Facebook bans mother

For posting family photos with anencephalic baby

Discussions for education, teaching & parenting.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Facebook bans mother

#21  Postby trubble76 » Apr 03, 2014 10:35 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Fine, you think it is in bad taste. Noted.

Moving on. :coffee:


Come now, I don't think we should be so pessimistic to think I'm the only one who found the comment to be ridiculously bad.


Yes, it was in poor taste. Much of what amuses me is in poor taste though, so I feel unwilling to judge others in this case. :dunno:
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Facebook bans mother

#22  Postby Mr.Samsa » Apr 03, 2014 10:37 am

trubble76 wrote:Yes, it was in poor taste. Much of what amuses me is in poor taste though, so I feel unwilling to judge others in this case. :dunno:


Sure, but obviously you can't condemn the actions of Facebook and then make, or implicitly support, a comment like that (without remaining consistent).
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#23  Postby Sendraks » Apr 03, 2014 10:40 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Sure, but obviously you can't condemn the actions of Facebook and then make, or implicitly support, a comment like that (without remaining consistent).


You obviously can, given making a comment and actually banning someone from using a service, are two very different things.
So there is no inconsistency.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#24  Postby Matt_B » Apr 03, 2014 10:54 am

Sendraks wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
Sure, but obviously you can't condemn the actions of Facebook and then make, or implicitly support, a comment like that (without remaining consistent).


You obviously can, given making a comment and actually banning someone from using a service, are two very different things.
So there is no inconsistency.


There might have been a hint of irony though.
User avatar
Matt_B
 
Posts: 4683
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#25  Postby trubble76 » Apr 03, 2014 10:56 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
trubble76 wrote:Yes, it was in poor taste. Much of what amuses me is in poor taste though, so I feel unwilling to judge others in this case. :dunno:


Sure, but obviously you can't condemn the actions of Facebook and then make, or implicitly support, a comment like that (without remaining consistent).

Can't I? Why do you say that?
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#26  Postby Mr.Samsa » Apr 03, 2014 11:15 am

Sendraks wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
Sure, but obviously you can't condemn the actions of Facebook and then make, or implicitly support, a comment like that (without remaining consistent).


You obviously can, given making a comment and actually banning someone from using a service, are two very different things.
So there is no inconsistency.


Okay yes, if someone finds fault with Facebook's decision because they banned someone from their service then there is no inconsistency. The problem comes if they happen to disagree with the reason why Facebook banned them from their service, which was the stigmatisation of the condition of anencephaly.

trubble76 wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
trubble76 wrote:Yes, it was in poor taste. Much of what amuses me is in poor taste though, so I feel unwilling to judge others in this case. :dunno:


Sure, but obviously you can't condemn the actions of Facebook and then make, or implicitly support, a comment like that (without remaining consistent).

Can't I? Why do you say that?


Well I assume the reason you'd criticise Facebook's decision is because it's shitty to refuse a mother the option of posting pictures of her child just because its birth defect offends some people. If that (or something similar) is the reason, then it's pretty inconsistent to then simultaneous make a joke (or support in some way a joke) that uses the birth defect as an insult.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#27  Postby Sendraks » Apr 03, 2014 11:22 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:[
Okay yes, if someone finds fault with Facebook's decision because they banned someone from their service then there is no inconsistency. The problem comes if they happen to disagree with the reason why Facebook banned them from their service, which was the stigmatisation of the condition of anencephaly. .


I don't think anyone here would argue against Facebook being fault. Certainly whoever at FB made the decision to ban the user (not to mention whoever reported the user), is clearly lacking in the brain department. Probably in the areas of empathy, humility and general denecy.

Calling them anencephalitic is probably more of a compliment than they deserve.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Facebook bans mother

#28  Postby trubble76 » Apr 03, 2014 11:25 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
Sure, but obviously you can't condemn the actions of Facebook and then make, or implicitly support, a comment like that (without remaining consistent).


You obviously can, given making a comment and actually banning someone from using a service, are two very different things.
So there is no inconsistency.


Okay yes, if someone finds fault with Facebook's decision because they banned someone from their service then there is no inconsistency. The problem comes if they happen to disagree with the reason why Facebook banned them from their service, which was the stigmatisation of the condition of anencephaly.

trubble76 wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
trubble76 wrote:Yes, it was in poor taste. Much of what amuses me is in poor taste though, so I feel unwilling to judge others in this case. :dunno:


Sure, but obviously you can't condemn the actions of Facebook and then make, or implicitly support, a comment like that (without remaining consistent).

Can't I? Why do you say that?


Well I assume the reason you'd criticise Facebook's decision is because it's shitty to refuse a mother the option of posting pictures of her child just because its birth defect offends some people. If that (or something similar) is the reason, then it's pretty inconsistent to then simultaneous make a joke (or support in some way a joke) that uses the birth defect as an insult.


