Can we stop the nonsense?

[LunarRay]

I think this is what CAD is referring to..

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

But if CAD don't eat all of that hamburger, save it for me... and the fries.. curly Q please..

 

[etech]

LR, Thank you for the nomination but let me think about it. It was a long day at work, meetings all day tomorrow and it looks as if I'm going to get very busy for awhile. I would not want to take on the responsibility unless I can do it justice.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: etech
LR, Thank you for the nomination but let me think about it. It was a long day at work, meetings all day tomorrow and it looks as if I'm going to get very busy for awhile. I would not want to take on the responsibility unless I can do it justice.

I'm sure this is true. I don't know if there is enough agreement of this forum visitors to even start. Bob has said he's gone.. so I don't know if anyone aside from a few would agree to such terms. What I guess puzzles me is; alot of folks complain but, not many offer solutions. I guess a few but, oh well. I'd agree to what ever you'all 'old timers' decide is fair and proper.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: etech
LR, Thank you for the nomination but let me think about it. It was a long day at work, meetings all day tomorrow and it looks as if I'm going to get very busy for awhile. I would not want to take on the responsibility unless I can do it justice.

I'm sure this is true. I don't know if there is enough agreement of this forum visitors to even start. Bob has said he's gone.. so I don't know if anyone aside from a few would agree to such terms. What I guess puzzles me is; alot of folks complain but, not many offer solutions. I guess a few but, oh well. I'd agree to what ever you'all 'old timers' decide is fair and proper.

You know, its not that complex of an issue. We come up with a list of "offenses", each with its own punishment. Then we all vote on it and ask the mods to enforce the rules we pass.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have been hanging back, trying to decide how to approach this topic. The problem for me is that I am of two minds.

I would like to see more civility here, but on the other hand this is Politics, with some News thrown in. That is not to say that consideration for others needs to go by the wayside, but it is the nature of political discourse to become heated. Indeed, some here who know who they are will at times deliberate provoke others, not necessarily for the sake of flaming, but to stimulate thought, or at least make others feel something about what is posted. I have heard it said that the right of free speech is useless if you cannot offend others. I agree with that, although just offending for offense sake is counterproductive.

This is an interesting situation, as this has become in large part a self moderating forum. I have my suspicions as to why this is, but they are irrelevant in any case.

LR, my feeling is that any formal set of rules or guidelines is in trouble, because as soon as they are posted, someone is deliberately going to go about sabotaging them.

If we are in control of this forum ( an illusion I understand, moderators) then we need to have an understanding of what can be reasonably expected both of it and ourselves.


What the heck. Some thoughts

1. Political leaders of any nation are fair game. They are after all the ones who control us to one degree or another. To put any leader or policy off limits is ridiculous. It will not happen.

2. Remember this is discourse, but fer crying out loud, it's the internet, and not to be taken too seriously. If you do so, go have a beer and come back later.

3. The Golden Rule- Flame others as you would have them flame you.

4. See rule 2.

5. Trolls happen. Who cares? No response, and they go away.

6. See rule 2.

7. You and I do not make official policy. We are gnats on the behind of the political world. Nothing we do or say is going to be noticed or acted upon if it were. Keep that in mind, then see rule 2

8. We are all here for various reasons. As such we form a rather odd community. That makes us "e-neighbors". Try to understand what the other is saying, and comment on that, not on their mother or suspected affinity for barnyard animals.



What it comes down to is that we are an extremely diverse group, to put it kindly, or more accurately a big group of over opinionated individuals and strong differences will come out. What I suggest is taking a deep breath before responding.

I don't want to see this become a perpetual festival of name calling, but on the other hand if we don't want it to become insipid.


Comments, criticisms, amplifications welcome.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I have been hanging back, trying to decide how to approach this topic. The problem for me is that I am of two minds.

I would like to see more civility here, but on the other hand this is Politics, with some News thrown in. That is not to say that consideration for others needs to go by the wayside, but it is the nature of political discourse to become heated. Indeed, some here who know who they are will at times deliberate provoke others, not necessarily for the sake of flaming, but to stimulate thought, or at least make others feel something about what is posted. I have heard it said that the right of free speech is useless if you cannot offend others. I agree with that, although just offending for offense sake is counterproductive.

This is an interesting situation, as this has become in large part a self moderating forum. I have my suspicions as to why this is, but they are irrelevant in any case.

LR, my feeling is that any formal set of rules or guidelines is in trouble, because as soon as they are posted, someone is deliberately going to go about sabotaging them.

If we are in control of this forum ( an illusion I understand, moderators) then we need to have an understanding of what can be reasonably expected both of it and ourselves.


What the heck. Some thoughts

1. Political leaders of any nation are fair game. They are after all the ones who control us to one degree or another. To put any leader or policy off limits is ridiculous. It will not happen.

2. Remember this is discourse, but fer crying out loud, it's the internet, and not to be taken too seriously. If you do so, go have a beer and come back later.

