Locking threads...

[Amourbien]

Hi I am brand new to these boards but I was just reading: "For my political Pals in Dalaya's Beginners (Iraq Edition!)" and noticed it locked. These are your boards indeed and you can do whatever you like granted but if you want free and open discussions it's best not to lock discussions unless personal information is being sent etc. That's just my two bits worth, I always enjoy a good debate even if it is tired and true.

Regards,
Nikki

[calaran]

Yeah, the problem is, this board is here for a particular reason, and that reason is not political debate. I don't believe I would be speaking out of turn to say that it isn't the forum moderators/admins desire for political discussion to happen here. The board is run by people who run a game, for the purpose of discussing the game for the most part. Every time a political or religous thread is started on ANY message board there is always a great deal of drama and flaming; in the interest of restricting/limiting this, the moderators will (and imho should) lock threads with great flame-war potential...

There are plenty of politics message boards out there where people much more (or less in some cases) qualified are discussing these issues at great length.

[Xanex]

yes, this board IS here for a particular reason.

you might want to reconsider your position.

Real World: SoD
Any non-media related real world discussion such as politics, birthdays, celebrities and so on goes here.

[calaran]

I am completely retarded.

My bad.

I don't have a problem admitting when I'm so obviously wrong. Sorry to have crapped up the thread.

[Xanex]

as it turns out, Iraq war and "bush bashing" are not welcome on this board. so we are both wrong.

"bush bashing" these days might as well be anything related to current events/politics. i guess we could always talk about birthdays.

[jeremiahlogan]

Chuck Norris turns 66 tomorrow.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHUCK.

[calaran]

Chuck Norris turns 66 tomorrow... IF he decides not to roundhouse kick father time in the grill and start aging in reverse..

[moghedancarns]

Just keep it at the Leno level and you will be fine.

Even staunch Republicans smile when Bush does something a little dumb, or when the VP shoots someone.

Other than that, there is really no discussion. There is no way someone else's words are going to break you from your naive, idealistic little world of make believe. We simply must wait until the realities of the world metaphorically bash in your skull. As you pick yourself off the ground and slowly heal your metaphorical wounds, you make great strides in understanding the exact nature of the world. Similarly, none of the drivel that manages to escape the spit bubbles of your drooling incoherence is going to convince us that your lesbian transvestite, ultra liberal, left wing propaganda is anything more than your drug induced, paranoid delusions. ( I have to have at least one Mog paragraph. )

Every post made is nothing more than a challenge to the other side to fire back. In the end, no one wins, they just get bored and quit reading, secure in the knowledge the other is off their rockers. It gets to be kind of tiring. The mods seem to be ok with discussion, but have little tolerance for bickering, which is what political debates of that level rapidly degenerate into.

[Birlic]

Iran wants to develop nukular weapons. I've distinctly heard our president say that on the radio yesterday.
I think we're all safe unless they'll go for nuclear weapons.

[Wiz]

Similarly, none of the drivel that manages to escape the spit bubbles of your drooling incoherence is going to convince us that your lesbian transvestite, ultra liberal, left wing propaganda is anything more than your drug induced, paranoid delusions. ( I have to have at least one Mog paragraph. )

You are a spiteful troll. Don't ever post on the forums again.

[calaran]

Wow. I'm not totally certain that Mog was meaning that to be directed at the OP or anyone else in the thread... At least, the first time I read it, I read it more as a general statement against those sorta comments, not attributing it to anyone. I could obviously be wrong, but I almost think Mog didn't mean to attack someone specifically... Then again, if he did... :buttertroll: <-- looks like someone waiving the banstick?


::edit:: Read it again... yeah, it sounds pretty directed... hmm...

[Xanex]

it's a good thing we are not having our debate on a medium where assertions can immediately be fact-checked via a wide variety of sources, including but not limited to, government agencies, global news services, primary documents and whitehouse press releases.

for example, how do you feel about our government's direction concerning the separation of church and state?

according to my "liberal world view", thomas jefferson, author of the declaration of independence, one of the most influential founders of our nation and the third president of the united states wrote: (http://fact.trib.com/1st.jeffers.2.html)

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

i happen to agree with the above sentiment, thus it is worrisome to read articles (via the communist, ABC news) titled,

Religious Charities Get More Money (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1703640&page=1)

WASHINGTON Mar 9, 2006 (AP)— The Bush administration says it is making steady progress in steering more federal taxpayer dollars to religious charities.

In the budget year that ended Sept. 30, religious charities received $2.15 billion in federal grants to administer a range of social service programs for the needy. That represented 10.9 percent of the total grants from the seven federal agencies such charities were eligible to apply to in fiscal 2005, according to a White House report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

"We think faith-based groups are more competitive, but there are barriers they still face," [Jim Towey, who directs the so-called faith-based initiative for Bush] said in an interview. "The president is changing a culture of grant-making and there's a headwind."

Sadly, Jim Towey is right that religious groups face considerable barriers to tax-payer funding (such as the Constitution).

Luckily for us, Bush has, for some bizarre reason, Established a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060307-5.html)

here's a sample:

Sec. 2. Purpose of Center. The purpose of the Center shall be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social and community services.

it should be obvious to even liberals how giving government grant money to religious charities is directly related to securing our homeland. God Bless you, George W. Bush.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

see? was that so hard? say something, back it up. and keep the childish, ad hominen attacks to yourself- and a debate does not have to desolve into a primary school shouting match.

as far as the other side being unwilling to consider unpleasant facts or contrary arguments, there is a saying about a horse and water... you get the drift.

