Attn: Addressing some issues that has been going on.

[CJB]

I enjoy having political discussions. I wish we could have religious discussions. I just wish we could do so in the art of debate rather than getting personal.

 

[Loghead]

I enjoy having political discussions. I wish we could have religious discussions. I just wish we could do so in the art of debate rather than getting personal.

I think that a lot of users would have trouble not making it personal, so I really don't know if we would be able to have religious discussions.

 

[deafskeptic]

I enjoy having political discussions. I wish we could have religious discussions. I just wish we could do so in the art of debate rather than getting personal.

We used to have those but the threads ended up in flames.

 

[Jolie77]

Ihave a question, Jolie, if you don't mind. What about the situation where a poster asks for supporting evidence, and is supplied with the documents and books that offer that support, yet they continue to demand that they be provided with a link? All information cannot be obtained through an internet link to a website. Sometimes, oftentimes, the supporting evidence is contained in actual documents and books. Once the citation for those have been provided, wouldn't you say that the post has been supported?

That is a good question to ask, Jillio and no, I don't mind at all. Once the citation for these sources/supporting evidences are provided, then that is what we get for an answer to have the foundation to it. So, to answer your question, Yes, that would make it given that the post has been supported.

As you know, supporting evidence/sources oftentimes does not come from the internet link. It comes from books, magazines, documents, or an actual person that had the experience him/herself. As long as there's footnotes provided in the post to support the evidence/sources, that will probably help to clear some air out.

I hope this answers your question.

I enjoy having political discussions. I wish we could have religious discussions. I just wish we could do so in the art of debate rather than getting personal.

There's one thing we both agree - that we could have a healthy debate rather than getting personal which ends up in to a flame war, or whatanot.

Anyway, About the religion discussion - The religion forum on this site was shut down TWICE.

It was out of control because a lot of members took it far more personal with their religion than they do for their political stance. It ended up being ugly. It was an ongoing progress that happened daily. Threads were locked left and right almost every day. There were members that ended up being warned or banned, so and on.

When it was once opened, The admin was willing to give it another chance because other members were requesting for it to be open. It kept retracting back to the way where it was before. That is when it was enough and twice, shut down.

 

[jillio]

That is a good question to ask, Jillio and no, I don't mind at all. Once the citation for these sources/supporting evidences are provided, then that is what we get for an answer to have the foundation to it. So, to answer your question, Yes, that would make it given that the post has been supported.

As you know, supporting evidence/sources oftentimes does not come from the internet link. It comes from books, magazines, documents, or an actual person that had the experience him/herself. As long as there's footnotes provided in the post to support the evidence/sources, that will probably help to clear some air out.

I hope this answers your question.


There's one thing we both agree - that we could have a healthy debate rather than getting personal which ends up in to a flame war, or whatanot.

Anyway, About the religion discussion - The religion forum on this site was shut down TWICE.

It was out of control because a lot of members took it far more personal with their religion than they do for their political stance. It ended up being ugly. It was an ongoing progress that happened daily. Threads were locked left and right almost every day. There were members that ended up being warned or banned, so and on.

When it was once opened, The admin was willing to give it another chance because other members were requesting for it to be open. It kept retracting back to the way where it was before. That is when it was enough and twice, shut down.

It answers my question very well. Thank you, Jolie.

 

[CJB]

We used to have those but the threads ended up in flames.

I figured as much. I was just saying that I wish we could have both types of discussions without getting personal in either case. But from what I see we can't.

I don't understand is we have enough sense not to have religious discussion because people get personal. But people get personal with politics and yet we still have those debates. Political debates often get locked too. I feel like either they should both be allowed or both not be allowed.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I figured as much. I was just saying that I wish we could have both types of discussions without getting personal in either case. But from what I see we can't.

I don't understand is we have enough sense not to have religious discussion because people get personal. But people get personal with politics and yet we still have those debates. Political debates often get locked too. I feel like either they should both be allowed or both not be allowed.

They only get locked because two people won't concede... and a few other people take indirect insults personally. There's a pattern to all the locked political threads.

