Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

[scott3x]

scott,
i don't know man, you sure have a knack for starting raging infernos.

The infernos started long before I came here. They're a part of the very fabric of our society. I simply remind people of them at times. At present, I was hoping for the reverse; that is, to attempt to get communication civil, precisely to avoid messy infernos. I think I was making progress. But then you had to bring up an issue that was sure to get the inferno going again. Perhaps I was foolish in initially going with it, but now I've decided to nip it in the bud.

And repeatedly obsessing over them, seemingly unable to let things go.

Liebling, I'm no longer sure I even know what it is you think I'm obsessing about. Perhaps it's just as well...

Don't you already have two or three threads on flaming?

You are the king of beating a dead horse, Equus... I mean Scott. Srsly, you just need to learn when to stop and not push until everyone stops listening.

The only thing I was asking for in this thread is to get more specific on what constitutes personal attacks. That's all. Hardly a subject that should inspire infernos. Apparently, however, some people (not mentioning any names now) want to drag in subjects that have been closed down in many different places. The sad thing is that these people aren't really interested in talking to me; I've invited people to PM me concerning a certain subject that James and Stryder have made clear they'd rather not see here, but no one has done so. Apparently what they're after is not a heart to heart talk, but a lynch mob.

 

[scott3x]

who cares what you or wiki thinks or says?
i know what i meant and you do too.

but you see I do and many others. Because we do care.

And yes that is what makes scott unique from ancientregime. Citings for his methodology.

Thanks draqon. I firmly believe that if people could give me the time to explain my points of view without insults, things would be much different then how things are now. However, I don't think that will happen here.

 

[scott3x]

who cares what you or wiki thinks or says?

but you see I do and many others.

that's the thing draqon, scott doesn't have the authority to interpret the law in this area nor do i, but he knows what i meant.

leopold reads minds, you see, and knows that I know what he's talking about. Anyway, don't bother trying to explain leopold; atleast not here; the subject is taboo in sci forums; what I don't understand is how and others here haven't seemed to have noticed, even as they quote threads that have been closed. If you want to talk about that subject, PM me. If not, leave it alone.

 

[leopold]

The infernos started long before I came here.

YOU are the one that brought this entire pedophile issue to this board scott.

At present, I was hoping for the reverse; that is, to attempt to get communication civil, precisely to avoid messy infernos.

for what reason? to advocate pedophilia and perversion.

I think I was making progress.

yes indeed, when the administrator of the site find your posts disturbing that's progress alright.

 

[phlogistician]

Hey folks, stop feeding the monkey. Or the Kleenex Kid (Scotties 3 Ply) will just use this as yet another vehicle to promote his skewed views.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

The infernos started long before I came here.

YOU are the one that brought this entire pedophile issue to this board scott.

No, I didn't. It's been brought up vaguely by others in threads dealing with sexting, but the person who truly brought it to the fore was ancientregime. Did you forget or did you truly not know? Either way, I think it speaks volumes for either your proper analyzing of a historical situation or for your capacity to remember things; perhaps both; in any case, it makes you a truly uncredible source on such matters.

At present, I was hoping for the reverse; that is, to attempt to get communication civil, precisely to avoid messy infernos.

for what reason? to advocate pedophilia and perversion.

I've spoken of other subjects before ancientregime came here and I continue to speak of other subjects. However, -some- people simply can't let the subject go. Even though Stryder & James have shut down threads on the subject.

I think I was making progress.

yes indeed, when the administrator of the site find your posts disturbing that's progress alright.

Sigh. leopold, I'm talking about defining what constitutes personal attacks in sci forums. You know, trying to actually stick to the subject of the thread instead of going off on tangents?

 

[leopold]

No, I didn't. It's been brought up vaguely by others in threads dealing with sexting, but the person who truly brought it to the fore was ancientregime. Did you forget or did you truly not know?

all i know is that you, the observer, and ancient regime advocate this stuff.

Either way, I think it speaks volumes for either your proper analyzing of a historical situation or for your capacity to remember things; perhaps both; in any case, it makes you a truly uncredible source on such matters.

of course you feel that way scott, simply because i keep sticking it in your face that you do not interpret the law in this area.

