Hi want to have other people's opinions on this. Is it a lie if you say something not true you THINK is true? Maybe a 3 year old thinks 1+1 is 3, and says that, thinking it's true. Is that a lie?
No. People use "lie" as a substitute for "deception", "incorrect" and apparently "opinion". A lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth".
Not at all if it doesn't hurt others. If it does and they can prove it, then it is a lie to them, to the victim.
I'm with Argus on this. A lie is a statement of false information with knowledge of its incorrect nature. Otherwise it is simply misinformation.
White lies are still lies, even If its said to not harm another. I don't see telling lies as harming others, or doing something that one would not want to be done to them - I think Piotr's interpretation is dubious. However, he does own this place and has the right to enforce whatever he'd like. You reserve the right to not use it.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 05:16:55 PM
White lies are still lies, even If its said to not harm another. I don't see telling lies as harming others, or doing something that one would not want to be done to them - I think Piotr's interpretation is dubious. However, he does own this place and has the right to enforce whatever he'd like. You reserve the right to not use it.
Really? How about when I lie to you that I'm not a scammer from Nigeria but a diplomat with 56 million dollars to share? Am I really protected by free speech?
I'm not entitled to believe you in that situation. You do not have a monopoly on telling the truth. You're not compelled to be a socialist after hearing socialist propaganda are you?
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
I'm not entitled to believe you in that situation.
That's not what I was asking, i was asking whether you can punish me for lying in that concrete example.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
You do not have a monopoly on telling the truth.
Of course, that's why I pick up lies which are possible to prove.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
You're not compelled to be a socialist after hearing socialist propaganda are you?
What do you mean?
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:18:09 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
I'm not entitled to believe you in that situation.
That's not what I was asking, i was asking whether you can punish me for lying in that concrete example.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
You do not have a monopoly on telling the truth.
Of course, that's why I pick up lies which are possible to prove.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
You're not compelled to be a socialist after hearing socialist propaganda are you?
What do you mean?
It is not my responsibility to punish you, because something has not been done. If I did take your deal, and get ripped off - if no force was used, or aggression, I cannot punish you. It was a willful engagement for us to trade things.
The last example is- no one is forcing you to be a socialist by explaining socialist ideas. You remain fully liberated from socialism, unharmed and uninterested in its tenets.
So much as I try my best to not argue with Theists, Pro-Lifers, Pro-Death Penalty, Socialist, racists and other aggressive forces - they offer nothing to me intellectually. I could consider them liars, but I'm not dependent on them. They resist punishment by their very nature, they're not my captors.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:18:09 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
I'm not entitled to believe you in that situation.
That's not what I was asking, i was asking whether you can punish me for lying in that concrete example.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
You do not have a monopoly on telling the truth.
Of course, that's why I pick up lies which are possible to prove.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
You're not compelled to be a socialist after hearing socialist propaganda are you?
What do you mean?
It is not my responsibility to punish you, because something has not been done. If I did take your deal, and get ripped off - if no force was used, or aggression, I cannot punish you. It was a willful engagement for us to trade things.
The last example is- no one is forcing you to be a socialist by explaining socialist ideas. You remain fully liberated from socialism, unharmed and uninterested in its tenants.
It is never your responsibility to punish, even if you are the victim, you can decide to forgive or ignore. The hypothetical agreement would be under a lie, and would be illegal under iMtG law, same as under US law. We are compatible in this example.
The trouble with socialism is that it is not voluntary. When socialists win elections, honest people are harmed in real way. I'm one of them. Spreading socialist lies helps socialists win elections, true or false?
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:32:40 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:18:09 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
I'm not entitled to believe you in that situation.
That's not what I was asking, i was asking whether you can punish me for lying in that concrete example.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
You do not have a monopoly on telling the truth.
Of course, that's why I pick up lies which are possible to prove.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
You're not compelled to be a socialist after hearing socialist propaganda are you?
What do you mean?
It is not my responsibility to punish you, because something has not been done. If I did take your deal, and get ripped off - if no force was used, or aggression, I cannot punish you. It was a willful engagement for us to trade things.
The last example is- no one is forcing you to be a socialist by explaining socialist ideas. You remain fully liberated from socialism, unharmed and uninterested in its tenants.
It is never your responsibility to punish, even if you are the victim, you can decide to forgive or ignore. The hypothetical agreement would be under a lie, and would be illegal under iMtG law, same as under US law. We are compatible in this example.
The trouble with socialism is that it is not voluntary. When socialists win elections, honest people are harmed in real way. I'm one of them. Spreading socialist lies helps socialists win elections, true or false?
I could say the same of democracy. Capitalists in collaboration with governments have been known to hurt people in very real ways as well. Socialism being spread through ideas are adopted by the misguided, but Operation Mind-crime cannot commence. While spreading socialist lies may be one way for them to win elections, there are a number of different ways, through force and misdirection.
The problem you have is with socialists, I do not see "do not lie" as a solution to the problem you have. Any ideas can be called into question, and anything can be made into a slippery slope.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:39:51 PM
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:32:40 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Piotr on August 31, 2013, 06:18:09 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
I'm not entitled to believe you in that situation.
That's not what I was asking, i was asking whether you can punish me for lying in that concrete example.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
You do not have a monopoly on telling the truth.
Of course, that's why I pick up lies which are possible to prove.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 06:09:37 PM
You're not compelled to be a socialist after hearing socialist propaganda are you?
What do you mean?
It is not my responsibility to punish you, because something has not been done. If I did take your deal, and get ripped off - if no force was used, or aggression, I cannot punish you. It was a willful engagement for us to trade things.
