When and why do topics get closed for further discussion?
Hi Michael, topics get closed for further discussion when our moderators feel that further discussion would likely be no longer relevant or appropriate. I refer you to the Forum guidelines, in particular that: “we encourage constructive discussion about this information and so reserve the right to moderate or decline posts that we feel are not relevant or inappropriate. In particular, with the subject of the human condition being so confronting, malice can easily occur, and where comments are deemed to be motivated not by objectivity but by malice, they will be declined. It has to be appreciated that the possibility of malice toward this subject matter is very real, and we have a responsibility to manage that as best we can.”
Aha… the topic I was mainly thinking about is called “We’re ALL fundamentally ‘Good’ vs criminality” in the General Discussions… perhaps some posts have been removed, I don’t know, but there seems to be mainly “objective” posts remaining, but the whole subject is still closed for further discussion?… while at the same time it seems to me that in the light of e.g. the whole matter of “mass incarcerations”, “crimmigration laws” and a prisonpopulation whose numbers stands out when compared globally being seen in the USA, generating films like e.g. “The 13th amendment” by filmmaker Ava Duvernay, wouldn’t the subject of this thread represent a question relevant to a World Transformation Movement?
As the final comment from WTM Admin on the thread you refer to made clear, the WTM disagrees that there is a class of people whose nature isn’t a result of the fundamental distress caused by the human condition as it is explained in Jeremy’s books. Further, anyone familiar with the essential compassion intrinsic to Jeremy’s treatise about the human condition would consider the idea of ‘genetic cleansing’ or eugenics or anything like that, to be abhorrent. Clearly the thread had reached a point where it was no longer constructive, and as stated in the Forum guidelines, “we encourage constructive discussion about this information and so reserve the right to moderate or decline posts that we feel are not relevant or inappropriate.”
As we state in the guidelines, the WTM Forum is “A place for you to discuss these breakthrough ideas about human behaviour and hear what others have to say.” There are plenty of forums that exist where people can discuss the symptoms of the human condition and how to manage life without this breakthrough explanation, while there is only this one forum that is devoted to discussing the explanation of the human condition, and amelioration of the human condition using that understanding, and so we reserve the right to moderate the WTM Forum so that discussions within it are constructive and remain on point, namely, they are about the biological explanation of the human condition, its uptake and its effects.
Aha… o.k., but since the only remaining post in that thread referring to “classes” of people or eugenics IMO is the last one by moderator, I assume that this choice of words are reactions to contents in previous posts which have since been removed…? However, leaving the thus moderated thread still visible but closed for further commenting can on the other hand inspire readers to subsequent questions, such as for instance how, as you say, a biological explanation of the human condition with it´s foundation in the IMO so far mainly philosophical phenomenon of loveindoctrination deal with questions like the one presented by that thread…? there is for sure no lack of various contemporary biological/biochemical hypotheses for increases in criminal behaviour a.k.a. “symptoms of the human condition” which might be relevant for a biological understanding of how humans in general cope with their surroundings, such as for instance Lithium-deficiency:
malnutrition in general:
or even through neurotoxicity caused by excessive amounts of silicofluorides:
…but if a discussion within the WTM of how such biochemically rooted hypotheses of criminal behaviour might fit into the overall logical framework presented by the book Freedom is “closed to new replies”, then the prospect of incorporating other likewise biochemically rooted perspectives on the diversities of human development, such as e.g. the “waterside hypothesis” with it’s emphasis on Iodine and oceanic abundance of PUFA fatty acids seems to be equally diminished, thus IMO limiting the intellectual scope of the WTM to mainly the psychological realm of existence, and given for example the controversial worldwide subject of governmental water- and/or saltfluoridation or for that matter the more historical issues of scurvy and other deficiency-diseases versus humanitys naturally given relationships with it’s social aswell as chemically relevant environments, this “closing to new replies” of a whole topic could perhaps be substituted with moderating individual forumparticipants rather than closing entire topics?
- This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Michael.
Thank you Michael for your feedback. We will keep the thread closed for now but we will consider your suggestions for moderating forum topics that are no longer constructive or that are irrelevant/inappropriate.
O.K., I see… thankyou for the clarification…given that the subject of “Good vs. Evil” most likely would count as an appropriate forum topic since even Jeremy Griffith has written extensively about it, e.g. here;
but that a “Freedom”search aswell as a sitesearch of the term “criminality” comes up with only one result, i.e. the forumthread at hand, I can understand why this particular topic of “Good vs. nonadherence to rule of law” would be considered a non-appropriate topic by forumadministrators… but regarding moderation of what’s relevant or not within a certain topic I’m still somewhat puzzled, since the only remaining mentioning of the IMO both inappropriate and certainly very remotely relevant subjects of “genetic cleansing” and “eugenics” were made solely by the forumadministrator him/herself in the last and closing post, while the IMO relatively more relevant and thoughtprovoking expression “less ambiguous” was made in the preceding post?
Anyway, since I´m more inclined to learning new stuff and moderate my own assumptions rather than narrowmindedly argue with authorities, my understanding of how the subtle distinction between “evil” and “criminality” can be reached has become a little less ambiguous, while phrases like “too confronting” and “deaf effect” has gained some extra underpinnings….
…and while what’s considered “criminal” for sure differs over time and between legal jurisdictions e.g. countries more than what’s considered “evil”, since this is a more general philosophical/psychological “humancondition”relevant issue, and a sitesearch for both “Hammurabi” aswell as “Draconian” turns out no result, I get that a more analytical discussion of certain sensitive subjects deemed inappropriate or nonconstructive by the WTM forumadmin’s are better persued elsewhere… for instance how the destruction of WTC building 7 fits in between “evil” and “criminal”, or whether certain chemical circumstances during e.g. mammalian pregnancies have homosexual consequences for the fetus, or whether humans in general have any reason to consider the role of DHA in relation to their capacity to think at all… not to mention the far-reaching subject of how “corruption” intertwines with the human condition, a subject of interest awakened in me by this conversation, but given the abovementioned prerequisites, this article;
…would IMO certainly be deemed too inappropriate a subject to discuss, so I’ll persue this particular interest elsewhere while remaining attentive to the other topics on this forum…
Dear Michael, just to clarify, the thread in question was closed not because of the topic itself but because one of the correspondents was pushing the idea that criminality was not due to the human condition but due to genetics, and from there proposing ‘zero tolerance’ and saying that individuals should be ‘removed for natural selection to purify itself’ (a process that we have summarised as ‘eugenics’). As we explained at the time: ‘anyone familiar with the essential compassion intrinsic to Jeremy’s treatise about the human condition would consider the idea of ‘genetic cleansing’ or eugenics or anything like that, to be abhorrent.’