3. The Golden Rule- Flame others as you would have them flame you.

4. See rule 2.

5. Trolls happen. Who cares? No response, and they go away.

6. See rule 2.

7. You and I do not make official policy. We are gnats on the behind of the political world. Nothing we do or say is going to be noticed or acted upon if it were. Keep that in mind, then see rule 2

8. We are all here for various reasons. As such we form a rather odd community. That makes us "e-neighbors". Try to understand what the other is saying, and comment on that, not on their mother or suspected affinity for barnyard animals.



What it comes down to is that we are an extremely diverse group, to put it kindly, or more accurately a big group of over opinionated individuals and strong differences will come out. What I suggest is taking a deep breath before responding.

I don't want to see this become a perpetual festival of name calling, but on the other hand if we don't want it to become insipid.


Comments, criticisms, amplifications welcome.

Very well put.
"attacks" on public figures shouldn't be in question - but when it spills over to the poster it needs to be tempered.

CkG

 

[Insane3D]

Screw you Winston!! You damn tree-hugging wuss!!:Q
















Just a little humor to lighten things up...



Edited since I was too nice in my original post...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Screw you Winston!! :Q



















Just a little humor to lighten things up...

You devil you

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: etech
LR, Thank you for the nomination but let me think about it. It was a long day at work, meetings all day tomorrow and it looks as if I'm going to get very busy for awhile. I would not want to take on the responsibility unless I can do it justice.

I'm sure this is true. I don't know if there is enough agreement of this forum visitors to even start. Bob has said he's gone.. so I don't know if anyone aside from a few would agree to such terms. What I guess puzzles me is; alot of folks complain but, not many offer solutions. I guess a few but, oh well. I'd agree to what ever you'all 'old timers' decide is fair and proper.

You know, its not that complex of an issue. We come up with a list of "offenses", each with its own punishment. Then we all vote on it and ask the mods to enforce the rules we pass.

Well I'm not so sure about that. As far as I'm concerned, how someone defines what an offense is, is a political act. Generally what is offensive is that with which I disagree. That would include anything that shows me to myself. Therefore what is offensive is vital to my conscious evolution. In my world what you call down I call up. So what you would call sensible rules are to me often methods of staying asleep.

 

[LunarRay]

WinstonSmith,
I am much too new to the internet forum life and what it means and really understand the reality of it from a neighborhood perspective. You do and I will always defer to someone I know knows.
It seems your suggestion is appropriate. Ad Hominem type reasoning should not contain vile comments about the person posting even if true . I just don't see a reason for it. But even if it did and thems the agreed (and I agree with you) rules of conduct it is fine by me.

 

[LunarRay]

MB said
Well I'm not so sure about that. As far as I'm concerned, how someone defines what an offense is, is a political act. Generally what is offensive is that with which I disagree. That would include anything that shows me to myself. Therefore what is offensive is vital to my conscious evolution. In my world what you call down I call up. So what you would call sensible rules are to me often methods of staying asleep.

Ahhhh Moonbeam is back at the 'What is justice thread'

I like WS's post on the rule.

 

[Orsorum]

Very good words, Rich, as always. I found LunarRay's suggestion to be an interesting one as well, and worthy of further debate.

We really should get a mod or two in here to give us their POV or let us know what they would be willing to let us do here.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Very good words, Rich, as always. I found LunarRay's suggestion to be an interesting one as well, and worthy of further debate.

We really should get a mod or two in here to give us their POV or let us know what they would be willing to let us do here.

I concur with the mod POV.

 

[DealMonkey]

I guess I would start by looking @ what constituted an infringement of the rules before the mods left? What reasons were threads locked? What reasons were folks given vacations? I've seen some good ideas here, but I wonder how any set of rules would really be enforced w/o Mod intervention.

Personally, I think we should just self-police. If we all agreed to be more civil it would go a long way. Already, just by discussing the issues at-hand, I've seen people around here lightening up and not allowing themselves to get dragged into as many flame-fests...

 

[CaptnKirk]

O.K. - I'm going out on a limb here, but I'll explain:
If nobody esle has noticed, UQ is present - by his absence. He started a dialogue a few weeks back with the Mods on this subject.
He did contact me by E-Mail, completely separate from this forum, and expressed his thoughts.
He has asked me to post a response on his behalf for review of a possible explanation / solution.
I respect his request, and here is his thoughts & comments.

=====================================================================================
<FONT size=2>
Maybe you could post this for me. I seem to be the exception to the banning rule the mods are applying to everyone else.
These are blatantly stolen from another web forum. I presented them to the mods a few weeks ago and was told they wouldn't work.
I think they will and would like to see them implemented or something similar.
Do Not Personally Attack Other Members
Personal attacks in the AT Forums are usually called "ad-homs." "Ad-hom" is an abbreviated version of ad-hominem,
a Latin term used to denote the logical fallacy of attacking a person in the interest of discrediting an idea.
While not all personal attacks are ad-hominem, they are all forbidden just the same.
The rules against personal attacks are enforced strictly in the AT Forums.
Offenders will find themselves banned from the forums altogether.