[calaran]

I wonder if we could get a politics-only forum. And the ability to not show certain forums at all on our main view. I have this BURNING desire to read every thread every time I see an update, 'cause I'm bored at work, but then I click and I find a huge steaming piece of crap thread like this, I read it, and then end up having to exercise incredible restraint in not posting a retort.

Personally, I have political views and opinions but I certainly don't come to the SoD forums to discuss them. I realize the front page says that this forum is where to post stuff like that, but I click on this hoping maybe there are new member pictures, or updates on how any of the soldiers who play this game are doing etc... any kind of stuff that actually matters. I have yet to EVER see a strongly-opinionated pundit of either side be converted or even brought closer to center just because someone quoted 10 news sources and gave their opinions; this is why I think it's utterly useless and also why I assumed the mods/admins didn't want it here.

I was wrong apparently, but I wonder if there would be a way to completely isolate political crap so that I can ignore it even more easily (along with, I believe, the large majority of people here who don't want to read leftist or rightist propaganda).

[Wiz]

Mog is constantly borderline trolling and testing boundaries. This time he crossed the boundary pretty clearly.

[Xanex]

and so you understand this isn't just about bush, it seems that the republican party in missouri has introduced a bill in the house to make christianity the states official "majority religion"

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/0512B034CC655212862571270019240C?OpenDocument)


The proposed resolution states that "voluntary prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, and the recognition of a Christian God are not a coalition of church and state."

It was recently approved by the House Rules Committee along party lines - five Republicans backed it, three Democrats did not - and could come for a vote before the full House next week. It would also have to pass in the Senate.

granted, it is only a resolution and does not have the power of law, but it did make it out of committee which shows substantial support, though i doubt it will pass full senate or constitution muster.

is america really ready for a theocracy? see how science is under attack (http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/index.htm)

also worth noting is an article in the Nature journal (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/full/439891a.html) (subscription req'd)

The highlight of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) last week was an impassioned session [...] organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the wake of revelations about how the administration's political appointees have sought to control the messages communicated by scientists to the public [...] And judging from the response at a packed and emotional hall in St Louis, a great many US scientists now believe that the Bush administration is prepared not only to ignore scientific facts in making policy decisions, but also to suppress findings that conflict with its own priorities.[/b]

[Xanex]

cal, i apologize for bringing information to your attention. i have a tip for you, ignore all threads i post, post in and /ignore Armando and Ciara in game. you'll be all set.

ps - yes, i quoted an AP wire article, but also a white house press release. do you question the veracity of the information presented? if so, take it up with bush's white house. i'm just the messenger.

option two is that you simply don't care, in which case, we are done talking.

[calaran]

cal, i apologize for bringing information to your attention. i have a tip for you, ignore all threads i post, post in and /ignore Armando and Ciara in game. you'll be all set.

ps - yes, i quoted an AP wire article, but also a white house press release. do you question the veracity of the information presented? if so, take it up with bush's white house. i'm just the messenger.

option two is that you simply don't care, in which case, we are done talking.

Wow. I remember clearly calling you out. That happened. True story. I saw me do it.

Um no.

I live in St. Louis. I am aware of this issue you brought up and am against it whole heartedly even though I could be accused of leaning right and I am proudly a Christian. You can leave the Post Disgrace out of this.. if you want to do research, look into their history of innacurate reporting and absolutely bottom-of-the-barrel journalistic integrity.

I don't agree with establishing an official religion. Short of that, I don't care. If they want to have voluntary prayer for any and all religions, a kosher lunch line, whatever, I don't care. When our founding fathers sat down they did NOT intend to keep a child from praying with or without their friends inside school or a state building; they intended to prevent the declaration of an official church or religion for the state or country. In this case, that DOES seem to be what this resolution seeks to do and as such I'm against it and appalled that it made it through ANY scrutiny.

However you can keep your somewhat veiled personal attacks to yourself. You pointed out NOTHING to me that I didn't already know. You DID manage to only bring up liberal talking points, but I'm sure you don't see it that way. It's not that I don't care, it's that I doubt you have any insight or special information that will drastically change the way I view the political landscape. The extremes on both ends of the spectrum do NOT represent the majority of the people and are both dangerous (or at best useless) to the nation.

If you will read my post, you will see we agree on that resolution, but why did that even come up? What bearing does it have? How did this thread actually turn into "How is Bush hurting this country?" And then you've managed to throw like 6 unassociated points into 3 posts and claim that you're educating me. Thank you, but I will stick to the sources I trust rather than some random internet troll.

[Xanex]

i didn't write it as an attack. you wrote that you did not want to see politics at all and i was trying to help you out, sincerely. because if you don't want to hear it, then i don't want to speak it.

remember this?

I wonder if there would be a way to completely isolate political crap so that I can ignore it even more easily

maybe i misread you, but i think not.

and i also do not think i read too far into your post when i assumed you just didn't care, as i am sure a majority (at least a vocal minority) feels.

moving on,

You can leave the Post Disgrace out of this.. if you want to do research, look into their history of innacurate reporting and absolutely bottom-of-the-barrel journalistic integrity.

irrelevant. unless you are contesting the accuracy of that specific report, which you are not (and i can dig up several more sources, including gov. legistlative databases), then i do not see why past inaccuracies have any bearing on our conversation.

