Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/202538/2
Page: 1 2 3 4
kipperr - Posted - 03/29/2011: 08:26:37
quote:
Originally posted by steve j.
I have often wondered if a couple of the guys who post only in the off topic even play the banjo, or if they have just found this forum accidently. Life is certainly not all banjo, but so many of a few peoples post seem to be political, doom & gloom and just meant to get a rise of of people. I dont get that.
I don't "get" why some people (and you) are worried about that. That's what I don't "get." If you don't like some people's posts, ignore them. Noone says you have to read them anyway. Is it your business whether some of the "off-topic" posters play the banjo or not? What if they are just musicians? Or members of the other hangouts? Or just like music and like discussing things with other like-minded people? Is that good enough for them to be on here, according to you? I play banjo, but don't have any sound-clips. You wanna run me off too?
I expect this kind of attitude from the ignorant bully (idiot, actually) on the Reso Hangout; he's the "sheriff" over there and chases anyone off the site that don't meet his expectations of what a reso player should be like. Many members have stopped visiting and posting due to it.
But please, let's not bring that narrow-minded idiotic mindset here.
I'm purely speculating here, and going way out on a limb, but I wonder if this kind of attitude isn't what caused KE to take a break for a while. If so, I totally understand. If not, my apologies to him for guessing his motives. Live your own life and let others live theirs as they see fit.
steve j. - Posted - 03/29/2011: 08:29:42
Drop your sword ceasar, your attitude is uncalled for. Your the one talking trash now, PM me if you need to , but dont start bashing me here buddy!!!
quote:
Originally posted by kipperr
quote:
Originally posted by steve j.
I have often wondered if a couple of the guys who post only in the off topic even play the banjo, or if they have just found this forum accidently. Life is certainly not all banjo, but so many of a few peoples post seem to be political, doom & gloom and just meant to get a rise of of people. I dont get that.
I don't "get" why some people (and you) are worried about that. That's what I don't "get." If you don't like some people's posts, ignore them. Noone says you have to read them anyway. Is it your business whether some of the "off-topic" posters play the banjo or not? What if they are just musicians? Or members of the other hangouts? Or just like music and like discussing things with other like-minded people? Is that good enough for them to be on here, according to you? I play banjo, but don't have any sound-clips. You wanna run me off too?
I expect this kind of attitude from the ignorant bully (idiot, actually) on the Reso Hangout; he's the "sheriff" over there and chases anyone off the site that don't meet his expectations of what a reso player should be like. Many members have stopped visiting and posting due to it.
But please, let's not bring that narrow-minded idiotic mindset here.
I'm purely speculating here, and going way out on a limb, but I wonder if this kind of attitude isn't what caused KE to take a break for a while. If so, I totally understand. If not, my apologies to him for guessing his motives. Live your own life and let others live theirs as they see fit.
kipperr - Posted - 03/29/2011: 08:30:29
Sorry if I was too harsh on you Steve, but this kind of attitude just gets my goat. Maybe you didn't mean to come across that way.
steve j. - Posted - 03/29/2011: 08:33:46
sorry too harsh , I let the hot head take over
Edited by - steve j. on 03/29/2011 08:42:18
kipperr - Posted - 03/29/2011: 08:47:58
Steve, the "attitude" I was referring to are those people who put down or question people on the off-topic threads. If you post on the off-topic threads mostly, they question why you should even be here on the BHO. I took that from you saying "I have often wondered if a couple of the guys who post only in the off topic even play the banjo." It is no business of mine whether you or anyone else plays anything. Eric is fine with them posting here, and that should be good enough for anyone else. If that wasn't what you were trying to say, then I apologize. But that's how that sentence sounds to me.
But that's the attitude that gets my goat. I'll say it again: live your life and let other people live theirs as they see fit.
Edited by - kipperr on 03/29/2011 08:49:35
steve j. - Posted - 03/29/2011: 09:07:09
If it sounded that way , thats not what I meant. I post more in off topic , than anything else.
but you keep saying
"But that's the attitude that gets my goat. I'll say it again: live your life and let other people live theirs as they see fit."
I have to respond , that I am not trying to tell ANYBODY how to live their lives. And dont see how you got that out of it.
Im out of this one, yall have fun, with this thread
sorry we had this run it, but it is what it is..
bluemule_77 - Posted - 03/29/2011: 12:01:37
Anybody who thinks I was being anti-off-topicker just wasn't wanting to hear what I was saying.
