Hudlin Entertainment Forum

Politics => Vox Populi => Topic started by: Lion on November 23, 2006, 01:47:44 pm

Title: Civilized Debate
Post by: Lion on November 23, 2006, 01:47:44 pm
Let me begin this by posing a question. What two subjects should you avoid discussing in polite company? The answer? Politics and Religion.

In general, I hate hate HATE discussing the two of them. Why? Because it overlaps strongly with personal beliefs and cultural values and people get STRONGLY emotionally invested in their discussions. Why wouldn't they? They are essentially expressing who they are and subjecting their own personal beliefs to the judgment of others who may or may not express their same values. It takes NOTHING for one person to send (or get) the wrong message and then it degenerates into a mudslinging festival with articles flying galore. And don't make the mistake of playing devil's advocate, otherwise you magically find that others have married you to the argument... or made personal judgments about you because you don't agree with them or share their perspective.

When we are looking at a topic such as Israel and Palestine where politics and religion are deeply intertwined to where you can't separate it, then there are people who are going to feel strongly. VERY strongly. And you know what? That's okay... but you have to keep your cool and you have to make your points WITHOUT slamming the character or perspective of the other person. In a sense... you HAVE to stay polite about it. If you don't agree, then put simply, just agree to disagree and be done with it. Don't assign ulterior motives. Don't make assumptions about other people. Chances are that you don't know that other person nearly as well as you think. And for heaven's sake, don't allow this to travel into other forums or even other topics. The number one rule of hanging out in the Vox Populi board should be that IT SHOULD STAY THERE.

I won't mince words. I requested the General discussion forum. I did not want to touch this forum with a ten foot pole. I don't want to read through the topics and I don't want to read through the articles and place my mind inside the minds of different people. It's not that I can't do it. It's that I generally don't wish to do it. And then people just generally skirt the line of a flame. It's not just one person but a number of people. I DON'T want this thread to become a mudslinging fest or a case of "He said, she said." I'm not looking at yet another discussion of the Middle east or international politics. I'm looking at what we - and I am talking about EVERYBODY - can do to make this a somewhat more civil place to hang out. A few thoughts first...


1.) We are not all the same... and that is a good thing.

There are those of us with differing or even opposing religious beliefs, cultural values, political leanings, personal experiences, etc. that we bring to the table. If we all believed the same way and made similar interpretations, then what NEED would there be to debate anything? Why would we have to "test" our notions, if everyone else believes the same way? And at the same time that allows us to be exposed to information that either supports (or negates) our opinions to help "fill in" our beliefs.

We shouldn't ALL be Black, Democrat, Protestant, middle-class males, all who grew up the same way. And at the same time, we should be sure that while we uphold our own beliefs, we should not alienate those who believe differently or come from different backgrounds.

2.) You aren't going to change anyone else's opinion or change who they are.

Kami and Mike are Republicans, for instance. They have their own reasons for voting and believing the way they do. It is NOT your (or my) right to make personal assumptions against them because they prefer red over blue. We should accept their reasons as THEIR reasons and leave it as that. It is not anyone's charge to convert another to your personal belief or them to ours.

Did Jesus walk into a village with a gaggle of armed disciples, shooting beams from his eyes, and say "All right you all, bow down and worship me or Daddy's going to ship all your asses to the basement for some tough tanning"? (No offense meant to those who don't believe that way. I'm just using this as an example.) If he had, do you think people would have accepted his argument for the right reason? The delivery of the argument is more important than the argument itself.

3.) Attack the argument, not the person. Don't overgeneralize.

The two are not the same. What if someone is playing devil's advocate? What if someone just completely disagrees with you on that one subject area. Keep it all in context. The debate is won by logic, not the person who hits the hardest and lowest. This is a debate forum, not a "Yo' momma" contest.

What does it mean when someone sympathizes/agrees with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Simple. It means that person thinks Israel's force is justified in that conflict. It does not mean he/she is anti-Arab, pro-U.S., anti-Muslim, practices voodoo, or anything else. It does not mean he/she approved of the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. You cannot make an assumption that a person who believes one way about a specific subject will in turn believe this way about another subject altogether. That's like saying that because I'm a Black male, I believe all police are racist pigs out to lynch me. There is a tendency to generalize opinions, but you cannot extend that to people.

4.) He's DEAD, Jim.

If the debate is not going anywhere, then for heaven's sake STOP. You need to look at what the PURPOSE of the argument is. If you aren't bringing new facts to light or responding (civilly) to arguments expressed by others, then what the hell are you doing? You're just trying to see whose is bigger. When it gets to this point, HANG IT UP. Walk away from it and DON'T GO BACK. Simple as that. No person can argue with himself.

And when the argument is pronounced dead, KEEP IT DEAD. Don't pick up a dead argument about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a thread about Pam Grier. If the horse is beaten to death, then all that's going to happen next is that you are going to have smelly blood and dead flesh all over your shoes. LET IT GO.

5.) The moment you insult your audience, you lose ALL credibility.

For real. Why the hell would I want to listen to you when you've called me a moron? You have already established that you have no respect for me or my opinion. So, why should I take anything you say seriously?

Now, I'd like to open up this particular thread for discussion. What are some things that we members as a whole can do while participating to keep a positive atmosphere here?

NO venting about other people. NO insulting. NO hijacking the thread, unless it's by Sam Wilson with pictures of a beautiful scantily-clad women and even THEN, every picture must be accompanied by something relative to the topic at hand. What are some things that WE AS A WHOLE can keep in mind while participating in discussion here?
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Sam Wilson on November 23, 2006, 02:29:25 pm
Well put brother lion, well put.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on November 23, 2006, 05:41:50 pm
(http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/opus/site_images/hallelujah.jpg)

Lion, I'm bowing to you.

This sounds like a GREAT PLAN!  I'm ON BOARD with you 100%.  With or without peace pipes, on a going forward basis everything you are saying makes perfect sense and has the potential to turn even Vox Populi into a civil place! 

It will be nice to share ideas (time permitting) without the clutch in the stomach that a personal attack is inevitable.  I'm sure that feeling is shared by everyone.  I'm not pointing fingers here ... there is planty of blame to go around. 

That's why, without lookin' back, on a going forward basis ... I'm lookin' forward to our entry into the Gan Eden of Vox Populi!   ;)

P.S. Reginald better give you something for this.  Like VIP tickets to any and all BET Celebrity Events.  Because your task sounds like one big pain in the "arse" (as Wise Son would say). 
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Lion on November 23, 2006, 05:47:17 pm
I made this into a sticky. (Well... I *think* I did.) I would just like for everyone to sit back and think about what type of things everyone can do. If we can come to a consensus about how to go about debating and work from there, I think that could change the entire "mood" of the Vox Populi and make it more positive for everyone - regardless of political/ideological slant - to hang out.

I want to hear from everyone what their ideas are. Rolli... Michael... Curtis... Sam... Bluezulu... Kami... Reggie... Redjack... everyone. We need a variety of suggestions here from all you opinionated people out there. Note that I'm saying suggestions. Ideally, I'm looking at developing a framework from where we can lay some ground rules particular to the Vox Populi forum. What constitutes "fighting fair"? What can all we HEFFAS do when we participate here to make sure that we balance respect for others with freedom of expression?
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Sam Wilson on November 23, 2006, 05:54:45 pm
I think first and for most, no personal attacks.  No one is "less than" for what they believe in, but to go with that, if you general view is everyone else is "less than" to you than maybe you should tread lightly?  Ghah.  I dunno, Curtis or Wise Son probably have a better way of saying that...
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Wise Son on November 24, 2006, 01:51:38 am
This is a good replacement for Cage's old 'Civility' thrad from HEF1.0. I can't say I've never gotten annoyed at people talking crap online, especially if I'm trying to argue rationally. Thing is, if someone's just talking crap, you kind of lose as soon as you sart talking to them. But yeah, attack the idea, and if they keep trying to make it personal, try to ignore them. An 'ignore' button would be damn useful. Jenn keeps (or kept) saying that there were more up-to-date versions of the software for this board, so maybe one of them would allow that.

Lion, I know you're not in charge of that, but if you have a chance to suggest it to the admins, it couldn't hurt.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: stanleyballard on November 24, 2006, 06:50:08 am
IAWWS
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on November 24, 2006, 08:09:32 am
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on November 24, 2006, 08:18:39 am
An 'ignore' button would be damn useful. Jenn keeps (or kept) saying that there were more up-to-date versions of the software for this board, so maybe one of them would allow that.

Lion, I know you're not in charge of that, but if you have a chance to suggest it to the admins, it couldn't hurt.

As Jenn said, there is a version 1.0.9 of Simple Machines Forum (we're running 1.0.5).  Upon perusing the features (http://www.simplemachines.org/about/features.php) for SMF 1.1, I did not see an "Ignore" function or its equivalent.  Too bad.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: zulu801 on November 24, 2006, 08:24:52 am
Remove the Politics (Vox Populi) from HEF.  Religion talk also.  Comparison and contrast of Wakanda religion and real life religion should not be discuss either.   Let current members w/ certain member level take a vote and our results will be sent to the mod and RH.  Political conversation for the past 2 yrs, many many moments, were not civil and it has been addressed numerous times.  Therefore, the talk of politics should not be able to continue to be addressed on a "comic book board".  It seems politics topics / talk  have caused a dark veil placed on the board.

Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Francisco on November 24, 2006, 08:42:12 am
I respectfully disagree with that suggestion. To do, so would be a big failure from our part and would send the wrong message. We are all adults for god’s sake. We just have to act like it. The solution is not to forbid those subjects but to ban (erasing IP address) whoever starts “flaming” instead of discussing them like an adult.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: KamiKaZee on November 24, 2006, 08:56:40 am


NO debating cuz what I say goes(http://www.madamchaton.com/whip.gif) and more fun forum games. Please.


Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on November 24, 2006, 09:05:28 am
I agree with Francisco.  Also, simply removing Vox Populi will just push political discussion into other forums.  Members who do not wish to participate in political discussions can avoid Vox Populi.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on November 24, 2006, 09:12:21 am
Well Zulu, we did set up a Vox Populi section, so that the politics discussions would not infect the "General Discussion" section.  That should be a suitable solution, if general standards of civility are followed.  The bottom line is don't make it personal.  Here are some more specific ideas:

1.  Name calling should be forbidden.  Period.  Never say, "You are a racist, you are a bigot, you are a X,Y,Z, ... etc."  If someone says something that you think is racist, bigoted, whatever ... attack the idea, not the person.  But be careful to respond to a direct quote.  Along the same lines we've seen people refer to other's sexual practices, which while not quite as offensive, becuase they are such obviously silly insults, but still guys and gals ... errrr.

2.  Recharacterizations of the other person's position should be forbidden.  Because this usually leads to distortion, and distortion that is usually meant as an insult.  It is done to upset the other board member and to provoke a personal fight.  The word 'you' should infrequently be used in a post.  Maybe rarely, if one person is really trying to understand what another person is saying, it is OK.  But often we've seen in a personal attack one poster say to another, "You've said X [am offensive thing]" when in fact the person never said X.  The safest thing is to let people speak for themselves.  We have a "quote" mechanism that allows you to copy the exact words another person has said, if you wish to respond to those words.  

3.  Never fabricate quotes allegedly said by another person.  At times we've seen a member quote another member, and the alleged quote is wholly fabricated.  This is done with the intention of personally attacking the character of the other board member.

4.  Don't "demand" that another board member respond to you.  If someone wants to respond, they will.  If they don't, they won't.  Sometimes a person decides not to respond NOT because you've levied an overwhelming argument, but rather because they find you to be a pain in the butt not worth dealing with.  Related to this, don't gloat that someone did not respond to your post.  

5.  It is not about being the "winner" -- related to the above, sometimes refusal of others to respond to you actually demonstrates that you are a loser that nobody wants to talk to.

6.  Don't insist on having the last word.  This drags on arguments interminably.  Again, the person who has the last word is NOT the "winner" -- just as often people view him/her as the opposite.

7.  Don't be nasty.  This includes not impugning other people’s motives, using snide and/or catty remarks, and the like.

These are general principles.  But ... What do we do where someone is repeatedly expressing hateful speech that goes over the top?  Perhaps that is the role of an active moderator, to step in, perhaps with a PM to the person.  Though this should not be used to "ban" controversial topics.  This requires some sensitivity and insight on the part of the moderator, in understanding there is a broad range of viewpoints on issues.  That said, there are some things that do rise to the level of hate speech, and those do need to be addressed when they do arise.  In some cases the person making the offensive remarks may not even realize what he/she is doing.  In other cases it may reflect misinterpretation.  However, in a very very few instances Lion may be forced to confront the real deal.

Finally, what are the consequences for repeated offensive conduct?  That a person’s screen name is banned, and they are allowed to then re-register under a new screen name?  What kind of sanction is that?  This is not really Lion's role, but that of the board Administrator with Lion's input.  Something more effective needs to be done -- like banning the person's IP Address.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Lion on November 24, 2006, 10:19:40 am
It's one thing when the insult is cut and dry, but it kind of gets into a grey area when we start replying to "implications" - things not directly said but definitely implied. Of course, "implication" is a matter of perspective. One person might read more into a quote than what the original person had meant or intended. That's one thing that's very hard to wade through when we are looking at something verbally versus hearing it. Sarcasm and inflections aren't always understood.

Perhaps when something strikes a nerve or rubs us the wrong way, instead of a comeback, we should first ask for clarification... and give how we are interpreting a direct quote and ask if we are spot on. I might be asking for trouble, there, but a lot of what I've seen is not directly responding to what someone has actually said. That's a VERY easy thing to do in discussing these type of controversial subjects. Basically... how can we rephrase the subjective into the objective?

"Did you mean to say 'A' as in 'rephrase of A' or did you mean 'something else'?"

"No... I meant 'another rephrase of A'..."

"Okay... Now I'm getting you. Well, this is what I think..."

Damn it... Where's bluezulu when we need him? I'd think his background would be perfect, since we're touching lightly on conflict resolution...

ADDENDUM:

P.S. Reginald better give you something for this. Like VIP tickets to any and all BET Celebrity Events. Because your task sounds like one big pain in the "arse" (as Wise Son would say).

Just noticed this. Nope... I'm doing this because I genuinely like hanging out on this board and haven't liked the direction it's been taking lately. I'm thinking we're beginning to turn things around a bit. This is definitely a step in the right direction, provided my internet stays on!

Though, I do have to admit... that would be a nice incentive! I'll just settle for being the local HEF superhero.

Damn it... Now I've hijacked my own thread. *grumbles* Oh... wait... I'll copy and paste it into my previous post. Problem solved.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: extreme on November 24, 2006, 10:39:57 am
lion, think about this one:

on anoher post, rollo tomasi made an hypothetical  question: ''how would you react if the israel army kills all your family?'', i anwered that in that case i would try to kill as many israeli soldiers as i could, even blowing myself off at the end of my attack, of my revenge.
that wa an hypotetical answer to an hypotetical question.

and what did you do??

you banned me.

i really don't think you are prepared to be a good moderator, you sometimes are very biased.

i imagine you if you were at the congress, you would censorship movies like ''kill bill '' or death wish''.
i mean, following your logic and censorship agains an hypothetical anwer that i gave in that thread.


you cannot distinguish what's hypotetical and what's real. and you put those two different levels in the same level.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Lion on November 24, 2006, 11:07:14 am
Actually... No, I didn't ban you. If I had banned you, I would have done an IP ban so you couldn't return under a different handle. In fact, during the time you were banned, I wasn't even on this site. I didn't have internet access until Wednesday, November 22. So, someone else banned you. And I'm pretty sure the reason someone else banned you had more to do with your tendency to flame others than it had to do with your response to the hypothetical question. Now, I'm not prepared to say that indeed is the case as there might have been other mitigating circumstances I am not aware of. I recall a couple of e-mails about someone receiving death threats or something like that... Or maybe I'm thinking about something else... Either way, I cannot claim responsibility.

That said, Guido... (You don't mind if I call you Guido, do you?) I think that's moving us a bit away from the topic at hand, which is suggestions for how all of us as participants in this forum can make the Vox Populi forum a better place to hang out. I want to get away from pointing out and slamming specific people and get more toward building a concensus on how we should go about debating, ensuring that we have a balance between freedom of expression and respect for alternate opinions and the people who express them.

Do you have any such ideas?
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: extreme on November 24, 2006, 12:33:11 pm
now, you are saying with this point that: do not attack charles manson, attack his ideas?? do not attack osama bin laden, attack his ideas??, don't attack a pedophile, attack his ideas??
that's pretty ridiculous, world leaders now , the ones that some people here so proudly supports and defends ( bush, or the prime minister of israel ) are the perfect example that people attacks the persons,not the ideas.




Edited by Lion: Selective Trimming to keep on topic.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on November 24, 2006, 01:18:53 pm
Please, let's not hijack this thread with Guido posts.  Here is a place to do that:
http://hudlinentertainment.com/smf/index.php?topic=918.0
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on November 24, 2006, 01:21:32 pm
It's one thing when the insult is cut and dry, but it kind of gets into a grey area when we start replying to "implications" - things not directly said but definitely implied. Of course, "implication" is a matter of perspective. One person might read more into a quote than what the original person had meant or intended. That's one thing that's very hard to wade through when we are looking at something verbally versus hearing it. Sarcasm and inflections aren't always understood.

Perhaps when something strikes a nerve or rubs us the wrong way, instead of a comeback, we should first ask for clarification... and give how we are interpreting a direct quote and ask if we are spot on. I might be asking for trouble, there, but a lot of what I've seen is not directly responding to what someone has actually said. That's a VERY easy thing to do in discussing these type of controversial subjects. Basically... how can we rephrase the subjective into the objective?

"Did you mean to say 'A' as in 'rephrase of A' or did you mean 'something else'?"

"No... I meant 'another rephrase of A'..."

"Okay... Now I'm getting you. Well, this is what I think..."

