Where We Draw the Line

[ban basketball]

Except, of course, that I regard my own economic philosophy as eminently fair.  Most people value fairness; they just disagree about what it means.

True enough I guess, it is just hard for liberals to consider any person starving or freezing to death as being fair, under any circumstances.

That's why you libruls have no bidness in being Christians!  Us folks are social Darwinists!   

You seem to have a faulty idea of what the "Open" in "The Open Mat" means.

Thus far, this has been a reasonable discussion amongst people of widely differing views.  This disruption is not welcome.  If you continue in this vein, your account will be suspended.

So, what separates my comment above from ones where people use racial/ethnic slurs?   Or using a less egregious example, Vise Grip's post above?  If his comment is "open" and mine "closed," what separates the two,other than the fact that I've likely rubbed you wrong?

[ban basketball]

And, yes, I do genuinely want to know where that line is, aside from what I see as arbitrary?

[Ray Brinzer]

For context, ViseGrip's comments "above" were as follows:

I am curious as to what liberals consider to be their victories (and I will be the first to admit there have been some) as well as honest discussion of its failures.

Okay... but at some point there has to be a connection between the philosophy and reality.

I have no doubt that the philosophy (promises) would appeal even to die hard conservatives such as myself... until one is confronted with the results (reality).

LIberalism is:

1) Freedom
2) Empathizing with and helping other human beings
3) Seeing the bigger economic picture beyond the profits and stock portfolios

What is that bigger economic picture?

Partly related to #2 (helping those that are less fortunate) and partly about sustainability. Doing what is going to not only help us now but help is in 100 years. And yes, the government DOES have a role in that.

In theory I dont necessarily disagree, but is there any recognition there that anytime you subsidize something, you will axiomatically increase it? Including unproductive behaviors.

This is why I dont know of one single conservative who opposes the GI Bill. It is a subsidy, but it had to be earned, and it has a limit and it empowers the individual to improve his own productivity.

I never understood what was "fair" about robbing Peter to pay Paul. I know that's blunt. but that is what it really comes down to.

Sure, Paul thinks its fair and those seeking Paul's vote will come up with all sorts of rationalizations of why Peter is better off in the long run (most of which are quite dubious) but that money is still being taken from Paul at the threat of incarceration.

At first many Peter's were okay to one degree or another with this legislated wealth transfer. But now many of those Peters are asking if society really is better off taking a larger portion of his wealth to help those with less wealth. They see the improvements to Paul made by Paul's agents with Peter's money falling far short of promises.

They see Paul becoming more and more dependent and those seeking Paul's vote siphoning off more and more of that which was being transfered and being dolled in political patronage. They are also seeing more and more Paul's and fewer and fewer Peter's.

I never understood what was "fair" about robbing Peter to pay Paul. I know that's blunt. but that is what it really comes down to.

Sure, Paul thinks its fair and those seeking Paul's vote will come up with all sorts of rationalizations of why Peter is better off in the long run (most of which are quite dubious) but that money is still being taken from Paul at the threat of incarceration.

At first many Peter's were okay to one degree or another with this legislated wealth transfer. But now many of those Peters are asking if society really is better off taking a larger portion of his wealth to help those with less wealth. They see the improvements to Paul made by Paul's agents with Peter's money falling far short of promises.

They see Paul becoming more and more dependent and those seeking Paul's vote siphoning off more and more of that which was being transfered and being dolled in political patronage. They are also seeing more and more Paul's and fewer and fewer Peter's.

[Ray Brinzer]

Let's start with the premises.

First:  this is private property.  Like everyone but the proprietors (Viratas and I), you're a guest here.

Second:  we created this place to allow open dialogue between members of the wrestling community.  This is different than free speech, though open dialogue requires a good measure of it.  We allow debate on virtually any topic, and let people take any position in a debate.  We do not allow any behavior whatsoever.

The main reason we do not enforce much is that attempting to hold a community to a higher standard of conduct than it wishes to maintain is probably futile... or, at least, a great deal more work than we're willing to put into it.  As a measure of our permissiveness:  in nearly five years, we have banned exactly one person.  If the measuring stick for this was whether people rubbed me the wrong way, rest assured that the count would be a great deal higher.

That said, when the community actually wants civil dialogue (as it should more often), we're going to make sure it's possible.

Now, in case you were wondering (and you were not) why posting political pictures in the Pretty Ladies thread was unacceptable:  because by doing so, you were attempting to disrupt a "conversation", and irritate people whom you dislike.

Likewise, when someone requests an honest dialogue with people he disagrees with, and they respond in kind, chiming in with sarcastic, misspelled nonsense is an obvious attempt to disrupt the dialogue.

As for where the line is:  I'm not going to draw one, so that you or anyone else can skirt the other side of it, or play a game of drawing comparisons.  Since you have no right to speak here, we don't owe you due process.  If you see this as arbitrary, that's your prerogative; ours is to be as arbitrary, capricious, and tyrannical as we please.  If this bothers you greatly, feel free to start a forum with a litigation process.

Now, I suspect that you know how to be civil.  If you choose to be, and wish to actually talk to the people here, it's unlikely that you'll ever have to worry about where the line is.  If not, don't expect further warnings, or an explanation as to why you're no longer here.

[ban basketball]

Let's start with the premises.

First:  this is private property.  Like everyone but the proprietors (Viratas and I), you're a guest here.

Second:  we created this place to allow open dialogue between members of the wrestling community.  This is different than free speech, though open dialogue requires a good measure of it.  We allow debate on virtually any topic, and let people take any position in a debate.  We do not allow any behavior whatsoever.

