I'd like you all to have a look at this

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Deudalus
To go a bit further and totally explain myself I think the basic problem that we have is that there are a whole lot of intelligent and knowledgeable people here on this board but they simply aren't as passionate (and by passionate I mean willing to post 50 times or more per day) as the ones lacking (or refusing to show any) intelligence or knowledge.

Just because someone posts 25,000 times in the politics section of P&N and it says Diamond or whatever member under their name doesn't make them knowledgeable or intelligent; it only makes them passionate with lots of free time. When someone's idea of contributing to a discussion is: No blood for oil, Bush lied people died, Liberals hate America, Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim, or some other type of drivel then really that just functions to drown out anyone trying to have an honest debate about anything.

Maybe I'm too cynical but that's all I see.

PS: Why doesn't the ignore function work anyways?

WRONG thread, sorry.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think this is a tricky issue, Hay, because it amounts to asking a bigot to delay injecting his bigotry until after he's presented a non-bigoted title to his thread, whereas, in actual fact a real bigot is totally unaware that he is a bigot yet injects his bigotry unconsciously everywhere.

You can ask unconscious people to be conscious but they can't any more than you can ask the blind to see.

The question, then, for people who can think rationally on some bigot's topic, is how to respond. As they say, you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much. Therefore, one has to ask what should be one's reply. Do you tell the bigot you forgive him and hope he finds a cure, or do you laugh him out of the house.

They also say, the answer to a fool is silence but experience has shown that in the long run any other answer will have the same effect.

My own personal opinion is that bigots are a home grown phenomenon, in India there are those who look down on this or that cast. In America there are prejudices against blacks. In Ireland Orange and Green seem to drive people to kill. Gypsies, Jews, Arabs, Poles, Greeks, Italians, the English, Americans, everybody is hated somewhere by somebody, and bigots will happily kill each other in their claims that the object of their bigotry is the worst.

It can't be more obvious to one bigot that the next bigot is insane. It is only his own bigotry that is rational, you see, because it is based on an unconscious certainty that the object of his own bigotry is evil. This was inculcated into the bigot at an age before he could reason, when all the hate we experienced, we deflected onto somebody else, so that we could survive. We had to become bigots or we would have died. One can't function and feel the endless pain of being told you are worthless and unloved. We had to pretend we were good and the evil was over there to survive.

What do you do when what allowed you to survive then is killing you now? The bigot destroys the world in the name of saving it. How can he be made to see that he destroys himself because of his bigotry. How can he see that what he really hates is himself, and that without real justification, that all he was taught about himself and others was a lie?

'He who dies in my name shall have eternal live.' How can this be heard?

What the fuck does that mean?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think this is a tricky issue, Hay, because it amounts to asking a bigot to delay injecting his bigotry until after he's presented a non-bigoted title to his thread, whereas, in actual fact a real bigot is totally unaware that he is a bigot yet injects his bigotry unconsciously everywhere.

You can ask unconscious people to be conscious but they can't any more than you can ask the blind to see.

The question, then, for people who can think rationally on some bigot's topic, is how to respond. As they say, you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much. Therefore, one has to ask what should be one's reply. Do you tell the bigot you forgive him and hope he finds a cure, or do you laugh him out of the house.

They also say, the answer to a fool is silence but experience has shown that in the long run any other answer will have the same effect.

My own personal opinion is that bigots are a home grown phenomenon, in India there are those who look down on this or that cast. In America there are prejudices against blacks. In Ireland Orange and Green seem to drive people to kill. Gypsies, Jews, Arabs, Poles, Greeks, Italians, the English, Americans, everybody is hated somewhere by somebody, and bigots will happily kill each other in their claims that the object of their bigotry is the worst.

It can't be more obvious to one bigot that the next bigot is insane. It is only his own bigotry that is rational, you see, because it is based on an unconscious certainty that the object of his own bigotry is evil. This was inculcated into the bigot at an age before he could reason, when all the hate we experienced, we deflected onto somebody else, so that we could survive. We had to become bigots or we would have died. One can't function and feel the endless pain of being told you are worthless and unloved. We had to pretend we were good and the evil was over there to survive.

