NAME-CALLING

Prince Of Dorkness

Vitalogy Man wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Now... I wouldn't ever post say... a Diatribe sent to me in a private message, "Vitalogy Man," one that references things I posted months before you "newly joined :? " this forum.

But let's just say that long-winded, angry diatribes that call people names like "slut" and "faggot" and such... Not really helping anyone's cause. :roll:

Implying that I called you any of those names is wrong, and you know that Prince. Anyone of us can access another members posts in about 5 seconds... you asked me to understand your feelings/ "anger", and That's where I went to try to do that. You have my conclusions. But those words were never included.

What about the choice names you have reserved for conservative politicians, and Christians? Are those words "helping anyone's cause"?

Where do we draw the line? Some politicians/ groups can be called names, and others, we need to exercise "decent philosophies"?

Can we get a little more clarity here?

Ok, let's try to break it down.

I don't think I've personally called Anne Colter a "slut" or a "prostitute," although I've probably called her some pretty choice names. Those posts are called "rants" and are seldom to be taken very seriously. I think it's also very clear that Anne colter says things with the intent of firing up a slew of name-calling becuase she can never win an argument using reason of facts. It's wht she called people "harpie" and "faggot" and then laughed at it. Therefore you can't talk seriously about Anne colter.

Ms. Fluke was talking about birth control that many women need for many reasons, which would ultimately lower the cost of health care for all. Instead of debating this fact, rush Limbaugh intentionally drove the bus off the road and instead said she was having "so much sex..." and called her a slut and a prostitute and suggested that if he had to pay for her "to have sex," she should post video of it on the Internet. Ignoring that she was talking about private health insurance, not rush Limbaugh's tax dollars. he did this so he could divert attention away from what she as saying... She was right and he was wrong so be instead tried to confuse people by suggesting that she was having "so much sex" and that people's taxes paid for it. Both totally absurd.

This does nothing to further any real debate, it just explodes into a contest of who can say the most shocking thing. I won't get too much into the pm discourse you and I had other than that I tried to calmly and politely explain my positions on something (I can't remember what) and you responded with three paragraphs of hysterical name-calling and lines from "Mommy Dearest," which I thought was a bit bizarrely out of place. That did nothing but make me think your watch bad gay camp movies from the 80s and have a bit too much anger.

And when I tell you that you're too angry... That might be a problem, it's like whitney Houston telling you that you have a drug problem. (too soon?)

Prince Of Dorkness

cincybearcat wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

angry diatribes that call people names ... Not really helping anyone's cause. :roll:

Gotta admit, I found this to be pretty funny considering I'm pretty sure I've said the same thing to you.

Sit up you stupid whore.


Sorry.


Got carried away.

Vitalogy Man

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Vitalogy Man wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Now... I wouldn't ever post say... a Diatribe sent to me in a private message, "Vitalogy Man," one that references things I posted months before you "newly joined :? " this forum.

But let's just say that long-winded, angry diatribes that call people names like "slut" and "faggot" and such... Not really helping anyone's cause. :roll:

Implying that I called you any of those names is wrong, and you know that Prince. Anyone of us can access another members posts in about 5 seconds... you asked me to understand your feelings/ "anger", and That's where I went to try to do that. You have my conclusions. But those words were never included.

What about the choice names you have reserved for conservative politicians, and Christians? Are those words "helping anyone's cause"?

Where do we draw the line? Some politicians/ groups can be called names, and others, we need to exercise "decent philosophies"?

Can we get a little more clarity here?

Ok, let's try to break it down.

I don't think I've personally called Anne Colter a "slut" or a "prostitute," although I've probably called her some pretty choice names. Those posts are called "rants" and are seldom to be taken very seriously. I think it's also very clear that Anne colter says things with the intent of firing up a slew of name-calling becuase she can never win an argument using reason of facts. It's wht she called people "harpie" and "faggot" and then laughed at it. Therefore you can't talk seriously about Anne colter.

Ms. Fluke was talking about birth control that many women need for many reasons, which would ultimately lower the cost of health care for all. Instead of debating this fact, rush Limbaugh intentionally drove the bus off the road and instead said she was having "so much sex..." and called her a slut and a prostitute and suggested that if he had to pay for her "to have sex," she should post video of it on the Internet. Ignoring that she was talking about private health insurance, not rush Limbaugh's tax dollars. he did this so he could divert attention away from what she as saying... She was right and he was wrong so be instead tried to confuse people by suggesting that she was having "so much sex" and that people's taxes paid for it. Both totally absurd.

This does nothing to further any real debate, it just explodes into a contest of who can say the most shocking thing. I won't get too much into the pm discourse you and I had other than that I tried to calmly and politely explain my positions on something (I can't remember what) and you responded with three paragraphs of hysterical name-calling and lines from "Mommy Dearest," which I thought was a bit bizarrely out of place. That did nothing but make me think your watch bad gay camp movies from the 80s and have a bit too much anger.

And when I tell you that you're too angry... That might be a problem, it's like whitney Houston telling you that you have a drug problem. (too soon?)

Now THAT is fuckin funny! Props for the humor. As for that Pm long ago, I hereby, sincerely apologize for offending- that was kind of a "rant" in the definition you described.

Anyways, Im yurning over a new leaf- and just trying to get some clarity on who, in the public forum, can or cannot be name-called?

Kat

Vitalogy Man wrote:

just trying to get some clarity on who, in the public forum, can or cannot be name-called?

Let's go with no one. No name-calling of anyone and I like that Mom rule thing too. Point me to where S. Palin was called that name and we'll deal with it. It's just not ok. Name-calling is the one thing that pisses people off the most and causes or escalates a debate to an argument or a fight and effectively ends a discussion. Just read your post before you hit Submit to see if you've called someone a name to denigrate or lessen their POV to try and raise the importance of your own POV. It's not difficult really...just bring your best manners and most sociable face to your debate. Have a great time and don't forget to put on some great music while you type too.

Vitalogy Man

Kat wrote:

Vitalogy Man wrote:

just trying to get some clarity on who, in the public forum, can or cannot be name-called?

Let's go with no one. No name-calling of anyone and I like that Mom rule thing too. Point me to where S. Palin was called that name and we'll deal with it. It's just not ok. Name-calling is the one thing that pisses people off the most and causes or escalates a debate to an argument or a fight and effectively ends a discussion. Just read your post before you hit Submit to see if you've called someone a name to denigrate or lessen their POV to try and raise the importance of your own POV. It's not difficult really...just bring your best manners and most sociable face to your debate. Have a great time and don't forget to put on some great music while you type too.

Alright! Thanks Kat.

NO Name-calling. I like it. Not digging for past discretions, just looking towards the future.

Thanks.

Prince Of Dorkness

Vitalogy Man wrote:

As for that Pm long ago, I hereby, sincerely apologize for offending- that was kind of a "rant" in the definition you described.

To be fair, I probably deserved about half of it. So... sorry.

It takes an awful lot to offend me... I've been called a LOT of names in my life and they just kinda roll off.

But apology accepted.

Cosmo

Vitalogy Man wrote:

Alright! Thanks Kat.

NO Name-calling. I like it. Not digging for past discretions, just looking towards the future.

Thanks.

...
Here is a piece of advice that may be helpful...
Take off the Red State or Blue State glasses and make fair, unbiased assessments of political leaders and pundits. The pundits are in the business of making you take sides... liberal vs. conservative... Democrat vs. Republican. We are ALL Americans, first... right?
I did notice that the only ones you listed in your initial post were conservative or Republicans (other than President Obama and Secretary Clinton). This would lead others to read it as people like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Michael Moore, Keith Obermann or Rosie O'Donnell never come under fire from the right side of the aisle. It this a true fact? I kind of don't think so.
I does not mean they don't deserve to draw fire, but, let's be fair here... There is a lot of responsibility and accountability on both sides to spread around here.
...
So, if you identify yourself as an American... you should be able to make unbiased calls on what is best for ALL Americans.
If you identify yourself as a Conservative/Liberal Republican/Democrat first... then, carry on with the petty political partisanship that the politicians want you to play and continue to buy into what the political pundits tell you in order to sell you their books and boost their ratings.

Vitalogy Man

Cosmo wrote:

Vitalogy Man wrote:

Alright! Thanks Kat.

NO Name-calling. I like it. Not digging for past discretions, just looking towards the future.

Thanks.

...
Here is a piece of advice that may be helpful...
Take off the Red State or Blue State glasses and make fair, unbiased assessments of political leaders and pundits. The pundits are in the business of making you take sides... liberal vs. conservative... Democrat vs. Republican. We are ALL Americans, first... right?
I did notice that the only ones you listed in your initial post were conservative or Republicans (other than President Obama and Secretary Clinton). This would lead others to read it as people like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Michael Moore, Keith Obermann or Rosie O'Donnell never come under fire from the right side of the aisle. It this a true fact? I kind of don't think so.
I does not mean they don't deserve to draw fire, but, let's be fair here... There is a lot of responsibility and accountability on both sides to spread around here.
...
So, if you identify yourself as an American... you should be able to make unbiased calls on what is best for ALL Americans.
If you identify yourself as a Conservative/Liberal Republican/Democrat first... then, carry on with the petty political partisanship that the politicians want you to play and continue to buy into what the political pundits tell you in order to sell you their books and boost their ratings.

So by NOT mentioning EVERY Democrat in the world, I am "leading others to believe that the left never comes under fire from the right"? :roll:

That is some interesting logic there.... can't think of a way to respond to it, other than pointing out that by that reasoning, nobody, in the history of the World, could ever conclude anything, without first mentioning everything...

Pretty sure that is impossible... but you never know.

Cosmo

Vitalogy Man wrote:

So by NOT mentioning EVERY Democrat in the world, I am "leading others to believe that the left never comes under fire from the right"? :roll:

That is some interesting logic there.... can't think of a way to respond to it, other than pointing out that by that reasoning, nobody, in the history of the World, could ever conclude anything, without first mentioning everything...

Pretty sure that is impossible... but you never know.

...
You are missing the point.
Don't see things as Red of Blue because America is more of a Purple.
Politicians want us to see only Red or Blue for their gain, not ours.
Political pundits want us Red or Blue because it makes for more entertaining television... which boosts rating and sells books.
You have a choice... either follow along with what politics want you to do... or create your own path and tell those asshole to go to hell and quit listening to their opinions and decide for youself.
It's up to you to decide.

cincybearcat

Cosmo wrote:

Vitalogy Man wrote:

So by NOT mentioning EVERY Democrat in the world, I am "leading others to believe that the left never comes under fire from the right"? :roll:

That is some interesting logic there.... can't think of a way to respond to it, other than pointing out that by that reasoning, nobody, in the history of the World, could ever conclude anything, without first mentioning everything...

Pretty sure that is impossible... but you never know.

...
You are missing the point.
Don't see things as Red of Blue because America is more of a Purple.
Politicians want us to see only Red or Blue for their gain, not ours.
Political pundits want us Red or Blue because it makes for more entertaining television... which boosts rating and sells books.
You have a choice... either follow along with what politics want you to do... or create your own path and tell those asshole to go to hell and quit listening to their opinions and decide for youself.
It's up to you to decide.

Is it offensive to call someone "Dr. Phil" when they start dishing out touchy feely advice like this?

brianlux

hedonist wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

It's not black and white. It's subjective. And they should moderate based on principles not rules.

Agreed.

Just use common sense and like mike said, simple human decency.

It's not THAT difficult, is it?

Sometimes it is difficult. For example, get me talking about a public or political figure like [names deleted after hitting "preview"] and I'm apt to think of all sorts of things that could cause me problems if I post them. That's why I almost always click on "preview" and then carefully read and edit what I've written. This not only makes my posts more clear and concise, it also keeps me out of trouble. I enjoy reading and posting here and would be embarrassed and sorry to loose that privilege.

Excuse me, I need to hit "preview"...

...looks ok to me!

Edit: and if you still post something that could get you in trouble and you're quick enough, you can always click edit and make fast changes... which I've been known to do.

gimmesometruth27

does this apply to pms as well?

just checking because i just got a doozy from someone in this thread....

JOEJOEJOE

cincybearcat wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Vitalogy Man wrote:

So by NOT mentioning EVERY Democrat in the world, I am "leading others to believe that the left never comes under fire from the right"? :roll:

That is some interesting logic there.... can't think of a way to respond to it, other than pointing out that by that reasoning, nobody, in the history of the World, could ever conclude anything, without first mentioning everything...

Pretty sure that is impossible... but you never know.

...
You are missing the point.
Don't see things as Red of Blue because America is more of a Purple.
Politicians want us to see only Red or Blue for their gain, not ours.
Political pundits want us Red or Blue because it makes for more entertaining television... which boosts rating and sells books.
You have a choice... either follow along with what politics want you to do... or create your own path and tell those asshole to go to hell and quit listening to their opinions and decide for youself.
It's up to you to decide.

Is it offensive to call someone "Dr. Phil" when they start dishing out touchy feely advice like this?

Great question, Einstein!

Smellyman

Cosmo wrote:

Vitalogy Man wrote:

Alright! Thanks Kat.

NO Name-calling. I like it. Not digging for past discretions, just looking towards the future.

Thanks.

...
Here is a piece of advice that may be helpful...
Take off the Red State or Blue State glasses and make fair, unbiased assessments of political leaders and pundits. The pundits are in the business of making you take sides... liberal vs. conservative... Democrat vs. Republican. We are ALL Americans, first... right?
I did notice that the only ones you listed in your initial post were conservative or Republicans (other than President Obama and Secretary Clinton). This would lead others to read it as people like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Michael Moore, Keith Obermann or Rosie O'Donnell never come under fire from the right side of the aisle. It this a true fact? I kind of don't think so.
I does not mean they don't deserve to draw fire, but, let's be fair here... There is a lot of responsibility and accountability on both sides to spread around here.
...
So, if you identify yourself as an American... you should be able to make unbiased calls on what is best for ALL Americans.
If you identify yourself as a Conservative/Liberal Republican/Democrat first... then, carry on with the petty political partisanship that the politicians want you to play and continue to buy into what the political pundits tell you in order to sell you their books and boost their ratings.

Good post....

however I always consider myself a world citizen first.

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

Is it offensive to call someone "Dr. Phil" when they start dishing out touchy feely advice like this?

...
You mean, like Dr. Phillip DuKaunt?

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

does this apply to pms as well?

just checking because i just got a doozy from someone in this thread....

Why do you always bring up personal pms?

If they offend you, forward to a mod. But leave it off of here.

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

does this apply to pms as well?

just checking because i just got a doozy from someone in this thread....

Why do you always bring up personal pms?

If they offend you, forward to a mod. But leave it off of here.

...
PMS.
Damn straight... you never want to mess with that!

cincybearcat

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

does this apply to pms as well?

just checking because i just got a doozy from someone in this thread....

Why do you always bring up personal pms?

If they offend you, forward to a mod. But leave it off of here.

...
PMS.
Damn straight... you never want to mess with that!

That's a topic for you Dr Phil.

Typing on the smartphone is hard, let's go shopping.

g under p

Smellyman wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Vitalogy Man wrote:

Alright! Thanks Kat.

NO Name-calling. I like it. Not digging for past discretions, just looking towards the future.

Thanks.

...
Here is a piece of advice that may be helpful...
Take off the Red State or Blue State glasses and make fair, unbiased assessments of political leaders and pundits. The pundits are in the business of making you take sides... liberal vs. conservative... Democrat vs. Republican. We are ALL Americans, first... right?
I did notice that the only ones you listed in your initial post were conservative or Republicans (other than President Obama and Secretary Clinton). This would lead others to read it as people like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Michael Moore, Keith Obermann or Rosie O'Donnell never come under fire from the right side of the aisle. It this a true fact? I kind of don't think so.
I does not mean they don't deserve to draw fire, but, let's be fair here... There is a lot of responsibility and accountability on both sides to spread around here.
...
So, if you identify yourself as an American... you should be able to make unbiased calls on what is best for ALL Americans.
If you identify yourself as a Conservative/Liberal Republican/Democrat first... then, carry on with the petty political partisanship that the politicians want you to play and continue to buy into what the political pundits tell you in order to sell you their books and boost their ratings.

Good post....

however I always consider myself a world citizen first.

I agree I'm more of a citizen of the world...we ALL as citizens need to be more inclusive of this world we live in.

Peace

brianlux

I'd like to point out that equally unproductive to name calling are posts that are purposefully bating, insensitive, provoking of ill will or just plain vindictive. I've seen too much of that on this forum lately. This is unbecoming to both the band around whom this forum was created and the majority of fine people who make up the forum. I grow weary of this pettiness. As I said elsewhere, I'm fine with have disagreements on issues and even feel friendly toward several of you with whom I don't always agree but I have not patience for bating. See you all on the flip side.