115
Guidelines for Engagement in Political Forum Threads: A suggestion : Swingers Discussion 99435
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsGuidelines for Engagement in Political Forum Threads: A suggestion
TOPIC: Guidelines for Engagement in Political Forum Threads: A suggestion
Created by: sappholovers
Original Starting post for this thread:
Democratic forums such as the American Congress and Courtroom have rules and procedures for debate and argument.

I have no hope--or desire--for debate in these forum threads to be governed by such rules, but I think it would be helpful if we tried to self-govern debate and argument down here in ways that would make the threads less ugy and off-putting to participants truly desiring the joy of learning from a democratic and free exchange of ideas.

What I propose is that we try to establish together some principles that we would like to see followed in forum exchanges, knowing that we are, if you will, fallen creatures unable to be guided by the word or any principle or commandment however beautiful and helpful it might be.

I'm sure the temptation will be to attack me for hypocrisy and claim I violate all the rules I'm suggesting. Yes, I will do a pre-emptive strike and say I can be attacked for doing all that I am suggesting we prefer not to do. Cast stones at me. I'm expecting it. But also make constructive criticism or good faith suggestions about how to herd the cats here or keep them from scratching in ways that are silly and sophomore and suggest we all need more sex to give us solace and peace.

Here are some guidelines I would suggest, and I welcome amendment, revision and suggestions made in good faith for other principles.

1. TRY TO RESPECT THE INTEGRITY OF THREAD TOPICS

So often personal bickering and squabbling over an issue in one thread spills over into another thread and no respect is given to the thread topic. I have certainly been guilty of this, and I have seen threads on John McCain include posts about the myth of black Confederate soldiers, etc.

2. FOCUS ON DEBATE AND CRITICISM OF IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS AND TRY NOT TO LEAD WITH PERSONAL, AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

Personal bickering and insults can be amusing, but they are also so silly, especially if the entire post is a personal attack. Yes, we rubber-neck to look at crashes, but I feel we should give more attention to places of merger and agreement, and I think posts that are nothing more than personal attack with no engagement of ideas or arguments related to the thread topic discourage people from participating in the thread.

Posts that are little else or nothing else than name-calling stink up thread after thread, generating heat and no light.

3. TRY TO AVOID DISTORTING PARAPHRASE AND PREFER TO CITE EXACT WORDS OF A POSTER IF YOU ARE CRITIQUING A POST

Too often I've seen the words of a post distorted and paraphrased in a way that makes a mockery of what the poster said and just creates a straw man to be attacked. Argument in good faith would be careful to cite the words of the poster or to give a fair paraphrase.

4. PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTATION NEEDS TO BE GROUNDED IN FACTS, EVIDENCE, SPECIFICS AND CALLS TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS SHOULD BE RESPECTED OR THE CLAIM WITHDRAWN.

There is much gaseous argumentation that goes on in these threads. Claims are made with conviction but no substantiation, no evidence, no fact, no reputable source to back stuff up. There is not just little or no effort to see the issue from another side. There is no good faith effort to support one's own arguments with evidence. As adults, we should try to argue with methods that go beyond 3rd grade fights on the playground.

GoTo Page: 1 ... More 
 1 to 5 of 5 
User Details are only visible to members.
Goals

The ideological goals of NeoCommunism have not changed one bit, which is why the term "communism" is so accurate. The sucker goal is to create Paradise on Earth by overthrowing democratic capitalism. The real goal is to enable the rise of a new ruling class with huge power over ordinary people. One reason that NeoCommunists have so much in common with Islamic Fascists is that both fantasize about the same millenarian end: Islamists also hate democratic capitalism, and they also want to take over the world for a purer, more idealistic tyranny. Check out Saudi Arabia and Iran for some good examples.

Means

After the fall of the Soviet Empire, the Left changed tactics but not goals. In Europe the result was called the "Third Way," and it is the controlling ideology of the European Union today. The "Third Way" claims to be a compromise between capitalism and Communism, but it comes down to sucking resources from relatively free markets for the sake of centralized State power and control. EU propaganda is just recycled socialist propaganda. You can easily see it on the web.

It is no accident that the United Kingdom today is surrendering its national sovereignty to the European Union as fast as possible: The socialist ruling classes in the UK know they will merge seamlessly into the EU elites, at higher salaries, bigger perks, and much more power. The UK elites are simply planning to join the new ruling class of the emerging European Empire. It's a promotion they just can't turn down.

Down the road it's quite possible that the EU will turn Hard Left, and junk soft socialism. And it's not impossible that it will turn Hard Right, like the Nazis. It all depends on circumstances. In France, Dominique de Villepin certainly celebrates a Napoleonic Empire for the future, as he makes clear in his writings.

