Open question to P&N: should partisan personal attacks in thread titles be allowed?

[Moonbeam]

Man am I feeling good. All these shit throwing apes aiming at me and here I stand clean as a whistle. Am I ever the MAN. Come on you pond scum, make my day.

 

[monovillage]

Posters should just realize that only personal attacks on Republicans, Libertarians and conservatives are allowed, and stop all this free speech nonsense that actually includes criticism of the left.

 

[SheHateMe]

If they aren't hating on you, you aren't living right.

If someone from SA's camp (Geo, Spidey, Cybersage, and Assoc.) isnt calling you "racist"...you aren't living.

 

[Moonbeam]

Posters should just realize that only personal attacks on Republicans, Libertarians and conservatives are allowed, and stop all this free speech nonsense that actually includes criticism of the left.

You have to prioritize based on scientific evidence. Science tells us that conservatives, in an atmosphere that lacks external threat, will take their team loyalty morality and turn it against the league they play for. In short, conservatives will start destroying other political orientations within their own country, vital political orientations that offset the myopia of conservative morality, when no external threat requires them to see those groups as allies against a greater threat. When liberal thinking starts to destroy the very country it wants to save and to a greater extent than conservatives are already posing, criticism of the left will be the priority. You just keep forgetting that you live inside an artificially created reality designed to keep you from seeing reality as it really is. Your judgments and opinions are rendered useless by that fact. You need to practice self doubt and uncertainty and accept some pain to your ego otherwise you will continue to be hermetically steeled against the truth.

 

[Theb]

I don't mind it. It's nice to know how much mad is going to be in an OP and if they can't get through the title without an insult you know there's going to be a lot of mad.

Fine with me. It keeps the libtards at bay, who resort to name calling and pulling the race card, just because someone doesn't agree with Obama's policies.

Right........

LOL. Nice.

 

[dank69]

Once in a blue moon it seems called for. Sometimes people truly are just being a scumbag moron and need to be called on it.

If you change "once in a blue moon" to "many times every day" I fully agree with you. :thumbsup:

 

[kia75]

What we can see from this, I think, is that the one true and sole purpose of a politics and news forum is to provide people who are filled with shit a place to take a dump.

LOL, This is truer then I'd like to admit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

OP...I looked at several recent thread titles and can't find a clear example of what you're talking about. Please link a few. Thanks.

 

[bshole]

I personally think conservatives should be strictly prohibited from using partisan personal attacks. All other posters should use their best discretion.

In general the partisan attacks by conservatives are mean-spirited, hateful and hurtful. They add nothing to the discussion and coarsen the dialogue. On the other hand, attacks by moderates and liberals are witty and entertaining. We need them to keep the forum interesting.

 

[TerryMathews]

I personally think conservatives should be strictly prohibited from using partisan personal attacks. All other posters should use their best discretion.

In general the partisan attacks by conservatives are mean-spirited, hateful and hurtful. They add nothing to the discussion and coarsen the dialogue. On the other hand, attacks by moderates and liberals are witty and entertaining. We need them to keep the forum interesting.

Go figure. Do as I say, not as I do. Amirite?

 

[fskimospy]

OP...I looked at several recent thread titles and can't find a clear example of what you're talking about. Please link a few. Thanks.

There was one that was changed by a moderator.

I don't see why it matters if you call someone a name in the body of a post or the title.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

OP...I looked at several recent thread titles and can't find a clear example of what you're talking about. Please link a few. Thanks.

I think 2timer is butthurt from michal1980 calling Obama the Liar in Chief.

What has President Obama said that makes you characterize him as the "liar in chief"? That's a pretty bold assessment, I'm thinking you must have good reason to use that term or you would not have used it.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't mind. Pins down the Faux News conservatard bubble boys.
If you let them go at it they'll eventually tell you what they really believe, then they get banned for their racism.

Fine with me. It keeps the libtards at bay, who resort to name calling and pulling the race card, just because someone doesn't agree with Obama's policies.

These two posts together are an object listen on how two sides not only have different opinions, but view the facts differently.

