Debate Now Is "Structured Debate" another Euphemism for Censorship?

[RKMBrown]

Yeah I come to USMB to read about daisies and other benign subjects.

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

I see so I'm stupid and insecure. Got it. And Fox is brilliant, always right, never stubborn. Matter of fact she walks on water half the time.

 

[RKMBrown]

The thing is most of the threads in the SDZ whether mine or somebody elses have not been highly partisan or antagonistic. Most have offered a legitimate topic to discuss and have invited all points of view about that topic. Most of my threads in the SDZ expressly forbid partisanship to be included in the discussion and I notice others have also incorporated that rule. That does wonders to keep threads on controversial issues from dissolving into finger pointing and food fights.

Some don't provide any structure for their thread which sort of defeats the purpose of the SDZ, but there is nothing in the rules that says they have to.

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

I think the point is that when a thread is really just a pat myself on the back thread for being the only person in the room that knows anything about anything.. well then it's not really a debate thread. If all you want to do is get a pat on the back from people who think like you do then maybe we should call those threads "pat me on the on the back threads" vs debate threads.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem with "some" of these SDZ debate threads is the OP has no intention of having a debate. It's more a shut the blank up this is my thread and we are here to explain to you why your opinion is incorrect because libertarians are all anarchists, or because democrats are all either communists or all super smart people that are superior to everyone else, or because republicans are all religious zealots that hate gays, or vastly superior to everyone else.... etc.

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

I think the point is that when a thread is really just a pat myself on the back thread for being the only person in the room that knows anything about anything.. well then it's not really a debate thread. If all you want to do is get a pat on the back from people who think like you do then maybe we should call those threads "pat me on the on the back threads" vs debate threads.

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal?

 

[RKMBrown]

Well I haven't checked out every thread in the SDZ but my threads are certainly not designed that way nor have any of the other people's threads I have participated in.

There are some folks I'll call for now 'professional thread derailers' who will come into a thread bitching about the OP or definitions of words or demanding somebody prove whatever they post even if it is something as obvious as the sky is blue. I've been told some even summon their buddies to come in and pile on to make sure the thread they hate never gets off the ground. We all know the ones who exist just to interfere with discussion--they'll stay just enough inside the rules to get away with it, but their purpose is to derail or disrupt or start a food fight to make sure nobody can get serious with the topic. It is like a blood sport for them.

So that is why the SDZ was so appealing to me. It allows the OP to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it can start. And yep, it was mostly the usual suspects who most strenuously objected to the new forum and the concept behind it. I am one who loves to discuss difficult topics if it can be kept civil and I love being able to do it within a somewhat more lenient format than formal debate demands.

In my opinion, those who can't tolerate a few sensible rules to keep a thread on topic really should get a life and just stay away from those threads who insist on those rules.

It remains to be seen if there are enough people who enjoy the concept of the SDZ to make it viable. If there aren't then oh well. It was a good idea.

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

I think the point is that when a thread is really just a pat myself on the back thread for being the only person in the room that knows anything about anything.. well then it's not really a debate thread. If all you want to do is get a pat on the back from people who think like you do then maybe we should call those threads "pat me on the on the back threads" vs debate threads.

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal?

Good questions.. my text in blue

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? There are numerous types of threads. I think when you start a thread with the intention of "debating" a topic that person usually has a side... I think most folks don't know just how much they don't know. I think this lack of understanding about our own failings leads to hubris. I also think a lot of threads that are started that are called debate threads are really just advertisements for their view, whether intentional or not.

How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? Everyone has a point of view, even if that pov is neutral.


How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? Nothing wrong with defending your pov. Attacking another person's pov, when said pov has basis, is valid, supported, and reasonable ... merely because you don't like it or because you it is wrong simply because you say so... that sort of disagreement is not debating. It's emotional reasoning. Maybe one "issue" is the fundamental difference between how women and men think and resolve problems.

I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. Pretty simple... I posted some facts in disagreement with some of your opinions... IMO you got all upset when confronted with basic facts, such as actual definitions of terms, or reasonable views on topics of import for said debates. IOW I got the opinion that you did not want to debate the facts based on reason but rather wanted to defend your emotionally charged opinions.

I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so. You're not terrible at all. I like your threads. I like your posts. You're more than "acceptable" in my eyes. You're views are reasonable, if mostly emotion based. You clearly have a lot to say, and that is good. I would ask you to not take my disagreement as dislike. I would ask you not to take my criticism as a request to leave the discussion.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal? No deal. FYI your not the only stubborn person in the room And that's the part about discussing politics with you, and other stubborn folks that I feel have blinders on, that irks me and also makes me intellectually curious ... you either pat these folks on the back and agree with them or someone has to leave the discussion. No actual learning can be achieved, or debating done, when someone has blinders on and is getting their feelings hurt.

Yet... they appear to want to discuss the topics in the form of debate.. So either they just want to change everyone to their view... or they secretly want to know what is wrong with their view, or at least why people disagree.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes you are one of "those" people who only create threads to "educate" people on why they are stupid. Everyone but you is a dumb ass because they don't use your definitions of terms to turn up into down, left into right, liberty into authority....

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

I think the point is that when a thread is really just a pat myself on the back thread for being the only person in the room that knows anything about anything.. well then it's not really a debate thread. If all you want to do is get a pat on the back from people who think like you do then maybe we should call those threads "pat me on the on the back threads" vs debate threads.

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal?

Good questions.. my text in blue

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? There are numerous types of threads. I think when you start a thread with the intention of "debating" a topic that person usually has a side... I think most folks don't know just how much they don't know. I think this lack of understanding about our own failings leads to hubris. I also think a lot of threads that are started that are called debate threads are really just advertisements for their view, whether intentional or not.

How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? Everyone has a point of view, even if that pov is neutral.


How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? Nothing wrong with defending your pov. Attacking another person's pov, when said pov has basis, is valid, supported, and reasonable ... merely because you don't like it or because you it is wrong simply because you say so... that sort of disagreement is not debating. It's emotional reasoning. Maybe one "issue" is the fundamental difference between how women and men think and resolve problems.

I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. Pretty simple... I posted some facts in disagreement with some of your opinions... IMO you got all upset when confronted with basic facts, such as actual definitions of terms, or reasonable views on topics of import for said debates. IOW I got the opinion that you did not want to debate the facts based on reason but rather wanted to defend your emotionally charged opinions.

I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so. You're not terrible at all. I like your threads. I like your posts. You're more than "acceptable" in my eyes. You're views are reasonable, if mostly emotion based. You clearly have a lot to say, and that is good. I would ask you to not take my disagreement as dislike. I would ask you not to take my criticism as a request to leave the discussion.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal? No deal. FYI your not the only stubborn person in the room And that's the part about discussing politics with you, and other stubborn folks that I feel have blinders on, that irks me and also makes me intellectually curious ... you either pat these folks on the back and agree with them or someone has to leave the discussion. No actual learning can be achieved, or debating done, when someone has blinders on and is getting their feelings hurt.

