Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
What is appropriate content for DonationCoder?
tinjaw:
How about with go with...
while !EOF {
post = Forums.readPostSubject(DC)
switch post.opinion(reader) {
case offensive, boring:
continue
case interesting:
thread = post.readPostThread(reader)
if ( thread.stillInteresting(reader) && thread.provokesReply (reader)) then
reader.postReply(thread)
}
Darwin:
For-Next... ah (light-bulb comes on). Obvious when it's explained to me... :-[ A bit late for me to say "good one", but ;D
CWuestefeld:
Actually no one answered (or even commented) on the question I posed earlier "where do the limits lie?"
-Carol Haynes (January 06, 2008, 06:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
I've been asking the same thing. I had the idea at first that he was primarily concerned with scatological conversation, and I can imagine plenty of topical and relevant conversations that might include such discussions.
I'm pretty convinced that it hasn't been answered because everyone realizes that there is no answer that always satisfies the delicate sensibilities without throttling legitimate discussion.
I was somewhat surprised by some of the self righteous pontificating going on here (and I am not necessarily talking about codeTRUCKER's posts). Stating that codeTRUCKER has no right to state or argue his position or that by stating it he is trying to force his morals and beliefs on others is just as intolerant (if not more so because you are TRYING to supress his freedom).
-Carol Haynes (January 06, 2008, 06:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
I don't recall anyone saying that -- at least not that I interpreted in that way. Indeed, if you look back to the first page or two, you'll see that I said that my only argument was with his refusal to recognize his requests as censorship. I stated strongly that, because our Constitution (assuming you're American) forbids the gov't from interfering in the interchange of ideas, it is our responsibility to have civil conversations like what CodeTRUCKER initiated. So you certainly can't accuse me of trying to suppress him from airing his thoughts.
My complaints came up later on. I objected to two things:
* A "poor sport" attitude by continuing to harp on the subject even after arriving at a solution that most people (including CodeTRUCKER) stated they could live with.
* In that ongoing conversation, repeatedly framing his comments in terms that depict those of who don't share his values as not simply different, but as morally inferior.
* everyone has (and are entitled) to their own viewpoint
* some people see anything opposed to full on 'anything goes' as evil
* some people like picking fights for the sake of it
* some people are too selfish to consider other peoples feelings-Carol Haynes (January 06, 2008, 06:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
While I'm ranting, I may as well point the flame at you as well :huh:. Your list above isn't fair. You seem to believe that you can see into the hears of other people to divine what they're thinking, what their motivations are. This is never a safe assumption. You have no way of knowing why each of us chooses to voice the views that they do. I suggest that the only civil way of handling such a discussion is to make every effort to avoid assuming the thoughts of another; if something seems to flow from illegitimate sources as you list above, ask the person for clarification.
Carol Haynes:
It wasn't just me that thought there was a personal attack - read the 4 comments after you last post on page 7.
* everyone has (and are entitled) to their own viewpoint
* some people see anything opposed to full on 'anything goes' as evil
* some people like picking fights for the sake of it
* some people are too selfish to consider other peoples feelings-Carol Haynes (January 06, 2008, 06:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
While I'm ranting, I may as well point the flame at you as well :huh:. Your list above isn't fair. You seem to believe that you can see into the hears of other people to divine what they're thinking, what their motivations are. This is never a safe assumption. You have no way of knowing why each of us chooses to voice the views that they do. I suggest that the only civil way of handling such a discussion is to make every effort to avoid assuming the thoughts of another; if something seems to flow from illegitimate sources as you list above, ask the person for clarification.
-CWuestefeld (January 06, 2008, 12:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
To be fair I think I was a bit misquoted - these are human traits present in everybody to one degree or another (and I first pointed the finger at myself) - but they are some of the reasons why it is difficult to come to a consensus when there are opposing views - especially in a forum as anonymous as the internet.
CodeTRUCKER:
@CWuestefeld - In regard to my heart, you seem to believe that you can see into the hears of other people to divine what they're thinking, what their motivations are. This is never a safe assumption. You have no way of knowing why each of us chooses to voice the views that they do. I suggest that the only civil way of handling such a discussion is to make every effort to avoid assuming the thoughts of another; if something seems to flow from illegitimate sources as you list above, ask the person for clarification.
Ok, I plagiarized your words, but I wish to make a point that you are contradicting yourself and you have done so more than this particular example. Due to the contradictions, I really can't find anything (any concrete action steps) that I can apply to make things any different (better) or even more comfortable for you here, except "keep my offensive ideas to..." myself! (Your quote).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version