Rule 1 Questions [Archive] - The Political Forums

Chris

08-22-2013, 07:25 AM

Rule 1 reads "No personal attacks."

When we simplified the rules we discussed this one extensively. What it came down to was attacking messengers is prohibited but attacking messages is acceptable.

Is that still the meaning of rule 1?

That bright line seems clear enough on reading the rule but I see on the forum some confusion about it.

When we created rules we always allowed for some subjectivity in deciding whether an insult was considered a personal attack, so I'm not asking about that. I mean, for instance, calling someone a progressive or rightwinger is hardly an insult, whereas calling someone an a&&#0!^ is. From willow's thread apparently calling someone a racist is on a subjective gray line.

But I'm not asking about that.

What I am seeking clarification on is some seem to think that attacking the message is attacking the messenger.

For instance, "that poster is moronic" is about the messenger and is an insult and thus is a personal attack, subjectively, right? But "that post is moronic" is about the message, not the messenger, and thus perfectly OK, right? We can get into grey area if we consider the more ambiguous "you're being moronic" -- addressing messenger or message?

OK, so that's my question.

Does rule 1 "No personal attacks" still mean attacking messengers is prohibited but attacking messages is acceptable? Are my explanation and examples accurate?

I assume so since no change has been announced but like I say I see some confusion online.

Adelaide, bladimz, Captain Obvious, Chloe, Conley, Dr. Who, IMPress Polly,‎ KC, ‎ Mainecoons, Mister D, oceanloverOH, Peter1469, Private Pickle, roadmaster, zelmo1234

I ask this of VIPs because VIPs are the forum leaders who make and define the rules here--unless that has changed?

Of course any member is welcome to jump in and comment.

Cigar

08-22-2013, 07:32 AM

I'm attacked all the time ... by NAME ... and it's fine with me, (it's great to be thought of) so long as I'm allowed to respond. :grin:

Ravi

08-22-2013, 07:41 AM

I think the rule is pretty silly. But I do realize sensitive types need protection and I imagine that is why the rule was put in place to begin with.

Cigar

08-22-2013, 07:44 AM

This is what we need to cut through all the BS :grin:

http://i44.tinypic.com/16jppop.jpg

Chris

08-22-2013, 08:21 AM

I'm attacked all the time ... by NAME ... and it's fine with me, (it's great to be thought of) so long as I'm allowed to respond. :grin:

You're supposed to report it.

Chris

08-22-2013, 08:23 AM

I think the rule is pretty silly. But I do realize sensitive types need protection and I imagine that is why the rule was put in place to begin with.

Dead wrong.

The reason it was implemented is because it detracts from discussion. Since forums are all about discussion, it detracts from the very purpose of a forum.

It's interesting that both of you seem to want to be able to personally attack members. Very telling indeed.

Cigar

08-22-2013, 08:25 AM

You're supposed to report it.

It doesn't bother me, because it's not a reflection on me, it's a reflection on the Name caller(s) :wink:

Cigar

08-22-2013, 08:26 AM

Dead wrong.

The reason it was implemented is because it detracts from discussion. Since forums are all about discussion, it detracts from the very purpose of a forum.

It's interesting that both of you seem to want to be able to personally attack members. Very telling indeed.

Kinda like going to a GOP Town-Hall Meeting. :grin:

Ravi

08-22-2013, 08:26 AM

Chris

08-22-2013, 08:27 AM

It doesn't bother me, because it's not a reflection on me, it's a reflection on the Name caller(s) :wink:

But it bothers others in this little community, those who come here for discussion rather than distraction..

Chris

08-22-2013, 08:29 AM

Faulty inference. I simply don't care. If someone wants to personally attack me on an anonymous messageboard it has no effect on my life. Matter of fact, I rarely report anyone that engages in personal attacks with the sole exception of Chris.

False accusation, marie, something you keep doing but can never demonstrate.

If someone wants to personally attack me on an anonymous messageboard it has no effect on my life.

Basically the same attitude of cigar, concern for yourself, no concern for others and the forum.

Chris

08-22-2013, 08:31 AM

Anyway, nice distraction, guy and gal, from the topic, what is the meaning of the rule, no personal attacks? How about you let others answer rather than distract.

Ravi

08-22-2013, 08:33 AM

False accusation, marie, something you keep doing but can never demonstrate.

