Poll: Should Cornfed be banned?

[Luc Furr]

Just create a rule of no personal attacks against other members (if you don't already have such a rule). Simple way to keep discussions and arguments focused on the issues.

Cornfed saying he "hates all blacks" is just ridiculous since we all know skin color is NOT what defines a person. Race, citizenship, DNA, all do not define people. This has been proven time and time again in civil wars, brother killing brother. Always what define us are our beliefs. Marx said it was class but it goes far beyond that. Someday Cornfed will take the time to look deeper into his soul to find the real reason for his frustration.

[Winston]

Well it looks like so far, according to the poll, the majority want Cornfed permanently banned. That's not what Cornfed predicted. Interesting.

If you haven't voted yet, please cast your vote above.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

If Cornfed is banned he will simply re-register under another moniker and continue to troll. Banning him is not a solution. It is better to pepper him with examples that prove him wrong and watch him writhe in frustration.

I'm less worried about his racial obsession and more worried about the allusions to violence that could get this forum stigmatized and scrutinized if he ever decides to act on his resentments.

[Winston]

Winston your infantile threats to ban anyone that offers dissenting opinions is just a sign of cowardice. Once again the claims of being a "truth seeking" forum is about as contradictive and laughable as your claims of being a warrior. Everything you have said so far about yourself or this forum is contradicted by your actions.

This has nothing to do with dissenting opinions. Your reading comprehension must suck. You also lack wisdom, common sense, conscience, empathy, sensitivity, tact, being considerate, EQ and people skills.

I explained many times already that free speech does not give a license to every asshole like you to be as rude, nasty and mean-spirited as he wants. Is that what you think it means? Geez. We can't have zero behavior standards here. There has to be some standards. Otherwise, what's to prevent me from posting Rock's photos against his wishes? See what I mean? There is no such thing as zero laws, zero rules or zero standards. No community can exist like that, not even an online community.

Free speech still has to operate within certain ethical guidelines and behavioral standards. That's reality and it makes sense. Wise people understand this. So do people with common sense. You seem to lack both.

[nicho12]

Winston your infantile threats to ban anyone that offers dissenting opinions is just a sign of cowardice. Once again the claims of being a "truth seeking" forum is about as contradictive and laughable as your claims of being a warrior. Everything you have said so far about yourself or this forum is contradicted by your actions.

This has nothing to do with dissenting opinions. Your reading comprehension must suck. You also lack wisdom, common sense, conscience, empathy, sensitivity, tact, being considerate, EQ and people skills.

I explained many times already that free speech does not give a license to every asshole like you to be as rude, nasty and mean-spirited as he wants. Is that what you think it means? Geez. We can't have zero behavior standards here. There has to be some standards. Otherwise, what's to prevent me from posting Rock's photos against his wishes? See what I mean? There is no such thing as zero laws, zero rules or zero standards. No community can exist like that, not even an online community.

Free speech still has to operate within certain ethical guidelines and behavioral standards. That's reality and it makes sense. Wise people understand this. So do people with common sense. You seem to lack both.

Then why call it free speech, just call it semi-free speech

[Cornfed]

Winston your infantile threats to ban anyone that offers dissenting opinions is just a sign of cowardice. Once again the claims of being a "truth seeking" forum is about as contradictive and laughable as your claims of being a warrior. Everything you have said so far about yourself or this forum is contradicted by your actions.

This has nothing to do with dissenting opinions.

Sure it does. For example it is clearly OK to allege the inferiority of AW/WW and black females but apparently not black males and blacks in general. Why is this? It is clear that zboy's goal has always been to drag the forum down into political correctness and he sees this as the easiest place to start, but since you seem to buy into this hierarchy of groups, perhaps you could explain yourself.

[Winston]

I got another idea. How about just confining Cornfed to the Racism board? Or even to just one thread put up for him? That way, people can avoid his posts if they want.

[Winston]

Winston your infantile threats to ban anyone that offers dissenting opinions is just a sign of cowardice. Once again the claims of being a "truth seeking" forum is about as contradictive and laughable as your claims of being a warrior. Everything you have said so far about yourself or this forum is contradicted by your actions.

This has nothing to do with dissenting opinions. Your reading comprehension must suck. You also lack wisdom, common sense, conscience, empathy, sensitivity, tact, being considerate, EQ and people skills.

I explained many times already that free speech does not give a license to every asshole like you to be as rude, nasty and mean-spirited as he wants. Is that what you think it means? Geez. We can't have zero behavior standards here. There has to be some standards. Otherwise, what's to prevent me from posting Rock's photos against his wishes? See what I mean? There is no such thing as zero laws, zero rules or zero standards. No community can exist like that, not even an online community.

Free speech still has to operate within certain ethical guidelines and behavioral standards. That's reality and it makes sense. Wise people understand this. So do people with common sense. You seem to lack both.

Then why call it free speech, just call it semi-free speech

Because that would not be accurate. We are not semi-free speech here. It would be more accurate to say we are "free speech within reasonable standards of ethics and behavior."

Like I said, you can't have zero standards when it comes to ethics and behavior. Should we allow libelous comments here too?

When the founding fathers of the US Constitution put up the First Amendment, they did not mean that "anything goes" with zero behavioral standards. They did not mean that people can be as rude and nasty as they want. Or commit libel under free speech either. Many US courts have documented this.

Sure it does. For example it is clearly OK to allege the inferiority of AW/WW and black females but apparently not black males and blacks in general. Why is this? It is clear that zboy's goal has always been to drag the forum down into political correctness and he sees this as the easiest place to start, but since you seem to buy into this hierarchy of groups, perhaps you could explain yourself.

