This is a placeholder text
Group text
by BabyEagle4U on 05 June 2011 - 18:06
lol
by Prager on 05 June 2011 - 18:06
HEXE said:
What Hans and Ace don't grasp is the complex psychological malfunction of Janice Bartmess,....
Hexe here is what you do not get even so you are probably right.
Based on this argument, there are thousands put to
mental institutions by oppressive regimes, in order to shut them up. Indefinitely. Yes Janice is a mental case. But the question is where do you draw the line and slippery slope and so on. I am dealing with principles of freedom here and not mental analysis.
Prager Hans
by mobjack on 05 June 2011 - 18:06
GSD mod said and hit the nail on the head
I think most members here are just huge dog lovers and sometimes we only want what is best for the dogs. this site unfortunately played a role in Janices ability to network and abuse more dogs as it gave her a place to legitimize her ongoing sickness and I honestly believe these members do not want her to be able to find more animals and people to victimize or to see her use your site to these ends.
For the people objecting to Hans allowing Janice a voice THIS is the issue, not one of right to speak.
For Hans, the issue is freedom of speech and that outweighs all else about Janice.
Hans has stated his beliefs and his position vehemently and my personal thoughts are that should be respected. It's a personal moral decision, nothing more, nothing less.
Hans, for the sake of resolution to this and respect for everyone, please just be vigilant and know she will do this again and use you and your board for it if she can.
Thank you Hans.
I think most members here are just huge dog lovers and sometimes we only want what is best for the dogs. this site unfortunately played a role in Janices ability to network and abuse more dogs as it gave her a place to legitimize her ongoing sickness and I honestly believe these members do not want her to be able to find more animals and people to victimize or to see her use your site to these ends.
For the people objecting to Hans allowing Janice a voice THIS is the issue, not one of right to speak.
For Hans, the issue is freedom of speech and that outweighs all else about Janice.
Hans has stated his beliefs and his position vehemently and my personal thoughts are that should be respected. It's a personal moral decision, nothing more, nothing less.
Hans, for the sake of resolution to this and respect for everyone, please just be vigilant and know she will do this again and use you and your board for it if she can.
Thank you Hans.
by Ruger1 on 05 June 2011 - 18:06
Everyone...
At the end of the day we will all give an account for our choices and actions...We will have to live with the consequences of those choices and actions too...I am very encouraged to know that most folks find that protecting the well being of things without a voice to be the most important human obligation we have ...: )
Hans ..... I will have to respectly agree to disagree....: )
Deanna...: )
by hexe on 05 June 2011 - 18:06
Hitler is said to have loved dogs.
Mussolini is said to have made the trains run on time.
And according to Hans, Janice Bartmess should not be shunned by EVERYONE who gives a damn about the welfare and safety of dogs, so long as she restricts what she has to say to her knowledge of GSD history.
Hans, I don't know if it's because English is your second language, or if you have little to no knowledge of human psychology, but for whatever reason, you cannot seem to grasp that you are an accessory to any future acts of abuse and neglect done to a dog by Janice Bartmess because you are making it possible for her to obtain new recruits.
What you are doing is no different than if you operated a discussion forum about child models, and you permitted someone who had been convicted of distributing child pornography to join and participate in the conversations. You would be helping to create that person's next crime.
You just don't seem to be able to understand that *being able to have an audience when she talks about dogs* is a key to Janice Bartmess' sickness, and you are permitting her access to such an audience, just as the message board unwittingly did...the difference is that you KNOW you've let a scorpion sit on your shoulder, but I think now it's become a matter of principle to you, so you're going to leave it there anyway to prove that no one can persuade you to do the right thing.
Mussolini is said to have made the trains run on time.
And according to Hans, Janice Bartmess should not be shunned by EVERYONE who gives a damn about the welfare and safety of dogs, so long as she restricts what she has to say to her knowledge of GSD history.
Hans, I don't know if it's because English is your second language, or if you have little to no knowledge of human psychology, but for whatever reason, you cannot seem to grasp that you are an accessory to any future acts of abuse and neglect done to a dog by Janice Bartmess because you are making it possible for her to obtain new recruits.
What you are doing is no different than if you operated a discussion forum about child models, and you permitted someone who had been convicted of distributing child pornography to join and participate in the conversations. You would be helping to create that person's next crime.