The last example is- no one is forcing you to be a socialist by explaining socialist ideas. You remain fully liberated from socialism, unharmed and uninterested in its tenants.
It is never your responsibility to punish, even if you are the victim, you can decide to forgive or ignore. The hypothetical agreement would be under a lie, and would be illegal under iMtG law, same as under US law. We are compatible in this example.
The trouble with socialism is that it is not voluntary. When socialists win elections, honest people are harmed in real way. I'm one of them. Spreading socialist lies helps socialists win elections, true or false?
I could say the same of democracy. Capitalists in collaboration with governments have been known to hurt people in very real ways as well. Socialism being spread through ideas are adopted by the misguided, but Operation Mind-crime cannot commence. While spreading socialist lies may be one way for them to win elections, there are a number of different ways, through force and misdirection.
The problem you have is with socialists, I do not see "do not lie" as a solution to the problem you have. Any ideas can be called into question, and anything can be made into a slippery slope.
I do not need 'do not lie' in the iMtG law to make socialism illegal under it. It is illegal to force people to pay for someone else's insurance under Golden Rule, it is enough to stop socialism.
Actually the Ultimate Law uses the Negative Golden Rule or the "Silver Rule" which is "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated." the Golden Rule is "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." which could be used to force socialism by making others share their wealth with less fortunate. If you were rich and put yourself in the place of the poor you would be obligated to treat them as you would like them to threat you and help them out.
But back to your normally scheduled thread about lying, I stand by the opinion I presented in my first post in this thread.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 31, 2013, 07:23:01 PM
Actually the Ultimate Law uses the Negative Golden Rule or the "Silver Rule" which is "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated." the Golden Rule is "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." which could be used to force socialism by making others share their wealth with less fortunate. If you were rich and put yourself in the place of the poor you would be obligated to treat them as you would like them to threat you and help them out.
I stand corrected, thanks ;)
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 31, 2013, 07:23:01 PM
Actually the Ultimate Law uses the Negative Golden Rule or the "Silver Rule" which is "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated." the Golden Rule is "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." which could be used to force socialism by making others share their wealth with less fortunate. If you were rich and put yourself in the place of the poor you would be obligated to treat them as you would like them to threat you and help them out.
But back to your normally scheduled thread about lying, I stand by the opinion I presented in my first post in this thread.
While we're teasing words apart I would like to disagree with your assumption that the Golden rule forces any agenda. I believe Christ intentionally worded it so that it only applies to one user personally and is not be used to influence others toward one's own ends. That is, assuming the original Aramaic, cultural context, and oral tradition remain fully in tact 😉.
Quote from: Langku on August 31, 2013, 07:53:33 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 31, 2013, 07:23:01 PM
Actually the Ultimate Law uses the Negative Golden Rule or the "Silver Rule" which is "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated." the Golden Rule is "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." which could be used to force socialism by making others share their wealth with less fortunate. If you were rich and put yourself in the place of the poor you would be obligated to treat them as you would like them to threat you and help them out.
But back to your normally scheduled thread about lying, I stand by the opinion I presented in my first post in this thread.
While we're teasing words apart I would like to disagree with your assumption that the Golden rule forces any agenda. I believe Christ intentionally worded it so that it only applies to one user personally and is not be used to influence others toward one's own ends. That is, assuming the original Aramaic, cultural context, and oral tradition remain fully in tact 😉.
I too believe that the wording of the Golden Rule is to promote equality and fairness. I didn't say it forced anything, only said it COULD logically be used to enforce socialism.
True.
Jainism says "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." What is wrong with that? Lets just all get along.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 09:37:44 PM
Jainism says "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." What is wrong with that? Lets just all get along.
Question: "...what is wrong with that?"
Answer: stupid people
I know it won't be widely adopted, but the Jains have started no wars, committed no genocide, and have not conquered anyone's homeland. Even using "The original position" hypothetical which you select the principles that will determine the basic structure of the society you will live in. This choice is made from behind a "veil of ignorance", which you would not know your: ethnicity, social status, gender, age conception of the good (your idea of how to lead a good life). This forces you to select principles of impartially and rationally, as its eminently the most fair society in which all to live.
Everyone should just be anarchists and cut out the non-sense. The government does not live like the Jains, they don't think of the original position, they murder people and enslave them.
Jainism has some views that don't align well with my universal view and some other very compelling tenants I would like to further explore . I've never looked closely at this religion. I've been missing out.
Id say no, because in my opinion "lying" is intentionally deceiving somebody. The intent in your case is not present, therefore not a lie. Just simply a nonfact
Then you are missing the point of our very simple law and I have to question your ability to think logically.
Our law is testing the feelings of the victim, not the intentions of the aggressor. You tell your non fact to me and becomes a lie to me if it hurts me. Your intentions are not relevant. Our law is based on negative golden rule for a reason, and the reason is to ignore intentions of the aggressor and to protect the victim from sophisms like yours.
Quote from: Dudecore on August 31, 2013, 09:37:44 PM
Jainism says "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." What is wrong with that? Lets just all get along.
I cannot eat carrots under that law. I like carrots.
No good law would suggest you've been harmed by someone else's speech. And because he said socialist ideas how does that mean he's going to vote socialist? Or that society will vote socialist? It's illogical, no one here has a time machine or a crystal ball (that I'm aware of). Potential future crimes cannot enforced with punishment, or else the law is junk and at the whims of whatever maniacal villain would impose such a law.
Any good law has to protect the rights of the minorities as well. The Golden Rule and Silver Rule produce their own kind of villains. I cannot reasonably believe you've been harmed Piotr, just merely using iMtG to squelch the critics. We know socialism is .poo., it's a force of evil and serves no purpose but to strip the humanity from everyone. But someone who is not in a position to harm you (somewhere on the internet), I cannot view you as a victim of a crime, having someone express opinions behind a vile of secrecy, and ask you to read something/watch a movie constitutes harm?