I've spoken of other subjects before ancientregime came here and I continue to speak of other subjects. However, -some- people simply can't let the subject go. Even though Stryder & James have shut down threads on the subject.

i just find it ironic that you would be asking for civility while advocating pedophilia scott.

Sigh. leopold, I'm talking about defining what constitutes personal attacks in sci forums. You know, trying to actually stick to the subject of the thread instead of going off on tangents?

and i'm just saying don't expect civility when you are advocating diddling minors.

 

[Liebling]

and i'm just saying don't expect civility when you are advocating diddling minors.

Finally, someone gets to the point. :clap:

 

[scott3x]

No, I didn't. It's been brought up vaguely by others in threads dealing with sexting, but the person who truly brought it to the fore was ancientregime. Did you forget or did you truly not know?

all i know is that you, the observer, and ancient regime advocate this stuff.

I'm glad you now admit that I wasn't the person who brought this issue up in this forum. As to what I advocate, that would require a lengthy discussion. Since the discussion in question is off limits in the public domain by decree of both James and Stryder, here are options you can try that I'm sure are within sci forums policy:
1- You PM me about it.
2- You take it up with James and Stryder.

Up until recently, I had thought that the avenue you and various others (including a moderator, no less) is -not- within forum policy. But I've been having second thoughts; perhaps James and Stryder merely wanted to make sure that -I- don't talk about this issue. If the intent of you and your group here is to go on a tirade against me, you just may be within sci forums policy.

Either way, I think it speaks volumes for either your proper analyzing of a historical situation or for your capacity to remember things; perhaps both; in any case, it makes you a truly uncredible source on such matters.

of course you feel that way scott, simply because i keep sticking it in your face that you do not interpret the law in this area.

I never said I was a legal judge. I'm a philosopher, in the original sense of the term; that is, a lover of wisdom, and a judge of the morals upon which laws are built.

P.S.: I will no longer respond to off topic criticisms that I am not allowed to even defend myself against in this forum.

 

[leopold]

I'm glad you now admit that I wasn't the person who brought this issue up in this forum. As to what I advocate, that would require a lengthy discussion. Since the discussion in question is off limits in the public domain by decree of both James and Stryder, here are options you can try that I'm sure are within sci forums policy:
1- You PM me about it.

i have no intentions of PMing you now, or in the future.

2- You take it up with James and Stryder.

take what up with james or stryder? you are the one that's doing all the complaining scott.

Up until recently, I had thought that the avenue you and various others (including a moderator, no less) is -not- within forum policy. But I've been having second thoughts; perhaps James and Stryder merely wanted to make sure that -I- don't talk about this issue. If the intent of you and your group here is to go on a tirade against me, you just may be within sci forums policy.

oh man, check this out, i'm part of a conspiracy now.

I never said I was a legal judge. I'm a philosopher, in the original sense of the term; that is, a lover of wisdom, and a judge of the morals upon which laws are built.

what a load of hogger mogger scott.

P.S.: I will no longer respond to off topic criticisms that I am not allowed to even defend myself against in this forum.

fair enough.

 

[Bells]

No, I don't. A lot of others have, however...

Bells, it takes 2 to tango. And right now -I'm- the one who's saying I don't want to dance. So who's obsessing?

So pointing out something in your posts is obsessing? Okay then.

Yes, it was.

As I said. Maybe, maybe not.

Why not? Because you disagree with me on an issue that can't even be discussed because people start foaming at the mouth? That's not -my- fault. It speaks of a lack of civility on the part of my opponents. So yes, I definitely think I should be entitled to ask for civility.

Didn't I say that I agreed with you on that point?

Yeah, that's right. What's wrong with that?

Because it would be virtually impossible and overly restrictive.

Shall we ban all swear words from this forum? Any word that could be deemed to be derogatory if used in a particular manner?

I think we should expect that members on this forum are old enough to understand what constitutes a personal insult and what does not. And the greater majority are civil, even in their most rabid of arguments with others on this forum. You are demanding that we babysit adults and keep rapping them over the knuckles if they so much as swear, because another might not view it as being "civil".

