Because the logic contained within finalsbound's post was so absolutely putrid. Here's the argument: Jesse Jackson is a Democrat Jesse Jackson is a Hypocrite Christians are not hypocrites. Therefore Democrats are not Christians. Incidentally, I hope you people realize that is the exact logic that leads to racism. How is that different from: XXXXX is black. XXXXX is a criminal. Good people are not criminals. Black people are not good people. There's not a dimes worth of difference, logically. What the hell is that? If we started a thread for every hypocritical, religious politician, we wouldn't have room for anything else. Now, RM95 can demonstrate that within his thread... and that probably would have been the best thing to do, I admit. But by making multiple threads, it makes the original post look that much more absurd. It particularly shows how absolutely ludicrous it is to extrapolte hipocrisy for an entire group from one of the individuals. Finalsbound saw fit to devote an entire thread to attacking one man. Is RM95 not entitled to do the same? If that is not appropriate, how is finalsbound's post appropriate at the same time? Does scope and size diminish the initial justification? I don't think it does. You're basically penalizing RM95 for not taking the absolutely awful logic that finalsbound used seriously. If he posts such things seriously, it's fine. If he uses half his brain and posts them as a joke, it's suddenly not ok. I don't think that's fair. BTW, I had no idea clutch was a Republican. Weird.
I think that fb's post was a little more general than RM95's, because in addition to the poor logic shown above, he also showed how many of the dem party lines are in conflict with traditional Christian ideals, abortion being the most obvious. Because I think it is impossible to argue using the bible as your source, this is not better neccessarily, but it is more general.
Im really sorry i missed al this, however if i were around i wouldnt haver this colorfull and related anticdote to share with you all. I went out last night. one of the bars i go to is a Very trendy!!! beach bar where manhattans elite come to pay $12 a drink and be around their own kind. you may ask what i was doing there... well the chicks are amazing, and a little loose as well as the fact that my buddy is the doorman. so i was at this place and who is there RUDY Juliani. i find these threads hillarious because while his name was typed i was watching him get pawed my a hot blond (looked like she was coked up or something) who was sitting in his lap and also getting lots of intimate attention from the brunette sitting to his right. i gotta say that Rudy was truely pimping!! there were something like 4 secret servive people and a fewe other people in his party, but the breakdown was like this. 2guys 4 girls, and 4 secret service. the girls were all model types and half nekid, but i sure they were christians noy really making any point just letting you all know that i witnessed something relative while i was out last night. also HOW DID YOU NOT KNOW that clutch was a republican?? its pretty obvious. he dosnt like cuttino, he loves Shandon, and he is a christian. ok, ok, i kidd. seriously though i thought that clutch has always made comment in political threads, and has deffinately been on the conservative side. well at least in the year i have been here anyway. (MAN why did i type so damn much) PEACE
Man, you must have been really drunk if you still have that % of alcohol in your blood at 9:10 a.m. .
Geez, who cares what finalsbound posted? I don't seem to remember there being this sort of uproar after the numerous "Christians are hypocrites" remarks.
It is a one-way street mostly. Rocketman95's multiple postings are just like so-many wasted Democrat tax dollars. Timing hit it on the head; there is a rampant double-standard here. Though I love CC.net, there is a core group that crushes the opposition with PC crud. Some people love to whack the newbies. How's that for an all-inclusive philosophy?! Yeah, really. Ever notice which are the ones touting the Ignore List?
Funny enough, I didn't realize that the 'ignore list' actually existed for some time. I personally think the ignore list, {blank posts} (which I believe are no longer used (ahem, ahem)), and the general 'vibing' of new posters are all pretty silly. It's unfortunate that some people harass new posters rather than instruct them on the general cc.net 'rules'; unfortunately I'm still not sure how this amounts to some sort of hypocrisy on the behalf of the community. You probably didn't see harassing notes in rm95's oodle of threads, b/c they were locked early in their life cycles. And though haven's defense of rm95 makes sense, most of us understand why rm95's "pile-on" was stopped. So where again is the 'hypocrisy'? Were people supposed to scathe rm95 for his excessive posting? Are you aware that crispee and Clutch asked us to stop this habit? Posts in the wrong forum, or flooding by a poster are supposed to be handled by an admin. That is exactly what happened in this case. Congratulations on your sparkler awards though, Timing and RR. Just as political pundits have shifted the conversation away from the meat of an issue in the past, you two have done so now....
And two wrongs make a <u> </u>? This is beyond absurd. I'm glad though TheFreak, that you could live up to your typically erroneous "team's mantra". Way to think out of the box. Heaven forbid anything a fellow republican said was wrong, or something a democrat said correct. One day... one day... McCain will change the conversation & consequently the world. I just don't expect that grass roots effort to find its origin in either RR's or TheFreak's minds.
I feel the same way. Unfortunately, the majority of the BBS does not, so why should I alone carry the torch for objective thought? If the majority of the BBS had the attitude you speak of, I'd be all for it...instead, I have to balance it all out by taking the other extreme. I mean, we have guys like mrpaige who try to be independent, but I'm a "personality poster", so the only thing that will sway me is someone like mcmark starting threads about liberal hypocrisy. Fat chance of that, don't you think?
