I didn't know we were losing members over this. It doesn't change my position though.
I wouldn't stop posting just because politics were disallowed. I enjoy reading the opinions of others and learning more about the candidates this way. I interject every now and then but I mostly just read.
That's true. But politics has this nasty habit of making people lose all sense of civility.
True as that may be, do you think by banning it we will be any better off? Politics will rear it's ugly head, banned or not. The question is, will it be more virulent and vitriolic in it's flare-ups if it's banned? I would say leave the politics in threads specifically created for it and that way you can channel the beast and allow for it to run it's course without it affecting the other threads.
Is it civil? No. Will it help to prevent things popping up where they don't belong? Possibly...
The McCain + D&D thing was fine until it got willfully derailed onto the abortion stuff. It doesn't seem like straight up political talk is the problem; it's people using it as a soapbox to push their particular agenda.
I guess I'm probably an outside case, given my "inside baseball" approach to a lot of my political discussions, but I don't see why it all has to devolve like this. Stop the derailments and soap-boxes, ban people who continually try to use these topics as pulpits and let everyone else have calm, reasoned discussion.
Some good conversation has been had, to be sure. But they devolve as they always do. I guess all I'm getting at is that if we make them a CoC violation there's a way to stop it. As it stands, not so much.
I don't know. Something about an outright ban just makes my skin crawl. Civility should be maitained for certain, but outright censorship is likely to drive me away. The Off-topic threads are there so that we as gamers have outlets to discuss non-game issues with other people that share our hobby, to censor it would close down an avenue that we have to form a community.
It's just my two measly cents, but I think we may be better off as a community leaving things as they stand. Sure it can get ugly, but it only gets as ugly as we the community let it, neh?
The McCain + D&D thing was fine until it got willfully derailed onto the abortion stuff. It doesn't seem like straight up political talk is the problem; it's people using it as a soapbox to push their particular agenda.
How did that happen? things were running along smoothly and then BAM!, something else.
How did that happen? things were running along smoothly and then BAM!, something else.
Honestly I don't see that the political debate, and the abortion debate that followed, were any different in tone. People were being very civil most of the way through on both sides. It was just the subject matter became more controvertial. But people were equally passionate on the political front as they were on teh abortion front.
How did that happen? things were running along smoothly and then BAM!, something else.
One poster (who is not exactly known for maintaining civility) gave the conversation a kick in that direction, and then an issue zealot picked it up.
Some people basically just scan the internet looking for places to set up their soapboxes.
I don't know. Something about an outright ban just makes my skin crawl. Civility should be maitained for certain, but outright censorship is likely to drive me away. The Off-topic threads are there so that we as gamers have outlets to discuss non-game issues with other people that share our hobby, to censor it would close down an avenue that we have to form a community.
It's just my two measly cents, but I think we may be better off as a community leaving things as they stand. Sure it can get ugly, but it only gets as ugly as we the community let it, neh?
I actually hate the idea as well. It's just that I feel "we" have proven that "we" are incapable of using this freedom in a responsible manner. If this was anything other than a privately owned message board, I'd be against it wholeheartedly. But it isn't. I doubt there's anything to worry about, though. I can't see anything changing. And, believe it or not, I'm ok with that, too.
One poster (who is not exactly known for maintaining civility) gave the conversation a kick in that direction, and then an issue zealot picked it up.
Some people basically just scan the internet looking for places to set up their soapboxes.
I was not on a soap box. I was actually presenting the moderate view and offering a compromise. The images I put up were not to shock, but to add context. Just as one might put up similar images if vegetarianism were being discussed. I think this is a classic case of people reading any deviation from their own position as being extremist non-sense. When in fact I was one of the few people using reason, and not religion or party politics, to put forward my position.
I was not on a soap box. I was actually presenting the moderate view and offering a compromise. The images I put up were not to shock, but to add context. Just as one might put up similar images if vegetarianism were being discussed. I think this is a classic case of people reading any deviation from their own position as being extremist non-sense. When in fact I was one of the few people using reason, and not religion or party politics, to put forward my position.
You were using pictures of aborted fetuses and handwaving off research that you didn't agree with.
