focus on *science* in it's various forms and applications. Thus this is not intended as a place to discuss things which have nothing to do with science.

 

The theology forum is an exception because a lot of our members expressed an interest in religion and it has become one of our busiest forums. I sometimes regret launching the theology forum because most of the discussions have little to do with theology (ie "the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth") and more to do with Christian thought and preaching.

 

As for democratic functions at Hypography - everyone can give positive and negative reputation to other members, and everyone can reply to other members' posts. Everyone can sign up and post. Everyone can send PMs to moderators and administrators. The moderators help us keep this place as tidy as possible, but we *very* rarely go in and edit a post. Giving negative reputation and perhaps an infraction is a result of someone violating our rules.

 

Since the topic implies that Hypography has a "thought police" I'd like to see some backup for that claim.

[nutronjon]

I disagree with this definition. "Democracy" means "rule by the people" and has nothing to do with reason. Rather, it means that the rulers are elected by (a large group of) the citizens.

 

Here at Hypography we have no democracy in this sense, because we neither have rulers nor citizens. This is not a country or a member's club, but an informal meeting place. We do have rules, which anyone is free to comment upon and suggest changes to. Those rules are based on two things: The desire to make sure this place is fairly friendly and social, and the desire to focus on *science* in it's various forms and applications. Thus this is not intended as a place to discuss things which have nothing to do with science.

 

The theology forum is an exception because a lot of our members expressed an interest in religion and it has become one of our busiest forums. I sometimes regret launching the theology forum because most of the discussions have little to do with theology (ie "the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth") and more to do with Christian thought and preaching.

 

As for democratic functions at Hypography - everyone can give positive and negative reputation to other members, and everyone can reply to other members' posts. Everyone can sign up and post. Everyone can send PMs to moderators and administrators. The moderators help us keep this place as tidy as possible, but we *very* rarely go in and edit a post. Giving negative reputation and perhaps an infraction is a result of someone violating our rules.

 

Since the topic implies that Hypography has a "thought police" I'd like to see some backup for that claim.

 

I in no way meant to imply Hypography has "thought police". However, some posters do behave as though they are "though police" in the Theology forum. I have noticed these people can be very rational and pleasant outside of the Theology forum, but when the word God is mentioned, they go nuts, and distort arguments with inflaming statements, and make insults, and bluntly state they are not interested in looking at the offered information. There are so many errors of logic in these discussions, some are completely useless for the purpose of advancing any kind of thought.

 

Your statement that democracy has nothing to do with reason, tells me you are not literate in Greek and Roman classics. Not only are people ignorant of this information and what it is has to do with democracy, but they freely argue without becoming informed. I don't know why this behavior is common for human beings, but it is. It is like the church holding Galileo under house arrest and refusing to look through the telescope Galileo offered them. Those who know nothing of the Greek and Roman classics are very sure democracy has nothing to do with reason, as the church was sure Galileo was wrong without looking through the telescope and observing the planets for themselves. It is really pointless to discuss the issue with these people, because they do not want to know what they do not know. This becomes a problem when discussing God and morality and what democracy is about. In the past we understood authority as based in knowledge. People assume they are authorities about something they know nothing about, because hey, in the area of theology, or science, they are an authority, and this makes them an authority about everything right? I don't think so, and when they are intolerant of what someone who has different information is saying, there is a problem.

[nutronjon]

 

How so?

 

So God = rule by reason? :hihi:

 

Again, please give an example.

 

Okay this is from the rules for this forum, that were posted by Tormod.

 

Theology is reasoned discourse concerning God (Greek θεος, theos, "God", + λογος, logos, "word" or "reason"). It also refers to the study of other religious topics. A theologian is a person learned in theology.

 

Notice the words God, logos and reason are almost interchangable? In the bible it says Jesus is the logos, the word, that was from the beginning. This was written by a Greek and understanding what is being said, requires some knowledge of Greek concepts. Does this example work for you?

[freeztar]

Okay this is from the rules for this forum, that were posted by Tormod.

Did you read Tormod's post above?

 

I sometimes regret launching the theology forum because most of the discussions have little to do with theology (ie "the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth") and more to do with Christian thought and preaching.

 

I'll echo his concerns. A discussion of God using ancient philosophy is fine, just watch your footing. :hihi:

 

Notice the words God, logos and reason are almost interchangable? In the bible it says Jesus is the logos, the word, that was from the beginning. This was written by a Greek and understanding what is being said, requires some knowledge of Greek concepts. Does this example work for you?

 

No.

The Bible was written by humans (yes, like you and me). That the ancient Greeks held God as "reason" is not 'reason' to hold today. It's certainly interesting and entertaining to think about, but we've come a long ways since Cicero's days.

[modest]

In the bible it says Jesus is the logos, the word, that was from the beginning. This was written by a Greek and understanding what is being said, requires some knowledge of Greek concepts. Does this example work for you?

 

John wasn't Greek.

 

-modest

[nutronjon]

Did you read Tormod's post above?

 

 

 

I'll echo his concerns. A discussion of God using ancient philosophy is fine, just watch your footing. :)

 

 

 

No.

The Bible was written by humans (yes, like you and me). That the ancient Greeks held God as "reason" is not 'reason' to hold today. It's certainly interesting and entertaining to think about, but we've come a long ways since Cicero's days. ;)

 

 

Please, if you are informed enough to be an authority on ancient philosophy and Cicero, share your knowledge with us. Demonstrate your knowledge and contrast what was known with what is known.

 

Why do I need to watch my footing when discussing God as reason, basing my arguments on ancient philosophy and bringing this up to the establishment of democracy in the US, especially quoting Cicero and Thomas Jefferson. What could go wrong? What is the danger?