Basically the same attitude of cigar, concern for yourself, no concern for others and the forum.

What false accusation do you speak of?

I can't speak for Cigar, but I'm not a communist that needs governance. btw, you are actually the only person I've seen that is bothered by personal attacks. No one else incessantly harps on the issue.

Chris

08-22-2013, 08:41 AM

What false accusation do you speak of?

I can't speak for Cigar, but I'm not a communist that needs governance. btw, you are actually the only person I've seen that is bothered by personal attacks. No one else incessantly harps on the issue.

Your blatant and repeated accusation I personally attack others. You never show where that happens. Cry wolf enough and no one will believe you any more.

I and others are bothered by personal attacks disrupting discussion. Other than that it's simply hoisting your own petard, see Insults (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/13615-Insulting?highlight=attribution+error).

You don't seem to want to contribute to this discussion but only distract from the OP questions.

Mr Happy

08-22-2013, 09:01 AM

Faulty inference. I simply don't care. If someone wants to personally attack me on an anonymous messageboard it has no effect on my life. Matter of fact, I rarely report anyone that engages in personal attacks with the sole exception of Chris.

Bingo....he just doesn't get it. He is by far one of the most self-centred, thin-skinned, attention-seeking people I've ever 'met' on a messageboard. Almost as bad as Intense on that other board. It got to a stage (before I put him on ignore) where I thought he was a troll. His constant whining about ad homs and the way he twisted even the most basic post around to something that wasn't being said or discussed was mind boggling. And when you point out a fact about how wrong he is and why, he not only refuses to accept it but then tries to argue why he is right. Thus me thinking he was a troll, because I couldn't think anybody could really be that obtuse and they must be taking the piss. Find him one of the most disruptive posters on this board, thus the ignore button being on....Would love to know how old he is - comes across as 15-18 age bracket...

Ravi

08-22-2013, 09:06 AM

Bingo....he just doesn't get it. He is by far one of the most self-centred, thin-skinned, attention-seeking people I've ever 'met' on a messageboard. Almost as bad as Intense on that other board. It got to a stage (before I put him on ignore) where I thought he was a troll. His constant whining about ad homs and the way he twisted even the most basic post around to something that wasn't being said or discussed was mind boggling. And when you point out a fact about how wrong he is and why, he not only refuses to accept it but then tries to argue why he is right. Thus me thinking he was a troll, because I couldn't think anybody could really be that obtuse and they must be taking the piss. Find him one of the most disruptive posters on this board, thus the ignore button being on....Would love to know how old he is - comes across as 15-18 age bracket...
ha, a typical libertarian authoritarian methinks.

Cigar

08-22-2013, 09:11 AM

http://www.catfancygifts.com/productthumbs/2Kwt/B11215_TissueBox2.gif

Chris

08-22-2013, 09:13 AM

ha, a typical libertarian authoritarian methinks.

Nice oxymoron, marie.

GrassrootsConservative

08-22-2013, 09:24 AM

Chris

08-22-2013, 09:34 AM

What's interesting in the face of some her trying to make this personal, in the OP when I use "we" I'm not using the royal we but referring to VIPs and Mods, chosen from members because of their many continued contributions to the forum, and who put the rules together as what best helps achieve the purpose of the forum.

In a way it all comes down to simple discourse ethics. When you post you're saying you have something to contribute and want enough respect to be heard and that you will reciprocate that respect. We will disagree on politics, religion, government, everything under the sun, even heatedly, but there's no reason, ethically, to be disagreeable. --If you're not here for these reasons, with that attitude, then perhaps you don't belong here.

Cigar

08-22-2013, 09:40 AM

Dude just shut up and take a Midol. Don't bring this inflammatory nonsense into a thread about a question on the rules. Why on earth you would think this is okay is beyond me.

How about you Shut up and Suck on a Pacifier. :laugh:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EtHhyMVJb0A/SwP_EoWqsoI/AAAAAAAAAc8/qlZ9H4vShSY/s1600/pacifier.jpg

junie

08-22-2013, 09:58 AM

the angry coonhound makes posts like this all..day..long..

Don't try and understand economics, Nic, it will strain your small brain.

Do try and learn how to read, though. Then you might figure out that eliminating all tax loopholes will make the hated rich pay a lot more.

:grin:

...