Reasonable wasn't exactly your buzzword.
I don't think so. People need to learn to control their actions. This is a written forum where we can step back from the keyboard and take the time to write up a well thought out non-attacking response.
You mean you don't attack what people write? That's the point of a debate. The problem is the tone becomes negative and soon everything but the kitchen sink get's thrown in and the civil debate becomes a brawl.
You were using pictures of aborted fetuses and handwaving off research that you didn't agree with.
Reasonable wasn't exactly your buzzword.
Actually I didn't hand wave the research. I specifically said that it came from a biased organization (as does most abortion "research" on either side) and that it was flawed because it used data from third world countries on the issue of enforcement to inform the abortion policies of modern western nations. My reasons were listed there on the thread. I also, very reluctantly, supplied a counter study...which was also biased and flawed...but at least it was conducted in the US.
Also, showing images of the consequences of what is being discussed is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't stop the debate. It just forces both sides to acknowledge what is actually being discussed. And as I have said, I am not opposed to abortions very early in the pregnancy. I am not a bible thumper. And I am not making a religious argument.
As for reason, I exposed you to the text book arguments of the moderate position on abortion. I did not deviate or construct my own deliberately. I wanted people to see how a rationale debate on the issue of abortion looks. You can choose to ignore my reasoned argumentation, or the fact I was offering a very humane compromise that recognized the natural rights of all three parties invovled. What I saw from you wasn't reasoned debate, but towing of the party line. The poster who bothered to put up the abortion research was making a reasoned argument. And did a good job of undermining my position on the development of the brain in the fetus and on the problems inherent in enforcment. She made a very good utilitarian argument against my position. But because you insisted on going with the natural rights aspect, and never bothered to adequately counter my arguments for why a fetus would have natural rights, you failed to make a reasoned rebuttal. Mind you, I am not saying my argument was air tight. As I said it was the text book, moderate position on abortion in an ethics class. It has holes, and one poster found some of them. But you did not.
You mean you don't attack what people write? That's the point of a debate. The problem is the tone becomes negative and soon everything but the kitchen sink get's thrown in and the civil debate becomes a brawl.
I think he means that you should attack the argument, not the person.
But because you insisted on going with the natural rights aspect, and never bothered to adequately counter my arguments for why a fetus would have natural rights, you failed to make a reasoned rebuttal.
I failed to sway you, you mean.
The rebuttal I offered was the one that the U.S. Constitution and international human rights groups back up; the woman should have control over her own body and reproduction. You don't feel that's a compelling argument, but that doesn't make it unsound.
Mandating pregnancy and taking the say out of the woman's hands is violating her human rights. You're trying to say that the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the mother, but have shown nothing to back that up.
Again, folks, soapbox.
I agree now; ban political discussion altogether. Otherwise you get zealots following posters from thread to thread and harrassing them via PMs. That's not really a good outcome from anything.
Considering that we're now [i]actually losing members
Who have we lost?
I failed to sway you, you mean.
The rebuttal I offered was the one that the U.S. Constitution and international human rights groups back up; the woman should have control over her own body and reproduction. You don't feel that's a compelling argument, but that doesn't make it unsound.
Mandating pregnancy and taking the say out of the woman's hands is violating her human rights. You're trying to say that the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the mother, but have shown nothing to back that up..
I am not saying this argument is unsound, and it is actually very compelling, but it doesn't rebut what I was saying. Your argument could have been made much stronger, but you didn't recognize what I was trying to say, so you replied to the wrong points. In order to prove me wrong, you had to argue that a fetus at 9 weeks wasn't a person, or at least didn't have natural rights. I was actually using your argument against you. I conceded that all human beings have natural rights that cannot be violated. I simply posited that the fetus was also a human being around 9 weeks, and that the natural rights of the mother couldn't interfere with the fetuses natural rights, and that, therefore, a compromise was needed to respect both of their rights. You simply didn't address this. You kept repeating the same argument, which I had already responded to many times. That is why you were not making a reasoned argument.
Actually I provided a great deal to back it up, including making a text book argument that the fetus is a person. In which case, by your own recognition that persons have natural rights, the rights of mother stop when they interfere with the rights of the fetus. This is textbook. And you failed to address the argument itself.
