Bramble's post was right on and is the crux of the matter, the few posters who do this are showing signs of no restraint, we probably don't need more rules, just closer scrutiny on out of controll threads with more of us being watch dogs and reporting inappropriate comments.
I personally felt the need to vent about the flamebait poster's behavior after the Kristen Skegal "Losing the Way" thread. The thread really didn't involve a victim posting, it involved the majority of posters on that thread getting revulsed and moved by the actions of vpw as told by Kristin in her podcast with Paw and the flamebaiters.
Those here choosing up sides and rationalizing perceived behaviors can dialogue all they want, those of us who saw the degredation of that thread and the flamebaiting that went on know what it looks like and will report it when it happens again. Losing posting privileges has always been the consequence of flamebaiting and trolling.
Here's a current problem as I see it: What happens when someone shares a personal experience that VP had sex with them. Ok that is a fact and should be believed. Then someone else posts that vp is an s.o.b. a con artist and a rapist. Then I post "my opinion based on the facts of this experience is that a rape was not committed."
I can see this scenario happening and if my rebuttal is interpreted as an attack on the credibility of the teller of the story, I think we have a problem because where did I break the rules? I see it as a respectful disagreement as to the interpretation or meaning of the story that may differ from someone elses. So that's why I think we need the rules clarified.
When poster become frustrated and angry about what the other poster has written, words like
ATTACK and abused are used to describe the fight, it is like the child who says
BUT BUT he pulled my hair first... it can not end Untill ALL are aware of the consquences, and the one who is crying fowl is often times in the mix of having to be right so thick as a motive they can not see their own little slap within the discussion.
Some believe they are being attacked if the other disagrees with their position on a topic.
Everyone thinks what they say is right and will fight to the end to say it.
Some of these posters are entrenched just stuck and this is it for them the place to call it as they see it to be.
I guess the only answer is to decide well IM with THAT CAMP and get together to fight the enemy!
So the fighting is in the ranks itself.
yes it is just like twi.
VPW has been dead 25 years , i myself doubt the theory of the line of people waiting for grease spot to calm down with its in fighting to declare it a safe place to discuss the past.
my opinion. could be possible.
A seperate protected forum just for them without opposing views seems simple enough.
But to pick and chose who is using personal attacks who is "abusive" within the regular long time posters would eliminate nearly all of the most read posters on this site.
Oldies, maybe you shouldn't post that on the same thread, maybe it should be the start of new one, if the poster is saying they were victimized in some way, even if it was consentual sex, then you saying that would be harassing the victim and sort of insensitive of you....are you married? If so don't you tone it down a bit when speaking to women about subjects they deem sensitive? I'm sure I don't have to say this to you, you are a smart man, you can figure it out.
The only reason I can see you posting something like that in the above scenario, is if you really don't care.
Oldiesman, you don`t believe what you do is abusive according to the current rules....you have all of these logical arguments to sanction what you do. The bottom line is that what you and dove do, HURTS people...ok?
You guys offend people with your callousness.
Justify it, explain it, qualify it...but that is the direct result of your actions. This is a course that you and Dove have taken...so be it...but one I find unfathomable from someone whom wants to proclaim themselves a Christian.
Here's a current problem as I see it: What happens when someone shares a personal experience that VP had sex with them. Ok that is a fact and should be believed. Then someone else posts that vp is an s.o.b. a con artist and a rapist. Then I post "my opinion based on the facts of this experience is that a rape was not committed."
I can see this scenario happening and if my rebuttal is interpreted as an attack on the credibility of the teller of the story, I think we have a problem because where did I break the rules? I see it as a respectful disagreement as to the interpretation or meaning of the story that may differ from someone elses. So that's why I think we need the rules clarified.
I cannot believe we have to have a debate about the definition of the word rape.
