Originally posted by Quazga

Lloyd I think it has something to do with the fact that the hypocrisy of the person, should have nothing to do with the merit or validity of the statement made.

I think the hypocrisy they exhibit has everything to do with the validity or merit of their message. It attest to their honesty and integrity. If you can't see that, there's something seriously wrong with your moral compass..

Does a hypocrit dilute the message by being one, yep he sure does to those who don't have the ability to differntiate between the individual and the message, as well as to see how the individual's experience influences the message.

If a person intentionally tries to deceive me, their credibility rating drops to zero. At that point, their message is unimportant because it's probably as false as they are. "Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me"..

However, critical thinkers understand the message is what is important. A message should be weighed on its merits not by who said it. And so the attempt to point out the hypocrisy of the author of a post only serves to deride the focus from the merits of the statement.

The message is only important if it is truthful, and comes from a credible source. I don't think anyone here would be willing to risk their life or livelihood on the word of a hypocrit.. Would you?

If I post something worthless, I expect it, not me, to be seen as such. If I then post something of merit, I also expect it, not me, to be seen as such. People often do confuse the messenger with the message, but it is a fault to do so I believe.

If you are both the author and the messenger, then it should be fully attributable to you.


[edit on 3-8-2008 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by Riposte
So, he's trying to dictate what should and should not be discussed.

No, he's offering an option for those of us who are sick of these stupid threads attacking on baseless grounds. It is an option for US. He's not trying to shut people up. You (or anyone) are free to discuss away. Attack all you like. But when people encourage those bottom-feeder discussions by responding to them and defending the candidates against insane accusations, we are actually feeding the insanity that we profess to hate.

And Jethro is reminding us of our power to ignore. Our power to shut up.

And I for one am grateful for the reminder.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No, he's offering an option for those of us who are sick of these stupid threads attacking on baseless grounds.

That option already exists; and he's trying to make people take a proactive approach to killing threads.

Nobody can kill a thread except a mod.

And threads that I think KJ, myself and others here are talking about are stupid and disrespectful of ATS don't deserve to live, in my opinion. And they certainly don't deserve to have me feeding them.

And if they die of neglect... Oh, well.

But if you want to keep them alive, you can. See how that works?

[edit on 3-8-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Quazga
Let's go back to the encryption scenario we spoke of before. It doesn't matter what type of person wrote the cipher, what matters is if the cipher is worth a darn.

Now you may not want to spend money on purchasing the algorithm for use if you really have personal issues with the author, however it does not speak to the integrity of the cipher at all.

Your encryption scenario reminds me of a computer term GIGO (Garbage in, Garbage out). A program is only as good as the programmer's information and coding ability.

In the case of your cipher, it's only worth something if the the author is credible and the information reliable.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And threads that I think KJ, myself and others here are talking about are stupid and disrespectful of ATS don't deserve to live, in my opinion. And they certainly don't deserve to have me feeding them.

That's pretty much what I do.

I simply no longer bother to respond to most of the "Obama stole a donut" threads, because they're silly, and lower the level of debate on the board. I have the same policy towards "McCain stole a donut" threads, though there aren't nearly as many

It seems other people are doing the same thing, as more and more of these types of threads are falling off the top of the page with only a few replies, usually from the 'usual suspects'...

That's not censorship, that's audience participation.

We all have the right to free speech.
We also have the right to ignore someone else's free speech if we decide it's a silly bunch of nonsense

[edit on 8/3/08 by xmotex]

Ok, I've read everyone's opinion thus far and have seen things I knew would happen but disregarded when I started the thread because I thought the opinion was important enough to stick my neck out.

At this point, I think we need a moment of levity so that I may clarify misconceptions about my post and ideals.

I have been around here quite a long time, so many people know my personality, opinions, and reputation. I attempt to be civil and respectable at all times, although let's be fair, we all have bad days and sour moods now and again. I have seen a fair bit of misunderstanding and sour remarks/moods from some newer members who might not know me so well. It's understandable. I answer all questions asked of me unless I do not see the question (which happens in a place with this many threads).

To me, a persons political affiliations and sway has far less impact than the method they employ with which to opine.

I have no interest in trying to sway things around here aside from reminding people that we have the choice to elevate our discourse, NOT to eliminate topics, only those who attempt to achieve the lowest common denominator (which is common in American culture, media, and education so it's hard to really blame people sometimes, but then again they have a brain and should use it).

I feel no pity for trolls and baiters, and yes that is my opinion, but then again many agree with me so I am not alone by any stretch.

I do not suffer intentional fools well, and I don't recommend others do either, but I leave your actions up to you. I only wished to express mine before the toxic ocean washes over us and leaves us empty and unsatisfied yet again.

Thanks
KJ

what the op is saying is ....

leave barrack alone!!!!!!!

Chris crocker style.


basically if you don't like barrack don't post in this forum.
it offends him.
At least thats how i take the op's statement.

gotcha...

Originally posted by xmotex
There is little or no debate on the actual issues, and plenty of silly purely symbolic drivel, baseless innuendo, etc...

For starters, I do see a lot of debate on actual issues however there is more to a candidate than his viewpoint on a particular issue and this is where things get a little muddy.

For instance, character and judgement are also very important for a Presidential candidate because it affects how and why he would make a particular decision especially when a crisis arises.

The problem is one person might think past associations and credibility is very important because it's shows character and judgement, while others might think it's drivel and baseless with no bearing on the candidate being President. So one person might think having past associations with a terrorist and an American hating pastor is relevant and another person might think it's not relevant.

Originally posted by beforetime
what the op is saying is ....

leave barrack alone!!!!!!!

Chris crocker style.


basically if you don't like barrack don't post in this forum.
it offends him.
At least thats how i take the op's statement.

gotcha...

Where did he mention Obama? He's talking about inane threads. PERIOD! I will go one further though and state that the right does this far more than the lefty's here.

Excellent, ignore them, If you don't like what you read on ATS.. turn the page... love it or leave it.

Originally posted by intrepid
Where did he mention Obama? He's talking about inane threads. PERIOD! I will go one further though and state that the right does this far more than the lefty's here.

Haha, he doesn't even have to mention Obama. It's as clear as day, and his silence about whom he supports speaks volumes.

And don't bother backing up that last statement of yours, because it's a lie.