Discussion Thread for New L&P Rules

[applesanity]

I've already said that the rolleyes smiley should be eliminated.

Oh wow, we agree on something. Personally, I never use those emoticons; if you can't express your sentiments into words....

I'm definitely okay with the nix on conspiracies. One poster did quip about how one man's conspiracy is another's belief system. I don't think so. The definition Al gave in the sticky is pretty much spot on- vast insidious plots uncovered by "saviors." Some elected official planning widespread gun registration is not conspiracy. Novus Ordo Seclorum is a conspiracy.

I'm not okay with the zero-tolerance on the ad-homs. What counts as an ad hominem does become a subjective judgement occassionally. Sometimes, they're obvious - I've been called a communist and a fascist, an idiot and an elitist, a liberal sympathizer and a neocon warmonger, etc. on L&P. Meh.

Sometimes, the personality and the argument are related, whether or not we want them to be. I do recall a thread that discussed a conspiracy about how mainstream media was conspiring to label Ron Paul supportors as conspirators (by the way, the "source" was a blog). Now, if I say - and I did - "That's one heck of a kooky gibberish conspiracy theory you got there," which am I addressing? Technically, I'm addressing the argument, but does not the gibberish-ness of an opinion reflect upon the person positing the opinion as well?

Logically, it should not. But who are we kidding? I believe a medium-width, dark-gray difference, however, was explained what WA said earlier - it's how you present and substantiate your argument, kooky or otherwise.

Then, there are the ways people rebut arguments. Sometimes, it's real polite, "dude, you're wrong because of X, Y, and Z." and sometimes, (I'm most certainly guilty of this) it's real curt, like posting a link to the definition of a word, i.e wiki/Strawman.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that sometimes bad posters, bad posts, and bad threads are obvious. Not all the time. Will the posters who post with sardonic humor, sarcasm, and the occasional total lack of seriousness get shot down along with the bad seeds?

We argue about our basic human rights, our freedoms or lack thereof, and often with much passion. A joke or two needs to inserted every now and then.

To an earlier post - there are still lots of fence sitters out there...it's just more subtle. They are the ones that say, "Personally, I'd never own a gun, but if ya wanna go duck hunting, sure why not?" To these people, logical discourse and common courtesy can still go a long way. L&P would be so very advantageous for that.

To the custodians of TFL - who's guarding you?

 

[madmag]

No ad-homs, and no re-writing of someones statements to make them inflammatory. Just deal with what someone says, not what you think they said.

 

[applesanity]

MadMag, if you were addressing my post, I think you missed my point.

 

[Leif]

To the custodians of TFL - who's guarding you?

They do not need guards, this is their house, so to speak. Would you like to be guarded in your own house?

Many of the complaints about the moderators seem to stem from people who somehow think their First Amendment rights have been taken from them. The problem is, they do not seem to understand that there is no constitutionally protected right to post whatever crosses their minds in this privately owned forum, just as no constitutional right protects the graffiti artist from tagging property not owned by that person. If you think that I am wrong, then I'll come over to your house with a can of Krylon and see how well that plays out.

 

[madmag]

On a positive note. I have noticed that there has been a reduction related to racist issues. There was a time when it seems every thread was reduced to racist name calling...no matter the subject of the thread.

MadMag, if you were addressing my post, I think you missed my point.

No, I was trying to make my own point.

 

[applesanity]

The problem is, they do not seem to understand that there is no constitutionally protected right to post whatever crosses their minds in this privately owned forum,

Of course. I like the moderators. We talk occasionally via PMs. Most importantly, they've bothered to explain themselves when in fact, they have no obligation to do such.

The question I asked was not at all serious - or maybe it was. Just thinking out loud, so to speak. Then again, the moderaters started this thread - they are asking for criticism. We must deliver.

No, I was trying to make my own point.

Oh okay. To your point, I'll stick to what I said in #61. If I strain a little, I could say that your mentioning of playing race cards was a veiled shot at me. Then, if I strain a little harder, I could even say that it was a subtle personal attack. And that's fine; we can talk about your inference - illegal immigration - on another thread. Then again, I could just be grasping straws. I just wanted to point out that "zero-tolerance on ad-homs" is not a correct way of approaching the matter.

I've seen moderaters call posters stupid. I mean, not directly, i.e., "you're an idiot." but with subtlety... "maybe you should read up on _____ before saying anything," etc.

To commit an ad hominem argument is to say that someone's argument is wrong based on the person. But what about commenting on how an argument reflects upon a person's character?