Again, folks, soapbox.
I agree now; ban political discussion altogether. Otherwise you get zealots following posters from thread to thread and harrassing them via PMs. That's not really a good outcome from anything.
Now I am a zealot? Then you are truly an extremist in the debate if you consider me a zealot. Once again, I think abortions prior to 9 weeks are okay. I am not a Christian. I am not religious. I am making an argument based on natural rights, not based on religion. I am willing to adjust my position to accomodate different views, and the possibility that I am wrong somewhere. How does that make me a zealot, when you are the one who refuses to budge on any issue?
And I didn't harrass you by PM. I simply responded to one of your posts via PM, in order not to start a flame war. Here it is so there is no musinderstanding:
You do realize that well before it treaded into abortion, and after, you used the entire thread as a soap box?
You were using pictures of aborted fetuses and handwaving off research that you didn't agree with.
Reasonable wasn't exactly your buzzword.
Oh sure, get me all wound up again. Although I must admit, I was rather impressed with myself, I don't think I got quite as uncivil as I have in the past dealing with Fundies and their self-righteous, sanctimonious bigotry.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem discussing any topic with a degree of civility. But when someone begins posting images like that to "prove" their point, the beast slips it's shackles and I turn into quite an uncivilized creature. If you can apply logic and reason, you may sway me. But the last time I saw images like that in real life, I sent six people to the hospital*.
* And I felt completely justified. My son was with me at the time. I had his mother take him elsewhere before he could see the images that the so-called good and moral people wanted every man, woman and child to see. By the way, no charges were ever filed against me, however the protesters were all charged with assault. Turn the other cheek, my sweet aunt fanny, I ain't Christian.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem discussing any topic with a degree of civility. But when someone begins posting images like that to "prove" their point, the beast slips it's shackles and I turn into quite an uncivilized creature. If you can apply logic and reason, you may sway me. But the last time I saw images like that in real life, I sent six people to the hospital*.
.
I suggest you read my posts up to that point then. If you put the images into the context of the entire thread, they are less shocking. I think you will also see that the poster I was engaged with at that time, didn't react strongly at all to them, and we were having a very nice debate. I wasn't getting hostile, or calling anyone names. I was just making my argument.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem discussing any topic with a degree of civility. But when someone begins posting images like that to "prove" their point,
Why would one get upset by pictures of something they support? Unless, I misunderstood what you said...
Why would one get upset by pictures of something they support? Unless, I misunderstood what you said...
I believe he is associating me with the kinds of people who normally are known for showing such images. If he had looked at my entire argument, I think he would see that I was one of the least extreme people on the thread. Dispite putting up such images I still said I would be okay with abortions prior to the 9th week. But that after that, or more specifically after a brain is present, I consider the fetus a person, and therefore entitled to its natual human right to live. I never disputed that women have their own natural rights by the way. They do. But not if those rights interfere with teh natural rights of other persons. This is why, I said abortion was okay before the 9th week.
Why would one get upset by pictures of something they support? Unless, I misunderstood what you said...
Kursk, I think you may have.
Kursk, I think you may have.
I apologize. I thought you said you got upset when people showed you pictures of abortion. My bad.
I apologize. I thought you said you got upset when people showed you pictures of abortion. My bad.
I do, very much so. It's sort of like the porn thing. Just because it's legal doesn't mean I have to watch it. And when people throw it in my face to make a political statement, I tend to get very irritated. I am not an advocate* of abortion, but it is legal and should be. But does that give someone else the right to make me see pictures of it?
*the line gets really hazy here. I don't condone or encourage abortion, but I see the evils of banning it. I have a "what's best for the people" approach.
I do, very much so. It's sort of like the porn thing. Just because it's legal doesn't mean I have to watch it. And when people throw it in my face to make a political statement, I tend to get very irritated. I am not an advocate* of abortion, but it is legal and should be. But does that give someone else the right to make me see pictures of it?
*the line gets really hazy here. I don't condone or encourage abortion, but I see the evils of banning it. I have a "what's best for the people" approach.
