Printable View
I do post in WE and I don't even know how bad it is. I'm still completely lost as to what this is about. I don't think I've been in a forum where there's been less flaming than what I've managed to find in WE.
I certainly don't see comparing a leader to Hitler as a flame, espescially if the comparison is backed up with examples (which they usually are).
I don't care if people flame public figures. It's members of EoFF that I have a responsibility to protect.
i am reminded of the time i said that the membership of EoFF was much more capable of making mature posts about sex than about politics, so I didn't see why sex was off limits and politics not.
I know. I thought of that. Just because blah blah blah does it doesn't make it right. Thats why I said pretty and not completely.Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Unne
Your argument is still unsound. Just because a leader does something doesn't mean that right and wrong are no longer valid. Other people's actions don't justify your own wrongdoings.
At the very least, you should be arguing that you should be allowed to flame our leaders. That has nothing to do with flaming our fellow posters while talking about our leaders, or while talking about anything else.
Anyways as a person who visits that forum and reads a great deal of it...I don't really see the problem for the most part. Just normal standard far argueing in most places. That place is just a flame room anyways. How am I really going to talk about GW without bad mouthing him like crazy? Someone is going to take great offense to that...probably and that is like attacking their beliefs almost. They are going to fight back.
That is pretty much how it is in politics unfortunatly...or at least that is how I see it based on what I have read and heard over the years.
[q=edczxcvbnm]That place is just a flame room anyways. How am I really going to talk about GW without bad mouthing him like crazy? Someone is going to take great offense to that...probably and that is like attacking their beliefs almost. They are going to fight back.
[/q]Like Citizen Bleys said, saying nasty things about politicians isn't the issue. If someone starts a thread simply to bad-mouth Bush, it'll probably just get closed. If, however, someone makes a personal attack - for instance, saying that a member who supports Bush is a rednecked retard, or descrying any war opponents as evil terrorists, then it becomes a problem. People should be free to discuss and express their opinions without being insulted for it. It should be perfectly simply to debate a topic without making it personal.
Here's an example. Suppose someone makes a thread about Communism. I then post saying that I don't approve of Communism and giving reasons why. Someone then responds saying that I'm a mindless freak who's a pathetic slave of the evil system and simply incapable of seeing the plain truth. That last statement is an opinion, of course, but one that's unnecessary and unwelcome since it's just a personal attack.
A debate should follow this format:
"I support X notion."
"I disagree for Y reason."
"Z is the flaw in reason Y."
"Evidence Q supports reason Y."
This may seem boring, but it's civil and productive. Far better than...
"I support X notion."
"NOO j00 r t3h wrong! I r t3h rite cuz j00 r t3h stupid!"
Here's to rational, impersonal disputation.
I must confess, I don't want to see that thing before I succumb to the demon myself and flame some aivottoman molopään with my righteous anger and broadband-connection.
But the other way is so much more fun. Is it a problem outside of that forum really? Do memebers attack each other outside of that forum? I just don't see it as a problem in general there. This thread made me go 'Where' when I first saw it.Quote:
Originally posted by Big D
A debate should follow this format:
"I support X notion."
"I disagree for Y reason."
"Z is the flaw in reason Y."
"Evidence Q supports reason Y."
This may seem boring, but it's civil and productive. Far better than...
"I support X notion."
"NOO j00 r t3h wrong! I r t3h rite cuz j00 r t3h stupid!"
Here's to rational, impersonal disputation.
I'm still trying to see where ed.
Bleys said comparing public figures is bad, then said it wasn't the problem. Then Big D had to make up examples of flaming.
That's not meant critically, just trying to explain my problem with understanding.
Where is the problem? Can anyone give an actual quote that shows flaming? Mr. Graves gave some mild examples that were open to interpretation, and thats as close to flaming as I've seen.
Porblem is, if anyone posts examples of flaming here, that could be seen as a personal attack against the person who originally posted it. Most of the worst flaming was reported in warnings, and then deleted by mods.
Well I think it's reasonable to quote a flame without naming it. Given flaming is against the rules here, and thats protecting them more than they should get really.
I guess deletion explains it, though it can't have been this bad, I saw one edited (think it was Nait's for some reason though I can't remember).
It's just the examples I've actually seen commented on barely classed as slight flaming as far as I could see, just general comments on society that you could take personally if you felt so inclined.
The deletion would explain why I don't see a problem at all. I don't go in there a whole lot because it isn't a very active forum. Maybe 2 times a day...MAYBE.