What do you do when what allowed you to survive then is killing you now? The bigot destroys the world in the name of saving it. How can he be made to see that he destroys himself because of his bigotry. How can he see that what he really hates is himself, and that without real justification, that all he was taught about himself and others was a lie?

'He who dies in my name shall have eternal live.' How can this be heard?

What the fuck does that mean?

People have been asking that about Moonbeam for a long time.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think this is a tricky issue, Hay, because it amounts to asking a bigot to delay injecting his bigotry until after he's presented a non-bigoted title to his thread, whereas, in actual fact a real bigot is totally unaware that he is a bigot yet injects his bigotry unconsciously everywhere.

You can ask unconscious people to be conscious but they can't any more than you can ask the blind to see.

The question, then, for people who can think rationally on some bigot's topic, is how to respond. As they say, you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much. Therefore, one has to ask what should be one's reply. Do you tell the bigot you forgive him and hope he finds a cure, or do you laugh him out of the house.

They also say, the answer to a fool is silence but experience has shown that in the long run any other answer will have the same effect.

My own personal opinion is that bigots are a home grown phenomenon, in India there are those who look down on this or that cast. In America there are prejudices against blacks. In Ireland Orange and Green seem to drive people to kill. Gypsies, Jews, Arabs, Poles, Greeks, Italians, the English, Americans, everybody is hated somewhere by somebody, and bigots will happily kill each other in their claims that the object of their bigotry is the worst.

It can't be more obvious to one bigot that the next bigot is insane. It is only his own bigotry that is rational, you see, because it is based on an unconscious certainty that the object of his own bigotry is evil. This was inculcated into the bigot at an age before he could reason, when all the hate we experienced, we deflected onto somebody else, so that we could survive. We had to become bigots or we would have died. One can't function and feel the endless pain of being told you are worthless and unloved. We had to pretend we were good and the evil was over there to survive.

What do you do when what allowed you to survive then is killing you now? The bigot destroys the world in the name of saving it. How can he be made to see that he destroys himself because of his bigotry. How can he see that what he really hates is himself, and that without real justification, that all he was taught about himself and others was a lie?

'He who dies in my name shall have eternal live.' How can this be heard?

What the fuck does that mean?

People have been asking that about Moonbeam for a long time.

I thought it was well thought through and clear, but then again, i am not a man GW has in a strangle leash.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Perknose
It's been famously said many times that if we were to strictly enforce the "no personal attacks" rule here, there'd soon be no one left to post.

I think you are wrong about this for two reasons.

1. There are not as many personal attacks or people launching personal attacks as you believe, read the thread in question and see if you can find one real personal attack, I didn't see any. (Although someone did call someone else an idiot.)

2. If you started to crack down on the attacks people would change their behavior to prevent a ban.

 

[ProfJohn]

IMO P&N should be a place to exchange idea and information. That is why I post here myself.

The biggest problem I see with P&N is the over the top posters who offer little to the discussion other than name calling and mud flinging and over the top attention getting rhetoric. (Bush is a muderer, I'm a neocon pimp because I supported him etc etc.)

If we could eliminate that type of BS P&N would be far more enjoyable.

We need to follow that big rule of debating: attack the idea not the person.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think this is a tricky issue, Hay, because it amounts to asking a bigot to delay injecting his bigotry until after he's presented a non-bigoted title to his thread, whereas, in actual fact a real bigot is totally unaware that he is a bigot yet injects his bigotry unconsciously everywhere.

You can ask unconscious people to be conscious but they can't any more than you can ask the blind to see.

The question, then, for people who can think rationally on some bigot's topic, is how to respond. As they say, you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much. Therefore, one has to ask what should be one's reply. Do you tell the bigot you forgive him and hope he finds a cure, or do you laugh him out of the house.

They also say, the answer to a fool is silence but experience has shown that in the long run any other answer will have the same effect.