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Really? I've been here about as long as you, though I don't seem to have nearly as much to say, and it seems the trend has been a steady one towards more and more control over content, language and views. Maybe you've forgotten what this place was like when we got here, and how much more lively it was?"

You ever think that the rioting in the monkeyhouse is one of the big reasons why fewer people are coming here?

That crap doesn't exactly draw a lot of participants.

 

[madmag]

Ok, my final idea for a while.

I think someone else mentioned about how they address each other with titles in English courts to help keep things civil. This is also done in formal debates. When you start out being civil, then maybe it's easier to maintain. Like fellow TFL member I disagree with your argument. Or citizen madmag I agree with you....but. I like the sound of Sir madmag. Ok, I am not completely joking, but I will probably take heat for this idea.

Sir TFL member, I disagree with you that a 9mm is superior to a .45ACP. I can submit proof to you that your 9mm is no more effective than hitting a person with a pebble at 30 paces. I am finished.

 

[madmag]

If I strain a little, I could say that your mentioning of playing race cards was a veiled shot at me.

I should say... Mr. applesanity

Ok, I guess I have to answer. If I don't, then I guess I am guilty by accusation. No veiled shot, I said there have been issues with racist names calling and it seems to have reduced. I had more than one person in mind. Just take it at face value. If you strain you can imagine all sorts of things.

Mr. madmag

 

[The Tourist]

If you strain you can imagine all sorts of things.

This is the aspect of debating that scares me the most. It's the idea of perception during the debate. Let me show an example.

During a recent debate, I exchanged responses with fellow forum member Joab. We disagreed on a minor aspect of a larger topic.

I enjoyed the exchange because it was thought provoking. I had to bring my "best stuff" to the discussion.

This is why I come to forums. If I wanted softball style dialog I would watch Entertainment Tonight.

The problem here is how that exchange might be viewed by someone disconnected from the discourse. A mod might react, "Gee, that's the third time this week that The Tourist has been in a disagreement. We'd better ban him before it happens again."

Sound far-fetched? Well, it has happened--on a motorcycle forum. If you believe that all bikers are tough, let me assure you that some whine like little girls.

The real fix for this is to just be polite. Granted, I love a little bit of humor, but make sure it's understood as such, and not a back-stabbing.

Personally, I do not get that riled. Just say, "Tourist, I disagree." I guaranty you I will respond with the sharpest, most thoughtful rebuttal I can muster, and hopefully it will be fun to read. And, to that end, more fun to pick apart.

 

[applesanity]

If you strain you can imagine all sorts of things.

And, Sir madmag, therein lies another problem. I was choosing my words carefully in my last post. Where does one draw the line between "straining" and taking something "at face value?" I wasn't accusing you of anything; I was just... straining, to prove a point.

Then again, I could just be grasping straws.

I think the diminishing of race issues is directly related to the decrease in proportion of threads regarding immigration.

If someone posits a bigoted or prejudiced opinion... "(name), you just made a very bigoted/prejudiced remark..." By criticizing an argument in that manner, some could strain a bit and say that you are criticizing the person as well. Would it be fair, intentional or otherwise?

let me assure you that some whine like little girls.

Ad hom, or the truth? You make a good point. Here's something you said about conspiracies:

I never believe debates about a 'new world order' unless the debater mentions "the all knowing eye" and The Trilateral Commission.

It's kind of like looking for The Union Label. You have to be darn sure in this day and age that you are getting a quality conspiracy theory.

Hopefully we can all agree that conspiracy theories are no good on TFL.

I don't believe that someone making a remark about tin foil on a conspiracy theory thread is wrong, albeit possibly "puerile." A (cliche) joke to address another joke.

AppleHisRoyalHighnessSanity

 

[The Tourist]

let me assure you that some whine like little girls...you are getting a quality conspiracy theory.

This is why I tell people to be careful about humor.

Obviously, if you knew me personally, you'd clearly understand that this was a playful jab. Heck, even my detractors would know that.

And this is a problem for me in forums. You might use a 'smilie,' but you ultimately have to depend on the understanding of your audience.

I also believe that you shouldn't go looking to be insulted. Most folks like laughter and witty responses. I don't think I'm speaking out of school when I say that most TFL members come here to be entertained, and then get an education by accident. It's simply interesting to learn things when you enjoy the surroundings.