Yes. If you are going to allow something, then you should be able to handle images of it. I eat meat, but I don't object when people force me to look at an image of a cow being slaughtered, because I have taken the position that slaughtering cows is okay (by eating meat). Just like people who support our involvment in the middle east, but don't want to see images of dead soldiers, don't have any right to their position. If you can't handle an image of the consequences of your stance, then you haven't thought it through.
Feeling some amount of distaste for something does not preclude you from understanding it. Nor does it preclude you from supporting it.
This is my stance with a lot of things. I don't like them from a personal standpoint, but it's quite obvious that they need to exist (or be available) in our society. And even if I didn't think that they need to exist, I've got too much of a libertarian streak to try and tell people how to live their lives.
But I don't want to look at it. Nor do I need to.
So, would you send 6 people to the hospital if they showed you a picture of poop? I don't think so...
So, would you send 6 people to the hospital if they showed you a picture of poop? I don't think so...
If they were waving it at my young son and yelling at him about how evil it was?
I just might. That's crossing a line.
If they were waving it at my young son and yelling at him about how evil it was?
I just might. That's crossing a line.
Yah, getting that much in your face is a bit much. I walked past a recruiting office a couple of years ago and some idiots were screaming in everyones face and I felt like smacking a couple but, I have too much respect for the 1st Amendment.
So, would you send 6 people to the hospital if they showed you a picture of poop? I don't think so...
Personally, no. That's not my bag. ;)
Yah, getting that much in your face is a bit much. I walked past a recruiting office a couple of years ago and some idiots were screaming in everyones face and I felt like smacking a couple but, I have too much respect for the 1st Amendment.
I don't think I'd make a conscious decision to do anything like that, certainly. There's just a very visceral reaction to that sort of thing (which is exactly what they're going for) and that coupled with anger over the potential emotional scarring of a child might just be too much to take.
Doing that sort of thing would be regrettable, no doubt about it. But it certainly wouldn't be unimaginable.
Edit: I've gotten into some near-scuffles with Westboro Baptist Church at funerals, but nothing serious. When I go in knowing what is happening, I'm generally pretty good about keeping my head. It's the ambush-people-with-signs-and-hellfire version that could provoke a physical reaction.
Yes. If you are going to allow something, then you should be able to handle images of it.
LETS BAN SURGERY!
LETS BAN SURGERY!
AND POOPING!
AND SEX BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO AREN'T ATTRACTIVE!
AND POOPING!
AND SEX BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO AREN'T ATTRACTIVE!
OOOhhhh! Good one. Let me add War and Poverty and Hunger. I hate seeing images of that. Starving people are gross, and poor people are dirty. Don't get me started on how ugly war can be.
Back on topic:
Please ban the political stuff.
OOOhhhh! Good one. Let me add War and Poverty and Hunger. I hate seeing images of that. Starving people are gross, and poor people are dirty. Don't get me started on how ugly war can be.
We could also add childbirth to that list.
*shiver* Guuuhhh.
Edit: I've gotten into some near-scuffles with Westboro Baptist Church at funerals, but nothing serious. When I go in knowing what is happening, I'm generally pretty good about keeping my head. It's the ambush-people-with-signs-and-hellfire version that could provoke a physical reaction.
I was quite civil with them, to a point. When fists were raised in anger, I snapped. I also had the presence of mind enough to make sure that an ambulance was called and I waited, fuming, for the police to arrive. I don't know if I was more angry at them or at myself, but that's another story altogether, isn't it?
The fact that we live in a country where such things are possible is both enlightening and disheartening. Freedom means enduring these struggles periodically. To live without freedom is unimaginable, but living with it at times is unimaginable as well. Everyone will say that freedom isn't free, but few actually look to see what that cost is.
My son is seven years old now. Before he was born, the options of abortion and adoption were discussed. Please don't be so insulting as to assume that I never dealt with the consequences of my actions, or that abortion was never an issue that I grappled with. Weeks ticked by that we considered all the possible alternatives and in the end, I have a son.
Fortunately, he shows no signs of the temper that has plagued me for all my years. Perhaps one day he'll grow up and bring to the world the knowledge that you don't have to provoke shock, terror or a sense of horror to make a statement. Perhaps he'll one day be able to use words where others have failed to see that those are the best tools in their arsenal.