Yet... they appear to want to discuss the topics in the form of debate.. So either they just want to change everyone to their view... or they secretly want to know what is wrong with their view, or at least why people disagree.

I don't believe anybody can find ANY post of mine anywhere that shut down or discouraged anybody because they disagreed with me or because they offered a point of view I disagreed with on the thread topic. If you can find one, I would be glad to know about it, because I would want to apologize to whomever I did that to.

But will I object when somebody wants to make definitions the issue instead of the thread topic? Yep. You can pretty much count on that. And I don't care if people are insulted when they aren't allowed to derail a thread. The fact that people intentionally do it causes most discussion at USMB, no matter how well they start out, to eventually dissolve into insult fests and food fights. If I try to prevent that and it offends people or they see me as a control freak, well that's the way it is I guess. I will just have to be unacceptable to them.

When other complain about the rules I specify for my own threads in a forum that invites us to specify the rules we want for our thread, you can pretty much count on me objecting to that too. The rules are there to allow focus on a particular topic. Even if it reinforces the opinion that I am a control freak.

And do I have strength of my convictions and will defend them? Guilty as charged. I don't get angry when people disagree. In fact I welcome it as it gives everybody a chance to discuss the topic that goes deeper than just preaching to the choir. But where most people have problems with me is they want to disagree with me personally instead of disagreeing with the point I make. Some people here at USMB honestly seem incapable of arguing other than ad hominem. But man some go ballistic if I insist they focus on the topic instead of me or somebody else personally. And some cannot disagree without becoming angry. There is nothing I can do about that.

 

[RKMBrown]

No she isn't. Some just are insecure and slap that on her as fact when it isn't. That's the insecurity poking thru.

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

I think the point is that when a thread is really just a pat myself on the back thread for being the only person in the room that knows anything about anything.. well then it's not really a debate thread. If all you want to do is get a pat on the back from people who think like you do then maybe we should call those threads "pat me on the on the back threads" vs debate threads.

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal?

Good questions.. my text in blue

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? There are numerous types of threads. I think when you start a thread with the intention of "debating" a topic that person usually has a side... I think most folks don't know just how much they don't know. I think this lack of understanding about our own failings leads to hubris. I also think a lot of threads that are started that are called debate threads are really just advertisements for their view, whether intentional or not.

How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? Everyone has a point of view, even if that pov is neutral.


How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? Nothing wrong with defending your pov. Attacking another person's pov, when said pov has basis, is valid, supported, and reasonable ... merely because you don't like it or because you it is wrong simply because you say so... that sort of disagreement is not debating. It's emotional reasoning. Maybe one "issue" is the fundamental difference between how women and men think and resolve problems.

I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. Pretty simple... I posted some facts in disagreement with some of your opinions... IMO you got all upset when confronted with basic facts, such as actual definitions of terms, or reasonable views on topics of import for said debates. IOW I got the opinion that you did not want to debate the facts based on reason but rather wanted to defend your emotionally charged opinions.

I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so. You're not terrible at all. I like your threads. I like your posts. You're more than "acceptable" in my eyes. You're views are reasonable, if mostly emotion based. You clearly have a lot to say, and that is good. I would ask you to not take my disagreement as dislike. I would ask you not to take my criticism as a request to leave the discussion.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal? No deal. FYI your not the only stubborn person in the room And that's the part about discussing politics with you, and other stubborn folks that I feel have blinders on, that irks me and also makes me intellectually curious ... you either pat these folks on the back and agree with them or someone has to leave the discussion. No actual learning can be achieved, or debating done, when someone has blinders on and is getting their feelings hurt.

Yet... they appear to want to discuss the topics in the form of debate.. So either they just want to change everyone to their view... or they secretly want to know what is wrong with their view, or at least why people disagree.

I don't believe anybody can find ANY post of mine anywhere that shut down or discouraged anybody because they disagreed with me or because they offered a point of view I disagreed with. If you can find one, I would be glad to know about it, because I would want to apologize to whomever I did that to.

But will I object when somebody wants to make definitions the issue instead of the thread topic? Yep. You can pretty much count on that. And I don't care if people are insulted when they aren't allowed to derail a thread. The fact that people intentionally do it causes most discussion at USMB, no matter how well they start out, to eventually dissolve into insult fests and food fights. If I try to prevent that and it offends people or they see me as a control freak, well that's the way it is I guess. I will just have to be unacceptable to them.

When other complain about the rules I specify for my own threads in a forum that invites us to specify the rules we want for our thread, you can pretty much count on me objecting to that too. The rules are there to allow focus on a particular topic. Even if it reinforces the opinion that I am a control freak.

And do I have strength of my convictions and will defend them? Guilty as charged. I don't get angry when people disagree. In fact I welcome it as it gives everybody a chance to discuss the topic that goes deeper than just preaching to the choir. But where most people have problems with me is they want to disagree with me personally instead of disagreeing with the point I make. Some people here at USMB honestly seem incapable of arguing other than ad hominem. But man some go ballistic if I insist they focus on the topic instead of me or somebody else personally. And some cannot disagree without becoming angry. There is nothing I can do about that.

lol... Like I said. You are one of those folks who insist on defining up as meaning down.... left as meaning right... liberty as meaning authority... then you claim the topic of this thread is why __ won't work because ... well because your definition won't allow it to work .. then you claim that the people debating you are trying to derail your topic.... Nearly every single one of your threads is about you claiming to have the authority to harm others. Then if I argue why you are wrong, you ask why are you trying to derail my thread. You are using the rules to shut down differing opinions, you are not using the rules to further debate. Well maybe not every time, but certainly that was the case in each case when I was arguing with you. You don't want to even contemplate my argument you just want to shut it down by any means possible. Such as... I guess I'll just leave if everyone hates me....

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks Gracie, but the sad fact is I am not politically correct with either the left or right here. I don't run with any clique though I have formed some really strong friendships at USMB so I am a safe target I guess. I came to USMB because there were enough folks here to talk to, both left and right, who weren't hatefully childish if somebody said something they disagreed with. The board I left to come here had become so bitterly partisan and personally critical and nasty that the snipers and those who devoted their posts to insults made having any kind of civil discussion impossible.

Maybe USMB will get that way for me too? Who knows? I had already been doing a lot of my serious message boards discussions elsewhere because it had become so difficult to do here, but the SDZ brought me back--it provided the same opportunities the other place did and it was here where I preferred to be.

But if it is going to be such a huge negative deal for so many, oh well. Life goes on doesn't it? I am already pretty disenchanted with it all but am allowing time to see if an attitude adjustment is possible.

I think the point is that when a thread is really just a pat myself on the back thread for being the only person in the room that knows anything about anything.. well then it's not really a debate thread. If all you want to do is get a pat on the back from people who think like you do then maybe we should call those threads "pat me on the on the back threads" vs debate threads.

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal?

