Zero Tolerance

Even if you believe people were "proving it", TripleB, that doesn't give you the right make the generalizations that you did .

As a liberal, I certain don't wish for any american casualties in Iraq, even though I would like to see Bush lose in November.

KK said it best with his comparisons of "tone". It just has to do with how people come across, that's all.

Peace,

V-03

 

My concern though is a kind of fuzzy line between what you call an unacceptable generalization, and good faith debating.

The problem with fuzzy lines is that they are so indistinct.

However, part of the point of all of this is to help people learn to recognize for themselves when they are making overbroad generalizations. As a general rule (not for every case), if your argument boils down to "All _____ group believes _____ because of _____", it's usually going to be overbroad. Of course, there will be some exceptions (such as "All atheists deny the existance of God."), but you should try to recognize those generalizations on your own.

Another key point is to look at the overall tone of the discussion and the generalization. Stereotypes (which are just one more form of generalization) are rarely all that helpful in proving points because they often strip most of the meat out of whatever they are stereotyping. Similarly, calling other users blind because they disagree with your interpretation (something I've seen often on both sides) is unfairly generalizing them. It's also condescending (taking the attitude of "If only you could see clearly, you'd see that I'm right").

Sometimes it does take a judgement call, but that is true on both sides. Stop to think about things from a different perspective. Try to think the best of others' arguments and see the merit within, then look at things from their perspective. Then, after evaluating the statements from both sides, make changes that are needed. Rumor has it that we are all intelligent people here, and so it is usually safe to assume that those you discuss/debate with are fairly intelligent, too. Remember that and respect that and we might all learn something from this.

Kimball Kinnison

 

However, when I am attacking "liberals", I am saying it more against an ideology then i am against those whom practice it, if that helps any.

If I may say TripleB IMO the problem you have is that sometimes you give a very strong impression that you are attacking the people and not the ideology. I would go as far to say that on some occasions you have even given the impression that you actually hate liberals themselves. Now I certainly don't think that this is the case but I do understand why so many people take offence to what you say.

 

Difference:

use "Liberal(s)" or "Conservative(s)" = you are attacking people.

use "liberal thought" or "liberal ideals" = you are attacking ideaology.

Big diff there.

 

Difference:

use "Liberal(s)" or "Conservative(s)" = you are attacking people.

use "liberal thought" or "liberal ideals" = you are attacking ideaology.

Big diff there.

Thats a very reasonable assumption to make but it is not necesarily accurate. In the case of TripleB I don't think that it is accurate, but it is perfectly understandable that people reach such a conclusion.

 

Thats a very reasonable assumption to make but it is not necesarily accurate. In the case of TripleB I don't think that it is accurate, but it is perfectly understandable that people reach such a conclusion.

Oh, I agree. The intent may be one way, while others perceive it a different way. It all epends on clarity of verbiage, and how clear the writer wants to be.

 

"You're a liberal weiner! You're a right wing nut job! You're a pinko commie! You're dumb as a door knob!"

yeah..KK is right. this kind of stuff needs to stop. hey KK, but i still won three purple hearts!!

 

Well, when I make my "attacks" on Liberal's, I do mean it more on the followers of Liberalism, more then I do anything else. On a certain level, I am 100% aware that certain people are going to take what I say rather harshly. I don't actually directly target people with my attacks (contrary to what A_G and Guin will claim), but the fact is that I do come down so hard on Liberalism, that those whom practice it tend to get hid by the fall out of it as well.

So basically, the way I am reading it, is that I need to be more focused on "Liberalism" when I attack, and not say "You Liberals" or "LIberals"?

 

TribleB, the best way to judge whether or not your attacks on Liberals are appropriate is if you can replace "liberal" with the name of a liberal person on this board and still get away with it.

 

But that is not the intent. When I make some of my statements, they are directed at ALL LIBERALS be they here at TF.N, or San Fransisco. I am well aware that if I specifically say 'Obi-Wan McCartney, you are a (insert whatever) liberal' that there will be a cost for my saying it.

I don't see anything wrong on my end by stating "Liberals want This, that and the Other THing", as long as there is a basis for saying it and it does not imply anything other then that. IN some cases, there is little else to say but it.

 

I don't see anything wrong on my end by stating "Liberals want This, that and the Other THing", as long as there is a basis for saying it and it does not imply anything other then that.
TripleB, you posted this in the Appeasement thread on 8-6-04:

If you did not have the resolve to stick with your home country and instead fell to the powers of evil and have given your support for John Kerry and for this left wing socialists around the world, there is no way that if you did not have the resolve and back bone to stand up to Iraq and Terrorists, that you would have NEVER had the courage and resolve to stand up to a SuperPower enemy, be it the Empire of Japan or the Soviet Union.

What you did here was call me a proponent of evil and a coward for no other reason than I support John Kerry over President Bush. It is no different than me saying "TripleB is a I am proud to be called a coward by a 'shortsighted jingoistic warmonger.'" (which, incidentally, is what I said to you immediately after I read that).

 

1) For starters, I fully 100% beleive in that statement.

2) I did not say "Jedi Flyer, if you bla, bla bla"

3) Did I forget to say that I believe in that statement, and whats more, can debate and actually make the statement stick? I know I can make it stick if someone wanted to. The fact that the entire post before that, where I drew upon historical facts and analogy's, which were never refuted by anyone here, tells me that a lot of you know that there is some truth to what I was saying.

