Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Objection Your Honour.....

  1. #1
    I know this will fall on deaf ears, but here goes.....

    Can we, as a group, PLEASE try to start actually discussing the issues we raise here? Cause right now, there is damn little actual discussion going on.

    For example, the text below is a "standard" thread here these days:

    [u][b]Thread Starter:[/b][/u] Hey, _______ did something illegal, said something bad, is corrupt, did something evil. (posts article or Link).

    [u][b]First poster:[/b][/u] Really, well you are a stupid Con/Lib and have no clue where your own arse is.

    [u][b]Second Poster:[/b][/u] Yea, the Liberal/Conservative media is REALLY to blame. You cannot trust ANYTHING you hear from _________ news/website.

    [u][b]Third Poster:[/b][/u] LOL, GEORGE BUSH/BILL CLINTON is the real evil. GEORGE BUSH/BILL CLINTON failed America!!

    [u][b]Fourth Poster:[/b][/u] Kill all Liberals/Kill all Conservatives!!!!

    ......and it just devolves from there.

    The actual ISSUE being raised (wheather a legit issue or not) is practicly ignored from the first post on!! If we are going to sink to these kinds of meaningless exchanges, why are we even bothering....I mean other than just to screw with one another for the giggle value.

    I know, most of you are going to blast the crap out of me for this post, claim I'm either an evil Con or a dumbarse Lib pretending to be something else, or worse, a MODERATE FENCESITTING Loser!

    But seriously guys. Can we at least make an effort here to try to limit ourselves to the discussions at hand, as opposed to the same old yapping about Bill Clinton or George Bush?

    Exchange of ideas. We really should try it. :P

    Ok, bash away.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    The right wing media is to blame.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    the demokRATS usually start it all.....

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    I blame Bitonti. :D

  5. #5
    Hold on a second, war ... maybe you should lead by example

    I post a thread about scientific research that is being done on the shroud ... interesting topic, whether you believe Jesus is the Son of God or not, cause we know {historically} that the man existed and was indeed crucified, laid to rest in a tomb, and covered by a burial cloth as was Jewish tradition

    No respectable scholar argues with the fact that this account of the man {Jesus of Nazareth} is accurate ... it is only ones belief in what happened afterwards {risen from the dead?} that discerns his belief or lack-thereof in the diety of the man

    So we are talking about perhaps the most influential "historical" figure in the history of the world ... I dare say that no figure has had more of an impact on the world than THE MAN Jesus of Nazareth {certainly the western world}

    I say this only to point out the signifigance of the research that is being done on the shroud ... if authenticated, we're talking about an historical artifect {if not a religious artifect} that is absolutely breath-taking in its importance ... the actual burial cloth of argurably the most influential man who ever walked the earth {both philosophically and religiously}, certainly that applies to the west, and an artifect that will have miraculously detailed his actual image

    Yet all you could think to add in response was .....

    [i]"I reject any scientific adventure to authecticate this artifect {or not} cause GJ&H has expressed skepticism at the theory of evolution, therefore GJ&H must reject all forms of science {which was a wild reach in and of itself}, so in turn I reject the sources {men of science and not men of religion} of these studies as well[/i]

    Did you make any attempt to explain WHY you question their credentials, as I have done many times to explain my issues with evolution? [b]NO[/b]

    Did you make any attempt to point out that these so-called men of science are operating with an obvious agenda {like the marxist Robert Scheer expressing a thirty year track record of tearing down conservatives with one insane charge after another}, having a long history of seeking to validate religion and the religious artifects they study, and thus their conclusions can only be viewed with suspicion? [b]NO[/b]

    Heck, I even pointed out that the main scientist involved in the project is Jewish ... that would be the eqivalent of a liberal studying conservatism ... but even that didn't seem to matter

    What you basically did was turn the whole thread back into a debate about evolution, asking me to repeat/defend the reasons for my skepticism for the upteenth time ... completely dismissed the actual topic {scientific research on the artifect} out of hand, and for no reason whatsoever {other than pointing out my rejection of evolution, as if I am the scientist who is studying the shroud?}

    And then after I play your game for the upteenth time, explaining all over again my position on evolution as it pertains to science {i.e. the many questions that remain unanswered in the minds of many scientists and not just religious folks, as well as specific GREAT MEN OF SCIENCE who rejected the theory of evolution and accepted something closer to intelligent design}, I then asked if we can now return to discussing the actual topic ... scientific research on the shroud?

