It Needs to End

[vince]

It's a little difficult for one to take a lecture about civility in debate from the source that historically attacks Obama's character (he's plagarizing his own co-chair, is not experienced enough to answer a phone at 3am, he's cut his own face w/ Rev. Wright) and projects that it is Obama that is out to get Hillary. Name one attack he has made on her character? Historically Obama has been passive when she makes accusations about him. Even he defends himself against her dishonest representations of his character.

So when you gloss over that you've brought personal attacks of Obama here and then have a reveleation that "we" should moderate ourselves to participate in a civil manner, it's going to fall on deaf ears. Maybe you introduce your topic on the issues and limit it to the issues, not the latest spin, to avoid being skewered for dishonest arguments.

Zoe, with all due respect, you may have missed the point amhersthungboi was trying to make in his original post. My understanding is that he was asking for a stop to personal attacks between members. To debate without striking out at your debating opponent. He also admitted and regretted doing so himself.

There have been plenty of attacks on both candidates character in the past weeks. It is unfair say one side does it more than the other. I have read some real nasty things from both sides about both candidates.

I think it is OK to attack or criticize the object of the debate, without doing it to your opponent. This isn't a war here. If one side makes unfair or untrue points in support of their argument, those arguments can be debated without character assassination. Of course we all do it from time to time, especially when somebody seems particularly obtuse. It is hard to resist!! But it is a long time until the election and it would be good to debate without constantly boiling over.

Most of the time I stay out of the election posts because the rhetoric can get pretty heated and I am not real clever with the insults. Nor do I want to be attacked for mistakes I might make. I think there may be others in the group who feel the same.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

To clarify: I don't put people on ignore that I disagree with. To the contrary, there are many here with whom I disagree and never ignore and even debate and post quite frequently. That being said, using the ignore button on someone with whom you have had heated debate can serve to allow you both some time to cool off. I am not advocating that someone be placed on ignore forever--as little as a day can sometimes make a huge difference.

And my adult remark was more in line with "calling the moderators for help when there are other things one can do to make an argument stop" than with the fact that using the ignore button is or isn't, in and of itself, adult behavior.

On re-reading my post it did sound like I was saying you, Lex, ignore people who disagree with you - that's not what I meant - sorry for the confusion. I should be more careful with my generic 'you'.

And I now get your point about 'adult' behaviour v's running to teacher in the playground - misreadings all round, it seems.

 

[tripod]

Hazelgod speaks the truth, the truth is often hard to swallow. The whole anti-Obama thing has some serious racial undertones beneath the surface and when race is involved you have the "racists" acting out in their usual malevolent manner and the "anti-racists" responding with overwhelming force. You get a fucking BATTLE ROYAL when you add it all together. I agree with Hazelgod that the intellectual argument is in Obama's favor and his opponents on this site have very little rationality left to counter-argument against the Obama-nuts.

Why the Hillary supporters tolerate her campaign's scorched earth policy, I will never understand. Why the Hillary supporters would stand by such an incredibly flawed candidate in a presidential race that will ultimately decide if we have a country left to inhabit in the future, I will never know either. The Obama supporters have a very capable and intensely attractive candidate in Barack. This is the man who will take our country into the future with compassion and intelligence.

It just seems like Hillary is thrusting herself on the American people with her stubborn and dirty campaign with statements like, "It is my time." The presidency is not about taking fucking turns Hillary! Your husband was a Republican in disguise who was a serious friend to the rich and didn't really care about human rights and equanimity like he claimed that he did. Now, we have his wife who was a corporate lawyer trying to bully her way into the white house. She will be pissing off Republicans and starting this HORRIBLE cycle of partisan retribution within the congress. She will get NOTHING done except for waging a war against Iran, of which, she is in FULL support. The Democrats will most certainly lose control of the Senate and House in the 2010 elections, starting off a gridlock in the houses of Congress that will put a halt to any form of change.

