Closed Israeli Thread

z_illa

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.

sabadabada

It was the author of the thread that scuttled it, so i don't blame them for shutting it down.

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.

Horseleech

z_illa said:

Is there something I missed in the thread that was offensive

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.

z_illa

Horseleech said:

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.

Woimsah

Horseleech said:

z_illa said:

Is there something I missed in the thread that was offensive

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.

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.

mannybolone

Anything with the term "cunts" in the title isn't a fruitful way to open a productive conversation.

DOR

Poor thread title.

I don't know why the thread was shut down tho. Someone should have just edited the title.

Horseleech

z_illa said:

Any discussion regarding the problems the Middle East is having is useful

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.

mannybolone

I should add: the fact that one can reopen the conversation (with this very thread) runs counter to the idea that anything has been censored or "shut down." People confuse moderation on the grounds of civility with limiting open dialogue. The latter would mean this thread would also be locked or deleted and no future discussion allowed.

DB_Cooper

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tells chicks he's a professional moderator

Okem

mannybolone said:

Anything with the term "cunts" in the title isn't a fruitful way to open a productive conversation.

How about..

"Hey c*nts! Lets have a productive conversation, in a fruitful way."

could be a winner.. right?

z_illa

mannybolone said:

Anything with the term "cunts" in the title isn't a fruitful way to open a productive conversation.

get the fuck outta here.

should have known that this was the issue, but it didn't even cross my mind.

DJ_Enki

sabadabada said:

The issue of saying you are rich or a marine biologist aren't big enough deceptions to qualify.

Clearly you underestimate the power of marine biology.

z_illa

mannybolone said:

I should add: the fact that one can reopen the conversation (with this very thread) runs counter to the idea that anything has been censored or "shut down."

No, it absolutely does not. You should know better.

Okem

This troll thread is probably more interesting than the other one already.


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?

magpaul

You can post a video of someone beating a woman but don't use any bad language.

discos_alma

Fuck civility. This is Soulstrut.

UNLOCK

hertzhog

Locking a thread-- anonymously, to boot-- without providing an explanation is never a good look..

sabadabada

I would lock this thread now, just to put a lid on all this dissent. Maybe a ban or two to show everyone I mean business.

z_illa

hertzhog said:

Locking a thread-- anonymously, to boot-- without providing an explanation is never a good look..

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.

sabadabada

Didn't the bullet tooth thread get locked too?

keithvanhorn

sabadabada said:

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.

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.

sabadabada

keithvanhorn said:

sabadabada said:

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.

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?

Woimsah

Okem said:

This troll thread is probably more interesting than the other one already.


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?

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.

sabadabada

Further, in NY at least, one can annul a marriage based on deceit, and one of the grounds is that one's spouse lied about his/her religion or even the strenght of his/her beliefs (i.e. orthodoxy). So the concept is not new..

DB_Cooper

Woimsah said:

Okem said:

This troll thread is probably more interesting than the other one already.


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?

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.

keithvanhorn

sabadabada said:

keithvanhorn said:

sabadabada said:

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.

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?

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.

willie_fugal

DB_Cooper said:

Woimsah said:

Okem said:

This troll thread is probably more interesting than the other one already.


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?

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.

GOLD

sabadabada

keithvanhorn said:

sabadabada said:

keithvanhorn said:

sabadabada said:

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.

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?

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.

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.

fishmongerfunk

in canada and the uk, fraud vitiates consent when it goes to the "nature and quality" of the sex act. pretending to be rich and famous to get laid ("i actually believed i was kevin costner") is no crime because it doesn;t go to the nature and quality of the actual sex act itself, even though the woman might not have consented had she known the truth. on the other hand, if a man has aids and knows it and does not tell his partner, then she hasn't truly consented to run the risk of infection and he can be charged with sexual assault. same thing with the doctor who lies that having sex will cure his patient or the twin brother or sister who slips into a dark room and deceives the other person into having sex with him or her on the basis that he or she is another person...

keithvanhorn

sabadabada said:

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.