    And what was your response?

    [i]Not interested ... I'll leave you to discuss your magic cloth[/i]

    Which is fine, that is certainly your perogative, you don't need to indulge every conversation that fails to interest you ... but after the way you approached that thread and that topic, to then turn around and start a thread on how folks need to discuss the actual topics? :huh:

    At least when I feel fit to reject a particular source and thus reject the premise of the topic, and decide to express my skepticism openly, I take the time to point out my reasons for rejecting [b]THE ACTUAL SOURCE[/b] and not the man who posted the topic as my reason for rejecting the premise to begin with

    For example, had I said I reject the theory of evolution because the posters who are espousing it are non-believers thus evolution itself must be called into question, I would be a close-minded individual who makes debate impossible

    Had I rejected this recent Robert Scheer column not because Robert Scheer is a devout marxist with a long history of making these types of explosive charges against conservatives {and Presidents}, but because the poster has an obvious agenda, I would be a close-minded individual who makes debate impossible

    But in neither instance did I take that tact ... in both cases I either explained my skepticism with THE ACTUAL SOURCE and/or THE ACTUAL PREMISE ... and I actually took the time to explain both in great detail

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with my reasoning is another matter ... that is certainly open to debate, and I welcome such debate ... but I did not simply reject the source or the topic without explanation, or even worse, by hiding behind my distrust for the poster {or some preceived inconsistancy from the poster} as my reason for rejecting his particular topic and/or sources wholesale

    If I'm not interested in a particular topic {and there have been many instances of that}, I simply ignore the thread cause for wahtever reason it just doesn't interest me

    But if I decide to weigh-in on a particular topic {Pro or Con}, I try to come prepared with what I deem an honest attempt at a response ... folks won't always like my response and that is always open for debate {which I never run from}, but I make an attempt to discuss the topic or in some rare instances the actual source

    I say rare cause I will often accept the source {if not the conclusions} even if they be liberal or conservative .. but I will not accept the rantings of a marxist just as I will not accept the rantings of a nazi or a klansman .. when the agenda is that thick and that abhorent, I refuse to indulge the sourse as though he is a man worth taking serious .. IMO these types are equally vile, filled with distortions and outright lies, have a long track record of proving they are not to be trusted, and thus I will often dismiss them as credible sources out of hand

    Now we have already beaten evolution to death, so let me say one last time that Robert Scheer has been labled a marxist ... [b]A MARXIST[/b] ... not a democrat ... not a liberal ... not even a devout leftist {which is often a marxist without the proof} ... but Robert Scheer, according to admitted former marxist David Horowitz, is a former comrade and a devout marxist himself, who was a fellow traveler with Horowitz in his former life

    Now in light of these most recent insane charges Scheer is making against a sitting President who stands for everything he abhors, I thought that was an important detail to share with the board ... was I wrong?

    Do you not feel better knowing the source may be an actual and bonified marxist?

    Did I not do the board a service by pointing that out?

    Doesn't mean the man should be locked up for his marxist beliefs, or have his livelyhood taken from him, or even that you need to dismiss his charges as quickly as I do ... I am not interested in conducting a witch-hunt ... I simply view this as valuable information about the acutal source when the charges are so serious against a sitting President and the man who is making the charges has a long history of such nonsense and has been fingered publicly as a marxist {a charge, I might add, that he has never made any serious attempt to reject}

    I mean, if Horowitz was practicing such outrageous slander does it not stand to reason Scheer would have demanded he retract the charge or he would sue his @$$ off?

    It's not as if Scheer doesn't have the resources and the where-with-all to sue, and being a prominent journalist this kind of matters cause it strikes right at the heart of his credibility

    But here&#39;s what happens when you sue a man for slander ... that man must go into court and prove his charges are true, or that man is libel ... so maybe {JUST MAYBE?????} it&#39;s the former that has led Scheer to offer Horowitz a pass? <_<

    Anyhow, and I repeat ... none of this means you need to reject the source as quickly as I do {marxist or no marxist} ... but I think it&#39;s a valuable piece of information to have when making that decision about such explosive charges ... or as they say at Fox News, [b]I REPORT AND YOU DECIDE[/b]

    But again, it is only in rare intances when I will completely reject a particular source ... the agenda must be wildely driven, and that is not always the case with even your average ideologue {left or right} ... but IMO that is often the case with such anarchists as the klan, skinheads, nazis, [b]marxists[/b], etc.