Oldies, I think in such a situation you could hold your tongue out of respect for the person who told their story. Alternatively, if the person makiing the comment was not the person telling the story, you could take it up with them in PM. Another option, is to simply accept the fact that said person has a different definition of rape than you do and that you do not have to try to persuade them that their definition of rape is wrong. Finally, yet another option is to start a thread entitled "what is the definition of rape."
Here's a current problem as I see it: What happens when someone shares a personal experience that VP had sex with them. Ok that is a fact and should be believed. Then someone else posts that vp is an s.o.b. a con artist and a rapist. Then I post "my opinion based on the facts of this experience is that a rape was not committed."
In such a situation, politely state your opinion and step aside. There is no need to belabor the point. Belaboring the point is tantamount to calling the person a liar. It is very hurtful. Stop and ask yourself, "Is this how I would want someone to treat ME?"
Bramble's post was right on and is the crux of the matter, the few posters who do this are showing signs of no restraint, we probably don't need more rules, just closer scrutiny on out of controll threads with more of us being watch dogs and reporting inappropriate comments.
I personally felt the need to vent about the flamebait poster's behavior after the Kristen Skegal "Losing the Way" thread. The thread really didn't involve a victim posting, it involved the majority of posters on that thread getting revulsed and moved by the actions of vpw as told by Kristin in her podcast with Paw and the flamebaiters.
Those here choosing up sides and rationalizing perceived behaviors can dialog all they want, those of us who saw the degredation of that thread and the flamebaiting that went on know what it looks like and will report it when it happens again. Losing posting privileges has always been the consequence of flamebaiting and trolling.
You said "reporting inappropriate comments" Is this not a personal opinion a call based on how you feel about what the other poster said? something you disagree with.
In the rules it says disagree all you want... but do not make it personal..
the issue is some do not like how the other comments or disagrees with them and in their mind it is wrong.
it isnt wrong it is within the rules and guide lines.
I think some on this site want to say they want freedom of expression but only when it comes to their own opinions. and if a point is made that oposes their position then it is labeled and attack or abuse.
I disagree, I think the reason why we need rules or have the rules clarified is because of opinions that some conducts and behaviors are abusive. Speaking for myself, I don't believe my conduct or behavior is abusive according to the current rules. You are of course entitled to disagree, which is why I believe we need the rules clarified/updated so everyone knows what is allowed and what to expect.
Rules are NOT what determines whether your posts are abusive. YOU decide to do it on your own. Man up and STOP being abusive or leave.
Why do you want to stick around some place you are not welcome anyway?
Here's a current problem as I see it: What happens when someone shares a personal experience that VP had sex with them. Ok that is a fact and should be believed. Then someone else posts that vp is an s.o.b. a con artist and a rapist. Then I post "my opinion based on the facts of this experience is that a rape was not committed."
I can see this scenario happening and if my rebuttal is interpreted as an attack on the credibility of the teller of the story, I think we have a problem because where did I break the rules? I see it as a respectful disagreement as to the interpretation or meaning of the story that may differ from someone elses. So that's why I think we need the rules clarified.
Are you intentionally wanting people to believe you are dumber than rocks?
NO REBUTTAL can take place against a personal testimony, unless YOU HAVE PROOF the person is lying.
You use the word "rebuttal" as a way to MISCHARACTERIZE what you do. The entire act of challenging someone's personal testimony is abusive.
Stop or leave.
OM said:
Here's a current problem as I see it: What happens when someone shares a personal experience that VP had sex with them. Ok that is a fact and should be believed. Then someone else posts that vp is an s.o.b. a con artist and a rapist. Then I post "my opinion based on the facts of this experience is that a rape was not committed."
In such a situation, politely state your opinion and step aside. There is no need to belabor the point. Belaboring the point is tantamount to calling the person a liar. It is very hurtful. Stop and ask yourself, "Is this how I would want someone to treat ME?"
Waysider, you are being too polite in this post. The entire act of challenging a personal testimony is abusive. It MUST stop.