Bells, think. The topic here is supposed to be defining what is civil. You may disagree with x or y view of mine, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a post where I'm uncivil.

Oh? Like when you told me "Shame on you Bells"? I might view that as being uncivil.

What might be civil to you, may not be civil to another. It is left to individual interpretation for the most part. But the greater majority are able to find a balance and even while arguing, are able to remain somewhat civil.

Yes, shame on you.


<snip Bells getting off topic again and misrepresenting me>

You want us to ban sarcasm as well?

Look, I'm talking about insults here, not about thread closures for other reasons. I have never received a warning for using insulting language.

Interesting, you demand civility but respond to me in a manner that is quite aggressive. Funny, yes?

Some people will insult others. For goodness sake Scott, this is a discussion forum and the moderators attempt to moderate so that they do not end up into a free-for-all, while trying to not stifle the debate or discussion. It is a fine balance. Yes, personal insults are against this site's policy and rules and when found or seen or reported, such insults may be deleted and warnings or bans may ensue for the individual being insulting. But you are demanding that we list every single insult that there could exist in the human language and ban them. That would be an impossible task. In banning such words that could be deemed insulting, we would also be arbitrarily applying them to conversations and discussions that would constitute as banter between friends, who will sometimes tell the other "fuck off" as part of that friendly banter.. Can you understand what I am getting at here?

 

[scott3x]

Bells, it takes 2 to tango. And right now -I'm- the one who's saying I don't want to dance. So who's obsessing?

So pointing out something in your posts is obsessing? Okay then.

No, pointing out something in my posts isn't obsessing. Pointing out something from threads that were -closed down- in a thread that has -nothing to do- with the subject you're pointing out is, though. However, if you -really- want to hear my views on a subject I've been forbidden to discuss in the public forums, by all means, PM me. If you can't bring yourself to do this, then I ask you to consider the fact that while you may like to hit a man, personally attacking his character with arguments he deems to be unfair -and- the man in question isn't even allowed to use his -own- arguments in self defense, it's not a fair fight and I think the only moral thing to do is to drop the subject.

Was Leo's comment off topic? Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, it was.

As I said. Maybe, maybe not.

Continuing in your denialism won't help you on your road to recovery concerning your obsession Bells

He was pointing out that your posting history on this forum, that in his opinion, you really should not be asking for civility.

Why not? Because you disagree with me on an issue that can't even be discussed because people start foaming at the mouth? That's not -my- fault. It speaks of a lack of civility on the part of my opponents. So yes, I definitely think I should be entitled to ask for civility.

Didn't I say that I agreed with you on that point?

In the sentence after the one I was responding to here. I hadn't gotten there yet .

Is he right? I disagree but can understand where he is coming from. We all have a right to some form of civil response. But you are asking the moderators of this forum to set down arbitrary rules as to what words can and cannot be used so that they fall into a "civil" box.

Yeah, that's right. What's wrong with that?

Because it would be virtually impossible and overly restrictive.

I disagree, on both counts.

Shall we ban all swear words from this forum? Any word that could be deemed to be derogatory if used in a particular manner?

No. I had a small list that I felt could be used as a starting point; here it is again:
moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.)...

Fraggle Rocker felt that 'pea brain' constituted a legitimate attack and Tiassa felt that 'prick' used as an insult should qualify; I concur on both counts.

I think we should expect that members on this forum are old enough to understand what constitutes a personal insult and what does not.

I don't think that -all- personal insults should be banned. -That- list would be absurdly large. Just a few choice terms.

And the greater majority are civil, even in their most rabid of arguments with others on this forum. You are demanding that we babysit adults and keep rapping them over the knuckles if they so much as swear, because another might not view it as being "civil".

I think Tiassa was on to something when he said you could swear, just not -at- someone. I'm not so keen on his idea that if you add an 'if' at the beginning of a sentence, then put in your favourite insult and then end it with some action. However, even this would require a little more thought then simply going for the jugular (as in you <proscribed insult here>!).

Bells, think. The topic here is supposed to be defining what is civil. You may disagree with x or y view of mine, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a post where I'm uncivil.

Oh? Like when you told me "Shame on you Bells"? I might view that as being uncivil.