You just don't seem to be able to understand that *being able to have an audience when she talks about dogs* is a key to Janice Bartmess' sickness, and you are permitting her access to such an audience, just as the message board unwittingly did...the difference is that you KNOW you've let a scorpion sit on your shoulder, but I think now it's become a matter of principle to you, so you're going to leave it there anyway to prove that no one can persuade you to do the right thing.
by Ninja181 on 05 June 2011 - 19:06
I like Hans and have always enjoyed his posts. I know exactly where he is coming from. I see his side.
But, but, but there are always exceptions to the rule.
Janice Bartmess IMO is the ultimate exception to the rule.
Society should shun her. The court system needs to convict and properly punish her.
But, but, but there are always exceptions to the rule.
Janice Bartmess IMO is the ultimate exception to the rule.
Society should shun her. The court system needs to convict and properly punish her.
by agates1 on 05 June 2011 - 19:06
Sueincc: Thank you for the welcome!! :-) While I am directing this response to you, I am also directing it to the whole forum at the same time.
I think there was some miscommunication or misinterpretation of what I wrote. If this was due to my lack of clarity, then I apologize. You are right, this is not a legal 1st amendment matter. By calling it "1st amendment", I think I accidentally opened my writing up to misinterpretation and misconception. Being a private forum, posters are at the mercy of the admin. To clarify, I was more discussing the philosophical value of allowing free speech versus the legal definition of the 1st amendment. So many people here are getting so caught up in the technical and legal definitions of the "1st amendment" that they arent stopping to consider the philosophical nature behind the 1st amendment that Hans' is appealing to.
I think the source of the disagreement also stems from the fact that Hans' (and my) defense of his decision is abstract in dealing with a situation that sparks much emotion in many people (including myself). Even though what this woman did is vile and heartwrenching, I dont believe that we can use our emotional outrages to justify the position we take because of it.
I dont believe I was cherrypicking because I, in no way, suggested that anyone here ought to be censored for complaining about Hans' forum policies. As long as the admin is alright with it, complain all you want.
I think the argument that yall are trying to protect dogs by having her banned (so that she cant dupe stupid people into giving her dogs) is hollow at best. Your hearts are in the right place I believe, but that goes back to what I said about allowing your emotions to run you in a situation like this. I agree that her "punishment" wasnt nearly hard enough and that she should still be behind bars. On the other side of the coin, by censoring this woman, you can actually make it EASIER for her to seduce other people. By censoring, you create anonymity after a certain amount of time has passed. If new people dont hear or see this person, along with people bashing on her about what shes done, then how do they recognize her and know to stay away from her? The problem is that, either way, you are arguing in potentials.
Hexe: I dont believe Hans ever said that we shouldnt shun her for what she did. Shun away! You are holding Hans responsible for allowing her an audience, when in fact noone has to listen to her. By this reasoning, the US Government is responsible for the protests against soldiers funerals by those Westboro nutcases. If she attempts to recruit, then she is responsible. If someone hears what she has to say (the audience) and listens, then that audience member is also responsible. Noone seems to be taking that into account. You're too busy looking into the "psychology" of the issue to see it for what it really is. Psychology does not excuse the niave audience member.
I think there was some miscommunication or misinterpretation of what I wrote. If this was due to my lack of clarity, then I apologize. You are right, this is not a legal 1st amendment matter. By calling it "1st amendment", I think I accidentally opened my writing up to misinterpretation and misconception. Being a private forum, posters are at the mercy of the admin. To clarify, I was more discussing the philosophical value of allowing free speech versus the legal definition of the 1st amendment. So many people here are getting so caught up in the technical and legal definitions of the "1st amendment" that they arent stopping to consider the philosophical nature behind the 1st amendment that Hans' is appealing to.
I think the source of the disagreement also stems from the fact that Hans' (and my) defense of his decision is abstract in dealing with a situation that sparks much emotion in many people (including myself). Even though what this woman did is vile and heartwrenching, I dont believe that we can use our emotional outrages to justify the position we take because of it.
I dont believe I was cherrypicking because I, in no way, suggested that anyone here ought to be censored for complaining about Hans' forum policies. As long as the admin is alright with it, complain all you want.
I think the argument that yall are trying to protect dogs by having her banned (so that she cant dupe stupid people into giving her dogs) is hollow at best. Your hearts are in the right place I believe, but that goes back to what I said about allowing your emotions to run you in a situation like this. I agree that her "punishment" wasnt nearly hard enough and that she should still be behind bars. On the other side of the coin, by censoring this woman, you can actually make it EASIER for her to seduce other people. By censoring, you create anonymity after a certain amount of time has passed. If new people dont hear or see this person, along with people bashing on her about what shes done, then how do they recognize her and know to stay away from her? The problem is that, either way, you are arguing in potentials.