My own personal opinion is that bigots are a home grown phenomenon, in India there are those who look down on this or that cast. In America there are prejudices against blacks. In Ireland Orange and Green seem to drive people to kill. Gypsies, Jews, Arabs, Poles, Greeks, Italians, the English, Americans, everybody is hated somewhere by somebody, and bigots will happily kill each other in their claims that the object of their bigotry is the worst.

It can't be more obvious to one bigot that the next bigot is insane. It is only his own bigotry that is rational, you see, because it is based on an unconscious certainty that the object of his own bigotry is evil. This was inculcated into the bigot at an age before he could reason, when all the hate we experienced, we deflected onto somebody else, so that we could survive. We had to become bigots or we would have died. One can't function and feel the endless pain of being told you are worthless and unloved. We had to pretend we were good and the evil was over there to survive.

What do you do when what allowed you to survive then is killing you now? The bigot destroys the world in the name of saving it. How can he be made to see that he destroys himself because of his bigotry. How can he see that what he really hates is himself, and that without real justification, that all he was taught about himself and others was a lie?

'He who dies in my name shall have eternal live.' How can this be heard?

What the fuck does that mean?

People have been asking that about Moonbeam for a long time.

I dunno, I thought this was one of Moonbeam's more lucid, coherent and frankly eloquent posts.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think this is a tricky issue, Hay, because it amounts to asking a bigot to delay injecting his bigotry until after he's presented a non-bigoted title to his thread, whereas, in actual fact a real bigot is totally unaware that he is a bigot yet injects his bigotry unconsciously everywhere.

You can ask unconscious people to be conscious but they can't any more than you can ask the blind to see.

The question, then, for people who can think rationally on some bigot's topic, is how to respond. As they say, you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much. Therefore, one has to ask what should be one's reply. Do you tell the bigot you forgive him and hope he finds a cure, or do you laugh him out of the house.

They also say, the answer to a fool is silence but experience has shown that in the long run any other answer will have the same effect.

My own personal opinion is that bigots are a home grown phenomenon, in India there are those who look down on this or that cast. In America there are prejudices against blacks. In Ireland Orange and Green seem to drive people to kill. Gypsies, Jews, Arabs, Poles, Greeks, Italians, the English, Americans, everybody is hated somewhere by somebody, and bigots will happily kill each other in their claims that the object of their bigotry is the worst.

It can't be more obvious to one bigot that the next bigot is insane. It is only his own bigotry that is rational, you see, because it is based on an unconscious certainty that the object of his own bigotry is evil. This was inculcated into the bigot at an age before he could reason, when all the hate we experienced, we deflected onto somebody else, so that we could survive. We had to become bigots or we would have died. One can't function and feel the endless pain of being told you are worthless and unloved. We had to pretend we were good and the evil was over there to survive.

What do you do when what allowed you to survive then is killing you now? The bigot destroys the world in the name of saving it. How can he be made to see that he destroys himself because of his bigotry. How can he see that what he really hates is himself, and that without real justification, that all he was taught about himself and others was a lie?

'He who dies in my name shall have eternal live.' How can this be heard?

What the fuck does that mean?

Not so fast. You ask what I meant but I asked you first how I can be heard. Do you want to understand what I mean or are you more focused on the 'fuck'? Can you see that knowledge is in part a matter of attitude. If you want truth nothing can keep you from it, but if you don't nothing can make you see.

This is illustrated by the story of the Zen master and the tea. A man came to a Zen master seeking truth. The master poured him tea and continued pouring after the cup was full. Stop said the seeker. The cup can't hold any more. Yes said the master, and if you don't empty your cup how am I to put anything in?

A key obstacle to knowledge is thinking you already know. The kind of humility required to approach truth is not so easy to come by. Our egos, our certainty, our pride in what we know, our protection from feelings of inferiority, the fear we know nothing, keeps us from seeing that we really do know nothing much.

