Selectively determining which poo counts and which doesn't.... Is this the equivalent of saying that your poo doesn't stink? I don't sling half the poo you sling. Period. Quit saying that I do.
You're right, T_J. Most of your posts promote a genuine sense of discourse and the unending goal of deeper knowledge for all. um, CASE CLOSED
I hate poo slinging as much as the next person but I don't think there is a ton wrong with the D&D. But let's approach this from a Socratic standpoint. 1) Side A claims to know the truth and what is best for man. 2) Side B claims a truth different from Side A's version in which they know what is best for man. 3) There is a small but dedicated group of Side C'ers that seek truth and claim to have no knowledge of it. Now, lets place our selves in an Athenian Agora. We would be called sophists (sides A and B), and a small group would claim to be philosophers (Socrates' all I know is that I don't know, well that and the art of being a midwife). Side A posts an article from a fellow scribe in Corinth that claims to have knowledge of the truth. Side B either refutes points in the argument or resorts to mudslinging. Side C asks questions of side A to see if they really have aquired knowledge. A good thread is when we have a discourse or dialogue from both sides. For example, Side A: Bush's policies are horrible. Side B: Why? Side A: Yada yada yada. Side B: Well, I think his policies are wonderful. Side A: Why? Side B: Well, yadayada yada. Side C: But Side A, surely you know of this counter-example. Side A: Well, yes maybe that is so; however, I still feel as if points yada, and yada stand, and there can be no compromise. Side C: I grant you points yada and yada, but you're point yada still goes unsubstantiated. Side B: Aha! Side C agrees with me! Side C: Not so fast slick, what about points yada and such-and-such. Side B: Well, those are good questions, ones that I haven't thought about. An Example of a bad thread would be as such: Side A: I think Lincoln meant this when he gave the Gettysburg Address. Side B: No, I disagree. Side C: Why? Side B: Because Lincoln put the country under martial law you crazy b*stard. Side A: Well Jefferson slept with his slaves, and had slaves! Side B: The South depended on those slaves biatch! Side A: Give me money! Side B: Side C (not participating in the thread anymore but came back in and noticed a blatant contradiction in Side A's first point)-- So um Side A, what about this blatant contradiction? Side A: I left my points in the car, I'll be right back. Side C: Ok (car door slams, tires peel out, and the sound of a car driving away is heard). The point is, if the purpose of the D&D is to seek truth, than we should certainly be more vigilant in actually trying to seek the truth and how we go about it. If you see the line of reasoning straying from an intelligent, rational conversation, you should just abandon all hope, ye who enter that thread. But if the D&D really is just a playground for us slower kids, then what is the problem when the discourse on the playing field is reduced to name calling?
I agree completely with you on how a thread ought to be done. But we don't have to accept that this forum is only for the special kids. We can rebuke that idea and pursue a search for truth. There will always be conflicting views but and debating is only natural and right, but the right type of debating seeks to understand the other sides views and learn from them, whereas the wrong type of debating does not listen to the other side and tries to degrade the messenger of the views... (Attacks on Bush or Kerry on a personal view, rather than their ideas.) You probably have noticed that the best threads in the D&D are usually the ones that aren't about Bush or Kerry.
The D&D can remain the ******* of the Clutch Body for all I care, there are a few rational thoughts and interesting debates in there somewhere, but mostly it is used as a battlefield to mouth off at the other side. I once tried to ask a simple question about a certain issue and within 10 minutes was flamed to the ground and labled a bigot and a untolerant b*stard. There is no civility in here, and while I respect people who have the courage enough to trade all the numerous low blows back and forth, it's not the sort of thing I go to an internet message board to do. I have my opinions, and there is a 99.9% chance that there is not a single person in here who agrees with every single thing I believe. I'll now trot back off to the Hangout where I can be a general horny idiot and not be bothered. Thank you.
