This post is a follow-up to my TLDR post that I just finished writing. Now that I have stated my rebuttals, and missed one, that rewriting certain elements of my history will make it harder for me to fight against discrimination against those groups, allow me to use this post to restate the rules for my page again. If you are going to refute any of my posts or arguments, which I certainly hope you do, I ask you to lay out your argument in full, including what data you are basing your argument on, and your reasoning for your position. I also ask this for supporters of my positions too, as the whole point of this exercise is to pursue truth, whatever it might happen to be. I also ask that emotional diatribes and vitriol not be used as a form of argument on this page. Now, in the event that people might object to this, saying that, for example, This is facebook, not a forum you run, so you dont have the power to enforce a ruling like that, or, Well some things shouldnt be said on principle simply because its offensive or socially inappropriate, or I have the right to my own opinion, allow me to address these or any other potential objections that may come up as follows: 1. One doesnt own ones apartment either, yet they can still set rules for behavior in that, simply for the reason that it is still considered their domicile, as they have leased it as their home from someone else who owns it. In the same way that an apartment holder may set rules, insofar as they dont violate the landlords rules or laws of the land, so might the holder of a facebook page do the same, on the grounds that by setting up a facebook page, facebook has given them a sort of a rent-free apartment style lease. Also, the power of the pages owner to delete comments does mean that I would have the power to enforce this ruling. I hope I wont have to, but I am making it stick that I can, and if necessary, I will (after taking screenshots of the violation, of course.) 2. To the second argument, please see my TLDR post. Saying things that at the time were offensive to the status quo, is a vital component for our society evolving and pushing forward. The ONLY time a statement is a problem is if it is untrue, out of context and oppressive/discriminatory (which means that it was also untrue). If a statement is exposed as untrue, the speaker must promptly change their position accordingly and provide redress for the damage done of sharing untruth. (For this premise, I am basically stating that people should strive for truth, and if they share something untrue unintentionally because the data they fed was bad and/or there was flawed reasoning they didnt recognize at the time, they correct both, and change position to the truth accordingly.) 3. Yes, you have the right to your opinion, but to properly convince me or others of its veracity or accuracy or necessity, (in other words, if youre stating it as a rebuttal), then I need to see the full data and reasoning behind it so that I might be able to determine if it is necessary for me to shift my position. Now with all of this in mind, I will state that I hope that these rules will also be enforced against me. I want people to call me on it when they see me using faulty sources (please, as part of the argument state why they are faulty) or data/incomplete sources or data, and also state why the data is incomplete or faulty, and please state not only where you see my reasoning as being flawed, but why. Im just asking that you would extend me the same courtesy I would for you. And if I have failed to elucidate a part of my reasoning, or it seems incomplete, please let me know, and I will clarify further. To those who have set up rules suppressing free inquiry in their domains, let me be clear. I am a seeker of truth, and I will not come to domains where I am forced to compromise my principles. To that end, I have already withdrawn from some social engagements over this issue. Granted, I told them that there were other reasons, which was true, but this was the core reason, and I didnt mention it to them at the time because I couldnt figure out how to phrase it properly. Now I do, so consider this my notification. And just as I dont have to come to events where I feel compromised, if people feel uncomfortable abiding by these rules when viewing my page or coming to my apartment, they dont have to either. This is me setting my live and let live policy on this. I posted this once before, and I was brow beaten back into submission. I will not let this happen again. I am making my stand, sticking to my guns on principle, and basically stating that as long as one is commenting on my page, or coming to my apartment, these rules are in order. If I come to their location, their rules are in effect. But as I dont have to go over there if I feel compromised, neither are they required to post here if they feel uncomfortable following these rules. This is my way of attempting to uphold the basic rules for critical thinking, while using the current social framework, in an attempt to see if the two are in fact at odds. If anyone objects to this, that is their opinion. The only time I will change these rules is if someone can find a better way to help me make a stand on this issue and keep it on my page, without brow beating me into the position that social niceties or status quo must trump critical thinking.
Posted on: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 17:14:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015