If you will read my post, you will see we agree on that resolution, but why did that even come up? What bearing does it have?

i was giving that mog an example of how to make a point without acting like a child, concerning the question of separation between church and state.

if i will read your post? what? the one you just made? i don't see any other posts stating your position other than your desire to only see "the stuff that actually matters," whatever that means.

anyways, i think you are overreacting a bit to this perceived attack.

ps -

You pointed out NOTHING to me that I didn't already know. You DID manage to only bring up liberal talking points, but I'm sure you don't see it that way.

so you are saying everything i pointed out, you already knew (as if this somehow detracts from the information, as if in the future, you will *always* already know and hence all discussion is rendered unnecessary). and, strangely enough, even though you agree with what i say and concede my points are factual, you STILL use the empty meme "liberal talking point"

what does that even mean?

according to your very own words, you support my so-called "liberal talking points," and you clearly aren't a liberal. and so what if i am. if i am speaking the truth, does that truth carry less weight?

more than anything else, i am saddened by this thread.

[Anatole]

These 'political' discussion threads never come to any good in the long run, as it's virtually impossible to have a reasoned debate on such issues over the internet. In a real-life debate, you have the presence of your body and your social standing to throw weight into a discussion, whereas here we're all coming from the same level and it's far too easy for an argument to become polarized and never progress anywhere, ending in the inevitable result that each seperate camp goes off grumpier than before, with an even more narrow-sighted view of the other group than when they began.

One could well ask, "What's the point?"

In the grand scheme of things, there isn't one. We'd all be better off grinding exp in Miel B :P (in my opinion).

[Xanex]

These 'political' discussion threads never come to any good in the long run, as it's virtually impossible to have a reasoned debate on such issues over the internet

please define "good" from above, and demonstrate to me an example of a thread that "comes" to it.

and what about the internet makes it impossible to have reasoned debate/communication? if it is because people are jerks, then that is because of people, and not the internet.

in a real-life debate, you have the presence of your body and your social standing to throw weight into a discussion,

in a real life debate, you do not have the most powerful information database -ever- at your disposal to fact-check your opponent. in a real life debate, the truth is entirely irrelevant and completely indiscernable. you also do not have the time, as you do on this forum, to investigate dubious claims.

in a real life debate, volume often wins out over validity.

in a real life debate, the participation is limited to strictly right then and there, as opposed to an internet discussion board which invites all comers, as long as the thread is alive, to take as much time as they need to form their points (and back them up)

One could well ask, "What's the point?"

because I enjoy it and education is an important foundation to our democracy. how can people be entrusted to elect leaders when they do not have the time or desire to engage in any sort of political discussion?

and, I assume all participation is strictly voluntary. would i be wrong to then assume this voluntary participation is done because the participants enjoy it as well?

final note: notice how any detractor did not provide a drop of evidence to suport any contention. notice how the opposition simply uses empty insults with no substance whatever to back it up. notice how the other side has deployed vague generalizations against liberals as the only way to refute points and evidence that they agree with (yes, i know this doesn't make sense. talk to cal).

[Anatole]

Alrighty, here we go...

please define "good" from above, and demonstrate to me an example of a thread that "comes" to it.


Do these threads you enjoy actually have any bearing whatsoever on the real-life situations themselves? It's as if two men were arguing over which radio station their deaf friend should listen to. The whole thing smacks of arguing for arguments sake, regardless of whether the argument would ever bear any fruit. I can demonstrate to you an example of a thread that "comes to good", one that pertains to the world that we as players have a bearing on, namely SoD.

and what about the internet makes it impossible to have reasoned debate/communication? if it is because people are jerks, then that is because of people, and not the internet.

The internet, in theory, does indeed make perfect ground for reasoned debate & communication. But does it actually in practice, concerning such emotive issues as politics? The very fact that discussions here are open to all comers can work to an arguments detriment, as, let's face it, many people partaking in these online discussions, (to a certain degree myself included), are not as informed as they could be, and tend to base their opinions on their emotions, rather than a cold, surgical grasp of the facts.

in a real life debate, you do not have the most powerful information database -ever- at your disposal to fact-check your opponent. in a real life debate, the truth is entirely irrelevant and completely indiscernable. you also do not have the time, as you do on this forum, to investigate dubious claims.

in a real life debate, volume often wins out over validity.

in a real life debate, the participation is limited to strictly right then and there, as opposed to an internet discussion board which invites all comers, as long as the thread is alive, to take as much time as they need to form their points (and back them up)

In a real-life debate...Over an issue such as politics...The participation is indeed limited, as it tends to be reserved for those well versed in the field. The argument that truth is entirely irrelevant in real-life debates is spurious. One may be at a loss in regards to a vast information database, but in an argument one works with ones own devices and attempts to outwit an opponent. Here, because of the vast collection of information available, it's all facts. People boundying around numbers they've ripped off some random statistics paper, it's doomed to go back & forth, back & forth. There's no personality behind the statistics to win minds over in an argument. Just a name, maybe an avatar, nothing else. So sure, you can show me those statistics on recent gun related deaths - but why on Earth should I listen to you? I'VE found an equally valid paper published, showing a drop in house burglaries since guns were introduced into my area. The facts support MY case, why should I open my mind to yours?

how can people be entrusted to elect leaders when they do not have the time or desire to engage in any sort of political discussion?

That's one of the downfalls of democracy. Only a minor proportion of any given population will take a genuine interest in their leadership, the rest will vote on an emotive basis. These are the same people that you're inviting to our 'utopian' online discussion.

notice how any detractor did not provide a drop of evidence to suport any contention. notice how the opposition simply uses empty insults with no substance whatever to back it up. notice how the other side has deployed vague generalizations against liberals as the only way to refute points and evidence that they agree with

Not entirely sure where you're going with this, but I feel that rather supports my general theory - don't you?

[calaran]

Anatole's points that this doesn't matter and is a bad medium for these discussions were what my original post intended to relate... he's just better with words than I am...

