[Paul L. Hepperla]

Whatever happened to arguing with those who disagree with us rather than banning them?

Now, I am fully aware there are those who will only banter, disrupt or otherwise cause problems with the forum. BUT, there are many who can peacefully co-exist here and debate their merits.

If FR continue to lock-out adversarial views (like your stupid atheism!) the audience becomes smaller and less able to debate and reason their beliefs.

Couple that with some mods who may take issue with certain posters and certain arguments and you create real problems.

...not that any of it matters...

[OWK]

Whatever happened to arguing with those who disagree with us rather than banning them?

I believe the beginning of the end (at least insofar as confrontation rather than banishment of dissent was concerned) goes all the way back to Don Morgan and those ridiculously childish "Ash alert" things.

I can understand banning serial spammers and genuine abusers... but the whole notion of contrary opinion as "disruption" is silly.

It established the "people are basically dumb, and need to be protected from potentially harmful ideas" principle.

[tpaine]

Paul L. Hepperla wrote:

Whatever happened to arguing with those who disagree with us rather than banning them?

---

Surely you are aware that those who argue overmuch will only banter, disrupt or otherwise cause problems with those who can decree who is to be disagreeable?

To those unsure about this issue, read a book called Catch 22.