That's about the size of it---so knocking somebody for posting a tangent is probably pointless, and knocking them for an on-point reply to someone else's tangential post is downright silly.
If everyone in FR followed that discipline, we might have some very short "conversations" ...or not!
I would like to attempt to raise my horror threshhold regarding opinions from FReepers and pick up the topic of DRUGS, from recreational mind-manglers, to pharmaceuticals, taking up some substantial discussions about pragmatic solutions (the kind of thing I naively hoped might occur a couple weeks ago on that nonviolent drug offenders and release from prison post).
It could be (gulp) profitable to (gulp) confer about the issue of what policies could look like in a more rational America. Perhaps I could pick an article and start a thread in "RLC Liberty Caucus" -- that should be a nice quiet corner.
Anyone interested?
My Caveat: I would hope we could keep the range of opinion from just flying off into "no legislation, none of the time." That gets me wanting to join the Union troops and fight for the blue! If capital "L" Libertarians flood it with their favorite flaming fodder, it would crash and burn. Personnally, not looking for the lazy man's vision of utopia, nor the idea that if we have trouble with enforcing a law, just write it off like Worldcom, and who needs laws anyway? `-> That would just show that those who post for drug law liberalization are being disserved by an Totalibertarian assault.
I'm not really optimisitc about this, for those attracted to drug threads*, but it would be interesting to have a discussion about what might promote our welfare and our liberties significantly better. Once again, neither (actual) authoritarianism, nor anarchy --and the authoritarianism that inevitably follows chaos-- are quite the aim.
If we could have such a discussion, I might even invite tpaine. Well, afterward, anyway, eh tp?
I suppose it could be thought of as a test to see ""we"" could come up with rational answers for our People's governance, per this matter. Once again, not optimistic, but maybe two competing consensi(sp?) could develop. Maybe.
________________________________
*Come to think of it, I used to know someone who wore drug threads -- why "freaks" used to wear all those patches, don'tchaknow. Evidence that yes, there is something in their jeans.
I'm game, but I do have a question. Any particular reason you've limited the range of allowable discussion in one direction only?
Part of the problem is, when pro-WOD's make statements or express opinion, the anti-WOD's discredit those opinions because they differ from their own. Now, if we are speaking about "empty opinions," they would have the "right" to challenge/discredit an opinion, the same as would a pro-WOD in discrediting the anti-WOD's. When a pro-WOD makes a statement or expresses an opinion, the anti-WOD DEMANDS proof/support/websites/names, etc. Once the evidence is presented, however, the anti-WOD's discredit these sources, i.e., professors they don't know or other reputable organizations' sources, as well. For instance, they have already discredited information posted on Eagle Forum and it sources, without providing any proof to document or substantiate their refutations.
The anti-WODS merely state their refutations and these must be taken on its own standing, such as "that doctor's works have been discredited." Oh, really? Well, by whom, when, and why? Tidbits of information like this are not provided to support their claims. That, by the way, is just one example; there are countless others like that on a multitude of threads.
From what I have noticed on many, many threads, the anti-WOD's discredit any and all information which would either conflict or impede their goal (little or no drug laws). Without adding information about the topic at hand, e.g., marijuana and its effects on the human body, the thread is then hijacked to a discussion about something else: alcohol. As if the presence of one "evil" justifies the presence of another.
When pro-WODS do not agree with anti-WODs, they also rever to name-calling or disparagement and attribute opposing opinions as being emotionally based. They are also suspect of any Government publication or research, or even independent publications and research if it aligns itself with the government and dismiss them all as "propaganda," etc.
As I have already mentioned, the anti-WOD's do not provide materials to back up their refutations as pertains to doctors' credentials, as pertains to THC, or as pertains to most anything they claim, state, or opine.
With that in mind, how could it then be possible to have a dialogue or resolve issues with people who demand evidence but produce none; when certain posters resort to name-calling or insult-hurling when they cannot convince another to agree with them; or when many anti-WOD's seem more interested in refining their debating "techniques" instead of "brain-storming" for solutions---which would actually be the whole point to such a thread. It is for these reasons that I (and many others) refrain from posting on these threads. And, it is all about "me" you know! : )