For example, I was having a very good day once shooting a Ruger heavy barreled 22-250. It was one of those magic days where you just couldn't miss. I heard a friend remark, "Gosh, that Ruger fits him like a pasta fork..."

I was the one that laughed the loudest.

 

[applesanity]

be careful about humor.

I remember a particular thread about some person with importance who wanted to get guns banned, "except for hunting." Everyone was preparing to email this person. Wild Alaska gave a somewhat harsh admonishing about how it's best to address the anti's with courtesy, and not to make gun owners look bad. As if we didn't know any better. (I admit, sometimes we don't.)

Then I said something like, "if you take away my guns, I will eat your children."

A moderator thought I was being serious.

 

[longeyes]

Raw or cooked, that is the question...

If I have to choose, I'll take raw.

Civility is always a fine idea, but if there were ever a time when we needed candor about things of force and moment it is NOW.

We can board up all the windows we want, the hurricane is still coming.

 

[longeyes]

"Then I said something like, "if you take away my guns, I will eat your children."

A moderator thought I was being serious."

****

That's what this forum is for: figuring out what we're "serious" about? The Serious Times are ahead. We'd better wrestle with the tough ones while we have the leisure.

Someone who plans to disarm you plans to eat YOUR children, literally or figuratively. What you do about that and when you do it is the question.

 

[DonR101395]

FWIW, I think "guided" discussions start to look like guided tours. You only see what the guide wants you to see. They do occasionally need to be put back on track with the original topic, but not guided one way or the other.

 

[Wildalaska]

That's what this forum is for: figuring out what we're "serious" about? The Serious Times are ahead. We'd better wrestle with the tough ones while we have the leisure.

Someone who plans to disarm you plans to eat YOUR children, literally or figuratively. What you do about that and when you do it is the question.

Im going to interject here and use this post as an example (and it may be a stretch, I agree, dont hold it against me ) of what frosts my fat butt...its the TENOR of the discussions...

The "serious times" are ahead...the antis are planning to "eat your children:....the omygodshillarrayandthedemoncratsaregoingtotakeawyourguns
leavingusdefenselessomygodamericaisfallinglikeromerunrunruinhidehelpmeronbwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
posts that make us, as gun owners, look like a bunch of (to use swmbos fav word) numbnuts.

Political discourse should be REASONED (my feeble attempts at humour notwithstanding)...

"I see the gun hating wing of the Democratic party has introduced another gun control bill"

vs

"Demonkrat anti freedomites seek to again try to disarm lawabiding Americans, we should string them up as traitors"

I'm not articulate enough to do further examples,...

Wildihaveseentheskyfallsince1968andithasnthitusyetAlaska TM

 

[SatanzBountyHunter]

Texas Executes #400

Here is a prime example of a thread being shut down just because it didn't follow someone's own political agenda:

I think some of the comments in this thread are reprehensible and cast a bad light on this Board and gun owners.

I agree with you WA. It seems to me that a lot of people who frequent this and other firearms boards have an unhealthy obsession with having power over life and death. I've read alot of posts here that actually scare me.

I concur.

Putting down incorrigible criminals is one thing, delighting in the idea of their torture or obsessing about the methods used is quite another.

Thread closed.

The discussion was on the death penalty and I asked what members thought about the current methods of execution or what they would recommend.

When some members had opinions that were strongly in favor of the death penalty and that current methods weren't a deterrent... the thread gets closed. I am sure that if we had argued for some touchy-feely painless alternative, the thread would still be open. Just because someone doesn't have the stomach to throw the switch doesn't mean others here don't. The vast majority who posted were in favor of other methods of execution..when it wasn't in line with the milder taste, the thread gets closed.

I do think some threads need closed once they have lost direction, but this is overkill...no pun intended.

 

[nate45]

"Demonkrat anti freedomites seek to again try to disarm lawabiding Americans, we should string them up as traitors"

Extraordinarily good idea you have there WA!

I'm with you all the way on this one.

Nateiignoredtherestofyourpostandtookonelineoutofcontext45

 

[Leif]

I am sure that if we had argued for some touchy-feely painless alternative, the thread would still be open. Just because someone doesn't have the stomach to throw the switch doesn't mean others here don't.

Saying this indicates that you missed the point, though. It's not that capital punishment cannot be debated here, but rather that it should be debated without inflamed rhetoric about throwing the switch. It's not about being "touchy-feely", but rather about being polite, rational, and literal. Say what you mean, mean what you say, back it up with fact when necessary, and do it all in a manner that you sound like an adult.