The acquisition of knowledge is as much a matter of getting rid of assumptions and hidden bias as it is of acquiring anything new. It requires genuine humility. How can the ego be humble. How can the ego die. The ego is the enemy and the ego is me. Ego can't eliminate ego. It is egotistical when it thinks it can. You can do nothing, but the truth can find you. But you need to come to the end of your ego rope.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I guess I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Is this an attempt to limit people's expression - even if it is supposed to be "voluntary"?
If I am passionate about a topic do I really need to be PC? Sure, there are limits of good taste but I am still not sure why a person has to "walk on egg shells" just because others may not be mature enough(or mentally stable enough) to handle it. The thread referenced shows an OP that was passionate about the subject at hand and wrote about it. I would think that if special notice wasn't placed on it, it may not have devolved, but we will never know.
I guess my question is: Where is the line you wish us to voluntarily stay away from? If I post "liberal" and something else negative in the title - will that ruffle feathers? Neocon? etc? Why sure it will, so I'm struggling to figure out why mocking racial overtones are worsterester...

Meh... I don't much care - it's just that it may limit discussion with extra attention placed on not ruffling feathers.

IMO ofcourse

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I guess I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Is this an attempt to limit people's expression - even if it is supposed to be "voluntary"?
If I am passionate about a topic do I really need to be PC? Sure, there are limits of good taste but I am still not sure why a person has to "walk on egg shells" just because others may not be mature enough(or mentally stable enough) to handle it. The thread referenced shows an OP that was passionate about the subject at hand and wrote about it. I would think that if special notice wasn't placed on it, it may not have devolved, but we will never know.
I guess my question is: Where is the line you wish us to voluntarily stay away from? If I post "liberal" and something else negative in the title - will that ruffle feathers? Neocon? etc? Why sure it will, so I'm struggling to figure out why mocking racial overtones are worsterester...

Meh... I don't much care - it's just that it may limit discussion with extra attention placed on not ruffling feathers.

IMO ofcourse

Mulla Nasrudin was taking some rest in the shade of a walled garden when he heard some noise coming from inside. He peeked in through a beloved patriot in the wall and saw a beautiful maiden in the grasp of an ogre. He jumped the wall and soundly thrashed the beast causing it to flee whereupon the girl attacked him screaming 'What have you done to my lover you animal.'

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I guess I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Is this an attempt to limit people's expression - even if it is supposed to be "voluntary"?
If I am passionate about a topic do I really need to be PC? Sure, there are limits of good taste but I am still not sure why a person has to "walk on egg shells" just because others may not be mature enough(or mentally stable enough) to handle it. The thread referenced shows an OP that was passionate about the subject at hand and wrote about it. I would think that if special notice wasn't placed on it, it may not have devolved, but we will never know.
I guess my question is: Where is the line you wish us to voluntarily stay away from? If I post "liberal" and something else negative in the title - will that ruffle feathers? Neocon? etc? Why sure it will, so I'm struggling to figure out why mocking racial overtones are worsterester...

Meh... I don't much care - it's just that it may limit discussion with extra attention placed on not ruffling feathers.

IMO ofcourse

Mulla Nasrudin was taking some rest in the shade of a walled garden when he heard some noise coming from inside. He peeked in through a beloved patriot in the wall and saw a beautiful maiden in the grasp of an ogre. He jumped the wall and soundly thrashed the beast causing it to flee whereupon the girl attacked him screaming 'What have you done to my lover you animal.'

Very good. Now explain how the "ogre" was supposed to be different. Would Nasrudin have done the same thing if the "ogre" was wearing lipstick?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I guess I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Is this an attempt to limit people's expression - even if it is supposed to be "voluntary"?
If I am passionate about a topic do I really need to be PC? Sure, there are limits of good taste but I am still not sure why a person has to "walk on egg shells" just because others may not be mature enough(or mentally stable enough) to handle it. The thread referenced shows an OP that was passionate about the subject at hand and wrote about it. I would think that if special notice wasn't placed on it, it may not have devolved, but we will never know.
I guess my question is: Where is the line you wish us to voluntarily stay away from? If I post "liberal" and something else negative in the title - will that ruffle feathers? Neocon? etc? Why sure it will, so I'm struggling to figure out why mocking racial overtones are worsterester...