[Xanex]

thanks for the response,

Do these threads you enjoy actually have any bearing whatsoever on the real-life situations themselves?

first, the "nothing good comes from" standard is yours, not mine. but i'll play ball. if you think that SoD game related discussion (however relevant to the good fun we are having) has greater bearing on real-life situations than informing political debate with solid discussion among voting citizens ... are you joking?

And if you do not think discussion plays a major role in shaping democracy, maybe you should ask our founders why the first amendment under the bill of rights deals almost exclusively with expressive freedoms.

I can demonstrate to you an example of a thread that "comes to good", one that pertains to the world that we as players have a bearing on, namely SoD

let's recap: political discussion, bad. SoD discussion, good.

there are forums for SoD just as there are forums for Real World and politics. you must have missed this part on page one where i point out how this forum is for politics. let me also take this moment to point out that the vast, VAST majority of forums listed in the index are dedicated to SoD, so your complaint that i am starting a political discussion on a SoD message board is 100% baseless.

let's face it, many people partaking in these online discussions, (to a certain degree myself included), are not as informed as they could be

are you saying that a political discussion offline is inherently more informed? because that seems to be your assertion. let me tell you, that is absolutely false. there is nothing that says debate on the internet must be less informed. you have zero evidence to back this up. but at least the internet gives you an opporunity to look up some silly study to back up your statements. offline does no such thing, unless we are debating in a library (how often are you in a library?)

and how would one become informed if not through vigorous discussion and debate (that includes, i might add, such informative websites as your very own whitehouse.org)? are you saying that debate should only occur between those inviduals who are as informed as they can be? (if such a thing actually exists.)

The participation is indeed limited, as it tends to be reserved for those well versed in the field.

wrong wrong wrong. you don't talk much politics do you? and we aren't talking politics like a DC insider paid consultant talks politics. you don't see me releasing polling data and geographic political analysis and the like. clearly, we are discussion politics as CITIZENS as it affects us as CITIZENS and as it affects our nation. clearly, EVERY VOTER has that right, and frankly i feel they have the obligation as well.

People do talk politics all the time. Online and offline. The people who tend to not care are the people who tend to be insulated enough to not have to. When you become one of the 45 Million (1 out of 5) Americans that do not have health insurance, when you begin to understand how a trillion dollar war and half trillion dollar deficit will affect our economic prosperity, then you might find yourself talking politics. and you do not have to wait until you are a Rhode Scholar to do so.

my credentials? i am a political activist and a senior- government major, political science concentration with a minor in communications (media studies). how educated does one have to be to participate in government? according to your fairy tale standard -as informed as can be- (except in reality, you just have to be born and alive for 18 years in the planet's wealthiest country)

The argument that truth is entirely irrelevant in real-life debates is spurious. One may be at a loss in regards to a vast information database, but in an argument one works with ones own devices and attempts to outwit an opponent. Here, because of the vast collection of information available, it's all facts

in a debate with another person, how can you verify what the other person is saying? how often does it devolve into one person's word against other, and how does the outcome of this situation compare to the internet?

and then you go on to state, "here, it's all facts" -as if that is so terrible. so on the internet, it is all facts, but when i say the truth is a casualty in offline debate, when you cannot access the most powerful information resource in the planet, you say i
wrong. how's that again? the simple reality is that even organized debates do not have fact-checkers calling out the liars. having considerable experience in the college debate circuit, let me assure you that this is a simple fact.

ok, and then you go off on some tangent about statistics and how they can be manipulated or some such common wisdom that you feel gives your post merit. how about, instead of addressing me in hypotheticals, you back up those words with some action. first, tell me how the statistics i use are misleading. unless you are making a flat statement saying all statistics are worthless, tell me why mine in particular are. is that so much to ask? or are we going to stick to vague, unsupported refutation.

as far as the number of participants in the debate being a downside, you are wholly wrong.

in a traditional, offline debate, you would be correct, where realtime audio means if more than one person talks at a time, it's a jumbled mess. welcome to the internet, my friend.

as many people can join is as they like, and i'll take my time to refute them one at time. there is no distortion of signal. i can hear all their views perfectly fine. the only limits are my and the moderator's patience. and if you are saying that the participants i invite are some how unworthy, than you misunderstand my intentions entirely for posting here at all. that is, to create an informative dialogue. prior knowledge is not a prerequisite. merely having an open mind and developing a critical thought process. that's all i ask.

and another mistake you make is assuming all participants post replies on the thread. merely reading the thread is participating, and maybe it opened a few eyes to the reality of the situation around us. for anyone on this board to come at me for trying to increase awareness of current events, i say bring it on.

[Anatole]

Jolly good show, old chap - point well missed and all that.

In brief, Sir, if you please;


I have yet to EVER see a strongly-opinionated pundit of either side be converted or even brought closer to center just because someone quoted 10 news sources and gave their opinions

Thank you.

Also, Dear Lord man - could you deliver your sermons in a slightly less condescending way? I'd simply hate to think that your arguments are just thinly veiled attacks.

first, the "nothing good comes from" standard is yours, not mine. but i'll play ball.
you must have missed this part on page one where i point out how this forum is for politics.
you have zero evidence to back this up. but at least the internet gives you an opporunity to look up some silly study to back up your statements.
wrong wrong wrong. you don't talk much politics do you?
according to your fairy tale standard -as informed as can be-
and then you go off on some tangent about statistics and how they can be manipulated or some such common wisdom that you feel gives your post merit.
or are we going to stick to vague, unsupported refutation.

I don't know, Xanex - I found this particular one quite interesting.

i have a tip for you, ignore all threads i post, post in and /ignore Armando and Ciara in game. you'll be all set.

Now you're making sense.

[Xanex]

concerning your last quote, i was dead serious. i talk politics in game if it comes up. if you want to avoid, that's a true tip.

and what of this quote?

