I like that site Dio gave a link to (internet infidels). Here's just one bit of sense I like about it. Perhaps (GTS? Others?) *we* here in the spin zone should institute a policy like this? I'd certainly be all for stopping the violence and not saying those seven words that you can't say on teevee.

---

Political Discussions Forum Rules

This forum strives to be a place for meaningful, mature and enjoyable discussion of political issues. In order to further these goals, the moderators and administrators have decided to implement the following policy with respect to the moderation of the forum and the type of posting which is appropriate. Note that these rules are in addition to, and do not replace, the general Forum Rules and Policies . The rules will be applied as objectively and impartially as reasonably possible, but are subject to the interpretation and judgement of the moderators and administrators.

(1) Ad hominem attacks, insults and flames are not acceptable. Posts which consist largely or entirely of such comments will be deleted. Otherwise substantive posts which contain some ad hominems or flames will be edited to remove the inappropriate material while retaining the substance of the post.

Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or a similar accusation, is not acceptable, even if you believe that your fellow poster really is a liar or deceitful. This kind of accusation never furthers the debate. The only acceptable response on P.D. to what appears to be a lie from a fellow poster is to present evidence or argument to contradict what your fellow poster has said.

(2) Hyperbolic or overly emotive language and imagery, such as unwarranted comparisons to Nazi Germany, are generally discouraged, and will be deleted if they appear to serve no purpose other than to inflame the discussion.

(3) Off-topic posting or hijacking of threads is inappropriate. Threads which are off topic in the Political Forum will be moved to a more appropriate forum. Posts in individual threads which have little or no relevance to the topic of that thread will likely be deleted. A person prompted to bring up a side-topic in the course of a discussion should start a new thread, and link to it in the original thread.

(4) Multiple threads on the same or very similar topics serve no purpose. If a thread is started on a subject which is already being discussed in an active thread, the new thread will be closed.

(5) Threads which become overly heated or develop into flame-wars will be closed.

(6) People who refer to arguments or comments made on other threads should include a link to the thread in question as well as a relevant quote from it.

(7) If a person breaches these rules, then in the first instance a moderator will warn the individual as to his or her behavior. Repeated and flagrant violations will result in action by the administrators, which may include the suspension or withdrawal that person's posting privileges.

What think you?

<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:purple'>OR</span></span>

You could stop worrying so much about other people's rules, & start your own board where you can make the rules. Set them up so you win the "debates" by default. What ever floats your boat!

So, I vote for option Z>>This is a pointless thread, and I can't believe that I wasted time responding :bang: !

And now, Good Night all!

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you for proving the point, GB. :wave:

GrayBeard Wrote:<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:purple'>OR</span></span>

You could stop worrying so much about other people's rules, & start your own board where you can make the rules. Set them up so you win the "debates" by default. What ever floats your boat!

So, I vote for option Z>>This is a pointless thread, and I can't believe that I wasted time responding :bang: !

And now, Good Night all!

Gray, no one is "winning" anything by default. It just so goes that the majority of neocons (and some liberals) over here cannot formulate an argument with any rationality to it. In order for one to debate they have to make sense. Let me give you an example and I'll use the death penalty as an example issue (although any issue can substitute for the death penalty):

Arguer 1: "you know the death penalty is bad policy. The state should not have the right to kill if the state is by and for the people. Why should the state have rights that the people do not have...."

Arguer 2:"it's clear that Arguer 1 favors letting violent criminals loose so they can kill babies and rape and molest again!"

In this example, Arguer 2 did not address what Arguer 1 was saying. Arguer 2 committed two fallacies (hence, countered Arguer 1 with nonsense), which are the strawman and appeal to emotion.
A strawman fallacy is used when the person countering someone's argument assumes they represent a position in which no one would want, thus the "strawman" can easily be knocked down. The appeal to emotion used by Arguer 2 is when he/she adds the part about babies. Babies are sweet and innocent and no one would want anything bad to happen to them.

Here's another example on nuclear proliferation:

Arguer 1: "Since the USA is actively a member of the UN and various other international agencies that regulate nuclear weapons, then we should lead by example and get rid of our nuclear stockpile, or at least get rid of a majority of the outdated weapons. If the USA decided to downsize its nuclear inventory, then other nations would follow suit...."

Arguer 2:"well it's clear that Arguer 1 loves Saddam and Ghadafi and North Korea and they want the USA and its citizens left vulnerable to nuclear annhilation..."

So the point, Gray, is when people counter logical, well-thought arguments with nonsense, then it makes the debate very unchallenging. Now I'm not saying that all of my arguments are valid, cogent and strong (because actually they are quite weak) and oftentimes I intentionally add a fallacy to an argument to see if anyone catches it, but no one ever does. Thus, the Spin Room is fun sometimes but the debate quality is very low.

and, I'll add here that I don't think that I'm correct on every issue that I post about. In fact, if I did then I would not seek debate. I'm a member of this forum and several others to test my "beliefs" and political opinions. If my line of thinking can stand up with the thinking of others then that is a pretty good test and consequently pretty good debate. I also seek to discover what those who disagree with my opinions think. In the Spin Room, for the most part, I don't get that, instead I just get insults and other nonsense that amounts to a long, loud "BOOOOOOO" as if some fan was booing my favorite team.

lets just argue about curse words.
:D