A Call for Intelligent Respectful Discussion

You never miss a chance to lecture, adopt a superior moral tone. This is what you've been doing all along.



And? I called you a liar because you lied. You deliberately lied when you tried to give the impression that you were solely responsible for a child(ren) and had been for a number of years. You can argue semantics about whether or not it was an actual lie, but you definitely wanted to give a false impression. You do not have sole responsibility for your child, you share that responsibility. Your child has two parents they don't miss the one who is not there. You have not had to try to explain to a 4 year old little boy why his mother is dead.

I don't believe a word you say.

Also, I think someone who fantasises about killing babies and posts graphic pictures of murder victims online is pretty despicable. It crosses a line, and if you can't see that line, if you still think it's possible to have an 'intelligent respectful discussion,' with a creature like that, then clearly you're alright with that.

I'd rather talk to people who share my feelings of disgust, people who aren't alright about that.

You talk to Oralboy, you have plenty of shared values, particularly towards women. Leave me out of it, I can't see the point in talking to you, really I can't.

I have never said that some opinions are unfair. What I said is unfair is when people respond with personal attacks to prevent other people from having an intelligent discussion.

When I say "I would like to allow more intelligent respectful discussions by stopping the personal attacks", your response is "I find you repetitive, obstinate and boring" and Izzy says "You are liar". You each can choose not to engage with me on any issue (or at all) if you don't want to interact with me. The personal attacks aren't necessary and the hurt the community at large.

My opinion is that we can make discussions on Able2know more interesting and intelligent by getting rid of the personal attacks and vendettas that are so prevelant here.

Do you agree with this opinion, or not? What is your rationale on the subject?

If you could answer the topic without personal attacks, it would be a step toward what I am talking about.

Izzy,

I am stating my opinion. You are free to refute it. That is how discussions work. There is no need for name calling or personal attacks.

That is the point I am trying to make.

That about sums it up as nicely as possible. I could add a few things as well. I don't care what point you're trying to make. And I really don't want to have anything else to do with you. It's time to put you on ignore.

I'm simply trying to tell you why I will not be engaging. I didn't say you are a bad person, but it don't find your arguments compelling or thoughtful. That's not a person attack, that's what I think. I believe you said if people don't wish to engage, don't. So, I'm simply saying I don't wish to debate feminist with you, you seem to be more engaged than I am, and I don't speak for all women. Hard to believe, but women are not all members of a secret society that keeps men in the dark. So since I don't represent a block of members, I feel no responsibility to disabuse you of your distaste for the word, Feminism. I happy for you to have as deep a distrust as you like. It's not my problem.

Please direct the rest of your questions to Oral. I think he understands you.

Hmmmm Glitterbag.... You chose to come to this thread and respond to me. When you did that you chose to engage me in a discussion (which we are now having). You and I differ in opinion about feminism. You are restating your position on this topic in this thread. This is another example of engaging. As a general rule of thumb... once you hit that "reply" button you are, by definition, engaging.

If you were not engaging you would not be responding to or continuing the interaction and we would not be having this discussion right now.

If you choose not to engage, then don't engage. This would mean you would stop responding or interacting with me on this issue.

All I am asking is that if you choose to continue this interaction (and I would be happy if you did) that you do so without personal attacks.

Does anyone really think this effort to ostracize Oralloy is a good thing for us as a community? I don't accept the idea that I, or anyone else, should be publicly shamed for agreeing with Oralloy on any given issue.

I disagree with Oralloy quite often, but so what. I agree with him at times too. For me to reject an argument simply because I have a personal issue with the person making it doesn't seem reasonable. The idea that there is public pressure by a group of people to reject Oralloy as a person is troubling.

This is a complete list of all the posters I have on "ignore."


nononono
BillRM
coldjoint
carloslebaron
One Eyed Mind
giujohn
Quehoniaomath
hater
count markovalley
Sinnlich
absos
JPLosman0711
imans
Krumple
gungasnake
fceeh
ABE5177
hawkeye10
H2O MAN

You'll notice that Oralloy is not among them. He hasn't quite reached the depths of H2OMAN or giujohn to merit my negative attention...yet. One day he may achieve that distinction. But don't you agree that this site is a better site without some of these people participating?

We don't need censorship on a2k.

Ignoring is one thing. Personal attacks are another.

The personal attacks on this site don't do anything to keep someone from participating (and I am not sure I even accept that this is a good goal for anyone). Quite the contrary, what we are seeing is pages upon pages of insults and personal vendettas that span multiple threads. Interesting differences of opinion and points of view are lost.

I would like the ability to have intelligent respectful discussions on topics that with people who don't share my point of view. This should be one of the best parts of such a public forum that doesn't have a set viewpoint.

I don't mind people who ignore these discussions or aren't interested in my point of view. People can always choose to not participate in a discussion.

People who jump into a discussion to launch personal attacks and squelch dissenting opinions from even being expressed hurt the community. This makes intelligent discussions on these topics much more difficult and less likely.

You bring up some good points. I have agreed with someone on one thing then disagreed with same on another. Rarely do I remember if I'd disagreed with someone in particular . There are a few though that I see are mean or act as if they are above others, but those are few.

There are more though that people tend not to like. And for some reason cannot see the positives of these individuals. I try to point out the positives but sometimes I think you just get such a blind eye hard to see beyond it.

Quite honestly there is only a very few I read here that I have difficulty with .. more so as they appear as if they are faultless and above all.

Also I find humor can oftentimes diffuse some heated debates. As an aside and to show how weird people can be on their opinons...I have been called both an extreme liberal and an extreme conservative...so what gives?

So, you're extreme. I say that with utmost respect.

I guess. I always thought I was moderate. Who knew?

Who knows? You are probably moderate if you average out the extremes. We should probably blame an open mind and a willingness to examine each issue on its own merits.

I am often a turd. A thug, as some would have it. Whatever.

Oh Edgar, you are never a thug or a poo poo. I like you, and many others do as well.

Try posting something mildly critical of Israel, then you'll see that the depths Oralboy is willing to fathom make H2OMAN and giujohn look quite innocuous.

Hello, I am new to this site and would like an intelligent and civil conversation as well.

Only if the word "intelligent" now means supporting your opinions and delusions.

Welcome. There are all manners of discourse on a2k; be prepared - it usually depends on the topic, but can sway either way.