There is NO WAY oldies can have any kind of valid opinion about whether a rape was committed or not. He has NO facts on which to base such statements. He MUST stop.
It should NOT have to be a burden to pawtucket for this person to recognize his conduct is unacceptible.
I cannot believe we have to have a debate about the definition of the word rape.
We don't. It is completely UNacceptible for OM to even challenge someone's personal testimony of what happened.
It is NOT his place to characterize the conduct of either wierwille or the victim.
Oldiesman, you don`t believe what you do is abusive according to the current rules....you have all of these logical arguments to sanction what you do. The bottom line is that what you and dove do, HURTS people...ok?
You guys offend people with your callousness.
Justify it, explain it, qualify it...but that is the direct result of your actions. This is a course that you and Dove have taken...so be it...but one I find unfathomable from someone whom wants to proclaim themselves a Christian.
In their minds, they RATIONALIZE it. In their posts, they EUPHAMIZE it.
Rules are NOT what determines whether your posts are abusive. YOU decide to do it on your own. Man up and STOP being abusive or leave.
Why do you want to stick around some place you are not welcome anyway?
Are you intentionally wanting people to believe you are dumber than rocks?
NO REBUTTAL can take place against a personal testimony, unless YOU HAVE PROOF the person is lying.
You use the word "rebuttal" as a way to MISCHARACTERIZE what you do. The entire act of challenging someone's personal testimony is abusive.
Stop or leave.
Now IM in for it.
So Rocky is telling OM to leave if he doesnt like it here.
This is a personal attack.
do I care? Am I going to report it? NO and NO.
Rocky says "the enitre act of challenging someones personal testimony is abusive" and yet is that \EXACTLY what he is guilty of in this post towards OM?
BUT we like Rocky Rocky feels entitled and Rocky can keep pace with the number of posts he writes .
I see the problem do you.
no it isnt rockys or OM position it is how the posters relate and converse with each other here.
What would happen if a minority opinion TOLD a " victim" or somone relating their story to
Oldies, maybe you shouldn't post that on the same thread, maybe it should be the start of new one, if the poster is saying they were victimized in some way, even if it was consentual sex, then you saying that would be harassing the victim and sort of insensitive of you....are you married? If so don't you tone it down a bit when speaking to women about subjects they deem sensitive? I'm sure I don't have to say this to you, you are a smart man, you can figure it out.
The only reason I can see you posting something like that in the above scenario, is if you really don't care.
It's already apparent that he lacks the capacity to empathize.
What does the mental health community call someone incapable of empathy?
.
Rocky says "the enitre act of challenging someones personal testimony is abusive" and yet is that \EXACTLY what he is guilty of in this post towards OM?
No, actually, that's NOT what I'm doing to OM. OM is NOT giving his personal testimony of abuse in twi.
Dr. Rocky who is diagnosing, maybe it isnt lack of "empathy" maybe is the fact He doesnt agree with the testimony as being a true statement.
this is a public Internet forum where in anyone can write anything they chose, to assume everything written on a public internet forum with ZERO checks or balance is just silly and niave.
Maybe a new rule could be.
Believe all Sexual stories written within this forum without regard to the areana, and only use personal attacks and threats itowards those who question the integrity of an open public forum being used as a platform .
Dr. Rocky who is diagnosing, maybe it isnt lack of "empathy" maybe is the fact He doesnt agree with the testimony as being a true statement.
this is a public Internet forum where in anyone can write anything they chose, to assume everything written on a public internet forum with ZERO checks or balance is just silly and niave.
Maybe a new rule could be.
Believe all Sexual stories written within this forum without regard to the areana, and only use personal attacks and threats itowards those who question the integrity of an open public forum being used as a platform .
Nobody is demanding anyone believe anything.
However, there is NO legitimate use for "checks and balances" against personal testimony. NO one (meaningfully) can say "you are wrong" to someone who gives an account of what happened to herself.
