Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
It's not a rhetorical question. We all know who is referenced, an idiot who posts nothing but irrelevent and off-topic bullsh!t. Furthermore, an idiot with several sycophants who also add nothing to the discussions except to get them pulled.
Until such time as these idiots wake up and behave politely, like the adults they claim to be, or are banned permanently as they should be, what's the point of participating?
You are not the only one who has observed this and I don't think we live in the same part of the country. It seems to be an infectious madness.
and that may well include the infiltration of agents provocateurs.
I agree, and it becomes clearer with time, doesn't it?
And they are attacking the very foundations of reason, while stinking up the place as much as possible in terms of personal abuse towards people they disagree with
Nail on the head. But what is even more intolerable is that the same "they" claim to have a corner on reason and those who don't see it like that are without reason.
American public discourse has always been vulgar. The elite that in other countries punished the publication of the scurrilous and the crude never managed to gain control here. It has its positives and negatives; I don't enjoy being trailed from thread to thread by idiots repetitively posting the same tired links, but I don't see any alternative to a thick skin and a consistent policy of ignoring 'trolls'. Management could, I suppose, do something about it, but it would be a lot of work, and in the end this would be a different website for it. In the end, one has to have confidence in the 'marketplace of ideas'.
Hold that thought! Now look at this:
I came across a reply recently, a ping from one buddy to another, described as a "Troll from Notre Dame ping." Surely this was not intended as a kind reference, in regard to an unidentified somebody.
The "somebody" you recognized when Patrick wrote "Troll" is Mr. Ugly, personified. When this person takes Viagra he just gets taller. Since he showed up, he's been suspended twice. He seemed to be not long for FR, but he got lucky in that he outlasted Jim Rob's patience. Nowadays the first time Jim Rob gets pinged on a crevo thread, he without investigation moves it to the Smokey Backroom. The second time, he simply pulls it.
I'm not telling you anything you don't know. What strikes me gruesomely funny is that you think it appropriate to complain about Patrick for making what can be recongnized as a reference to Mr. Ugly. Patrick is fair game. Mr. Ugly is not, for he is supposedly on the side of the angels. (In fact, he is an incredible reproach to "his side," especially since none of the angels reproach him).
Actually, no, you have, ALS.
When ideological or 'spiritual' alignment becomes more important than the commitment to intelligent discussion; when 'the other side' is seen as the problem, rather than as a partner with broadly similar interests but a different point of view, then we can dig the trenches, lay out the barbed wire, and reload the artillery.
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. I think you do much too good an impression of a sanctimonious thug to be a deliberate disruptor. All I can say is that, if you set out to damage conservatism and this forum, you would be following precisely the same course of action you are currently taking.
I think that's well put.
I guess what really peeves me the most about scientific materialists in general is the tedious attitude, not only that truth is a final possession, but that they actually possess it.
RWP, I think you are here arguing according to a false dichotomy that you took considerable time and energy to set up in the first place. I am certainly not arguing that "spiritual alignment" takes precedence over truth.
For one thing, the formulation of the problem you give here a priori completely delegitimates the argument coming from the "other side," before they can even get their mouths open -- which you refuse (apparently) to credit or understand.
In this process, you demonize your "enemy" for starters, already accusing him of a bad will refusal to engage in enlightened debate. You expect the very worst from him; which neatly cancels out any reasonable deliberation of the real issue before us:
Which is: Whether or not it can be conceived by a rational mind that subjective experience enters into objective experience at some point "downstream" of the subjective experience.
It seems, deliberately or accidentally, that you are "invested" in an outcome that can only result from queering the question right up front: Your strong suggestion that merely proposing this question amounts to a refusal to engage in intelligent discussion.
But you seem reluctant to talk about that. I can only wonder: Why not? Maybe if you could get this question "right," then the "conflict" you note could be avoided or quickly resolved.
RWP, you say American discourse has always been vulgar. And perhaps it has, but never before like it is now not in my experience.
For one thing, there is no longer any shame in telling a lie or intentionally misrepresenting or spinning the facts. Id go so far as saying it is now a high five matter to pull off such a deception.
Indeed, the Clinton presidency made perjury vogue, the CDC admitted that it withheld what it knew about AIDS, federal workers planted Lynx and Grizzly evidence, books teach the art of spinning the facts. This is a huge problem and it has metastasized even to the grassroots of conservatism, including this forum.
It didnt used to be this way in this country or on this forum. People used to care about credibility, dignity and honor their own and others as well.
On this forum, at least in discussions with me, other posters didnt fabricate strawmen to win an argument that wasnt even on the table. And they didnt freely chase people around from thread to thread just to make endless repetitive railing personal accusations. Notably, mindless cliches ("it's all about sex, sex, sex") are at the heart of "spinning."
Sure there have always been a few squeaky wheels, but now it seems a lot of even previously staid posters no longer care about their own honor whether they are seen as mean-spirited, dishonest, rude or vulgar.
For what its worth, I join with all who refuse to lower themselves to this new standard of conduct.
Who would appear to be refusing to lower herself to your standards. (But you can still publish her articles.)
Can we call a "spade a spade?": Revolting behavior is ineluctibly revolting behavior, especially if it claims to serve the interests of "science." (What kind of "science" could that possibly be???)
Well, gee, how many chances do YOU give a rude, inconsiderate, ignorant, asinine, multiple-time banned disruptor?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.