[psychomansam]

A suggestion:
It's a strange world in which discussions which are appropriate to have with school children in a classroom are considered requiring of total censorship, deletion, in a climbing forum.

 

[slackline]

There is no suggestion in what you've written, merely a stated opinion that you think something is strange.

[webbo]

And what you had written in the other thread, would have had been your supervisor led me to get you on the next safe guarding children course.

[psychomansam]

There is no suggestion in what you've written, merely a stated opinion that you think something is strange.

The implicit suggestion is perfectly clear to you and all.

[psychomansam]

And what you had written in the other thread, would have had been your supervisor led me to get you on the next safe guarding children course.

Unjumbling this sentence, I presume you'd like to send me on such a course? Been on plenty thanks. You're being ridiculous.

[tomtom]

I was a little surprised the thread was logged and locked... :/

It seemed more that the topic rather than the discussion was controversial... Still UKB is a modestly commercial operation so.......

[psychomansam]

I was a little surprised the thread was logged and locked... :/

It seemed more that the topic rather than the discussion was controversial... Still UKB is a modestly commercial operation so.......

It should have been logged. I wouldn't even complain hugely if it got locked. But no - it's been entirely 'disappeared'. That'll teach me to diss the DailyFail. 

[Sloper]

And what you had written in the other thread, would have had been your supervisor led me to get you on the next safe guarding children course.

Unjumbling this sentence, I presume you'd like to send me on such a course? Been on plenty thanks. You're being ridiculous.

You've been on courses, really  did they extent to ethics, philosopy or related subjects?

Given what you claim to do for a living I'd be sending Shark a thank you note; it's one thing to be an ignorant lefty f-kwit (that accounts fro a fair % of teachers) but to advocate your views of the morailty of such a contentious subject is not a good idea.

[slackline]

The implicit suggestion is perfectly clear to you and all.

We're not playing...



Just say what you bloody mean. 

That goes for all posts, not just in this thread, as you could have been a lot clearer a lot earlier on in the posts that got log-piled and locked too. Its actually really useful on forums because there is no visual communication nor the ability instantaneously correct/responsed to what someone has said when its not clear.

[Sloper]

it looks like the chap in the picture is having a bit of a 'grumble'.

[psychomansam]

And what you had written in the other thread, would have had been your supervisor led me to get you on the next safe guarding children course.

Unjumbling this sentence, I presume you'd like to send me on such a course? Been on plenty thanks. You're being ridiculous.

You've been on courses, really  did they extent to ethics, philosopy or related subjects?

Given what you claim to do for a living I'd be sending Shark a thank you note; it's one thing to be an ignorant lefty f-kwit (that accounts fro a fair % of teachers) but to advocate your views of the morailty of such a contentious subject is not a good idea.

 

[abarro81]

There is no suggestion in what you've written, merely a stated opinion that you think something is strange.

Presumably the suggestion is that "It's a strange world in which...". I don't consider that too awkward a sentence, ok, so maybe "I think that", would be better than the "I would suggest that" which the OP effectively opens with, but that pretty pedantic.

Anyway, I was surprised the thread disappeared, essentially it's just a debate around whether thoughts are immoral or only acting on those thoughts. (Albeit not necessarily expressed in the best way to get reasonable debate.) On that issue I'd probably err towards Sam's assertion that thoughts in themselves shouldn't be considered immoral. Certainly I'd not be comfortable with holding people to account for simply having certain thoughts. A dangerous path to go down IMO (I'm less interested in the bit about how much morals are a social construct vs absolute)

The dumb thing about that thread was the title that the moderators used to split it.

[tomtom]

+1 what Barrows said.

[webbo]

Clearly if you have been on courses and you believe that people are born with a sexual attraction to children, then you must have been not listening or asleep. You should try some reading on human behaviour.

[Falling Down]

This was the kind of relativistic guff that PIE and others used to gain support and infiltrate left wing and anarcho groups in the 70's and 80's.

[petejh]

What TomTom said about what Barrows said.

I too thought it 'strange' (decipher really required Slackers? I got it) that Sam's thread got deleted. That's not to say I thought it was a good thread or subject for this forum - Sam, if you want to philosophise on a climbing forum about the morality of having 'certain' thoughts versus the acting out of those thoughts, then I suggest you could have a less chaotic time by choosing a less inflammatory topic than paedophilia; a more fruitful debate might then be had. Or you could have the debate about 'paedophilic thoughts versus paedophuilc actions' on some other forum that has a greater population of philosopher-types and less - you know - climbers...

I think I agree in principle that, as long as thoughts remain in the domain of a person's own mind, they remain outside community's 'morals'. Can of worms emoticon doesn't really do it justice though does it!!

[Doylo]

It's a bit UKC deleting a thread just because it's a bit controversial. Can't stand that censorship over there.

[petejh]

UKCensored. The clue's in the name innit - the number of climbers (and decent sensible people afaik) - censored from AlanJames'worldview.com is really totting up. I hope UKB's owners don't start deleting posts that show their line of t-shirts and hoodies in a bad light (cheapo labour???) and start adopting a UKC-style censorship policy.

[Sloper]

Normally I would entirely agree with the stance of not deleting threads; however taking a wider view, the thread in question presented a risk that if materialised lead to someone losing their job and that's far too a price to pay for writing something stupid on the internet.

[Jaspersharpe]

I didn't even see that the posts had been spilt into another thread. Just saw they'd disappeared.

Whatever the subject matter, I'm pretty unimpressed with posts being deleted without any discussion beforehand. Don't expect that on here.

[dave]

I haven't got a ffucking clue what any of you are on about.

That is all.

[fried]

Don't really care, just Sam and Sloper flirting. Don't just delete stuff, leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

[Jaspersharpe]

I also wrote something on the original thread and all I know is that my post was deleted, along with some other ones. I didn't see the posts split onto a separate thread.

Last time I had something I'd written deleted with no explanation it was Mick Ryan on UKC trying to prevent me from making him look a total dick. I don't post on UKC any more.

I realise this isn't as malicious at all but it's still a bit disappointing.

[dave]

OK I found the deleted thread. Nothing in there to me that warranted deletion, but then I don't pay the bills. Its just nonce sense.

[Oldmanmatt]

Pretty sure I commented on that thread...

Cannot now even remember which thread it was...

I suspect the reason for the removal was entirely the protection of Sam's position as most of the response was (whilst vehement) un-controversial.

So, it seems reasonable and only "technically" censorship.

No?


And Sam is not the most tactful of posters, nor is he prone humility.

We used to call it LSI:

Low Survival Instincts..