mathonihah Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 Why would you want to do that? I don't understand those who want to tear down the beliefs of others.You call it "tearing down the belief of others;" I call it legitimate criticisms of false teachings and doctrines.If you want to discuss something with an open mind that is one thing but Rob is anything but open-minded.If he is not being open-minded, that is his problem. The answer is to give him the appropriate reply which nails down his close mindedness; not deny him the right to speak altogether. People have the right to speak their minds, even if their minds happen to be closed.
halconero Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 Why waste time on this when there's so many pictures of cats to look up? 4
KevinG Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 No one has denied Rob the right to speak, publish or use whatever media he desires to preach his intolerance of all things Mormonism. He has his own site and writes on many others (like this one) who give him great leeway in what he preaches. I put him on ignore a long time ago when he proved he was not interested in correcting mischaracterizations of Mormons, just rationalizing his perpetuating them. I also put Mormons on ignore when they cross the same line. It doesn't matter what their pet issue is.Bullys often resort to rationalization, whining and claiming victim status when someone decides they have crossed the line from evangelism to defaming.
mathonihah Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 It is ridiculous to think anyone has a right to publish anything on Facebook. Remember: If you aren't paying for it, you are the product. If Mark Zuckerberg's employees make a judgement call that content is offensive or objectionable to their customer base they can remove or suspend it. If Rob's site was pulled by his internet provider that would be a different matter.Anyone who thinks Facebook or any other social media site is a right is sadly confused about what social media is or perhaps confused about what rights are.None of us have a right to an unlimited audience paid for by others. Even the missionaries obey the law of the lands they are in and those where they are restricted.That is not the issue. The issue is that they should be consistent with their rules. They shouldn't have double standards. Everybody should be treated the same, not some people be more "equal" than others. Their mods (or whoever they are who enforce their rules) should be trained to apply the rules consistently, correctly, and without discrimination. If somebody feels that they don't, or that he is being discriminated against, they have the right to complain.
Tacenda Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 Why waste time on this when there's so many pictures of cats to look up?Tell me about it. But during the election I could have seen a lot less commentary too.. Politics & religion are subjects that can do more harm if spoken against than anything besides SSM of course.
Gohan Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) Why waste time on this when there's so many pictures of cats to look up?First post on this thread that's actually been worth a rep point. Rob, Sorry to hear about the problems that your Facebook pages is having. I've got issues with the way they handle censorship and penalties. My personal profile was temporarily shut down as a 'spam profile' because too many people added me immediately after I returned from my mission. And my appeal to the people of Facebook didn't matter a bit, they essentially said it was my fault for being gone for two years.So, despite out inevitable disagreements on matters of doctrine and belief, I feel for you man. Edited December 29, 2012 by Gohan
KevinG Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 That is not the issue. I disagree with your unilateral decree. You defining what "is" or "is not" an issue does not make it so any more than Facebook deciding what is or is not allowed on pages defines the argument contained in those pages.The issue is that they should be consistent with their rules. They shouldn't have double standards. Everybody should be treated the same, not some people be more "equal" than others. Their mods (or whoever they are who enforce their rules) should be trained to apply the rules consistently, correctly, and without discrimination. If somebody feels that they don't, or that he is being discriminated against, they have the right to complain. They have been quite active in shutting down groups critical of other religions. And those groups who criticize are almost universally whiners about censorship. I've seen it happen with pages defaming Islam. Facebook is not a free speech zone. It is social media. Learn the difference.
mathonihah Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 No one has denied Rob the right to speak, publish or use whatever media he desires to preach his intolerance of all things Mormonism. He has his own site and writes on many others (like this one) who give him great leeway in what he preaches. I put him on ignore a long time ago when he proved he was not interested in correcting mischaracterizations of Mormons, just rationalizing his perpetuating them. I also put Mormons on ignore when they cross the same line. It doesn't matter what their pet issue is.Bullys often resort to rationalization, whining and claiming victim status when someone decides they have crossed the line from evangelism to defaming.Again, you are not dealing with the issue. If you don't like the look on his face, I don't blame you. Neither do I. But that is beside the point. The point is that he feels that he is not being fairly treated by Facebook; and he has the right to have his complaint heard.