I have yet to EVER see a strongly-opinionated pundit of either side be converted or even brought closer to center just because someone quoted 10 news sources and gave their opinions

b/c you have never seen it happen it must be impossible, right?

guys, perceived-animosity aside, that is an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. the fact that you highlight this ridiculous statement in a quote box pretty much invalidates your argument. (your argument seems to be, "I never see people change their minds concerning politics so everything you can post is a waste of time," even though I have pointed out that I enjoy the discourse for the discourse itself and OBVIOUSLY people SOMETIMES can change their minds. are you claiming that this does not happen? that is certainly the strong impression you give. Also as I mentioned it, this thread is read by a much larger community than just the active partipants. did you read all their minds and come to the conclusion that none of the viewers can be swayed by facts and current events?)

you and cal and both full of it (that is an observation, not an insult, and i have plenty of evidence to back it up), and i think i've been polite as i can in pointing that out. there are only so many ways to explain the obvious.

not once have you backed up a single incident with anything of substance, but that is not unexpected.

as for my "veiled attacks," i thought they were plain and in the open for all to see. am i wrong?

if can you, (and i don't expect you can), take one of the quotes you listed and explain to me why i was out of line in saying what i said. if you can.

it seems your major beef with me is that i continually shut you down and prove you wrong (i say this because you have yet to respond to a single. concern. adequately). that's not personal, that's just debate.

so take it as you will. i don't know you, and you don't know me. all i know are the ignorant statements you post, and you clearly post them for my judgement, which i have no problem offering. so what's the problem again?

[Xanex]

in case it wasn't clear: i did not miss your point, merely refuted it, even though it is obviously ridiculous. if that's your final stance, then every incident of condescension duly applies.

and for future reference, when you want to talk about who is and is not influenced by facts or news, just speak for yourself. you aren't miss cleo.

the very existence of this thread is evidence that other people are listening and interested in what i have to say.

[Anatole]

Edit: Actually, a friend pointed something out to me recently, and it reminded me of that age old internet joke...Let's see, how did it go again? Something about arguments over the net and the special olympics...

[Xanex]

gee, anatole, what a "special" reply. for the second time in one thread, you vaguely apply a "conventional wisdom" standard (as you did with your ignorant, blanket decry of statistics earlier on) as a way to appear clever (instead of actually addressing any of my points. why could this be?)

this puzzles me. does anyone really think ripping off some tired internet joke or using a baseless (ignorant, used by people who do not understand statistics and are constantly fooled by them) accusation is clever?

let's examine what you are saying now. I believe the saying is something along the lines of, arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. it doesn't matter who wins, you are all retards (or something similiarly obtuse).

(heh. what's also funny is you seem too embarassed to actually say this offensive line, but not too embarassed to use it, going as far as attributing it to the ever-hypothetical "friend". you are a child, a coward and a hypocrite.)

first, let me say, in spite of your skepticism of me when i pull up facts and evidence, you seem to really enjoy "conventional wisdom" - i.e., shit you have heard and agree with (no logic or evidence required!)

second, i'm going to do you a favor and explain why discussion on the internet does not HAVE to devolve into a mentally impaired slugfest (hint: the solution is not to be retarded in the first place):

in order to compete in the special olympics, you must meet a certain criteria, that is, to be handicapped. competition does not change this fact. so, by saying, it doesn't matter who wins the special olympics because you end up retarded! ignores the fact that the competitors began this way and the special olympics is just a competition (unable to heal along the lines of Jesus).

the same applies to internet discussion.

if you go into it retarded, why would you expect the discussion to change you?

and in fact, it hasn't.

Bravo.




PS - here is some irony. this thread basically asks for less moderation regarding locking threads. well, i am asking any moderator who reads this to please lock this thread (since you obviously have nothing to contribute- contribution implies value, which your schoolyard euphemisms are lacking) and if for nothing else than historical posterity and educational value. i'd like to keep the discussion, as it is, and as the above post demostrates, anatole has a propensity towards editting out posts when he embarasses himself. following that tradition, i expect all his posts will disappear shortly. as far as education, let this be a lesson to anyone who wants to learn the wrong way to try to sound smart over the internet.

[Thinkmeats]

anatole congratulations on your oscar

[Anatole]

Thank you, anally retentive pseudo-liberal! How about that folks, eh? Let's have a big hand for him. Alright...


Coming up next on Creatures With a Modicum of Intelligence, the dolphin who can arrange floating cards to form actual sentences!

http://www.terrapin-station.co.uk/misc/DOLPHIN-SMILE.jpg

Don't touch that dial!

[Xanex]

pseudo-liberal? i advise the use of dictionary.com

do you ever get tired of embarassing yourself?

[Wiz]

Anatole, I'm currently debating with myself on whether to ban you for trolling or just warn you for trolling.

[Aytowun]

mog is joking. relax people

[Amourbien]

Thanks for the replies, sorry I couldn't respond was abroad for a while.

I personally think that this 'real world' forum shouldn't have topics stopped unless there is something clearly harmful going on. Again it is of course, totally up to the mods to decide but if debate is to move even if it is in the usually absurd direction it is wont to go it should be allowed free from impediment.

To the poster, I think it was Anatole, who wrote that (in synopsis form here) most internet forums quickly fade to snide ad hominem attacks. There is some merit to this but over time you will find regular posters that put down their view-points based on some objective material then receive a counter argument also with objectivity thrown in. Where does it all lead? Sometimes no-where, but I have learned many things from these sorts of forums, and have had to sometimes challenge my own beliefs based on the counter-arguments others provide to my initial assumptions on topics. I enjoy that and that's what keeps me coming back to such sorts of debate.
Regards,
Nikki

[Nightcaste]

I just find it ironic that a thread that started out asking "why are all these threads being locked?" turned into a thread that probably ought to have been locked, but wasn't. I'm not getting on anyone's case or trying to pick a fight, I just think it's funny that it happened this way.