I agree, but when it is described as a playground for r****ded kids by the moderators, I mean, that doesn't put a positive spin on the place. MAybe we ought to take down the Monkeys flinging poo title and put up a resident internet philosophers sign instead. Its up to the mods, if they want this to be a good venue, then they need to kick some of the slower kids out. If they want it to be a cesspool for vitriolic monkeys then they've been succesful.
This gave me my best laugh of the week so far. If you have the capacity for intelligent debate then take me up on my challenge, otherwise see my sig.
andymoon, why do you just dismiss it...isn't there some truth to it that the poo only seems to stink when it comes from what is perceived as "the other side"? I have seen a lot of people lash out much worse at T_J than he did at them...and everyone from their side seems to be fine with it because it goes against the "common enemy"...
You cannot deny with a straight face that T_J is a hit and run artist. He posts confrontational messages demanding explanations and when you provide them and ask a question right back he says CASE CLOSED and runs off claiming victory. It used to garner a snicker before when it was about benign issues but when he questions the patriotism of posters that disagree with him on more hard core issues and then will not afford others the common courtesy of a response when asked a direct question that is trolling plain and simple. It insults this board as a whole and as someone that respects the posters and this site as a whole very much I am sick and tired of it.
I think he brings out the bad in others more than the bad in himself. In other words, sometimes by baiting them he really pulls the "Mr. Saint" mask from their faces, and when they realize it, they get even angrier because their attempt at building a "friendly online persona" has failed. They then turn their anger about that against him again. Look, if what some of his "opponents" are saying were the full truth, why would Clutch not have banned him a long time ago? I think T_J provides a very good counterbalance to a whole group of people who are very outspoken and who try to shout him down. I'm not saying that I always agree with content or style of whatever anyone posts (except myself and people who have extra buttons ), but I think the last thing that I would want to see here would be people gloating that they got T_J banned - because I don't think they are better than he is by one bit.
While I admit that I have flung my fair share of stinky, stinky poo, I have really tried hard to be as civil as possible to the point that I put a couple of posters on my ignore list and for the most part, don't even respond to them because it would degrade into a poo-fest. I have made a highly conscious effort to raise the level of my discussion and not simply fling insults as became my pattern when I was allowing t_j to get under my skin. I really don't think I have flung much poo lately (with the exception of the couple of times when t_j has tried to derail MY threads), and have been really trying to remain civil, rational, and on topic as much as possible. If you really think that I fling as much as t_j, then maybe I need to look at my posting some more.
I don't think T_J flings a lot of poo, and I can't remember ever having seen you, andymoon, fling poo.
What's everybody so senitive about didn't you ever hear "Sticks and Stones" growing up. Just because someone says "Cased Closed" doesn't mean they are right or that the thread ends. Has anyone ever actually changed their mind because of something in the D & D? If so I'd like to hear it. This is just time killing discourse, exactly like the millions of coffee shops, bazaars and water coolers around the world. People like to argue, it let's them flex their egos and feel self-rightous and nothing feels better than being self-rightous. Right Osama?
My D&D discussion with aghast over abortion was pretty good. Not that it changed my mind on the issue, but it did make me see how people are able to justify it to theirselves. I think we had some pretty good homosexual threads, as welll as a wealth of religious threads where Catholics were getting bashed and we stood up for ourselves and greater understanding was reached. I definitely changed a lot of my opinions on the war thanks to here and getting documents. So while it may not have changed who I'm going to vote for, it certainly chaged my stances on various topics.
I have had several people tell me that they changed their position on prohibition as a result of some of my threads. Granted I am pretty much preaching to the choir, but I have gotten the impression that some people have changed their minds because of what they discussed in the D&D.
Yeah, I mean, someone who is sensitive will remember every argument made for an issue, and I think there are a lot of people who care about the issues and will remember the arguments. I'm much better at playing devil's advocate with my ultra conservative friends (by the way is anybody going to see the story of St. Therese of Lisieux? No, ok) and well ummm random comment at the end of a post promoting good will.
