Ive been thinking about this...

[actsnoblemartin]

We should NOT mock people on this board, with whom we disagree, we should NOT marginalize them, and we should NOT censor them in any way. The first amendment gaurantees them, the right to express themselves, and they should not be subject to verbal or physical harrasment, or any other form of retaliation, simply for opening their mouths.

We dont have to insult them, we dont have to be elitest, to have a discourse with anyone.

Let people talk, and, let people have their links, and lets not be afraid, to check out their links, and videos, and then, in a civil way, discuss them, we can disagree, without being disagreeable.

So i ask you all, please stop being rude to eots, Paul Revere, and William Joyce

They have a right to their opinion, and while you dont have to agree with them, they deserve them the same respect as any american or human being, and their opinion should be respected even if you dont agree, that is what tolerance is, no one is forcing you to accept it. But we cannot punish those we disagree with.

Thank You

This is my stand.

 

[Vintij]

I agree, civilized disagreement can exist. Though sometimes frustration gets the best of people, its hard when lies or just plain ignorance leaks onto posts. I admit, I have used the word idiot to describe some people, though I actually appologize when I realize they are just uninformed.

 

[hjmick]

I have never resorted to name calling (except in jest) on any board of which I am a member. I made the decision to refrain from this practice very early into my exploration of message boards after seeing the way some people conduct themselves in the forums. In my opinion, it only serves to diminish your point, it resolves nothing, and it certainly does not lend itself to convincing others that your ideas or points of view are valid. Insults and demeaning others are the last recourse of a feeble mind.

 

[Shogun]

well said, actsnoblemartin..

I wonder if it is easier to find common ground after all sides of a debate agree upon such an idea. After all, It is easier to admit personal mistakes, logical fallacy and develop mutual beneficial compramise when opposite parties at the debate table are willing to offer the same amount of consideration they enjoy recieving.


that being said.. in my opinion, if someone is inconsiderate and quick to pounce in a blatently hateful manner then let them do so while wondering why those at the table ignore him and denounce his credibility. The ranting is an emotional expression that doesn;t solve any issues or conflicts. Im guilty of ranting and will freely admit that sarcasm didnt produce constructive solutions so much as satisfy by emotional urge to lash out at a percieved slight. In such case, my input lost credibility because my ability to communicate my point was difused amongst the namecalling. Sometimes it is fun to jab at opposing views.. but in regards to debate and constructive solutions.. not so much.


I will say that actsnoblemartin and I started out on the wrong foot in a recent thread and were able to re-align our discussion into something worthwhile even if we don't agree on specific key points of the topic.


compai, gentlemen.

 

[roomy]

Idiots need to be reminded of the fact at times.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree civility is important, and i think you can confront people assertivly, without aggression