My point was only that the off-topic forum, as Eric confirmed, is where the most bickering and rule-breaking posting occurs; thus, anyone who is almost entirely an off-topic user will have a very different sense of the state of the site.
Is that clear?
DantheBanjoMan - Posted - 03/29/2011: 21:18:59
I don't have a problem with the rules. Basically there just a call for common courtesy and common sense, and I can easily express myself while staying within the limits.
MTBanjo - Posted - 03/30/2011: 11:33:21
I like you guys.
Forrest - Posted - 03/31/2011: 18:07:34
I come to the BHO to talk banjos for the most part, but an occasional trip to the "Off Topic" section is always fun. I have noticed that there are certain people that tend to polarize conversations and interject politics on a regular basis and I'm not sure that it's entirely appropriate given the rules that Eric has set forth. I'm not pointing fingers or casting blame, just saying that I personally feel that there are those that are so passionate about various issues that they can't seem to help but bring them to the forums.
I don't want to see political discussion on the BHO. I think there are forums out there that are perfect for that purpose, whether you're looking to debate or find those that agree, but the rules are the rules here and I happen to agree with them. This is not to say that anyone should leave or feel unwelcome because we all lose when members depart. I just fail to see what's so hard about leaving your politics at the door. If you do your best to not go down that road, you don't need to worry about whether rules are fairly enforced or not.
minstrelmike - Posted - 04/01/2011: 09:31:11
Each person has his or her own definition of the what the word 'politics' means and since there is no common BHO definition, there is no commonly accepted boundary.
I do not understand why global warming is a 'political subject' yet many other subjects that I regard as 'inherently political' such as guns or social violence are discussed, and I even see 'inherently political' actions such as hatred and general belittling actually performed here on BHO but those particular actions are not against the rules here.
Without any definition given, we each have to go by our own.
Hence the 'natural' confusion over the fairness of enforcement.
bluemule_77 - Posted - 04/01/2011: 19:20:40
Guns aren't inherently political, Mike. Neither is global warming. Not until governments start fooling around with either.
My vote at this point? Shut down the "off-topic" stuff. It's not worth the strife. A shame, yes. Failing that... boot these chronic whiners!
Brian
Sultans of Claw - Posted - 04/02/2011: 06:14:19
With all due respect, Brian, why would you boot the "whiners," rather than the ones who violate the rules by habitually making political posts and personal attacks?
kipperr - Posted - 04/02/2011: 06:44:03
Or what about the "whiners" who are always whining about the whiners?
Or the whiners who are always whining and complaining about the off-topic section?
Why not boot them?
feldspar1333 - Posted - 04/02/2011: 07:09:24
First he says....
quote:
Originally posted by bluemule_77
Anybody who thinks I was being anti-off-topicker just wasn't wanting to hear what I was saying.
Then he says.....
quote:
Originally posted by bluemule_77
My vote at this point? Shut down the "off-topic" stuff. It's not worth the strife. A shame, yes. Failing that... boot these chronic whiners!
LOL!
bluemule_77 - Posted - 04/02/2011: 14:03:31
quote:
Originally posted by feldspar1333
First he says....
quote:
Originally posted by bluemule_77
Anybody who thinks I was being anti-off-topicker just wasn't wanting to hear what I was saying.
Then he says.....
quote:
Originally posted by bluemule_77
My vote at this point? Shut down the "off-topic" stuff. It's not worth the strife. A shame, yes. Failing that... boot these chronic whiners!
LOL!
3/29/2011 & 4/01/2011, respectively.
bluemule_77 - Posted - 04/02/2011: 14:15:51
quote:
Originally posted by Sultans of Claw
With all due respect, Brian, why would you boot the "whiners," rather than the ones who violate the rules by habitually making political posts and personal attacks?
Lee,
Your question is a good one. The rulebreakers oughta be dealt with -- but that ought to include those who first insert their politically-fueled witticisms into non-political topics, and then come to Improvements and Suggestions to point fingers when they get the response they sought.
Perhaps if EVERYONE would simply "Report to a Moderator" what they find objectionable rather than replying to it, the whole system would work a bit better. If a user still isn't satisfied with the results (i.e., moderators disagree that a thread about synthetic vs. laminate rifle stocks is political) they can either get along with the decision -- or leave.