By uncivil, I meant using insults, not that no one has ever been offended by something I've said.

What might be civil to you, may not be civil to another.

Some insults are fairly universally known to generally just be used as put downs. I simply believe that those insults should be proscribed.

It is left to individual interpretation for the most part. But the greater majority are able to find a balance and even while arguing, are able to remain somewhat civil.

Individual mod interpretation is what I'm trying to avoid here. It leads to calls of favouritism and in some if not all cases, they may just be right. By using a common set of insults that are proscribed for -all- (including moderators), I would argue that this issue would be greatly mitigated.

Yes, shame on you.

<snip Bells getting off topic again and misrepresenting me>

You want us to ban sarcasm as well?

No idea where you got -that- idea from.

Look, I'm talking about insults here, not about thread closures for other reasons. I have never received a warning for using insulting language.

Interesting, you demand civility but respond to me in a manner that is quite aggressive. Funny, yes?

-My- manner is quite aggressive? Please. -You're- the one who came in, both barrels firing, not me. I am -asking- for civility, appealing to the conscience of posters here. I'm clearly in no position to demand anything from the administration of this site.

Some people will insult others.

Ofcourse. I'm not trying to stop all insults. Only to have a list of proscribed insults that are no go.

For goodness sake Scott, this is a discussion forum and the moderators attempt to moderate so that they do not end up into a free-for-all, while trying to not stifle the debate or discussion. It is a fine balance.

I agree; I think the balance would be helped by having a few insults on the forbidden list, however.

Yes, personal insults are against this site's policy and rules and when found or seen or reported, such insults may be deleted and warnings or bans may ensue for the individual being insulting.

Lots of mays there. It's understandable; the amount of personal insults is simply too large and some insults are more toxic then others. By narrowing the list of insults that could be considered reportable material, I think things could be made a lot easier, for -everyone- involved.

But you are demanding that we list every single insult that there could exist in the human language and ban them. That would be an impossible task.

Perhaps so. It's also something I never asked for.

In banning such words that could be deemed insulting, we would also be arbitrarily applying them to conversations and discussions that would constitute as banter between friends, who will sometimes tell the other "fuck off" as part of that friendly banter.. Can you understand what I am getting at here?

I don't think it's that hard for people to refrain from using such terms. However, for the sake of argument, let's 'allow' such things; if they're friends and clearly don't mind it when dealing with each other. It's different when they're -not- friends. The issue of a friendly banter gone awry certainly exists; I don't think it should be too hard to figure out when that occurs. However, as long as the people involved are clearly -not- on friendly terms, and especially if one reports the other, that's another matter. But as I mentioned before, without having a clear list of insults that are reportable, it can be -immensely- frustrating to someone who's considering reporting; no one wants to look like a fool, with nothing happening after a post has been reported. And yet this is precisely the type of scenario that one can find oneself in these days. For this reason, I think that the creation of a set of forbidden terms, at the very least when engaged in a hostile discussion, should be created.

 

[scott3x]

I'm glad you now admit that I wasn't the person who brought this issue up in this forum. As to what I advocate, that would require a lengthy discussion. Since the discussion in question is off limits in the public domain by decree of both James and Stryder, here are options you can try that I'm sure are within sci forums policy:
1- You PM me about it.

i have no intentions of PMing you now, or in the future.

Why stop with the 'no PMing'? Why not just -leave me alone- concerning issues I'm not even allowed to properly defend myself on? Or do you -like- hitting a man who's got his proverbial hands tied behind his back? Perhaps it gives you a certain sadistic thrill?

 

[theobserver]

all i know is that you, the observer, and ancient regime advocate this stuff.

Ohhh well... what do we have here?? I would advocate anything that's supportive of laws of nature even if humans don't see it moral or sane. Now if anyone got any problem with that, they need to prove me wrong in the most scientific manner possible than resorting to personal attacks. And its a shame that only James displayed a certain degree of standard in responses and everyone else resorted to personal attacks.