Damn it... Where's bluezulu when we need him? I'd think his background would be perfect, since we're touching lightly on conflict resolution...
This is what I was getting at with the "Seek to understand, then seek to be understood."  Your explanation is much less cryptic.  Thanks for clarifying and providing examples, Lion.  I think you're right about the conflict resolution bit.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on November 24, 2006, 01:33:05 pm
Yes, I agree with you guys.  That is the civil way to do it ... to seek clarification.  And once that clarification is given, to accept it at face value (at least in writing on the forum ... even if in your heart of hearts you retain doubts).
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Sam Wilson on November 24, 2006, 02:00:05 pm
Please, let's not hijack this thread with Guido posts.  Here is a place to do that:
[url]http://hudlinentertainment.com/smf/index.php?topic=918.0[/url]


done. Thanks curtis.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Lion on November 24, 2006, 02:23:39 pm
To Guido: I'm awaiting your message. Just keep in mind that at this point, whatever happens is out of my hands. There is nothing I can do at this point in respect to your specific situation.

I hope the rest of you don't mind, but I've trimmed the "nonessential" replies off the thread so we can stick more closely to the matter at hand. I really think for the sake of this discussion we need to stick as close to topic as we can. Let's look less at the "he saids" and "I was onlys" and dredging up the past and look more at what we all can do to make this a better place.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on November 24, 2006, 02:35:31 pm
I guess it needs pointing out ... even though it is obviouis to just about everyone ... that when we are talking about avoiding criticism of a person, we are NOT talking about public figures.  Public figures (well, other than Reginald Hudlin maybe) are fair game.  What we are talking about is avoiding personal insults and vile accusations levied against fellow HEF members.  To maintain civility on the Forum.

I hope this post clarifies any confusion that anyone might have had on that point.  Though frankly, I don't think the point was all that confusing.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Lion on November 24, 2006, 02:38:05 pm
now, you are saying with this point that: do not attack charles manson, attack his ideas?? do not attack osama bin laden, attack his ideas??, don't attack a pedophile, attack his ideas??
that's pretty ridiculous, world leaders now , the ones that some people here so proudly supports and defends ( bush, or the prime minister of israel ) are the perfect example that people attacks the persons,not the ideas.


You bring up a point, here. I'd say people such as Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden, Pedophiles, Ahmadinejad (sp), etc. are fair game. Why? Because they are for the most part public figures who are not members of the board. (I would hope there aren't any pedophiles on the board, but that is beside the point.) We aren't having direct conversations with them.

Even so, I'm looking at members of this board. If Sam is having a conversation with Curtis, for instance, it would make more sense for Sam to poke holes in Curtis' argument than it would be for Sam to say Curtis should shut his damn pie-hole because he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. He can do that by saying "Well, Curtis, I don't see how this works because yaddayaddayadda..." It's a completely different response from saying "GEEZE, Curtis... What's wrong? You don't know the Constitution? Oh that's right... You can't read. Well, if you HAD read it, it would say..." Response 1 doesn't personalize it. Response 2 slams Curtis and equates him with the argument. There's a HUGE difference.

(I'm just using Sam and Curtis as examples because both of them are nearby.)

Addendum: DANG!!!! Michael beat me to the punch!
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on November 24, 2006, 02:48:04 pm
Even so, I'm looking at members of this board. If Sam is having a conversation with Curtis, for instance, it would make more sense for Sam to poke holes in Curtis' argument than it would be for Sam to say Curtis should shut his damn pie-hole because he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. He can do that by saying "Well, Curtis, I don't see how this works because yaddayaddayadda..." It's a completely different response from saying "GEEZE, Curtis... What's wrong? You don't know the Constitution? Oh that's right... You can't read. Well, if you HAD read it, it would say..." Response 1 doesn't personalize it. Response 2 slams Curtis and equates him with the argument. There's a HUGE difference.
(I'm just using Sam and Curtis as examples because both of them are nearby.)

Hahaha ... "Sam" and "Curtis."  Lion, all I can say is that you are the consummate diplomat!   ;D
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: extreme on November 24, 2006, 05:19:23 pm
To Guido: I'm awaiting your message.

i allready send you the message man!! take care
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: karaszero on November 26, 2006, 05:03:08 pm
First let me say to everyone I hope you all had a Happy and safe Holiday with your loved ones! I have read the previous posts and agree with the majority of proposals for going forward However, before we go forward the previous drama should be discussed (insofar as) what will the outcome of that be? Prior to me making my comments I read with rage the bold insults which were spread all over the site what began as a 2 party fight ended with an all out assault on DECENT people and I find it difficult to have integrity or plain old common courtesy for one another on this site without decisive actions being taken to remove Guido, extreme, mosotto, or whoever he chooses to call himself. It is never difficult for  MATURE MEN and WOMAN to have intelligent conversations,but it is absolutely ridiculous to fly off the handle everytime anyone disagrees with you that makes any meaningful dialogue impossible so to me the bigger question is one of maturity.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Jenn on November 26, 2006, 05:14:12 pm
I'm getting a little sick of this "what started out between two people" crap. If one person attacks another person repeatedly, the target of said attack does not make up the second half of 'two people'. It takes two people for a valid argument. I believe the word everyone is looking for is HARASSMENT. What started off as HARASSING one person became an all-out war on us all.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: karaszero on November 26, 2006, 05:18:31 pm
J I apologize for the mischaracterization of the harassment However, my point was it escalated into a racist diatribe which affected the entire board. Do you forgive me?
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on November 26, 2006, 05:48:26 pm
I'm getting a little sick of this "what started out between two people" crap. If one person attacks another person repeatedly, the target of said attack does not make up the second half of 'two people'. It takes two people for a valid argument. I believe the word everyone is looking for is HARASSMENT. What started off as HARASSING one person became an all-out war on us all.

Thank you again Jenn.  While I can't be sure, I assume one of the "two people" referred to is me ... though I may be wrong in that regard.  All this is just too crypic for a simple-minded soul.   But yes, one reason I strongly came around to supporting the need for an ACTIVE moderator (a role that in the past I've been wary of) is precisely because of the harassment that was taking place on the board against "a certain person" (um ... I guess me).  So far I see that Lion is taking a very active role, to deleting threads and so on.  Under the circumstances, this is what is needed.

A THOUGHT FOR LION AND ALL OF  US:  I do think we need to be careful, however, that out-of-line conduct not be used intentionally to torpedo a good but controversial thread.  This is the reason why in the past I've been wary of moderators.  If someone doesn't like a topic, a sure way to kill it is often to intentionally provoke a fight (I guess y'all call it a flame war) in order to cause the thread to be shut down.  This can be a very insidious way to stiflle open discussion.  Of course the best solution to this problem would be to NOT delete the thread, but rather to warn the perpetrator to cease and desist, and if that person fails to do so, suspend his butt, and if he or she continues, ban the troublemaker.

A SECOND THOUGHT/QUESTION:  Many of the guidelines/principles we discussed will only work if everyone cooperates.  What do we do when that does not happen?  The idea of running to Lion like a bunch of whining babies anytime someone says something we don't like is, well, troubling.  On the other hand, our past practice of pointing out the vile conduct by confronting it in the thread itself has proven less than productive (though that might be because there was no active moderator).  I'm not sure how this will work out in practice.  Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: karaszero on November 26, 2006, 05:59:40 pm
Mike I will offer you the same apology I offered J; the 2 party statement was not meant to mean 2 people who began to argue and then it got out of control i meant that there were 2 opposing viewpoints. I include myself in the 2 party statements because I have had disagreemnts with people although of course nowhere near the intensity and outrageous nature that you or Jenn have had
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: karaszero on November 26, 2006, 06:02:18 pm
MY fault again I stated that you two had disagreements I misspoke you two have been harassed
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on November 26, 2006, 06:19:21 pm
Geeze Karaszero, forget the apologies.  No need.  I'm just glad Jenn pointed out what she pointed out.

ANOTHER QUESTION:  Is it possible for a moderator to "block" a member from posting on a thread without closing or deleting the entire thread?  That would be a perfect solution if one Board member begins actively insulting one or more forum members on the thread (with name calling, intentional mischaracterization of what they've said in an insulting manner, etc).  In short, "block" the flaming insulting bad guy from the thread while leaving the thread open for all the normal folk to have an adult discussion.  Is that possible with the technology this forum is using?

For topics where we do have strongly divergent opinions, but where some of us really want to discuss the issues without the personal insults, this would be most welcome.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Lion on November 26, 2006, 06:37:33 pm
To answer your last question...

Nope.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Jenn on November 26, 2006, 09:51:55 pm
J I apologize for the mischaracterization of the harassment However, my point was it escalated into a racist diatribe which affected the entire board. Do you forgive me?

Ain't nothin to forgive bruh! S'all good.  ;D
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: JLI Jesse on November 27, 2006, 05:53:36 am
great post Lion.  Some people...well, most people on the internet can get carried away, and its always nice to have a moment of clarity. 

Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on January 02, 2007, 05:26:56 pm
I wonder if we really need this thread "stickied" at the top of this section anymore?  In light of developments on the forum and the fact that everyone is embracing civility and all ... I personally don't see the need.  At this point, thankfully, it seems like a recap of very old news. 