You've the rights to enforce your property rights, saying iMtG law gives you the right to fight socialism makes the law appear to be a farse.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 01, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
No good law would suggest you've been harmed by someone else's speech. And because he said socialist ideas how does that mean he's going to vote socialist? Or that society will vote socialist? It's illogical, no one here has a time machine or a crystal ball (that I'm aware of). Potential future crimes cannot enforced with punishment, or else the law is junk and at the whims of whatever maniacal villain would impose such a law.
Any good law has to protect the rights of the minorities as well. The Golden Rule and Silver Rule produce their own kind of villains. I cannot reasonably believe you've been harmed Piotr, just merely using iMtG to squelch the critics. We know socialism is .poo., it's a force of evil and serves no purpose but to strip the humanity from everyone. But someone who is not in a position to harm you (somewhere on the internet), I cannot view you as a victim of a crime, having someone express opinions behind a vile of secrecy, and ask you to read something/watch a movie constitutes harm?
You've the rights to enforce your property rights, saying iMtG law gives you the right to fight socialism makes the law appear to be a farse.
It pisses me off to a point of banning when people spread socialist lies on my property. Take it or leave. EOT.
PS. I updated the Commentary to clarify where I stand. Let me know if you're still ok with iMtG Law.
I have a slight problem with that. There's a big difference between a lie and an ignorant falsehood or simply being wrong. Granted, neither are really excusable, but a lie is given with intent.
"The world is flat." If this were said now, it would be a lie. We know the world is spherical. By saying it is flat, I would be intentionally saying a false statement. That would be a lie. Hundreds of years ago, almost everyone in Europe believed this statement was a fact. Were they all wrong? Yes. Were they all spreading a falsehood? Yes. Was what they were saying harmful? Yes, the belief slowed trade and exploration considerably. Was it a lie? No, they had no intention to deceive, say falsehood, harm, or be untruthful in any way.
Does that make the ignorance of it acceptable? Of course not. But how can the two merit the same label and punishment and be accused of the same crime? That is not logical, nor is it just.
I do not agree with Piotr's conclusion based on the premise. I do not see compelling evidence of how free speech is harming another individual because you "would not want that to be done to you". Anything can be said to harm you at that point, anything that you don't agree with of course.
If you were honest with that statement, then all theists should be banned from this forum as well. Seeing as you won't do that (being you are one) - iMtG Law is a correction of great ideas that are enforced as you see fit. Not the intended purpose of the golden rule.
My biggest issue is the notion of simply being wrong about something being considered a 'crime,' and therefore a punishable offense.
Punishing someone for simply being incorrect or misinformed is not an option I will accept even being on the table. If someone tried to punish my 2 year old some day for saying "the cow says oink!" they will need a proctologist to remove my shoe from that person's ass.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 01, 2013, 11:49:03 PM
My biggest issue is the notion of simply being wrong about something being considered a 'crime,' and therefore a punishable offense.
Punishing someone for simply being incorrect or misinformed is not an option I will accept even being on the table. If someone tried to punish my 2 year old some day for saying "the cow says oink!" they will need a proctologist to remove my shoe from that person's ass.
👆👍👍👍👍. SO MANY TIMES.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 01, 2013, 06:53:23 PMI have a slight problem with that. There's a big difference between a lie and an ignorant falsehood or simply being wrong.
Not for the purpose of testing if crime was committed. Testing it is the first step in the trial process. You can be guilty of telling falsehood which hurts someone, without knowing it. The law protects the victim. The second step is the punishment, the logical punishment for telling falsehood which hurts someone, without knowing it, is nil. I suggest you all cool down a bit.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 01, 2013, 08:57:41 PM
I do not agree with Piotr's conclusion based on the premise. I do not see compelling evidence of how free speech is harming another individual because you "would not want that to be done to you". Anything can be said to harm you at that point, anything that you don't agree with of course.
If you were honest with that statement, then all theists should be banned from this forum as well. Seeing as you won't do that (being you are one) - iMtG Law is a correction of great ideas that are enforced as you see fit. Not the intended purpose of the golden rule.
Free speech ends where my ear starts, you cannot force me to listen. You cannot invade my property and tell me things I don't want to hear. This is basic stuff, I'm a bit surprised that anarchist is unaware of it.
All law is a collection of great ideas that are enforced as enforcers see fit. There is no other law but the law of the fist, because law without force behind it is just an unrealised idea, nothing really. So at the end of the day, law is just a tool. Our law, I believe, is a good tool for good people.
We're not speaking of anarchy. We're speaking of aggression. You've accepted the aggression is a necessary tool to get what you want, I reject that claim. It is irrelevant if anarchy will ever work, it's the principle of non-aggression. IMtG Law is coercive, behind every idea is a loaded weapon. You've got the tools to handle things non-aggressively (block button, simply ignoring the individual) while he peacefully continues. Instead you invoke your property rights for ideas, and throw around vacuous platitudes like "free speech ends where my ear begins".
You've banned someone because you do not want them to turn people into socialists ("Do not break law in prevention of lawbreaking."). You're trying to explain why you banned someone in the context of iMtG law - instead of saying what I believe to be the truth "I just wanted to"
The aggressor invaded my property against my will. I forced him to leave. iMtG law is a practical tool which can be used by property owners to keep folks they are not interested to have as guests, at bay. It can also be used to stop any lie, defined as false statement which hurts others (in practice a false statement), when both parties are on equal ground. So if you are hurt by people posting porkies in Rules, we can ban them.
the app I understand is your property. But the online forum, wouldn't that fall under public domain? How was the aggressor invading your property in that case?
