|Sender:||Claude Martin <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||So you banned me...|
|Added:||Jul 18, 2011|
|Sent to:||Editing Committee|
This email is in reference to a conversation on the Facebook group, which you can read about here.
So today I was banned from the facebook group "skeptics project".
I simply had an discussion. Is that not what the group is for?
It started when someone (I cant look because I'm banned) said something about animal rights activists.
The problem was that he/she made a generalization.
Now thats not so bad, everyone does that (yes, even I) and I assume that communication would be impossible if we could never generalize.
But I wanted to comment on it so it ended in a discussion about animal rights / veganism etc.
I said what I had to say.
Thats all. I admit that I was polemical! Very much so.
But what about Richard Dawkins who says everyone who believes in a god is delusional?
If all of that group are against his way of argument then I apologize and I am ok with the ban!
But I don't think you have much of a problem when he calls all religious people delusional, do you? But when I use confrontation they say I have no empathy. Just after the accusation of using "appeal to emotion". I don't get it.
I said that killing animals is murder. I explained that I use "murder" exactly because I want to confront people with the possibility that this could be murder. Knowing that in law it is not murder (just as soldiers are no murderers - you know, like in the quote by Tucholsky). I guess that makes it my opinion.
I also used the word "rape" for the procedure of impregnating a cow by inserting sperm into her vaginal opening.
Because that's just what rape is, again even if not in a court room. They force her to get pregnant. That's just a fact. When I see it I see rape, you can see something else or chose to not look at all.
Of course I could have used other words. Maybe I should call this "making sweet, sweet love to a cow"? Is that better? I really don't know what to call it, other than rape.
And yes, this has to be done to have more cows and therefore "meat", "milk", "leather" etc. You order it when you buy those products. Anything else is denial.
I only state facts and also tell you how I see it.
So the skeptics don't want me to state the facts? Or am I not allowed to say how I see things?
I can't be a little bit polemic while many skeptics are very polemic writers?
Maybe calling Roxanne Miller(sp?) a psychopath was too much for her. I don't know her personally and it was not my intention to hurt her or anything. But she didn't seem to be such a fragile personality to me.
But again, calling someone delusional for doing what many millions do is not much different if you ask me.
She is the one who stated that cows, swine etc have no feelings (can't check exact quote because of ban). And then I'm the one who has no empathy?
I also compared her to the computer game character GlaDOS. I'm sure shes not anything like that character, but she reminded me of GlaDOS for her "appeal to science" (does that exist? I don't know how to call it). You know, because her argumentation seemed to allow allow what can be tested.
This may be shocking for you but some people think that there is more to life than science.
I like science and I'm very much against anything Anti-Science (Homeopathy etc).
But in my view anything anti-vegan is worse than anti-science. Just anything racist or sexist is worse.
e.g. a racist is worth than a ct/homeopath/nun etc.
Maybe I shouldn't have stated that I get my veggies from the local organic farmer? Apparently this is not allowed as a group member? Even if you explain that you understand that "organic" is mostly marketing? I just like that I get it delivered to a very near station where I can pick it up and the vegetables are very good (only in my subjective perception or course).
But formulas and laboratory research is not what people want to be what defines ethics and morals. Don't you think?
It would be great if it were so. My point was simply that this could scare people (and it does... you know how religious people think atheists have no morals!). It was simply meant to be good advice.
Maybe you should ask a philosopher for advice when it comes to ethics and morals and not Sheldon Cooper. But that's just my opinion.
So let's sum it up:
She gets the raping, murdering psychopath and GlaDOS. Did I forget anything. Maybe there was more.
- absolute ideologist (or what's it called?)
- no empathy
- not sciency enough
- accusation that I'm a CT against Monsanto (still don't know why)
- stupid (I remember I got a stupid at some point, cant remember exact context)
- trivialize slavery (I was merely talking about abolition of animal exploitation)
- etc (if I was not banned I could list more)
I even got compared with Ingrid Newkirk and I really take offense on that!!
But I wouldn't ban anyone. I would have loved to comment on that topic on facebook.
I understand that "welfareists" as Newkirk often seem to be as me (since they try to appear that way).
But I'm an animal rights activist who supports vegan education ( I tried to explain that).
I'm not a media-whore, I don't take bribes (aka donations), I don't defend sex with animals (yes, she and Peter Singer do that, south park was sadly not joking), I don't support any "terrorist" actions, I'm not hypocritical as her.
So you see, any fear that I'm like her is probably for no reason.
But now I'm banned and everyone in the group can just go on and be not a bit skeptical about how they support the rape and murder - sorry - putting to sleep of, and making sweet love to animals.
They said I am an ideologist. Is that really so bad?
Can one not be an ideologist and also be a skeptic?
Am I not a skeptic?
Are you anti-ideologists? What's wrong about my ideology?
Don't you have any ideology?
Saying that nonhuman animals have no or fewer rights because we are humans is arbitrary.
This is nothing but dogma! By banning me you simply support the idea that humans have no ethical responsibility.
Can a skeptic have no ethics, simply because science allegedly can not prove them to be true?
Feel free to post this as hate mail if you like. I don't hate you but I'm somewhat disappointed. And if I am banned I obviously won't link to your site anymore.
You can also send this letter to Roxanne Miller(sp?). I think she is an administrator, and the person who banned me.
But I'm banned so I can't be sure.
I would really appreciate a reply since I would really like to see myself as a skeptic but I would not wont to be in a group with people so insecure that you can't disagree with them and you can't confront them with anything they might not want to hear or see.
If you really are that low that you can't have an argument with someone who has a different view then of course I don't want to be in that group and you can all just f... off.
I mean, really, we are all adults. It should be possible to have my own opinion. And I was not in a kindergarden. I should be able to freely express that opinion. And in my case I chose to use a language that is free of euphemism and sometimes is polemic for the purpose of confrontation.
You can always chose to not read it.
I didn't even get a warning. I'm just banned.
I think this is very low.
I understand that you would ban anyone who is trolling and/or who keeps posting the same things that you already showed to be false. But I'm no troll.
I was only responding, I didn't flame or troll.
Or maybe I really am a stupid conspiracy theorist and member of some religious cult and just don't know. Am I?
Claude Martin (aka Clawed V Martin)
ah sh..! I got the name wrong.
It's Roxette, not Roxanne.
It's like the band not the song!
Sorry about that.
Yeah, I didn't ban you, someone else did.