Meh... I don't much care - it's just that it may limit discussion with extra attention placed on not ruffling feathers.

IMO ofcourse

As I said it's not something being forced on people. Sure the poster I referenced was passionate. That's fine. What you need to note is that "special attention" was paid to it because the title was guaranteed to get just that.

I didn't ask you to walk on egg shells, I'm saying that attention can be called to a topic without making it so it results in an automatic flame fest. It's really not that hard to do.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
IMO P&N should be a place to exchange idea and information. That is why I post here myself.

The biggest problem I see with P&N is the over the top posters who offer little to the discussion other than name calling and mud flinging and over the top attention getting rhetoric. (Bush is a muderer, I'm a neocon pimp because I supported him etc etc.)

If we could eliminate that type of BS P&N would be far more enjoyable.

We need to follow that big rule of debating: attack the idea not the person.

I agree...I think that pretty much lines up with what Hayabusa Rider was trying to say to begin with. These are important issues, contrary to what folks outside P&N tend to say, these aren't just issues we're arguing for the sake of argument...there is a lot of intelligent discussion that can go on here.

The problem is that this is the Internet, there is little feedback or motivation to NOT be a huge jackass all the time beyond the extent to which my fellow moderators and I will step in an slap someone down for it. For those of you who read Penny Arcade, you're probably familiar with "John Gabriel's Greater Internet Dickwad Theory": Normal person + anonymity + audience = total jackass.

Only I think most people would appreciate debates of ideas instead of me accusing you of being a neocon and you accusing me of being a terrorist sympathizer (which we don't, I'm just using us as examples). The good thing about P&N is we don't get a lot of random trolls, everyone here has pretty much been posting here for a while...so our more obnoxious posts tend to come from established posters. And I think pretty much everyone who's posted here for a while will appreciate how good the discussions can be when they don't deteriorate into name calling and mud slinging.

Overall, I think a good rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether or not what you're saying would get you punched in the teeth if you said it to someone's face. If the answer is yes, maybe step back for a second and reconsider before pressing the reply button. It's a crazy idea, but it just might work

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I guess I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Is this an attempt to limit people's expression - even if it is supposed to be "voluntary"?
If I am passionate about a topic do I really need to be PC? Sure, there are limits of good taste but I am still not sure why a person has to "walk on egg shells" just because others may not be mature enough(or mentally stable enough) to handle it. The thread referenced shows an OP that was passionate about the subject at hand and wrote about it. I would think that if special notice wasn't placed on it, it may not have devolved, but we will never know.
I guess my question is: Where is the line you wish us to voluntarily stay away from? If I post "liberal" and something else negative in the title - will that ruffle feathers? Neocon? etc? Why sure it will, so I'm struggling to figure out why mocking racial overtones are worsterester...

Meh... I don't much care - it's just that it may limit discussion with extra attention placed on not ruffling feathers.

IMO ofcourse

As I said it's not something being forced on people. Sure the poster I referenced was passionate. That's fine. What you need to note is that "special attention" was paid to it because the title was guaranteed to get just that.

I didn't ask you to walk on egg shells, I'm saying that attention can be called to a topic without making it so it results in an automatic flame fest. It's really not that hard to do.

i think this is awesome; we are actually trying to do a very similar thing in the "Tech P&N" - Video .. i really haven't had much to do with P&N since i suggested spinning it off from OT years ago - for a selfish reason; i wanted OT to calm down for myself.