Good questions.. my text in blue

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? There are numerous types of threads. I think when you start a thread with the intention of "debating" a topic that person usually has a side... I think most folks don't know just how much they don't know. I think this lack of understanding about our own failings leads to hubris. I also think a lot of threads that are started that are called debate threads are really just advertisements for their view, whether intentional or not.

How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? Everyone has a point of view, even if that pov is neutral.


How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? Nothing wrong with defending your pov. Attacking another person's pov, when said pov has basis, is valid, supported, and reasonable ... merely because you don't like it or because you it is wrong simply because you say so... that sort of disagreement is not debating. It's emotional reasoning. Maybe one "issue" is the fundamental difference between how women and men think and resolve problems.

I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. Pretty simple... I posted some facts in disagreement with some of your opinions... IMO you got all upset when confronted with basic facts, such as actual definitions of terms, or reasonable views on topics of import for said debates. IOW I got the opinion that you did not want to debate the facts based on reason but rather wanted to defend your emotionally charged opinions.

I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so. You're not terrible at all. I like your threads. I like your posts. You're more than "acceptable" in my eyes. You're views are reasonable, if mostly emotion based. You clearly have a lot to say, and that is good. I would ask you to not take my disagreement as dislike. I would ask you not to take my criticism as a request to leave the discussion.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal? No deal. FYI your not the only stubborn person in the room And that's the part about discussing politics with you, and other stubborn folks that I feel have blinders on, that irks me and also makes me intellectually curious ... you either pat these folks on the back and agree with them or someone has to leave the discussion. No actual learning can be achieved, or debating done, when someone has blinders on and is getting their feelings hurt.

Yet... they appear to want to discuss the topics in the form of debate.. So either they just want to change everyone to their view... or they secretly want to know what is wrong with their view, or at least why people disagree.

I don't believe anybody can find ANY post of mine anywhere that shut down or discouraged anybody because they disagreed with me or because they offered a point of view I disagreed with. If you can find one, I would be glad to know about it, because I would want to apologize to whomever I did that to.

But will I object when somebody wants to make definitions the issue instead of the thread topic? Yep. You can pretty much count on that. And I don't care if people are insulted when they aren't allowed to derail a thread. The fact that people intentionally do it causes most discussion at USMB, no matter how well they start out, to eventually dissolve into insult fests and food fights. If I try to prevent that and it offends people or they see me as a control freak, well that's the way it is I guess. I will just have to be unacceptable to them.

When other complain about the rules I specify for my own threads in a forum that invites us to specify the rules we want for our thread, you can pretty much count on me objecting to that too. The rules are there to allow focus on a particular topic. Even if it reinforces the opinion that I am a control freak.

And do I have strength of my convictions and will defend them? Guilty as charged. I don't get angry when people disagree. In fact I welcome it as it gives everybody a chance to discuss the topic that goes deeper than just preaching to the choir. But where most people have problems with me is they want to disagree with me personally instead of disagreeing with the point I make. Some people here at USMB honestly seem incapable of arguing other than ad hominem. But man some go ballistic if I insist they focus on the topic instead of me or somebody else personally. And some cannot disagree without becoming angry. There is nothing I can do about that.

lol... Like I said. You are one of those folks who insist on defining up as meaning down.... left as meaning right... liberty as meaning authority... then you claim the topic of this thread is why __ won't work because ... well because your definition won't allow it to work .. then you claim that the people debating you are trying to derail your topic.... Nearly every single one of your threads is about you claiming to have the authority to harm others. Then if I argue why you are wrong, you ask why are you trying to derail my thread. You are using the rules to shut down differing opinions, you are not using the rules to further debate. Well maybe not every time, but certainly that was the case in each case when I was arguing with you. You don't want to even contemplate my argument you just want to shut it down by any means possible. Such as... I guess I'll just leave if everyone hates me....

Well yes. I will leave if it isn't fun being here. I confess to being that petty. To use my recreational time as I choose, I don't see any reason to be where it isn't enjoyable to be.

But you'll have to show me an example of where I am guilty of what you are accusing me. Most especially any incident in which I have claimed authority to hurt others. Otherwise I will just have to believe you are attacking me personally because you don't like who I am or how I express myself at USMB and you have not one shred of evidence to show for why you feel the need to attack me personally. (Not that you really need a reason--I have known for a very long time now that everybody isn't going to love me and I'm cool with that.)

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the point is that when a thread is really just a pat myself on the back thread for being the only person in the room that knows anything about anything.. well then it's not really a debate thread. If all you want to do is get a pat on the back from people who think like you do then maybe we should call those threads "pat me on the on the back threads" vs debate threads.

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal?

Good questions.. my text in blue

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? There are numerous types of threads. I think when you start a thread with the intention of "debating" a topic that person usually has a side... I think most folks don't know just how much they don't know. I think this lack of understanding about our own failings leads to hubris. I also think a lot of threads that are started that are called debate threads are really just advertisements for their view, whether intentional or not.

How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? Everyone has a point of view, even if that pov is neutral.


How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? Nothing wrong with defending your pov. Attacking another person's pov, when said pov has basis, is valid, supported, and reasonable ... merely because you don't like it or because you it is wrong simply because you say so... that sort of disagreement is not debating. It's emotional reasoning. Maybe one "issue" is the fundamental difference between how women and men think and resolve problems.

I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. Pretty simple... I posted some facts in disagreement with some of your opinions... IMO you got all upset when confronted with basic facts, such as actual definitions of terms, or reasonable views on topics of import for said debates. IOW I got the opinion that you did not want to debate the facts based on reason but rather wanted to defend your emotionally charged opinions.

I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so. You're not terrible at all. I like your threads. I like your posts. You're more than "acceptable" in my eyes. You're views are reasonable, if mostly emotion based. You clearly have a lot to say, and that is good. I would ask you to not take my disagreement as dislike. I would ask you not to take my criticism as a request to leave the discussion.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal? No deal. FYI your not the only stubborn person in the room And that's the part about discussing politics with you, and other stubborn folks that I feel have blinders on, that irks me and also makes me intellectually curious ... you either pat these folks on the back and agree with them or someone has to leave the discussion. No actual learning can be achieved, or debating done, when someone has blinders on and is getting their feelings hurt.

Yet... they appear to want to discuss the topics in the form of debate.. So either they just want to change everyone to their view... or they secretly want to know what is wrong with their view, or at least why people disagree.

I don't believe anybody can find ANY post of mine anywhere that shut down or discouraged anybody because they disagreed with me or because they offered a point of view I disagreed with. If you can find one, I would be glad to know about it, because I would want to apologize to whomever I did that to.

But will I object when somebody wants to make definitions the issue instead of the thread topic? Yep. You can pretty much count on that. And I don't care if people are insulted when they aren't allowed to derail a thread. The fact that people intentionally do it causes most discussion at USMB, no matter how well they start out, to eventually dissolve into insult fests and food fights. If I try to prevent that and it offends people or they see me as a control freak, well that's the way it is I guess. I will just have to be unacceptable to them.