Brian
bobbybanjo - Posted - 04/03/2011: 07:46:50
quote:
Originally posted by bluemule_77
My vote at this point? Shut down the "off-topic" stuff.
Brian
So, just because you don't like the off topic stuff you want it shut down?
Most people who don't like something just avoid it. If you don't like it then just don't click on "Off Topic"!
minstrelmike - Posted - 04/03/2011: 10:57:14
My vote also is to delete the entire Off-Topic section.
And I'm in there a lot.
What I don't agree with is that I don't get to talk about what me and my friends want to talk about--sociology and science--because those immediately morph into politics and religion in some folks' minds or posts.
I am not afforded equality on this site for my interests. I feel like a second-class citizen, especially because from my observation, it seems that complaining or whining about government is allowed, but explaining how govt works or discussing possible solutions becomes 'political.'
Again, if you want to fix behavior, the rules should target behavior and not be aimed at irrelevant targets.
bobbybanjo - Posted - 04/03/2011: 11:47:17
quote:
Originally posted by minstrelmike
My vote also is to delete the entire Off-Topic section.
And I'm in there a lot.
What I don't agree with is that I don't get to talk about what me and my friends want to talk about--sociology and science--because those immediately morph into politics and religion in some folks' minds or posts.
I am not afforded equality on this site for my interests. I feel like a second-class citizen, especially because from my observation, it seems that complaining or whining about government is allowed, but explaining how govt works or discussing possible solutions becomes 'political.'
Again, if you want to fix behavior, the rules should target behavior and not be aimed at irrelevant targets.
I don't agree with your first statement about deleting the entire off topic section. It doesn't seem appropriate to "Throw the baby out with the bathwater".
But I do agree with your last statement. This forum does not define "Political Posts" so there is some unevenness in a couple of the moderators behavior that is sometimes pretty far out but it very easy to determine if a particular post is inappropriate or if an individual is guilty of repeated inappropriate posts and that post can be deleted or the offending person can be banned.
minstrelmike - Posted - 04/03/2011: 12:00:46
I'm confused.
On the Banjo Hangout, what is the Baby and what is the Bathwater?
I was thinking the Baby was anything to do with Banjos and the Bathwater was anything that has nothing to do with banjos such as Off-Topic and Games.
Of course, if you're looking at the Hangout part of BHO, then you'd get a different perspective of Bathwater but
1) that's where I'm a second-class citizen and
2) what's the difference between Off-Topic in the Banjo Hangout and Off-Topic in one of the other Hangouts?
If we're interacting, let us interact.
If we are supposed to be interacting only about banjos, then restrict it.
I truly resent seeing people get to talk about blatantly political topics such as gun control, social violence or revolutions. If global warming is political, then these are too.
And why isn't asking for prayers not considered a religious topic?
bobbybanjo - Posted - 04/03/2011: 12:05:23
quote:
Originally posted by minstrelmike
I'm confused.
We understand!
minstrelmike - Posted - 04/03/2011: 12:12:52
quote:
Originally posted by bobbybanjo
quote:
Originally posted by minstrelmike
I'm confused.
We understand!
You understand. I don't believe Eric does. I know some of the mods do and some don't.
Ronnie - Posted - 04/03/2011: 12:40:37
Some of you probably weren't around when we had an open religious and political topic. So many verbal fist fights, personal attacks and threatening private messages happened that Eric shut it down and forbade CONTROVERSIAL religious or political posts. Asking for prayers is not controversial. No one mandates you pray to Jesus, Allah, Krishna, Amon Ra, Charlton Heston or George Burns, or if you simply want to think good thoughts and express best wishes.
And to keep the peace,please keep your political convictions to yourself. There are other sites on the internet where one may discuss such matters.
IMHO Off-topics serves a valid purpose. Like friends sitting around on the back porch discussing their kids, dogs, guitars, home-brew recipes, motorcycles and pickup trucks. That way we get to know each other better outside of our interests in the banjo.
Edited by - Ronnie on 04/03/2011 13:10:52
bobbybanjo - Posted - 04/03/2011: 13:04:35
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie
Some of you probably weren't around when we had an open religious and political topic. So many verbal fist fights, personal attacks and threatening private messages happened that Eric shut it down and forbade CONTROVERSIAL religious or political posts. Asking for prayers is not controversial. No one mandates you pray to Jesus, Allah, Krishna, Amon Ra, or George Burns, or if you simply want to think good thoughts and express best wishes.