We could also add childbirth to that list.
*shiver* Guuuhhh.
I vote for a ban on eating, too. Have you ever seen some disgusting slob just toss oversized bite after oversized bite down his horrifyingly hideous gullet - all the while getting half of the too-big for a human to eat amount of food all over himself? It's positively revolting. I know not everyone eats this way but we better ban it. Just to be safe. ;)
Please ban the political stuff.
That would be a mistake. I'm constantly reminded of a quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." I don't know who said it, but it should be the cornerstone of our culture. Banning political speech in an open and off-topic board would be a travesty. I would agree that there are certain levels of decorum that should be followed, but outright banning is a mistake.
We could also add childbirth to that list.
*shiver* Guuuhhh.
Discuss it all you like, but no pictures, please.
The fact that we live in a country where such things are possible is both enlightening and disheartening. Freedom means enduring these struggles periodically. To live without freedom is unimaginable, but living with it at times is unimaginable as well. Everyone will say that freedom isn't free, but few actually look to see what that cost is.
I had a professor tell me once;
"Everybody's on board when it's about protecting their own freedoms. It's everyone else's freedoms that they're ok with restricting."
Being free means putting up with other people being free too. That's something that gets lost on a lot of people.
Title pretty much says it all. Considering that we're now actually losing members because of personal, virtiolic attacks based on political points of view
In 2004 we lost members cos their avatars were changed to My Little Pony for April Fools Day.
You can never please everybody. Only when it disrupts the community as a whole should it be considered an serious issue.
Personal attacks, not matter what the source, are unacceptable and should be dealt with individually.
First, I would like to think a few posters in this thread for what seems to be an active attempt to illustrate the very problems to which I was referring in the political threads. It was an effective demonstration and I would like to thank each poster involved for their efforts in dramatic display.
Second, please keep in mind that this forum is about WotC and its products and not actually an open forum. Remember, we're all here as part of Wizard's first amendment rights, and not our own. If they choose to lock down political discussions again, there's no real ban as, as was elsewhere stated, there are many other places to go to discuss politics.
Being free means putting up with other people being free too. That's something that gets lost on a lot of people.
Agreed. Sounds like you had a pretty good education there.
Second, please keep in mind that this forum is about WotC and its products and not actually an open forum. Remember, we're all here as part of Wizard's first amendment rights, and not our own. If they choose to lock down political discussions again, there's no real ban as, as was elsewhere stated, there are many other places to go to discuss politics.
An excellent point. However, it does say on the board that the one we're on at the moment is off-topic and not solely for discussing the game itself. Being that these boards are here to promote a sense of community among those that purchase their products, I would hope that WotC would consider the idea of censorship deplorable.
LETS BAN SURGERY!
But I don't think anyone would object, at least not with the same level of intensity, if I showed some images of heart surgery to illustrate what we were talking about.
I had a professor tell me once;
"Everybody's on board when it's about protecting their own freedoms. It's everyone else's freedoms that they're ok with restricting."
Being free means putting up with other people being free too. That's something that gets lost on a lot of people.
You are missing the point. Your freedom stops when it interferes with another person's freedom. The heart of the debate was whether this could be applied to abortion if a fetus is recognized as a person. Just like you can do whatever you want until you decide to kill or steal. My argument was not about away freedom from people because of their gender or my relgiion. It was about protecting the freedom of all people.
An excellent point. However, it does say on the board that the one we're on at the moment is off-topic and not solely for discussing the game itself. Being that these boards are here to promote a sense of community among those that purchase their products, I would hope that WotC would consider the idea of censorship deplorable.
How about a compromise then. Under Off Topic we have a Politics board? Maybe an Entertainment board maybe an irreverent board?
How about a compromise then. Under Off Topic we have a Politics board? Maybe an Entertainment board maybe an irreverent board?
That would go a great distance towards creating the sense of community that I've always felt was lacking in our particular niche.
Okay, a few points.
First, I would like to think a few posters in this thread for what seems to be an active attempt to illustrate the very problems to which I was referring in the political threads.