 

[CJB]

They only get locked because two people won't concede... and a few other people take indirect insults personally. There's a pattern to all the locked political threads.

I would tend to agree. I'm going to PM you if you don't mind.

 

[Cowpuppy]

Disagree about either allow both political and religious debate or disallow both.
Actually politics infused with plenty of religion. Both parties......although GOP tends to be overly conservative and inflexible in thier views. There is no use of intelligence...well some, but religious tradition tends to be the driving force.....and it tends to be forced onto those who prefer to use intelligence as primary evaluation tool.
I think we get enough religion infused into political debates....ones religious views tend to be set in stone and let's face it, there is no actual proof. Some people don't bother with religion much...but politics is apart of everyones daily lives. And debating one's vote is an important aspect, along with many daily aspects of out lives....health care...schools....foriegn policy.....war.......legislations...etc etc. There's no getting away from it.
Myself.....I think when there is a religion forum....then the overzealous go there....and if I don't want to hear it I can stay out. But when it gets pushed onto us in general forums it is forced onto others. Religion not something I care to argue....it is too open to interpretation. Religion is each individuals view of it...a personal spiritual thing that they can keep. Why muck it up.
Leave well enough alone...there are other places for religion debate or conversation....I think best place is amongst thier own. That's one purpose of churches and church groups. Or one's own spiritual center. Arguing it isn't really serving the purpose of spirituallity. Calmness is part of spirituallity. Peaceful thoughts. Not arguing.
Yes I know it's difficult to find deaf church services at many places. I tend to not go cuz can't hear services. Find spirituallity within self.

 

[CJB]

I agree arguing religion often if not always futile, but I'm just saying it seems like a bit of a double-standard. People get just as worked up and irrational about politics as they do religion, especially because the two are wrapped up in each other (as you said). And the numerous recent threads on various political topics have shown us how most people feel personally attacked when their political beliefs are questioned.

 

[rockin'robin]

I think most members here at AD are pretty open-minded. Isn't this a feedback forum....so much knowledge can be gleamed here! Friendships to be made...whenever finding those who are basically within ur same mode of thinking, and those who can give a broader or even a diverse version of the subject at hand.

People with all different beliefs, different religions, etc. Whenever you join together Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, Aethists, etc.,there's gonna be flames, regardless. Same as for Repubs, Demos, etc. This world is very debatable, and it brings knowledge.

I have no qualms about bringing the Religious forum back. I'm neutral. To each his own, I say.....

 

[Mrs Bucket]

I have to agree with you, RR.

To try to control others' religious POVs is trying to control others' lifestyles. It's pointless.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Yep. I agree with you, RR. If they discuss peacefully and maturely, then I would have more enjoy and fun to learn something. I'm very into religions and all history stuff since I like to discuss about them. It's now kinda of bored since the religions section is closed. Oh, well...

 

[CJB]

I would love to discuss religion with other members of AD, so long as we do it peacefully and maturely, like Karissa said.

 

[darkdog]

I have some questions. Here's a situation I've come across several times before.

A: The document says blah blah blah.
B: I looked and looked and couldn't find that anywhere. Can you point me to a page or paragraph number?
A: No, it's in there. Do your own research. :smug:

If I do a good faith search for the information and that search yields nothing, is it reasonable to ask for a more specific location? When the other person refuses to provide it, is it then appropriate to call that person out for dishonesty?

Here's another similar situation I've come across.

A: This piece of information is out there on the internet.
B: No, I don't think so.
A: Yes it is.
B: Then can you provide a link?
A: Google it. I'm not doing your research for you.

Seeing how big the internet is, proving something exists is far easier than proving it does not exist and as such, the burden of proof should be on the person claiming it does exist. What would be appropriate at that point?

