Some Rules - A Modest Proposal

Now that we have a separate forum for OT discussion, I'd like to propose a few rules.

The issues facing us are far too complex to be summed up under broad, simplistic labels. Just calling one's position on an issue as "liberal" or "conservative" neither negates opposing thought nor validates yours. The same goes for "pro-choice" or "pro-life", "pacifist" or "patriot", "atheist" or "religious."

Let's make an attempt at the civility of discourse rather than the bombast of dogma. Let's seek common ground rather than trying to bludgeon others to your point of view. Try to give your opponent's position as much thought as you have your own. You may not change your mind, but you might learn something.

So if you're incapable of independent thought and have to lean on pre-digested dogmas as a substitute, then log off. Educate yourself, and come back when you're ready to add something intelligent to the discussion.


With a tip o' the pickelhaube to Wiley Miller and "Non Sequitur",
Strelnikov

You guys should be Mods! I've been trying to stress these points all along, but usually get blasted in the process and then there is nothing left but an edited or deleted post.

It's easier said than done, but hopefully your messages will reach members and allow for more thought provoking and civil debates. Thank you for making these conscientious proposals.

Good God have we really come to this? Now all of a sudden we should check everything that comes out of our mouths?? Being a liberal, a conservative, atheist, muslim whatever is not "predigested dogma" it's one's point of view which we are free to express in this country...at least I thought so. I'm sorry but all these liberals (what should I call them...peace freaks??) that have come out preaching their blame America, it's our fault, we deserved it crap pisses me off and if certain liberals don't like it I really don't care...just like they don't care about the added strain on the country and affected families from their peace marches, anti-US policy statements just 18 days after the most horrific event that has ever occurred on this country's soil.

First of all, I will admit to being liberal in regards to most social and economic policy. Second, I agree that America needs to act to protect itself as much as possible to prevent future terrorist attacks. Third, I believe that if we sacrifice civil liberties to assure our safety then we are handing the terrorists a major victory. My biggest fear is that from now on anyone who criticizes the Bush administration in any way will be automatically branded "unpatriotic." I'm not saying that I agree with the peace marchers but but they do have a right to be there. Ari Fleischer made a statement to this effect just the other day. (I can't think of what he said exactly, but it frightened me) If we're not careful we could be back to the McCarthy days before too long. Please do not take these statements as support on my part for the belief that America brought this tragedy on itself.

Of course, this is totally off the topic of this particular thread. On that point, I don't think having civil discussions constitutes having to check what comes out of our mouths. An argument is much more effective when it draws on common ground shared with an opposing position. Those who rant and rave tend to be ignored.

Justmy humble opinion,
giuseppe

ScotTickle, your take on my "rules" is exactly right. The rest of you, let's not club each other with stereotypes like the knuckle-dragging warmongering conservative or the wimpy peacenik liberal. The idea is to have a DISCUSSION. Says so right on the label.

I'm especially concerned at the tone of the responses to posts by Psycho/Scott/Nazgul/Return To God. Too many are simply knee-jerk hostility. Others are dismissive - "I used to be messed up about tickling. Now I'm messed up on God." I don't agree with Scott, but I don't think that's where he's coming from, and I think he deserves the same respect we would show to any other forum member.

Mia, if it will make you feel any better, I'll be happy to flame you a little. Just lightly toasted?

Strelnikov

I agree with Sushi

Let's not use the american flag-pole to club each over the head with! Let's not forget that this is America we're talking about. Take, for example, what Bill Maher of "Politically Incorrect" got roasted for recently. He expressed his opinion that the hijackers were a lot of things, but not "cowardly" in his opinion. Instead, lobbing missiles from a distance was "cowardly". This is a debatable yet valid view-point. He wasn't conferring HONOR upon the hijacker; he was simply arguing with the dismissal of their actions as "cowardly;" it takes a supreme amount of courage (albeit misguided courage) to willingly blow one's self up. But there was such a backlash, including withdrawal of sponsors for the show, that he had to issue an apology! This on a show called "Politicaly Incorrect"!!