I don't promote anything which would destroy the nature for our own self centered views. I would never advocate shagging a 2 yr old kid but I would advocate that kids should be allowed to explore the subject of sex when they reach puberty and legal age of marriage should be taken out. But i do understand that current economic model is not supportive of such acts and that's what am more interested to change before i think of age of consent laws. And then elders mind setup on sex must change. We have been taught to see it as a sin or shameful act for few thousand years. I wouldn't consider pedophilia as a perversion but as an unavoidable consequence of raising age of consent under the banner of being civilized. If our current society keep thinking the way they have been thinking, sooner or later we would touch the top of the curve. Then it would be a steep fall.

Personal attacks are anything that point towards the member than his post. Many controversial subjects when being discussed(provided they are being discussed) sure brings the question of the psychological conditions of the poster. But attacking that poster is far worse than arguing about the subject. You can sure spend time on pin pointing the posters methods and mannerism's related to the argument. It is always allowed and is productive. It sometimes does help the poster to reflect back on his way of explaining the theory. Also one must begin to acknowledge their own limitations in comprehending a new subject or a perspective being discussed than getting all angry and emotional because the subject being discussed got them all emotional. Try to put in some effort and time, read, try to see both sides of the argument and deduce the common grounds and possibilities. Someone once said that "Absolute certainty is a privilege of uneducated minds and fanatics". So anytime you find yourself so convinced about any point, question yourself.

 

[Bells]

No, pointing out something in my posts isn't obsessing. Pointing out something from threads that were -closed down- in a thread that has -nothing to do- with the subject you're pointing out is, though. However, if you -really- want to hear my views on a subject I've been forbidden to discuss in the public forums, by all means, PM me. If you can't bring yourself to do this, then I ask you to consider the fact that while you may like to hit a man, personally attacking his character with arguments he deems to be unfair -and- the man in question isn't even allowed to use his -own- arguments in self defense, it's not a fair fight and I think the only moral thing to do is to drop the subject.

The subject matter isn't forbidden. It was what was being advocated within the subject matter that was causing issues.

As for PM'ing you to continue the conversation, to be honest, I really have no desire to. I have seen and heard enough in my professional life about what has been done to children by adults that trying to debate or discuss legalising some of those things to be highly stressful for me. You see, I was one of those people who had to help families pick up the pieces and to help prosecute the people who felt similarly to what you feel should be legal. I have seen the damage first hand, experienced it with friends first hand and no, I personally do not wish to continue the debate privately with you.

Continuing in your denialism won't help you on your road to recovery concerning your obsession Bells

Uh huh..

No. I had a small list that I felt could be used as a starting point; here it is again:
moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.)...

Fraggle Rocker felt that 'pea brain' constituted a legitimate attack and Tiassa felt that 'prick' used as an insult should qualify; I concur on both counts.

So you are saying we should ban those words outright?

I say it would depend on how they are used. Or more to the point, the context in which they are used.

By uncivil, I meant using insults, not that no one has ever been offended by something I've said.

You would be surprised. We all offend someone on here at one time or another. Learn to grow a thicker skin and not be insulted at anything and everything. In short, this is a part of the big bad world and sometimes, there will be others who will not like you and will advise you of their dislike in a few choice terms. The ignore function works well in such cases.

Some insults are fairly universally known to generally just be used as put downs. I simply believe that those insults should be proscribed.

But what might be a put down to you, might be a big joke to another. For example, recently one member called two female members "skanks". Knowing that the 3 of them were friends and engaged in banter throughout the forum allowed one to see that it was not meant as an insult to those two female members. Hence why I said it would depend on the context in which the words were used. If I were to arbitrarily ban the word "skank" (as one example), I would have been reporting the member to the administrators of this site and demanding removal and possible action against this member, ignoring the simple fact that the context in which the word was used was in friendly banter. I personally think banning such words would stifle discussion and not allow people to be themselves. It all depends on context and the way in which we know people interact with each other. If I know that two people detest each other or have been arguing on this forum and one calls the other a "skank", it would be a fair assessment that it was not used as friendly banter and warnings and possible bans could end up being the result. Again, it depends on the context.

Individual mod interpretation is what I'm trying to avoid here. It leads to calls of favouritism and in some if not all cases, they may just be right. By using a common set of insults that are proscribed for -all- (including moderators), I would argue that this issue would be greatly mitigated.

