Civilized Debate

[extreme]

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.

[Lion]

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?

[extreme]

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.

[Curtis Metcalf]

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

[Curtis Metcalf]

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.

[michaelintp]

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).

[Sam Wilson]

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

done. Thanks curtis.

[Lion]

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.

[michaelintp]

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.

[Lion]

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!

[michaelintp]

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!   

[extreme]

To Guido: I'm awaiting your message.

i allready send you the message man!! take care

[karaszero]

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.

[Jenn]

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.

[karaszero]

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?