The most ambitious aim of the European Union, one that is not disguised, is to become part of a world government, a far more powerful United Nations perhaps, to unify control over the world. Sounds paranoid? Yes, I know. But just listen to what they say. This is a case of paranoids having real enemies.

I'm afraid America has real enemies today. They are totalitarians who shout to the world that they are bound and determined to bring us Paradise on Earth -- as long as it's under their collective thumb. It doesn't really matter whether they are Islamists or Stalinists. They are not hard to figure out, since they proclaim their message from the rooftops. It is an ancient disease flaring up again.

Americans and other civilized countries have a record of winning out over tyrannical ideologies, at least over the longer term. But winning is by no means guaranteed. It's like a Twelve-Step Program -- first you have to recognize that the disease has gone too far. Then you can do something about it --- gently, factually, and in a persuasive way.

Winning against Neo-Communism is a matter of reaching hearts and minds, as it always is. Yes, you can love the sinners, just don't fool yourself about the sin. It all starts with telling the truth that is right in front of our eyes.

BEAT hussein and hitlary!

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sweetbutt:

I agree and I emphasized the importance of trying to sustain the integrity of a thread, and I confessed my guilt in not doing so. I want to make a very conscious effort to stay within the main topic of a thread.

I

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
These ideas coming from THE person who brought the Civil War not only to several threads of their own but brought it to others as well???

How about one request. STAY ON THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD?

Spencer TN
Username hidden
(6440 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sapp, I'll try but I've dealt with these kinds of people before. In the beginning they had the upper hand, but as time drug they started to lose their credibility. So, now they can't use research to make a point, they use bully tactics, diversion, and hearsay to make a point. I will not stand for that.

Surf, out...

San Diego CA
Username hidden
(60 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Democratic forums such as the American Congress and Courtroom have rules and procedures for debate and argument.

I have no hope--or desire--for debate in these forum threads to be governed by such rules, but I think it would be helpful if we tried to self-govern debate and argument down here in ways that would make the threads less ugy and off-putting to participants truly desiring the joy of learning from a democratic and free exchange of ideas.

What I propose is that we try to establish together some principles that we would like to see followed in forum exchanges, knowing that we are, if you will, fallen creatures unable to be guided by the word or any principle or commandment however beautiful and helpful it might be.

I'm sure the temptation will be to attack me for hypocrisy and claim I violate all the rules I'm suggesting. Yes, I will do a pre-emptive strike and say I can be attacked for doing all that I am suggesting we prefer not to do. Cast stones at me. I'm expecting it. But also make constructive criticism or good faith suggestions about how to herd the cats here or keep them from scratching in ways that are silly and sophomore and suggest we all need more sex to give us solace and peace.

Here are some guidelines I would suggest, and I welcome amendment, revision and suggestions made in good faith for other principles.

1. TRY TO RESPECT THE INTEGRITY OF THREAD TOPICS

So often personal bickering and squabbling over an issue in one thread spills over into another thread and no respect is given to the thread topic. I have certainly been guilty of this, and I have seen threads on John McCain include posts about the myth of black Confederate soldiers, etc.

2. FOCUS ON DEBATE AND CRITICISM OF IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS AND TRY NOT TO LEAD WITH PERSONAL, AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

Personal bickering and insults can be amusing, but they are also so silly, especially if the entire post is a personal attack. Yes, we rubber-neck to look at crashes, but I feel we should give more attention to places of merger and agreement, and I think posts that are nothing more than personal attack with no engagement of ideas or arguments related to the thread topic discourage people from participating in the thread.

Posts that are little else or nothing else than name-calling stink up thread after thread, generating heat and no light.

3. TRY TO AVOID DISTORTING PARAPHRASE AND PREFER TO CITE EXACT WORDS OF A POSTER IF YOU ARE CRITIQUING A POST

Too often I've seen the words of a post distorted and paraphrased in a way that makes a mockery of what the poster said and just creates a straw man to be attacked. Argument in good faith would be careful to cite the words of the poster or to give a fair paraphrase.

4. PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTATION NEEDS TO BE GROUNDED IN FACTS, EVIDENCE, SPECIFICS AND CALLS TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS SHOULD BE RESPECTED OR THE CLAIM WITHDRAWN.

There is much gaseous argumentation that goes on in these threads. Claims are made with conviction but no substantiation, no evidence, no fact, no reputable source to back stuff up. There is not just little or no effort to see the issue from another side. There is no good faith effort to support one's own arguments with evidence. As adults, we should try to argue with methods that go beyond 3rd grade fights on the playground.

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 ... More 
 1 to 5 of 5 
TOPIC: Guidelines for Engagement in Political Forum Threads: A suggestion