I think you would find that little favouritism exists on this forum. I have rebuked friends, fellow moderators and others alike if I feel they are going to far and not adhering to the rules of the forum. I even rebuked James once. I have had the same done to me by moderators I consider to be friends.

-My- manner is quite aggressive? Please. -You're- the one who came in, both barrels firing, not me. I am -asking- for civility, appealing to the conscience of posters here. I'm clearly in no position to demand anything from the administration of this site.

I prefer to get things out in the open as quickly as possible. I would say I came in with 1 barrel firing and the other saved for later.

If you feel that people are being insulting, there is a report function that is accessible to you and the moderator and administrators of this site will review your complaint.

Ofcourse. I'm not trying to stop all insults. Only to have a list of proscribed insults that are no go.

But by doing so, you are banning words that are sometimes used in non-insulting ways.

 

[phlogistician]

Ohhh well... what do we have here?? I would advocate anything that's supportive of laws of nature even if humans don't see it moral or sane.

OK, so you are a liar. The laws of nature say that if I want something, I take it, and deal with the consequences. Now, I really doubt you think it's OK to get beaten up and robbed by someone bigger than you. I doubt you would be philosophical after someguy beats the crap out of you and takes every you have ever worked for, leaving you crippled.

You want protection, and and to adhere to some vague personal interpretation of you think is nature. IE, you re talking out of both sides of your mouth at once.

 

[scott3x]

No, pointing out something in my posts isn't obsessing. Pointing out something from threads that were -closed down- in a thread that has -nothing to do- with the subject you're pointing out is, though. However, if you -really- want to hear my views on a subject I've been forbidden to discuss in the public forums, by all means, PM me. If you can't bring yourself to do this, then I ask you to consider the fact that while you may like to hit a man, personally attacking his character with arguments he deems to be unfair -and- the man in question isn't even allowed to use his -own- arguments in self defense, it's not a fair fight and I think the only moral thing to do is to drop the subject.

The subject matter isn't forbidden.

I didn't say it was.

It was what was being advocated within the subject matter that was causing issues.

There may be some confusion over what I'm advocating but yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. So unless you like kicking a man with his hands tied behind his back, the -moral- thing to do is to cease and desist.

As for PM'ing you to continue the conversation, to be honest, I really have no desire to.

So why do you have such a desire to lay into me in public?

I have seen and heard enough in my professional life about what has been done to children by adults that trying to debate or discuss legalising some of those things to be highly stressful for me. You see, I was one of those people who had to help families pick up the pieces and to help prosecute the people who felt similarly to what you feel should be legal.I have seen the damage first hand, experienced it with friends first hand and no, I personally do not wish to continue the debate privately with you.

I have a strong feeling that the people you are referring to did something more then feel that certain laws needed changing.

Continuing in your denialism won't help you on your road to recovery concerning your obsession Bells

Uh huh..

No. I had a small list that I felt could be used as a starting point; here it is again:
moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.)...

Fraggle Rocker felt that 'pea brain' constituted a legitimate attack and Tiassa felt that 'prick' used as an insult should qualify; I concur on both counts.

So you are saying we should ban those words outright?

I say it would depend on how they are used. Or more to the point, the context in which they are used.

I can go for this; if one is quoting someone else, for instance. Perhaps only if they're used against a person, such as:
You/he/she is stupid, idiotic, etc.

It seems that people think it should be ok to say 'your argument is idiotic'. However, I personally believe that just because you're not saying that the whole person is idiotic, you're still crassly insulting a part of them. All, I'm saying is that if you're going to insult someone, do it more subtly. For instance: 'Your argument is lame'. I think the list of proscribed insults that should be prescribed is fairly small and quite manageable. If admins feel the need to add to it, they can do so. Doing this type of approach would, I believe, relieve some people; they would know what insults to avoid and thus not have to be second guessing so much what they write.

By uncivil, I meant using insults, not that no one has ever been offended by something I've said.

You would be surprised. We all offend someone on here at one time or another. Learn to grow a thicker skin and not be insulted at anything and everything.

I am not insulted at 'anything and everything'. And I'm not even advocating that all the things I find to be insulting be proscribed. Only certain very obvious things, such as the certain terms I've mentioned above.

