Posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 21:01:15
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined » SLS, posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 12:01:22
> > > Consideration of the question of whether creationism should be treated equally with prevailing scientific theories of evolution might not be instructive in this cirumstance.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because in this forum, education is provided by members.So?
> If students of public schools provided education, school boards would have no need to decide what carriculum they teach and would instead spend their time creating a functional environment to foster mutual education.
Ah, I see. You deem children in public schools to be quite capable of moderating themselves. They are also educated enough in advance of choosing their own curriculum so as to be able to address their own ignorance. Nice paradox.
> If patterned after this site, the board's doctrine would be that the group will effectively sort out useful information from less useful.
If patterned after this site, the behaviors of the children would be monitored such that each individual has an opportunity to interact in an environment that is safe for them to express themselves. Those whose behaviors jeopardize this safety are sanctioned.
> > I do not yet understand the justification of the moderator to allow the "creepy" post remain unsanctioned,
> Don't bust a neural network trying.That is for me to decide.
> We have yet no evidence he has a reason for the tendency, and circumstantial evidence would suggest he has chosen selective enforcement
I have seen this claim made in the past. I guess I've been too busy with other things to have noticed. If it is as circumstantial as you say, I have yet to encounter a circumstance for which selective enforcement was evident. I am still impressed with the objectivity with which Dr. Bob enforces his guidelines of civility. I think he has done a remarkably good job.
> > > -- we are talking about a private web site,
> > Of what import is the difference between public institutions and private websites?
> Public institutions are governed by constitutionally established systems. Private sites are governed by individuals, or companies in some cases. In this case, it is an individual whose only commitment is to his own word and to the group.I believe you have the RIGHT to not participate in a forum that you don't like. Whatever his commitments are, if you don't want to live within the cyberworld of Robert Hsiung, MD, you are free to be anywhere else that better suits you. You are even free to be here, despite your verbalizations against the doctor. If you ask me, that he has not yet blocked you at this juncture demonstrates to me an intact ego.
> > As you so eloquently reminded us, this is a private website.
> Well, no the arguments are not moot.
Sure they are.
> As I stated above, the FAQ is the published corpus of policy for this site.
It is something that a doctor wrote as a suggested guideline for communication, nothing more.
> The FAQ makes no policy regarding the establishment of a religion, but clearly refers to how members treat others.
Ok. So far so good.
> If the administrator chooses to exclude a group from the classification of "others" because of their race, creed or religion, he needs to review his assessment of humanity, perhaps with some expansive attention toward inclusiveness.
He needs to do no such thing. No one needs to do anything.
Again and again, this is his website. You have the privelege to post here and the right to avoid the site entirely.
> Or revise his written policy to declare open season on members of selected religions.
Yes. I believe that would improve the site greatly.
> Whereupon, I can still protest,
You have been. Thusfar, you have been granted quite a bit of freedom to post here.
> and if he shows no concern for my protest, I can review other venues.
Yup. That's the idea.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:529057
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529905.html