Do you Hillary supporters really want a war with Iran? She will most certainly give us one and that, mind you, will be the fucking END of our prosperous nation for sure. Is that what you Hillary people want?

We don't need a war with Iran, we couldn't possible survive that financially.

 

[Skull Mason]

fuck yeah fight the power Obama/Wright '08 or bust!!!!

 

[B_Monster]

Its his MO, better to ignore it and him.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Do you feel it contributes to the conversation to call those who disagree with you:

tiny minded or small minded

An idiot with no reading comprehension
abilities

A fucking attention whore

Puerile

Obtuse douchebags

The list could go on. Now, for my part ,I do apologise for returning your retort; I should have risen above it. Now, can you apologise for these numerous insults?

 

[Lex]

On re-reading my post it did sound like I was saying you, Lex, ignore people who disagree with you - that's not what I meant - sorry for the confusion. I should be more careful with my generic 'you'.

And I now get your point about 'adult' behaviour v's running to teacher in the playground - misreadings all round, it seems.

I'm glad we're on the same page now. Thanks.

 

[HazelGod]

I'm glad we're on the same page now. Thanks.

See how I was able to bring these two together and effect a real change in their relationship? My obstinacy does serve a constructive purpose! :biggrin1:

 

[Lex]

See how I was able to bring these two together and effect a real change in their relationship? My obstinacy does serve a constructive purpose! :biggrin1:

HA. I just visited with DC DEEP this past weekend and am jealous that I did not get a chance to grab a beer when you were in town. Next time for sure, handsome!

 

[HazelGod]

HA. I just visited with DC DEEP this past weekend and am jealous that I did not get a chance to grab a beer when you were in town. Next time for sure, handsome!

The beers were just foreplay...you should've seen Snoozan shooting tequila out of her cleavage!

2500...w00t!

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Debate is not supposed to be kind... its is essentially an argument ( or should be, when both sides can actually form an argument)


Calling an opponent on their inability to comprehend an argument is valid, if their responses reflect no understanding of the argument, or if they erect straw men to avoid the point of an argument...

Calling a statement or argument specious, idiotic, and such is also perfectly sound argument if your opponent offers argument or analogy to illustrate that opinion.

But it is possible for some terms hurled about to be unfounded...
I would tend to think there are very few circumstances when calling another poster a "whore" is even remotely creditable... however, the person receiving such ad hominems ought not to go crying about the behavior and demand a world in which such things did not occur.

Grow up and realize that freedom of speech means you do not have the right to live unoffended.


Further.... the correct tact is for the person being called names to recognize that, when your opponent in a debate can not do any better than personal canard, it is evidence that they have no argument...

You win the debate by remaining sound, grounded, unflappable, and by making solid arguments and counters.

And don't expect your opponent to acknowledge who is winning... those reading will determine that to their own satisfaction.

 

[Lex]

The beers were just foreplay...you should've seen Snoozan shooting tequila out of her cleavage!

But did the shots manage to go into your MOUTH?

Do TELL!

 

[MCA]

Dude, it's not like it's our fault you're a Hillary fan. She's lame, move on.

BTW, DON'T READ THIS STUFF IF YOU DON'T WANT TO!!! (I know, novel idea.)


(chanting 1st Amendment somewhere in the background)

 

[amhersthungboi]

Hazelgod speaks the truth, the truth is often hard to swallow. The whole anti-Obama thing has some serious racial undertones beneath the surface and when race is involved you have the "racists" acting out in their usual malevolent manner and the "anti-racists" responding with overwhelming force. You get a fucking BATTLE ROYAL when you add it all together. I agree with Hazelgod that the intellectual argument is in Obama's favor and his opponents on this site have very little rationality left to counter-argument against the Obama-nuts.

Why the Hillary supporters tolerate her campaign's scorched earth policy, I will never understand. Why the Hillary supporters would stand by such an incredibly flawed candidate in a presidential race that will ultimately decide if we have a country left to inhabit in the future, I will never know either. The Obama supporters have a very capable and intensely attractive candidate in Barack. This is the man who will take our country into the future with compassion and intelligence.

