Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by PhyberDragon
My concern is not to prove to them whether they're wrong or not. It's just the way they deny ignorance. They deny their own version of ignorance,
which, is okay. But when I see these threads with overt racism or these very hate filled threads by the conservatives-- I just begin to wonder if we
actually hated the conservatives like that or we just hated the Republican party when they were under Bush. Also, I just would like to see less of
the Obama is a Muslim stuff or the Obama is not the messiah or is the messiah stuff and more analytical discussions of what he is doing.
[edit on 24-1-2009 by Frankidealist35]
I understand that completely. However, my understanding of a thing does not my agreement make. For instance, We are discussing civility and decorum,
and the way we go about disagreeing on this issue is probably about as civil and decoured as it get's.
When one hate's something they have first loved something about it, like say it's equal and opposite contrast. If you are white and love that about
yourself, it is easy to have resentment of anything or anyone which is not your tone of white, usually equal to the degree of your love of your own
color. Is it not better to hate an ideaology than an individual? Perhaps their vent and blame on the party to which they are opposed are healthful in
that they det it out of their system rather than direct it to the party members, themselves.
Denial of Ignorance, on the other hand, is a two way street. We all have a set level of knowledge and the rate at which it grows and develops is
usually just as set. To blame others for an act one is naturally guilty of themselves is absurd. But, it just reinforces that those who want others to
deny ignorance are guilty of that ignorance deniability themselves. Because you would put a restrictor plate on knowledge you feel is incorrect, shows
that you are unaware of history's proof that facts and theories are always evolving and under fire from all sides. Could it be that even though it is
conclusively proved that others views are wrong, that, it would take very little new information coming to light to uphold their views while shooting
down the accepted worldview?
And, more for the Mod's and the discussion at hand. While civility is always a must, I am a cynic and sarcastic. I will use one's statements against
them for the purpose of argument as a debate, sometimes. Now, I know there are those who believe an argument isn't a debate, I've seen that Monty
Python episode, too. However, sometimes anger, as a natural healthy emotion, makes us reveal more about ourselves or others than the abcense of it
does. I wonder at what point those lines blur?
As for staying on topic, where exactly is the line of logic which clearly defines the topic's boundaries? I've seen many a Court Case which would
have injured or exonerated a party's case, if only the Judge or Administrator had not ruled certain evidences or claims to be off topic and therefore
not admissable, even though they were directly related to the matters at hand, simply because one arbitrary rule or another says they are on in the
proceedings to discuss this or that aspect of the issue, but, not other aspects of it. How many Supreme Court Justice's would be forced to truly
decide their full position and ruling on the Laws and the Constitution, if what does or does not qualify as on topic weren't so arbitrarily imposed
Just what defines on topic, if all things being equal are typically relatable to the issue at hand, even if only as a basis of measure for
interprative aspects of the issue.
For instance, if the above quoted poster, and I have no personal knowledge of this nor do I care, I'm just limiting my view to what is written above,
hereon this Reply, if the Posters concerns set the rules for Topic Moderation, then Obama's religious ideaologies and lifestyle choices would not be
admissable for an overall overview of the mindset and predicating factors of his character and actions. Religious believer's of AntiChrist dogma,
would have no forum of ascertaining whether their Messiah or his Adversary has returned or arrived, or whether they see other aspects to modify their
assessments of such things, well, none of that would be allowed, and you would lose the entire Conspiracies in Religion Thread. Whether it were the
Obama Muslim Aspect of Religious Conspiracy, or, if it was the Obama Messiah or AntiChrist portion. Which while othat may suit some, it would lose the
membership of others. But, why stop there, if you say Obama's Muslim- Messiah (Anti Christ) topics only belong in Conspiracies in Religion, then, you
have paved the way to destroy your other Topic Categories, because, I could argue, that such things belong only in NWO categories since he may be made
to appear that way for other reasons, which paves the way for Conspiracies in Government, or Military, or Global affairs, if there is a Project Blue
Beam type aspect to this false recreation of the Messiah and Armageddon by Man, well, that could walk me right into Conspiracies in Archaeology, and
Technology, and Science, and that would mean that Global Environments would be staged or affected to that end, and on and on I could go with it.
Maybe, something about Obama's Muslim or Messiahship qualities is just revealed, I could walk that Topic right into Current Events and Breaking News,
maybe, I could even spice the 2012 and Prophecies and Predictions Categories up with the Topic.
However, since our limited assumption places it in the Conspiracies in Religion department only, I have just been stripped of the issues relevance in
any other Category. And since those in that department could easily think of ways that it belongs elsewhere, I would effectively be censored out of
discussing it anywhere.
Be careful what you wish for. If you jump to call someone off topic because, you feel they are too hateful or graphic to have any merit, they may find
ways to censor every move you make as well, and that, my ATSer's leads us to a Conspiracy in ATS which could destroy it, and any last vestige of free
communication and idea sharing with it, as other related and similiar sites would follow with it.
When I see an off topic post pulled sign, I wonder what secret is being kept. I'm a Theorist