Has anyone heard about the problem at forums.philosophyforums.com?

[Scott Mayers]

Several people were banned for objecting to that thread, and arguing against it, by Scott who is something of a compulsive obsessive with a lack of emotional empathy.

Were ad hominem attacks used in arguing against the thread, resulting in the ban? No one's going to be banned for saying "I strongly object to x due to y".

I certainly didn't follow up on that and would now more curious than ever. Whatever the case, I DO find it ridiculous that CENSORSHIP is becoming embraced for such bullshit. There is validity to allowing people to speak freely regardless of its 'content'. The sites DO have a capacity to track down any presumed 'terrorists' for political issues, etc. But they use these trigger issues as legal justifications (they, being both Corporate and Governmental or Political) to ban free speech and violate the public.

I HAD raised a concern of this here and the WHOLE thread disappeared....likely BECAUSE others were paying attention. It was on the nature of forum sites to selectively CHOOSE to censor in a biased way making them UN-CREDIBLE to their RIGHT to have such sites in view of the public. It was one about an odd thread of PhilX's that got censored to which I argued with strong logic how a 'public' invited site acts like a mall and so CANNOT have absolute "ownership" privileges. That is, they should NOT be allowed to 'censor' if they are ALSO able to USE our information in any way they see fit to profit from OR destroy the credibility of the people coming to them, ...for instance, by giving UP to select governments information about users. How can 'evidence' be used against people BASED on information that such sites actually have a 'right' to manipulate (delete, edit, etc.) It makes such information disputable as trustworthy.

This is my take on Hillary Clinton's email intrusion. How or why Trump thinks such information should be 'public' seems to draw a Red Herring across the fact that such information is a direct violation of one's privacy and so the breech of those who do find such 'evidence' also have to be in doubt to whether such information is 'true' or simply manufactured.

[Scott Mayers]

...
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm the ONLY one I'm aware of using my name anywhere. So please explain yourself.

I asked if you were the Scott that owns the other Forum, as was quite plain from what I said.
So what the fuck are you getting upset about. Either you are, or you are not.
Scott is common enough.

I use my full name online. You appeared to imply that I had been spreading some porn from the way I READ you AND, since I use my FULL name, it raises question how or why you'd even think I 'own' that or any site WITHOUT tying my FULL name to it. I don't own ANY site. And if or where I might in the future, I'd use my FULL real name, Scott Mayers. So please give me a break. How many others have a simple first name, "Scott"?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Maybe Hobbes could enlighten us to what precisely that topic was again?

Obviously not. You have the advantage as a censor to be able to SILENCE your critics. The details of the threads promoting paedophilia which you supported, were some time ago, so specific details have been forgotten.
I clearly remember being insulted by a small gang of people pretending that paedophilia was perfectly okay as long as the child seems to like it. When I objected that children, are not capable of making informed choices and that the thread was condoning illegal acts against vulnerable children - I was banned.

Since banning results in being unable to examine the details, of what precisely was said, I cannot furnish any more detailed information.
But since you have admitted to being THAT Scott, I suggest you fuck off back under you rock with your paedo friends. I'm sure there is much to keep you busy invigilating to keep your little group working SO why you are here is beyond my imagination. But whist you have crawled out from under your rock you should expect to be swatted like the little OCD bug you are.

[Greta]

Maybe Hobbes could enlighten us to what precisely that topic was again?

Obviously not. You have the advantage as a censor to be able to SILENCE your critics. The details of the threads promoting paedophilia which you supported, were some time ago, so specific details have been forgotten.
I clearly remember being insulted by a small gang of people pretending that paedophilia was perfectly okay as long as the child seems to like it. When I objected that children, are not capable of making informed choices and that the thread was condoning illegal acts against vulnerable children - I was banned.

Are you able to find the posts in question?

[Scott Mayers]

I think the spelling fairy sabotaged it because they say 'math'.

I don't follow. What says 'math'?

She's implying the website is US based where they prefer the term math over maths. The website has several features which I like.

PhilX

Oh, this seems like a weird thing to be concerned about. "math" is short for "mathematics" by many here in North America. We use the plural if we are treating the distinction between subclasses as significant and without to reference the same where we treat the whole collectively.

"particle" science: the science that deals with "particles"
[the whole] : a thing that contains a set of [parts]

"math": the general subject title that deals with members of distinct "maths".

[Scott Mayers]

Maybe Hobbes could enlighten us to what precisely that topic was again?

Obviously not. You have the advantage as a censor to be able to SILENCE your critics. The details of the threads promoting paedophilia which you supported, were some time ago, so specific details have been forgotten.
I clearly remember being insulted by a small gang of people pretending that paedophilia was perfectly okay as long as the child seems to like it. When I objected that children, are not capable of making informed choices and that the thread was condoning illegal acts against vulnerable children - I was banned.

Since banning results in being unable to examine the details, of what precisely was said, I cannot furnish any more detailed information.
But since you have admitted to being THAT Scott, I suggest you fuck off back under you rock with your paedo friends. I'm sure there is much to keep you busy invigilating to keep your little group working SO why you are here is beyond my imagination. But whist you have crawled out from under your rock you should expect to be swatted like the little OCD bug you are.

I don't remember the particular OP but I DO find trouble with obsessive concerns about 'child porn' by advocates that think that children are what they are not. I didn't see the thread after I responded so can't tell what developed from it nor to what you may be thinking of me regarding it. If you got banned, I can't speak for that site in the least.