Hexe: I dont believe Hans ever said that we shouldnt shun her for what she did. Shun away! You are holding Hans responsible for allowing her an audience, when in fact noone has to listen to her. By this reasoning, the US Government is responsible for the protests against soldiers funerals by those Westboro nutcases. If she attempts to recruit, then she is responsible. If someone hears what she has to say (the audience) and listens, then that audience member is also responsible. Noone seems to be taking that into account. You're too busy looking into the "psychology" of the issue to see it for what it really is. Psychology does not excuse the niave audience member.
by Prager on 05 June 2011 - 19:06
sueincc said:
But you do not advocate 100% freedom of speech on your forum, Prager. Ad Hominen attacks are protected according to the First Amendment, even cursing to an extent, is protected by the First Amendment. I'm not saying you should, but if your argument for allowing Janice Bartmess to post on your forum is because you believe in the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, then how in the face of that, do you legitimize your own exceptions?
Sue that is a very good question and it made me think. First I would like to say that freedom does not mean, that you can do what ever you want. Do we have freedom to go and willy nilly to hit someone? Or yell fire in crowded theatre? No!
In principle what that means is that by invoking our freedoms we do not have right to restrict someone else's freedom.
Thus why am I imposing my restriction on profanities and ad hominem attacks? Profanities I restrict in order to protect children. I believe it violates them. If it would be all adult forum I would most definitely allow profanities. And people who would use them would look like asses . Which would be OK.
I do not allow ad hominem attacks because I believe that they also violate people. When I get hit with fist or unkind word then I believe that unkind word is worse. I much rather let someone hit me then tell me that I am fat and stupid in public place. Yes it violates persons freedom by above definition. Also it arbitrarily takes away or violates their dignity. It is a course of action that is not based on reason or proof, but on personal will or discretion without regard to moral and ethical rules or standards. If I allow ad hominem attacks then people will exercise their freedom by leaving my forum if they get attacked ad hominem. And that would be wrong. I do not want people get hurt on my forum and to leave.
Yes, you may say, that people will leave because I did granted Janice freedom of speech. I would like to also say, that as long as she is not violating anyone's freedoms on my forum, then she can stay and people who do not like it can leave. That is their freedom even so in my opinion leaving for that reason is wrong. It is wrong to leave for my specifically granting everyone and anyone on my forum freedom of speech. I'll hate to see that and would hope that they see my motivations and would change their mind. But as far as allowing people freedom to speak, especially about dogs, I will not budge on that.
Prager Hans
But you do not advocate 100% freedom of speech on your forum, Prager. Ad Hominen attacks are protected according to the First Amendment, even cursing to an extent, is protected by the First Amendment. I'm not saying you should, but if your argument for allowing Janice Bartmess to post on your forum is because you believe in the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech, then how in the face of that, do you legitimize your own exceptions?
Sue that is a very good question and it made me think. First I would like to say that freedom does not mean, that you can do what ever you want. Do we have freedom to go and willy nilly to hit someone? Or yell fire in crowded theatre? No!
In principle what that means is that by invoking our freedoms we do not have right to restrict someone else's freedom.
Thus why am I imposing my restriction on profanities and ad hominem attacks? Profanities I restrict in order to protect children. I believe it violates them. If it would be all adult forum I would most definitely allow profanities. And people who would use them would look like asses . Which would be OK.
I do not allow ad hominem attacks because I believe that they also violate people. When I get hit with fist or unkind word then I believe that unkind word is worse. I much rather let someone hit me then tell me that I am fat and stupid in public place. Yes it violates persons freedom by above definition. Also it arbitrarily takes away or violates their dignity. It is a course of action that is not based on reason or proof, but on personal will or discretion without regard to moral and ethical rules or standards. If I allow ad hominem attacks then people will exercise their freedom by leaving my forum if they get attacked ad hominem. And that would be wrong. I do not want people get hurt on my forum and to leave.
Yes, you may say, that people will leave because I did granted Janice freedom of speech. I would like to also say, that as long as she is not violating anyone's freedoms on my forum, then she can stay and people who do not like it can leave. That is their freedom even so in my opinion leaving for that reason is wrong. It is wrong to leave for my specifically granting everyone and anyone on my forum freedom of speech. I'll hate to see that and would hope that they see my motivations and would change their mind. But as far as allowing people freedom to speak, especially about dogs, I will not budge on that.
Prager Hans
by Prager on 05 June 2011 - 19:06
by Mystere on 05 June 2011 - 19:06
Fini
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top