As to the issue raised by the OP, there isn't anything practical that can be done about it from a mod perspective. The civility and intelligence level of any discussion hinges on its participants exercising self-restraint.

As has been pointed out, there is another forum where civility is promoted. However, few people bother with it. If people really preferred civility and constructive discussion, P&N would quickly diminish as DC enlarges. This isn't happening precisely because too many people prefer to sling mud and engage in fallacy after fallacy.

 

[Brovane]

If someone has to resort to personal attacks to try and make their debate point then it just serves to further invalidate their line of reasoning.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Man am I feeling good. All these shit throwing apes aiming at me and here I stand clean as a whistle. Am I ever the MAN. Come on you pond scum, make my day.

I'd give you a hug and congratulatory oink if I didn't stink so much.

 

[2timer]

Awesome. Based on the feedback in this thread, it appears that the majority do not mind personal partisan attacks in thread titles. I wouldn't have chosen that MO myself, mind you, but if that's what the people want then I'm not going to raise a fuss about it.

 

[dank69]

If someone has to resort to personal attacks to try and make their debate point then it just serves to further invalidate their line of reasoning.

Yes, Person B's line of reasoning in the following dialog is invalid:

A: The Earth is 6000 years old.
B: How do you explain fossils dating back millions of years?
A: God put them there to test our faith.
B: But then why do they date back millions of years?
A: Science still doesn't understand everything so how can they be sure they are millions of years old?
B: Okay, you are clearly an idiot.

 

[Brovane]

Yes, Person B's line of reasoning in the following dialog is invalid:

A: The Earth is 6000 years old.
B: How do you explain fossils dating back millions of years?
A: God put them there to test our faith.
B: But then why do they date back millions of years?
A: Science still doesn't understand everything so how can they be sure they are millions of years old?
B: Okay, you are clearly an idiot.

Person B didn't need to resort to personal attack to make the point. Their are better ways to make a argument. If you loose your cool even when the person is cleary being a "imbecile" you are allowing them a sort of victory. Even stopping the debate and walking away is better than resorting to personal attacks.

 

[dank69]

Person B didn't need to resort to personal attack to make the point. Their are better ways to make a argument. If you loose your cool even when the person is cleary being a "imbecile" you are allowing them a sort of victory. Even stopping the debate and walking away is better than resorting to personal attacks.

That's your opinion. What is clear, however, is that the insult at the end didn't "invalidate Person B's line of reasoning."

 

[TerryMathews]

Yes, Person B's line of reasoning in the following dialog is invalid:

A: The Earth is 6000 years old.
B: How do you explain fossils dating back millions of years?
A: God put them there to test our faith.
B: But then why do they date back millions of years?
A: Science still doesn't understand everything so how can they be sure they are millions of years old?
B: Okay, you are clearly an idiot.

Serious question, and I'm not claiming to know the answer as its beyond my understanding of chemistry.

We date things using carbon dating. Does that account for the possibility that the carbon is older than the object? For example, free-floating molecules post Big Bang coalesce into the Earth. Would the dating pick up the age of the carbon or the Earth?

 

[dank69]

Serious question, and I'm not claiming to know the answer as its beyond my understanding of chemistry.

We date things using carbon dating. Does that account for the possibility that the carbon is older than the object? For example, free-floating molecules post Big Bang coalesce into the Earth. Would the dating pick up the age of the carbon or the Earth?

I'm sure someone else can explain it better than I can but they aren't measuring the age of the carbon. They are measuring the ratio of different types of carbon molecules.

 

[Brovane]

That's your opinion. What is clear, however, is that the insult at the end didn't "invalidate Person B's line of reasoning."

Personal attacks don't help make somebody's line of reasoning appear well thought out. It distracts from the point they are trying to make.

 

[2timer]

I think 2timer is butthurt from michal1980 calling Obama the Liar in Chief.

That's like the 5th time you've used that word, I know you think it's cool but damn, at least try to be original.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's like the 5th time you've used that word, I know you think it's cool but damn, at least try to be original.

Okay, next time I'll post that someone said something that chapped your ass.

 

[2timer]

Okay, next time I'll post that someone said something that chapped your ass.

That would be great, lol. :thumbsup: