moderators editing members posts

[holden]

Originally Posted by cacophony

anyway. it's become exhausting.

thanks to everyone, especially all of the people who have disagreed with me over the years. the ability to disagree and maintain an overall balance on this forum is what has made it so historically great. so in all sincerity, i had a good time. but i think i'm done.

I can simpathize with everyone that's become frustrated on this forum or otherwise in cyber-land. It can be very draining, emotionally, intellectually, and not to mention time-wise to keep trying to explain oneself and getting seemingly nowhere.
But that's no reason to leave, cacophony! Your viewpoint adds a lot to discussions around here! Taking a break's fine, esp. with these threads, but don't pack it in because of a bad experience or two. We've all had them on forums.
You raise a good point about the internet communiy and justification. It's just so hard to communicate this way, over timezones/timelags, cross-culturally, semi-anonymously. We are free to say things here that we might not say in person, and it's sooo much easier to be misunderstood, misconstrued, what have you.
i sincerely believe that if these same debates were happening in person, we'd behave a bit more civilly, many misunderstandings of tone or intent would vanish, and the time it takes to make your point would diminish significantly. So there's a downside to the free anonymity of internet forum posting.
But there's plenty of upsides. You know this, and hopefully will stick around.

just my 2 cents of support...

[BeautifulBurnout]

Never say "never again".

I've flounced off in my time for a variety of reasons and come back again.

Holden is right - the internet is a place where people shoot from the hip because they don't have to be face-to-face with the person they are corresponding with. I don't think anyone here has ever said you don't have the right to have the opinions you do. But it is important to accept that resorting to name-calling is never going to make the person on the receiving end of it happy to read it.

There is a great french saying: "Les paroles s'en volent, les ecrits restent"- spoken words fly away, but written words stay. And that is part of the problem, because someone who has been insulted or humiliated or offended by something posted is likely to feel far worse about it than if it had been a throwaway remark face-to-face or on the phone, because it is here to stay, for all the world to see. And, irrespective of anonymity, people are still people. They still have feelings. Sometimes they will discard it with a shrug and a smile. Other times they will feel injured by it. One can never tell which, no matter what the intention was when one was writing the post.

If you think you can't participate here any more that is entirely up to you. But don't think that people don't want you around, because for my part that is certainly not true.

[potatobroth]

To speak a little on this, I had NO idea that moderators were editing comments to make jokes or whatever. Thus, every comment that has been moderated-for-humor has been read, by me and others, as words chosen by the credited author. That's just not right and as the moderator of a much less serious forum (not saying this is the epitome of serious either) I would never edit a user's comments for ANY reason. It's practically the worst thing a moderator can do. Moderators aren't around for our amusement, they are around to make sure topics don't turn into hateful threads, correct errant links, fix bad HTML, and delete spam. Other than that the posts should remain as how the author intended.

If a moderator wants to make a joke, they should just quote and comment in the same way as everyone else. The second a moderator takes a different approach to their position, the community will start to crumble as posters will rethink their reactions.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

"...Why don't you close your eyes and re-invent me?..."

It's fun being the king of shit talk!

Why?

Because I'm good at it.

[Sean]

So this debate has gone everywhere, lost the point, found it, beat the crap out of it, nursed it back to health, and then started all over again. In the simple interest of clarity, I just want to post what I guess could be considered my closing arguments on the subject. I'm not going anywhere, or refusing to reply to any new points that may arise, but for where things are as of now, I just want to make sure my stance is accurately understood.

My overall point is not who's right or wrong, it's simply meant to address whether or not I think the charge that "GWB hates women" is a logical enough conclusion to warrant it's assertion as fact. For all we know, Cacophony and Dubman are right, and he does hate women - but does this story provide clear evidence of it? That's what I question, and I don't personally think it does.

First and foremost, the issue at hand is that Bush presented a "memo that defines several widely used contraception methods as abortion and protects the right of medical providers to refuse to offer them."

The contraception methods at issue are specifically ones that take affect after the sperm and the egg have combined, which is why things like condoms and other methods that simply block sperm and egg from ever meeting are not included in this new definition of abortion. I believe it logically follows that the most likely reason for this would be the pro-life stance that individual life begins at the moment of conception. Again, I feel this is the most likely reason, not necessarily the hands-down correct one. Nor do I think that the "sanctity of life" argument is the only one that motivates pro-lifers, but it is the foundation of their stance, and the aspect of it that most directly applies to this particular issue.

Why do I consider this to be the "most likely" reason? Because this issue is most directly linked to all of Bush's overall philosophies on reproductive functions and the morality of what we do with them. Considering this, we can look at other issues that are directly affected by these philosophies to find any common threads.

The first two that pop to mind for me are stem cell research and partial birth abortions. Stem cell research could lead to cures of diseases such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or injuries like paralysis. But Bush's flawed reasoning that stem cell research reduces the potential human life of an embryo to nothing more than basically a lab rat took precedence over the suffering people that stem cell research would surely help. In the case of partial birth abortions, for Bush, the life of the unborn baby takes enough precedence over other considerations that he won't even allow for mothers to have the option of saving their own lives by terminating the pregnancy if that's a real choice they're facing. In both cases, as well as in the case of redefining abortion that started these discussions, the common thread is that for Bush, all other considerations are trumped by the philosophy that the life of an unborn child must be protected at all costs. That's what, to me, makes it the most likely logical reason for his stance...it's clear presence in all reproductive-related issues he's addressed.

If we similarly evaluate the stance that "GWB hates women" as a conclusion reached directly through the evidence we have, it simply comes out as less likely to be the reasoning behind the memo. We do see some common traits between how the redefining of abortion and partial birth abortions both negatively affect women, but it's certainly not a common thread that runs through Bush's stance on all things reproductive, like stem cell research and the like. So if we take a purely Occum's Razor style approach to the subject, then the conclusion that Bush's stance on this means that he "hates women" simply doesn't pass the test. The simplest explanation is that he values fetus life over all else, regardless of how debatable the subject of when life begins actually is, and regardless of who else is hurt in the process.

To me, Bush's stance shows disdain for many things - reason, indisputable human life and suffering, science, realistic consequences, etc. But I don't see a specific, focused intent on women that would qualify the assertion of "misogyny". There is no consistent trail of legislation or publicly known philosophies from Bush that show the common thread of specifically "hating women" that would need to be there to justify such a focused charge. At best, it's a guess based largely on assumptions. And frankly, I think that viewing this as an example of Bush's overall flawed thinking on the subject to be far worse than the limited, focused charge of misogyny. On that, I'm surprised to be meeting with such staunch resistance.

And as I've said before, if this story is accepted as evidence enough to establish Bush's misogyny, then we must also accept a myriad of other conclusions about him that are based on equally compelling evidence. That would mean that we must accept that Bush hates people with diseases and conditions that could be cured through stem cell research. And that he must hate Iraqi people. And that he must hate blacks as evidenced by hurricane Katrina. And that he must hate gay people since he opposes same sex marriage. And that he must hate Iranians because he supports sanctions against Iran. And that he must hate teenagers because he opposes making condoms available to high school students. While these are all certainly people who have been negatively affected by Bush's misguided policies, I don't personally feel that concluding he must hate them all is accurate or fair.

And to fortify the point, we must also, by extension, then apply the same reasoning to other stances. Like that, again, pro-choice people must hate babies. Or that anti-gun people must hate all hunters. Or that death penalty opponents must hate the families of some murder victims. Or that supporters of affirmative action must hate white people. Clearly, some of these examples are more ludicrous than others, but all rely on exactly the same logic that is required to justify the assertion that "GWB hates women".

So that's it. I think that clarifies exactly where I stand on it. Agree, disagree, get pissed, yell at me, call me stupid, whatever. I'm happy to continue the discussion about it, but probably won't engage in any debates that would simply require me to reiterate these points over and over again.

[dubman]

stimpee's right, it's much easier to sit back and let the meltdown happen, though the only reason i got pwnt here is because i didnt stick to my guns on locking it all up, like i probably should have, and acquiescing to the unwritten rules about whats a no-no. i also treated the "the word is all we have and its sacred" mumbo jumbo crap about piss-taking internet edits seriously. shame on me...
but so *glad* you guys not only brought the argument from the now-unlocked thread here, but are doing everything (including repeating the whole shitty cycle, flouncing, failing to bring up new points or indeed anything thats traversing the divide that isnt just trying to checkmate the other and make sure you can keep going with the kind of dialogue youve been content to distract yourselves with for years and years) that i thought was going to happen and locked the thread for.
BB got in late and is playing the part of sean, and cacophony got fed up and is now doing what i did by openly mocking everyone because the dialogue stopped being respectable several posts ago. we're supposed to be childish because we refuse to see your logic as realistic or truthful, and you're supposed to be weak-headed because all we're hearing is evasion and cowardice from whats actually happening.