"My biggest fear is that from now on anyone who criticizes the Bush administration in any way will be automatically branded 'unpatriotic.'"

I couldn't say it better myself, Sushi!

Part of America is the ability to openly criticize the administration if one honestly disagrees with their handling of this (or any other )issue. The truth of this is so self-evident that I can't believe I feel compelled to write it!!

The current climate of 'response-to-terrorism/war' is not a blanket license to brand as a "traitor" anybody who disagrees with your opinions.

Strel,
Thanks for the offer but it's too late, I'm already fried crispy!!

Interesting how this thread is evolving!! I'm not a political commentator (I keep that to myself like religion) but I do appreciate reading the different opinions of my fellow tickle fans. We're all in the same boat, we're just looking out in different directions.

Much Apologizings...

Thanks, Strel. I think I needed to hear that.

I hadn't responded to the religious debates in a few days because I was marshalling my arguments, honing my points and preparing my words to resist penetration by counterpoints. I didn't realize until I read this thread how I was thinking about this whole thing in such military terms, that it was more important to me to "beat" Scott and force him to see my way on things. It became more important to win this lawyer's game of verbal thrust and counterthrust than it was to actually educate Scott about an area where I saw him in trouble.

I had forgotten that I was violating my own dictum about religion: That it's more important to live your life making the effort to help others and avoid harming them than it is to make everyone agree with you. I couldn't see that I was becoming the very same zealous fanatic that I opposed. I had forgotten what Neitzche said: "He who fights monsters must care take not to become a monster himself."

Do I think that he's made a mistake? Yes.
Do I think that he's fallen into a cult no less exploitative and manipulative than Heaven's Gate or Scientology? More than likely.
Do I think he's harming himself in abandoning reason and embracing ignorance? Without a doubt.
Do I think that his behavior since his return to the Forum, by his own admission, consists of little more than leaving the theological equivalent of a bag of flaming dog crap on our porch and running away? Yes.

Does he have the right to behave that way?
Yes, I am forced to admit. Yes. He doesn't have to like my opinion on the unverifiable any more than I have to like his.

I had forgotten that if I know that the Divine is in my heart always, then it doesn't matter what other people think. I don't need a fancy lightshow in Serbo-Croatia to prove that, but if Scott does then it's his problem. It shouldn't be mine, and I don't have the right to make it my problem.

Maybe I'm abandoning my vow to help a soul that's lost its way. Maybe I'm just growing up a little more. Maybe I'm getting soft. Maybe it's just that my brother's returned from college in Arizona and I'd rather spend my time and energy on catching up with him than on kicking this puppy around for another month. Whatever the reason is, I don't know right now.

All I do know is that I've said all I'm going to say about religion on this forum. If Scott wants to keep proselytising, with his own admission that he has no intention of listening to what others say, let him. I won't be baited anymore. As the New Testament says, if you go to a place trying to enlighten, and they refuse to accept you, then "Shake the dust of the place off your sandals" and keep walking. Some seeds are going to fall on the stony ground, you know?

Maybe I'm abandoning my vow to help a soul that's lost its way. Maybe I'm just growing up a little more. Maybe I'm getting soft. Maybe it's just that my brother's returned from college in Arizona and I'd rather spend my time and energy on catching up with him than on kicking this puppy around for another month. Whatever the reason is, I don't know right now.

The best way to 'help a soul' in cases such as this, is to simply be ready and willing to clearly share ones own thoughts on matters, and perhaps provide the example and tools that the other can use to begin a shift in their ideas and thoughts. It is all one can trully do.

You are neither being soft, nor failing in being of aid. You are simply seeing that force is next to useless in matters such as this. And indeed, it is growth. Congratulations. Have fun with your brother!