Wierwille has NO rights here. He is dead and gone. Those who defend (his APOLOGISTS) him are NOT serving god, even though they might think they are.
You said "reporting inappropriate comments" Is this not a personal opinion a call based on how you feel about what the other poster said? something you disagree with.
In the rules it says disagree all you want... but do not make it personal..
the issue is some do not like how the other comments or disagrees with them and in their mind it is wrong.
it isnt wrong it is within the rules and guide lines.
I think some on this site want to say they want freedom of expression but only when it comes to their own opinions. and if a point is made that oposes their position then it is labeled and attack or abuse.
And it's not "personal" to run a victim through the ringer for posting her story?
It's VERY personal to her. It's her personal account for crying out loud! Consider that there is a right time and place for everything - and perhaps - just perhaps - your opinion of what she said needs to be put on hold.
It IS a personal attack when you are essentially accusing someone of lying. Now, debating the definition of the term rape is not a personal attack, but compassion and respect should probably mandate that it be done on a thread that is not discussing someone's personal experience of being raped.
And it's not "personal" to run a victim through the ringer for posting her story?
It's VERY personal to her. It's her personal account for crying out loud! Consider that there is a right time and place for everything - and perhaps - just perhaps - your opinion of what she said needs to be put on hold.
Geez!
Well that's why I suggested a separate category for victims to tell their stories of abuse and not have any possible varying contradictions/disruptions/interpretations/debates/interrogations, etc.
On a forum where all are welcome and debates are encouraged, I frankly don't see any other way around it.
You also could have the reverse. You could have a category for "pro-wierwille/twi rebuttals". Would that work?
It IS a personal attack when you are essentially accusing someone of lying. Now, debating the definition of the term rape is not a personal attack, but compassion and respect should probably mandate that it be done on a thread that is not discussing someone's personal experience of being raped.
I don't have a problem with that as long as it is understood by everyone that a response of this type is allowed and ok and not interpreted as an attack on anyone's character but simply a varying opinion. What's the sense of taking it to another place on the site if a contrary opinion about the meaning of an event is still regarded as "bad manners" "lack of empathy" and "inappropriate conduct" warranting suspension.
Well that's why I suggested a separate category for victims to tell their stories of abuse and not have any possible varying contradictions/disruptions/interpretations/debates/interrogations, etc.
On a forum where all are welcome and debates are encouraged, I frankly don't see any other way around it.
You also could have the reverse. You could have a category for "pro-wierwille/twi rebuttals". Would that work?
You may not have been able to say it better, but it clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what the issue really is.
Wierwille (only capitalized because it's the first word of my sentence) has NO rights.
His victims (even when SELF-identified) DO have rights.
Defending wierwille is a fool's mission.
It is completely unacceptable to challenge, in any way, a person giving her personal testimony of abuse from/by wierwille.
This is NOT an issue of agreement or disagreement.
One cannot (CANNOT) tell a person that she is wrong when she is giving her own testimony of what happened to her. Period. By definition, when OM or WD try to do so, THEY are the ones who are wrong.
It IS a personal attack when you are essentially accusing someone of lying. Now, debating the definition of the term rape is not a personal attack, but compassion and respect should probably mandate that it be done on a thread that is not discussing someone's personal experience of being raped.
Generally, by virtue of rules of rhetoric, I suppose debating the definition of the term "rape" is not a personal attack.
However, in the context of how it is used by OM, to challenge a person telling her own story, it IS indeed a personal attack.
Which, is what I believe Abi's point was.
I don't have a problem with that as long as it is understood by everyone that a response of this type is allowed and ok and not interpreted as an attack on anyone's character but simply a varying opinion. What's the sense of taking it to another place on the site if a contrary opinion about the meaning of an event is still regarded as "bad manners" "lack of empathy" and "inappropriate conduct" warranting suspension.
Right. Just don't do it. anywhere on the site.
