@Cmdr:
Last thought, if, IF, you attempt in any way to defend Mao Tze Tung, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, or any other individual, group or affilliation that is commonly seen in a negative light (and I am not talking republi-crat or demon-rat parties, or any other low level thing, I am talking about Skin Heads, Terrorists, Black Panthers, National Socialists {NAZIs} and the like) then you deserve to have your post either truncated or terminated.
There are two philosophies about how one can arrive at the truth:
-
To allow a free and open debate. The thought here is that during the debate, the truth will gradually become clear.
-
For some small group of power holders to decide on the truth, and to censor anyone who disagrees with them.
The above-quoted text represents a rejection of the first philosophy, and an acceptance of the second. It is exactly this kind of thinking which has prompted my exit from the forum. I feel, strongly, that people should be free to question mainstream views, to subject them to critical scrutiny, and to reject them whenever they don’t stand up to said scrutiny. For some small group of power holders to censor those who don’t agree with the mainstream view is unnecessary, and unhelpful to the pursuit of truth.
As a specific example, communist apologists claim that the Ukrainian famine was not deliberately engineered, and that the Soviet occupation of postwar Germany was nothing out of the ordinary. Claims such as these can (and should) be viewed as a defense of Stalin, and a misrepresentation of history. But I don’t want to see them censored. In the debate between pro- and anti-communists, facts about the Ukrainian famine and the Soviet occupation of Germany will emerge which might have remained hidden, had such a debate not occurred. Being challenged by those who disagree with you causes you to research more, and be more vigorous than you otherwise would have been. Conversely, the censorship of dissent leads to intellectual laziness and the acceptance of error as truth.
It is not a violation of the terms of service to express a non-mainstream view. Nor would it be even remotely appropriate to change that fact. I cannot even begin to express how completely unacceptable it is to censor ideas. The role of moderators should be to warn or (if needed) ban those who violate the terms of service’s prohibition against personal attacks. Moderators should not play a role in determining which thoughts and ideas are acceptable, and which should be policed.
Finally, I’d like to thank U-505 for his eloquent and well thought-out posts. I agree with every word he’s written, and I appreciate the time and effort he put into creating intellectually rigorous posts.