Maybe it should be allowed to move down the list like all other threads ... into the dustbin of history.   ???
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on January 02, 2007, 06:10:28 pm
Consider the sad cycle of psychos that periodically invade the Panther Pages, I fear that some other entity will turn the Vox Populi section into a war zone once again.  I say we leave it up so we never forget. 
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on January 02, 2007, 06:55:04 pm
Consider the sad cycle of psychos that periodically invade the Panther Pages, I fear that some other entity will turn the Vox Populi section into a war zone once again.  I say we leave it up so we never forget. 

OK Reginald.  You're the boss.  Yes, as a reminder, lest we forget.  As they say ...

"NEVER AGAIN!"
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Lion on January 02, 2007, 07:03:52 pm
Agreed!
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Sam Wilson on January 03, 2007, 05:18:47 am
Agreed!

Word. (sorry, had to get that in there...)  :-\
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on January 03, 2007, 06:46:19 am
Agreed!
Word. (sorry, had to get that in there...)  :-\

 ;D
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on January 14, 2007, 07:04:06 am
Here's my pick for post of the month:
Hmmm Am I the only one that feels AJ comes off as a bit antagonistic? Action J, what diff does it make if it was a typo or not? The point was made that BP has been treated as a second rate character pretty much since his inception, I find that hard to disagree with. The point was also made that Priest gave a valid attempt at elevating the character to a more awe-inspiring member of the MU. Again I don’t see anything to disagree with. And the underlying deliberation of this thread is that most of us feel that RH should continue the trend of bringing BP into a more enriching and formidable portrayal of the character. Again I totally agree with this as do most of the folks here. I’m not sure what your stance is and I will not attempt to proclaim “you actually meant something other than what it looks like?” since only you know what you meant not I.

But I will say this, there is a lot of agreement here at HEF on things and there is also a lot of disagreement but no one here takes things to a personal level and when clarification is needed it is simply asked for and given. There really isn’t a need to become either aggressive or defensive in your stances on any of the subjects discussed here. And please don’t take my statement here as an attack on you. It’s not! Just because someone disagrees does not mean it is a personal attack on you. It is simply a disagreement and it goes hand in hand with the willingness to discuss or deliberate the subject in a open and friendly manner. And when all that fails we simply bring out our secret weapon.. The JENNamator!! LOL! believe me you don’t want that! LOL!

Relax a bit and have fun with the debates, since that is “the way” of HEF.

Peace.

Thank you Goat.  That is a fine description of the ideal we strive for here.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: The Evasive 1 on January 20, 2007, 05:04:35 pm
Wow. I actually just read this and I find it funny because I'm not sure if we all are really practicing this here at HEF even after this discussion. I will be the first one to say that I have been guilty of doing somethings that this discussion is supposedly trying to stop. But a few people in this discussion (no I will not say names) are still guilty of some of those negative actions in their posts.

It WAS a good idea to leave this thread up for folks to come back and review form time to time so that we can all say "Never Again". However, I don't think enough of the HEF community is doing this that based on some of the posts that STILL are appearing on the forum boards. Hopefully alot more of us will read this thread or RE-read this thread to make our discussion here at HEF truly more civil.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Sam Wilson on September 07, 2008, 05:27:32 pm
Hey, maybe we should all revisit this right now since things seem to be coming to a head for everyone, at home, at work, online the election has people ready to fight now more than ever with things being as divisive as they ever have been in this country.  I live in ultra-right wing christian top 5% of the nation's earners georgia, I go to work every day and come home wanting to punch someone in the face because they feel the need to lecture me as to exactly why this country is messed up and exactly how it needs to be fixed, and they are usually assholes about it.

But whatever, we are above that here, or should at least try to be.  Think about it this way, your political opposite, minus the politics, could be your homey you have a drink with at happy hour and share your other life issues with.  Remember that before you want to punch someone in the face (online or off).   As slam au lai kum brothers. 
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: wgreason on September 15, 2008, 04:27:13 am

How do we deal with posters (who may or may not be intentionally trolling the board) who offer multiple posts of incendiary material with no attempt to persuade or find common ground?

What about posts offered simply to gauge the reaction of opposing voices?  Are they different from honest conversation?

Finally, if I were to call other writers "morons," insult their family, their work habits, or their occupation, would I be subject to sanction by the moderators or the site owner?

Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: wgreason on September 19, 2008, 05:01:53 am

A resource
http://www.loveandforgive.org/letting_go.php (http://www.loveandforgive.org/letting_go.php)
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Sam Wilson on September 19, 2008, 03:11:11 pm

How do we deal with posters (who may or may not be intentionally trolling the board) who offer multiple posts of incendiary material with no attempt to persuade or find common ground?

What about posts offered simply to gauge the reaction of opposing voices?  Are they different from honest conversation?

Finally, if I were to call other writers "morons," insult their family, their work habits, or their occupation, would I be subject to sanction by the moderators or the site owner?



notify a moderator.  if you were to insult other people that would be not cool and us mods would discuss it amongst ourselves and figure out what we are going to do. 

Trolls get the boot though, no question. 
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on November 09, 2008, 09:51:25 am
I posted this on a separate thread ... but figured maybe it is worth preserving here as well:

I ran across the following internet cartoon, which has a message worth keeping in mind, both in the real world and in
the world of internet posting:

"Words"
a stick figure vignette
by Dovid Taub

http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/stick_figures/default_cdo/aid/749659/jewish/Words.htm

I kinda liked this.  Thought it worth sharing.
Title: Dialogue vs. Discussion
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on January 05, 2009, 01:55:01 pm
By request I am placing this post from another thread here. Please keep the discussion here independent of the issue on the other thread.

What I describe is reality. 

And no one else is can have a different yet valid perspective?

No.  Not on this issue. 

Are you, therefore, uninterested in dialogue* on this issue?

*DIALOGUE CONTRASTED WITH DISCUSSION (http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html)
It is often useful to contrast Dialogue with a more familiar form of communication, discussion.
Discussion has the same Greek root as percussion and concussion, discus, meaning to throw, fragment, shatter. David Bohm likened discussion to an activity where we throw our opinions back and forth in an attempt to convince each other of the rightness of a particular point of view. In this process, the whole view is often fragmented and shattered into many pieces.
DialogueDiscussion
To inquire to learnTo tell, sell, persuade
To unfold shared meaningTo gain agreement on one meaning
To integrate multiple perspectivesTo evaluate and select the best
To uncover and examine assumptionsTo justify/defend assumptions
   
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on January 05, 2009, 06:17:25 pm
By request I am placing this post from another thread here. Please keep the discussion here independent of the issue on the other thread.

What I describe is reality. 

And no one else is can have a different yet valid perspective?

No.  Not on this issue. 

Are you, therefore, uninterested in dialogue* on this issue?

*DIALOGUE CONTRASTED WITH DISCUSSION ([url]http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/whatsdialogue.html[/url])
It is often useful to contrast Dialogue with a more familiar form of communication, discussion.
Discussion has the same Greek root as percussion and concussion, discus, meaning to throw, fragment, shatter. David Bohm likened discussion to an activity where we throw our opinions back and forth in an attempt to convince each other of the rightness of a particular point of view. In this process, the whole view is often fragmented and shattered into many pieces.
DialogueDiscussion
To inquire to learnTo tell, sell, persuade
To unfold shared meaningTo gain agreement on one meaning
To integrate multiple perspectivesTo evaluate and select the best
To uncover and examine assumptionsTo justify/defend assumptions
   


 
Curtis, in fairness, if we are going to see your original post, readers should see my response as well:

Quote
Curtis, just because people hold different opinions does not mean that all opinions are equal.  Your premise of "equally valid" opinions is simply another iteration of moral relativism, a concept that I wholly reject.


The difficulty in responding to your question in a vacuum is that the answer may reasonably differ depending on the matter under discussion.  Our motivations to enter into "communication" [to use a neutral term] may vary, depending on the topic at hand and the participants involved.  On matters that one does not feel strongly about, one may have one purpose.  For matters that one does feel strongly about, one needs to evaluate why. There are some issues that people on the forum have extensive knowledge of (by way of personal experience or study of the issue/subject matter for years), and in those instances a purpose may be to educate others on the forum.  In other instaces, one may not have looked at an issue all that closely or have not had the experiences of others, and there one's objective may be to learn.  Or there may be variations in between.  In other instances, we may actually be confronted with prejudice or opinions informed by prejudice.  In yet other instances we may be motivated to rebut what someone says, not with the expectation of ever changing his or her mind, but rather to make certain that other persons reading the thread will be exposed to the other point of view and to facts not originally mentioned, to prevent people from being mislead.  Other times, we may be trying to work issues out together, to think them though, to brainstorm, to examine them from all angles. Thus, whether we are engaged in "discussion" or "dialogue" may, indeed will, vary depending on the facts and circumstances, and who the participants are. 

For example, I recall that in the context of some of our past political discussions, one forum member mentioned to another forum member that he was interested in what I had to say just to find out what the opposition was saying (something to that effect), which rather surprised me. Query whether that is really "dialogue" or "discussion" when, up front, one knows he/she is picking another forum member's brain with no possibility of one's viewpoint being altered. 