And to keep the peace,please keep your political convictions to yourself. There are other sites on the internet where one may discuss such matters.
We have heard about the historical issues before, many times, verbal fist fights, etc etc etc. That doesn't change the fact that "Political" discussions have not been defined so enforcement is uneven and, sometimes, personalized. It also doesn't change the fact that, as Mike has said, it is the individual behavior that should be addressed instead leaving the hazy areas of religious and political subjects to moderators of varying judgment who have enforcement responsibility without having specific definitions to enforce.
And, does it matter if there is inappropriate behavior in the off topic forum or if it occurs in the collectors forum? If there is inappropriate behavior then deal with the individual and the individual's behavior, not with the subject being discussed. We have recently had a number of useful discussions in the off topic forum i.e. oil prices, the accident in japan, nuclear energy; unions have been discussed by people both in support and against, and there have been very few improper posts. If you start treating people like adults they will often behave like adults; if they don't then let them sit out for a while, just like some people do with their children.
minstrelmike - Posted - 04/03/2011: 13:33:39
All it takes is one person to make any topic controversial.
That means that according to the rules, any single individual can shut down discussion of any topic in Off-Topic if they get ticked yet when emotions rise in the other topics (I can't believe folks get ticked-off on the circle of fifths but it happens), then the topic gets to continue without that person.
In Off-Topic, the topic gets shut down.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing controversial about Global Warming is how soon it's going to affect food prices and kick off a series of true World Wars. Of course, other folks think there is some sort of controversy or political conspiracy or something so they get to shut it down regardless of my actions here on the list.
The rules encourage controversy. If you want to shut a topic down because you don't like the subject, you get to do it regardless of the feelings of anyone else.
bobbybanjo - Posted - 04/03/2011: 13:57:41
quote:
Originally posted by minstrelmike
All it takes is one person to make any topic controversial.
That means that according to the rules, any single individual can shut down discussion of any topic in Off-Topic if they get ticked yet when emotions rise in the other topics (I can't believe folks get ticked-off on the circle of fifths but it happens), then the topic gets to continue without that person.
In Off-Topic, the topic gets shut down.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing controversial about Global Warming is how soon it's going to affect food prices and kick off a series of true World Wars. Of course, other folks think there is some sort of controversy or political conspiracy or something so they get to shut it down regardless of my actions here on the list.
The rules encourage controversy. If you want to shut a topic down because you don't like the subject, you get to do it regardless of the feelings of anyone else.
Yes, those are all good reasons for moderators to deal with the individual and/or the individual post instead of penalizing all of the participants in a thread.
Ronnie - Posted - 04/03/2011: 14:09:04
All the more reason to THINK before you post!! Not only on off-topic. If you post back to someone that their favorite instrument is a POS or downgrade their favorite musician, someone is going to get their feelings hurt ( I have been guilty). If everyone does their best to keep the site peaceful, I don't think there will be any problems.
Edited by - Ronnie on 04/03/2011 14:41:24
bobbybanjo - Posted - 04/03/2011: 14:59:00
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie
All the more reason to THINK before you post!! Not only on off-topic. If you post back to someone that their favorite instrument is a POS or downgrade their favorite musician, someone is going to get their feelings hurt ( I have been guilty). If everyone does their best to keep the site peaceful, I don't think there will be any problems.
Thinking is always nice but some people will always slip up, won't they! All the more reason to just deal with the individual exceptions and not ban marginal categories like "Politics" (whatever that is) and "Religion" whatever that is.
Another point to keep in mind is that the owner of this site gains value from each visit. If an active and popular category like Off Topic is eliminated then he will derive less value than if it is retained. Same with Politics! Same with everything else!
Ban the banning! Enforce respectable individual behavior.
DonCherry - Posted - 04/03/2011: 16:00:46
quote:
Originally posted by bobbybanjo
[quote] We have recently had a number of useful discussions in the off topic forum i.e. oil prices, the accident in japan, nuclear energy; unions have been discussed by people both in support and against, and there have been very few improper posts. If you start treating people like adults they will often behave like adults; if they don't then let them sit out for a while, just like some people do with their children.
Don't forget Bigfoot related topics...
bluemule_77 - Posted - 04/03/2011: 17:31:29
quote:
Originally posted by bobbybanjo
So, just because you don't like the off topic stuff you want it shut down?