Recognize that You Do Not Have Free Speech You do not have a right to free speech at AT.
Blatantly racist, sexist, or bigoted threads will be locked without question.

If these are the sorts of threads that you wish to create or take part in, then this is not the forum for you.
Leave now and save yourself the trouble.
Do Not Post Links with No Content ATP & N serves as a clearing house for international news.
Often times a news item will be linked with the intent of setting off a discussion.
A "lazy link" is one that is posted to initiate a thread,
but is accompanied by little or no content. Remember, simply posting a link is not enough.

It is your job to describe the issue at hand. Talk about the page you're linking to, parts you find fascinating,
parts you agree or disagree with, etc. It only takes a few sentences, and it allows readers of the Politics and News Forum
to get an idea of what you want them to read, and what you want to discuss in particular.

Do Not Create Angry Rants Many people feel that that ATP & N is the place to "vent your political angst"
(or religious angst, or sociological angst, etc.). This couldn't be further from the truth.
The ATP & N forum aspires to be a serious discussion and debate forum--it is not a place to "let off steam."
Too often, people post threads that are merely rehashed vitriol. No one cares if you absolutely hate republicans, or democrats,
or vegans, or pro-life activists, or what have you.

That you dislike a particular subset of the population is really not worthy of its own discussion unless you're prepared to be specific
and maintain a modicum of respect. In practice, this means enumerating the reasons you find, say,
a political party or social movement objectionable.

Try to explain it as though you were arguing with a college professor, and not downing a beer at the local pub.
Recognize the Burden of Proof Repeat after me: the burden of proof lies on the claimant.

No matter the topic of the thread, it is your job to show that there are substantial reasons for believing the fundamentals
of your argument. Like it or not, most claims in the ATP & N forum will need to be referenced.
This doesn't mean that you need to whip out your MLA handbook, but it does mean that you may be asked to provide a few hyperlinks. While it's okay to reference an offline book, magazine, or journal, these sorts of resources are difficult to check in a timely manner.
In the ATP & N forum, you'll find very few people who want to "take your word for it."

If you don't feel like referencing a specific claim, or you simply cannot recall where you acquired a piece of information,
you're better off not using it as the centerpiece of your argument.</FONT>

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

A "lazy link" is one that is posted to initiate a thread,
but is accompanied by little or no content. Remember, simply posting a link is not enough.


...does this mean no more cutting and pasting a news read with a "good read" link and no content?

 

[CaptnKirk]

It was further qualified as 'Put out your thoughts as to merit, why you agreed or disagreed with the content".
Don't just put up the link and waltz away. (Example)

{L=HERES A LINK}

I think this is wonderful, and I belive it is the ultimate best thing since sliced bread
-or -
Isn't this the dumbest thing that ever fell off of the Turnip Truck ?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

The George Bush Regime needs to be assassinated. His Regime's ouster in Election '04 won't come a single millisecond too soon. George Bush needs to be assassinated.

How do we handle stuff like this in the not-too-distant future? I would suggest a "timeout" button, where it counts the votes of members on giving kids a timeout...say, 24 hours....or implement 'Dunce Cap' avitar and members vote on whether to issue it to a particular poster

 

[etech]

Calling for Geroge Bush or his administration to be assassinated is over the line.

It could also be a federal offense. That is not something which this board should condone.

 

[phillyTIM]

OMG you didn't even quote me properly. And look at the tattle-tail drama police. How funny, you KIDS!

 

[phillyTIM]

Apparently some people are forgetting things around here such as our First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights.

If you guys are going to be childlishly tattle-tails then I will refuse to abide by all these efforts of good faith that we've talked about in this 100+ post thread topic.

I'm glad I tested the waters to show just how trigger-happy you KIDS are.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Fredom of speech does not apply to a world wide (global) forum. It is a private enterprise.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Apparently some people are forgetting things around here such as our First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights.

If you guys are going to be childlishly tattle-tails then I will refuse to abide by all these efforts of good faith that we've talked about in this 100+ post thread topic.

I'm glad I tested the waters to show just how trigger-happy you KIDS are.

So you admit you were trolling with that statement and you are not aware that First Admendment rights do not extend to threats of bodily harm, especially against the President.

You have broken the agreement Philly, the question is what punishment is fitting.

 

[phillyTIM]

I admit to nothing, Etech, certainly not to you. You have a history of putting words into people's mouths. JohnGalt didn't even quote me properly. You both are irrelevant., ESPECIALLY since neither of you are moderators. I can easily just put you on IGNORE.

 

[Gaard]

Self-moderating is fine...but only if the mods agree to help. IOW, we obviously have zero power to enforce any of these 'rules' ourselves, and it'd just be a waste of time to continue unless some kind of assurance is given. Am I thinking right?

Personally, I think it's a cop out for the mods to say that if they enforced the rules, they'd be giving out too many vacations/warnings.

Philly - I agree. If Galt, and others, want to turn this into a 'tattletale' thread, they'd better be prepared to do some defending.