However, with imperfect but improving moderation, it appears that you guys and gals are maturing into a pretty good forum. i have noticed a huge difference since the last time i really posted here - years ago. There IS more respect and the only 'fault' is that you still look for ways to DIS-agree instead of trying to really see the other's PoV and agree and actually try to find solutions
[who am i kidding ]
... maybe in the next evolutionary state of mankind ... but anyway, the positive changes are noticeable here and imo, welcome

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Overall, I think a good rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether or not what you're saying would get you punched in the teeth if you said it to someone's face. If the answer is yes, maybe step back for a second and reconsider before pressing the reply button. It's a crazy idea, but it just might work

Thats Kool and the Gang but how am I supposed to do that when someone posts:

"Mulla Nasrudin was taking some rest in the shade of a walled garden when he heard some noise coming from inside. He peeked in through a beloved patriot in the wall and saw a beautiful maiden in the grasp of an ogre. He jumped the wall and soundly thrashed the beast causing it to flee whereupon the girl attacked him screaming 'What have you done to my lover you animal.'"

All I really want is to be able to ignore certain people who are quite obvious nuckin' futs.

At the end of the day I might disagree with a lot of people here on a lot of things, but I can understand where almost all of them are coming from on just about every topic and sympathize to some degree.

Just not when Mulla Nasrudin, beautiful maidens, and ogres are involved.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Overall, I think a good rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether or not what you're saying would get you punched in the teeth if you said it to someone's face. If the answer is yes, maybe step back for a second and reconsider before pressing the reply button. It's a crazy idea, but it just might work

Thats Kool and the Gang but how am I supposed to do that when someone posts:

"Mulla Nasrudin was taking some rest in the shade of a walled garden when he heard some noise coming from inside. He peeked in through a beloved patriot in the wall and saw a beautiful maiden in the grasp of an ogre. He jumped the wall and soundly thrashed the beast causing it to flee whereupon the girl attacked him screaming 'What have you done to my lover you animal.'"

All I really want is to be able to ignore certain people who are quite obvious nuckin' futs.

At the end of the day I might disagree with a lot of people here on a lot of things, but I can understand where almost all of them are coming from on just about every topic and sympathize to some degree.

Just not when Mulla Nasrudin, beautiful maidens, and ogres are involved.

actually if he polishes it a bit, he may have a career in creative writing .. However it seems more suited for OT than P&N unless the maiden-beast tryst was also a political allegory.

And it IS pretty hard to "ignore someone" when you quote them just to mock them

Perhaps you don't have "ignore" properly applied in this situation .. in this case it perhaps means you should not read any posts by one that appears to be "nucking futz" to you

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I guess I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Is this an attempt to limit people's expression - even if it is supposed to be "voluntary"?
If I am passionate about a topic do I really need to be PC? Sure, there are limits of good taste but I am still not sure why a person has to "walk on egg shells" just because others may not be mature enough(or mentally stable enough) to handle it. The thread referenced shows an OP that was passionate about the subject at hand and wrote about it. I would think that if special notice wasn't placed on it, it may not have devolved, but we will never know.
I guess my question is: Where is the line you wish us to voluntarily stay away from? If I post "liberal" and something else negative in the title - will that ruffle feathers? Neocon? etc? Why sure it will, so I'm struggling to figure out why mocking racial overtones are worsterester...

Meh... I don't much care - it's just that it may limit discussion with extra attention placed on not ruffling feathers.

IMO ofcourse

As I said it's not something being forced on people. Sure the poster I referenced was passionate. That's fine. What you need to note is that "special attention" was paid to it because the title was guaranteed to get just that.

I didn't ask you to walk on egg shells, I'm saying that attention can be called to a topic without making it so it results in an automatic flame fest. It's really not that hard to do.

I understand that, but where does one become another? Basically where is that "flame" cross-over line? The point I'm trying to make is that someone is always going to get their feathers ruffled so I find these pleas to be a bit silly. Again, I understand that some are over the top but that is from my view - which is different from every one else's view as everyone's line of good taste is at a different point.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I guess I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Is this an attempt to limit people's expression - even if it is supposed to be "voluntary"?
If I am passionate about a topic do I really need to be PC? Sure, there are limits of good taste but I am still not sure why a person has to "walk on egg shells" just because others may not be mature enough(or mentally stable enough) to handle it. The thread referenced shows an OP that was passionate about the subject at hand and wrote about it. I would think that if special notice wasn't placed on it, it may not have devolved, but we will never know.
I guess my question is: Where is the line you wish us to voluntarily stay away from? If I post "liberal" and something else negative in the title - will that ruffle feathers? Neocon? etc? Why sure it will, so I'm struggling to figure out why mocking racial overtones are worsterester...