Most people who don't like something just avoid it. If you don't like it then just don't click on "Off Topic"!
Whoa, wait... hold on a minute, bobbybanjo! I do like much of the off-topic stuff! (Read the whole thread. View my silly little youtube video celebrating the off-topic forum of the BHO if you wish.
youtube.com/watch?v=avJqa7b5v-4On dozens of occasions my wife has brought up a news item she found in "The Economist" or other publication only to find I've also been informed of the same via the BHO. I'm quite impressed by the range and depth of knowledge of the BHO usership. I'm also impressed by how cordial the discussions usually are.
If it becomes too hard to manage (which I think is what everyone here might be suggesting has happened) and spawns discontent, and as it is really not essential to the mission of the site, and if users can't behave themselves... it'd be simplest to take the toy away. Volunteer moderators will quit volunteering and moderating if all their time is spent policing and slapping wrists in the off-topic forum.
Brian
feldspar1333 - Posted - 04/03/2011: 18:07:21
BlueMule-
That YouTube video is great!
bluemule_77 - Posted - 04/03/2011: 19:08:28
Thanks guys. Glad you enjoyed it.
quote:
Dude. You so seriously belong here: banjohangout.org/group/poserst...lcontents
Lee: Around here "dude" is synonymous with "poser."
Sultans of Claw - Posted - 04/03/2011: 19:15:56
quote:
Originally posted by bluemule_77
Thanks guys. Glad you enjoyed it.
quote:
Dude. You so seriously belong here: banjohangout.org/group/poserst...lcontents
Lee: Around here "dude" is synonymous with "poser."
Cultural relativism aside, "The Dude Abides."
Forrest - Posted - 04/03/2011: 21:16:03
quote:
Originally posted by Ronnie
Some of you probably weren't around when we had an open religious and political topic.
I was around and I remember it well. I'm glad those days are behind us and the experience is partly why I support the rule of no politics or religion on the BHO. I treasure the friendships I've made on the site and really don't want to jeopardize any of them by interjecting my personal philosophies on either subject.
Don Borchelt - Posted - 04/04/2011: 07:21:06
bobbybanjo wrote: "All the more reason to just deal with the individual exceptions and not ban marginal categories like "Politics" (whatever that is) and "Religion" whatever that is."
There are a very few agent provocateurs here who seem to participate in the BHO primarily to promote a political agenda. They are very coy in their posts, skirting any overt mention of specific politicians or political parties, but they swarm around topics that fuel the major political issues of our day, like the cost of energy, climate change, labor unions, and the like. They rarely step over the bright line themselves, but instead very subtly set up the stage for others who are less careful to do so.
It doesn't surprise me that bobby is one of the few members who wants to bring back religious and political discussion. Four out of five of bobby's posts have been in this category (I'm including this one, discussing yet again whether Eric should allow political discussions).
Personally, I am totally against having political or religious discussion here on the Hangout. A lot of friends will become enemies if this happens, it's just human nature.
Edited by - Don Borchelt on 04/04/2011 07:27:43
Forrest - Posted - 04/04/2011: 07:41:46
quote:
Originally posted by Don Borchelt
Personally, I am totally against having political or religious discussion here on the Hangout. A lot of friends will become enemies if this happens, it's just human nature.
Agreed! Well put, Don.
steve j. - Posted - 04/04/2011: 07:46:48
quote:
Originally posted by Don Borchelt
bobbybanjo wrote: "All the more reason to just deal with the individual exceptions and not ban marginal categories like "Politics" (whatever that is) and "Religion" whatever that is."
There are a very few agent provocateurs here who seem to participate in the BHO primarily to promote a political agenda. They are very coy in their posts, skirting any overt mention of specific politicians or political parties, but they swarm around topics that fuel the major political issues of our day, like the cost of energy, climate change, labor unions, and the like. They rarely step over the bright line themselves, but instead very subtly set up the stage for others who are less careful to do so.
It doesn't surprise me that bobby is one of the few members who wants to bring back religious and political discussion. Four out of five of bobby's posts have been in this category (I'm including this one, discussing yet again whether Eric should allow political discussions).
Personally, I am totally against having political or religious discussion here on the Hangout. A lot of friends will become enemies if this happens, it's just human nature.
Ill give you credit, you called him out. This is one of the people I wondered if they really had interest in banjo or not. And " you know who" dont get all worked up.