The main reason we do not enforce much is that attempting to hold a community to a higher standard of conduct than it wishes to maintain is probably futile... or, at least, a great deal more work than we're willing to put into it.  As a measure of our permissiveness:  in nearly five years, we have banned exactly one person.  If the measuring stick for this was whether people rubbed me the wrong way, rest assured that the count would be a great deal higher.

That said, when the community actually wants civil dialogue (as it should more often), we're going to make sure it's possible.

Now, in case you were wondering (and you were not) why posting political pictures in the Pretty Ladies thread was unacceptable:  because by doing so, you were attempting to disrupt a "conversation", and irritate people whom you dislike.

Likewise, when someone requests an honest dialogue with people he disagrees with, and they respond in kind, chiming in with sarcastic, misspelled nonsense is an obvious attempt to disrupt the dialogue.

As for where the line is:  I'm not going to draw one, so that you or anyone else can skirt the other side of it, or play a game of drawing comparisons.  Since you have no right to speak here, we don't owe you due process.  If you see this as arbitrary, that's your prerogative; ours is to be as arbitrary, capricious, and tyrannical as we please.  If this bothers you greatly, feel free to start a forum with a litigation process.

Now, I suspect that you know how to be civil.  If you choose to be, and wish to actually talk to the people here, it's unlikely that you'll ever have to worry about where the line is.  If not, don't expect further warnings, or an explanation as to why you're no longer here.

Fair enough, but I do actually enjoy posting on the non-political topics, and probably where most people can somewhat tolerate me.  I do understand everything, and do not disagree with anything that you wrote. 

However, and related to my first sentence, I do not want to lose my posting privileges, so am I to infer that when I (1) post something sarcastic and/or mocking or (2) get "heated" in a discussion (no vulgarity, etc), that I could lose my posting privileges for that?  Again, I'm not questioning your right to do as you please on this site, but I do need to have some kind of sense of where I can't go on here, being that the two scenarios above (especially 1) could get me bounced immediately.

Now, a brown nose-but sincere-alert:  I do like this site for everything that it does.  Even though we've been political arch rivals for years now, I like Viratas and JB a lot (the only two that I "know") and think that the composite schedules, results, and forums are the best in the wrestling world.  THAT'S why I'm so concerned about suddenly losing my privileges.

[ban basketball]

Disregard.  No need to have to explain your position again.

[Ray Brinzer]

Here's an option:

I take you off the political board.  The odds of your having further problems goes way down, and there's a good chance that after a bit people start responding when you talk about wrestling and such.

Your call.

[ban basketball]

Here's an option:

I take you off the political board.  The odds of your having further problems goes way down, and there's a good chance that after a bit people start responding when you talk about wrestling and such.

Your call.

I like the option, I appreciate that you are offering it to me, but I was disallowed posting privileges in the "Non-wrestling topics" over at the Wrestling Talk and I hated it with a passion (needless to say, I have a bit of a "history"), and I hated it with a passion, as there were endless topics that I felt that I could contribute to and it was brutal for me to not be able to do so.  However, all other posting privileges were left intact, and there were no problems from me with those intact.  Shane Jensen would verify that for you.  He did eventually allow me to post on the NWT forum after a time, with no further problems.

However, I learned my lesson from that BIG TIME, and probably became one of the "better" posters on there and had no further problems.  I think that the very fact that I know that I can lose my privileges on here will be enough for me to change my evil ways; it worked before.

If you should so deem me to be out of line and warranting having my privileges revoked, I will respect that, but I can also pretty much promise you that I will have no other issues in any of the other forums, outside of the political one.  So, I would hope that I can still post in those other forums, if you need to make such a decision, heaven forbid.  However, that is YOUR CALL and not mine, only my plea  .

Sorry for the hassles, and I appreciate your giving me probably more than enough fairness and patience throughout.

[Ray Brinzer]

I'll let you go either way on this, but not both.  If you want to keep up with the political board, that's fine, but you're then taking responsibility for what you say there.  The community doesn't start and stop at the section boundaries, and this is about how we affect other people.  So while you can opt out of one section, being thrown out is all-or-nothing.

Just to clarify:  if you did choose not to participate in Politics >> General, it could easily be arranged that you not see it at all.  That might bother you less.

Now, as far as this:

Im not sure which is ultimately more harmful and wasteful, the Dept of Ed or EPA. Both should be abolished and their budgets turned over to the 50 states.

YES!  State by stated edurcation standards!  BRILLIANT!

Is that, as an isolated case, a major problem?  No.  Does the fact that you're suggesting that people who disagree with you are idiots bode well?  Also no, particularly once the jolt of being threatened with a ban wears off.

My suggestion to you (as it has been to everyone here) is that if you're going to debate, you confine yourself to attacking ideas,  and not people.  Show people you disagree with respect, and all will be well.

[ban basketball]

In "fairness" to myself, the post that you refer to in the above (state by state education standards) occured a few hours before I stated that I would like to stay on the political forums and that I will change my ways.  In fact, the new avatar is somewhat of a reflection of that.

[ban basketball]

For now, I will opt to stay in the political forum.  If I can't handle that responsibility and can't watch what I say, then I probably don't deserve to be there after all and deserve everything coming to me.

[ban basketball]

Sorry, but I do need one bit of clarification:  I do often like to use the "Colbert method" of political debating, in that I play the part of a conservative and espouse conservative ideas back at people, all as a means to demonstrate how absurd some ideas are.

If this is done without insults and belitting of people, will that be tolerated?