I'm still waiting for a list of people who left, which was the stated rational for banning the threads...
I'm still waiting for a list of people who left, which was the stated rational for banning the threads...
I'm kind of curious myself.
Title pretty much says it all. Considering that we're now actually losing members because of personal, virtiolic attacks based on political points of view (well beyond what the CoC should ever allow), and that nearly all of the warnings of late have been politically-related - should it be considered time to give up the experiment and go back to blocking political speech outright as a CoC violation?
The simple answer, just because people want to leave is no reason to ban a topic. There is a good reason to temp ban a topic when people stop discussing and simply start yelling and making personal attacks at each other. The classic example of this was the katana controversy.
If we look at the McCain and D&D thread we see a problem from early on. The problem has nothing to do with politics in general. The problem was that the thread started getting off topic after the first few pages. It became a rambling thread of diversions, when one didn’t want to address the current issue they threw up a slightly different complaint as a diversion. The thread should have died a natural death there but it didn’t and eventually it got thread-jacked by the abortion issue.
Now frankly the abortion issue needs to be banned because it meets the same problem that the katana controversy had. There are extreme sides and they aren’t even remotely going to give the other side credit. And we come to the fact that this has almost nothing to do with D&D.
I'm kind of curious myself.
I have a feeling it isn't going to be forthcoming. I could be wrong though...
I missed an abortion thread, and people got banned?
Either banned or quit the boards according to TFVanguard, I can't comment on the veracity of that statement as no evidence has been offered.
Agreed. Sounds like you had a pretty good education there.
I like to think so.
Unfortunately, having people willing to put in the time to teach you to be circumspect leads to a lot of frustration later on when you're trying to find the same quality in others...
Unfortunately, having people willing to put in the time to teach you to be circumspect leads to a lot of frustration later on when you're trying to find the same quality in others...
Trust me, I know that feeling.
The simple answer, just because people want to leave is no reason to ban a topic. There is a good reason to temp ban a topic when people stop discussing and simply start yelling and making personal attacks at each other. The classic example of this was the katana controversy.
If we look at the McCain and D&D thread we see a problem from early on. The problem has nothing to do with politics in general. The problem was that the thread started getting off topic after the first few pages. It became a rambling thread of diversions, when one didn’t want to address the current issue they threw up a slightly different complaint as a diversion. The thread should have died a natural death there but it didn’t and eventually it got thread-jacked by the abortion issue.
Now frankly the abortion issue needs to be banned because it meets the same problem that the katana controversy had. There are extreme sides and they aren’t even remotely going to give the other side credit. And we come to the fact that this has almost nothing to do with D&D.
While I would normally agree with you about the part where people don't even acknowledge the other side, this was a slightly unusual discussion. To me at least, it seemed like there was some definite give and take and the sides weren't what is usually 'expected' in the abortion debate. Otherwise I wouldn't have said anything.
I missed an abortion thread, and people got banned?
McCain & D&D thread, pages 7-10.
I like to think so.
Unfortunately, having people willing to put in the time to teach you to be circumspect leads to a lot of frustration later on when you're trying to find the same quality in others...
Not to be harsh, but you may want to consider taking some logic and ethics courses, so you can understand why your statement had no bearing on the abortion debate we were having. And so you can understand that of the two posters debating me, you were the only one not making reasoned arguments, and who consistently missed misunderstood what was being argued, or resorted to fallacious reasoning to make points.
While I would normally agree with you about the part where people don't even acknowledge the other side, this was a slightly unusual discussion. To me at least, it seemed like there was some definite give and take and the sides weren't what is usually 'expected' in the abortion debate. Otherwise I wouldn't have said anything.
.
I think Kistra deserves a cookie for her performance in the debate. I felt she was one of the few people who actually bothered to read what I was posting, and to think about what I said before making her own well thought out responses. Kudos.
I think Kistra deserves a cookie for her performance in the debate. I felt she was one of the few people who actually bothered to read what I was posting, and to think about what I said before making her own well thought out responses. Kudos.
Thank you.
No. I did provide links, and they backed up my claim that around nine months a brain is present. Kistra did not object to this. We were not even really arguing over that, we were just trying to establish a foundation we both agreed on in order to move forward.