It does seem like guys around a campfire , and there is often 1 guy who starts a subject just to see people argue. Seems they cant pass a pile w/o stirring it up.
NO Political,,, or Religious posts. Im sure many of you wouldnt like my beliefs,, and I not yours.
these are 2 issues even family dont agree upon often,, why argue about it here?
Steve
bobbybanjo - Posted - 04/04/2011: 08:31:06
It seems to me that a couple of you guys are engaging in exactly the type of behavior that you are objecting to.
schlange - Posted - 04/04/2011: 09:09:41
The R&P prohibition isn't going away, sorry.
If you guys think you can define what a "political" topic is in a succint enough way that I can put it into the rules and people will actually read it, feel free to take a crack at it. If you can do it, I'll add it to the rules so you can have more clarification.
kipperr - Posted - 04/04/2011: 09:37:02
quote:
Originally posted by bobbybanjo
It seems to me that a couple of you guys are engaging in exactly the type of behavior that you are objecting to.
That's what I was thinking.
bobbybanjo - Posted - 04/04/2011: 09:46:29
quote:
Originally posted by schlange
The R&P prohibition isn't going away, sorry.
If you guys think you can define what a "political" topic is in a succint enough way that I can put it into the rules and people will actually read it, feel free to take a crack at it. If you can do it, I'll add it to the rules so you can have more clarification.
You're right, it is difficult to define "Politics" and "Religious" for the purposes of posting here and that is exactly the reason why prohibited behavior should be defined and dealt with by policing the behavior deleting the post and by banning the member for a period of time. There have been many informative and interesting threads that some might consider religious or political that did not result in any negative behavior, threats, fighting, or other prohibited and inappropriate behavior. Expecting a group of moderators from widely varying backgrounds to define the undefinable is an unreasonable expectation and that is what is drawing criticism from some members.
It really doesn't matter what forum hosts negative behavior does it? Are personal attacks OK in the Collectors forum but not in the Off Topic forum? You don't really have to make any major changes to current policy, just have the moderators relax on their attempts to empirically state that a particular topic is Religious or Political and let nature take its course, deleting any posts that are inappropriate or banning any bad guys. Obvious inappropriate posts like "Obama is a xxx" remain obviously inappropriate and demand immediate action but some reasonable discussions of economic issues or world affairs have been locked because they are "Political" despite their not being any inappropriate posts.
There are a number of boards with forums for political and religious groups and some discussions become polarized but nearly all stop short of the kind of behavior we don't want to see. I have a hard time feeling that the Banjo Playing demographic cannot conduct themselves in a respectful manner even on subject for which they have a strong bias.
schlange - Posted - 04/04/2011: 10:00:26
I'll say it again: The R&P prohibition isn't going away, sorry.
Been there, done that. It gets even the well-meaning folks riled up, and I don't like the atmosphere it produces. We keep those topics off the forum to make easy for us all to stay friendly, basically. And I'm not going to be changing that.
Richard Dress - Posted - 04/04/2011: 10:32:10
Disagreement is inevitable when people are free to speak. There are a lot of things that can be done to tame things down. On one hand you can collectively regulate participation; on the other hand, you can improve civility by encouraging responsible behavior in individuals. I think Eric leans toward the more liberal and individual approach.
The rules that some are asking Eric to write up for them were in most cases taught in high school. We can't go over all of them, but most are common-sense. People don't like to feel scammed and most scams are based on a deceiving rap. Let's review the most common hustles (I plagiarized the following):
What is a Fallacy? A fallacy is generally an error in reasoning. Fallacies are common, yet fraudulent arguments. The most popular are mistakes that occur when people don’t think clearly. The most typically used have given names to aid in their detection. Certainly, we all tend to use fallacious thinking daily. But for important topics, such as politics, religion, and law it is imperative we do not employ these flawed logical structures as we will end up with unacceptable results and cause unnecessary bad feelings.
1. Self-Righteousness#8232;
This fallacy claims if someone is “morally pure,” or has the “right” motivations, then their actions cannot be questioned.
2. You’re Another (Tu Quoque)
#8232;Here’s the famed “you too” fallacy, which states an action is acceptable simply because another person has previously performed it.
3. Personal Attack (Ad Hominem)#8232;
This fallacy is committed when a person is insulted for delivering criticism.
