Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another one that hurts
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 399 of 508 (773575)
12-04-2015 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by dronestar
12-03-2015 4:31 PM


Re: Exnay on the ritish bay
dronestar writes:
What is your "true" point? Please be specific.
In plain words, I'm disappointed to see the tenor of discussion drop to the point where members are being labeled racist ("it was just you being a racist," Modulous, Message 353), and where members are condemned because the country where they live was once led by a supposedly immoral prime minister ("Sayeth a citizen of Britain whose repeated support of war-criminal Tony Blair had caused the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq which caused up to a million innocent civilian deaths." Dronestar, Message 352).
This isn't the topic, so if that isn't plain enough then we can discuss it through PM. But remember, I'm just a participant here. You can ignore me.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by dronestar, posted 12-03-2015 4:31 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by dronestar, posted 12-04-2015 10:06 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 436 of 508 (773625)
12-04-2015 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by dronestar
12-04-2015 10:06 AM


Re: Exnay on the ritish bay
dronestar writes:
And secondly, if your writing about baseless name-calling, I completely agree. However, when someone writes something blatantly racist or clearly hypocritical on the forum, we've always called them on it. How can a debate forum function without.
Yes, of course I'm talking about name-calling. Not baseless name-calling, but any kind of name calling. I hope when people have been called racist or hypocritical in threads I moderate that I haven't missed it or let it go by. If you think that's okay at EvC Forum then you've picked up a misimpression. I'm strongly against it. From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
You're free to ignore me in this thread - I'm just a participant hoping that just noting a desire for civil discourse in this thread I started will have some effect. I have no moderator or enforcement power here.
One little moderator note: one thing I noticed a few years ago is that when it's occasionally made clear that rule 10 will be enforced that members increasingly clamber about someone violating rule 10. Suddenly everything's a violation of rule 10. Moderators just have to stay consistent within their own criteria and judgement and ignore all the inevitable distractions and criticism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by dronestar, posted 12-04-2015 10:06 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 437 of 508 (773626)
12-04-2015 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by dronestar
12-04-2015 10:54 AM


Re: bump
dronestar writes:
Yeah, way, way back in the distant, nearly unmemorable distant past, america had a hegemonic past.
How long ago were the Spanish-American, Korean, Vietnam, Nicaraguan, Granadan, etc., wars? Unmemorable and distant do not seem accurate characterizations. Or was the "" intended to indicate sarcasm, which would make it hard to understand as an appropriate response to what 1.61803 said. We're you trying to agree with him using sarcasm?
And conversely, my ability to travel effortlessly through airports, not have my phone or emails privacy violated, ability to travel to most parts of the world, and most importantly, not to financially support the murder of woman/children/civilians deaths are a direct result of someone else doing the very things humanity finds abhorrent.
I get the sarcasm, but I want to make sure I still get your point. Converse to 1.61803's point that your comfortable life derives from past abhorrent acts, you're saying that the discomforts in your life also derive from past abhorrent acts. In other words, our entire present derives from our abhorrent past (and, I assume, any other parts of our past). Did I get that right?
If so, then I don't think 1.61803 would disagree with you, but I think he would feel you've missed his point. I believe he was saying that while the west might have "all manner of horrors" in its past that past moral transgressions do not forfeit the west's right to make moral judgments today. The west is saying that ISIS is behaving in a morally repugnant fashion, and I think 1.61803 is saying that we didn't lose the right to say that just because, for example, we treated the Indians badly or bombed Hiroshima.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by dronestar, posted 12-04-2015 10:54 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by dronestar, posted 12-07-2015 4:12 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 441 of 508 (773633)
12-04-2015 8:29 PM


Extremist Data: Islamic v. Non-Islamic
From today's New York Times:
Also posted this over at Message 4484.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix message link.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 458 of 508 (773714)
12-08-2015 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by dronestar
12-07-2015 4:12 PM


Re: bump
dronestar writes:
From what catastrophic support of dictators, terrorists, or destabilized democracies does the West hone their moral highness from?
Be specific.
I still think you're missing 1.61803's point (though he hasn't confirmed, so I could have misunderstood him). I thought he was saying that past moral transgressions don't forfeit the right to make moral judgments. For an analogy consider a murderer, who still has the right to judge rape and murder wrong.
I interpreted it as a response to your assertion that moral offenders have no right to make moral judgments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by dronestar, posted 12-07-2015 4:12 PM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by 1.61803, posted 12-08-2015 11:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 477 of 508 (773790)
12-09-2015 8:04 AM


Another Plea for Constructive, Informed Discussion
Generally the opposite of constructive, informed discussion would be unsupported assertions and/or short one sentence responses.
Again, I'm not playing a moderator role in this thread, so no one has to listen to me, but the thread has been fairly measured up to this point, and it would be nice if that could continue.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024