It just seems like Hillary is thrusting herself on the American people with her stubborn and dirty campaign with statements like, "It is my time." The presidency is not about taking fucking turns Hillary! Your husband was a Republican in disguise who was a serious friend to the rich and didn't really care about human rights and equanimity like he claimed that he did. Now, we have his wife who was a corporate lawyer trying to bully her way into the white house. She will be pissing off Republicans and starting this HORRIBLE cycle of partisan retribution within the congress. She will get NOTHING done except for waging a war against Iran, of which, she is in FULL support. The Democrats will most certainly lose control of the Senate and House in the 2010 elections, starting off a gridlock in the houses of Congress that will put a halt to any form of change.

Do you Hillary supporters really want a war with Iran? She will most certainly give us one and that, mind you, will be the fucking END of our prosperous nation for sure. Is that what you Hillary people want?

We don't need a war with Iran, we couldn't possible survive that financially.

All valid points for debate, in one of the other threads. However, what I'm getting at is the means by which we debate these points, rather than the substance of the debate itself. I think it is possible to go about this without tearing at each other ... though it seems as though some of you disagree, which is sad.

You are right, in the end each of us is free to write how we wish, and may chose to ignore or disengage. However, I see the disengage option as particularly bad -- to force someone to disengage from a thread by continuing to use insults essentially amounts to a thread highjack. Additionally, just because we can insult and hurt each other doesn't mean that we should.

In the end with these political threads we are all in agreement that we are concerned about the state of affairs in the country and want to see the nation move a positive direction over the next four years -- the question is who will be at the helm? It may be useful not to lose track of that central point of agreement.

 

[ZOS23xy]

If Hazelgod's tiny mind upsets my tiny mind I'm going to respond to his assertions with a tiny minded post.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

All valid points for debate, in one of the other threads. However, what I'm getting at is the means by which we debate these points, rather than the substance of the debate itself. I think it is possible to go about this without tearing at each other ... though it seems as though some of you disagree, which is sad.

ONCE MORE

freedom of speech... which we should ALL be willing to go to the mat for, essentially means that you have no right to live unoffended.

Folks can be as mean, as personally insulting, and as assholish as they please...
...It merely indicates a lack of ability to formulate a more cogent or clever retort.

Take heart in the fact that folks yelling obscenities come off to the community as being stupid, mean, or, at the very least, lacking in eloquence.


Asking for the world to be different is not going to get you anywhere...
People are as they are and maturity is recognizing that you can't, and shouldn't try to control them.

The only thing you can control is your response. SO find a response that works for you...

You want us all to stand on higher ground?

Lead the way.


But don't cry when everyone does not rise to your example.

 

[lorne]

SERIOUSLY! what did you expect your on a site called large penis support group. If you want a real political discussion get over your self and just glance through the majority of threads on this site. Even in the serious threads about penis problems half of what is said is a joke, an insult, or just jibber jabber. Ssssso maybe you have to re-assess your expectations and grow some thicker skin. The thing about an open forum is it's O*P*E*N and anyone can say anything no matter how dumb, this being said things are still inappropriate. If you want to give a lesson on politics go volunteer at
a HS or call in your favorite pundit don't whine about the people who's greatest times of enjoyment are getting people like you worked up.

 

[vince]

Just had my evening relaxant. I agree with you both.

"The only thing you can control is your response. SO find a response that works for you..."

exactly

I'm not American, but I was educated there. I know it pretty well. I am damned happy for you all to have three pretty descent leaders to choose from for a change.

It'll be down to two soon enough. Whoever comes next will bring a damn sight more to the office than GwB. In terms of both brains and character.

What a disaster it was to have a bad Pres. at a time like 9/11. The whole world (nearly) was behind justice been meted out to the Taliban and bin Laden. The UN sanctioned it and the fuckers ran off pretty quick. But the blunder in Iraq... well now we're fucked.