 

[Cowpuppy]

if you must know.......
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
Rep. Susan Collin...Republican/Maine
no...I don't know how to drag, copy links etc...so I type them out....not a favorite pasttime....which goes to show....insisting on links is descriminating to unsavvy computer dinosaurs lol.
it's general news.....top of yahoo page......
should I provide a link if I say the sun was shining here today...silly stuff.
really....this provide a link thing is taken too far. I am not here to satisfy certain peoples powertripping. They are not my college professors. I don't need to kiss any azz cuz they tell me to. I think the rule applies to if asked or if already deep into a debate. Not general conversation....do we interupt people when chatting on the street...'provide me a link or stop talking'????? no I think NOT.
You ever stop and think maybe some people stay out of debate cuz they don't want to go thru the link charade? leaving people out to stroke one's ego.
who's to say a link is actually true correct, not slanted? It's not always definite. I see a particular person providing biased links on a regular basis. Doesn't prove squat.
yes....it is a pissing contest.......bombast away.....bombast doesn't make anything correct either.......just more ego stroking. I ain't kissing no ego strokers azz. You can save it.
The fact that this post reffering to how to get along just shows that the egostrokers have mucked it up insisting thier ego be stroked. Powertrips trying to tell people what to do. I haven't signed up for these people's game.

 

[jillio]

I have some questions. Here's a situation I've come across several times before.

A: The document says blah blah blah.
B: I looked and looked and couldn't find that anywhere. Can you point me to a page or paragraph number?
A: No, it's in there. Do your own research. :smug:

If I do a good faith search for the information and that search yields nothing, is it reasonable to ask for a more specific location? When the other person refuses to provide it, is it then appropriate to call that person out for dishonesty?

Here's another similar situation I've come across.

A: This piece of information is out there on the internet.
B: No, I don't think so.
A: Yes it is.
B: Then can you provide a link?
A: Google it. I'm not doing your research for you.

Seeing how big the internet is, proving something exists is far easier than proving it does not exist and as such, the burden of proof should be on the person claiming it does exist. What would be appropriate at that point?

Why should another poster be responsible for someone's inability to locate a specific piece of information within a document? Why should another poster be responsible for providing a direct link to that which can be located doing a general search? If one has been directed to where one can find the information, it is the responsibility of the one seeking the information to locate it for themselves.

 

[faire_jour]

Why should another poster be responsible for someone's inability to locate a specific piece of information within a document? Why should another poster be responsible for providing a direct link to that which can be located doing a general search? If one has been directed to where one can find the information, it is the responsibility of the one seeking the information to locate it for themselves.

I agree with darkdog. I think the example situations he mentioned happen a LOT, especially with a few posters. They use those exact phrases (excuses) over and over, and then say that they have provide the information in the past, and that the questioner should look it up themselves.

I think that if the person says they will provide the sitation, then provide it. Don't tell someone to look it up themselves. Either you have it or you don't, just be truthful.

 

[khar59]

I think it goes beyond unpopular belief though. There are other posters on this site with similar beliefs that haven't been ganged up on like this particular poster. This particular poster intentionally starts numerous new threads with provoking titles, which is much of the reason why this poster is targeted so much more than the other members of AD with similar views.

And if this were an Oppostional Defiant child the parent/teacher would do wise to encourage and reward the other children in the home or the classroom for IGNORING the instigator!

If the children continue to encourage the misbehavior then they also should be punished by having privileges removed!

I am new here and I've also been on other contentious sites (correction, freudian slip there) where the mods were expected to keep coming in and policing and removing information while all hell was let loose by the main players. It gets old really and who needs a nanny state for everything?

Maybe the ones who profess to be the experts in human frailties should also be the ones held most accountable for NOT defusing a situation as well?

I don't know, just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Cowpuppy]

There's a lot of truth to that.
That's what I apply to Rush Limbaugh. I'd rather pretend he does not exist. People give him the power he has by responding. Same goes for the instigator here.
These people hate to be ignored.

And if this were an Oppostional Defiant child the parent/teacher would do wise to encourage and reward the other children in the home or the classroom for IGNORING the instigator!

If the children continue to encourage the misbehavior then they also should be punished by having privileges removed!

I am new here and I've also been on other contentious sites (correction, freudian slip there) where the mods were expected to keep coming in and policing and removing information while all hell was let loose by the main players. It gets old really and who needs a nanny state for everything?

Maybe the ones who profess to be the experts in human frailties should also be the ones held most accountable for NOT defusing a situation as well?

I don't know, just my 2 cents worth.