[vistachiri]

I think it's pretty funny too, but speaking as a mod/admin at a completely different board but most threads that delve into politics/religion end up having to be locked. I think I've had 2 or 3 threads over at AHQ that ended up not having to be locked and even then I made it known I was keeping an eye on it lest it get out of hand. Couple of em I actually participated in to a large extent but I stopped pretty much doing that as I would find myself compelled at 3am to write pages long posts...and it frankly was a waste of my time.

[sp4mm]

...most threads that delve into politics/religion end up having to be locked.

Or else what? A critical cascade of posts causing the end of the universe?

[Xanex]

something i never understood was the dire consequence of debate. people might get flamed. people might get embarassed. how's that different again from any other human interaction?

i agree to setting a basic standard of decency. with that said, what's the problem with a little heated debate? especially about topics as important (a relative term in any scenario, but obvious) as religion or politics.

i don't understand what dire consequences exist that in order to protect dialogue on this forum, certain speech is (broadly) denied.

that sounds too much like GWoT for my comfort (we have to take your freedoms in order to protect them OR THE TERRORIST WIN) - aka, a few screwballs ruining the system for everyone else. except no one dies arguing over the internet. so why let the few people who are unable to piece together a coherent sentence destroy a forum specifically created for this kind of real debate?

and while the constitution in no way applies to this private forum, the ideals expressed are every bit as legitimate. free speech has beneficial effects that might not be obvious to those of us awash in it. the fact that our country became the sole super-power is no coincidence. yes, geography and natural resources are obviously important, and so is being the heir to the British Empire as well the two World Wars that decimated all the other global powers while actually strengthening the United States. but there is still much to be said about the power of the fair market, which as applied to this specific example would just be a forum of loose regulation, basic standards, that find the right balance between encouraging (relatively) mature discussion without stiffling censorship (you can't be a clown, but you can talk about (DC) clowns). the fair market ideals of our nation, allowing and even encouraging freedom to compete with one anther, made our country strong.

i'm not supposed to make topics about the iraq war. since the last time i posted, the country has entered a state of undeniable civil war. but i guess a little real world (it's so little.. just text on the screen you read from the comfort of your chair), is too much for those who want only to escape into SoD. maybe if we made the world we lived in better we could all be enjoying productive expressions with tangible material benefits? but no. apathy. ignorance. and it's not everyone, but enough to drag down the ones who do care enough to inspire change.

[zodium]

something i never understood was the dire consequence of debate. people might get flamed. people might get embarassed. how's that different again from any other human interaction?

i agree to setting a basic standard of decency. with that said, what's the problem with a little heated debate? especially about topics as important (a relative term in any scenario, but obvious) as religion or politics.

i don't understand what dire consequences exist that in order to protect dialogue on this forum, certain speech is (broadly) denied.

that sounds too much like GWoT for my comfort (we have to take your freedoms in order to protect them OR THE TERRORIST WIN) - aka, a few screwballs ruining the system for everyone else. except no one dies arguing over the internet. so why let the few people who are unable to piece together a coherent sentence destroy a forum specifically created for this kind of real debate?

and while the constitution in no way applies to this private forum, the ideals expressed are every bit as legitimate. free speech has beneficial effects that might not be obvious to those of us awash in it. the fact that our country became the sole super-power is no coincidence. yes, geography and natural resources are obviously important, and so is being the heir to the British Empire as well the two World Wars that decimated all the other global powers while actually strengthening the United States. but there is still much to be said about the power of the fair market, which as applied to this specific example would just be a forum of loose regulation, basic standards, that find the right balance between encouraging (relatively) mature discussion without stiffling censorship (you can't be a clown, but you can talk about (DC) clowns). the fair market ideals of our nation, allowing and even encouraging freedom to compete with one anther, made our country strong.

i'm not supposed to make topics about the iraq war. since the last time i posted, the country has entered a state of undeniable civil war. but i guess a little real world (it's so little.. just text on the screen you read from the comfort of your chair), is too much for those who want only to escape into SoD. maybe if we made the world we lived in better we could all be enjoying productive expressions with tangible material benefits? but no. apathy. ignorance. and it's not everyone, but enough to drag down the ones who do care enough to inspire change.

Neither Wiz or I are Americans, and we don't give two shits about your constitution. The reason we don't like heated debates about politics or religion on our forums is that it never goes anywhere -- the same retarded talking points are repeated ad nauseum, and it only serves to create bad blood. Nothing good or constructive ever comes of it, and we see no reason to foster enmity among the forumgoers by allowing it.

On a forum that's about debate, yes, minimum moderation is a must. But these forums are not about debate, they're about playing EverQuest, and there happens to be a subforum that has a broad definition that allows debate, but only to the point where it serves the community in a positive manner.

[Xanex]

Neither Wiz or I are Americans, and we don't give two shits about your constitution.

i was talking about the ideas contained within, not the actual document (or it's legal significance). so you don't give a shit about the prosperity that comes when basic rights, such as free speech, are recognized? because free speech certainly helps us know when something is wrong, and just as importantly, it let's us know when something is right (that may not have been previously expressed) as well. the enforcenment of censorship simply creates a stagnant idea pool where any disagreement (which could be very helpful) never has the sporting, competitive chance to be judged on its on merits.

stalin failed because he was a dictator, not because he was a communist.


he reason we don't like heated debates about politics or religion on our forums is that it never goes anywhere -- the same retarded talking points are repeated ad nauseum, and it only serves to create bad blood. Nothing good or constructive ever comes of it

i'm actually very tired of "talking points" myself, but not in the same way you mean. in a debate (or discussion if you want to be less formal, though i use the two words interchangably), a person with a specific perspective, or point of view, submits evidence and connects the dots in order to support his or her "point". but people use the term "talking point" as a talking point itself, and here's where i think the overuse of the phrase has some people confused as to what it means.