I really is just that basic.

Much too simple for you to grasp, Nic. It's OK. little fella. :grin:

Chris

08-22-2013, 10:00 AM

the angry coonhound makes posts like this all..day..long..

And you just called him an insulting name. :f_doh:

Like I said to cigar earlier, see a rule violation, report it. That's the expectation here.

Mr Happy

08-22-2013, 03:56 PM

Dude just shut up and take a Midol. Don't bring this inflammatory nonsense into a thread about a question on the rules. Why on earth you would think this is okay is beyond me.

Speaking of whiners....

fyrenza

08-22-2013, 07:39 PM

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/353/279/e31.jpg

It absolutely amazes me for folks to accuse others of doing the VERY THING that they are doing.

On the UpSide, I've got a couple of new names on my Ignore list! ;)

IMPress Polly

08-23-2013, 06:54 AM

Witness the nature of those complaining about the rule in question for proof that it's needed.

Chris

08-23-2013, 08:08 AM

Witness the nature of those complaining about the rule in question for proof that it's needed.

Words right out of my mouth. Thank you.

Adelaide

08-23-2013, 08:30 AM

Chris - will respond when I'm home from work. I need to do a bunch of things this morning and won't be around. Should be able to respond by 7pm.

Chris

08-23-2013, 08:45 AM

Chris - will respond when I'm home from work. I need to do a bunch of things this morning and won't be around. Should be able to respond by 7pm.
Adelaide, that's fine, I understand somewhat.

sky dancer

10-04-2013, 10:12 PM

It all depends on what kind of forum culture you enjoy, doesn't it?

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 07:38 AM

I think the rule is pretty silly. But I do realize sensitive types need protection and I imagine that is why the rule was put in place to begin with.

...really?...how many people have you reported?...

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 07:49 AM

You're supposed to report it.

...no Chris...that's the problem here, people report things instead of addressing them AND disproving them...if I call someone "dishonest" and they don't disprove it, who's wrong?...if I call someone a lib, a woman, dishonest, or even stupid, this can debated...and it should be...calling someone a jew, a nigger, a spic or cracker is something that isn't really debatable...people really need to toughen up and stop reporting everything because it hurts their feelings...if someone attacks me it's an invitation to debate... :)

Chris

10-05-2013, 08:35 AM

...no Chris...that's the problem here, people report things instead of addressing them AND disproving them...if I call someone "dishonest" and they don't disprove it, who's wrong?...if I call someone a lib, a woman, dishonest, or even stupid, this can debated...and it should be...calling someone a jew, a nigger, a spic or cracker is something that isn't really debatable...people really need to toughen up and stop reporting everything because it hurts their feelings...if someone attacks me it's an invitation to debate... :)

If you merely call me dishonest, don't point out where, don't argue how or why, you've given me nothing to "disprove". And you're not "proving" anything by name calling. All it is is a distraction from discussing the topic. If you do that repeatedly, persistently, then I'd say you're a troll. You're not contributing to discussion or the forum. You deserve to be reported and mods ought to act on it.

Note, no mention of feelings or being hurt. This is a political forum, not a personal one. Politics, here, means discussion. If you're not contributing to discussion, you shouldn't be here.

Note, also, my use of "you" is generic here, not you personally, Joe.

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 08:56 AM

If you merely call me dishonest, don't point out where, don't argue how or why, you've given me nothing to "disprove". And you're not "proving" anything by name calling. All it is is a distraction from discussing the topic. If you do that repeatedly, persistently, then I'd say you're a troll. You're not contributing to discussion or the forum. You deserve to be reported and mods ought to act on it.

Note, no mention of feelings or being hurt. This is a political forum, not a personal one. Politics, here, means discussion. If you're not contributing to discussion, you shouldn't be here.

Note, also, my use of "you" is generic here, not you personally, Joe.

...I disagree...but I'm not sensitive about being called names (racist, bigot, kookoo, or whatever)...it doesn't bother me...but "labels" are very important (in my opinion) to the way people think...for example, if you are gay, you are going to think a certain way, same with a man/male, woman/female, a liberal, a conservative and a black person...we all have a different perspective on the way things are and the way things should be...so when I call someone a woman I'm telling them the reason they think a certain way...the 2 basic perspectives on this forum are men/males and women/females, it's nature...

jillian

10-05-2013, 09:03 AM

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 09:05 AM

in other words you rely on stereotypes and are unable to assess what people actually believe once you label them.

I'm sure log cabin republicans and GOProud would be amused to find out they "think a certain way"

...so profiling doesn't work?...

Chris

10-05-2013, 09:07 AM

...I disagree...but I'm not sensitive about being called names (racist, bigot, kookoo, or whatever)...it doesn't bother me...but "labels" are very important (in my opinion) to the way people think...for example, if you are gay, you are going to think a certain way, same with a man/male, woman/female, a liberal, a conservative and a black person...we all have a different perspective on the way things are and the way things should be...so when I call someone a woman I'm telling them the reason they think a certain way...the 2 basic perspectives on this forum are men/males and women/females, it's nature...

See now I just made the point it's not about being sensitive to being called names but about distracting discussion, and you completely ignore that. Look up how psychologists and sociologists look at name calling and insults and such, and perhaps you'd understand.

I have no problem with labels. It doesn't bother me to be called a rightwing extremist, and I don't understand why calling someone a progressive is personally insulting. I don't see how you can talk politics without such labels.

There's a difference between calling someone a conservative or liberal or woman or gay or whatever where the label is descriptive, and calling people names and insulting, which only tends to distract discussion.

Say we're discussing Obamacare and I say something wrong. You're calling me dishonest and expecting me to defend my honesty is just plain distracting from the topic. If I'm wrong, show it, no need for insults. If you're argument is so weak you need insults to support, your argument wasn't worth it to begin with.

What we're talking about here, imo, is reporting members who do little but engage in personal attacks and trolling and baiting. I don't know why anyone would want them around.

Chris

10-05-2013, 09:08 AM

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 09:32 AM

Leave it to jillian to distort what's said and distract discussion to her agenda.

While I agree with your assessment of forum etiquette and the rationale behind it, I don't think that Jillian was incorrect in suggesting that KJ was talking about stereotyping people and basing his interactions with them on those stereotypes. IMO stereotyping does a disservice to both parties because the one doing the stereotyping will automatically process whatever is said through a filter of expectations.

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 09:39 AM

See now I just made the point it's not about being sensitive to being called names but about distracting discussion, and you completely ignore that. Look up how psychologists and sociologists look at name calling and insults and such, and perhaps you'd understand.

...distracting?...what?...if you and I are going back and forth on something and I call you a waste of time because you're an idiot that's not a distraction, that's an opinion...insults?...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...it's only an insult if it's true...if it's not true then why get all butthurt about it?...if you are on the net looking for validation for anything, you need to see a psychologist...

I have no problem with labels. It doesn't bother me to be called a rightwing extremist, and I don't understand why calling someone a progressive is personally insulting. I don't see how you can talk politics without such labels.

...it's called being secure in oneself...if you aren't secure, then you will cry about everything...

There's a difference between calling someone a conservative or liberal or woman or gay or whatever where the label is descriptive, and calling people names and insulting, which only tends to distract discussion.

...isn't this what I said?...calling someone a nigger is not something to debate, calling someone a woman can be debated...

Say we're discussing Obamacare and I say something wrong. You're calling me dishonest and expecting me to defend my honesty is just plain distracting from the topic. If I'm wrong, show it, no need for insults. If you're argument is so weak you need insults to support, your argument wasn't worth it to begin with.

...well, it's like a Christian that is pro gay and pro abortion, is that not dishonest?...

What we're talking about here, imo, is reporting members who do little but engage in personal attacks and trolling and baiting. I don't know why anyone would want them around.

...it's up to you...I don't like reporting because it's trying to shut someone up...if you don't like what someone says, put them on ignore...

Chris

10-05-2013, 09:41 AM

...distracting?...what?...if you and I are going back and forth on something and I call you a waste of time because you're an idiot that's not a distraction, that's an opinion...insults?...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...it's only an insult if it's true...if it's not true then why get all butthurt about it?...if you are on the net looking for validation for anything, you need to see a psychologist...

...it's called being secure in oneself...if you aren't secure, then you will cry about everything...

...isn't this what I said?...calling someone a nigger is not something to debate, calling someone a woman can be debated...

...well, it's like a Christian that is pro gay and pro abortion, is that not dishonest?...

...it's up to you...I don't like reporting because it's trying to shut someone up...if you don't like what someone says, put them on ignore...

Project much, joe? You have just given away all your insecurities. Thanks. To me it's merely distraction from the topic.

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 09:41 AM

While I agree with your assessment of forum etiquette and the rationale behind it, I don't think that Jillian was incorrect in suggesting that KJ was talking about stereotyping people and basing his interactions with them on those stereotypes. IMO stereotyping does a disservice to both parties because the one doing the stereotyping will automatically process whatever is said through a filter of expectations.

...well, I hear you liberal goofballs stereotyping people from the south all the time but I guess that's different?...

Chris

10-05-2013, 09:43 AM

While I agree with your assessment of forum etiquette and the rationale behind it, I don't think that Jillian was incorrect in suggesting that KJ was talking about stereotyping people and basing his interactions with them on those stereotypes. IMO stereotyping does a disservice to both parties because the one doing the stereotyping will automatically process whatever is said through a filter of expectations.

So you join jillian in opining joe was stereotyping without so much as demonstrating he was. You hear a few labels and it seems to trigger an automatic reflex, you take it offensively, and use your own interpretation ad justification to do the same.

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 09:47 AM

So you join jillian in opining joe was stereotyping without so much as demonstrating he was. You hear a few labels and it seems to trigger an automatic reflex, you take it offensively, and use your own interpretation ad justification to do the same.

When he says: ...
so when I call someone a woman I'm telling them the reason they think a certain way...the 2 basic perspectives on this forum are men/males and women/females, it's nature If one assumes that a person thinks a certain way due to their gender, is that not stereotyping?

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 09:47 AM

Project much, joe? You have just given away all your insecurities. Thanks. To me it's merely distraction from the topic.

...you are like debating with cigar...

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 09:48 AM

When he says: ... If one assumes that a person thinks a certain way due to their gender, is that not stereotyping?

...pretty much... :)

Ravi

10-05-2013, 09:55 AM

When he says: ... If one assumes that a person thinks a certain way due to their gender, is that not stereotyping?

I get the feeling KJ doesn't like women.

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 09:57 AM

I get the feeling KJ doesn't like women.

...acknowledging the difference between men/males and women/females is hating them?...

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 09:57 AM

...pretty much... :)

What do you see is the primary difference between male and female opinions?

Chris

10-05-2013, 10:07 AM

When he says: ... If one assumes that a person thinks a certain way due to their gender, is that not stereotyping?

But men and women do think differently. This is true biologically and culturally.

I would agree what he said could be stereotyping but it could as well be factual, biological, cultural. There's nothing there to demonstrate which. I call you a progressive, am I lumping or describing? Simply using a label doesn't imply stereotyping.

Jillian's little rant assumed stereotyping and then went on to bait with her own stereotyping (second paragraph is you can call her prose divisions paragraphs):

in other words you rely on stereotypes and are unable to assess what people actually believe once you label them.

I'm sure log cabin republicans and GOProud would be amused to find out they "think a certain way"

And you don't think it didn't distract from the topic? Then what are we doing arguing about stereotypes in a thread asking for clarification on rule 1?

Chris

10-05-2013, 10:12 AM

...you are like debating with cigar...

Test: Why are you being dishonest?

Chris

10-05-2013, 10:13 AM

I get the feeling KJ doesn't like women.

The inevitable making things personal from ravi.

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 10:29 AM

But men and women do think differently. This is true biologically and culturally.

I would agree what he said could be stereotyping but it could as well be factual, biological, cultural. There's nothing there to demonstrate which. I call you a progressive, am I lumping or describing? Simply using a label doesn't imply stereotyping.

Jillian's little rant assumed stereotyping and then went on to bait with her own stereotyping (second paragraph is you can call her prose divisions paragraphs):

And you don't think it didn't distract from the topic? Then what are we doing arguing about stereotypes in a thread asking for clarification on rule 1?

Stereotyping has a bearing on member interaction, particularly when the stereotype is used to diminish the argument of another. You might prefer to call it a straw man argument.

Chris

10-05-2013, 11:11 AM

Stereotyping has a bearing on member interaction, particularly when the stereotype is used to diminish the argument of another. You might prefer to call it a straw man argument.

I think we all know what stereotyping is and what it's effect is. You have yet to demonstrate joe was stereotyping. Without that, your accusation, and jillian's, are just that, mere accusations, without substance.

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 11:55 AM

I think we all know what stereotyping is and what it's effect is. You have yet to demonstrate joe was stereotyping. Without that, your accusation, and jillian's, are just that, mere accusations, without substance.I didn't say he was stereotyping, he is the one who suggested that stereotyping male and female opinion was appropriate. He just didn't use the term stereotyping. See: ...
so when I call someone a woman I'm telling them the reason they think a certain way...the 2 basic perspectives on this forum are men/males and women/females, it's nature

Chris

10-05-2013, 12:21 PM

I didn't say he was stereotyping, he is the one who suggested that stereotyping male and female opinion was appropriate. He just didn't use the term stereotyping. See: ...

No, he didn't. It is a fact, men and women think differently, biologically, culturally. Facts don't stereotype.

Biologically: Men and Women Really Do Think Differently.

Culturally, because of the way we're raised, by parents, family, community. This might could be changed, but ought to be done so only very cautiously, prudently.

fyrenza

10-05-2013, 12:43 PM

Since when is stereotyping someone into what they, themselves, represent themselves to be,

considered some sort of "personal attack?"

i.e. If you called me "older," or "female," or "conservative?"
Wouldn't that be because of ME attacking my own self with stereotypes
in my representation of myself and my beliefs?

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 12:56 PM

No, he didn't. It is a fact, men and women think differently, biologically, culturally. Facts don't stereotype.

Biologically: Men and Women Really Do Think Differently (http://Men and Women Really Do Think Differently).

Culturally, because of the way we're raised, by parents, family, community. This might could be changed, but ought to be done so only very cautiously, prudently.

The fact that males and females process information differently does not necessarily affect conclusions or opinions. It gives men an advantage in mathematics and women an advantage in linguistics. The difference in brain structure makes males more single task oriented or focused and women better at multi-tasking. They nevertheless fair equally on intelligence tests. One cannot ascribe gender as being the operative determiner of anyone's opinion.

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 12:59 PM

Chris

10-05-2013, 01:03 PM

The fact that males and females process information differently does not necessarily affect conclusions or opinions. It gives men an advantage in mathematics and women an advantage in linguistics. The difference in brain structure makes males more single task oriented or focused and women better at multi-tasking. They nevertheless fair equally on intelligence tests. One cannot ascribe gender as being the operative determiner of anyone's opinion.

You skipped cultural differences.

And we're getting away from stereotyping.

And totally away from the topic, which is moot anyhow by the new revised rules, which allow for chippiness, so here, take this:

http://i.snag.gy/nbmlh.jpg

:-P

Chris

10-05-2013, 01:04 PM

It is a problem if someone dismisses your opinion because of any of the above, rather than debate your assertions.

Agree.

But, fyrenza, it's not considered a violation of forum rules...so far as I know.

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 01:05 PM

It is a problem if someone dismisses your opinion because of any of the above, rather than debate your assertions.

...there is no debate when some can't relate to your opinion...men/males look at things fundamentally different then women/females...you saying they don't is dishonest...this is my whole point, people say and do dishonest things to be remain PC or to protect someone's feelings...

sky dancer

10-05-2013, 01:22 PM

I think the rule is here because it's a logical fallacy to say your position is wrong because you are a_____________. (fill in the blank)

That's a personal attack.

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 01:35 PM

...there is no debate when some can't relate to your opinion...men/males look at things fundamentally different then women/females...you saying they don't is dishonest...this is my whole point, people say and do dishonest things to be remain PC or to protect someone's feelings...People may not relate to each other's opinions based on many things, the least of which is probably gender. There is some subject matter that resonates more with one gender vs the other, such as say violent behavior, which females have more of a tendency to distain, but which males may justify for reasons of defending self or family - the instinct to protect being somewhat hardwired in males. Females may have a more aggressive opinion on such things as abortion as being related to freedom to control their own bodies. Otherwise, how do females and males see life and politics fundamentally differently?

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 01:39 PM

I think the rule is here because it's a logical fallacy to say your position is wrong because you are a_____________. (fill in the blank)

That's a personal attack.

It depends on how it is done and how often it is done. If there is a repeated pattern of suggesting in an unflattering manner that someone's opinion has no validity because of _____, it would be viewed as debating in bad faith.