At times when we are confronted with viewpoints that we strongly disagree with, for very good reason, the best that can be hoped for is relatively civil discourse (not personalizing matters) without any expectation that we will change the other person's mind.  With the hope of at least explaining to people where you are coming from.  This in itself may be productive, to dispel two-dimentional stereotypes.  For example, at times I've been known to express what some perceive to be "conservative" points of view on some issues, and yet I would hope that some people's caricature of a "conservative" might be affected by what I've written, even though at the end of the day nobody agrees with me.  In other instances, on the other hand, I may have reinforced their negative stereotypes, haha.  Whatever.   :P

Simply because more than one viewpoint exists does not mean that all viewpoints are "equally valid."  There are some matters where it is truly fair to say that reasonable people may differ.  However, there are other instances where that is simply not the case.

In fairness, the most that we can ask for (and monitor) is that we treat one another in a civil manner.  That is something that can be observed objectively without attempting to delve into the psyche of each forum member.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on January 05, 2009, 06:56:28 pm
Curtis, in fairness, if we are going to see your original post, readers should see my response as well:

Quote
Curtis, just because people hold different opinions does not mean that all opinions are equal.  Your premise of "equally valid" opinions is simply another iteration of moral relativism, a concept that I wholly reject.

Before you run off on the moral relativism tangent, could you please reread my post and point out where I said "equally valid" to quote your misquote.  ???

The difficulty in responding to your question in a vacuum is that the answer may reasonably differ depending on the matter under discussion.  Our motivations to enter into "communication" [to use a neutral term] may vary, depending on the topic at hand and the participants involved. 
<etc. etc.>

So then, that's a "No, I'm not interested in dialogue"?   :(
That's OK, dialogue is optional.

Simply because more than one viewpoint exists does not mean that all viewpoints are "equally valid."  There are some matters where it is truly fair to say that reasonable people may differ.  However, there are other instances where that is simply not the case.

And that's something you can identify in advance without the benefit of listening to and comprehending the alternative perspectives? If so, make sure you use this power wisely.  ;)

In fairness, the most that we can ask for (and monitor) is that we treat one another in a civil manner.  That is something that can be observed objectively without attempting to delve into the psyche of each forum member.

Civility is the minimum requirement. We can hope for much more.  8)
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on January 06, 2009, 07:52:33 am
The difficulty in responding to your question in a vacuum is that the answer may reasonably differ depending on the matter under discussion.  Our motivations to enter into "communication" [to use a neutral term] may vary, depending on the topic at hand and the participants involved. 
<etc. etc.>
So then, that's a "No, I'm not interested in dialogue"?   :(
That's OK, dialogue is optional.

Curtis, I'm surprised.  I provided a rather lengthy response.  This is how you summarize what I said above?  Why are you doing this? 

Had you wished to initiate a discussion on the topic of "discussion" vs. "dialogue" you could have done so by simply starting that discussion, without the need to take another forum member's comments (um ... mine) out of context.

What you were asking was, "No one else can have a different yet valid perspective?" on the issue we were discussing.  I answered your question in the negative with respect to that issue.  At the outset of this thread you quoted my response out of context, without reference to the issue we were discussing.  In many cases, on many issues, where reasonable people may differ, there are "different yet valid perspectives."  However, on certain core moral/ethical issues, there are not "different yet valid perspectives."  That does not mean on the forum we don't explore the thinking of everyone.  This does not mean, however, that we must pretend that there are "different yet valid perspectives" on every issue.  To take an extreme example, if a terrorist captures an innocent civilian and slits his throught in front of a video camera, I am not willing to conceded that that terrorist has a "different yet valid perspective."  We can all think of subject matters where we are not willing to concede there is a different yet valid perspective.

I've absolutely no desire to reopen the issue that Lion blocked.  We can't go much further here, in the abstract.  Which is fine with me.

Curtis, in fairness, if we are going to see your original post, readers should see my response as well:
Quote
Curtis, just because people hold different opinions does not mean that all opinions are equal.  Your premise of "equally valid" opinions is simply another iteration of moral relativism, a concept that I wholly reject.
Before you run off on the moral relativism tangent, could you please reread my post and point out where I said "equally valid" to quote your misquote.  ???

As to my reference to your original statement, you refer to a "different yet valid perspective."  The premise of this statement is that there are opposing yet equally valid perspectives on the issue.  Because, by definition, no "valid" perspective can be more or less valid than another "valid" perspective.  Sometimes there really are equally valid perspectives (i.e., where reasonable people may differ), but at other times not. It really depends on the issue.  When the "different valid perspectives" approach is applied to certain core moral/ethical issues, this is moral relativism.

Civility is the minimum requirement. We can hope for much more.  8)

There is value in both "dialogue" and "discussion" and yes, at times, even "debate" (though after a repetitive point "debate" can become a painful waste of time). 

I believe of all people on this forum I've strived to encourage "dialogue" when merited.  However, there are some issues, some circumstances, where the best one can hope for is to set the record straight. 

The main thing is to avoid personalizing discussions, and preferably to treat one another with respect.  If we can stay just in that space, I'm happy.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on January 06, 2009, 09:24:19 am
The difficulty in responding to your question in a vacuum is that the answer may reasonably differ depending on the matter under discussion.  Our motivations to enter into "communication" [to use a neutral term] may vary, depending on the topic at hand and the participants involved. 
<etc. etc.>
So then, that's a "No, I'm not interested in dialogue"?   :(
That's OK, dialogue is optional.

Curtis, I'm surprised.  I provided a rather lengthy response.  This is how you summarize what I said above?  Why are you doing this? 

First of all, please accept my apologies for the ambiguity -- I meant on that issue, not generally speaking. In other words, please amend my statement above to "No, I'm not interested in dialogue on this issue." (Which is, I believe, an accurate representation of your position. Please let me know if I have misunderstood you.) Obviously, the qualifier is too important to have left implicit. Again, my apologies.

Secondly, I disagree with your assertion that dialogue amounts to moral relativism. I will reply more fully to this point when I have more time.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on January 07, 2009, 06:29:31 am
... But Curtis, the foolishness of this discussion is that it is in a vacuum.  It was your "different valid perspectives" point that I reacted to on the other thread, not your "dialogue" vs. "discussion" definitions.  YOU brought up these academic definitions of "dialogue" vs. "discussion" and I guess you could have added one for "debate" though you did not.  I didn't pick up on that on the other thread because frankly I found your "different valid perspectives" description to be more troubling.  Debate, discussion and/or dialogue are not necessarily dependent on accepting the premise that there are always different valid perspectives.  One result of dialogue (even as you define it) may be the revelation that the other guy's views are unjustified (or worse, ill motivated). Indeed, based on what the other person initially says, that may be obvious from the outset. [I'm not directing this description to anyone on the forum, just making a general point in the context of this theoretical discussion].  Or it may be that a topic (or variations of the same topic) has been addressed so many times in the past, with extensive attempts to engage in dialogue, with really no productive result, that further detailed reiteration is pointless.  Or that such dialogue was initially of some value but nothing further can be gained by repetition. So it really depends on the circumstances and the parties involved and their intentions, and the extent to which the topic has already been covered. 

Or ... to be more succinct, as to the parties' intentions:  "It takes two to tango."
... and as to the waste of further attempts at dialogue:  "We've already done that dance." 

As I think I've demonstrated with you time and time again, I'm usually open to dialogue on this forum with just about anyone, if the intention is reciprocal.  However, I'm not going to say more on this, as this whole thing is starting to look more and more like a backdoor way to reopen the topic that Lion blocked.

If you do wish to engage in a dialogue regarding your "different valid perspectives" point, I would be far more interested in that.  Do you believe that no matter what the issue, and no matter the attitudes of the person expressing the "different" viewpoint, that the other person must be viewed as just having a different valid perspective?  If not, why not?  If there are circumstances and issues where you believe the other person should not be viewed as having a different valid perspective, how do you reach that conclusion?  What criteria do you use?
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on January 07, 2009, 10:00:52 am
If you do wish to engage in a dialogue regarding your "different valid perspectives" point, I would be far more interested in that. 

That is exactly my intent. I will engage in that dialogue on dialogue with my perspective on your questions on perspectives as soon as I have a little time to do it. It's a bit hectic for me right now after the holidays. Thanks for bearing with me.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Vic Vega on January 07, 2009, 03:35:46 pm
Either my E-skin has gotten thicker of late or I've missed something. The last couple of threads that got locked here didn't even seem that invective filled to me.

Maybe I'm jaded by the infamous Weekend Fanboy Freakouts that used to happen here every other week in '06.  This place has calmed down a lot.

But we could all stand to be more civil, so I will attempt to amend my posting accordingly. 
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on January 14, 2009, 07:16:53 pm
If you do wish to engage in a dialogue regarding your "different valid perspectives" point, I would be far more interested in that.  Do you believe that no matter what the issue, and no matter the attitudes of the person expressing the "different" viewpoint, that the other person must be viewed as just having a different valid perspective?  If not, why not?  If there are circumstances and issues where you believe the other person should not be viewed as having a different valid perspective, how do you reach that conclusion?  What criteria do you use?

Before beginning this dialogue on dialogue, please allow me to address what I believe is a misunderstanding:
I asked you whether one could have a "different yet valid perspective" from your own in the case at hand. That is to say, can you conceive of there being any other valid perspectives? Perhaps you interpreted the question differently but your "No" reply signified to me that you believe that your perspective is the only valid one. Is that really what you mean to claim?