I really don't want to restart the debate here, but please don't mischaracterize what I said. First I think you mean 9 weeks. Second, please refer to post 231 if you think I didn't object to your statement.
True as that may be, do you think by banning it we will be any better off? Politics will rear it's ugly head, banned or not. The question is, will it be more virulent and vitriolic in it's flare-ups if it's banned? I would say leave the politics in threads specifically created for it and that way you can channel the beast and allow for it to run it's course without it affecting the other threads.
Is it civil? No. Will it help to prevent things popping up where they don't belong? Possibly...
Yes, we will be better off.
The flare-ups will be significantly less damaging if it is banned.
There is no way to separate the threads other than by creating a completely separate forum in a separate location.
I banned real world politics and religion, even for comparisons on a gaming list. I got two or three rabid threats, and that was it. About 2-3 times a year after that someone would post something and I would have to ask it be stopped. Nobody complained, and indeed most people apologized. All it took was having the rules and making simple requests.
I have been on another list that had to split into a gaming list and a political flame list because of the flame wars. Even then the political list wound up with several bannings for excessive behavior.
I am on another list that was formed specifically because of disorder on other lists, and with an absolute requirement of civility.
The only way to control such things is to set and enforce absolute rules with bans for repeat offenses. If people absolutely need a place to flame other gamers over politics and religion then someone should set up a private message forum for that, and deal with the issues themselves. One key factor will be checking for and deleting anything that is libelous, as the owner of said forum will be responsible for such materials.
Thank you.
I really don't want to restart the debate here, but please don't mischaracterize what I said. First I think you mean 9 weeks. Second, please refer to post 231 if you think I didn't object to your statement.
I did mean nine weeks. And I was under the impression we both agreed that a brain was present, but not fully developed, by nine weeks (in general). I never said you didn't object to my statements. But I thought it was clear we were tyring to arrive at the same understanding. I never claimed to be a doctor or a biologist. I certainly am open to the idea that the timeline in my medical book is wrong. It simply states that by the 9th week the brain is present. Clearly that could mean a great many things. I was simply posting other timelines I found online for free, not the timeline from my Mayo Clinic handbook that I was actually using.
Either way, my essential point was that you recognized the argument I was making. That if a fetus is recognized as a person sometime during the pregnancy, it has natural rights that should be protected. Batshido failed to understand my argument. You didn't agree with my conclusions. But you were able to understand what i was saying, and you knew how to respond.
Honestly post 231 had lots of data posted, but not enough edititorial for me to understand your exact point.
I did find this link on the development of the brain in the fetus last night after the debate. It has been helpful:
http://www.brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
Let members leave, new members will showup anyway. That's how forums work..
More importantly I like having political discussion, not that I'm some heavy political pugnent, but it helps me discern who I do and don't want to game with.
Life would be so much easier if people were like a videogame and their aura glew a different color depending on their political alignment.
Either banned or quit the boards according to TFVanguard, I can't comment on the veracity of that statement as no evidence has been offered.
And I'm not going to give any, since it's - frankly - the business of no one here who exactly was driven off, who felt put off, how many were, or how I found out, or where they bought the equipment, and what kind of cookies they ate, and so on. It was not that relevent to the question at hand.
And I'm not going to give any, since it's - frankly - the business of no one here who exactly was driven off, who felt put off, how many were, or how I found out, or where they bought the equipment, and what kind of cookies they ate, and so on. It was not that relevent to the question at hand.
The 1st sentence of your original post pretty much says it all.
Seems like it is not only relevant, it was the crux of your post and argument. Since you offer NO data to back up your position, you don't have a valid position...
Nichomachean, I think you won the arguement. Don't let the people here get you down, you obvisouly know what your talking about, unlike the other people here.
Appreciated.
You mean you don't attack what people write? That's the point of a debate. The problem is the tone becomes negative and soon everything but the kitchen sink get's thrown in and the civil debate becomes a brawl.
The attacks become personal. I have no problems with attacking what is written. Too often the attacks move from the discussion to the individual. If people would step back from their keyboards many of the flames would die down in all kinds of threads.