When other complain about the rules I specify for my own threads in a forum that invites us to specify the rules we want for our thread, you can pretty much count on me objecting to that too. The rules are there to allow focus on a particular topic. Even if it reinforces the opinion that I am a control freak.

And do I have strength of my convictions and will defend them? Guilty as charged. I don't get angry when people disagree. In fact I welcome it as it gives everybody a chance to discuss the topic that goes deeper than just preaching to the choir. But where most people have problems with me is they want to disagree with me personally instead of disagreeing with the point I make. Some people here at USMB honestly seem incapable of arguing other than ad hominem. But man some go ballistic if I insist they focus on the topic instead of me or somebody else personally. And some cannot disagree without becoming angry. There is nothing I can do about that.

lol... Like I said. You are one of those folks who insist on defining up as meaning down.... left as meaning right... liberty as meaning authority... then you claim the topic of this thread is why __ won't work because ... well because your definition won't allow it to work .. then you claim that the people debating you are trying to derail your topic.... Nearly every single one of your threads is about you claiming to have the authority to harm others. Then if I argue why you are wrong, you ask why are you trying to derail my thread. You are using the rules to shut down differing opinions, you are not using the rules to further debate. Well maybe not every time, but certainly that was the case in each case when I was arguing with you. You don't want to even contemplate my argument you just want to shut it down by any means possible. Such as... I guess I'll just leave if everyone hates me....

Well yes. I will leave if it isn't fun being here. I confess to being that petty. To use my recreational time as I choose, I don't see any reason to be where it isn't enjoyable to be.

But you'll have to show me an example of where I am guilty of what you are accusing me. Most especially any incident in which I have claimed authority to hurt others. Otherwise I will just have to believe you are attacking me personally because you don't like who I am or how I express myself at USMB and you have not one shred of evidence to show for why you feel the need to attack me personally. (Not that you really need a reason--I have known for a very long time now that everybody isn't going to love me and I'm cool with that.)

You pick a thread... I could point out this thread but that would just be being petty. For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. That's how I see it. In your view, NONE OF YOUR posts are attacks against others. Yet the OP thinks they are and here you are to claim that up is down... to claim that your posts never meant to harm these folks in the way they are claiming... yet then you admit it logically that they are correct by providing more evidence of what they accuse... but then you just wave your hands and claim we are personally attacking you and making up stuff about what you say... Seriously... I'm not sure if you've mastered the ability to put your feet in someone else's shoes. But I assure you, it can be enlightening if you try it. It's ok to admit that other people to have a valid point every once in a while.

 

[Foxfyre]

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal?

Good questions.. my text in blue

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? There are numerous types of threads. I think when you start a thread with the intention of "debating" a topic that person usually has a side... I think most folks don't know just how much they don't know. I think this lack of understanding about our own failings leads to hubris. I also think a lot of threads that are started that are called debate threads are really just advertisements for their view, whether intentional or not.

How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? Everyone has a point of view, even if that pov is neutral.


How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? Nothing wrong with defending your pov. Attacking another person's pov, when said pov has basis, is valid, supported, and reasonable ... merely because you don't like it or because you it is wrong simply because you say so... that sort of disagreement is not debating. It's emotional reasoning. Maybe one "issue" is the fundamental difference between how women and men think and resolve problems.

I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. Pretty simple... I posted some facts in disagreement with some of your opinions... IMO you got all upset when confronted with basic facts, such as actual definitions of terms, or reasonable views on topics of import for said debates. IOW I got the opinion that you did not want to debate the facts based on reason but rather wanted to defend your emotionally charged opinions.

I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so. You're not terrible at all. I like your threads. I like your posts. You're more than "acceptable" in my eyes. You're views are reasonable, if mostly emotion based. You clearly have a lot to say, and that is good. I would ask you to not take my disagreement as dislike. I would ask you not to take my criticism as a request to leave the discussion.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal? No deal. FYI your not the only stubborn person in the room And that's the part about discussing politics with you, and other stubborn folks that I feel have blinders on, that irks me and also makes me intellectually curious ... you either pat these folks on the back and agree with them or someone has to leave the discussion. No actual learning can be achieved, or debating done, when someone has blinders on and is getting their feelings hurt.

Yet... they appear to want to discuss the topics in the form of debate.. So either they just want to change everyone to their view... or they secretly want to know what is wrong with their view, or at least why people disagree.

I don't believe anybody can find ANY post of mine anywhere that shut down or discouraged anybody because they disagreed with me or because they offered a point of view I disagreed with. If you can find one, I would be glad to know about it, because I would want to apologize to whomever I did that to.

But will I object when somebody wants to make definitions the issue instead of the thread topic? Yep. You can pretty much count on that. And I don't care if people are insulted when they aren't allowed to derail a thread. The fact that people intentionally do it causes most discussion at USMB, no matter how well they start out, to eventually dissolve into insult fests and food fights. If I try to prevent that and it offends people or they see me as a control freak, well that's the way it is I guess. I will just have to be unacceptable to them.

When other complain about the rules I specify for my own threads in a forum that invites us to specify the rules we want for our thread, you can pretty much count on me objecting to that too. The rules are there to allow focus on a particular topic. Even if it reinforces the opinion that I am a control freak.

And do I have strength of my convictions and will defend them? Guilty as charged. I don't get angry when people disagree. In fact I welcome it as it gives everybody a chance to discuss the topic that goes deeper than just preaching to the choir. But where most people have problems with me is they want to disagree with me personally instead of disagreeing with the point I make. Some people here at USMB honestly seem incapable of arguing other than ad hominem. But man some go ballistic if I insist they focus on the topic instead of me or somebody else personally. And some cannot disagree without becoming angry. There is nothing I can do about that.

lol... Like I said. You are one of those folks who insist on defining up as meaning down.... left as meaning right... liberty as meaning authority... then you claim the topic of this thread is why __ won't work because ... well because your definition won't allow it to work .. then you claim that the people debating you are trying to derail your topic.... Nearly every single one of your threads is about you claiming to have the authority to harm others. Then if I argue why you are wrong, you ask why are you trying to derail my thread. You are using the rules to shut down differing opinions, you are not using the rules to further debate. Well maybe not every time, but certainly that was the case in each case when I was arguing with you. You don't want to even contemplate my argument you just want to shut it down by any means possible. Such as... I guess I'll just leave if everyone hates me....

Well yes. I will leave if it isn't fun being here. I confess to being that petty. To use my recreational time as I choose, I don't see any reason to be where it isn't enjoyable to be.

But you'll have to show me an example of where I am guilty of what you are accusing me. Most especially any incident in which I have claimed authority to hurt others. Otherwise I will just have to believe you are attacking me personally because you don't like who I am or how I express myself at USMB and you have not one shred of evidence to show for why you feel the need to attack me personally. (Not that you really need a reason--I have known for a very long time now that everybody isn't going to love me and I'm cool with that.)