I really don't think there are any idiots on the ticket this year.

(except that bit about the hundred year war...)

that's my two yanbancı cents. :smoker2:

 

[tripod]

You are right, in the end each of us is free to write how we wish, and may chose to ignore or disengage. However, I see the disengage option as particularly bad -- to force someone to disengage from a thread by continuing to use insults essentially amounts to a thread highjack. Additionally, just because we can insult and hurt each other doesn't mean that we should.

I personally am toning my anger way down and am trying not to be so aggressive in my stance. It's all good amhersthungboi (essentially a hung lad from Amherst I suppose?), you may support Hillary, but I still love ya as a brother in democracy. :smile:

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

Zoe, with all due respect, you may have missed the point amhersthungboi was trying to make in his original post. My understanding is that he was asking for a stop to personal attacks between members. To debate without striking out at your debating opponent. He also admitted and regretted doing so himself.

There have been plenty of attacks on both candidates character in the past weeks. It is unfair say one side does it more than the other. I have read some real nasty things from both sides about both candidates.

I think it is OK to attack or criticize the object of the debate, without doing it to your opponent. This isn't a war here. If one side makes unfair or untrue points in support of their argument, those arguments can be debated without character assassination. Of course we all do it from time to time, especially when somebody seems particularly obtuse. It is hard to resist!! But it is a long time until the election and it would be good to debate without constantly boiling over.

Most of the time I stay out of the election posts because the rhetoric can get pretty heated and I am not real clever with the insults. Nor do I want to be attacked for mistakes I might make. I think there may be others in the group who feel the same.

no I'm just burned by the lecturing in these threads. Be it about a candidate's behavior or criticism's about their campaigns, or candidate's private associations, that share associations with another candidate. It's not about their platform or their issues. So reading another lecture about how one another participates here on the board is more of the same.

Sorry Vince, I'd rather it just be about the issues.

Hillary thinks universal healthcare is better if all of us just pitch in for it. The problem I have with that, is that it's modeled after Medicaid/Medicare. The entitlement to payout from it has been expanded twice now. It accounts for 1/3 of the deficit. I'd rather have the spending of it reviewed (I'm sorry the scooter chair should not qualify under Medicare). Given the working population:retiree is going to shrink from 12:1 to 4:1, it's going to create an even more burdensome tax burden on the middleclass working population. If you've lived in Europe or Canada and have used the healthcare there they do certain care on a specific day. Monday is OB/GYN day Tuesday is Cardio day. Universal care works because it covers everything and it's restricted. When it's opened to everyone it takes longer to get care.

I think the system needs revision, HMO's were put in place to keep people from seeing a specialist that did not need a specialist and it's turned in to a business, that reasons self-breast exams do enough to deter the mortality rate of breast cancer and a "mammogram" is not necessary.

In the end, I don't think Hillary's healthcare solution is a solution, but another expansion of a Congressional entitlement that will not keep up with the population trend. I disagree with her healthcare plan.

Hillary put something in the news today about putting together an committee on housing. I haven't heard all of the teeth to it, but my gut tells me she's going to suggest the government buy up housing for people facing foreclosure. I don't think the government should take oversight of another market. Revise the creative loans that were put on the market - a home loan should not be marketed as money-market account or a "product."

If a thread were opened up about the issue, I'd welcome that. Not another thread about what campaign is beneath contempt or what this state should do versus this one, or lectures about who was right or wrong to say this about this associate.

My point is that we're again talking about everything other than their issues - their behavior, their campaigns' behavior and stupid soundbites in the media, that have us all digging to nullify the drama by finding something as ironic as their accusation (photos of Rezko and Wright w/ the Clintons, long before lobs were tossed at Obama for his associations to them).

We're now talking about how we're going to talk about it and apologize for how we're going to talk about it? I think if it were genuine, a thread would start with the issues or the platform of the candidate (see above - healthcare).