You are STILL only RATIONALIZING AND EUPHAMIZING when you characterize your posts at issue as "a contrary opinion."
YOU cannot define a person telling her story as being WRONG. There is NO contrary opinion. You are ONLY defending a dead man, which is a fool's mission.
Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and interpretations of events about Wierwille or anyone else based upon the facts presented, even if it may contradict the victims feelings thoughts and opinions.
It appears all you want is group think.
I'll just morph my thoughts and feelings into yours and everything will be ok.
Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and interpretations of events about Wierwille or anyone else based upon the facts presented, even if it may contradict the victims feelings thoughts and opinions.
It appears all you want is group think.
I'll just morph my thoughts and feelings into yours and everything will be ok.
NO, that's NOT what anyone wants.
NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
It's your ACTIONS that are at issue.
Your conduct is inappropriate.
NOBODY cares what you believe.
This is NOT about beliefs. It is about what you DO.
Of course, you are entitled to your own beliefs and interpretations.
You are NOT entitled to express them in challenging a person giving her own testimony.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
16
12
16
Popular Days
Jul 11
68
Jul 12
40
Jul 10
26
Jul 15
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 17 posts
JustSayNO 16 posts
WhiteDove 12 posts
doojable 16 posts
Popular Days
Jul 11 2008
68 posts
Jul 12 2008
40 posts
Jul 10 2008
26 posts
Jul 15 2008
13 posts
now I see
Bramble's post was right on and is the crux of the matter, the few posters who do this are showing signs of no restraint, we probably don't need more rules, just closer scrutiny on out of controll threads with more of us being watch dogs and reporting inappropriate comments.
I personally felt the need to vent about the flamebait poster's behavior after the Kristen Skegal "Losing the Way" thread. The thread really didn't involve a victim posting, it involved the majority of posters on that thread getting revulsed and moved by the actions of vpw as told by Kristin in her podcast with Paw and the flamebaiters.
Those here choosing up sides and rationalizing perceived behaviors can dialogue all they want, those of us who saw the degredation of that thread and the flamebaiting that went on know what it looks like and will report it when it happens again. Losing posting privileges has always been the consequence of flamebaiting and trolling.
Edited by now I seeLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Here's a current problem as I see it: What happens when someone shares a personal experience that VP had sex with them. Ok that is a fact and should be believed. Then someone else posts that vp is an s.o.b. a con artist and a rapist. Then I post "my opinion based on the facts of this experience is that a rape was not committed."
I can see this scenario happening and if my rebuttal is interpreted as an attack on the credibility of the teller of the story, I think we have a problem because where did I break the rules? I see it as a respectful disagreement as to the interpretation or meaning of the story that may differ from someone elses. So that's why I think we need the rules clarified.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
When poster become frustrated and angry about what the other poster has written, words like
ATTACK and abused are used to describe the fight, it is like the child who says
BUT BUT he pulled my hair first... it can not end Untill ALL are aware of the consquences, and the one who is crying fowl is often times in the mix of having to be right so thick as a motive they can not see their own little slap within the discussion.
Some believe they are being attacked if the other disagrees with their position on a topic.
Everyone thinks what they say is right and will fight to the end to say it.
Some of these posters are entrenched just stuck and this is it for them the place to call it as they see it to be.
I guess the only answer is to decide well IM with THAT CAMP and get together to fight the enemy!
So the fighting is in the ranks itself.
yes it is just like twi.
VPW has been dead 25 years , i myself doubt the theory of the line of people waiting for grease spot to calm down with its in fighting to declare it a safe place to discuss the past.
my opinion. could be possible.
A seperate protected forum just for them without opposing views seems simple enough.
But to pick and chose who is using personal attacks who is "abusive" within the regular long time posters would eliminate nearly all of the most read posters on this site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Oldies, maybe you shouldn't post that on the same thread, maybe it should be the start of new one, if the poster is saying they were victimized in some way, even if it was consentual sex, then you saying that would be harassing the victim and sort of insensitive of you....are you married? If so don't you tone it down a bit when speaking to women about subjects they deem sensitive? I'm sure I don't have to say this to you, you are a smart man, you can figure it out.