You pick a thread... I could point out this thread but that would just be being petty. For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. That's how I see it. In your view, NONE OF YOUR posts are attacks against others. Yet the OP thinks they are and here you are to claim that up is down... your posts never meant to harm these folks in the way they are claiming... yet then you admit it logically that they are correct by providing more evidence of what they accuse... but then you just wave your hands and claim we are personally attacking you and making up stuff about what you say... Seriously... I'm not sure if you've mastered the ability to put your feet in someone else's shoes. But I assure you, it can be enlightening if you try it. It's ok to admit that other people to have a valid point every once in a while.

So you don't have any examples to show to justify your assessment of me and my character? Well thanks for at least giving me that much. And I am not the one who chose to make this about me--you and D_T plus one or two others who rarely pass up an opportunity to do so pretty well insisted on it I think.

But since that now seems to be the perception it is easily remedied. Don't address your posts to me and/or presume to spell out all my sins, shortcomings, and terrible characteristics and I promise not to bring them up. Deal?

 

[RKMBrown]

FYI I have a fairly good memory. Our first disagreement was wrt whether income taxes were better than sales taxes. You claimed, presumably because you are retired, that sales taxes are horrible for people like you.

 

[RKMBrown]

Good questions.. my text in blue

How many threads do you think people start who know nothing about the subject? There are numerous types of threads. I think when you start a thread with the intention of "debating" a topic that person usually has a side... I think most folks don't know just how much they don't know. I think this lack of understanding about our own failings leads to hubris. I also think a lot of threads that are started that are called debate threads are really just advertisements for their view, whether intentional or not.

How many do people start who don't have a point of view going in? Everyone has a point of view, even if that pov is neutral.


How many do people start who don't defend their own point of view? Nothing wrong with defending your pov. Attacking another person's pov, when said pov has basis, is valid, supported, and reasonable ... merely because you don't like it or because you it is wrong simply because you say so... that sort of disagreement is not debating. It's emotional reasoning. Maybe one "issue" is the fundamental difference between how women and men think and resolve problems.

I don't know what I've done to you to generate such understanding and charitable feelings, but oh well. Pretty simple... I posted some facts in disagreement with some of your opinions... IMO you got all upset when confronted with basic facts, such as actual definitions of terms, or reasonable views on topics of import for said debates. IOW I got the opinion that you did not want to debate the facts based on reason but rather wanted to defend your emotionally charged opinions.

I don't have to post at USMB at all. And since it is obvious that I am such a terrible person and am so unacceptable, there isn't much incentive to do so. You're not terrible at all. I like your threads. I like your posts. You're more than "acceptable" in my eyes. You're views are reasonable, if mostly emotion based. You clearly have a lot to say, and that is good. I would ask you to not take my disagreement as dislike. I would ask you not to take my criticism as a request to leave the discussion.

I am very close to throwing in the towel and just let all you more wise, more objective and less stubborn people have it. And then you can all pat yourself on the back and feel like you've won. Deal? No deal. FYI your not the only stubborn person in the room And that's the part about discussing politics with you, and other stubborn folks that I feel have blinders on, that irks me and also makes me intellectually curious ... you either pat these folks on the back and agree with them or someone has to leave the discussion. No actual learning can be achieved, or debating done, when someone has blinders on and is getting their feelings hurt.

Yet... they appear to want to discuss the topics in the form of debate.. So either they just want to change everyone to their view... or they secretly want to know what is wrong with their view, or at least why people disagree.

I don't believe anybody can find ANY post of mine anywhere that shut down or discouraged anybody because they disagreed with me or because they offered a point of view I disagreed with. If you can find one, I would be glad to know about it, because I would want to apologize to whomever I did that to.

But will I object when somebody wants to make definitions the issue instead of the thread topic? Yep. You can pretty much count on that. And I don't care if people are insulted when they aren't allowed to derail a thread. The fact that people intentionally do it causes most discussion at USMB, no matter how well they start out, to eventually dissolve into insult fests and food fights. If I try to prevent that and it offends people or they see me as a control freak, well that's the way it is I guess. I will just have to be unacceptable to them.

When other complain about the rules I specify for my own threads in a forum that invites us to specify the rules we want for our thread, you can pretty much count on me objecting to that too. The rules are there to allow focus on a particular topic. Even if it reinforces the opinion that I am a control freak.

And do I have strength of my convictions and will defend them? Guilty as charged. I don't get angry when people disagree. In fact I welcome it as it gives everybody a chance to discuss the topic that goes deeper than just preaching to the choir. But where most people have problems with me is they want to disagree with me personally instead of disagreeing with the point I make. Some people here at USMB honestly seem incapable of arguing other than ad hominem. But man some go ballistic if I insist they focus on the topic instead of me or somebody else personally. And some cannot disagree without becoming angry. There is nothing I can do about that.

lol... Like I said. You are one of those folks who insist on defining up as meaning down.... left as meaning right... liberty as meaning authority... then you claim the topic of this thread is why __ won't work because ... well because your definition won't allow it to work .. then you claim that the people debating you are trying to derail your topic.... Nearly every single one of your threads is about you claiming to have the authority to harm others. Then if I argue why you are wrong, you ask why are you trying to derail my thread. You are using the rules to shut down differing opinions, you are not using the rules to further debate. Well maybe not every time, but certainly that was the case in each case when I was arguing with you. You don't want to even contemplate my argument you just want to shut it down by any means possible. Such as... I guess I'll just leave if everyone hates me....

Well yes. I will leave if it isn't fun being here. I confess to being that petty. To use my recreational time as I choose, I don't see any reason to be where it isn't enjoyable to be.

But you'll have to show me an example of where I am guilty of what you are accusing me. Most especially any incident in which I have claimed authority to hurt others. Otherwise I will just have to believe you are attacking me personally because you don't like who I am or how I express myself at USMB and you have not one shred of evidence to show for why you feel the need to attack me personally. (Not that you really need a reason--I have known for a very long time now that everybody isn't going to love me and I'm cool with that.)

You pick a thread... I could point out this thread but that would just be being petty. For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. That's how I see it. In your view, NONE OF YOUR posts are attacks against others. Yet the OP thinks they are and here you are to claim that up is down... your posts never meant to harm these folks in the way they are claiming... yet then you admit it logically that they are correct by providing more evidence of what they accuse... but then you just wave your hands and claim we are personally attacking you and making up stuff about what you say... Seriously... I'm not sure if you've mastered the ability to put your feet in someone else's shoes. But I assure you, it can be enlightening if you try it. It's ok to admit that other people to have a valid point every once in a while.

So you don't have any examples to show to justify your assessment of me and my character? Well thanks for at least giving me that much. And I am not the one who chose to make this about me--you and D_T plus one or two others who rarely pass up an opportunity to do so pretty well insisted on it I think.

But since that now seems to be the perception it is easily remedied. Don't address your posts to me and/or presume to spell out all my sins, shortcomings, and terrible characteristics and I promise not to bring them up. Deal?

