Subject:
|
Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:01:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2296 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > I propose this resolution in the hopes that other debates will occur without
> > > the overriding Israel/Palestine debate war which often takes over this
> > > channel when it appears.
> >
> > Why is that a bad thing given the amount of disinformation that surrounds this
> > issue?
> >
> > Scott A
>
> If the sides of an issue get so polarized (there, I got to use it!) that all
> there is left is "I'm right, you're wrong!" "No, I'm right and you're
> wrong!", there is nothing left but to end the thread.
I don't agree with that overview.
>
> I think it's a far better solution to end the debate on the issue than
> ignoring an individual across all debates. This allows other debates to
> take place unfettered.
>
> For me, it doesn't matter about your perceived 'disinformation'--you made
> your points, others negated those points in their mind, just as you negated
> their points to your satisfaction, but no theirs. Rehashing the points over
> and over again after that doesn't do a wee bit of good for *anyone* concerned.
>
> In the final analysis, in the end, cut to the bottom of the page, where are
> we left after that? Proposing to ignore an individual carte blanc because
> we don't like him or her dwelling on this one topic? Well, it's a solution,
> but, imho, a better solution is to step beyond the conversation.
>
> Not to bring my Christian values into play (not that this value is
> specifically a Christian one, but there you are), but avoid the sin, not the
> sinner.
>
> All in my personal judgement.
>
> You may feel that you have a point to make
> You may feel that the 'other side' doesn't get it
> You may feel that if you post 'just one more time' that you will get thru to
> them
> But when we're at the point of selectively banning people via 'ignore', then
> mayhaps you may wish to rethink posting--not your opinion, your point, or
> your values--just your posting of said stuff to the debate group.
David,
I have no problem with people ignoring me, or even users urging others to
ignore me. However, I suggest you think wider than the Israel thing. Take a
closer look at what is causing the "fuss" here.
Perhaps I’m being paranoid, but I get the feeling that some people want to
attack me when they think thay sense weakness and then “ignore” me when they
don’t. Am I being paranoid?
BTW: I made the JC post yesterday fully expecting *not* to get a reply. I blame
this mess on you ;)
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| (...) Well, here we are, sitting at 171 posts in this thread. I'll be the first to note that not all 171 posts directly relate to the P/I issue, but 171 posts... How would you sum up the current state of the P/I debate here in OT-D, where the sides (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: IGNORANT views fuel oppression?
|
| (...) If the sides of an issue get so polarized (there, I got to use it!) that all there is left is "I'm right, you're wrong!" "No, I'm right and you're wrong!", there is nothing left but to end the thread. I think it's a far better solution to end (...) (22 years ago, 12-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