You replied (and I quote):
Quote
Curtis, just because people hold different opinions does not mean that all opinions are equal.  Your premise of "equally valid" opinions is simply another iteration of moral relativism, a concept that I wholly reject.
But I never said anything about all opinions being equal. My premise is merely that of the set of alternative perspectives, the subset of valid ones is not empty. That is, there is at least one different yet valid perspective. I believe this to be true almost always, i.e. in all but the most banal and trivial of cases.  Surely in something as complex as a conflict, there exists more than one valid perspective.

If we can agree on that point, then dialogue can be viewed as the process of discovering those alternative perspectives in order to gain a richer understanding. The purpose of dialogue is to learn, not to defend one's own perspective or to retreat into self-righteousness. Doing this requires one to suspend one's beliefs in order to better examine them. It also requires a level of trust. That is to say, it is not easy. Nevertheless, one of my goals in participating in the forum is to learn.

Before pursuing the notion of dialogue further, I await your input (and that of others) on the premise.
Thank you for your interest in the topic.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on January 15, 2009, 06:43:05 am
Curtis, I don't intend to address your first question other than to say that on the other thread we were not discussing nuances in perspectives; people were expressing polar opposite perspectives.  I am not discussing that issue further, because, frankly, I'm tired of it.  Which is why I tend to refrain from bringing it up on this forum.  At times others do, usually with an axe to grind.

As to "different yet valid" perspectives, you chose those words, and they certainly indicate that different (opposite) perspectives can both be "valid."  While with regard to some issues that may be the case, with respect to others it certainly is not.

On some issues there is a morally correct position to support.  Even if the issue involves conflict (indeed, most notably in those instances).

Or would you say that with regard to virtually every issue there is a "different valid perspective" that holds just the opposite of another "different valid perspective."  I don't see how you can contend that this is not moral relativism.  Unless you draw your bubble of "valid" perspectives narrowly.  It does not appear that you do.

In any event, it all depends on the issue.

For purposes of discussion, accepting your definitions of "dialogue" and "discussion" (and by extension, "debate") ... the truth is that things flow in human communication, and while a social scientist may try to categorize things, the reality is much more fluid, in large part depending on the personalities involved. Like you, I've tried to learn from others on the forum.  And yes, you are correct, some degree of trust is required. That point goes well beyond the HEF, to the realm of significant dialogue/discussions/negotiations in the real world. Trust is merited with regard to many persons. Unfortunately, it is not merited with respect to everyone.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on January 15, 2009, 07:43:56 am
Curtis, I don't intend to address your first question other than to say that on the other thread we were not discussing nuances in perspectives; people were expressing polar opposite perspectives. 
I understand that is your view of that discussion. Mine is actually different but that's neither here nor there.

I am not discussing that issue further, because, frankly, I'm tired of it.  Which is why I tend to refrain from bringing it up on this forum.  At times others do, usually with an axe to grind.
Understood and accepted. I will strive to address the dialogue dialogue as applied generally, not to that discussion.

As to "different yet valid" perspectives, you chose those words, and they certainly indicate that different (opposite) perspectives can both be "valid."  While with regard to some issues that may be the case, with respect to others it certainly is not.
But, Michael, different is synonymous with opposite only when the range of alternatives is binary. I do not see the world in black and white. Nor do you, I believe.

On some issues there is a morally correct position to support.  Even if the issue involves conflict (indeed, most notably in those instances).
Even when there are generally accepted moral principles to bring to bear on given situation, reasonable people often differ on how to apply said principles. As you point out, especially in conflictual circumstances. Wouldn't you agree?

Or would you say that with regard to virtually every issue there is a "different valid perspective" that holds just the opposite of another "different valid perspective."  I don't see how you can contend that this is not moral relativism.  Unless you draw your bubble of "valid" perspectives narrowly.  It does not appear that you do.
I agree with the underlined statement as amended. In general, I believe that the set of valid perspectives is a subset of the set of all perspectives and that subset is often larger than we might think. One might view dialogue as a process for exploring that subset.

In any event, it all depends on the issue.
Well, it seems to me that most of the time (and in virtually every case we might encounter on a discussion forum) it is possible to hold dialogue.

For purposes of discussion, accepting your definitions of "dialogue" and "discussion" (and by extension, "debate") ... the truth is that things flow in human communication, and while a social scientist may try to categorize things, the reality is much more fluid, in large part depending on the personalities involved.
Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that we can't try to be more intentional about our interactions especially in cyberspace. My intent is to foster dialogue whenever possible. It is a goal, not a requirement.

Like you, I've tried to learn from others on the forum.  And yes, you are correct, some degree of trust is required. That point goes well beyond the HEF, to the realm of significant dialogue/discussions/negotiations in the real world. Trust is merited with regard to many persons. Unfortunately, it is not merited with respect to everyone.
Again, I agree with you here. As I said, it is not easy. However, it seems to me that in online discussions especially, there is often a headlong rush to judgment and condemnation instead of an inquiry to strive for better mutual understanding. The proceedings are routinely adversarial instead of collegial.

One of the things that keeps me coming back to HEF is that we manage to have insightful discussions and meaningful dialogue on occasion. I am merely advocating for more of that and less of the other.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on January 15, 2009, 11:30:20 pm
Curtis, I believe to a significant extent we are in agreement, as to the value of dialogue, and the value in attempting dialogue.  If nothing else, it fosters a more positive and productive atmosphere on the forum.  Of course that only applies where dialogue is in the realm of the possible.  Often, indeed more often than not, it is.  Sometimes, unfortunately, it is not, and that is obvious from the outset, or obvious based on past experience with a topic or with another forum member (though thankfully the latter is pretty rare on the HEF, particularly in the past couple of years -- which is one aspect of the HEF that keeps me posting here).

As to "different" perspectives not being opposite - of course not always.  But "opposite" is one variation of different.  It does not mean one views the world as "black and white" to recognize diametrically opposed perspectives when they are expressed. 

As to much of what you say, above, my general reaction is ... "sometimes yes, sometimes no."  Haha ... try to figure that one out.   ;D

Here are some suggestions:  If one disagrees with what another forum member says, state why, not in personal terms, but in terms of substance.  Don't treat the HEF like a poll, reciting the number of people who agree or disagree.  If a forum member states that something is a fact, and you believe it is not, state what purported "fact" you disagree with, and why.  Don't just respond, "That's your opinion."  If a forum member states a moral principle, and you disagree with that principle, or disagree that that principle applies to the facts at hand, say so and explain why you disagree.  Try to find out why you and the other person have a difference in perspective.  In other words, try to focus on what the other person is really saying and respond to what he/she is saying, in a meaningful way.  All of the above suggestions, of course, represent the ideal.  That's kinda where the "sometimes yes, sometimes no" comes in.   ;)

So, to sum it up, we see eye to eye, in principle, on the value of dialogue and civil discussion/debate (which includes not personalizing matters).  Given some of our past "dialogues" this should not surprise you.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on January 16, 2009, 06:46:08 am
Here are some suggestions:  If one disagrees with what another forum member says, state why, not in personal terms, but in terms of substance.  Don't treat the HEF like a poll, reciting the number of people who agree or disagree.  If a forum member states that something is a fact, and you believe it is not, state what purported "fact" you disagree with, and why.  Don't just respond, "That's your opinion."  If a forum member states a moral principle, and you disagree with that principle, or disagree that that principle applies to the facts at hand, say so and explain why you disagree.  Try to find out why you and the other person have a difference in perspective.  In other words, try to focus on what the other person is really saying and respond to what he/she is saying, in a meaningful way.  All of the above suggestions, of course, represent the ideal.  That's kinda where the "sometimes yes, sometimes no" comes in.   ;)

So, to sum it up, we see eye to eye, in principle, on the value of dialogue and civil discussion/debate (which includes not personalizing matters).  Given some of our past "dialogues" this should not surprise you.

You're right, it doesn't surprise me. I like your suggestions too - concrete and actionable.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on September 01, 2009, 08:16:39 am
Part of civilized debate includes tolerance for diversity of viewpoints and treating one another with mutual respect.  It does not include name calling and innuendo and flying off the handle at the presentation of any political/social point of view one disagrees with.

I am discussing tolerance, for purposes of the discussion in the Vox Populi forum, for traditionally conservative as well as liberal and leftist points of view. 

Given that virtually nobody on the forum other than myself expresses conservative points of view here, it is no surprise that I have "evoked" harsh reactions, including at times personal attacks, more than anyone else on the forum.  Not only by random posters, but by those who play a central role on the forum. 

I understand that many people who come to the Vox Populi section of the forum are accustomed, in their daily lives, to discussing politics with people who only share their perspectives, ideologies, and biases.  It is hard to be open to the possibility that there are other valid viewpoints.  It may be difficult to even hear alternatives to one's standard way of thinking. But that is what the Vox Populi section of the forum is all about.

True, the expression of a point of view that one disagrees with might "get under one's skin."  That's tough.  By definition, controversial topics evoke diverse points of view and strong feelings.  If a person does not want to run that risk, he or she should not click the Vox Populi tab on the HEF. 

That is why the Vox Populi section of the forum was created.  To have a place to discuss controversial topics.  Where people who don't wish to do so can simply avoid controversy by avoiding this section of the forum.