No reason to make up lies Fox. I said nearly every one in which you and I argued. Then I pointed out this one as an example.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't believe anybody can find ANY post of mine anywhere that shut down or discouraged anybody because they disagreed with me or because they offered a point of view I disagreed with. If you can find one, I would be glad to know about it, because I would want to apologize to whomever I did that to.

But will I object when somebody wants to make definitions the issue instead of the thread topic? Yep. You can pretty much count on that. And I don't care if people are insulted when they aren't allowed to derail a thread. The fact that people intentionally do it causes most discussion at USMB, no matter how well they start out, to eventually dissolve into insult fests and food fights. If I try to prevent that and it offends people or they see me as a control freak, well that's the way it is I guess. I will just have to be unacceptable to them.

When other complain about the rules I specify for my own threads in a forum that invites us to specify the rules we want for our thread, you can pretty much count on me objecting to that too. The rules are there to allow focus on a particular topic. Even if it reinforces the opinion that I am a control freak.

And do I have strength of my convictions and will defend them? Guilty as charged. I don't get angry when people disagree. In fact I welcome it as it gives everybody a chance to discuss the topic that goes deeper than just preaching to the choir. But where most people have problems with me is they want to disagree with me personally instead of disagreeing with the point I make. Some people here at USMB honestly seem incapable of arguing other than ad hominem. But man some go ballistic if I insist they focus on the topic instead of me or somebody else personally. And some cannot disagree without becoming angry. There is nothing I can do about that.

lol... Like I said. You are one of those folks who insist on defining up as meaning down.... left as meaning right... liberty as meaning authority... then you claim the topic of this thread is why __ won't work because ... well because your definition won't allow it to work .. then you claim that the people debating you are trying to derail your topic.... Nearly every single one of your threads is about you claiming to have the authority to harm others. Then if I argue why you are wrong, you ask why are you trying to derail my thread. You are using the rules to shut down differing opinions, you are not using the rules to further debate. Well maybe not every time, but certainly that was the case in each case when I was arguing with you. You don't want to even contemplate my argument you just want to shut it down by any means possible. Such as... I guess I'll just leave if everyone hates me....

Well yes. I will leave if it isn't fun being here. I confess to being that petty. To use my recreational time as I choose, I don't see any reason to be where it isn't enjoyable to be.

But you'll have to show me an example of where I am guilty of what you are accusing me. Most especially any incident in which I have claimed authority to hurt others. Otherwise I will just have to believe you are attacking me personally because you don't like who I am or how I express myself at USMB and you have not one shred of evidence to show for why you feel the need to attack me personally. (Not that you really need a reason--I have known for a very long time now that everybody isn't going to love me and I'm cool with that.)

You pick a thread... I could point out this thread but that would just be being petty. For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. That's how I see it. In your view, NONE OF YOUR posts are attacks against others. Yet the OP thinks they are and here you are to claim that up is down... your posts never meant to harm these folks in the way they are claiming... yet then you admit it logically that they are correct by providing more evidence of what they accuse... but then you just wave your hands and claim we are personally attacking you and making up stuff about what you say... Seriously... I'm not sure if you've mastered the ability to put your feet in someone else's shoes. But I assure you, it can be enlightening if you try it. It's ok to admit that other people to have a valid point every once in a while.

So you don't have any examples to show to justify your assessment of me and my character? Well thanks for at least giving me that much. And I am not the one who chose to make this about me--you and D_T plus one or two others who rarely pass up an opportunity to do so pretty well insisted on it I think.

But since that now seems to be the perception it is easily remedied. Don't address your posts to me and/or presume to spell out all my sins, shortcomings, and terrible characteristics and I promise not to bring them up. Deal?

No reason to make up lies Fox. I said nearly every one in which you and I argued. Then I pointed out this one as an example.

But you can't or won't pick any line or phrase or post in this thread or anywhere else that justifies what you are accusing me of. Just give me a phrase. . . any phrase. . .that supports your contention that: ". . .For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. . ." whatever the hell that means. That should be really easy wouldn't you think?

 

[RKMBrown]

lol... Like I said. You are one of those folks who insist on defining up as meaning down.... left as meaning right... liberty as meaning authority... then you claim the topic of this thread is why __ won't work because ... well because your definition won't allow it to work .. then you claim that the people debating you are trying to derail your topic.... Nearly every single one of your threads is about you claiming to have the authority to harm others. Then if I argue why you are wrong, you ask why are you trying to derail my thread. You are using the rules to shut down differing opinions, you are not using the rules to further debate. Well maybe not every time, but certainly that was the case in each case when I was arguing with you. You don't want to even contemplate my argument you just want to shut it down by any means possible. Such as... I guess I'll just leave if everyone hates me....

Well yes. I will leave if it isn't fun being here. I confess to being that petty. To use my recreational time as I choose, I don't see any reason to be where it isn't enjoyable to be.

But you'll have to show me an example of where I am guilty of what you are accusing me. Most especially any incident in which I have claimed authority to hurt others. Otherwise I will just have to believe you are attacking me personally because you don't like who I am or how I express myself at USMB and you have not one shred of evidence to show for why you feel the need to attack me personally. (Not that you really need a reason--I have known for a very long time now that everybody isn't going to love me and I'm cool with that.)

You pick a thread... I could point out this thread but that would just be being petty. For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. That's how I see it. In your view, NONE OF YOUR posts are attacks against others. Yet the OP thinks they are and here you are to claim that up is down... your posts never meant to harm these folks in the way they are claiming... yet then you admit it logically that they are correct by providing more evidence of what they accuse... but then you just wave your hands and claim we are personally attacking you and making up stuff about what you say... Seriously... I'm not sure if you've mastered the ability to put your feet in someone else's shoes. But I assure you, it can be enlightening if you try it. It's ok to admit that other people to have a valid point every once in a while.

So you don't have any examples to show to justify your assessment of me and my character? Well thanks for at least giving me that much. And I am not the one who chose to make this about me--you and D_T plus one or two others who rarely pass up an opportunity to do so pretty well insisted on it I think.

But since that now seems to be the perception it is easily remedied. Don't address your posts to me and/or presume to spell out all my sins, shortcomings, and terrible characteristics and I promise not to bring them up. Deal?

No reason to make up lies Fox. I said nearly every one in which you and I argued. Then I pointed out this one as an example.

But you can't or won't pick any line or phrase or post in this thread or anywhere else that justifies what you are accusing me of. Just give me a phrase. . . any phrase. . .that supports your contention that: ". . .For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. . ." whatever the hell that means. That should be really easy wouldn't you think?

I've already pointed out two. You even admitted yourself that you and I have disagreed... yet here you are claiming it has never happened. And you are claiming that I did not point any out. This is my issue with you. You make stuff up, you ignore on face every argument given to you.

