Aspies For Freedom

Some ideas are offensive in and of themselves (e.g. homosexuality is immoral, all LFA's are poop smearers, etc). There is a certain amount of leeway that these ideas can be given initially, but if it seems that the person will continue to disrupt the threads they post on with these ideas, they must be considered disruptive.

This doesn't actually qualify as censorship, as this is a forum privately owned by Gareth and Amy, not public property. Censorship would involve not allowing him to post these ideas anywhere, whereas this is just us urging the forum admins to throw the person out of their "house".

If all ideas were considered inoffensive, then personal attacks would also be considered inoffensive, as they are merely expressing the "idea" that the other person is stupid, annoying, ignorant, etc.

In short, this isn't just a forum where anyone with aspergers can say anything they like - it's a forum where people without aspergers are also allowed to post, and where people with aspergers that happen to also be jerks should be encouraged to leave.

True - my point was that particular ideas can be offensive in their own right. Why is insulting a group (e.g. homosexuals, left-wing political parties, etc) any different to insulting a person? These statements are the equivalent of a personal attack on every single member of these groups.

For the record, I would have been happy to let the abortion thread go - it would have died once everyone stopped posting, and that would have been it.

It was the statements about gay and autistic people, and the way he used the abortion thread to insult other groups, that made me decide to write him off.

Very few people are open to the idea that homosexuality is immoral, or that LFA's are all poop smearers. I, for one, think this is a good thing.

I really think that people place too much emphasis on whether or not someone has made personal attacks. There's far worse things to do, and there are cases where personal attacks, where truthful, are appropriate. For example, calling a racist person a bigot is appropriate.

True, but there's plenty of people that debate against abortion without being insulting - Tigger, for example.

It's a debate that has a lot of grey areas, and it's generally the appearance of people like logical conclusion on both sides of the debate that make it impossible to talk rationally about it.

I'd be quite happy to re-discuss the issues once LC has been banned.

That's OK - it's not his opinion on that issue that I have a problem with, it's the fact that he uses it as a jumping-point to be offensive in other ways.

Why is attacking a group different to attacking a person?

Two Wrights made an airplane... *grins*

It doesn't matter - Lucie doesn't have the power to ban, so there's no reason to be snide to her.

It's good to debate whether or not to ban bigots, but ultimately the only people responsible for their continued existence on the site are the admins.

I agree completely - an attack on a group, in this case gay people, constitutes a personal attack on every single member of that group. If we want gay people to feel welcome on this site, he should be banned.

I agree with this completely. In this case, I think that any individual person could choose not to be offended by LC's statements - however, in order to make the site a welcoming place for new people that may arrive, this sort of bigotry cannot be allowed.

His comments add nothing to the site, and take away from the enjoyment of the site by the groups he is targeting. Therefore, he should have no place here.

Just for the record, I'm extremely proud of myself too. So proud to the point I think we should set up our own summer festival and call it 'Ban Pride' - I'm building an effigy of LC as we speak, its built out of soggy wood (for the head) and spare human waste (to reflect the substance of LC's argument basis). At least now we shall finally discover whether or not sh*t does in fact burn

As one of the wicked witches who gleefully rejoices in the banning of said sandbags-for-brains, I can assure you that on my CCCTV (closed-circuit cauldron TV), LC is soundly getting the verbal kicking somewhere that LC oh so clearly deserves. I'm all for the little onanism stain to get a short, hard, full powered steel toe cap to the intimate regions; unfortunately its only verbal. What you give you get in return; contrary to insinuation, I am not a bully, nor have I ever been, not will I ever be. The world is too full of such oxygen thieves that are incapable of being bullied because their own inflated sense of ego makes it impossible to step on their face for longer than a few seconds. People like LC. If I had my obscure politics, I'd want every single idiot on the planet put on a big boat and dumped in the middle of the Atlantic, but I don't go around places saying "By the way, your entire minority group are [insert moral panic here], I don't care if I'm an idiot, I'm only stating some facts I found on a website and throwing around some names that make me sound intellectual" (i.e. when LC suddenly dropped his Marx crap when I pointed out I'm a sociologist - and the same reason LC avoided consistently any (initially polite) criticism I made of his politics) and wondering why people think I'm as much use as a chocolate teapot. I could easily point out that I think certain people should be banned from having children - certain political ideologies are blood chilling - and if you want lots of juicy statistics and theories, I could write an equally showy piece of 'mental masturbation' as one other poster said to verify why I believe what I believe. On the other hand, a good social analyist is aware of the importance of all groups in society and doesn't extend themselves to the kind of nonsensical moral stratifications that require personal opinion, something which twathead never grasped the concept of. Sociologically, no-one gives a toss what the analyist thinks, only what the analyist finds. And no decent analyist finds facts to support an argument, they find facts and develop an argument that must be weighed up equally and compared to other sources/theories. Had LC taken his 'paedophiles are predominantly homosexual' to any criminological sector, he would have been laughed straight out of the building; some people may be impressed by the showiness of his 'allegations'. Those people don't have a sociology/criminology degree with a special interest in deviancy theories

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to throw a newt's eye into my potion.

To Quote Flardox

GO OCAMPO! GO OCAMPO! GO OCAMPO! GO OCAMPO!  

Well done all who had the courage & debating skills, to my shame I didn't!

It's not really whether or not this interpretation is "valid", I just want to stop these blowups from happening again.

Logical Conclusion was never really going to be a part of this big family - even if he hadn't been banned, he would never have been liked.

You, on the other hand, are - and so it's important to work through things.

With some people, a single extreme negative makes any good they may have irrelevant. A nice serial killer that loves his wife and kids is predominantly a serial killer - the other things become irrelevant. This is how I feel about bigotry.

When someone attacks a group of people, it makes this a less pleasant place for every single person in that group. If it continues, it becomes harrassment. A good rule of thumb when someone is criticising a group is to ask yourself if you would be happy with them directing the statement personally at every single member of that group. If Logical Conclusion had gone to every single gay member of this forum and said "You are much more likely than anyone else to be a pedophile. You are responsible for the spread of AIDS", it would not have been acceptable. This is, in essence, what he was doing.

Good!
Another member who refuses to be intimidated by PM.