Seems like it is not only relevant, it was the crux of your post and argument. Since you offer NO data to back up your position, you don't have a valid position...
I asked a question, I haven't decided on a position. I gave no conclusion to any supposition, therefore no data needed.
I'm not sure how you can 'win' against me when I haven't exactly stuck my next out.
Me discussing religion with a layperson would be like a physicist arguing theoretical physics with a chemist.
You've jumped to a conclusion that we're all uneducated when it comes to religion, friend.
Personal Attacks.
Now I got those even when I was Posting ideas on economics rules for use in the D&D game - frankly they were down right nasty.
Considering that we're now actually losing members because of personal, virtiolic attacks based onpolitical points of view[My Little Pony preferences] (well beyond what the CoC should ever allow)
Down with My Little Pony threads!
Now I got those even when I was Posting ideas on economics rules for use in the D&D game - frankly they were down right nasty.
Nowhere near as nasty as the personal attacks you kept making on anyone who disagreed with the least element of one of your posts.
In fact I've participated in several threads here and haven't been personally attacked or anything like that.
From what I've seen, this place is in far better shape than General Discussion (and even the FR forum) which is actually about D&D.
Just my 2cp.
EDIT: And as far as "losing members" goes, GD lost me because of all the vitriol and attacking in that forum. In fact the state of GD is largely how you guys gained me. :P
You've jumped to a conclusion that we're all uneducated when it comes to religion, friend.
No, that was in reference to EVRY type of religious discussion, not just here.
It's not just here, it's everywhere. It's not so much an assumption that no one knows as much so much as an "I don't want to risk coming off as a pedantic ass." [pedantic rant] Even in religion classes (I'm talking 300 level courses) I've had people look at me weird when I point out that you cannot, in an academic setting, use one Gospel to support a message from another. Different authorship and target audiences. Heck, even the same stories are used in subtle, but different ways between the Synoptic Gospels. Most people just don't get that, so it saves everyone time, trouble, and, generally speaking, a lot of anguish to just not go into it. [/pedantic rant]
PS: Please, please, if you wish to discuss any or all of the above, let's keep it in PMs. I don't want to clog up the boards or get anyone banned, and I'm not opposed to a PM based discussion of the above if it can be kept civil.
EDIT: I hear you squarecircle. That's why I've spent most of my time over here. Much weirder and more civil. Though the food topics always seem to hit the top few posts whenever I'm hungry. Damn you WotC and trying to keep me fat and indoors. Your monopoly on my time shall end! I shall think of... Football! Or maybe baseball... Possibly golf...Maybe? Hey, where'd that pizza topic go?
That would be a mistake. I'm constantly reminded of a quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." I don't know who said it, but it should be the cornerstone of our culture.
I believe that was Voltaire. Great man, barring the suspicion that he might have taken credit for work done by
I'm not sure banning politics is the answer, though the boards in general could use moderation.
Indeed. If it can be said that there's a problem here, it would be the same half-dozen folks threadjacking anything remotely controversial and running the discussion off the rails.
The attacks become personal. I have no problems with attacking what is written. Too often the attacks move from the discussion to the individual. If people would step back from their keyboards many of the flames would die down in all kinds of threads.
This is definitely true. I can give you a number of reasons for this, including the lack of non verbal channels of communication in text based message systems to the annomyous factor that makes us all either want to push buttons or attack back blindly when our own buttons are pushed.
Remember that personal doesn't always mean attacking the poster. I have seen this on other sites as well (I'll just mention Gather dot com in passing as an example) where most of the political discussions are merely personal attacks against the candidates, or where abortion issues typically revolve into personal attacks against either the pre-born or the woman with difficult choices.
If discussions can go on with civil doscourse, more power to them. When anything starts getting personal and nasty, at the very least a time out is in order.
However, it's also true that there are other forums to discuss politics and all the junk that goes with it.
I just feel that more stringent enforcement of the CoC is called for as far as people being rude to one another. IMHO when a person has a chance to stand back and decide what to say and they're still rude, they should just be kicked out.
Sure, at the end, there wouldn't be as many of us, but we could debate opinions and ideas in relative peace.
Thanks!