Quote from: EvACiDe on September 02, 2013, 12:50:22 PM
the app I understand is your property. But the online forum, wouldn't that fall under public domain? How was the aggressor invading your property in that case?
You have much to learn, young padawan. The app you are using under Apple EULA, and it gives you much property rights to it, I hope.
Public domain is a completely different concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
I own this server, on which this forum runs, which I created and own as an administrator, and can uncreate it at my whim. You're a guest here, and you signed my law upon entering, you have no property rights to this place. I grant limited property rights to Patrons, they can moderate threads they started so they can run their own sub-forums with sub-law which must be compatible with iMtG Law. You are free to leave at your whim ;)
I'm 100% with DC on this one. How exactly are you being forced to listen? There's a hide button. There are "don't read this thread because it's full of stupid nonsense that I don't like" or "don't read it and scroll by this post" options. Your neck pivots approximately 180 degrees - you can just look away from the evil socialist text.
Sure, ultimately it's your app and you can ask them to leave. We understand that. But please don't lie to us, strong-arm us, or break your own rules in the process. I don't think that's unreasonable of the community to ask. Isn't treating us as you would wish to be treated one of your key beliefs?
Oh for God's sake, if you really think I'll be hosting socialist lies at my expense, you're mad bro, I'll shut this place down first.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. Nietzsche
I have a lot of regard for you Piotr and as I've said before I don't dispute any of your rights as forum owner and I think you have some valid views on socialism. But for your sake I urge you, while struggling against those evils, not to employ even a hint of the intolerant socialist ethics that harmed you and many others.
Make an enemy by silencing someone. Fight an enemy by standing up to someone. Destroy an enemy by bringing them to your way of thinking.
And, yeah, as a last resort close the forum down 😉
I know. I created the law as much to contain my own evil as to stop the others.
Gratz on 101! ;)
That's a good stance to have.
Yes, partial truth is a lie. :|
I kinda got irritated reading this. And while socially maybe your all very very right in what your saying to piotr. And perhaps all things being equal banning someone for speaking on personal beliefs is wrong.
Or maybe, enjoying the forum and app that has made a multitude of things easier and accessible to a large ammount of people can't just be good enough no.
So this is an magic app perhaps piotr decides to do away with social aspects that aren't relevent to mtg. People take things for granted and take up the fight against people whose mind is already decided.
Just as I can hide, block, or ignore someone saying things I don't like. I can also use some gosh dern judgment and quite obviously choose to not flame certain subjects that rile people up. No that would be to simple, peoples nature on the internet is to either white knight their beliefs to others or troll the knights for entertainment.
Personally i'd rather not bite the hand that feeds, because at the end of the day do you feel bigger because you stood up to piotr for banning someone. Probrably getting banned in the process. Was it worth it? Who really cares 10 years from now. How bout go do something with yourself that adds to peoples lives. I am very benefitted by this app therefore it has added value to my life. Like most people with facebook.
A wise man once told me you aren't merely paid what your worth, because no man paid by another man is ever paid his worth, because how can you measure worth? A mans worth is based on how much value he adds to others lives.
Gee whats that say about the guy who made google?
And for me thats why I appreciate piotr and I've never seen him been so personally vocal until being attacked on like every other thread like every other day. Makes me sad =(
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people talking about .politics. and socialism, I love these discussions. I just find it very unacceptable when people lie in said discussions, and I have the knowledge and skill to identify and prove these lies. It may look like I'm banning people for being socialists*, but that never happened and I hope never will, I ban for spreading lies.
* not all socialists are thieves, and being naive is not a crime. Spreading lies after being warned is.
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 08, 2013, 11:53:32 PM
Personally i'd rather not bite the hand that feeds, because at the end of the day do you feel bigger because you stood up to piotr for banning someone. Probrably getting banned in the process. Was it worth it? Who really cares 10 years from now. How bout go do something with yourself that adds to peoples lives. I am very benefitted by this app therefore it has added value to my life. Like most people with facebook.
This is wrong for soooo many reasons.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 09, 2013, 07:38:20 AM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 08, 2013, 11:53:32 PM
Personally i'd rather not bite the hand that feeds, because at the end of the day do you feel bigger because you stood up to piotr for banning someone. Probrably getting banned in the process. Was it worth it? Who really cares 10 years from now. How bout go do something with yourself that adds to peoples lives. I am very benefitted by this app therefore it has added value to my life. Like most people with facebook.
This is wrong for soooo many reasons.
Agreed ;)
Care to elaborate, or else I'll presume you misinterpret my sentiment.
I by no means try to give undue merit to a social waste of time (facebook). The example I used it for is that millions of people use it, and arguably it benefits its userbase in some fashion.
The issue here is nitpicking the definition of a lie. Whether its socialism or capitalism, agressively persuading people on misinformation believed inherently or not, is wrong. This is not our server or forum. If told to stop we should respect that. I'm under the impression the population is that of adults and children alike. Children may not be competent enough to make a decision regaurding these topics, adults aughta be able to discern bringing up topics like this especially with children around.
You personally believing something to be true really doesn't hold much merit. Unless its a generally accepted believed sentiment.
So the validity of what I believe is entirely dependant on whether or not others believe the same?! I think not, good sir...
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on September 09, 2013, 06:14:34 PM
So the validity of what I believe is entirely dependant on whether or not others believe the same?! I think not, good sir...
Well this could go way off on an unecessary tangent. But yes. One persons beliefs (while not not any less significant in their own right) do not trump general fact and understanding.
