Fully aware that the following comments will only inflame some of the more contentious members of the forums, I want to make just a couple points of clarification, so that well-meaning people dont spend weeks arguing over inaccuracies
You ought to change the word contentious, DJ, to dedicated.
Selected staff at CFI do have the authority to ban forum participants, but I have tried to limit the amount of work-time invested by CFI staff on the forums (as part of their job description, since they have so much other stuff to do). Barry Karr (my boss) and others at CFI agreed that the offending poster should be banned, for the reasons reiterated numerous times to him both privately and on the forums in various threads.
Let me re-explain here. I seem to have confused two versions of the word authority here. What was told to me was that, of course CFI can shut anyone out of the forums or close the forums down alltogether because of what Paul described as Property Rights. CFI owns this forum. So in that sense, CFI legally was allowed to ban Fayzal.
BUT, I was told that it was not your or Karr’s JOB to police the forums (or any staff at CFI), and their actions were inconsistant with CFI’s or humanist values. It was censorship from above. Fully authortarian ... A misused authority, ‘big brother’ like, wrong-headed and contrary to all we stand for. And for humanists, THIS wrongdoing is enough, property rights asside.
Also, I agree with Paul that since you (or Karr, who is a conservative Republican) have not offered any satisfactory reasons for the banning of this topic other than your arbitrary dislike of it, no one ought to consider the decision rational.
Not because the issue was too taboo, but because it was outside the mission of the forums.
You know, if you were honest, you’d admit you think the topic is taboo. You have already said so in your wrong-headed description of the post as about sex between father and son which it clearly was not.
To say instead that it was a topic outside of CFI’s mission is absurd, and Paul’s response seems to explain why.
You know, in another time DJ, talking about your being gay and the issues around homosexuality would have been a topic not in CFI’s mission because of the misunderstanding of a great many things including humanism. I am particularly baffled that you, of all people, think as you do here. Some sort of projectionism, maybe?
To the couple of people who feel motivated to use CFI’s forums almost exclusively to criticize CFI for not being socialist enough… In my opinion, being hardhearted about these issues is inconsistent with our shared humanist values.
Since I am the libertarian-socialist you refer to, I will say that if you think politics and economics have nothing to do with a humanist worldview, than you know very little about humanism!
I have not “criticized CFI for not being socialist enough;” if you have read any of the postings, you will see that I have written on politics or economics and I have written on many other things such as free will and angry atheism, so my posts are hardly exclusively about politics or economics - AND there are threads called Humanism and Politics/Social Issues, no?
My argument is not that CFI/CSH is not socialist enough (I am not a socialist anyway), but about how CFI/CSH DEFINES its most important (and only) philosophy ... Humanism!
Atheism, secularism, biblical criticism, science.. Are all not philosophies. Naturalism is, but CFI/CSH misses the full picture here, only defining naturalism as opposed to supernaturalism, and not by its full description such as found at at www.naturalism.org (for instance).
That you call my posts about politics or economics or humanism (or how CFI/CSH defines humanism) hard-hearted, I’d respond that you were not being clear-headed enough. This ain’t about feelings, DJ. Shall we all become weak-headed on these topics on these forums so that CFI (or you) can feel loved? Where’s the freethinking in that?
I predict that this will continue to be seemingly the central issue of concern for a couple CFI discussion forum participants who can devise of nothing else to focus on. May I invite people to enjoy conversation about other issues of more import to organized skepticism and humanism and CFI’s public education mission.
Well, you are a psychic DJ, because you’ve predicted that some of us will not follow your orders here. It’s not in our freethinking blood
And as I have already said, my participation in these forums are all over the place (though not on pseudo-science, I admit), and your nasty comment that we can “devise of nothing else to focus on” is just your way of redirecting all eyes from this vital issue.
I hear you, Paul. I feel the same frustration about not being able to attend the Nuremberg trial. I wonder if the Nazis really killed the six million Jews…
Huh? This reactionary response makes no sense, on top of it being reactionary! And I won’t even bother to respond to Nappy; it would seem by his dialogue that he’d be happier to post on the Fox News Forum! Why is he here?