The only reason I can see you posting something like that in the above scenario, is if you really don't care.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Oldiesman, you don`t believe what you do is abusive according to the current rules....you have all of these logical arguments to sanction what you do. The bottom line is that what you and dove do, HURTS people...ok?
You guys offend people with your callousness.
Justify it, explain it, qualify it...but that is the direct result of your actions. This is a course that you and Dove have taken...so be it...but one I find unfathomable from someone whom wants to proclaim themselves a Christian.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Oldies, I think in such a situation you could hold your tongue out of respect for the person who told their story. Alternatively, if the person makiing the comment was not the person telling the story, you could take it up with them in PM. Another option, is to simply accept the fact that said person has a different definition of rape than you do and that you do not have to try to persuade them that their definition of rape is wrong. Finally, yet another option is to start a thread entitled "what is the definition of rape."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
OM said:
Here's a current problem as I see it: What happens when someone shares a personal experience that VP had sex with them. Ok that is a fact and should be believed. Then someone else posts that vp is an s.o.b. a con artist and a rapist. Then I post "my opinion based on the facts of this experience is that a rape was not committed."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In such a situation, politely state your opinion and step aside. There is no need to belabor the point. Belaboring the point is tantamount to calling the person a liar. It is very hurtful. Stop and ask yourself, "Is this how I would want someone to treat ME?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
You said "reporting inappropriate comments" Is this not a personal opinion a call based on how you feel about what the other poster said? something you disagree with.
In the rules it says disagree all you want... but do not make it personal..
the issue is some do not like how the other comments or disagrees with them and in their mind it is wrong.
it isnt wrong it is within the rules and guide lines.
I think some on this site want to say they want freedom of expression but only when it comes to their own opinions. and if a point is made that oposes their position then it is labeled and attack or abuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Rules are NOT what determines whether your posts are abusive. YOU decide to do it on your own. Man up and STOP being abusive or leave.
Why do you want to stick around some place you are not welcome anyway?
Are you intentionally wanting people to believe you are dumber than rocks?
NO REBUTTAL can take place against a personal testimony, unless YOU HAVE PROOF the person is lying.
You use the word "rebuttal" as a way to MISCHARACTERIZE what you do. The entire act of challenging someone's personal testimony is abusive.
Stop or leave.
Waysider, you are being too polite in this post. The entire act of challenging a personal testimony is abusive. It MUST stop.
There is NO WAY oldies can have any kind of valid opinion about whether a rape was committed or not. He has NO facts on which to base such statements. He MUST stop.
It should NOT have to be a burden to pawtucket for this person to recognize his conduct is unacceptible.
We don't. It is completely UNacceptible for OM to even challenge someone's personal testimony of what happened.
It is NOT his place to characterize the conduct of either wierwille or the victim.
In their minds, they RATIONALIZE it. In their posts, they EUPHAMIZE it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Now IM in for it.
So Rocky is telling OM to leave if he doesnt like it here.
This is a personal attack.
do I care? Am I going to report it? NO and NO.
Rocky says "the enitre act of challenging someones personal testimony is abusive" and yet is that \EXACTLY what he is guilty of in this post towards OM?
BUT we like Rocky Rocky feels entitled and Rocky can keep pace with the number of posts he writes .
I see the problem do you.
no it isnt rockys or OM position it is how the posters relate and converse with each other here.
What would happen if a minority opinion TOLD a " victim" or somone relating their story to
"stop or leave" AS Rocky is demanding of OM?
I bet that little mod button would overflow then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It's already apparent that he lacks the capacity to empathize.
What does the mental health community call someone incapable of empathy?