You can choose written fact as truth or you can not. Those are your choices.
I believe the sky is blue because I decided to believe the general fact that most people have accepted as the science that proves this.
Misleading people to believe what you believe on a topic as obscure as socialism (not the meaning but subscribing to the policies and philosophy) is opinion and cannot be perceived as truth. It may not be a full on lie, but I'm sorry I refuse to believe you all want to stand for illigitimate persuasion to any bias of any kind (ie: i'm not trying to single out socialism but its the most cited source for this conversation so far.)
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
Care to elaborate, or else I'll presume you misinterpret my sentiment.
I by no means try to give undue merit to a social waste of time (facebook). The example I used it for is that millions of people use it, and arguably it benefits its userbase in some fashion.
The issue here is nitpicking the definition of a lie. Whether its socialism or capitalism, agressively persuading people on misinformation believed inherently or not, is wrong. This is not our server or forum. If told to stop we should respect that. I'm under the impression the population is that of adults and children alike. Children may not be competent enough to make a decision regaurding these topics, adults aughta be able to discern bringing up topics like this especially with children around.
You personally believing something to be true really doesn't hold much merit. Unless its a generally accepted believed sentiment.
Whether or not I am misinformed is a topic up for debate. However, my biggest beef is that you set up a discussion forum and then outlaw an entire section of the political spectrum. Either be upfront in stating that political opinions must conform to your worldview or dot put up a discussion section.
I will append my statement to allow you my personal insight. I don't necessarily agree with my own argument (especially the following of bandwagon mentality) but I feel it is a necessary argument for this discussion.
Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 09, 2013, 06:26:14 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
Care to elaborate, or else I'll presume you misinterpret my sentiment.
I by no means try to give undue merit to a social waste of time (facebook). The example I used it for is that millions of people use it, and arguably it benefits its userbase in some fashion.
The issue here is nitpicking the definition of a lie. Whether its socialism or capitalism, agressively persuading people on misinformation believed inherently or not, is wrong. This is not our server or forum. If told to stop we should respect that. I'm under the impression the population is that of adults and children alike. Children may not be competent enough to make a decision regaurding these topics, adults aughta be able to discern bringing up topics like this especially with children around.
You personally believing something to be true really doesn't hold much merit. Unless its a generally accepted believed sentiment.
Whether or not I am misinformed is a topic up for debate. However, my biggest beef is that you set up a discussion forum and then outlaw an entire section of the political spectrum. Either be upfront in stating that political opinions must conform to your worldview or dot put up a discussion section.
I don't claim to know where the entirity of this discussion began, and I'm all for people debating beliefs and .politics.. But stating non truths as facts or opinions as facts to persuade an argument is wrong
TL; DR: Cite some source material that people can discuss that is from a credible source that people can debate about. And if you state what you believe is a fact don't be butthurt when people say you can't claim an opinion is truth.
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
Care to elaborate, or else I'll presume you misinterpret my sentiment.
The issue here is nitpicking the definition of a lie.
I interpreted it as you should just lie down and take it when you see something that you believe is wrong going on. Is that not what you meant with the "biting the hand that feeds" comment? If it is, that is complete bull💩 as far as I'm concerned. If I see something going on that I believe is wrong and it elicits an emotion from me, you bet your ass I'm going to say something about it, no matter how trivial it is or how much use I get out of the person's product.
You can disagree with facts allllll you want and I'm cool with your right to do that. But your opinion will NEVER be a accepted fact unless it is already an accepted and adopted source circulating.
Or go spend 10 years to research pigments, light refraction, or whatever. Write your thesis's get it approved by whatever commitee presides over that topic. Print and sell your books, change the school texts. (Apply this to whatever fact you choose to "proove") and then you'll have the right to pander whatever you want
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on August 31, 2013, 12:47:30 PM
No. People use "lie" as a substitute for "deception", "incorrect" and apparently "opinion". A lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth".
^^^ Again. My personal definition would probably be "a blatant and intentional misrepresentation or misstatement of the truth".
Quote from: Mikefrompluto on September 09, 2013, 06:39:51 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
Care to elaborate, or else I'll presume you misinterpret my sentiment.
The issue here is nitpicking the definition of a lie.
I interpreted it as you should just lie down and take it when you see something that you believe is wrong going on. Is that not what you meant with the "biting the hand that feeds" comment? If it is, that is complete bull💩 as far as I'm concerned. If I see something going on that I believe is wrong and it elicits an emotion from me, you bet your ass I'm going to say something about it, no matter how trivial it is or how much use I get out of the person's product.
If its unecessarily aggravating the community to be at odds. Yeah. Which I generally feel has happened. Don't get me wrong, standing up for social injustices is all well and good and should be done. But I personally think this is way out of hand. Perhaps I may have decided on taking the devils advocate approch to start but its given me a place to jump into the debate with very little prior knowledge to it. I don't really disagree with what the majority of whats being said in defense of free speech vs. Piotrs rights of ownership. However I really don't feel as if I could just let it go either, especially when the other side seemed unrepresented and slander was being somewhat accepted.
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 06:33:51 PM
Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 09, 2013, 06:26:14 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
Care to elaborate, or else I'll presume you misinterpret my sentiment.
I by no means try to give undue merit to a social waste of time (facebook). The example I used it for is that millions of people use it, and arguably it benefits its userbase in some fashion.
The issue here is nitpicking the definition of a lie. Whether its socialism or capitalism, agressively persuading people on misinformation believed inherently or not, is wrong. This is not our server or forum. If told to stop we should respect that. I'm under the impression the population is that of adults and children alike. Children may not be competent enough to make a decision regaurding these topics, adults aughta be able to discern bringing up topics like this especially with children around.