Gohan Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) Change the wording in his mission statement to Jew, Muslim, black, gay....and then go on record saying that the words are not malicious. I'd actually like to see what kind of people we are dealing with on this message board.Please...You're trying to take some defense of another, and turn into your own personal litmus test of their character and/or beliefs. And it's a crappy litmus test at that. It's insulting and an attempt to lay down some arbitrary 'line in the sand.' You can do better. I know that at least.And for the record, I don't agree with Rob or IRR's mission, but I liked him personally based on our interactions here and in person. Edited December 29, 2012 by Gohan
KevinG Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 Again, you are not dealing with the issue. If you don't like the look on his face, I don't blame you. Neither do I. But that is beside the point. The point is that he feels that he is not being fairly treated by Facebook; and he has the right to have his complaint heard.He has the same right to appeal as anyone else (see Gohan's experience). From what I read here his experience was no different from others trying to use Facebook to push an agenda that others find offensive.If the issue is Facebook moderation why bring it up here on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion? The only reasons I can think of are venting and getting attention. Now if a Mormon here was involved in complaints leading to his page's removal and is willing to debate it with Rob that would be an interesting discussion. 1
KevinG Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 As an aside I'm about to limit my Facebook to close family and use it for nothing but cute family pictures and jokes. After this last election cycle I've gotten tired of the politics of former high school classmates. 1
jwhitlock Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 I have already answered this demand. Posts from IRR's FB page and that of several other evangelical ministries specializing in Mormonism have been removed, supposedly for objectionable content. The only plausible explanation is that one or more Mormons are responsible. The removal of the posts is itself the evidence.This, of course, is ridiculous. If this is Rob's only rationale for claiming that "Mormon's did it", then it speaks volumes about the low regard that he has for members of the church in general. They're always guilty on the slightest of pretenses.But then again, that's what anti-Mormonism is all about, isn't it. 4
mathonihah Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 I disagree with your unilateral decree. You defining what "is" or "is not" an issue does not make it so any more than Facebook deciding what is or is not allowed on pages defines the argument contained in those pages.That was my observation. You are entitled to disagree with my observation, but you are not entitled to deny me the right to make that observation.They have been quite active in shutting down groups critical of other religions. And those groups who criticize are almost universally whiners about censorship. I've seen it happen with pages defaming Islam.I am sure they have. But that does not give us the right to teat them in the same way, or deny them the right to speak at all.Facebook is not a free speech zone. It is social media. Learn the difference.Whatever it is, they should be consistent with the application of their rules. If somebody feels (rightly or wrongly) that they have not been, they have the right to complain, and their complaint deserves to be heard.
jwhitlock Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 How about the following? Do you find the language of the following statements "demeaning," or do you think it is perfectly "cordial" and "civil"?Such examples could be multiplied. These all come from LDS.org, the LDS Church's official website.I wondered how long it was going to take Rob to use this opportunity to attack the church.Perhaps Rob can supply us with a justification of how the attacks on individuals he makes on his site - and you need to look no further than the "testimonies" of those who have left the church - compares to the more generally directed statements of doctrine he quotes as "uncivil".
BlueDreams Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 As an aside I'm about to limit my Facebook to close family and use it for nothing but cute family pictures and jokes. After this last election cycle I've gotten tired of the politics of former high school classmates.Glad you get that option...it was my family that was doing so. Ah well...it only comes in mass every leap year....that's manageable. On censorship: i have no idea. scanning through the site, there would have been other things that would be more likely to be flagged, personally. Like the dumb arguments about how a tissue pad with anti-mormon websites and a pic inferring LDS women and a Mormon-based depression mixed with a quote from Jesus wouldn't be offensive when handed out during the women's broadcast of conference. On flagging in general/ I'm too lazy....I don't think I've flagged anybody at anytime. Plus FB can sometimes be weird about what it will/won't censor. It's their right to do so. With luv,BD 2
jwhitlock Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 Yes, by all means. And while we're at it, my critics might want to quote some of the many, many positive things that are said about Mormons on IRR's website. But they don't do this. They do the opposite: they claim that all IRR does is try to attack Mormons and tear down everything they believe, which is simply false.Rob's SOP is to acknowledge that Mormons are "good people", and immediately follow it with "but..." or "yet..." or other negative qualifiers that cast doubt about what those supposedly "good Mormon neighbors" are really like.The "Considering Joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church)?" article on his site really is a good reference for the kind of cherry picking Rob's site does in attacking Mormons and Mormonism.And, btw, the name of the church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". "The" is capitalized. 1
mathonihah Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 He has the same right to appeal as anyone else (see Gohan's experience). From what I read here his experience was no different from others trying to use Facebook to push an agenda that others find offensive.If he has genuinely broken Facebook rules, and they are treating him accordingly, then I would agree that he has nothing to complain about. But the fact remains that he feels otherwise; and judging by his side of the story it appears that he may be right. If so, then he has the right to have his complaint heard by Facebook, and a satisfactory explanation given. It appears that that has not happened, and therefore he has a legitimate complaint to make about it.If the issue is Facebook moderation why bring it up here on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion? The only reasons I can think of are venting and getting attention.Why shouldn't he? He feels that he has a problem, and he wants other people's opinions on it (especially Mormons'). I would say this is as good a place for him to do it as any other.Now if a Mormon here was involved in complaints leading to his page's removal and is willing to debate it with Rob that would be an interesting discussion.Perhaps there is, how do you know? Perhaps that was one of his motives!