Myriads

Strel, it's you and Q, brother

You gents are the public I always hope to see here, voices of reason and, often, wit.

The idea of a set of posts without dogma, one-sided religion or politics, and the like are a treat for the mind, brother. Thanks for the proposal of such.

dvnc

Thanks, and a tip o' the pickelhaube...

It's nice to be appreciated. I was writing a post to flame another member. Then thought better of it. "Self," I said to myself, "Chill out. Try to remember who the real enemy is." So I posted the Rules instead. I can't take sole credit for them - cribbed them shamelessly from Wiley Miller's "Non Sequitur" Sunday strip.

Strelnikov

RESET

This is just a way to move this thread up next to my latest, on a related topic. Sneaky, eh?

Strelnikov

*applause*

Quite the sneaky gesture, Strelnikov.

Feeling......feisty!

C'mon...I'm in an argumentative mood! Someone debate me on anything....sidesaddle vs riding backwards....don't care which side I take either! Actually I think Scotts' threads and actions liven the forum up considerably! Religion and sex are nearly inexhaustable fonts of both humor and debate. Strel, wish we lived closer, cause I'm not FLYING anywhere for awhile buddy, even to get that eggplant recipe firsthand! Dvnc, my long lost twin..(hehe,,..still love those pics!), you are always a quirky uplift in this hectic world, and I hope you stay away from those fault lines long enough for us to get together somewhere safe someday! There has been mention on a few threads lately regarding the lack of participation on the forum from our "lurking majority", but I feel this is an evolutionary process, and a necessary one....be careful what you wish for brethren, for the chaos that would result from over a 1000 people posting would change this place forever! We have a small vocal minority, and we know each other all the better for it...it's a manageable size with a lot of diversity, and I for one feel it shouldn't be tampered with carelessly. Anyway, it's a beautiful fall evening and I'm almost done packing up this old house and nearly ready to move to a new Q-Cave! More later! Q

New Q cave? Hope it's better digs, sir.

Wish I'd a debate for ya, but we agree too often. Scott's notions certainly fired up a lot of folks here. The attacks did likewise. What was lacking was brought about by various persons deciding that liberalism or conservatism was to blame.

Sorry t'hear y'ain't plannin' t'fly anytime soon, but I can say, firsthand, that the experience isn't the most fun. Between bein' searched 3 times each way on a trip (with all my bondage gear. Y'should've seen their faces...), and the spontaneous, undisclosed flight cancellations, it ain't the most fun. When y'do fly, brother, fly out here, and come visit our events. It'd be swell t'have you out here. I'll avoid gettin' swallowed by the earth until then. Thankfully, it ain't shook out here in a long stretch, and we don't have the storms, tornados, hurricanes, and other fun of the rest of the country. I'll take the occasional shake.

Don't sweat the call to voice by some of the other threads. Unless we break social statistics in an astounding manner, there aren't going to be a lot more voices until there's hundreds more registered. The percentages of those of us giving voice versus the total membership will likely remain as it is.

OTOH, now that I think about it, a set of buttons for when folks agree or disagree with a given post would be slick. You could see who contests ya silently, in addition to the visibly vocal folks.

Wait, wasn't this about Strel's swell concept of rules to use here? Are we all using them yet? No?

Damn.



dvnc

Right now, I can return to my posts and see which 6 or less members had anything to say in reply. I generally assume that the other 2194 members either didn't see it, or didn't care enough to reply.

I'm not sure what the yes/no buttons would buy us. OK, I would then see 3 responses agreeing, 3 disagreeing, plus 300 "yes" and 300 "no" buttons. I have no idea who the yes/no's are, or whether they have thought it over. They obviously won't have anything intelligent to add, or they would have taken the trouble to post a reply.

As to following the proposed rules, they're pretty much the same as what the mods were enforcing anyway. The worst offenders got booted (I even booted myself, you'll recall.) Over all, I think we're getting better at this.

Strelnikov