I'm not sure why you would reach that conclusion, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me. I generally take an anti-censorship position. I don't think Facebook should have censored that family, particularly because there appears to be nothing to warrant such a reaction. I also generally don't think satirical comments, whether insulting or not should be censored. I see no inconsistency or contradiction and I'm surprised that you do.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#29  Postby Mr.Samsa » Apr 03, 2014 11:35 am

Sendraks wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:[
Okay yes, if someone finds fault with Facebook's decision because they banned someone from their service then there is no inconsistency. The problem comes if they happen to disagree with the reason why Facebook banned them from their service, which was the stigmatisation of the condition of anencephaly. .


I don't think anyone here would argue against Facebook being fault. Certainly whoever at FB made the decision to ban the user (not to mention whoever reported the user), is clearly lacking in the brain department. Probably in the areas of empathy, humility and general denecy.

Calling them anencephalitic is probably more of a compliment than they deserve.


But this is sort of the problem I'm getting at. You're criticising Facebook for lacking empathy, humility, and general decency, and then using the condition of the mother's dead baby as an insult. Come on now, you're pulling my leg, right?

trubble76 wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
Well I assume the reason you'd criticise Facebook's decision is because it's shitty to refuse a mother the option of posting pictures of her child just because its birth defect offends some people. If that (or something similar) is the reason, then it's pretty inconsistent to then simultaneous make a joke (or support in some way a joke) that uses the birth defect as an insult.


I'm not sure why you would reach that conclusion, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me. I generally take an anti-censorship position. I don't think Facebook should have censored that family, particularly because there appears to be nothing to warrant such a reaction. I also generally don't think satirical comments, whether insulting or not should be censored. I see no inconsistency or contradiction and I'm surprised that you do.


Well fair enough then, if your complaint is against anti-censorship on privately owned sites then I can't fault you for inconsistency. I think you may have missed the point of the article though, which wasn't a complaint against anti-censorship (as people don't generally complain that their nudie pics got taken down or their images of gory violent deaths were removed) but rather that a child with a birth defect shouldn't have been deemed to violate their posting agreement.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#30  Postby trubble76 » Apr 03, 2014 11:40 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:

trubble76 wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
Well I assume the reason you'd criticise Facebook's decision is because it's shitty to refuse a mother the option of posting pictures of her child just because its birth defect offends some people. If that (or something similar) is the reason, then it's pretty inconsistent to then simultaneous make a joke (or support in some way a joke) that uses the birth defect as an insult.


I'm not sure why you would reach that conclusion, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me. I generally take an anti-censorship position. I don't think Facebook should have censored that family, particularly because there appears to be nothing to warrant such a reaction. I also generally don't think satirical comments, whether insulting or not should be censored. I see no inconsistency or contradiction and I'm surprised that you do.


Well fair enough then, if your complaint is against anti-censorship on privately owned sites then I can't fault you for inconsistency. I think you may have missed the point of the article though, which wasn't a complaint against anti-censorship (as people don't generally complain that their nudie pics got taken down or their images of gory violent deaths were removed) but rather that a child with a birth defect shouldn't have been deemed to violate their posting agreement.



Don't get me wrong, I take an anti-censorship position but I also think there was nothing worthy of censorship anyway. There is is still no inconsistency involved in disapproving of Facebook's baffling reaction to disability while not disapproving of the bad taste satire that followed.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#31  Postby Mr.Samsa » Apr 03, 2014 11:44 am

trubble76 wrote:Don't get me wrong, I take an anti-censorship position but I also think there was nothing worthy of censorship anyway. There is is still no inconsistency involved in disapproving of Facebook's baffling reaction to disability while not disapproving of the bad taste satire that followed.


It's the "reaction to disability" part which is causing the trouble. But sure, I'll concede that a pure anti-censorship position isn't inconsistent with a joke in bad taste, it's only when there is a claim of empathy, humility, or general decency that there is a problem.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#32  Postby trubble76 » Apr 03, 2014 11:44 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
trubble76 wrote:Don't get me wrong, I take an anti-censorship position but I also think there was nothing worthy of censorship anyway. There is is still no inconsistency involved in disapproving of Facebook's baffling reaction to disability while not disapproving of the bad taste satire that followed.


It's the "reaction to disability" part which is causing the trouble. But sure, I'll concede that a pure anti-censorship position isn't inconsistent with a joke in bad taste, it's only when there is a claim of empathy, humility, or general decency that there is a problem.


I must have missed those claims.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#33  Postby Mr.Samsa » Apr 03, 2014 11:46 am

trubble76 wrote:I must have missed those claims.


Oh fair enough, there's an example just above:

Sendraks wrote:
I don't think anyone here would argue against Facebook being fault. Certainly whoever at FB made the decision to ban the user (not to mention whoever reported the user), is clearly lacking in the brain department. Probably in the areas of empathy, humility and general denecy.

