|
dorkus
Registered: 04/12/04
Posts: 1,511
|
how not to talk part iii *DELETED*
#3602931 - 01/09/05 10:09 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by dorkus
|
skystone
stop the motion
Registered: 11/08/04
Posts: 465
Loc: state,country,etc.
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
|
Re: how not to talk part iii [Re: dorkus]
#3602957 - 01/09/05 10:18 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Are you saying that such a freedom would help us in debate? Freedom such as mentioning personal disabilities of your oponent to fill the gap made by lack of arguments? I don't think that helps much. Look at these things as advice rather than rules.
-------------------- "..and suddenly it began to rain"
|
Frog
Warrior
Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 4,284
Loc: The Zero Point Field
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: how not to talk part iii [Re: dorkus]
#3602967 - 01/09/05 10:21 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
(This is not directed at Swami and what happened with him.)
I've been in a forum that had no rules. That forum was tyrannized by a few. If people can be bad, they will be, if allowed to speak unfettered. Once I checkin on on that forum and read a message from the owner asking why several people had asked to have their names permanently removed from his forum. He asked if there was bullying going on.
That's why we have so many laws. Not so that the people in power can be in control of us and make money off of us when we break a law. It's to keep certain behaviors in check, like dumping pollution into the ocean. If there is no law against it, people will dump into the ocean.
It would be nice to think that people who debate in a forum called S&P are going to be polite debaters because they are more spriritual, but that isn't true. People are still human and will be bad and say mean things.
Some guy came in here just a couple of weeks ago and directly said something really mean to another person. It was not just a disagreement. This guy was cutting the other guy's character and two mods warned him.
If there were no rules, this would happen a lot. People being people, you know.
-------------------- The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire. -Teilard
|
skystone
stop the motion
Registered: 11/08/04
Posts: 465
Loc: state,country,etc.
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
|
Re: how not to talk part iii [Re: Frog]
#3603046 - 01/09/05 10:45 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'd rather call it "people not being people" than "people being people", because If people are like that in concept of people, than what is the point of restraining that? I still believe that when "people are people" that they are positive and constructive, even thought this is about 10% of their existence.
-------------------- "..and suddenly it began to rain"
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: how not to talk part iii [Re: Frog]
#3603069 - 01/09/05 10:54 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"People being people"
Peter Piper Picked A Peck Of Pickled Peppers - Mother Goose
Sorry Frog all those Ps from your people people person produced Peter Piper.
That being said, good point, stop those polluters and poachers. Positively!
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis
Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: how not to talk part iii [Re: dorkus]
#3603091 - 01/09/05 11:03 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
the how not to talk rules are basically just common sense and etiquette for people who lack it. those of us who already know how to be on-point and civil in discussions need not even read it. stickying a list of good debate etiqette guidelines is not 'fascism'
welcome to the drama queen club.
-------------------- Everything I post is fiction.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: how not to talk part iii [Re: Moonshoe]
#3603108 - 01/09/05 11:09 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
those of us who already know how to be on-point and civil in discussions need not even read it.
Followed two sentences later by an ad hominem:
Quote:
welcome to the drama queen club.
Too funny.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Moonshoe
Blue Mantis
Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,202
Loc: Iceland
|
Re: how not to talk part iii [Re: Sclorch]
#3603182 - 01/09/05 11:28 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
lol i guess that could be an ad hominem. is it an attack to tell someone hes blowing something out of proportion? if it is, ill gladly retract my statement.
Or rather, let me reword it in a less abrasive way. What i see as some common sense guidelines for discussion you see as fascism and bullshit. I would suggest that it is more practical to see it the first way, and you are causing yourself unescessary drama/frusteration if you choose to see it as fascism...
but to each there own.
-------------------- Everything I post is fiction.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: how not to talk part iii [Re: dorkus]
#3603252 - 01/09/05 11:53 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
They are not rules, as I've said plenty of times already. If they were "rules" they would be added to the S&P rules thread If you read the original thread, I stated this quite clearly in one post and also stated exactly what the thread was for: so that people could learn to recognize these "conversational terrorism" tactics both in the writings of others and in their own writings. Please keep this to one thread: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3471903/an/0/page/0
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: how not to talk part iii [Re: Moonshoe]
#3603292 - 01/09/05 12:03 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Read:
"you are blowing this out of proportion"
as opposed to:
"you are a drama queen".
While the second generally implies the first, the first would be much more appropriate and accurate for this case. How do you know he is a drama queen? Perhaps this is only one of a handful of issues he feels are important enough to him to speak out on.
Obviously one phrase is intended to inform, the other to put down via character flaw. So yes, that was an ad hominem
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
|