    Lastly, I can&#39;t say with a 100% certainty that Scheer is definitely a marxist ... I can only point out that this charge has been made by an admitted former marxist/activist who has labled Scheer a former fellow traveler, and I am aware of no vigerous attempt by Scheer to correct the record if he has been slandered ... then I add in Scheer&#39;s long history of coseying up to nearly every communist despot regime in my lifetime, many of whom were at odds {if not war in one form or another} with the United States ... then I add in his long history of scurilous charges against men of influence who oppose is own world view {including sitting Presidents}, and it all makes sense too me

    Now if a former marxist labled you a former fellow traveler and you had a reputation to protect because your credibility as a journalist depended on it, would you just sit there and let that charge stick, or would you demand a retraction or sue his @&#036;&#036; off for slander? <_<

    At the very least do you now see the reason behind my response in that thread ... that it went far beyond simply avoiding the topic and was actually an attempt to shed some light on the source?

  6. #6
    "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

    - Herbert Spencer

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    Shakin- I think it&#39;s time for the picture of the guy with his pants pulled down adound his ankles. :D

  8. #8
    [b]Ham[/b] at least Warfish was discussing the topic - he didn&#39;t do so in a way that was satisfactory, maybe - but the point of this thread i think is a good one.

    Far too often threads get hijacked and no one actually discusses anything - it turns into a children&#39;s shouting match and people lose interest in the topic discussed.

    at least in the case which you bring up it was a comment relevant to the discussion - and it prompted further discussion

    what sucks (for example) is when people post something about Bush and the first response on the thread is about Clinton, Dean, Moore etc.

    it defeats the purpose of the forum -

    there should be a new "unofficial" forum rule:

    [b]if you don&#39;t have anything relevant to the discussion to add then please stay out of the way[/b]

  9. #9
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 17 2005, 10:12 AM
    [b] [b]Ham[/b] at least Warfish was discussing the topic - he didn&#39;t do so in a way that was satisfactory, maybe - but the point of this thread i think is a good one.

    Far too often threads get hijacked and no one actually discusses anything - it turns into a children&#39;s shouting match and people lose interest in the topic discussed.

    at least in the case which you bring up it was a comment relevant to the discussion - and it prompted further discussion

    what sucks (for example) is when people post something about Bush and the first response on the thread is about Clinton, Dean, Moore etc.

    it defeats the purpose of the forum -

    there should be a new "unofficial" forum rule:

    [b]if you don&#39;t have anything relevant to the discussion to add then please stay out of the way[/b] [/b][/quote]
    Bit, I agree ... we should attempt to stick to the topic and not toss in comments which are designed to divert attention away from the topic at hand just because we find that particular topic uncomfortable ... if you feel that uncomfortable with the topic then just avoid it, but don&#39;t seek to divert the attention elsewhere

    Again, I believed I was sticking with the topic when I challanged the motivation of the actual author of the column that was posted ... and I didn&#39;t simply say, well he or she is a liberal so the column is automatically worthless ... I pointed out a history of the columnist in question, both in his writings and in his philosophy, to show a consistant pattern over a thrity year period of making wild accusations against those who hold a different world view from his own incidious ideology {i.e. marxism}

    And lastly, I offered that as "my reason" for rejecting his accusations ... didn&#39;t say anyone needed to follow my lead, but just offered "my reasons" for rejecting his accusations

    Having said all that, sometimes the thread just naturally wonders off in another direction and we must make allowances for that as well ... like that one thread just naturally wondering off into Mike Williams :D

    In that case there was no attempted diversions at play ... we simply found something more important to discuss {the draft} than oh say, politics and world peace :D

  10. #10
    ham your comment on that thread was relevant not only that it was informative - i didn&#39;t know that about he author and frankly it&#39;s good to know a little history about anyone who writes anything because it frames their comments in context.

    i don&#39;t know that Warfish made this thread for you particularly - there are others that will just pop in to a thread that someone put effort into to creating, drop an insult granade and walk away - i&#39;m not innocent of this either by the way - the forum would in fact be better off if that sort of behavior ceased and we could debate things like adults.

    But it takes two to tango - both sides have to agree to mature up and i don&#39;t know how realistic that is...

