posted on September 2, 2002 07:58:36 PM new
"Locked"? Somebody must have whined, which sucks. I haven't returned/posted to the thread because I thought it was obvious those Satanists had a right to their rituals even if I wouldn't want one as a friend, a neighbor, or anywhere near my kid.
That being said, we should be able to argue like hell without having a moderator intervene by locking a thread.
Whoever whined (and I'm barely paying attention, if any, so I have no suspects)is a rat.
posted on September 2, 2002 09:27:25 PM new
Hmmm . . . I continued the conversation because people were trying to do censorship. I guess they got their wish.
posted on September 3, 2002 06:59:10 AM new
The question for me really is, in an open and public forum, what topics, if any, are off-limits? I don't believe that there are any topics so onerous that they are off-limits to a peaceful, intellectual discussion of the facts and merits of the case. It's true that certain topics cause open hostility from posters, but really, they need to lodge their disapproval and then move on. Otherwise, if we begin to avoid certain subjects because we know that certain people will object to their content, then where does that list stop? In a word, it's censorship; or, if you like, censorship of Good Taste.
So how are we to know what subjects are Taboo to open, friendly discussion in the RT?
Recently, a thread created for a friendly debate on the merits and theory behind Citizenship opened up with a volley of name-calling and hot tempers aimed at the author of the thread! Obviously, Citizenship is such a HOT TOPIC that we dare not ever discuss it again here in the RT, least Hot Buttons get pushed. And now there's Catholicism. A simple discussion that even mentioned Catholicism as a side fact got even REAMOND slammed, who if you are not familiar with his/her posts, are as benign as any posts come. Let's not ever discuss Catholicism ever again here in the RT, or mention it even in passing, because it's just OFF LIMITS to any discussion.
Sorry, but I don't see it that way.
ed. sp. gr. etc.
[ edited by Borillar on Sep 3, 2002 07:01 AM ]
posted on September 3, 2002 07:35:39 AM new
The really amusing thing is that when Jesus in Caperneum said as quoted at John 6:53 - "Most truely I say to you,Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. He that feeds on my flesh and deinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him in the last day."
The Jews had the same reaction as some of the people here taking the statement literally as cannibalism and were revolted. They said as quoted in vs. 60 - "This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?"
The ones who take the statement literally fail to read the further statement in 63 that the spirit is what is life-giving.
When Jesus formalized the celebration of this concept in his last passover meal with his disciples he said of the bread "Take eat, This MEANS my body...."
So it is amusing that those very ones claiming to follow his teachings make the same error recorded here of not understanding that the bread and wine are SYMBOLS. Indead they fall into the same error as the Jews did in taking it literally and instituted it as unchanging doctrine. Not to mention that all belief in the resurection he promised there in vs. 54 has also disappeared from their doctrine and teaching.
I suppose someone will lock this thread for my pointing that out also. Truth hurts.
posted on September 3, 2002 09:44:29 AM new
That's a surprise!
KatyD, I apologize if my thread caused you grief. While I can understand your defense of your religion and some skewed interpretations, I don't understand why the thread was locked.
Religion is a hot topic because everyone has their own beliefs about what's right and wrong. If my interpretation of what your religion is all about is wrong, I'd like someone to tell me, not flame me for my ignorance.
I also say if people have left the RT because of Borillar, they're losing out. We need more people in the world who are willing to stand up for what they believe in whether YOU or I believe in what they say or not. Maybe some people see Borillar as a a threat because of his honesty. I see him as a source of other ways of thinking in the same way I see KatyD's posts. Thank goodness for these people who are willing to speak their mind. We either agree or disagree and it either strengthens our own convictions, or opens up an different way of thinking. Either way it's better than no discussion at all.
posted on September 3, 2002 10:23:59 AM new
KD, thank you for that - as I never encourage anyone to be in support of me because they get hit with some of the lightening bolts I attract.
You've been asking me and wondering why I've changed the method of conversing with this crowd of late. It's because I've come to realize that the claims of total hypocrisy that others throw at us regulars are based upon a lot of fact. For instance, some posters in here who claim that they are so tolerant that it simply oozes out from all of their pores turned out instead to be some of the most intolerant people of all, given the right subject. I decided to explore that issue and others from those in the Round Table.
For instance, what is beyond my understanding is that the topic of Citizenship is a hot button for some. I purposely started a thread about Citizenship, knowing that it was Taboo in here, and tried as best that I could to push those hot buttons without taking any real stance, position, or opinion on the issues. I managed to do that by asking simple questions. Questions are not statements, but knowing the depth of hypocrisy here in the RT, regular posters decided to ignore that logic and created a fantasy where they could slam me. Evidently, they have something to say, stories to tell, a whole lot of heat to spread around. I simply gave them the opportunity to do that. However, I insisted that they moderate it by using rationale, logic, or other acceptable debate methods. What were the results?