BUT NO LETS KEEP THIS GOING ITS ESSENTIAL AND WE'RE ADULTS AND DONT NEED TO GET PULLED OUT OF A THREAD. YOU SURE SHOWED ME. BEERS FOR EVERYONE.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by dubman

BEERS FOR EVERYONE.

$4 bucket of Corona and a lime please.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by dubman

stimpee's right, it's much easier to sit back and let the meltdown happen, though the only reason i got pwnt here is because i didnt stick to my guns on locking it all up, like i probably should have, and acquiescing to the unwritten rules about whats a no-no. i also treated the "the word is all we have and its sacred" mumbo jumbo crap about piss-taking internet edits seriously. shame on me...
but so *glad* you guys not only brought the argument from the now-unlocked thread here, but are doing everything (including repeating the whole shitty cycle, flouncing, failing to bring up new points or indeed anything thats traversing the divide that isnt just trying to checkmate the other and make sure you can keep going with the kind of dialogue youve been content to distract yourselves with for years and years) that i thought was going to happen and locked the thread for.
BB got in late and is playing the part of sean, and cacophony got fed up and is now doing what i did by openly mocking everyone because the dialogue stopped being respectable several posts ago. we're supposed to be childish because we refuse to see your logic as realistic or truthful, and you're supposed to be weak-headed because all we're hearing is evasion and cowardice from whats actually happening.

BUT NO LETS KEEP THIS GOING ITS ESSENTIAL AND WE'RE ADULTS AND DONT NEED TO GET PULLED OUT OF A THREAD. YOU SURE SHOWED ME. BEERS FOR EVERYONE.

You've made it crystal clear that you think we're a bunch of windbags venting nothing but self-delusional distractions, that you see no value in respecting what forum members have written by refraining from editing their posts, and that you think nothing of interest is coming out of any discussions going on here. Super. If this particular subject is so bothersome to you, you could always feel free to just step out of it and let those of us interested in continuing do so. Can't say I see any use in you insisting on piping up for the sole purpose of giving everyone here crap.

But I will take that beer...

[dubman]

well i think i can have one wee "i told you so" considering i was told that *other* people werent done discussing a few other points and that it still had places to go. only to fail miserably one more time and justifying my initial impulse to lock it. although i'm jazzed that you so competently paraphrased everything ive been saying, so thats good. it doesnt bother me, honestly, it's too funny to yell at anyone at this point.

john, no corona. have some taste please.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by dubman

well i think i can have one wee "i told you so" considering i was told that *other* people werent done discussing a few other points and that it still had places to go. only to fail miserably one more time and justifying my initial impulse to lock it.

I mentioned that "the article that started the thread has other, as yet unexplored aspects to it that are worthy of discussion", but that's speaking to the point that the option of exploring other aspects of the story should simply remain available to us. It doesn't mean I was predicting that other people would be setting the thread abuzz with activity, or that such activity would be necessary to justify re-opening it.

Originally Posted by dubman

although i'm jazzed that you so competently paraphrased everything ive been saying, so thats good. it doesnt bother me, honestly, it's too funny to yell at anyone at this point.

Well now let's see...

You - "you guys are...repeating the whole shitty cycle, flouncing, failing to bring up new points or indeed anything thats traversing the divide that isnt just trying to checkmate the other and make sure you can keep going with the kind of dialogue youve been content to distract yourselves with for years and years"

My paraphrase - "you think we're a bunch of windbags venting nothing but self-delusional distractions"

You - "i also treated the 'the word is all we have and its sacred' mumbo jumbo crap about piss-taking internet edits seriously. shame on me..."

My paraphrase - "you see no value in respecting what forum members have written by refraining from editing their posts"

You - "BB got in late and is playing the part of sean, and cacophony got fed up and is now doing what i did by openly mocking everyone because the dialogue stopped being respectable several posts ago. we're supposed to be childish because we refuse to see your logic as realistic or truthful, and you're supposed to be weak-headed because all we're hearing is evasion and cowardice from whats actually happening.BUT NO LETS KEEP THIS GOING ITS ESSENTIAL AND WE'RE ADULTS AND DONT NEED TO GET PULLED OUT OF A THREAD. YOU SURE SHOWED ME."

My paraphrase - "you think nothing of interest is coming out of any discussions going on here"

I know I supposedly lack a fundamental understanding of the magical labyrinth that is your mind, but I don't think I missed the mark by too much. Maybe I should've specified that your post edits are supposedly limited to the "piss-taking" variety, but aside from that....