"a talking point" is a specially crafted bullshit, substanceless argument. the bush administration has made this term famous, and republicans love to use this phrase against democrats. the accusation of a talking point is itself a talking point. it does not address the substance of any claim, nor does it pretend it. it simply states, that is a point that i have heard before, therefore it is a talking point (and you don't even address what's being said).

the fact that each side is trying to make a point, does not mean each side is falling back on "talking points"

but sometimes it does. i've been accused of using talking points myself, but obviously each post i make is lovingly handcrafted and not at all manufactured, as such an accusation suggests.

obvious talking points:

the terrorist hate us for our freedom
we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
democracy is on the march in iraq

do you see what i mean by talking points? they are specious arguments that do not provide any real substance to the debate. obviously the reasons a terrorist would want to attack are a lot deeper and more complex than the hating of freedom. obviously terrorism is a problem because it isn't easily contained, as in the horizontal cell structure allows for small groups to do a great deal of damage against soft targets so it doesn't matter where you are fighting if you are inciting militants around the world. obviously we are trying to make progress in iraq, but the phrase does not provide any evidence or even standard of progress to measure so the phrase "democracy is on the march" is hollow.

i would take offense imply i post talking points if it were not so ridiculous an accusation.

in summary, again i must restate that i believe in the positive power of dialogue to inform. communication and the ability to transfer knowledge is the key to the success of our species. the internet provides an even more powerful tool to communicate and inform, so i like to use it and i like to use it to talk to people who have a different worldview than myself so all parties, myself included, can walk away with insight on a different perspective. the worst that happens is someone says something stupid and i tell then, well bud, you just said something stupid. and who doesn't say something dumb from time to time? i know i do. that's life and it's not a big deal in real life, so why should it be on the forums where even more cover for anonyminity is provided?

and yes, some people say idiotic things constantly. again, that's life and it's not particularly harmful in this specific situation.

the fact that any participation, at any level, from skimming to actually reading to posting, is all strictly voluntary, should be enough itself to make you reconsider. for those who don't want it, they can easily ignore it. i don't spam this board or clutter it. for those who want to participate, i'm sure they know the risks invovled with human interaction and one can only assume the accept the possible consequences (probably because the consequences aren't so serious, so hey, why not!)

ps - who cares if you are american? the age of the nation-state is over. globalization means we all deal with each other, whether you like it or not, so you might as well get some practice. the fact we ilve in a global market means the misadventures of the american empire will certainly have direct impacts all over the world. how are you going to feel when america attacks iran and oil hits $100/barrel?

apathy is expensive. as long as you can afford it, i can see the attraction, but if you only feel motivated to affect change when things go wrong (for you personally, because things are always going terribly wrong for someone else), trust me, it will be too late.

[zodium]

in summary, again i must restate that i believe in the positive power of dialogue to inform. communication and the ability to transfer knowledge is the key to the success of our species. the internet provides an even more powerful tool to communicate and inform, so i like to use it and i like to use it to talk to people who have a different worldview than myself so all parties, myself included, can walk away with insight on a different perspective. the worst that happens is someone says something stupid and i tell then, well bud, you just said something stupid. and who doesn't say something dumb from time to time? i know i do. that's life and it's not a big deal in real life, so why should it be on the forums where even more cover for anonyminity is provided?

and yes, some people say idiotic things constantly. again, that's life and it's not particularly harmful in this specific situation.

the fact that any participation, at any level, from skimming to actually reading to posting, is all strictly voluntary, should be enough itself to make you reconsider. for those who don't want it, they can easily ignore it. i don't spam this board or clutter it. for those who want to participate, i'm sure they know the risks invovled with human interaction and one can only assume the accept the possible consequences (probably because the consequences aren't so serious, so hey, why not!)

ps - who cares if you are american? the age of the nation-state is over. globalization means we all deal with each other, whether you like it or not, so you might as well get some practice. the fact we ilve in a global market means the misadventures of the american empire will certainly have direct impacts all over the world. how are you going to feel when america attacks iran and oil hits $100/barrel?

apathy is expensive. as long as you can afford it, i can see the attraction, but if you only feel motivated to affect change when things go wrong (for you personally, because things are always going terribly wrong for someone else), trust me, it will be too late.

It's not that I don't care about the issues in a more general sense, I just don't care to have them on these forums because they only create bad blood and divide people.

And man, that has to be one of the worst posts in the history of ever. It's hard to take it seriously with the kind of language you use in it.

[Xanex]

opinion noted. what language makes it "the worst in history" specfically though, because i didn't realize i was such an extreme fellow.

also, consider my position for a moment and why i choose to write at such great length.

i'm just a peon on this forum. while you don't have to justify yourself or make any coherent argument at all, that is all i have. being a mod is one of your powers. my power is persuasion through words, and maybe it's not so hot. maybe it does create the worst posts in the history of all message boards (or even this one- i doubt it), but it's something i have to do because i don't have the luxury to sit back and take indefensible positions that rely on nebulous terms. (you object to the possiblity of bad blood. bad blood = hurt feelings and/or animosity. tell me again what kind of topics are protected from the possibility of generating hurt feelings and/or animosity?. this ain't exactly disney.com and people ain't exactly forced to read/participate. i'm very open with my views and even advise people both my toon's names to make /ignore easier. i don't want to talk if they don't want to listen, but some people obviously want to listen, as evidenced by posters in my threads, viewers and the PMs i get saying "hey, nice post" .. but that's ok because you are the mod and don't have to explain why potential hurt feelings outweigh the possibility to educate. i understand and try to be respectful in not disparaging the luxury afforded to you; and posting here freely in order to persuade or inform is my luxury and i would appreicate if you could show the same courtesy to me.)

