![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 6 of 6. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Sabina on August 20, 2003, at 0:19:34
when we have difficulty explaining things that may cause harm or pain to others, then perhaps it would be advisable to refrain from posting until such time as we can do so with greater clarity and discretion.
that's one of my own personal guidelines, in any case.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 20, 2003, at 9:50:26
In reply to re: subjective tutelage on defamation and civility, posted by Sabina on August 20, 2003, at 0:19:34
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 10:40:19
In reply to re: subjective tutelage on defamation and civility, posted by Sabina on August 20, 2003, at 0:19:34
Sabina,
You wrote in your subject line the word "subjective" that what I was writing about defamation here.
Defamation is as old as recorded history and I am giving historical examples from ancient and current codes involving defamation. I do not consider the examples to be subjective for they are in other's codes and are not from my own definitions.
The Romans had a code involving defamation, then the ancient British, which most of our current definitions of defamation come from. The French have different definitions as do many other countries.
I am trying to convey this concept here as to how this site could be improved by having changes made in the administration of the site that are relevant to our particular mental health community.
I am not any type of language expert and contend that I do not have to be one to post here, and could, like anyone else here, write something that could be taken by another in some other way that I intended it to be. I am asking others to give me the benifit of the doubt by asking me to clarify what I wrote if you think it is in some way wrong. This is why I ask others for clarification, in order to give them the benifit of the doubt and also to identify any missing infomation that could give light to the subject so that a response could be given accordingly. I consider it cruel to deny a person due-process anyplace, including here. I am constantly criticised for asking others here for clarification of what they wrote and I can not at this moment understand why anyone would want me not to ask them for clarification of what they wrote for I am offering them due-process and an opportunity to change their wording and if you, as you appear to be a new person in this discussion, could offer me an explination for this criticism of me asking for clarification of what another poster wrote, that you may have, I would appreciate it.
Lou
Posted by shar on August 20, 2003, at 22:28:17
In reply to Lou's response to Sabina's post-SB » Sabina, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 10:40:19
Actually, anything that we write is subjective in the sense that we choose what references that we will use. That is, one may choose Greek mythology, current poets, Yogic Philosophy, Edgar Allan Poe....and all of those are subjective choices.
If, for no other reason than we cannot reasonably include everything ever written, which would be the only way to be objective. So, there is nothing wrong with being subjective since we will choose those things that support our points of view, and that is the very nature of subjectivity, whether or not the things we choose are codified in past or present laws, from the Torah, scientific in nature, famous literature, our own ideas, Biblical, etc.
Examples from other sources do not automatically make an essay objective.
Shar
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2003, at 7:07:38
In reply to Subjectivity, posted by shar on August 20, 2003, at 22:28:17
Shar,
It was my goal to give a short introduction to the concept of defamation. Each jurisdiction has different ways to deal with such. But there is a history of the development of the code of defamationand I was going to show those differences and the history of the development. I was going to be complete and cover all the bases from the US and England to the oriant and near east and Austrailia to show the differences and similarities. The code of Hammurabi prescribed cutting out the tongue of a defamer. This is to show that defamation was seruious.
I am not presenting my own ideas here, but cases from the liturature and now I feel that others can look them up on their own.
Lou
Posted by shar on August 21, 2003, at 20:36:41
In reply to Lou's response to Sabina's post-SB » Sabina, posted by Lou Pilder on August 20, 2003, at 10:40:19
> Sabina,
> You wrote in your subject line the word "subjective" that what I was writing about defamation here.
> Defamation is as old as recorded history and I am giving historical examples from ancient and current codes involving defamation. I do not consider the examples to be subjective for they are in other's codes and are not from my own definitions..........As I said in my previous post, simply including previously recorded information does not make an essay or written document objective.
Shar
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.