You personally believing something to be true really doesn't hold much merit. Unless its a generally accepted believed sentiment.
Whether or not I am misinformed is a topic up for debate. However, my biggest beef is that you set up a discussion forum and then outlaw an entire section of the political spectrum. Either be upfront in stating that political opinions must conform to your worldview or dot put up a discussion section.
I don't claim to know where the entirity of this discussion began, and I'm all for people debating beliefs and .politics.. But stating non truths as facts or opinions as facts to persuade an argument is wrong
TL; DR: Cite some source material that people can discuss that is from a credible source that people can debate about. And if you state what you believe is a fact don't be butthurt when people say you can't claim an opinion is truth.
I quoted sources, Priotr did not. Priotr made blanket statements about socialism being inherently deceitful, I said capitalism has problems and expounded with statistics about unemployment. I also cited Inside Job as a source for the statement that got me banned. Priotr just needs to be upfront: he does not believe in socialism and has outlawed promoting it. Again, I don't mind if people feel that socialism is wrong, but I feel Priotr should state outright he doesn't agree with it and considers it bannable to have an opinion he strongly disagrees with.
Then the only thing I have left to question is the validity and moreso the bias of your citations(don't bite my head off I'm attempting to be objective)
And your "choice" to "agressively" continue to pursue something so obscure.
Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong. Hence the voting process.
If you choose to agressively pursue one or either as pure truth, isnt that in a sense a misleading of sorts.
Which is different opposed to. "Oh hai guys, I like socialism because of this "" you should check it out of YOUR OWN VOLITION.'
^now I don't see piotr having an issue with this one. Maybe he still does, and he can tell me. And I'll shut up and let the debate continue. I just kinda felt this was more the case.
Also I'd like to thank you for bringing me up to speed and apologize for being ignorant of the full debate.
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 07:16:09 PM
Then the only thing I have left to question is the validity and moreso the bias of your citations(don't bite my head off I'm attempting to be objective)
And your "choice" to "agressively" continue to pursue something so obscure.
Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong. Hence the voting process.
If you choose to agressively pursue one or either as pure truth, isnt that in a sense a misleading of sorts.
Which is different opposed to. "Oh hai guys, I like socialism because of this "" you should check it out of YOUR OWN VOLITION.'
^now I don't see piotr having an issue with this one. Maybe he still does, and he can tell me. And I'll shut up and let the debate continue. I just kinda felt this was more the case.
Also I'd like to thank you for bringing me up to speed and apologize for being ignorant of the full debate.
Socialism was stated as an absolute untruth and anyone who prompted it a liar or naive.
Alright guys. I disagree with Boringanarchy12 being banned but I also realize that there is a time to move on. Keep fighting for what you believe in but also try to keep the order in this community. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Hey I put up my flag in my previous post
Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 09, 2013, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 07:16:09 PM
Then the only thing I have left to question is the validity and moreso the bias of your citations(don't bite my head off I'm attempting to be objective)
And your "choice" to "agressively" continue to pursue something so obscure.
Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong. Hence the voting process.
If you choose to agressively pursue one or either as pure truth, isnt that in a sense a misleading of sorts.
Which is different opposed to. "Oh hai guys, I like socialism because of this "" you should check it out of YOUR OWN VOLITION.'
^now I don't see piotr having an issue with this one. Maybe he still does, and he can tell me. And I'll shut up and let the debate continue. I just kinda felt this was more the case.
Also I'd like to thank you for bringing me up to speed and apologize for being ignorant of the full debate.
Socialism was stated as an absolute untruth and anyone who prompted it a liar or naive.
Where was it stated?
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 07:16:09 PM
Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong.
Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.
Quote from: Piotr on September 09, 2013, 08:02:41 PM
Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 09, 2013, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 07:16:09 PM
Then the only thing I have left to question is the validity and moreso the bias of your citations(don't bite my head off I'm attempting to be objective)
And your "choice" to "agressively" continue to pursue something so obscure.
Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong. Hence the voting process.
If you choose to agressively pursue one or either as pure truth, isnt that in a sense a misleading of sorts.
Which is different opposed to. "Oh hai guys, I like socialism because of this "" you should check it out of YOUR OWN VOLITION.'
^now I don't see piotr having an issue with this one. Maybe he still does, and he can tell me. And I'll shut up and let the debate continue. I just kinda felt this was more the case.
Also I'd like to thank you for bringing me up to speed and apologize for being ignorant of the full debate.
Socialism was stated as an absolute untruth and anyone who prompted it a liar or naive.
Where was it stated?
Pages 4-5 of the Jobs thread.
Quote from: Piotr on September 09, 2013, 08:07:37 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 07:16:09 PM
Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong.
Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.
This is completely ignorant of socialism in any form other than bastardizations of the international socialist order prior to WWi and the struggles of socialists for basic living condition increases such as the Dublin Lockout. That is all I will say on the subject
Quote from: Piotr on September 09, 2013, 08:07:37 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 07:16:09 PM
Things like capitalism and socialism are obviously rave topics. They are in themselves ideals and yet can only be proven within themselves so whose to really say one is right or wrong.
Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.
You are assuming too much. Yes people flee socialist countries more often than capitalist countries, but I think we should look into that more deeply. France (the French socialist president) for example has recently installed a tougher policy, taxing the rich more heavily (75%) so in response many of the French rich moved out of the country to a town just outside of France, in fact many of their backyards are in France, just to avoid the taxes. Now there are MANY other cases of people fleeing socialist countries for good reason but many times it is either because an oppressive dictator is abusing his people (and yet we still call them socialist ex. Russia under Stalin) and/or the system is broken (which in every case is true because when everyone is not being treated equally it is no longer socialism).