A person read my questions and accused me of being arrogant by having an arrogant stance. Name calling - an intolerance of the question even being asked! Was Free Speech not allowed? I questioned them further on it and made a comparison that I stand by to this day. In the locked thread, this same person tried to CENSOR me when that person disagreed and called me many names, all of which reveals to anyone who is reading these posts just how intolerant and hypocritical that person is.
Another person's posts were so emotional over the questions that he/she was never able to compose themselves afterwards. The name-calling and illogical arguments left the possibility of debate closed.
You can say I did it to expose this hot button, the hypocrisy, and the nonsense. But NOT ONCE did anyone ever bother to ask WHY I never gave any position in that thread. I never gave a stand on the issue because I don't have one. I happen to simultaneously agree with ALL sides of the various arguments concerning Citizenship and illegal immigration-to-gain-Citizenship. I wanted to see which way to go on these from those that I thought would best know and thought it could make a fun debate. Instead of simply spelling out my dilemma, I phrased it in the form of questions as said above. I did that because I wanted to see if we could have a real intellectual debate, because I finally found a topic that links would be useless for. It would force participants to express their real feelings, thoughts, and force them proceed intellectually despite how hot they felt. That turned out to impossible. So, I still have no solution to the items that I wanted to see discussed (without the name calling and slamming). It is now proved that most regular posters in here are incapable any REAL intellectual discussion - they just bash others with their opinions and pretend to be educated and intellectual. And tolerant.
Am I a hypocrite? I acknowledge that I am most certain that I am! That's why I'm here - to find out where my own hypocrisy lies. But at least I don't go around denying it. And was the effort of trying to expose everyone else's hypocrisy worth that effort? Personally, I'd rather just enjoy a few good intellectual discussions without people getting hostile and intolerant. Oh, well.
posted on September 3, 2002 11:12:20 AM new
Nycyn,
Most people here know that I do not bring issues here to the attention of a moderator. I have never requested that a thread be locked. Since you are relatively new here, I just want you to know that I am not a rat.
BTW...The thread that Borillar is referring to is located here....
posted on September 3, 2002 12:50:30 PM new
Borillar- You are so right about not being able to pose a question without being attacked as though you had taken a position. This has happened to me as well. Two issues come to mind. First is whether someone who repeatedly asks similar questions is just sadistically pushing the same hot button and should be expected to eventually take a stand. Second is the indisputable historical fact that seemingly innocuous discussions of religion,abortion, etc. almost always incite emotional, sometimes nasty responses. Perhaps it is best to avoid these issues, although I believe the satanism thread was really not intended to be a religious thread per se but rather an amusing topic.
Begging the issue of free speech on a board like this is futile. It is a minor intellectual achievement to test the limits here.
posted on September 3, 2002 01:08:49 PM new
junquemama
stoo-see lol! That's exactly what I thought at first ... that the thread was intended to be funny and I posted a funny reply but then it became very serious.
posted on September 3, 2002 02:31:20 PM new
That's true stusi. What do our detractors say about we regulars here?
* They say that we incessantly bash Bush. Well, we DO have other threads now and then, but they tend to be on the same subjects as well. How about a REAL intellectual discussion? You know, with real debate, not just a mud-slinging fest? And the answer is - CAN'T BE DONE! Therefore, our detractors are right!
* They say, in so many words, that we're all a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals. From checking the waters, I'd say that most posters come into a thread, squat to do their business, defecate their opinions, and then leave everyone behind with their smelly odors without giving what they accomplished the slightest thought. When pushed to without hold their emotions and put them into an unemotional debate, they find that impossible to do. So, the majority of us are those who come here, toss a few links (after the thread link, if there is one) to go with their opinions, then leave; or, stay behind to repeat that effort until they gain satisfaction. Therefore, our detractors are right!
* We are accused of being such hypocrites - the liberals in here are accused of that the most. The idea that Liberals can be as closed-minded as Conservatives are reputed to be is just beyond the admittance of many posters. No one enjoys being discovered to be a fraud and a hypocrite on what they strongly feel is right (which is why so many leave here in disgust, IMO). To deny that oneself is sometimes hypocritical and refusing to believe the evidence when presented it is itself a form of hypocrisy. We've had that too, unfortunately, from more than one person this year alone. Therefore, our detractors are right about us.
I could go on, but do you see that there is some merit to their dispersions? None of us will ever be perfect, but that is no excuse to give up trying to be.