Seriously you don't know what HARM MEANS?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well yes. I will leave if it isn't fun being here. I confess to being that petty. To use my recreational time as I choose, I don't see any reason to be where it isn't enjoyable to be.

But you'll have to show me an example of where I am guilty of what you are accusing me. Most especially any incident in which I have claimed authority to hurt others. Otherwise I will just have to believe you are attacking me personally because you don't like who I am or how I express myself at USMB and you have not one shred of evidence to show for why you feel the need to attack me personally. (Not that you really need a reason--I have known for a very long time now that everybody isn't going to love me and I'm cool with that.)

You pick a thread... I could point out this thread but that would just be being petty. For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. That's how I see it. In your view, NONE OF YOUR posts are attacks against others. Yet the OP thinks they are and here you are to claim that up is down... your posts never meant to harm these folks in the way they are claiming... yet then you admit it logically that they are correct by providing more evidence of what they accuse... but then you just wave your hands and claim we are personally attacking you and making up stuff about what you say... Seriously... I'm not sure if you've mastered the ability to put your feet in someone else's shoes. But I assure you, it can be enlightening if you try it. It's ok to admit that other people to have a valid point every once in a while.

So you don't have any examples to show to justify your assessment of me and my character? Well thanks for at least giving me that much. And I am not the one who chose to make this about me--you and D_T plus one or two others who rarely pass up an opportunity to do so pretty well insisted on it I think.

But since that now seems to be the perception it is easily remedied. Don't address your posts to me and/or presume to spell out all my sins, shortcomings, and terrible characteristics and I promise not to bring them up. Deal?

No reason to make up lies Fox. I said nearly every one in which you and I argued. Then I pointed out this one as an example.

But you can't or won't pick any line or phrase or post in this thread or anywhere else that justifies what you are accusing me of. Just give me a phrase. . . any phrase. . .that supports your contention that: ". . .For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. . ." whatever the hell that means. That should be really easy wouldn't you think?

I've already pointed out two. You even admitted yourself that you and I have disagreed... yet here you are claiming it has never happened. And you are claiming that I did not point any out. This is my issue with you. You make stuff up, you ignore on face every argument given to you.

Seriously you don't know what HARM MEANS?

No you haven't pointed out anything at all. If you cannot provide an example--a specific example--of your complaint, it is very difficult to take your complaint as anything other than personal meanness. If you have a valid complaint, however, then I would like to see it. If I am wrong I want to know how and when I was wrong so I can either make amends or at least not repeat the offense.

And yes, I do know what HARM means. And I am still asking for any specific post of mine that harmed anybody, suggested that anybody be harmed, or justified anybody being harmed.

I figure those who accuse me, if they have a leg to stand on, can point to the evidence.

 

[Gracie]

Color me confused but....isn't EVERYONE here arguing they are correct in their thinking and everyone else is wrong? Isn't that what "debate" is all about? Trying to convince others to think as yourself while the other person is doing the same thing and it all comes to naught except for a bruised forehead and ego?
Why yes. Yes it is! ......

 

[Foxfyre]

Color me confused but....isn't EVERYONE here arguing they are correct in their thinking and everyone else is wrong? Isn't that what "debate" is all about? Trying to convince others to think as yourself while the other person is doing the same thing and it all comes to naught except for a bruised forehead and ego?
Why yes. Yes it is! ......

My issue is not with those who have differences of opinion. Never has been. Without differences of opinion, there wouldn't be much to discuss. I greatly appreciate those who can make a reasoned defense of their point of view without going ad hominem or personally insulting even if I disagree with them. And if their argument is better than mine, and sometimes that is the case, then good for them.

My issue is mostly with:
1. Those who want to see how quickly they can derail, disrupt, or shut down a thread.
2. Those who get their jollies by picking fights or using the anonymity of the board to insult others.
3. Those who have nothing to contribute but enjoy filling up threads with nonsense.
4. Those who seem determined into making a thread topic into something else it was not intended to be.
4. Those who are incapable or unwilling to direct their comments to a thread topic but instead want to make one or more other members the issue.

Which of course is why I think they hate the SDZ because the OP has a bit more control over the tactics they use to do all that.

 

[Gracie]

Color me confused but....isn't EVERYONE here arguing they are correct in their thinking and everyone else is wrong? Isn't that what "debate" is all about? Trying to convince others to think as yourself while the other person is doing the same thing and it all comes to naught except for a bruised forehead and ego?
Why yes. Yes it is! ......

My issue is not with those who have differences of opinion. Never has been. Without differences of opinion, there wouldn't be much to discuss. I greatly appreciate those who can make a reasoned defense of their point of view without going ad hominem or personally insulting even if I disagree with them. And if their argument is better than mine, and sometimes that is the case, then good for them.

My issue is mostly with:
1. Those who want to see how quickly they can derail, disrupt, or shut down a thread.
2. Those who get their jollies by picking fights or using the anonymity of the board to insult others.
3. Those who have nothing to contribute but enjoy filling up threads with nonsense.
4. Those who seem determined into making a thread topic into something else it was not intended to be.
4. Those who are incapable or unwilling to direct their comments to a thread topic but instead want to make one or more other members the issue.

Which of course is why I think they hate the SDZ because the OP has a bit more control over the tactics they use to do all that.

Bears repeating. Yep. The Lounge serves for general chitchat without the bullshit too, thankfully. But it seems to be getting worse instead of better here. Can't discuss ANYTHING without it being about sex, body parts, who is a schmuck or just flat out deliberate derailing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Color me confused but....isn't EVERYONE here arguing they are correct in their thinking and everyone else is wrong? Isn't that what "debate" is all about? Trying to convince others to think as yourself while the other person is doing the same thing and it all comes to naught except for a bruised forehead and ego?
Why yes. Yes it is! ......

My issue is not with those who have differences of opinion. Never has been. Without differences of opinion, there wouldn't be much to discuss. I greatly appreciate those who can make a reasoned defense of their point of view without going ad hominem or personally insulting even if I disagree with them. And if their argument is better than mine, and sometimes that is the case, then good for them.

My issue is mostly with:
1. Those who want to see how quickly they can derail, disrupt, or shut down a thread.
2. Those who get their jollies by picking fights or using the anonymity of the board to insult others.
3. Those who have nothing to contribute but enjoy filling up threads with nonsense.
4. Those who seem determined into making a thread topic into something else it was not intended to be.
4. Those who are incapable or unwilling to direct their comments to a thread topic but instead want to make one or more other members the issue.

Which of course is why I think they hate the SDZ because the OP has a bit more control over the tactics they use to do all that.

Bears repeating. Yep. The Lounge serves for general chitchat without the bullshit too, thankfully. But it seems to be getting worse instead of better here. Can't discuss ANYTHING without it being about sex, body parts, who is a schmuck or just flat out deliberate derailing.