Socialism, like nomocracy, is a perfect system. The problem though (in both systems) is that people are greedy (to delve more into this I HIGHLY recommend "Envisioning a Sustainable Society" by Lester W. Milbrath). People are constantly in a struggle for power and this is what makes utopias and other perfect systems unrealistic, eventually someone rises up and take the power for themself, claiming a higher power or a quest for the "greater good".
What am I assuming? Fleeing a country because of oppressive taxation is still fleeing.
Quote from: Piotr on September 09, 2013, 08:07:37 PM
Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.
No one in the history of socialism, since 1827 when socialism was first thought of, has ever fled from a "free" (I'm assuming you mean democracies and republics) to a socialist country? I also think that the "it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves." comment was uncalled for and untrue as true socialism's goal is equality. As I tried to point out in my last post, the main problem with socialism isn't the system, its the people who abuse it like Stalin.
Where did this topic come from?
I thought the topic was "is non truth a lie?"
Quote from: IceScythe on September 09, 2013, 10:39:01 PM
Where did this topic come from?
I thought the topic was "is non truth a lie?"
It happens.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 09, 2013, 09:22:05 PM
Quote from: Piotr on September 09, 2013, 08:07:37 PM
Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.
No one in the history of socialism, since 1827 when socialism was first thought of, has ever fled from a "free" (I'm assuming you mean democracies and republics) to a socialist country? I also think that the "it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves." comment was uncalled for and untrue as true socialism's goal is equality. As I tried to point out in my last post, the main problem with socialism isn't the system, its the people who abuse it like Stalin.
When talking about economic systems you cannot look at individuals, only at statistics. I said many times before that socialism is good for greedy people with low morals, I'm sure you got that, didn you? When I talk about people who flee from socialism, I will not talk about the minority of oppressors, I will talk about the majority who are being oppressed.
The problem with socialism is the fact that it has nothing to protect itself from people like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, PolPot and illegal benefit claimants. It is because it assumes that goal justifies the means and hence the traditional ethics must be replaced with anti-ethics. You don't deserve something because you made it, they say you deserve something when you NEED it. This is anti natural laws, anti common sense, anti all reasonable religions. The actual problem of socialism are not the tyrants, because it is indeed relatively easy to stop them (although tell that to over 100 million people murdered by socialists in power). You cannot stop the people who abuse the system because you will always always always run out of resources before you can change the human nature. That's why socialism always failed, is failing now in America under Obama, and will always fail unless you cure people from greed. It is in fact something socialists are trying to do, they are trying to turn you into cattle, to kill your natural greed.
^this x 1000
Quote from: Piotr on September 10, 2013, 05:27:29 AM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 09, 2013, 09:22:05 PM
Quote from: Piotr on September 09, 2013, 08:07:37 PM
Never in the history of socialism people would flee from free countries to socialist country, always the other way round. This is especially visible in the examples of Germany and Korea. Socialism is bad for making people happy, but it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves.
No one in the history of socialism, since 1827 when socialism was first thought of, has ever fled from a "free" (I'm assuming you mean democracies and republics) to a socialist country? I also think that the "it is very good at controlling them and making them slaves." comment was uncalled for and untrue as true socialism's goal is equality. As I tried to point out in my last post, the main problem with socialism isn't the system, its the people who abuse it like Stalin.
When talking about economic systems you cannot look at individuals, only at statistics. I said many times before that socialism is good for greedy people with low morals, I'm sure you got that, didn you? When I talk about people who flee from socialism, I will not talk about the minority of oppressors, I will talk about the majority who are being oppressed.
The problem with socialism is the fact that it has nothing to protect itself from people like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, PolPot and illegal benefit claimants. It is because it assumes that goal justifies the means and hence the traditional ethics must be replaced with anti-ethics. You don't deserve something because you made it, they say you deserve something when you NEED it. This is anti natural laws, anti common sense, anti all reasonable religions. The actual problem of socialism are not the tyrants, because it is indeed relatively easy to stop them (although tell that to over 100 million people murdered by socialists in power). You cannot stop the people who abuse the system because you will always always always run out of resources before you can change the human nature. That's why socialism always failed, is failing now in America under Obama, and will always fail unless you cure people from greed. It is in fact something socialists are trying to do, they are trying to turn you into cattle, to kill your natural greed.
Ok, this is just dumb. Socialism isn't about oppressing the majority for the minority. The USSR, the Eastern bloc, Maoist China, and North Korea represent one branch of Marxism that usurped the rest and have been the convenient boogeyman for the rigt for far too long.
Socialism is responsible for so much we take for granted, we simply forget anything prior to WWII. The forty hour work week, weekends, public education, social welfare, and other programs that benefit the cast majority at the expense of the minority who exploit are all causes championed by socialism. The problem with socialism is that it is thought of today as being subservient to a nation-state paradigm, when it functions best as international coalitions. It is being forced to go through the political process when it worked best as a tool for change through economic pressure. Any government may fall prey to a charismatic figure with less than noble intentions, even democracy. The key to stopping it is a vigilant public. So this nonsense about socialism being more susceptible is just that. It's no coincidence that the countries that became totalitarian had long histories of cultures that ruled absolutely, it takes time to break such a mindset. Ultimately, I would argue that these regimes were merely one autocratic regime replacing another with a shiny new dogma on the surface to hide the fact that little had really changed.
Quote from: Piotr on September 10, 2013, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 10, 2013, 09:43:29 AM
Ok, this is just dumb.
I beg your pardon?
That's right, take a small snippet out of context and just ignore all the content. I think we are done here.