If you find out the topic or introduce something similar here that I disagree with, I assure you I'll respond with my view (if I even discover it). It sounds like you are the one for some sort of 'censorship' if you are calling people pedophiles, as this just a form of bullying by associating ones interest in some 'taboo' subject in which anyone remotely questions some aspect of the psychology involved that gives any remote support to even mention UNDERSTANDING of some act. I'm for pornography in general,.... but also for things like prostitution or drugs to be legal as well. As to porn, the things that one "looks" at, regardless of 'what' they are, should not penalize those observing them nor to their potential deviancy in some moral sense regardless of how or what it might represent of them. The TARGET should be to those who actually abuse the kids BY creating such things. But lets leave that for some other thread....if I even care to participate.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"math": the general subject title that deals with members of distinct "maths".

Are you retarded?

[Scott Mayers]

"math": the general subject title that deals with members of distinct "maths".

Are you retarded?

Apparently. Are you going to give me some 'lesson' on how X should be spelled or pronounced?

"Oh, my, you Doo know that the fork goes on the left and the spoon on the right!? Are you a peasant? Were you raised in a barn?"

"How dare you have your pudding before you eat your meat!"

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"math": the general subject title that deals with members of distinct "maths".

Are you retarded?

Apparently. Are you going to give me some 'lesson' on how X should be spelled or pronounced?

"Oh, my, you Doo know that the fork goes on the left and the spoon on the right!? Are you a peasant? Were you raised in a barn?"

"How dare you have your pudding before you eat your meat!"

That's 'spelt'. And aren't you the one who got offended at being confused with the 'other' Scott? Why should it matter? Who cares? One 'Scott' is as good as any other, surely? Canadians aren't yanks. Why are you following those illiterate morons?

[Scott Mayers]

That's 'spelt'. And aren't you the one who got offended at being confused with the 'other' Scott? Why should it matter? Who cares? One 'Scott' is as good as any other, surely? Canadians aren't yanks. Why are you following those illiterate morons?

I may be 'Canadian' legally, but I was raised in both the U.S. and Canada. I'm guessing you're just being having fun though. I actually consider myself without boundaries.

You could actually even reduce this further to say that anyone with the initial first letter, "S", IS me, right?

I actually prefer "spelt" too but my damn speller correcter underlines this as an error. (??)

[Arising_uk]

...

In fact Scott, there is a connection between PF and PN because I spotted Rick Lewis over at PF.

PhilX

What 'fact', as you were there does that mean you are connected to the site? I'd assume that Rick just uses his full name all the time.

[Philosophy Explorer]

...

In fact Scott, there is a connection between PF and PN because I spotted Rick Lewis over at PF.

PhilX

What 'fact', as you were there does that mean you are connected to the site? I'd assume that Rick just uses his full name all the time.

You're not making sense. Please rephrase.

PhilX

[Hobbes' Choice]

Maybe Hobbes could enlighten us to what precisely that topic was again?

Obviously not. You have the advantage as a censor to be able to SILENCE your critics. The details of the threads promoting paedophilia which you supported, were some time ago, so specific details have been forgotten.
I clearly remember being insulted by a small gang of people pretending that paedophilia was perfectly okay as long as the child seems to like it. When I objected that children, are not capable of making informed choices and that the thread was condoning illegal acts against vulnerable children - I was banned.

Are you able to find the posts in question?

No, I was not even told which post got me banned.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Maybe Hobbes could enlighten us to what precisely that topic was again?

Obviously not. You have the advantage as a censor to be able to SILENCE your critics. The details of the threads promoting paedophilia which you supported, were some time ago, so specific details have been forgotten.
I clearly remember being insulted by a small gang of people pretending that paedophilia was perfectly okay as long as the child seems to like it. When I objected that children, are not capable of making informed choices and that the thread was condoning illegal acts against vulnerable children - I was banned.

Since banning results in being unable to examine the details, of what precisely was said, I cannot furnish any more detailed information.
But since you have admitted to being THAT Scott, I suggest you fuck off back under you rock with your paedo friends. I'm sure there is much to keep you busy invigilating to keep your little group working SO why you are here is beyond my imagination. But whist you have crawled out from under your rock you should expect to be swatted like the little OCD bug you are.

I don't remember the particular OP but I DO find trouble with obsessive concerns about 'child porn' by advocates that think that children are what they are not. I didn't see the thread after I responded so can't tell what developed from it nor to what you may be thinking of me regarding it. If you got banned, I can't speak for that site in the least.
.

So are you saying unequivocally that you are not Scott the owner of a philosophy site?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Obviously not. You have the advantage as a censor to be able to SILENCE your critics. The details of the threads promoting paedophilia which you supported, were some time ago, so specific details have been forgotten.
I clearly remember being insulted by a small gang of people pretending that paedophilia was perfectly okay as long as the child seems to like it. When I objected that children, are not capable of making informed choices and that the thread was condoning illegal acts against vulnerable children - I was banned.

Since banning results in being unable to examine the details, of what precisely was said, I cannot furnish any more detailed information.
But since you have admitted to being THAT Scott, I suggest you fuck off back under you rock with your paedo friends. I'm sure there is much to keep you busy invigilating to keep your little group working SO why you are here is beyond my imagination. But whist you have crawled out from under your rock you should expect to be swatted like the little OCD bug you are.

I don't remember the particular OP but I DO find trouble with obsessive concerns about 'child porn' by advocates that think that children are what they are not. I didn't see the thread after I responded so can't tell what developed from it nor to what you may be thinking of me regarding it. If you got banned, I can't speak for that site in the least.
.

So are you saying unequivocally that you are not Scott the owner of a philosophy site?

It's Scott Hughes who is the owner of OPC, not Scott Mayers.

PhilX