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 01:42 PM

It is a problem if someone dismisses your opinion because of any of the above, rather than debate your assertions.

...ok, let me give you an example...I have been going to the gym and working out since HS, which is over 30 years...well over...I'm a male and I have body parts that produce testosterone...it's nature...every now and then I get a female personal trainer that try to teach me about working out...this is offensive to me because #1 I don't ask for their opinion and #2 they aren't males and they don't know first hand what a male body can do, only what they are told or read about...I don't care how much education a female has they can't relate to a male...I had a female dr. for about a year and I finally dumped her when instead of diagnosing my injury she called me vain... :shocked: ...I'm at the point in my workout routines that I don't get anything from light weights and high reps...I feel like I'm wasting my time, I like moderately heavy to failure...it's not my fault, it's the testosterone's...you feel me bruh?...

sky dancer

10-05-2013, 01:47 PM

It depends on how it is done and how often it is done. If there is a repeated pattern of suggesting in an unflattering manner that someone's opinion has no validity because of _____, it would be viewed as debating in bad faith.

There is a repeated pattern of suggesting in an unflattering manner that my opinion has no validity because I happen to be a lesbian. A few members are doing this now.

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 01:55 PM

...ok, let me give you an example...I have been going to the gym and working out since HS, which is over 30 years...well over...I'm a male and I have body parts that produce testosterone...it's nature...every now and then I get a female personal trainer that try to teach me about working out...this is offensive to me because #1 I don't ask for their opinion and #2 they aren't males and they don't know first hand what a male body can do, only what they are told or read about...I don't care how much education a female has they can't relate to a male...I had a female dr. for about a year and I finally dumped her when instead of diagnosing my injury she called me vain... :shocked: ...I'm at the point in my workout routines that I don't get anything from light weights and high reps...I feel like I'm wasting my time, I like moderately heavy to failure...it's not my fault, it's the testosterone's...you feel me bruh?...

I understand that on a personal level you don't feel that a female can relate to how your body functions the same way as a male can. It's a visceral thing. Females have the same issues with male doctors and possibly trainers. Of course what your trainer was telling you might be information developed by a male trainer. Nevertheless, on a personal level, it is understandable, but does it translate to general worldview?

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 01:58 PM

There is a repeated pattern of suggesting in an unflattering manner that my opinion has no validity because I happen to be a lesbian. A few members are doing this now.

And warnings have been issued.

Kabuki Joe

10-05-2013, 02:09 PM

I understand that on a personal level you don't feel that a female can relate to how your body functions the same way as a male can. It's a visceral thing. Females have the same issues with male doctors and possibly trainers. Of course what your trainer was telling you might be information developed by a male trainer. Nevertheless, on a personal level, it is understandable, but does it translate to general worldview?

...yes it does, men/males and women/females have different perspectives on most things...child discipline right off the bat is very different between mother and father...I don't look at anything the same way as my wife...sure we agree on an end result, but the way we get there is completely different...when we had a house full of kids years ago I always stood back and let her have her way with kids and she always would have me deal with the kids eventually when they ran right over her...it's biological...and before you even say it, do you know how many times I stood there watching a maniac kid while the mother praised how great the kid was?...I've been around a lot of kids in 51 years...

Dr. Who

10-05-2013, 02:32 PM

...yes it does, men/males and women/females have different perspectives on most things...child discipline right off the bat is very different between mother and father...I don't look at anything the same way as my wife...sure we agree on an end result, but the way we get there is completely different...when we had a house full of kids years ago I always stood back and let her have her way with kids and she always would have me deal with the kids eventually when they ran right over her...it's biological...and before you even say it, do you know how many times I stood there watching a maniac kid while the mother praised how great the kid was?...I've been around a lot of kids in 51 years...Males and females may have different parenting styles, although I think a lot of that has to do with the scientific approach to parenting which started with Dr. Spock and the fact that women are more inclined to read that type of literature, most of which ironically is written by men. It's much harder and takes more time to discipline kids verbally. The fact that you really had the same goals in mind, if not the same methodology, means that you are really not so different. BTW I've seen plenty of male parents who turn a blind eye to their kid's bad behavior as well, complete with the old idiom - boys will be boys, while the little miscreant runs around someone else's home like a hyperactive chimpanzee.