As I have tried to say about ten times, IT IS NOT SOCIALISM WHEN THERE IS A DICTATOR RULING IT, THAT IS CALLED A DICTATORSHIP!
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 10, 2013, 05:36:25 PM
As I have tried to say about ten times, IT IS NOT SOCIALISM WHEN THERE IS A DICTATOR RULING IT, THAT IS CALLED A DICTATORSHIP!
Yes, but the implication was that socialism is a natural precondition for dictatorship, when this idea only incorporated a small portion of socialism as it has been applied throughout history.
What about a socialist dictatorship???
There is no such thing. People claim it is "socialism" so that we can't call them viscous dictators, whenever there is a supreme ruler it is no longer socialism.
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on September 10, 2013, 05:44:26 PM
What about a socialist dictatorship???
I'll believe it when I see a dictator redistributing his own wealth. (Never gonna happen)
^^^ Well said.
Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 10, 2013, 04:16:34 PM
Quote from: Piotr on September 10, 2013, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 10, 2013, 09:43:29 AM
Ok, this is just dumb.
I beg your pardon?
That's right, take a small snippet out of context and just ignore all the content. I think we are done here.
Yup, I thought 7 days will be enough. You are unfit for Gathering.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 10, 2013, 05:36:25 PM
As I have tried to say about ten times, IT IS NOT SOCIALISM WHEN THERE IS A DICTATOR RULING IT, THAT IS CALLED A DICTATORSHIP!
You are confusing two things: economic system with power system.
You can easily have socialism implemented in democracy (most of Europe now) or socialism implemented in autocracy (Hitler, Stalin, Korean monarchy). You can also have free market in autocracy (Pinochet) or free market and democracy (US before income tax and FED).
Socialism is about wealth redistribution, it doesn't matter what the power system is.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on September 10, 2013, 05:49:17 PM
whenever there is a supreme ruler it is no longer socialism.
This is a lie, please do not claim it to be true.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 10, 2013, 07:17:21 PM
Quote from: Double-O-Scotch on September 10, 2013, 05:44:26 PM
What about a socialist dictatorship???
I'll believe it when I see a dictator redistributing his own wealth. (Never gonna happen)
Socialists never redistribute their own wealth*, they mostly take from the working population, under force (income tax). That's why socialism is illegal under iMtG law. It doesn't matter if the socialists are majority in democracy or if it is one guy and his cronies. The act of extorting wealth from unwilling people is what makes it illegal.
* distributing your own wealth is called charity, not socialism.
._. So... What about that topic fellas...
I hope I defined it clearly, for the purposes of the iMtG law. I do not claim that my definition is the only definition valid in the universe, blablabla, but for the purposes of the iMtG law: lie is false statement which hurts someone. For example, if you dare calling me misogynist, you better have valid logic to prove that I'm indeed a misogynist. Would misogynist marry a woman and have 2 daughters? ;)
Yes, they would :P I don't believe that you are mysogenistic, but a sexist wouldn't avoid marriage or turn gay - his reason for marriage would simply be different than yours. Most likely for dominance or power over his wife. Because they are scum.
As for daughters, you'd have to have magic sperm if you chose ;)
Haha^
From my own beliefs, a lie is any intentional false statement, for good or worse, and withholding information. Partial truth is lieing.
Quote from: Gorzo on September 11, 2013, 01:44:49 PM
Yes, they would :P
How can one prove that they are not indeed misogynist?
Quote from: Piotr on September 11, 2013, 06:36:28 PM
Quote from: Gorzo on September 11, 2013, 01:44:49 PM
Yes, they would :P
How can one prove that they are not indeed misogynist?
Curious question. I haven't really thought it. To be honest I'm not sure there really is a way to "prove" it. It's just a part of one's personality that shows through their opinions and actions. I've disagreed with your opinions and actions multiple times (even in this thread) but I've never once seen you display any behavior to indicate a disrespect of women, mysogeny, anti-feminism, or any unfair treatment towards women whatsoever. I think that Leslie person was just looking for a soap box. I wouldn't worry about it, if that's what you're concerned with.
On another note, you declared Boringanarchy unfit for gathering. I assume this means you banned him again? And I'm guessing permanently this time? I must admit I'm not happy with this decision. I understand why you did it, he was antagonizing you this time, and you had told him to stop. I'm just a bit disappointed about it, and don't want this leading to people being unable to disagree with what do/don't personally believe in, lest they be struck down by the ban hammer for speaking their opinion. That's all.
Thank you. Not permanently, I have too much patience ;)
Quote from: Boringanarchy2 on September 09, 2013, 06:26:14 PM
Quote from: DirtyMustachio on September 09, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
Care to elaborate, or else I'll presume you misinterpret my sentiment.
I by no means try to give undue merit to a social waste of time (facebook). The example I used it for is that millions of people use it, and arguably it benefits its userbase in some fashion.
The issue here is nitpicking the definition of a lie. Whether its socialism or capitalism, agressively persuading people on misinformation believed inherently or not, is wrong. This is not our server or forum. If told to stop we should respect that. I'm under the impression the population is that of adults and children alike. Children may not be competent enough to make a decision regaurding these topics, adults aughta be able to discern bringing up topics like this especially with children around.
You personally believing something to be true really doesn't hold much merit. Unless its a generally accepted believed sentiment.
Whether or not I am misinformed is a topic up for debate. However, my biggest beef is that you set up a discussion forum and then outlaw an entire section of the political spectrum. Either be upfront in stating that political opinions must conform to your worldview or dot put up a discussion section.
This forum is judged by logic and facts, not emotions. House rule. I'm discussing socialism all the time with various civilised people and I have never thought about banning them. You were banned for spreading lies the first time, then you come back to be banned for being rude.