jwhitlock Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 Aha, so they have removed much more than the only post you have disclosed. They have been removing them for days, even. Gee, why do I get the feeling we are being played?I got that same impression, too. Rob only supplied one post (or part of one?)Of course, context is everything. And Rob's a master at manipulating context in order to give a certain impression, while feigning innocence and non-malice publicly. 3
mathonihah Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) This, of course, is ridiculous. If this is Rob's only rationale for claiming that "Mormon's did it", then it speaks volumes about the low regard that he has for members of the church in general. They're always guilty on the slightest of pretenses.But then again, that's what anti-Mormonism is all about, isn't it.How can you rule out that no Mormons have been involved? You mean that there aren't any dumb Mormons around. I am sure there is more than one! Edited December 29, 2012 by mathonihah
KevinG Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 That was my observation. You are entitled to disagree with my observation, but you are not entitled to deny me the right to make that observation.I am sure they have. But that does not give us the right to teat them in the same way, or deny them the right to speak at all.Whatever it is, they should be consistent with the application of their rules. If somebody feels (rightly or wrongly) that they have not been, they have the right to complain, and their complaint deserves to be heard.Complain away. I'm not stopping you or Rob. His issue is with Facebook. My issue is with those who claim censorship when none exists. Like you saying I have no right to deny you the right to make observations when there was no such denial.Methinks thou dost protest too much. 1
juliann Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 Let me help you out a bit.If I write a critical piece about the First Vision and proclaim the First Vision to have never happened the way the Church claims it did, then I am criticizing the Church's position. If you hold the same position, then I am criticizing your position. But, I am not criticizing you.If I write a piece critical of the Jewish Defence League's position on, say, anti-Israeli rhetoric, I am criticizing the JDL's position. If a Jewish person holds the same position, I am criticizing their position. That does not make me anti-semitic.So yes, if I criticize the Church's beliefs, and you hold the same beliefs, I am, by extension, criticizing your beliefs. But I am not criticizing your sexual preference, heritage, or skin color.Facebook doesn't support your grasping at straws, as Rob has also discovered.... Facebook does not permit hate speech, but distinguishes between serious and humorous speech. While we encourage you to challenge ideas, institutions, events, and practices, we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition.You will note that it does not say.....as you insist it should, " we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others, unless they are Mormons, based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition."FB has an appeals process, perhaps you should address that omission with them. Please let us know how convincing your argument is.
mathonihah Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 Complain away. I'm not stopping you or Rob. His issue is with Facebook. My issue is with those who claim censorship when none exists.He evidently believes that one exists, and he has presented a case which legitimate grounds for concern.Like you saying I have no right to deny you the right to make observations when there was no such denial.It appeared to me that is exactly what you were doing; and it still does.Methinks thou dost protest too much.I was thinking the same about you.
KevinG Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 This was moved back to Social Hall. Does this mean I can no longer disagree freely with others? Censorship I say. I DEMAND MY VIEWS BE HEARD!!! 2
juliann Posted December 29, 2012 Posted December 29, 2012 If you disagree with same sex marriage, are you attacking gays? If you disagree with purgatory or infant baptisms are you attacking Catholics? Sure they are not going to like it; but so what? I think I am big enough to be able to bear criticisms of (even attacks on) my belief systems—and smart enough to be able to give them the appropriate reply! So why should I be bothered? Only those who can't do either will be bothered.Eh, did you read the OP? It attacked Mormons. Keep working on justifying bigotry. Even if you can't convince FB of your specialized definitions, you may find a few who will applaud it on a message board.
Recommended Posts