Closed Israeli Thread
z_illa
867 Posts
Why was this closed? By who? Does the community support this action? Is there something I missed in the thread that was offensive, and who did it offend?
I thought the thread was a necessary rebuttal to the claim that many Muslims live as equals in Israel, which has been argued a few times on this board, most specific in my mind is a post by Mr. Paycheck.
But beyond the actual discussion, I take serious issue with the discussion not even being allowed to happen. For no public reason.
Seriously, the only time I feel like replying to a post here is to call out the self righteous insanity that has overtaken this board. And I hate it. This isn't about Israel, this isn't about Obama, this is about simply acknowledging that others have opinions and being comfortable with people voicing them. Instead of "tell em why you mad," it's nothing but "shut up, you smell."
Please inform me which mod to tell to get the fuck off "our" lawn.
I thought the thread was a necessary rebuttal to the claim that many Muslims live as equals in Israel, which has been argued a few times on this board, most specific in my mind is a post by Mr. Paycheck.
But beyond the actual discussion, I take serious issue with the discussion not even being allowed to happen. For no public reason.
Seriously, the only time I feel like replying to a post here is to call out the self righteous insanity that has overtaken this board. And I hate it. This isn't about Israel, this isn't about Obama, this is about simply acknowledging that others have opinions and being comfortable with people voicing them. Instead of "tell em why you mad," it's nothing but "shut up, you smell."
Please inform me which mod to tell to get the fuck off "our" lawn.
Comments
And I have no problem with the concept of rape by fraud or deception. I mean, if he was a doctor and said that sex would cure the woman's illness it would be basically the same the thing or if he was married and said he was single. I don't know if he should have gotten jail time, but I'm not all pulling my hair out and rending my garments over the legal issue.
The issue of saying you are rich or a marine biologist aren't big enough deceptions to qualify.
Did you miss the title?
If the Oakland video thread was titled along similar lines I don't think it would be well received here.
Of course the title is still there even though the thread is locked, but I don't see how would it help promote any useful discussion.
Any discussion regarding the problems the Middle East is having is useful in my mind. The judgment of the thread, by whoever, at best was premature. But the thing is, if I disagree with you, I don't kick you out of the discussion. That is not civil, or useful.
Appreciate him being sensitive to that --- a retitling would have sufficed, though. Gotta admit, I was pretty taken aback seeing that title when I first signed on and after trying to submit a "hey, not so cool" post , it was already closed.
I don't know why the thread was shut down tho. Someone should have just edited the title.
I guess I don't agree with this at all. It seems to me that 90% of the discussions about this I see on the internet (not here specifically) is just inflammatory BS designed to express and promote further hatred. Look at the comments section under any AP article and tell me if you really think that it's useful.
Tells chicks he's a professional moderator
How about..
"Hey c*nts! Lets have a productive conversation, in a fruitful way."
could be a winner.. right?
get the fuck outta here.
should have known that this was the issue, but it didn't even cross my mind.
Clearly you underestimate the power of marine biology.
No, it absolutely does not. You should know better.
So let me get this straight.
Fuck Arizona! = fine
Fucking Israeli C*nts = crossed line
Is it purely the use of the C word that sets the precedent? Or is it cause it's about Israel? Could we have a thread titled "Fucking Nazi C*nts", about some nonspecific nationality Nazis?
UNLOCK
This is the main point of this thread for me.
Especially now that I've learned the reason and it is very different from what I had assumed.
I have a problem with it. Tricking a mentally retarded person into sex, yes - that goes to the heart of whether there was actual "consent". Mental incapacity is where the law should be drawn though, shouldn't it?
When is some sort of fraud not involved in one-night stands? I know there can be plenty of egregious hypothetical situations, but to use your example, if a woman's doctor tricks her into sex the act itself was still consensual.
under that rational then entering into a fraudulent contract would not be actionable because you still consented and only contracts entered into under duress would give rise to a cause of action?
Unless you're saying all this with no undertones and you're genuinely confused, I'm sure if you were to read over your own questioning and genuinely consider what you're asking in your mentioning of a triangle of topics btwn the Nazi party, the recent piece of legislature in Arizona, and Israel's past politics, and are wondering why deeming one of these three as "fucking cunts", considering their past histories, as offensive, then I believe you should be able to solve this on your own.
Pardon the long and fragmented sentence.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tells chicks he's Jack Kerouac.
apples and oranges. i'm talking about a serious criminal charge. i suppose there are a myriad of torts one could allege if harmed by a fraudulent fuck.
GOLD
Its not apples and oranges. The concept of consent is not practice area specific. The doctor in my example would be guilty of rape. If a stranger entered a woman's room at night and led her to believe that he was her husband and had intercourse, she may "consent," but that would also be rape.
burglar dressing up as husband is rape. she didn't consent. guy claiming he is a jew - not the same thing. the concept of "consent" most likely appears in every area of the law, but definitions will vary across civil and criminal. i also am not claiming to be giving a primer on rape law, just stating my disagreement with the decision in this case.