What should forum policy be on defamatory posts?

[Ninshub]

I now know Tim is a troll and is mostly here to just fuck with people. I appreciate this thread and can't imagine that my post could have possibly been misunderstood by anyone not living under a bridge, but in case it was, I hope this clears it up.

I read your post otherwise, berkelon, as others here have also, so I didn't have any problem with it. But I'll strongly disagree with your statement that Tim is a troll.

I read your post otherwise, berkelon, as others here have also, so I didn't have any problem with it. But I'll strongly disagree with your statement that Tim is a troll.

He doubled down and continued to be a jerk even when it was shown that he was jumping the gun. That's trolling to me, but fair enough and thanks for your feedback. I've spent my entire career fighting for the rights of abused kids. That he would continue to go after me for saying something that was hardly a stretch just touched a nerve. But maybe it was just maliciousness and that's different from trolling in your opinion. He seems like quite an ass. I'll just ignore him going forward. Call it what you want. Cheers.

No, he is not right. How many ways is there to interpret this statement from him/her ?

"I certainly don't think people should be banned for their personal beliefs, even if they are in celebration of child abuse, hate crimes,"

So do you think a public forum is a place for people who support child sex abuse ?

The discussion of child abuse including those who do not think certain behaviors with minors should be discouraged and/or illegal is of paramount importance. How can you get both sides of the coin without it?

Whether or not this forum is the appropriate space or not is up to the policy makers and enforcers.

The discussion of child abuse including those who do not think certain behaviors with minors should be discouraged and/or illegal is of paramount importance. How can you get both sides of the coin without it?

Whether or not this forum is the appropriate space or not is up to the policy makers and enforcers.

I also wonder how one would go about policing thought crimes...that was my point from the beginning. It's truly absurd to go down that road. On that note, I think people who still support Trump are disgusting, dangerous people. Maybe they should be banned from this forum, as well...

I also wonder how one would go about policing thought crimes...

Obviously you'd need a squad of telepathic police officers. 

I also wonder how one would go about policing thought crimes...that was my point from the beginning. It's truly absurd to go down that road. On that note, I think people who still support Trump are disgusting, dangerous people. Maybe they should be banned from this forum, as well...

Apart from your multiple ad homs (ass, malicious, troll, jerk) which probably indicate what kind of person you are,  you've  demonstrated (to me at least) that you are incapable of comprehending a simple straightforward sentence, even one that you constructed. 

Berkelon said "I certainly don't think people should be banned for their personal beliefs, even if they are in celebration of child abuse, hate crimes,"

This sentence clearly states that you don't think people who celebrate child abuse should be banned. We don't need to bring in silly nonsense red herrings like "it's impossible to police people's thoughts," I'm well aware of that, I'm not a fucking moron (have you called me that yet ? go for it, Berkelon ! )

If we don't know what their personal beliefs are, of course they can't be banned. But your sentence indicates that those personal beliefs are known ....like as in my personal belief  that survival is true etc which most of the members on here are well aware of.

"Personal beliefs" and the "secret content of people's minds" are not necessarily the same thing.

Of course, I accept that you didn't mean that now, so instead of behaving like that, why didn't you just admit your first sentence (which I referred to) was badly constructed and open to other interpretations ? instead of flying off your nut like a lunatic.

I think people should bear in mind what started this discussion, which was a suggestion that someone should be banned, citing the evidence of a personal message, not on the basis of anything that had been posted on this website. It was Ninshub who rejected that suggestion, citing the analogy of the thought police.

That's the entire point Chris and seems a key element that tim may not be considering sufficiently.

If we don't know what their personal beliefs are, of course they can't be banned. But your sentence indicates that those personal beliefs are known ....like as in my personal belief  that survival is true etc which most of the members on here are well aware of.

Do you think someone should be banned for their personal beliefs even if they follow the posting rules of the forum?

Do you think someone should be banned for their personal beliefs even if they follow the posting rules of the forum?

Do you think people who torture children should be allowed to post in the forum if they follow the rules ?