4. Damning the Origin (Consider the Source)#8232;
Damning the Origin is an Ad Hominem fallacy claiming defective sources cannot express truth.
5. The “Good Reason”#8232;
The “Good Reason” is a fallacy where something unacceptable is made agreeable after substituting a “good reason” in place of the actual purpose for which the thing was done.
6. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
#8232;This fallacy is another Special Pleading argument, stating pitiable groups should receive unique status and ala cart rules.
7. Condemnation of Hypocrisy
#8232;A fascinating error which is again Special Pleading, is the Fallacy of Condemning Hypocrisy. This error claims the worst and maybe only moral failure is claiming to stand for a rule, then violating it.
8. Appeal to Anger#8232;This fallacy suggests anyone truly angry over a subject must be correct, or they couldn’t have become furious.
9. Purified Opinion (Appeal to Political Correctness)
#8232;A fascinating recent Western development is the rise of Political Correctness (PC). Generally, PC contains a number of formerly verboten activities and groups; having gone from rejection, to protected, and now morphed into representing unassailable truth.
The very phrase “Politically Correct,” first used by Chairman Mao, is an oxymoron. “Political” doctrines are prima facie open for debate; to suggest any are “correct,” or beyond dispute, is a self-abnegating contradiction. Only a one-party system can accommodate such a theory. PC’s Marxist origins, from the Frankfurt School, are well documented, as are its goal of sowing chaos and disorder into society.
10. After This, Therefore Because of This (Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc)
#8232;This fallacy says that a second event occurring after a first event must be caused by the first.
11. False Dichotomy (All or Nothing ie Either/Or)
The Fallacy of the False Dichotomy occurs when it is suggested only two outcomes are possible from a situation, and one of them is bad. So the “good” option must therefore be chosen to avoid disaster.
12. Popular Corruption
The Fallacy of Popular Corruption claims all people in general are corrupt, and so deserve punishment.
13. Self-Interest
14. Pious Fraud
The Fallacy of Pious Fraud claims using dishonesty is acceptable if it achieves an end of true justice.
15. Is Ought
The “Is/Ought” fallacy stands for the idea that whichever way a thing “is” found, is how it “ought” to be.
16. The Ends Justify the Means
The Fallacy of The Ends Justify the Means stands for the idea that the only important issues are outcomes. Whatever rules were broken to achieve the results is acceptable and irrelevant.
17. Golden Mean
The Fallacy of the Golden Mean is committed when it is claimed the halfway mark between any two points represents an acceptable compromise.
18. Invincible Ignorance
The Fallacy of Invincible Ignorance claims the more uneducated is a person on undesirable topics, the more protected they are of any bad outcomes associated with them.
19. Confident Manner
The Fallacy of Confident Manner is committed when the main argument for a speaker’s ideas is that they are delivered with a confident air.
20. Genetic Fallacy
The Genetic Fallacy claims the original definition of a word or idea dictates its permanent use.
21. Slogans (Poetic Language)
The Fallacy of Sloganeering occurs when speakers use vague, euphemistic or poetic language to try to gain support of naïve audiences by getting listeners to add in their own details not there.
22. Proxy Lie or Armored Ignorance
using ignorance to get a free ride on someone else's lie, i.e. not reading a bill so you can agree with any false claim
I don't think posting these rules will help reduce animosity because nobody will read then or pay attention to them.
The best rule is tell the truth and don't try to scam people.
kipperr - Posted - 04/04/2011: 10:46:23
Richard, I think I've used just about all of those at one time or another.
I think it's fine the way it is.
Except people complaining about the complainers.
And the complainers complaining about the "Off-Topic" sections.
Can we get back to things as they were now?
Richard Dress - Posted - 04/04/2011: 10:49:45
I hoped that a massive post would end the thread and let Eric get back to more productive pursuits. like examining the current complaints about "expert/professional".
JackJack - Posted - 04/04/2011: 12:52:37
I got an idea! 
How about the "Political & Religious Debaters Hangout"? The only rule there, is members cannot talk about banjos, mandos, fiddles, or guitars! Think of the advertising revenue, Eric!
Don Borchelt - Posted - 04/04/2011: 13:08:31
JackJack wrote: "How about the "Political & Religious Debaters Hangout"?"
I'm all for it, as long as the P&RDHO members aren't allowed in the Hangout Chatroom.
Page: 1 2 3 4