In short, this is a part of the big bad world and sometimes, there will be others who will not like you and will advise you of their dislike in a few choice terms. The ignore function works well in such cases.

I have used an ignore function, in chats, where the amount of information passes by at a speed that truly boggles the mind. In a forum, however, things move at a decidedly slower pace; I would rather be able to -see- insult me then have him do it without me even being aware of the fact. There is a -reason- that personal attacks aren't allowed, but the enforcement of that rule is capricious at best. Only by hammering out certain terms in certain contexts as proscribed can this be changed.

Some insults are fairly universally known to generally just be used as put downs. I simply believe that those insults should be proscribed.

But what might be a put down to you, might be a big joke to another. For example, recently one member called two female members "skanks". Knowing that the 3 of them were friends and engaged in banter throughout the forum allowed one to see that it was not meant as an insult to those two female members. Hence why I said it would depend on the context in which the words were used. If I were to arbitrarily ban the word "skank" (as one example), I would have been reporting the member to the administrators of this site and demanding removal and possible action against this member, ignoring the simple fact that the context in which the word was used was in friendly banter.

Ok, then have an exception for friendly banter. I'm fine with that.

I personally think banning such words would stifle discussion and not allow people to be themselves. It all depends on context and the way in which we know people interact with each other. If I know that two people detest each other or have been arguing on this forum and one calls the other a "skank", it would be a fair assessment that it was not used as friendly banter and warnings and possible bans could end up being the result. Again, it depends on the context.

Fine; the list of proscribed words could depend on context. A person who likes erring on the side of caution would refrain from using the terms and that'd be that. Let me put this to you another way; if the terms I mentioned were used in a -non- friendly way, don't you think they would all qualify as insults that should be proscribed? If you say yes, then my goal is accomplished, atleast in so far as you and your forum are concerned; I would then have a clear set of terms that, if used against me, I could report.

Individual mod interpretation is what I'm trying to avoid here. It leads to calls of favouritism and in some if not all cases, they may just be right. By using a common set of insults that are proscribed for -all- (including moderators), I would argue that this issue would be greatly mitigated.

I think you would find that little favouritism exists on this forum. I have rebuked friends, fellow moderators and others alike if I feel they are going too far and not adhering to the rules of the forum. I even rebuked James once. I have had the same done to me by moderators I consider to be friends.

The forum isn't too bad, which is why I think I've been here so long. However, I simply think that having a list of terms being proscribed- in a certain context, fine, would simply make it easier for people to know how -not- to insult others.

-My- manner is quite aggressive? Please. -You're- the one who came in, both barrels firing, not me. I am -asking- for civility, appealing to the conscience of posters here. I'm clearly in no position to demand anything from the administration of this site.

I prefer to get things out in the open as quickly as possible. I would say I came in with 1 barrel firing and the other saved for later.

Fine, 1 barrel firing and the other for later. I still think it's clear who the aggressor was here .

If you feel that people are being insulting, there is a report function that is accessible to you and the moderator and administrators of this site will review your complaint.

There's the issue that it's -my- proscribed list and I'm not sure that the moderators would agree that they qualify as censurable, even when used in a hostile way. People who wish to report want to know beforehand if certain insults aren't allowed. Believe me, there are few things that are more annoying then sending off a few reports and then getting nothing in response. It can lead a person to think that the report button is relatively useless, which can lead to one just taking whatever insults come. All of this could be changed if there could be more of a consensus as to what constitutes a personal attack.

 

[scott3x]

all i know is that you, the observer, and ancient regime advocate this stuff.

Ohhh well... what do we have here?? I would advocate anything that's supportive of laws of nature even if humans don't see it moral or sane.

I'm not always so impressed with nature; I think a far better metric is whether an action is beneficial, not whether it can be seen as natural.

Now if anyone got any problem with that, they need to prove me wrong in the most scientific manner possible than resorting to personal attacks. And its a shame that only James displayed a certain degree of standard in responses and everyone else resorted to personal attacks.

