BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:20 PM

""there are some genuine idiots on here, who's intellectual prowess falls considerably short of making it very beyond preassigned 'talking points'."

Well thinking man, while you are at it give a bit of thought to the difference between "Who's (who is) and "Whose" (belonging to whom), then add some consideration for correct use of punctuation and your rubbish might become moderately comprehensible rubbish.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

"Respect Hitler,........Pol Pot,........Dr Mengele,.........Pinochet? It isn't just their actions and ideals I despise, it is very definitely the men themselves (using the word men very loosely).

Where is the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?"

Don T.....As a group facilitator/therapist, I found that to be a question that so frequently came up, and a great question!   The ability to feel some respect for people like that....people who's actions are so abhorrent that it seems almost impossible to find any humanity in them.

I spent much of my life as a therapist working with men in prisons who had committed some of the most sickening offences one could imagine.   I was able to do this work only as long as I was able to find some shred of humanity in each one of them.    For most of them this wasn't difficult at all, surprisingly.   For others?   

Well, let's just say that feeling respect for everybody isn't something for wusses. (And my inner 'wuss' comes out frequently).

But......I wonder if Hitler, Pol Pot, Mengele, and Pinochet would have turned out that way if they had been shown respect at an earlier time in their life?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:50 PM

Once again, SJL makes a great point, that others seem to miss. A LOT of it IS done in humor, AND at the same time, is meant to make some people THINK outside the box...and yes, there are some genuine idiots on here, who's intellectual prowess falls considerably short of making it very beyond preassigned 'talking points'...and then they expound on the 'talking points' as if they were issued as a revered science of fact!..when in all actuality, they are only propaganda, meant to distract from the main issues, and misinform, those who refuse to THINK!....and what is so wrong about calling that to attention, especially to those who believe they are so 'hip'? You'd THINK that somebody would research an opposing position, BEFORE spouting off the next preassigned 'tactic', by whatever political persuasion, they happen to shortsightedly subscribe to! You can pretty much bet on that if a political party is pushing and supporting it, they were paid by a corrupt lobbyist to do so!!..for their 'special interests' to profit from it!...but if they wrap it in a 'so-called liberal' or 'Conservative' banner, and wrapping paper, the idiots at large won't look any further as to the source or why.
There was a time when folk music and 'protest' seem to point the way..but those times have been long gone, since the 'protest movement' has been co-opted by the Democratic Party!..who at the time, was just another part of 'The Establishment' to whom we were all protesting!! As the way it is now, folk and protests is song are just assumed to be a part of the Democratic Party, even when the party is in bed with the very people who we were protesting!!!
The Democratic and Republican Parties, are no better than the 'Establishment' that were so block-headed in the mid 60's...but now that they issue neatly wrapped deceptive 'talking points', protest of their corruption is out the window!...and it really IS time for some group, whoever it may be, to foment a new dialogue, other than the pure horse-crap, being feed to eagerly hungry ears!..and that's what 'talking points' do, replace common sense, with off the track pandering, to those who THOUGHT themselves to be genuinely concerned about the status of what's really going on!..They, (with your gullibility), are making you totally irrelevant!...and then you bitch and whine because nobody is listening to you!..What did you expect?? Someone to marvel at your repeating a talking point, or expounding on it..when the whole premise is false from the beginning???
Some of you people are NOT inspiring people to THINK, but to fall into lone, and 'repeat', as if to re-confirm some sort allegiance to some cause, that has long ago been washed clean of anything of value!
Like I said, when I first came on here, about five years ago, or so, about turning people onto HOW to think, instead of WHAT to think. The latter, renders the 'believer' totally stupid and ignorant of what they are even talking about, and blind, as to any for-sight!..But that's OK..as long as we all belong to 'the club'.
You've GOT to be kidding me!
Sometimes it's refreshing to see an attempt at an 'original thought'...even some humor....but the antics of some of the diehard wannabe 'political activists', are as pathetic as going to a glorious funeral for a bad idea!

So, if you happen to THINK, beyond the 'talking point' mentality, congratulations!...it might just be a breath of fresh air!
..Besides, to all those who actually still write their own lyrics, a little THINKING, from a different angle, and a new twist of a phrase, might just be nourishment to your souls!
Meanwhile, the 'brain-locked' just can't get it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:40 PM

Don. Surely by the art of posting, we are all getting our crayons out and drawing the line? I keep alluding to the line for what good it does. There is an assumption in some threads that everybody may be similar to yourself on the basis of enjoying a type of music, the type of which causes the largest arguments here when defining it. Anyone who feels the threads above the line are less combative should search on "what is" or "1954." You haven't experienced ego issues till you wade in on that one. ..

SJL seems to enjoy parody. I think? I wonder what fun I could have with his or her initials? Might just keep my powder dry.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:30 PM

""I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!""

And there is the level of both logic and intellect which we are being asked to respect and which has recently closed a thread.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:25 PM

""Just because there is a part of everybody that is common to ourselves....and learning to respect that part can then enhance our own self-respect.""

Very pretty sentiment Larry, but how far do you carry it.

Respect Hitler,........Pol Pot,........Dr Mengele,.........Pinochet? It isn't just their actions and ideals I despise, it is very definitely the men themselves (using the word men very loosely).

Where is the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:19 PM

PISTOLS AT DAWN!...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Q8AqYLKro

Meeting on the field of honor...the final solution. ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:14 PM

""I advocate debating the disagreement and lay of the name-calling and labelling.""

After you Keith!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:08 PM

""How odd. I don't recall being asked... "All agreed"?""

Me too neither! As a cop out from answering the question, it has a certain weak efficacy.

""As I said earlier there are quite a few valid arguments against the redefinition of marriage.""

There are certainly a few arguments which are valid in your opinion Ake, but that isn't quite in sync with the rest of your staunch declarations that you only object to the establishment of long term stable relationships because of the health risks which they would undoubtedly reduce.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:05 PM

I've noticed a regular pattern with many posters on Mudcat where they first insult their opponent and then follow up with two or three very articulate paragraphs stating their viewpoint very intelligently. It's something where you could just clip the preliminary insult right off the top without blunting the actual rebuttal. But I have also found humor in some of this insulting language, usually it wouldn't be something like "stupid idiot" or "liar" or what have you, but in the mocking of another poster's screen name. For example Musket is easily transformed into Muskrat. Because of the way he makes variations on his own handle regularly, what a treasure trove that could be - "Muskrat sans Clue" etc. And when Spaw told us we should all go fuck ourselves, I couldn't help myself, I just howled. At the beginning of this thread, when all the offenders burst forth to accuse one another at once, very comical. Joe's response to that, even more comical. Then you have people like Lighter who can land a zinger that comes across more as uncanny wit than any sort of nastiness. So the idea of setting boundaries comes with a certain amount of ambivalence. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy some of it. Also, I think for some it is a like a breather from polite society where you must constantly mince words so I suppose that if someone must out with it, I'd rather have that than have them disappear.

And thank you Akenaton for your kind remarks about my aunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:53 PM

The only point I can see in Guest from Sanity's post is that there are some people who he doesn't agree with, and this colours how he reacts to them. I think.

I assume that for all of us our "agenda" will determine what we see as "contemptible, odious or unreasonable".   How we behave towards people who we see as holding such views is quite another matter.

Goofus? That's a kind of saxophone isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:45 PM

Yeah but Goofus snd the good professor have form. They converse a lot on Mudcat.

The good professor (real name Rio the greyhound) latches onto Goofus because he talks the bollocks the good professor misses since the vet took them away.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:38 PM

I admit I laughed when i read the good professor's post. I understood it.....it reflected my own thoughts about the previous post.

But then......what if he had done that to one of my posts?   hmmmm........    I probably wouldn't have understood it at all, until I took a 'step back'.   But stepping back is scary when you fear you are on the edge of a cliff.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM

"...a lot of mental cripples hide behind a 'political' cause, dragging people with them.....and, as a 'sweet loving guy', I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!"

Oh, yeah. Lots of respect there. (I believe it is called 'flailing'.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:19 PM

Wishing to restrict people for no other reason than the gender of their partner is a political view. A view with chilling precedent but a political view.

I doubt my pointing it out is itself a political view. After all, it isn't on the same level. I don't wish to restrict free speech but I sure will point out when it ironically limits the free choice of others. When it is backed up by misrepresentation of the facts it needs challenging regardless of how odious it is.




Goofus. The good professor made a relevant point. He replied at the same level as your observations. Your inability to understand his point is the point. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:12 PM

I think these 'fringe disabilities' go through a cycle.   First they're ignored (judged by those who don't understand as being a character flaw), then they're noticed and considered a disability and drug companies come up with strategies to make themselves money and supposedly 'able' those who are judged as 'disabled'.

Then, eventually, we start to recognize that some of those with those seeming disabilities have more abilities then the rest of us.   People with ADHD, Aspergers, other forms of Autism, etc. find ways of accepting and embracing their uniqueness.

And I see much of that same process within mudcat.   How many mudcatters are out there for whom we shift back and forth between contempt and admiration (I know I do)?

Putting people in a category is something we do for ourselves.....to simplify our lives a bit.   But who in their right mind takes these categories or labels seriously?   

There are even times when I am able to transcend my own 'self-righteous prig' category.   

Not too often, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:49 PM

The point I was referring to Mr McGrath, was about people who's agenda determines what is contemptible, odious or unreasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:41 PM

While in our country HIV is more prevalent amoung gay males there are no grounds for seeing that as fixed. It certainly isn't the case in some parts of the world. The only sections of society that can feel really secure are lesbians, celibates and uninfected people in rigorously faithful relationshipa. Some kind of routine testing of everyone else makes a lot of sense. (And all those three exceptions are in fact potentiably permeable categories.)

I'm not at all clear what Guest from Sanity's point actually is. However the use of 'cripples' as an insult makes me doubtful whether that signing off '"Repectfully' can be given too much credence.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:12 PM

Guest from Sanity makes a very good point and Ian demonstrates why this thread is necessary.
Ian and Steve have political positions and anything which runs contrary to these positions is deemed "unreasonable", "odious" or "contemptible"

Who makes the decision on what is "reasonable" or not?
Regarding the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease amongst male homosexuals, is it not "reasonable" to want that epidemic curtailed or stopped?
Despite what Ian waffles about, the rates of disease are rising steadily and quickly in that one demographic....Ian and Steve both say that homosexuals need more education, less discrimination and stigma.....well that is what they have been getting for the last decade, with NO positive results. Additionally almost all of the aids budget has been directed towards homosexuals, with absolutely no improvement in their infection rates. To me THIS position is totally unreasonable.
They say I am contemptible for suggesting compulsory testing and contact tracing, yet the health agencies are asking for routine testing of all NHS patients within designated areas.....even people from groups which are hardly affected at all by HIV/AIDS.
They know prfectly well the demographic in which the epidemic is centred, yet political correctness demands that all should be tested in designated areas.......Is that "reasonable"?
I write here with the best of intentions regarding health..this is a very serious problem, ignored by many here, and willfully distorted by a few......Dont lecture me about my views, I want to see disease beaten, not turn my back and pretend progress is being made....it isn't.....just read between the lines of the CDC and HPA conclusions for proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:08 PM

' The good professor, Constructive discussion, I see....
..and then you 'blame me'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,The good professor
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 12:55 PM

Woof! Grrrrr. Woof!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 12:02 PM

Corrected typo..this one is correct..

The thing that gets heated discussions really going, is when some 'wannabe relevant activists' starts ennobling, some fringe disability, and/or character flaw in which to hide their guilt about a troubled past..and launder it out in the latest 'political cause d'jour'.
Frankly, "We can forgive those that bore us..we can never forgive those that WE bore." ..and until those 'activists' get their 'absolution', they just get nastier, and nastier...even making stuff up, to get nasty about!..but the fact is, they are both in error, and boring.
I've warned a couple of them, that if you shove me, I'll shove back...and the reason is, a lot of mental cripples hide behind a 'political' cause, dragging people with them.....and, as a 'sweet loving guy', I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!

Respectfully,

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 11:58 AM

The thing that gets heated discussions really going, is when some 'wannabe relevant activists' starts ennobling, some fringe disability, and/or character flaw in which to hide their guilt about a troubled past..and launder it out in the latest 'political cause d'jour'.
Frankly, "We can forgive those that bore us..we can never forgive those that WE bore." ..and until those 'activists' get their 'absolution', they just get nastier, and nastier...even making stuff up, to get nasty about!..but the fact is, they are both in error, and boring.
I've warned a couple of them, that if you shove me, I'll shove back...and the reason is, a lot of metal cripples hide behind a 'political' cause, dragging people with them.....and as a 'sweet loving guy', I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!

Respectfully,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 11:47 AM

"it is a tired but still true saw that respect must be earned and is not an automatic "right"." ((Richard Bridge).

"while it may be true that someone has to earn respect in order for us to feel respect, in all circumstances we have a duty to act with respect towards them."(McGrath).


Where is it written down in any kind of 'law' that respect must be earned?

Personally, I'd take McGrath's point a step further and say that while feeling respect may not be a 'duty', it's an excellent goal to be able to feel respect for everybody without them having to earn it.   Just because there is a part of everybody that is common to ourselves....and learning to respect that part can then enhance our own self-respect.

Think how the world situation would change if all of us decided to focus on the respect we had for each other.   (which doesn't mean, of course, that we have to agree with them or let them get away with doing things that are harmful).


Here's how I think of it in terms of self-respect. There are things about myself I don't like and want to change. But how can I change them if I don't 'know' what they are.   And how can you really know these things unless I fully understand and embrace it.   