>This thread proved it as well:
Junqemama, or whatever your real handle is on here, that thread does indeed show that I attempted to do the same thing. After all that our culture has taught us to be true, upon both factual evidence and upon reflection, I forced readers to face what none of us wanted to hear or to admit.
But, Bush is off vacation now and Congress is speeding in the Homeland Security Act with such haste that critics are in shock. So, let's make our detractors right and I'll start off:
If this bill passes as proposed, it will indeed collapse some agencies. But the Super-Agency will be SOOOOO much bigger! So much for the claims that Republicans are for smaller government and want less federal control. Hypocrites!
Tom Daschele, Demo #1 is drooling in his efforts to get it passed as Bush has proposed. How nice of him! Hypocrites! We reeeeally ought to all vote Democrat this fall, because that will get the Bad Guys out of power, huh?
posted on September 3, 2002 03:46:48 PM new
Borillar- There is a takeoff on the Great Expectations dating service on Saturday Night Live called Lowered Expectations. The name seems to fit the situation. You seem to be quite passionate on political issues, but it is sometimes difficult to find others who share your concerns and more difficult yet to find those who can engage in intelligent debate. It will be very interesting to see whether there will be more Democrats voting as a backlash to the "stolen" election or less due to a feeling of futility. As I have stated before I consider myself a middle-of-the-road Democrat but I have issues with some of the Dems' positions regarding the environment and soft money contributions among others. I agree with you on the Republican hypocrisy of the proposed Superagency. I used to consider myself quite liberal, but as I have aged I have issues with their tunnelvision. As to the so called detractors- F 'em if they can't take a joke!
posted on September 3, 2002 03:48:20 PM new
Boriller,or whatever your real handle is on here,Do you look in the mirror everytime you call someone a hypocrite?
posted on September 3, 2002 04:42:27 PM new
junquemama, it was hinted that your handle is actually a second handle here on AW. In other words, you have one handle that you are well known by, that you then created a second handle with a second account and you are pretending to be another person on here. After that insinuation, I haven't had much to say to you, as I'm waiting to see how it all unravels, if it does.
As far as your second link there goes, you need to read what the word Hypocrisy means before your trying to make some sort of point there.
>Do you look in the mirror everytime you call someone a hypocrite?
posted on September 3, 2002 04:57:02 PM new
Stusi, I do feel as though I am suffering from delusions. I deluded myself into thinking that ordinary people who post links would also be capable of having a purely intellectual debate on a public ideal. I ignored the taunts from our detractors, saying to myself that it wasn't so. But in the end, and after trying my best to create some threads and discussions that really are unique, intelligent, and quite frankly, shocking in some cases, I finally admitted defeat. No longer will I simply sit by and just expostulate at Bush and the government, because I now know that some of the other regular posters have no idea what even basic political and social theory is all about. I feel crushed by that, almost a sense of betrayal. But it me who has betrayed myself into thinking better about people here than many have shown themselves to be worthy of.
posted on September 3, 2002 05:00:40 PM new
Bro,Twist it any way you want to,You don't do direct answers to direct questions.
And this is the biggest dump you've taken so far today:
junquemama, it was hinted that your handle is actually a second handle here on AW. In other words, you have one handle that you are well known by, that you then created a second handle with a second account and you are pretending to be another person on here. After that insinuation, I haven't had much to say to you, as I'm waiting to see how it all unravels, if it does
posted on September 3, 2002 05:03:02 PM new
junquemama
Don't worry about what Borillar said. I find multiple handles very interesting. In fact, I have a talent for guessing who they are...but I would never tell. Those posters with only two are just amateurs.
posted on September 3, 2002 05:21:44 PM new
Helen,Im a one handle gal,Borillar is probley
talking about junksons comment"junquemama is an imposter" Of course anyone who knows the history knows the joke,Then of course it makes a wonderful excuse.
[ edited by junquemama on Sep 3, 2002 05:31 PM ]
posted on September 3, 2002 05:36:38 PM new
Sorry junquemama, I don't think I can explain myself any clearer except to say we might argue with each others beliefs, but it doesn't mean the person behind them is a jerk or other expletives. That's why volatile subjects can only be talked about with people that can be unbiased if the discussion is to go anywhere.
posted on September 3, 2002 05:40:36 PM new
"All the world 's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts"
posted on September 3, 2002 05:47:02 PM new
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing
posted on September 3, 2002 05:50:37 PM new
KD,You said:That's why volatile subjects can only be talked about with people that can be unbiased if the discussion is to go anywhere.
All your threads have been unbiased.