Standards of civil discourse and mutual respect should be respected by all.  This goes for everyone on the forum. 

Including any persons who assume the role of moderator on any section of the forum.

Otherwise, any form of meaningful dialogue is impossible.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Battle on September 01, 2009, 08:50:10 am

Given that virtually nobody on the forum other than myself expresses conservative points of view here, it is no surprise that I have "evoked" harsh reactions, including at times personal attacks, more than anyone else on the forum.  Not only by random posters, but by those who play a central role on the forum. 



Define 'conservative'.

I'll assume it's a viewpoint that's identical to people like this, right?:

"You're all socialists!!!  ronald reagan was the greatest president --- ever!!!  They're stealing all of our tax-payer money!!! We must stop the 'Annoited One'!!!  Obama must be stopped!!! I want him to fail!!! george bush was the best president ever!!!  Long live the confederacy, the republican party and jim crow!!!"
(http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w184/Battle-D/fatbaby_05.gif)

...because if the ideology is this then that's not what real conservatism is.  By definition, I would be conservative.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on September 14, 2009, 09:02:18 am
Part of civilized debate includes tolerance for diversity of viewpoints and treating one another with mutual respect.  It does not include name calling and innuendo and flying off the handle at the presentation of any political/social point of view one disagrees with.

I am discussing tolerance, for purposes of the discussion in the Vox Populi forum, for traditionally conservative as well as liberal and leftist points of view. 

Given that virtually nobody on the forum other than myself expresses conservative points of view here, it is no surprise that I have "evoked" harsh reactions, including at times personal attacks, more than anyone else on the forum.  Not only by random posters, but by those who play a central role on the forum. 

I understand that many people who come to the Vox Populi section of the forum are accustomed, in their daily lives, to discussing politics with people who only share their perspectives, ideologies, and biases.  It is hard to be open to the possibility that there are other valid viewpoints.  It may be difficult to even hear alternatives to one's standard way of thinking. But that is what the Vox Populi section of the forum is all about.

True, the expression of a point of view that one disagrees with might "get under one's skin."  That's tough.  By definition, controversial topics evoke diverse points of view and strong feelings.  If a person does not want to run that risk, he or she should not click the Vox Populi tab on the HEF. 

That is why the Vox Populi section of the forum was created.  To have a place to discuss controversial topics.  Where people who don't wish to do so can simply avoid controversy by avoiding this section of the forum.

Standards of civil discourse and mutual respect should be respected by all.  This goes for everyone on the forum. 

Including any persons who assume the role of moderator on any section of the forum.

Otherwise, any form of meaningful dialogue is impossible.

Michael, are you talking about me? Do you feel that I have insulted you or been uncivil? If so, cite it.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Redjack on October 03, 2010, 10:53:40 am
I am leaving these forums. I made the decision last night after a short encounter with Michaelintp who I believe to be a troll.

I've asked him, first politely and then aggressively, to simply ignore me and not to engage me on any level. He refuses to leave me in peace.

His idea of "discussion" is to quote long tracts of self-serving, one sided misinformation and to subtly impugn the basic humanity of black peoples in general and American blacks in specific. He has been here, doing this, for years and, after finally having enough of this crap, I asked him to stop addressing me either directly or indirectly.

He refuses. He is a bigot. He is consistently offensive about a host of groups though he couches his bigotry in the apparently clinical language of an academic.

Now I could continue the banter war with this ugly, small-minded twerp but I've decided it's not worth the trouble. His arguments are easily refuted by common sense and the results of a cursory google search but the implications of his many assertions (really the same one over and over) are simply too offensive to me to tolerate. He claims to be interested in dialogue but all he really wants to do is stir the pot. He's a troll.

Since I can't count on him to show even the baseline amount of respect for the wishes of a fellow member of this site, me IOW, I have to bow out until such time as his corruptive and ugly influence is purged.

I'm not asking for him to be kicked out. If Reggie feels he's making a legit contribution, that's the end of it and I respect his wishes however much I may disagree on this particular point. This is his house.

But I will not be visiting this house again unless and until Michael is gone.

It's been a great time with most of you, even the ones who I've bumped heads against, but I've just had enough of this asshole. So I'm out. I use the word asshole, specifically, btw. When I use profanity I do so with as much care as I do any other adjective I might choose to apply. Assholes have a particular bodily function and it's no accident I have applied that description to Michael. It's on point in fact.

I'm leaving my account live so, if you PM me, I'll get the message, but this marks my last post until the troll population is cut by one.

Edited for clarity.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on October 03, 2010, 09:06:29 pm
I am leaving these forums. I made the decision last night after a short encounter with Michaelintp who I believe to be a troll.
I've asked him, first politely and then aggressively, to simply ignore me and not to engage me on any level. He refuses to leave me in peace.
His idea of "discussion" is to quote long tracts of self-serving, one sided misinformation and to subtly impugn the basic humanity of black peoples in general and American blacks in specific. He has been here, doing this, for years and, after finally having enough of this crap, I asked him to stop addressing me either directly or indirectly.
He refuses. He is a bigot. He is consistently offensive about a host of groups though he couches his bigotry in the apparently clinical language of an academic.
Now I could continue the banter war with this ugly, small-minded twerp but I've decided it's not worth the trouble. His arguments are easily refuted by common sense and the results of a cursory google search but the implications of his many assertions (really the same one over and over) are simply too offensive to me to tolerate. He claims to be interested in dialogue but all he really wants to do is stir the pot. He's a troll.
Since I can't count on him to show even the baseline amount of respect for the wishes of a fellow member of this site, me IOW, I have to bow out until such time as his corruptive and ugly influence is purged.
I'm not asking for him to be kicked out. If Reggie feels he's making a legit contribution, that's the end of it and I respect his wishes however much I may disagree on this particular point. This is his house.
But I will not be visiting this house again unless and until Michael is gone.
It's been a great time with most of you, even the ones who I've bumped heads against, but I've just had enough of this asshole. So I'm out. I use the word asshole, specifically, btw. When I use profanity I do so with as much care as I do any other adjective I might choose to apply. Assholes have a particular bodily function and it's no accident I have applied that description to Michael. It's on point in fact.
I'm leaving my account live so, if you PM me, I'll get the message, but this marks my last post until the troll population is cut by one.
Edited for clarity.

Edited for clarity?  Hmmm ... the last time Geoff Thorne (Redjack) edited a post it was to edit out the "f*ck you's" after I called him on 'em and told him I didn't care about his language or insults, in light of his less-than-civil behavior on the Forum. The guy just loves to have the last word, over and over and over again, so now this post has emerged. This is getting to the point of being comical.

Look, Reginald Hudlin is a perceptive guy. That's his business, working with people. If he seriously believed that I were a racist, you can be sure I would have been kicked off his forum in like two seconds flat. And rightly so. He knows this is not the case, and thus ... here I am. 

What I do, however, is present a more conservative point of view on a variety of issues different than those expressed by most other Forum members. I also question assumptions, look to see if there are alternative explanations, ask questions and express different foundational premises to explain my point of view. That's all. There is nothing more to it than that. Some folk, it appears, just can't stand that. 

In contrast, Reginald Hudlin welcomes intense debate (even though he and I disagree more than most any folk on his forum) ... because he is open-minded in recognizing that people with strongly different points of view may still be coming from a decent place.

All of Geoff's post, above, is complete nonsense, both factually (in terms of his description of our interaction) and in every other way including, of course, his description of my attitudes. The bottom line is that Geoff objects when I present facts from real encyclopedias (not "Wikipedia") or other sources that flatly contradict his assertions on any given issue (even where, with regard to a matter in question that caused him to go nuts, I was merely surprised by his historical allegation and wanted to learn more, so looked into it myself after he refused to provide me with any sources, found some info on the topic and shared it). Most recently, he responded to something I posted on a thread, objected when I responded to the factual inaccuracies he posted, then denied he was responding to me (I imagine because he didn't use the word "you" in his post -- so silly).

I guess some folk just don't like being told they are contradicted by reputable sources ... or can't tolerate an alternative point of view ... or just can't stand being contradicted, period.

Hey, if I were to go into a tizzy every time I was told by someone on the Forum that I am wrong, I would be in a state of constant paroxysms, haha.  ;D 

It was abundantly clear that Geoff's motive was to "blacklist" me from the HEF, and he has expressed the same sentiment now, above. Ohhhh well. As I told him on the other thread, if Reginald Hudlin ever asked me to resign from his Forum, I would certainly do so. But I do not expect this of Reginald. 

I could say more, but hey, what's the point. The point here is to have fun.

Fun? Huh?

Manni: "Lola?"
Lola: "Hmh?"
Manni: "Wenn ich jetzt sterben wrde, was wrdest du tun?"
Lola: "Ich wrd dich nicht sterben lassen."
Manni: 'Lola?'
Lola: 'Hmh?'
Manni: 'If I was dying right now, what would you do?'
Lola: 'I wouldn't let you die.'