Calling them anencephalitic is probably more of a compliment than they deserve.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#34  Postby Sendraks » Apr 03, 2014 11:48 am

Ah, so you're claiming facebooks decision to ban the user is not lacking in empathy, humility or general decency?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#35  Postby Sgt Kelly » Apr 03, 2014 11:50 am

It doesn't say anywhere in the article why Facebook made the decision, so we don't know if it was because people might be offended.

Something tells me we might not have the full story here.

To each his own when it comes to dealing with personal tragedy but if I had 8 hours with my severely deformed son I wouldn't be spending them getting my hair and make up done for a photography session with big grins and 'My First Bible'.

I'd probably like to respect my child's privacy and give that time the intimacy it deserves.

I don't know but maybe Facebook is in some way bound to protect that baby's right to privacy, however insensitive to the parents this may seem.
Last edited by Sgt Kelly on Apr 03, 2014 12:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Sgt Kelly
 
Posts: 438
Age: 48
Male

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Facebook bans mother

#36  Postby Sendraks » Apr 03, 2014 11:52 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
But this is sort of the problem I'm getting at. You're criticising Facebook for lacking empathy, humility, and general decency, and then using the condition of the mother's dead baby as an insult. Come on now, you're pulling my leg, right?


Is it a problem?
How is it a problem?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#37  Postby Mr.Samsa » Apr 03, 2014 11:54 am

Sendraks wrote:Ah, so you're claiming facebooks decision to ban the user is not lacking in empathy, humility or general decency?


..No, I'm claiming that it is.

Sendraks wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
But this is sort of the problem I'm getting at. You're criticising Facebook for lacking empathy, humility, and general decency, and then using the condition of the mother's dead baby as an insult. Come on now, you're pulling my leg, right?


Is it a problem?
How is it a problem?


Because it's inconsistent. You can't complain about a lack of empathy, humility, and general decency and then engage in similar behaviors which lack empathy, humility, and general decency without being hypocritical.
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#38  Postby trubble76 » Apr 03, 2014 11:56 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
trubble76 wrote:I must have missed those claims.


Oh fair enough, there's an example just above:

Sendraks wrote:
I don't think anyone here would argue against Facebook being fault. Certainly whoever at FB made the decision to ban the user (not to mention whoever reported the user), is clearly lacking in the brain department. Probably in the areas of empathy, humility and general denecy.

Calling them anencephalitic is probably more of a compliment than they deserve.


Ah yes, I was just commenting on Cali's post, I hadn't read Sendrak's. Although, I do not feel that Cali's satirical response (whether you actually found it amusing or not) demonstrates absent empathy, humility and decency in totality, just questionable taste. As it's a judgement call, I can see how you might consider bad taste to demonstrate those things as lacking.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#39  Postby Mr.Samsa » Apr 03, 2014 12:01 pm

trubble76 wrote:

Ah yes, I was just commenting on Cali's post, I hadn't read Sendrak's. Although, I do not feel that Cali's satirical response (whether you actually found it amusing or not) demonstrates absent empathy, humility and decency in totality, just questionable taste. As it's a judgement call, I can see how you might consider bad taste to demonstrate those things as lacking.


Certainly, and someone can argue that Facebook's decision to remove the pictures doesn't demonstrate an absence of empathy, humility and decency in totality, but the two situations rely on the same thing (stigmatisation of the birth defect). The point wasn't that someone has to find it in bad taste, or even disagree with bad taste humour, just that it's inconsistent to criticise one person/company for doing practically same thing as someone else that you're laughing with (i.e. if you find the Facebook decision to be lacking in empathy etc then the same judgement must be made with the joke as they rely on the same premise).
Image
Mr.Samsa
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 35

Print view this post

Re: Facebook bans mother

#40  Postby trubble76 » Apr 03, 2014 12:03 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:
trubble76 wrote:

Ah yes, I was just commenting on Cali's post, I hadn't read Sendrak's. Although, I do not feel that Cali's satirical response (whether you actually found it amusing or not) demonstrates absent empathy, humility and decency in totality, just questionable taste. As it's a judgement call, I can see how you might consider bad taste to demonstrate those things as lacking.


Certainly, and someone can argue that Facebook's decision to remove the pictures doesn't demonstrate an absence of empathy, humility and decency in totality, but the two situations rely on the same thing (stigmatisation of the birth defect). The point wasn't that someone has to find it in bad taste, or even disagree with bad taste humour, just that it's inconsistent to criticise one person/company for doing practically same thing as someone else that you're laughing with (i.e. if you find the Facebook decision to be lacking in empathy etc then the same judgement must be made with the joke as they rely on the same premise).


But it's not practically the same thing, is it? At least, I don't think it is.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Parenting & Education

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest