Flex your debating skills on more serious topics such as world politics, history, religion, racial issues etc. Keep it friendly though!

Interested in discussing your political or religious views? Then this is the forum for you. Civility, respect and tolerance must be maintained at all times. Disagree if you wish, but do not attack other individuals on the basis of their beliefs. Remember there is no right or wrong opinion. Any deletion of combative, bigoted or insensitive comments should not be construed as denial of your individual right to air your own opinion ; we only attempt to maintain an inclusive forum. Above all: KEEP IT FRIENDLY!

Dude, like that eliminates 75% of the posts!

Those are new You just eliminated 90% of the Pee & Ahhr posters

AWESOME!

sosgemini said:

i'm not sure i get it. is debating still part of the forum, or not?
it seems problematic because the very substance of many people's beliefs is to believe that others are wrong, or less than...

so are they not to be allowed to have such beliefs, express them, and argue for them on this forum anymore? admittedly, such beliefs might not be seen as friendly, but they can be discussed and debated in a friendly reasoned manner. or is even this not to be allowed anymore?

can't i set out to 'prove' that bush, for example, lied about something by quoting other things he said, or exposing other things he did, as a matter of record?..or am i confined to expressing mere opinion, and cloaking every statement and everything as such?

POOK said:

you can say that again.
very well articulated POOK.

sosgemini said:

but sometimes an opinion IS wrong.

SassyBritches said:

OK THEN WHO OPINION RIGHT?

IT BETTER TO BAN ALL ATTACK THAN ALL OPINION

i think you guys are misunderstanding. disagreeing isn't wrong. attacking on the basis of those disagreements is. i haven't seen too many attacking, but there are some, and you can't deny that.

i think (IMO) that everyone who has posted above is in the category of NOT attacking, so i don't think you have anything to worry about.

in fact, the ones who have posted above have been involved in some of the better debates/discussions i've been in!

POOK said:

no..you can still talk about jesus.....what you cant do is use jesus' name to tell everyone they are wrong.....

HiinEnkelte said:

please dont get too caught up in specifics folks.....yes you can debate your beliefs if its done in a friendly fashion....its the compative "soap-box" matches that are being discouraged...

sosgemini said:

But what am I supposed to do with my lifetime supply of Srub-u-Sinless soap containers?

It's called Metaflaming


You have a discussion with somebody about which fiscal policy is correct and then it degrades to "well, you liberals just want to blah blah blah" or "anything you tell me will be ignored because I know you're just trying to advance the gay agenda" or "all you republicans can just go to hell"


It'll make sense after a while and a few warnings

SassyBritches said:

It's just about Respect & love4oneanother, that's all!
There's no need to personally attack someone that you do not agree with.

Just use a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T!

fantasyislander said:

i FINALLY made a list! how cool is THAT?!





















that was a list of some sort, wasn't it?!

fyi: i think im getting orgpops..but i have a new yahoo browser that kills any pop-ups...

sowwy if anyone is trying to bitch at me for the changes via pops..

irresistibleb1tch said:

yes, that was my (partial) list.

remember? us tall girls got to stick together!

The first thing I thought was that we should separate politics and religion. Political debate is often not that nice and takes a somewhat thicker skin. That's why you have shows called "Crossfire".

Personal attacks should be avoided but sometimes the personalities are an issue and there is some friction. I hope The Org doesn't think discussing politics can be like Julie Andrews having tea with Carrol Channing.

sosgemini said:

Might as well ban all christianity.

Aerogram said:

WELL NOW!

GOOD TO SEE WE ALL TOLERANT

Aerogram said:

not at all.....i too see the difference between politics and religion.....this is all just a wonderful work in progress....

sosgemini said:

Well I must say that I would like to express my total disapproval of this thread, things like this should not be tolerated.

petski said:

sosgemini said:

but why should there be a difference?
one's beliefs are just as valid as an atheist or political enthusiast, or as a republican, or green party member.
why should the atheist get less respect, or be more open to attack on beliefs, than a theist?

HiinEnkelte said:

its not a matter of beliefs...people can debate welfare reform and not take the issue personal because its removed from the invididuals fundamental belief system...

yet when you start nitpicking at someones religious convictions its attacking the thing that helps guide them through life....

and you know what, if someone says, "you are an idiot for believing the democractic platform" well, yeah...we will delete that comment....and thats why we arent going to allow those types of religious posts/threads to flourish here...not anymore...sorry!!

sosgemini said:

Political debate without a measure of aggressivity is like sex without an erection.
[This message was edited Fri Jul 16 16:06:57 2004 by Aerogram]

sosgemini said:

no one is asking, and especially not me, that you allow these kinds of comments ("you are an idiot!") to flourish.

but i have have seen many a comment and post go 'bye-bye' for less than this, for other than this, for simply DEBATING. i don't see what is new in these rules. NAME-CALLING was always forbidden.
what exactly is the new rules? that's what i'm asking. what is the new addition, or amendment?

and why would you say that welfare reform is not an issue close to anyone's heart, or intimitely tied into the world-view and beliefs?
cocaine might "help guide me through life."
So now there has to be eternal reverence for cocaine by all?!
i can't talk about the harm that I BELIEVE it is doing, if i do so rationally?
and what then guides the atheist through life, i might ask, if you are going to create that distinction that you do?
what sort of things are you implying about morals, values, and beliefs, for the atheist?
there belief system doesn't also guide them through life?
they aren't allowed to feel deeply and passionately about welfare reform?
why and how does someone get to characterize someone's position in a debate as 'nitpicking'?
lots of debates pick out the little things. that's how they work, and that's how they make a difference.
For instance: the translation of a word.
are we no longer allowed to press for clarity and truth with regard to language and translations?

is the word 'dog' a better translation of the word 'hund' in German,
or is the word 'mutt' OR 'wolf' better?
i think i KNOW the answer, i think there IS an answer, and i think it CAN be 'debated'.
i don't think it is merely opinion.
do you?

so are we still allowed the freedom to pursue such matters into truth and understanding?
and to do so persistently?