I don't believe in trouble
I don't believe in pain
I don't believe there's nothing left
but running here again

I don't believe in promise
I don't believe in chance
I don't believe you can resist
the things that make no sense

I don't believe in silence
'cause silence seems so slow
I don't believe in energy
if tension is too low

I don't believe in panic
I don't believe in fear
I don't believe in prophecies
so don't waste any tears

I don't believe reality
will be the way it should
but I believe in fantasy
if you just understood

I don't believe in history
I don't believe in truth
I don't believe there's destiny
but someone to accuse

I belieeeeeve!
I belieeeeeve!

Franka Potente
Lyrics to Believe

[Look up the Video from the film "Run Lola Run" ... you'll love it]
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Redjack on October 03, 2010, 09:50:37 pm
You are a liar. I didn't edit anything based on anything you said (nor have I ever. As if.), but rather to tamp things down a bit. But, all right. Let's have it out.

And this will be without the profanity you seem to think is so beyond the pale. Pay attention:

I don't make factual errors. I don't dodge confrontations. I don't play the victim. I am not passive aggressive something you, demonstrably, are. I'm actually aggressive if it comes to that.

You have never, not once, presented ANYTHING, not one argument that has EVER given me pause, much less refuted anything I've written. You've never caused me to back up, rethink, or modify a single thought.

Yours is a bankrupt intellect and I'm not the only person here who thinks you're a troll and a bigot. Your rubber stamps of the arguments of others only serve one purpose: to wear down the interest of your opponents in continuing such that they bail on conversations with you which you subsequently claim to have won. You've won nothing.

No one has asked Reg to do anything. If I had wanted you to be expelled I would have asked directly.  I don't mince words and I don't work the angles. I'm the most direct human being you will ever interact with in your sorry little life.

Your constant bleating about your supposed mental prowess is only allowed to continue because 1) people choose not to engage you on that front because they don't want to shatter your very fragile ego and 2) because you're not worth it.

You're not worth avoiding, Michael. You're barely worth talking to. You are nothing that requires any deviation from my normal path in life except to ask you to stay out of it.

Your arguments are the same claptrap that is floated by the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world and just as hollow. Your cited sources are never comprehensive, ALWAYS skewed to favor the view you never intended to deviate from. The right wing party line. Wow. Like anyone here needs you to parrot that.

You are never in discussion with anyone, you are here to hip us poor darkies to your enlightened wisdom and I'm the person who got sick enough of you to call you on it.

You contribute NOTHING. You reveal NOTHING. Nothing you've ever said here has even been original to you but merely the poorly paraphrased political views of superior thinkers. You're simply a conduit for the views of others. You do not think, you regurgitate.

You'd lived your virtual life here in the grey area created by the politeness of those who are interested in keeping the peace. You occupy the position of token conservative in your own mind but you don't impart anything that any of us don't already know and haven't already considered. You present no challenge. You're only here because everyone else is too sweet to tell you what's what. I'm not. I'm calling you what you've demonstrated you are, for YEARS. Bigot. Liar.

All that's left is your ability to be a decent human being which, as you continually demonstrate, is lacking.

You seem to think you're smarter than the rest of us with your pathetic, after-the-fact, disclaimers of your own anti-muslim bigotry and your "innocent" comments and questions about the flaws in the character of blacks in this country. No one here is as stupid as they need to be to be fooled by your thinly disguised racism. It's another of your flaws that you think they are.

Either you are an imbecile who's been living under a rock for the last  few decades or you are a troll who thinks he's putting it over on us.

You're not. You only exist in the politeness and patience of others and, for me, that patience and politeness ran out during the STOCKHOLM SYNDROME thread in which you fell back on the white washed "data' presented in your Encyclopedia Britannica even after it was proven to have had egregious omissions relating to the subject matter.

You refuse to look past your own preconceptions and feel you're being clever by wheedling them into your "academic" discussions with us here. You're not clever; you're pathetic.

I used to defend you, Michael. Perhaps you remember. I wanted to give you and, indeed, gave you the benefit of the doubt.  I wasted YEARS on you and your ugly thoughts. You didn't deserve it then. You don't now.

You are an ugly, grasping, cloying little mind and I wish to God you would simply fold up shop.

But I know you won't. You can't. Your addiction to your perceived merits and importance won't even let you step away from me.

You've fooled no one here but yourself, Michael. Trust me.

No one is fooled by you.

Happy? You got a rise again.

Troll.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on October 03, 2010, 10:34:39 pm
Okay, MICHAEL...here's what you should do now.  Stop. 

Do not respond.  Let Redjack have the last word.  Because he doesn't want to talk to you.  And that seems to drive you crazy, but that is all he has asked.  To be left alone.  Do it.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on October 24, 2010, 05:25:52 pm
Regarding civilized debate and the tolerance for divergent points of view, I believe that Reginald Hudlin deserves a great deal of credit. Particularly in light of recent controversies surrounding news organizations and the firing of news analysts, Reginald has served as a beacon, a beacon of tolerance for divergent points of view. It is ironic that on a discussion forum, in the name of one man, greater tolerance of diversity is expressed than we see in other Media outlets. (Just my opinion, haha  ;D). 

It is of course very easy to be "tolerant" of points of view when they happen to comport with your own. What is striking is that Reginald, despite his strongly held views on controversial issues, has for years allowed all points of view to be expressed on his Forum. Whether they be with regard to the political content of comic books or films, or on broader controversial political or social issues.

So I, for one, would like to thank Reginald.  Thank you, for the opportunity to participate for years now, on your Forum. It has given me a great deal of pleasure, and I've learned more than a thing or two in the process. To understand where other people are coming from, and also ... when challenged ... to check into significant matters in greater depth. To look into sources, to verify quotes, to find relevant research studies, to critique them, and the like. To participate in this process is really a rare opportunity, perhaps in part a reflection of the "New Media" of the Internet, but also reflective of the character of the man who sponsors this Forum in his name.

With all this in mind, a couple of suggestions regarding civilized debate come to mind. These just reflect my opinion, but they may be worth sharing (from time to time):

1. When we are discussing issues, we should really try to stick to the issues. Rather than diverting the discussion to unrelated personal matters. This does NOT mean that we should not express our views strongly, if that is how we feel (and we often do, particularly on the Vox Populi section of the Forum), but we should keep in mind that the purpose of the Forum is to share those views, to ask questions, to explore issues, and the like.

2. We are here to have fun. If any of us don't enjoy sharing our views with others on the Forum, or resent the expression of views different from our own, then the Vox Populi section of the Forum is probably not a good place to visit. That was the original reason why it was created in the first place, precisely so that conversations regarding controversial issues, issues that at time evoke strong emotion, would be isolated from the "general discussion" section of the Forum. I know, as a person who was here when the Vox Populi Section was created.

I think most of us agree with these basic concepts. However, the most important thing is that the HEF is a place where we can share our views with one another, in a pretty doggone open atmosphere.  And, I should add, in an atmosphere that is typified, for the most part, with mutual respect. For all this, Reginald Hudlin deserves the credit.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Battle on November 17, 2010, 05:02:37 am
The idea behind HEF, is to be the bastion of hope for an audience that craves 'Tommorrow's Entertainment, Today'. It should also be a respite in world of media that continually devalues and squanders Black talent. There are more than enough places outside of HEF where you can 'express your views'. HEF isn't the place to promote a racist organization such as the t party, a racist upstart long rumored to be founded by the ccc.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on November 17, 2010, 07:12:23 am
The idea behind HEF, is to be the bastion of hope for an audience that craves 'Tommorrow's Entertainment, Today'. It should also be a respite in world of media that continually devalues and squanders Black talent. There are more than enough places outside of HEF where you can 'express your views'. HEF isn't the place to promote a racist organization such as the t party, a racist upstart long rumored to be founded by the ccc.

What does the California Conservation Corps (CCC) have to do with civilized debate, and what in the world would it have to do with the Tea Party Movement?  That is the only CCC that I know.

Also, Battle, it appears you are saying that civilized debate means allowing people to express a point of view so long as it agrees with your own. There is nothing civilized about that. That would best be referred to as totalitarian pseudo-debate. A charade developed to high levels in Communist regimes.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on November 17, 2010, 07:29:05 am
Civilized Debate refers to how the interaction is conducted, not the content of the debate.

Debate the ideas, avoid attacking the person expressing the idea.

In a nutshell, have some honor.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: michaelintp on November 17, 2010, 08:26:14 am
Civilized Debate refers to how the interaction is conducted, not the content of the debate.

Debate the ideas, avoid attacking the person expressing the idea.

In a nutshell, have some honor.

Curtis, you've summed it up far better than I could, no doubt in far fewer words.  ;)
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Battle on November 17, 2010, 08:36:59 am
Mike, you knew the day that you would be booted would come here at HEF so quit insulting people on your way out with your BS. As I've said before, no one is interested in your 'point-of-view' here.



Gawd,  it's like trying to extract a badly decayed tooth by the roots! >:(
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Curtis Metcalf on November 17, 2010, 09:15:37 am
Mike, you knew the day that you would be booted would come here at HEF so quit insulting people on your way out with your BS. As I've said before, no one is interested in your 'point-of-view' here.



Gawd,  it's like trying to extract a badly decayed tooth by the roots! >:(

No need for this especially in the Civilized Debate thread.
Title: Re: Civilized Debate
Post by: Metro on January 02, 2013, 02:52:54 pm

Read, and acknowledged.