[legrat]

opinion noted. what language makes it "the worst in history" specfically though, because i didn't realize i was such an extreme fellow.

also, consider my position for a moment and why i choose to write at such great length.

i'm just a peon on this forum. while you don't have to justify yourself or make any coherent argument at all, that is all i have. being a mod is one of your powers. my power is persuasion through words, and maybe it's not so hot. maybe it does create the worst posts in the history of all message boards (or even this one- i doubt it), but it's something i have to do because i don't have the luxury to sit back and take indefensible positions that rely on nebulous terms. (you object to the possiblity of bad blood. bad blood = hurt feelings and/or animosity. tell me again what kind of topics are protected from the possibility of generating hurt feelings and/or animosity?. this ain't exactly disney.com and people ain't exactly forced to read/participate. i'm very open with my views and even advise people both my toon's names to make /ignore easier. i don't want to talk if they don't want to listen, but some people obviously want to listen, as evidenced by posters in my threads, viewers and the PMs i get saying "hey, nice post" .. but that's ok because you are the mod and don't have to explain why potential hurt feelings outweigh the possibility to educate. i understand and try to be respectful in not disparaging the luxury afforded to you; and posting here freely in order to persuade or inform is my luxury and i would appreicate if you could show the same courtesy to me.)


I bet you get beaten alot in RL.

[Xanex]

because that's what happens to upper-middle class americans.

here's a hint, you automatically lose at online posting if you do any of the following:

[list]talk about how much money you make/how cool your job is (we're all lawyer ninjas)

talk about how much sex you get/how little the other guy gets

talk about how tough you are irl/how the other guy gets his ass kicked irl all the time[/list:u]

do you really want to start our conversation off as a loser? maybe that's just your comfort zone.

ps - i forgot to add that i bet you are really tough in the RL and beat people up. i can tell by your posts on this forum.

do you ever get tired of your fifth grade mentality? i'll bet it makes life difficult.

[rab]

Your posts here aren't educating anyone. "Hey nice post" isn't coming from someone who didn't agree with you and saw the light through your eloquence.

[Xanex]

nice presumption. you don't know who is walking away from what with what.

and it shouldn't be my eloquence, as you put it, that "educates." when i post, i cite newspapers. it's THEIR job to inform. i am just HIGHLIGHTING what the newspapers print. i can't teach a thing, just ask people to think and give them something to think about. everything else is up to the individual.

frankly, i'm really disgusted by the effort here to repress anything marginally "real" or substantial. if it's a post about "who's your favorite band" that's good. if it's a post about "hey where's your RL pic" that's good. if it's a post about news events, then i get slammed. take a look at who all is attacking me and what they are saying, then take a moment to think about the company you keep.

BUT WAIT A MINUTE - i never got anyone (at least publicly) to do a philosophical 180 and pledge allegiance to my flag!!!! that clearly shows that i have been wrong all along! and not just about the notion that words can SOMETIMES convince SOME people or AT LEAST make them think -which would make any number of words worthwhile, except you clever dogs proved me wrong in your steadfast refusal- but about everything!!

you all think you are disproving me or making an excellent point by refusing to read the news i post or honestly consider the points i make. you think you are "winning" by refusing to educate yourselves on the state of the world and the state of our (america) nation. the only problem is, that attitude means everyone loses, not just me, and the few ( and disproportionately stongly represented) who do pay attention and participate control everything, and they are not doing so out of the goodness of their hearts...

who said paradise is every man for themselves? that's the world we want and that's the world we live in. democracy is the closest to balance we have when everyone is represented and represents there own interest -except when people don't. and if you are not the least bit informed, how do you know where your interests really lie?

the argument that "you can't ever convince anyone of anything or offer any worthwhile perspective and so i decided your posts aren't worthwhile so you better stop" is just plain stupid. not a bad way to separate the wheat from the chaff though.

[rab]

Thou doth protest too much.

[Onos Sideboard]

This thread needs some car chases and explosions. I couldnt get through it.

[Allielyn]

It's not that I don't care about the issues in a more general sense, I just don't care to have them on these forums because they only create bad blood and divide people.

I have to agree with Zod here. Upon reflection in he aftermath of the "religion" discussion, it was clear to me that I come here to have fun and roleplay, not to discuss heavy issues; and I really didn't enjoy the thread at all. In fact, a lot of other people apparently feel the same way, because there was virtually no dialog other than two people. However, there's a place I DO enjoy going to to do that sort of thing,:

http://www.reallifeforums.com/index.php?c=11


If I'm in the mood for a really good discussion or debate, I go there. If I'm in the mood for fun, I come here! If you really enjoy opening up debate and discussions like this, I would highly recommend becoming familiar with those threads. You'll get a much better response, from a community that enjoys doing so. (That doesn't mean people here don't like to, it's just not necessarily the place.)

[Korinth]

Jean Baudrillard's America. Read it, especially if you're American, and go argue with yourself.

The essay Utopia Achieved is a particularily ... interesting... view on the US.

[Thinkmeats]

I can't believe this thread hasn't been locked for maximum irony yet.

[rab]

I can't lock threads here because Wiz hates freedom.