  11. #11
    Hambone, I love ya pal, but I don&#39;t have time right now to read your novel.....

    But I will, in the interest of brevity, agree that I have, in the past, been just as guilty of irrelevant political mongering as anyone else here. That fact does not change one iota the "correctness" of my initial post, or the relevance to the recent threads around here.

    They suck, pretty much. Lots of yapping, VERY little meat in most topics.

    Anyway, I thought by now you knew I liked to verbally "poke" you on certain issues, just for the entertainment value&#33; :P

    Take it as you wish. I certainly have no right to tell anyone else what to post, or how to express their positions. This was merely a broad stroke suggestion to improve the quality of this forum.

  12. #12
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Feb 17 2005, 03:48 PM
    [b] Hambone, I love ya pal, but I don&#39;t have time right now to read your novel.....

    But I will, in the interest of brevity, agree that I have, in the past, been just as guilty of irrelevant political mongering as anyone else here. That fact does not change one iota the "correctness" of my initial post, or the relevance to the recent threads around here.

    They suck, pretty much. Lots of yapping, VERY little meat in most topics.

    Anyway, I thought by now you knew I liked to verbally "poke" you on certain issues, just for the entertainment value&#33; :P

    Take it as you wish. I certainly have no right to tell anyone else what to post, or how to express their positions. This was merely a broad stroke suggestion to improve the quality of this forum. [/b][/quote]
    You know you&#39;re my main man ... that goes without saying ;)

    You&#39;re also one of my favorite posters at JI ... smart and decent as they come

  13. #13
    TMahoney
    Guest
    [quote][b]I know this will fall on deaf ears, but here goes.....

    Can we, as a group, PLEASE try to start actually discussing the issues we raise here? Cause right now, there is damn little actual discussion going on.

    For example, the text below is a "standard" thread here these days:

    Thread Starter: Hey, _______ did something illegal, said something bad, is corrupt, did something evil. (posts article or Link).

    First poster: Really, well you are a stupid Con/Lib and have no clue where your own arse is.

    Second Poster: Yea, the Liberal/Conservative media is REALLY to blame. You cannot trust ANYTHING you hear from _________ news/website.

    Third Poster: LOL, GEORGE BUSH/BILL CLINTON is the real evil. GEORGE BUSH/BILL CLINTON failed America&#33;&#33;

    Fourth Poster: Kill all Liberals/Kill all Conservatives&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

    ......and it just devolves from there.

    The actual ISSUE being raised (wheather a legit issue or not) is practicly ignored from the first post on&#33;&#33; If we are going to sink to these kinds of meaningless exchanges, why are we even bothering....I mean other than just to screw with one another for the giggle value.

    I know, most of you are going to blast the crap out of me for this post, claim I&#39;m either an evil Con or a dumbarse Lib pretending to be something else, or worse, a MODERATE FENCESITTING Loser&#33;

    But seriously guys. Can we at least make an effort here to try to limit ourselves to the discussions at hand, as opposed to the same old yapping about Bill Clinton or George Bush?

    Exchange of ideas. We really should try it.

    Ok, bash away. [/b][/quote]

    I have said this for some time. I truly believe the polarization of this country and the media are killing our system right now.
    There is no policy attacks, only personal attacks.
    There is no constructive dialogue just slander about the opposition.
    People dedicate more time on dividing the parties on issues then solving the actual problem.
    Both sides are giulty of this crime. We as the american public must rise above this and debate the ISSUES not the sides.


    Its so funny too because the "left" and the "right" are bickering so hard against eachother yet basically differ on such small levels.

    Everyone wants to fix social security, democrats like it, republicans don&#39;t. This is because Democrats like government aid programs and republicans generally don&#39;t. Thats not because one is wrong and one is right, its because of the philosophies of each party.

    Republicans have always been for privatizing because generally its more efficient that way (see for example ummm the DMV&#33;).

    While the Democrats generally like to have the government step in and contribute with programs of their own, they want the government to help the common man on a personal level.

    The Iraq war? well both parties voted for the war in congress and both vote on giving more money to fight.

    Moral Values? That is the biggest crock of an issue. This was pumped up by the Republicans to get Bush re-elected. You can&#39;t tell me that the Republicans as a whole have a better value system than the democrats, thats just a ridiculous generalization. But it happened to be a brilliant campaign strategy that worked against a disunified democratic party that had very good ideas but not solid platforms.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us