Just because Zboy doesn't like your views doesn't make him politically correct. His posts are not politically correct. He says that foreign women are more friendly and approachable than AW, for example. People who are politically correct don't say that.

He simply sees the need to enforce some behavior standards here. There is no such thing as 100 percent free speech or 100 percent freedom. You do not have the freedom to hurt others, for example. Likewise, you do not have the freedom to hurt others with words either, even under free speech. If they did something wrong to you, that would be one thing. But you are hurting innocent people here.

[Cornfed]

There is no such thing as 100 percent free speech or 100 percent freedom. You do not have the freedom to hurt others, for example. Likewise, you do not have the freedom to hurt others with words either, even under free speech. If they did something wrong to you, that would be one thing. But you are hurting innocent people here.

You still haven't explained the hierarchy here. For example, why is it permissible to criticize black females but not black males? Clearly you are not setting objective standards but rather taking a position.

[Jonny Law]

It makes me upset having these trolls. I get so upset I have to respond and I do not want to be negative.

And the complete HATE of Danielle is even worse in my opinion. Her FEMINIST INTOLERANCE should not be allowed.

I work in law enforcement and I know what I see. You have people who are working to discredit this movement.

SERIOUSLY FEMINISM (DANIELLE) AND RACISM (CORNFED) HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR MOVEMNT AND HAPPIER ABROAD!

[Cornfed]

SERIOUSLY FEMINISM (DANIELLE) AND RACISM (CORNFED) HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR MOVEMNT AND HAPPIER ABROAD!

If you are a pig then you are enforcing feminism and racism (against whites) so if that is what you believe then stop being a low-life hypocritical pig and quit your "job". (Although if you are a pig I guess you really are supporting the happier abroad movement by driving everyone abroad).

[nicho12]

Winston your infantile threats to ban anyone that offers dissenting opinions is just a sign of cowardice. Once again the claims of being a "truth seeking" forum is about as contradictive and laughable as your claims of being a warrior. Everything you have said so far about yourself or this forum is contradicted by your actions.

This has nothing to do with dissenting opinions. Your reading comprehension must suck. You also lack wisdom, common sense, conscience, empathy, sensitivity, tact, being considerate, EQ and people skills.

I explained many times already that free speech does not give a license to every asshole like you to be as rude, nasty and mean-spirited as he wants. Is that what you think it means? Geez. We can't have zero behavior standards here. There has to be some standards. Otherwise, what's to prevent me from posting Rock's photos against his wishes? See what I mean? There is no such thing as zero laws, zero rules or zero standards. No community can exist like that, not even an online community.

Free speech still has to operate within certain ethical guidelines and behavioral standards. That's reality and it makes sense. Wise people understand this. So do people with common sense. You seem to lack both.

Then why call it free speech, just call it semi-free speech

Because that would not be accurate. We are not semi-free speech here. It would be more accurate to say we are "free speech within reasonable standards of ethics and behavior."

Like I said, you can't have zero standards when it comes to ethics and behavior. Should we allow libelous comments here too?

When the founding fathers of the US Constitution put up the First Amendment, they did not mean that "anything goes" with zero behavioral standards. They did not mean that people can be as rude and nasty as they want. Or commit libel under free speech either. Many US courts have documented this.

Sure it does. For example it is clearly OK to allege the inferiority of AW/WW and black females but apparently not black males and blacks in general. Why is this? It is clear that zboy's goal has always been to drag the forum down into political correctness and he sees this as the easiest place to start, but since you seem to buy into this hierarchy of groups, perhaps you could explain yourself.

Just because Zboy doesn't like your views doesn't make him politically correct. His posts are not politically correct. He says that foreign women are more friendly and approachable than AW, for example. People who are politically correct don't say that.

He simply sees the need to enforce some behavior standards here. There is no such thing as 100 percent free speech or 100 percent freedom. You do not have the freedom to hurt others, for example. Likewise, you do not have the freedom to hurt others with words either, even under free speech. If they did something wrong to you, that would be one thing. But you are hurting innocent people here.

So just change the banner to your site indicating that we are "free speech within reasonable standards of ethics and behavior.", don't use the word free speech alone if you really don't mean it, the founding fathers should have also specified "free speech within reasonable standards of ethics and behavior." in their constitution.

[Cornfed]

So just change the banner to your site indicating that we are "free speech within reasonable standards of ethics and behavior

... as defined as anything zboy1 agrees with on a given day.

[The]

Ive said it once and ill say it again.... BAN CORNBALL AND DANIELLE NUGENT....SHE IS OBVIOUSLY A TROLL IN FEMALE CLOTHING AND CO-OPTING OUR MOVEMENT....

[Yohan]

Winston,
This forum considers itself as:

Warning: This forum operates on the principles of truth, free speech and freethought without politically correct censorship.

I see no reason why Cornfed should be banned.
To be fair, if Cornfed is banned, many others should be banned too.

Happierabroad should not become something like Orientexpat, which gives some certain members the right to ignore any forum rule, while others are banned even for totally unclear reasons. - Many left, many were banned. Me included after over 11000 comments.

Today Orientexpat is nothing but a desperate group of a few lonely losers related to Thailand with 3 or 4 comments per day - despite the original idea to create a forum for 'Asia in general' was very good.
But Thailand is not all Asia.

Insincere and biased moderation is a big problem - Happierabroad should not fall into this kind of trap. Happierabroad itself is about rather controversial dating stuff and about looking for sex outside of the USA itself.

If you continue with banning about all and everything, you will soon find yourself in the same position as Orientexpat.

I am personally strongly against banning of real people and their comments. It's a difference between angry comments and troll-postings.