Again that is why I had high hopes for the SDZ once C_K put it together though it would be even better if he had taken my suggestions to heart which he didn't LOL. (I wasn't sure enough that I was right and he was wrong to challenge it though.) But unless all the discussions in the SDZ are structured, I really don't see a purpose or point in putting a thread in that forum rather than the CDZ or other forum. But that is for others to decide.

I do hope it does turn out to be successful. Obviously those who hate it don't intend to allow me the liberty to enjoy it without constant complaints and personal criticism, but that doesn't mean it can't work. I'll just back off and do my serious posting elsewhere for awhile and it's all good.

 

[RKMBrown]

You pick a thread... I could point out this thread but that would just be being petty. For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. That's how I see it. In your view, NONE OF YOUR posts are attacks against others. Yet the OP thinks they are and here you are to claim that up is down... your posts never meant to harm these folks in the way they are claiming... yet then you admit it logically that they are correct by providing more evidence of what they accuse... but then you just wave your hands and claim we are personally attacking you and making up stuff about what you say... Seriously... I'm not sure if you've mastered the ability to put your feet in someone else's shoes. But I assure you, it can be enlightening if you try it. It's ok to admit that other people to have a valid point every once in a while.

So you don't have any examples to show to justify your assessment of me and my character? Well thanks for at least giving me that much. And I am not the one who chose to make this about me--you and D_T plus one or two others who rarely pass up an opportunity to do so pretty well insisted on it I think.

But since that now seems to be the perception it is easily remedied. Don't address your posts to me and/or presume to spell out all my sins, shortcomings, and terrible characteristics and I promise not to bring them up. Deal?

No reason to make up lies Fox. I said nearly every one in which you and I argued. Then I pointed out this one as an example.

But you can't or won't pick any line or phrase or post in this thread or anywhere else that justifies what you are accusing me of. Just give me a phrase. . . any phrase. . .that supports your contention that: ". . .For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. . ." whatever the hell that means. That should be really easy wouldn't you think?

I've already pointed out two. You even admitted yourself that you and I have disagreed... yet here you are claiming it has never happened. And you are claiming that I did not point any out. This is my issue with you. You make stuff up, you ignore on face every argument given to you.

Seriously you don't know what HARM MEANS?

No you haven't pointed out anything at all. If you cannot provide an example--a specific example--of your complaint, it is very difficult to take your complaint as anything other than personal meanness. If you have a valid complaint, however, then I would like to see it. If I am wrong I want to know how and when I was wrong so I can either make amends or at least not repeat the offense.

And yes, I do know what HARM means. And I am still asking for any specific post of mine that harmed anybody, suggested that anybody be harmed, or justified anybody being harmed.

I figure those who accuse me, if they have a leg to stand on, can point to the evidence.

As to the pointing out... yes I did. I pointed to this thread, and all others in which you and I have disagreed.

I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that you are correct when you yourself state that you are stubborn. You are not one to give others the time of day when it comes to actually listening to their arguments. Your debate style is fingers in your ears. No offense but it's true.

I almost never agree with the Derideo_Te, but in this case the main point of the OP is valid. Structured debates that are ruled by someone that only intends to insult others and/or to exclude any and all structured debate have in fact occurred. And this seems very ironic.

There are many forms of "harm." For example, taxing upper middle class at a higher tax rate is a harm on the upper middle class. As another example, having a voting system where the voter only gets to pick one of the people running and not say who he likes better then second best then third best is another type of harm. As another example, miss-stating what someone has said or done is another harm. As a further example, defending a law that harms people, such as prohibiting gays from being allowed to marry is a harm on those people every bit as harmful as if you had slapped them in the face yourself when they asked to be treated as equals. As still a further example, telling someone that they are derailing a thread because they disagree with the definitions of the terms that formed the basis of the thread is another type of harm. Sure some of these harms are minor jabs. Some are not minor.

Using the power of popular opinion and/or shame and/or emotional pleas for ignorance in the face of clear facts is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and "attempting" to censure argument. Which is fine, if that's the point of the discussion. But not fine if the point of the discussion was reasoned debate.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you don't have any examples to show to justify your assessment of me and my character? Well thanks for at least giving me that much. And I am not the one who chose to make this about me--you and D_T plus one or two others who rarely pass up an opportunity to do so pretty well insisted on it I think.

But since that now seems to be the perception it is easily remedied. Don't address your posts to me and/or presume to spell out all my sins, shortcomings, and terrible characteristics and I promise not to bring them up. Deal?

No reason to make up lies Fox. I said nearly every one in which you and I argued. Then I pointed out this one as an example.

But you can't or won't pick any line or phrase or post in this thread or anywhere else that justifies what you are accusing me of. Just give me a phrase. . . any phrase. . .that supports your contention that: ". . .For example, you have turned this thread into a personal attack against your right to harm others. . ." whatever the hell that means. That should be really easy wouldn't you think?

I've already pointed out two. You even admitted yourself that you and I have disagreed... yet here you are claiming it has never happened. And you are claiming that I did not point any out. This is my issue with you. You make stuff up, you ignore on face every argument given to you.

Seriously you don't know what HARM MEANS?

No you haven't pointed out anything at all. If you cannot provide an example--a specific example--of your complaint, it is very difficult to take your complaint as anything other than personal meanness. If you have a valid complaint, however, then I would like to see it. If I am wrong I want to know how and when I was wrong so I can either make amends or at least not repeat the offense.

And yes, I do know what HARM means. And I am still asking for any specific post of mine that harmed anybody, suggested that anybody be harmed, or justified anybody being harmed.

I figure those who accuse me, if they have a leg to stand on, can point to the evidence.

As to the pointing out... yes I did. I pointed to this thread, and all others in which you and I have disagreed.

I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that you are correct when you yourself state that you are stubborn. You are not one to give others the time of day when it comes to actually listening to their arguments. Your debate style is fingers in your ears. No offense but it's true.

I almost never agree with the Derideo_Te, but in this case the main point of the OP is valid. Structured debates that are ruled by someone that only intends to insult others and/or to exclude any and all structured debate have in fact occurred. And this seems very ironic.

There are many forms of "harm." For example, taxing upper middle class at a higher tax rate is a harm on the upper middle class. As another example, having a voting system where the voter only gets to pick one of the people running and not say who he likes better then second best then third best is another type of harm. As another example, miss-stating what someone has said or done is another harm. As a further example, defending a law that harms people, such as prohibiting gays from being allowed to marry is a harm on those people every bit as harmful as if you had slapped them in the face yourself when they asked to be treated as equals. As still a further example, telling someone that they are derailing a thread because they disagree with the definitions of the terms that formed the basis of the thread is another type of harm. Sure some of these harms are minor jabs. Some are not minor.

Using the power of popular opinion and/or shame and/or emotional pleas for ignorance in the face of clear facts is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and "attempting" to censure argument. Which is fine, if that's the point of the discussion. But not fine if the point of the discussion was reasoned debate.

Sorry but saying this entire thread as proof of your argument won't cut it. You either can give me a specific post of mine that justifies your criticism or you've got nothing and you owe me a huge apology.