Which was this: Based on their lack of resolve in the face of what is happening in Iraq, there is no way that the same liberals could have stomached the death tolls and military defeats suffered in early 1942 post Pearl Harbor. No question about it. If Iraq is too much for you, then the US MIlitary's defeats at the hands of the Japanese in Wake Island, Guam, the Phillipines, and elsewhere post December 7th would have Liberals all over the country (Including those on these message boards) would be out screaming "STOP THE WAR, SEEK PEACE WITH JAPAN", which would basically be what I have said all along.

 

So you believe I am a coward and a proponent of evil because I support John Kerry over Bush?

 

TripleB, it seems you are trying to adapt the new policy to suit your posting behavior; not your behavior to suit the new policy.

E_S

 

TripleB, we have to enforce the rules equally.

If you continue to post in a manner that you claim applies to "all liberals"-at any time, doing it only "some of the time" does not excuse it-you will suffer the consequences.

Why don't you just tone down your posting style? It would garner you that much more respect amongst everyone, and make things a lot easier.

Peace,

V-03

 

I have been absent from The Senate Floor Forum for quite some time.

Essentially, my departure was based upon several factors, including the inability for the forum to have a structure conducive to level debate with the rules applying to all members. The labeling, baiting and flaming were out of control, with uneven distribution of enforcement of Forum Rules.

However, the new 'zero tolerance' policy has piqued my interest once more.

I am pleased to see that the new policy is being enforced in a more even-handed fashion then the historical precedent in the forum.

Therefore, I am returning to add my contribution to the forum pending a longer review of the continued equitability in adherence to and enforcement of forum rules.

 

I would like to be the first to welcome you back, DM, back amongst friends.

(And of course to apologise for previous unpleasantness which was entirely my fault - sincerely, though, this time )

I hope you agree with the Senior Senators here that the Senate Floor was once capable of better and we can sure as hell try to get back to form. Your observations about the flaws of the Senate were accurate, and I'm sure your enthusiasm for the "new" Senate won't be misplaced.

E_S

 

Welcome back, my friend .

You have been missed.

We are all doing everything we can to make the Senate what it once was.

I'm confident that we will get there.

Peace,

V-03

 

While we don't agree on most issues, I have to admit I do enjoy discussions more when you're around DM. Stick around and hopefully it can get better!

There's something I've been meaning to mention but there's never really been a place to bring it up.

What's the policy on members signatures? Like if one was deemed offensive against another member/group, is that allowed and are there any rules concerning it?

Just curious.

 

So basically, the way I am reading it, is that I need to be more focused on "Liberalism" when I attack, and not say "You Liberals" or "LIberals"?

Yes this is exactly what you should do and perhaps as a committed christian (or jesus freak is you prefer the phrase ) you should recall that bit in the bible about loving sinners while hating sin.

 

Thanks all.

I am glad to have returned and look forward to the discussions of isses with you guys.

 

Vaderize03 said

TripleB, we have to enforce the rules equally.

I would ask nothing less.

If you continue to post in a manner that you claim applies to "all liberals"-at any time, doing it only "some of the time" does not excuse it-you will suffer the consequences.

COuld you define that further down for me. I understand the need for me to stop saying that Liberals are the Spawn of Satan, for example. But if I were to say that Liberalism is the Spawn of Satan, (which I believe either way), would be more "Correct" here on the boards?

Why don't you just tone down your posting style? It would garner you that much more respect amongst everyone, and make things a lot easier.

I will try to find way's to tone it down, but also understand, and I am sure I have told yourself, Kimball, and Knightwriter many a times that I don't make any statement that I don't believe in.

I will gladly choose to be ridiculed for stating my beliefs and views on a subject, then be respected for posting/saying something that I don't believe in.

Take the Gay Marriage thread. I am sure you and a lot of other liberals were VERY surprised to see some of the views I hold on that topic, which are difficult for me as I struggle to find my own hold of the position. The American in me say's my position is right; the Christian that I am say's that I am wrong, and as such. It is possible I am going to come to some revelation that one of them is incorrect and I am going to have a hard time dealing with it.

Jedi Flyer said

So you believe I am a coward and a proponent of evil because I support John Kerry over Bush?

The "PC" answer- I believe that, if you were unable to back The United States of America against the Iraqi Insurgents and Terrorists by falling for the line/lies perpetuated by the left, then I call into 100% question ones committment to the United States of America, and believe that this 2004 Election has turned into what may well be the gravest ever. For is Kerry wins, it will be the first time where FOreign Nations had an impact in changing out our leadership of our country, it will be the first time where a President whose values are more in tune with foreign nations then his own and it will be a time where people whom would see America destroyed will have played an active role in making it happen via our electoral process.

My REAL VIEWS. Highlight to read, and if you are a liberal, read at your own ire, don't say I did not warn you becuase I imagine most lib's will not like this.

***I fully believe in the Father, the Son, and the HOly Spirit.

***I fully believe that even as God watches over this earth, that Satan walks it, and is in direct work's to undermine mankind's salvation thru Christ.

***I fully, 100% believe that Liberalism was a concept conceived by Satan and those that serve him.

***I fully 100% believe that it was created to help sever mankind's connection to God and replace it with values and such that are in opposition to the Lords's Plans for us.

***I believe that while 99.99999999% of the liberals on this planet believe they are doing what they are doing is for the best, that does not change the fact that they are promoting an agenda in support of the evil one.

I hope that helps clarify where I am coming from.

 

E_S

 

In my humble opinion, personal views expressed should remain in the proper venue: i.e., the threads that those views belong in. Or, you can place them in your bio.



The new policy is the subject of discussion here in this particular thread.

 

Which is why I highlighted them out and gave fair warning to those whom read it.