What Beth said is a red herring as well.
Like Io said--stay out of the debate.
Much as I'm sure you wouldn't believe me if I explained to you why you behave in certain ways
It isn't other posters' fault that they bore me.
There's no distress involved.
People use ignore because they are lazy and comfortable with their opinions and they dont want to be mentally challenged. If someone agrees with them, thats excellent.
Mentally challenged? By you? When your spurious pseudo-science is demonstrated to be nonsense; you lash out with accusations of homosexuality, toilet training, and whatever else the bullies on the playground used to use to make you cry. No one here fears your debating skills; they tire of your tireless sophomoric idiocy. I don't ignore anyone for disagreeing with me... I do tend to ignore those who bring nothing but childish gainsay behind their easily debunked specious arguments.
as usual - you think you can direct people to follow your personal sense of etiquette.
As a kid I was once discussing medical ethics with a Brazilian surgeon when he told me something that changed my life forever.
"What is your ultimate criteria?" he asked me. He went on to explain that any ethical issue boils down to core values, and depending on what you consider your "golden rule" your ethical calculations can produce different results.
It's very true, but few people bother to codify their core moral philosophy. Here is an example that inspired this thread:
My personal moral code boils down to the ideal of least amount of suffering. Obviously quantifying suffering is subjective and so is opinions about how best to minimize it but this is still a moral compass that sets my moral bearings to the best that I can interpret these subjective issues.
So when someone says they value American life (or Mexican life) more than those suffering more it clearly violates my own moral code. In a choice between helping a starving foreigner and an unemployed American I'd not choose my nationality over the one who is suffering the most. My ideal is to minimize the most suffering and it's clear where my aid should go in that situation.
I was trying to imagine what kind of moral compass would produce the tribalism I disdain, and really began to wonder if it wasn't just the typical absence of an "ultimate criteria", as Dr. Edson put it, at all. Most people don't bother thinking about it this far, but I would invite those here at a2k to give it a try.
What is the core values in your moral compass? And how does that work in practice for you?
If you don't have one yet, try to codify one. Ideally they are generic (not too specific) as they should be core values that can apply to ANY situation to produce a theoretical ideal.
You can't mind your own business without becoming a hermit.
"life exists from conception"
You can't mix these things up as if ignoring that lot justifies ignoring well known and perfectly respectable intellectual arguments. If you put the latter on ignore you should get out of the room. Nobody objects to that.
Have you read La Rochefoucauld's Maxims
Here are a few--
Goodness is very frequently weakness (481).
Good faith is a device to attract further confidence and to gain responsibility (247).
Generosity is ambition disguised (246).
Humility is a trick of pride whose aim is self-aggrandizement (254).
Liberality is vanity (263).
Love of justice is inspired by fear (78).
Gratitude springs from the desire for further benefits (223 and 298).
Courage arises from five selfish motives (213).
Moderation is a species of spiritual sloth (293)
We should be ashamed of our finest actions if the world knew our motives (409).
The fact that people suppress their weaknesses in speaking of themselves proves that they are not so blind to them as might appear (494).
Mourning is a fruitful source of hypocrisies (233). Malinowski confirmed that one.
Those are a few which Caudwell quotes in his book Introduction to French Classicism. He remarks--" This devastating analysis of the accepted virtues prepares the way for more detailed attacks on hypocrisy and insincerity.
We are too satisfied with our own characters (462 and 303)
We are too anxious to talk of ourselves (137 and 138).
It is a great mistake to think oneself indispensable (201).
You seem to think that all people who use the ignore feature use it to ignore people whose opinions they disagree with.
That is only one possible use of the feature.
At various points when I've gone to look at the list of people I had on ignore, they have been more likely to be people who I agree with on a political/societal level, but whose posting style I found annoying for some reason. It's much like real life for me - I'm more likely to ignore/avoid someone boring or rude than to ignore/avoid someone I don't agree with.
Ignore - one feature/multiple applications.
The political commissar (also politruk Russian: политрук: political officer) is the supervisory political officer responsible for the political education (ideology) and organisation, and loyalty to the government of the military. Historically, the commissaire politique (political commissary) first appeared in the French Revolution (1789–99), guarding it against anti-Revolutionary (ideological) thought and action, and so ensuring the Republican victory.