PRM: You are the first person in my life to call ME politically correct? I don't know whether to laugh or cry! DoD: I made a few observations about some behaviors that I don't find particularly "open-minded." Calling someone out would not be as beneficial as simply describing the behavior and questioning its validity. People can and should think for themselves. Achebe: What are the sparklers for? I don't see that we distracted the thread. I think that The Freak and I both contributed to what was being broadly discussed, but HEY thanks for calling us out! RM95 admitted that his multiple thread-creation was unnecessary. The Admin made a good decision and explained it well when confronted about the choice, yet people are stilld efending him. Why?
Because while his posts were childish, finalsbound's was malicious, stupid, and prejudicial. That should have been closed as well. It was the exact same logic as racism, just pointed at Democrats. That's wrong. Is childish worse than stupid and cruel? If the only difference between RM95's post and finalsbound's was motivation, should they be closed for non-objective intent? I don't think so.
Okay.. point. btw, thanks for taking the tone of my post in stride. I apparently had the wind on my back typing that one... it seems to have a bit of fang in it, I think.....
There is a big difference between a "stupid" or "cruel" post and flooding a board with redundant posts that could have been handled within the same thread. I'll say it again: This isn't about politics. It is about precidence. If any person came on and posted 3 or 4 threads in succession hammering home the same point in the Rockets 2001 forum, they'd be gone INSTANTLY. Similarly, there is a standard to maintain in the Hangout Forum. It is about setting an example so we don't get more trolls, "free post" dufuses and flooders. The appropriate way for RM95 to do what he did would've been to make a separate post in the original thread for each of his individual points. That would make the same point without all the furor. Closing his thread wasn't about WHAT HE SAID, it was about HOW HE SAID IT. haven, c'mon. I mean, I didn't like what finalsbound wrote either, but to compare it to racism or to suggest that his thread should be closed because it was offensive to some is silly. You and I have both said plenty of things that probably have offended others on this board. It is the nature of having an opinion and being allowed to voice it in your own way. Sometimes it is malicious, stupid, childish or prejudicial, but it is part of dealing with what others say whether you like it or not. I didn't find finalsbound's statements so much malicious or stupid as they were colored by his view of the world. I can accpet that and respect him for it even if I don't agree and wish that no one else did either. It is RARE that a post or poster gets run because the post or the person posting is deemed too offensive for display. We're all pretty much on the honor system here. We abuse the <i>privelige</i> of this board and we lose that ability. This BBS is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. Clutch runs it, pays for it and makes the rules. That is just the way it is, like it or no. As it stands, it is a very good system and RARELY gets abused, which is more than I can say for MANY MANY other boards on the net. We are lucky to have the place to vent, discuss and learn. You don't have to like everything posted here, but it won't be removed simply because some of us disagree or find it offensive. It has to go MUCH farther than that.
Once again, great reply Saint Jeff! This thread once again begs the question, why are liberals more threatened by conservative thinking than conservatives by liberal thinking? Liberals are more intolerant of conservatives than vice versa. Lots of slandering of the messenger (finalsbound) here just for expressing his opinion. Jackson is a public figure and so is fair game for his kind of criticism and observation. I don't know about you, but I've been on both sides of the political fence and, while I expect this idea could generate a hailstorm of protest, 25 years of adult living have proven that liberals are more indignantly intolerant than conservatives. I am talking about the great mass of both liberals and conservatives; certainly there are extremists on both sides that absolutely prove or disprove the assertion. Anybody have a clue as to why that is? I think it is due to a lack of real deep-seeded conviction about their positions.
Hmmm, I applaud your attempt to further this flame war by saying such things. I know that most liberals I know (ugh, I hate them) are either stupid or just "going through a phase." They, therefore, only rely on party rhetoric when discussing "issues" and they are very antagonistic (they attack people to try to prove that they know stuff). Further, they usually are not very good lovers...how can they be? There have been studies that have shown how conservatives score higher and the pre-sat. Additionally, they are much wiser due to their longer years roaming the earth. So the answer to your question is, yes. Liberals are the lesser species. They are agents of the devil, and they like to play baseball. Glad I am here to help.
Jeff: Ugh. I always get in trouble with saying stuff like this. I am not saying what he said was equivalent to racism in terms of content... I am saying that it was the logical structucal equivalent . I firmly believe racism is created by observingthe bad actions of one person, then taking thatand extrapolating it to many and underexposure to the better qualities of other members of the group at large. The exact same thing was the case here. When you deconstruct it, the shape of the assertion is the same. Take the qualities of one member of a group, and act as if they can be generalized across the board. That's a huge logical fallacy. Which is why I called it stupid. It directly insults about half the members of the board, which is why I called it cruel. If you disagree, show me how the argument is logically different. If it's acceptable, then the logic underlying racism is valid as well. Personally, I think the content as well as the logic shouldn't bea ccepted by anybody. What is the message we're sending? Fallacious reasoning that leads to bigotry is ok, but racism isn't? If that's true, then we're in a lot of trouble, because it's always going to be acceptable to make these assertions until it's no longer PC to do so. As long as people generalize and are prejudicial based on the actions of a few, bigotry will never end. As long as we defend such horrible thinking in the name of free speech, we're going to be in trouble. I'm all for finalsbound being able to say what he wants. But when someone attacks him, soundly, I'm going to applaud him, even if it was a little childish. This isn't a "this board isn't run right" thing with me. I'm not attacking you, clutch, or any other admins. I disagree... but I'm not saying this should be a "democracy." But I hope you don't mind me being vocal about my opinion when, as far as I can tell, it's logically sound. I'm not saying finalsbound's thread should have been closed, because I don't think it should have. I just don't think you should have permitted it to remain open, and then close RM95's threads. Sorry if I've offended you .
