So why not ask Vortex to conduct the interview with the HIV/AIDS subject being off limits?
Chuck also brings up a very good point: There is no way to underwrite every single interviewee to ensure some aspect of their persona isn't offense to some member of the community. I would hope the quality of content here would be judged in aggregate. If a potential new member wishes to single out one offensive topic as a reason to not join.... I'd say we're better off not having them.
I am in favor of free speech.
(2017-09-28, 01:17 PM)Jim_Smith Wrote: [ -> ]I am in favor of free speech.
I don't think anybody's saying Henry Bauer ought not to be free to speak his mind on HIV/AIDS on his own platforms, the consensus is just that this forum will not be one of those platforms (it is not within the remit of our primary goal of the discussion of psi/paranormal topics, and especially the scientific research into those).
(2017-09-28, 01:12 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]So why not ask Vortex to conduct the interview with the HIV/AIDS subject being off limits?
Chuck also brings up a very good point: There is no way to underwrite every single interviewee to ensure some aspect of their persona isn't offense to some member of the community. I would hope the quality of content here would be judged in aggregate. If a potential new member wishes to single out one offensive topic as a reason to not join.... I'd say we're better off not having them.
HIV/Aids denial is a very serious thing - and note how people were fine with the previous interviewees. And who are you to judge whether we're better off or not with/without certain members?
(2017-09-28, 12:43 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]I love Chris and his work here. And he is not the only person who has said this by a long shot. But it fairly common for people to say, if the forum does 'X' then I don't want to be a part of it any longer. And because we saw so many people drop off of skeptiko over the years as the focus (and I would say quality) of the discussion changed, then panties start bunching and discussions start heating up.
[NONE OF THE BELOW HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHRIS. THE FOLLOWING IS 100% USER AGNOSTIC.]
That's probably not a tenable long term strategy for shaping the forum or setting rules or practices. PQ won't be able to please all the people all of the time. When you pick a direction based on the response of one user, you may lose another.
I understand there are gray areas and that the point isn't cut and dried. But I cringe a little any time I see someone post "Well if we allow that, then I don't want to be associated with PQ any more."
As I said to Silence - HIV/AIDS denial is a serious thing and legitimate grounds to not want to give someone a platform. I feel you're making a false equivalence here.
(2017-09-28, 01:31 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]As I said to Silence - HIV/AIDS denial is a serious thing and legitimate grounds to not want to give someone a platform. I feel you're making a false equivalence here.
I'm not sure what your point is. That post was just pointing out that it is common for people to say if PQ does X, then I'm leaving. In my opinion over time that is not going to be a valid method for driving overall criteria.
(2017-09-28, 01:46 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure what your point is. That post was just pointing out that it is common for people to say if PQ does X, then I'm leaving. In my opinion over time that is not going to be a valid method for driving overall criteria.
Not that common - and can't we take it on a case by case basis regardesss? Yours is just a slippery slope argument.
Even though Chris and I don't get along, I agree with Laird that he is a very valuable member of this forum, as is MaxB.
I'm not in favour of censorship. As an alternative, I think a good case can be made for confining HIV/AIDS denialism to the hidden forum.
I didn't bring up the HIV/AIDS denialism because it turns Henry Bauer into a controversial subject. I brought it up because it's a test of whether his criticisms of science have any validity. And it demonstrates very clearly that they do not. So why are we interviewing a person just because he is critical of science, when it will be clear to anyone else who shows up here that his approach to criticizing science is not valid?
Linda
(2017-09-28, 12:31 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]I think the question about whether HB should be interviewed about different subjects other than his HIV work and whether that is appropriate BASED on his controversial HIV work is different enough to merit it's own thread.
Just to let folks know who haven't seen it yet: Chuck has started that thread,
Criteria For Interviewees.
(2017-09-28, 12:51 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't. What relates, in my mind, is the industry of science itself.
OK. So how does the subject relate to the psi half of that equation?