Yeah, this is why I spent more time speaking with James. The person I most enjoyed debating this with, however, was Tiassa; James would always get stuck in using misleading language; I don't think that he was -trying- to be misleading, just that that's the way it seemed to turn out.

I don't promote anything which would destroy the nature for our own self centered views. I would never advocate shagging a 2 yr old kid but I would advocate that kids should be allowed to explore the subject of sex when they reach puberty and legal age of marriage should be taken out.

I essentially agree with all of this; something that few have mentioned and that I believe is now due is this: I have -never- advocated breaking the age of consent laws.

But i do understand that current economic model is not supportive of such acts and that's what am more interested to change before i think of age of consent laws. And then elders mind setup on sex must change. We have been taught to see it as a sin or shameful act for few thousand years. I wouldn't consider pedophilia as a perversion but as an unavoidable consequence of raising age of consent under the banner of being civilized. If our current society keep thinking the way they have been thinking, sooner or later we would touch the top of the curve. Then it would be a steep fall.

Personal attacks are anything that point towards the member than his post. Many controversial subjects when being discussed(provided they are being discussed) sure brings the question of the psychological conditions of the poster. But attacking that poster is far worse than arguing about the subject. You can sure spend time on pin pointing the posters methods and mannerism's related to the argument. It is always allowed and is productive. It sometimes does help the poster to reflect back on his way of explaining the theory. Also one must begin to acknowledge their own limitations in comprehending a new subject or a perspective being discussed than getting all angry and emotional because the subject being discussed got them all emotional. Try to put in some effort and time, read, try to see both sides of the argument and deduce the common grounds and possibilities. Someone once said that "Absolute certainty is a privilege of uneducated minds and fanatics". So anytime you find yourself so convinced about any point, question yourself.

Sounds good observer. Thanks for taking the time to mention all this.

 

[scott3x]

Ohhh well... what do we have here?? I would advocate anything that's supportive of laws of nature even if humans don't see it moral or sane.

OK, so you are a liar.

After reading through your whole post, I have a tentative theory as to how you could possibly come up with such a conclusion; in the last sentence, you say that theobserver is talking out of 'both sides of his mouth'. I don't think that's the case, although I think he may not have seen that nature doesn't always do the right thing. But not fully understanding something is not the same thing as lying.

The laws of nature say that if I want something, I take it, and deal with the consequences. Now, I really doubt you think it's OK to get beaten up and robbed by someone bigger than you. I doubt you would be philosophical after some guy beats the crap out of you and takes every you have ever worked for, leaving you crippled.

You want protection, and and to adhere to some vague personal interpretation of you think is nature. IE, you re talking out of both sides of your mouth at once.

Fine, but most people wouldn't want to deal with said consequences. Even outside of the human kingdom, there are generally social hierarchies and I believe that an animal that places himself above the needs of his group generally doesn't do well. So things such as deception are created; because if you can -fool- someone into thinking you're a swell guy while you steal his money, it just might 'work out' for you, atleast in a monetary sense.

 

[theobserver]

OK, so you are a liar. The laws of nature say that if I want something, I take it, and deal with the consequences. Now, I really doubt you think it's OK to get beaten up and robbed by someone bigger than you. I doubt you would be philosophical after someguy beats the crap out of you and takes every you have ever worked for, leaving you crippled.

You want protection, and and to adhere to some vague personal interpretation of you think is nature. IE, you re talking out of both sides of your mouth at once.

No one can steal anything from me. I don't have anything other than my life. People often forget the beauty of having nothing. Insecurities creep in and everyone end up buying stupid shit. Then they want protection. It would have been way easier if everyone had nothing or everyone had the same thing. Ownership causes way too much of problems. Its all social circumstances. So probably you need to step outside of it before you even try to comprehend what am talking about.

I'm not always so impressed with nature; I think a far better metric is whether an action is beneficial, not whether it can be seen as natural.

I used to be like that. The more i learned, the more i began to appreciate the perfection in nature. Trouble is mostly with humans. Human society is crippled with their limited understanding of nature. We think nature should be working the way it benefits us. Friction gets lesser and lesser when you learn nature the way it is. That includes human nature as well. When you know why a person acts the way he acts and why you feel the way you feel, things are way too easy to understand.