Meh... I don't much care - it's just that it may limit discussion with extra attention placed on not ruffling feathers.

IMO ofcourse

As I said it's not something being forced on people. Sure the poster I referenced was passionate. That's fine. What you need to note is that "special attention" was paid to it because the title was guaranteed to get just that.

I didn't ask you to walk on egg shells, I'm saying that attention can be called to a topic without making it so it results in an automatic flame fest. It's really not that hard to do.

I understand that, but where does one become another? Basically where is that "flame" cross-over line? The point I'm trying to make is that someone is always going to get their feathers ruffled so I find these pleas to be a bit silly. Again, I understand that some are over the top but that is from my view - which is different from every one else's view as everyone's line of good taste is at a different point.

You mean like the Mulla and the Maiden? The title of that Mulla story is:

There's no accounting for tastes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I guess I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Is this an attempt to limit people's expression - even if it is supposed to be "voluntary"?
If I am passionate about a topic do I really need to be PC? Sure, there are limits of good taste but I am still not sure why a person has to "walk on egg shells" just because others may not be mature enough(or mentally stable enough) to handle it. The thread referenced shows an OP that was passionate about the subject at hand and wrote about it. I would think that if special notice wasn't placed on it, it may not have devolved, but we will never know.
I guess my question is: Where is the line you wish us to voluntarily stay away from? If I post "liberal" and something else negative in the title - will that ruffle feathers? Neocon? etc? Why sure it will, so I'm struggling to figure out why mocking racial overtones are worsterester...

Meh... I don't much care - it's just that it may limit discussion with extra attention placed on not ruffling feathers.

IMO ofcourse

As I said it's not something being forced on people. Sure the poster I referenced was passionate. That's fine. What you need to note is that "special attention" was paid to it because the title was guaranteed to get just that.

I didn't ask you to walk on egg shells, I'm saying that attention can be called to a topic without making it so it results in an automatic flame fest. It's really not that hard to do.

I understand that, but where does one become another? Basically where is that "flame" cross-over line? The point I'm trying to make is that someone is always going to get their feathers ruffled so I find these pleas to be a bit silly. Again, I understand that some are over the top but that is from my view - which is different from every one else's view as everyone's line of good taste is at a different point.

You mean like the Mulla and the Maiden?

Yes, like I mentioned before.

 

[soccerballtux]

This is great, but don?t throw your pearls to the swine. The OP was a troll, and trolls aren?t interested being sensitive, they?re interested in evoking the strongest, most polarizing emotion they can.

 

[Moonbeam]

A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. The anger, however, is ancient and is a shadow of the rage we first felt when we were put down and told we were worthless.

Anger causes damage but it also awakens memory and is important to get to in therapy.

The point is that your own anger can be a gift that can lead you back to your original self. To feel ones anger is vital. To believe your anger is other than your own illness leads to great harm.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
-snip-
We need to follow that big rule of debating: attack the idea not the person.

:thumbsup:

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
-snip-
We need to follow that big rule of debating: attack the idea not the person.

:thumbsup:

Fern

What a stupid idea.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
-snip-
We need to follow that big rule of debating: attack the idea not the person.

:thumbsup:

Fern

What a stupid idea.

indeed .. it is currently out-of-synch with the atmosphere of P&N and although it might be an alien concept, it has worked well through-out all of nature for encounters - including who eats who

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
-snip-
We need to follow that big rule of debating: attack the idea not the person.

:thumbsup:

Fern

What a stupid idea.

indeed .. it is currently out-of-synch with the atmosphere of P&N and although it might be an alien concept, it has worked well through-out all of nature for encounters - including who eats who

Be that as it may, my point was that attacking an idea can be done as absurdly as attacking a person. A rational argument should, I think, come with some kind of support.