No, actually, that's NOT what I'm doing to OM. OM is NOT giving his personal testimony of abuse in twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Dr. Rocky who is diagnosing, maybe it isnt lack of "empathy" maybe is the fact He doesnt agree with the testimony as being a true statement.
this is a public Internet forum where in anyone can write anything they chose, to assume everything written on a public internet forum with ZERO checks or balance is just silly and niave.
Maybe a new rule could be.
Believe all Sexual stories written within this forum without regard to the areana, and only use personal attacks and threats itowards those who question the integrity of an open public forum being used as a platform .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Nobody is demanding anyone believe anything.
However, there is NO legitimate use for "checks and balances" against personal testimony. NO one (meaningfully) can say "you are wrong" to someone who gives an account of what happened to herself.
Wierwille has NO rights here. He is dead and gone. Those who defend (his APOLOGISTS) him are NOT serving god, even though they might think they are.
However, wierwille's victims DO have rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Exactly!! Couldn't have said it better myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
And it's not "personal" to run a victim through the ringer for posting her story?
It's VERY personal to her. It's her personal account for crying out loud! Consider that there is a right time and place for everything - and perhaps - just perhaps - your opinion of what she said needs to be put on hold.
Geez!
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
It IS a personal attack when you are essentially accusing someone of lying. Now, debating the definition of the term rape is not a personal attack, but compassion and respect should probably mandate that it be done on a thread that is not discussing someone's personal experience of being raped.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Well that's why I suggested a separate category for victims to tell their stories of abuse and not have any possible varying contradictions/disruptions/interpretations/debates/interrogations, etc.
On a forum where all are welcome and debates are encouraged, I frankly don't see any other way around it.
You also could have the reverse. You could have a category for "pro-wierwille/twi rebuttals". Would that work?
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
What? Huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I don't have a problem with that as long as it is understood by everyone that a response of this type is allowed and ok and not interpreted as an attack on anyone's character but simply a varying opinion. What's the sense of taking it to another place on the site if a contrary opinion about the meaning of an event is still regarded as "bad manners" "lack of empathy" and "inappropriate conduct" warranting suspension.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
See, we are making progress :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I believe both of these suggestions were made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You may not have been able to say it better, but it clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what the issue really is.
Wierwille (only capitalized because it's the first word of my sentence) has NO rights.
His victims (even when SELF-identified) DO have rights.
Defending wierwille is a fool's mission.
It is completely unacceptable to challenge, in any way, a person giving her personal testimony of abuse from/by wierwille.
This is NOT an issue of agreement or disagreement.
One cannot (CANNOT) tell a person that she is wrong when she is giving her own testimony of what happened to her. Period. By definition, when OM or WD try to do so, THEY are the ones who are wrong.
Generally, by virtue of rules of rhetoric, I suppose debating the definition of the term "rape" is not a personal attack.
However, in the context of how it is used by OM, to challenge a person telling her own story, it IS indeed a personal attack.
Which, is what I believe Abi's point was.
Right. Just don't do it. anywhere on the site.
You are STILL only RATIONALIZING AND EUPHAMIZING when you characterize your posts at issue as "a contrary opinion."
YOU cannot define a person telling her story as being WRONG. There is NO contrary opinion. You are ONLY defending a dead man, which is a fool's mission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and interpretations of events about Wierwille or anyone else based upon the facts presented, even if it may contradict the victims feelings thoughts and opinions.
It appears all you want is group think.
I'll just morph my thoughts and feelings into yours and everything will be ok.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
There is NO rebuttal.
NO, that's NOT what anyone wants.
NOBODY cares what you BELIEVE.
It's your ACTIONS that are at issue.
Your conduct is inappropriate.
NOBODY cares what you believe.
This is NOT about beliefs. It is about what you DO.
Of course, you are entitled to your own beliefs and interpretations.
You are NOT entitled to express them in challenging a person giving her own testimony.
There is NO issue of "facts presented."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.