It's this kind of deep understanding and acceptance about myself that allows me to make those important shifts.

And why shouldn't this apply to others as well? If I can turn my abhorence of something or someone into a 'curiosity', I'll come to a much deeper understanding......and I think that's an important step toward facilitating a shift.

So I don't just want to behave with respect (although I think that's a good start). But I want to eventually be able to feel that respect as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 10:55 AM

You don't respect the views, fine. You look down on anyone who can hold such views, reasonable. But regardless of that, in my view, there is a duty to behave towards the person, as reflected in any communication with them, respectfully, which overides such feelings. Feelings just don't come into it.

I recognise that this is not how we are likely to behave, but I believe it is the standard towards which we should aim.

The trouble is, online abuse, however justiafied it can sometimes feel, is something which can easily build into something pretty damaging. I think there are rare occasions when it can indeed have a place, but they are as rare as the situations when a blow to the face is the right response.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:49 AM

The Earth is around 6000 years old, all so-called fossil evidence is fake, radio-isotope dating methods are all a big con, Darwin was deluded (even though I've never read his book), all evolutionary biologists are dishonest and in denial of the real truth which is that God created the world and everything in it in one big go, and the Bible is the literal truth. I'm so certain of all this that I support organisations that aggressively promote it, try to abolish the teaching of evolution in schools and diss honest scientists at every turn. In fact, we've been so successful so far that four yanks in ten don't believe in evolution. Adelante! And don't expect me to listen to counter-arguments - my ears are sealed!

Chaps and chapesses, we've all seen this attitude displayed here. So do tell me. What respect do I owe this fellow? What respect has he shown to scientists and educators, and to the unfortunate intended recipients of his nonsense? If his ilk get their way, and millions of children are persuaded of this stuff, is that not abuse? A pack of lies sold as truth? So I'm supposed to be nice to him, to reason with him? We have a chap here who does just that and he's made precisely nil progress with him, and never will. Next suggestion, please!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:10 AM

I agree McG.

Another problem is assumptions.
"If you hold this view, you must also hold these loathsome views too."

I advocate debating the disagreement and lay of the name-calling and labelling.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:58 AM

There's an ambiguity in the word respect. How I'd put it is that while it may be true that someone has to earn respect in order for us to feel respect, in all circumstances we have a duty to act with respect towards them.

Feeling respect towards someone is not the same thing as treating them, including addressing them with respect.

The term "reasonable views" is unfortunate here. Whether views are reasonable or not is a separate matter. We may not respect views which. Are unreasonable, but we houkd still treat the person expressing them with respect, even if we do not feel respect towards them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:57 AM

No-one perceives their post to be unreasonable.
If I find a post unreasonable, I will argue against it.
I will say how and why I disagree.

I think that is more conducive to some mutual understanding than slapping on a derogatory label and walking away.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:54 AM

There is the crux of the matter, ake

express reasonable views

Who decides what is reasonable. I, for one, am quite happy to accept what society tells me is reasonable. It is reasonable to enjoy some types of music over other. It is reasonable to express your disgust about how people in power act. It is reasonable to be against the policies of oppressive regimes. It is NOT reasonable to force minorities to undergo intrusive medical procedures. It is not reasonable to differentiate people by colour, creed or sexuality. It is not reasonable to try to force your views on others.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket being obvious
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:36 AM

Try expressing some reasonable views then, and see what happens.

You may be surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM

Still disagree. First, it is a tired but still true saw that respect must be earned and is not an automatic "right". Secondly posters of loathsome views must expect to be called on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:14 AM

We would all do well to go back and re-read the obviously heartfelt post by GUEST SJL, concerning her relationship with her aunt and the wisdom contained within.
It would solve many problems for those who find themselves in an ideological straitjacket.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:05 AM

I think what Ian a Steve need to understand, is there are hundreds of people in this forum, many do not take part in the discussions, but are happy to read and feel part of the on line community.
It is not all about THEM and what they can tolerate.

Folk should be able to come on here and express reasonable views without being immediately attacked in an aggressive and personal manner.

None of the issues we have been discussing are simple, but some people will condone nothing but their view of the world to be expressed. It is disingenuous to promote the idea that these issues can be solved by adhering to simplistic ideology.
Open and frank discussion of the subjects is what is needed....not an "odium barrier".....that does deserve to remain in the armoury of the facsists.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 01:08 AM

Respect is a two way street. Just because you are not the subject of disrespectful views does not mean you need to respect them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:33 PM

I'm with McGrath (for what it's worth).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 08:21 PM

I'd disagree. The fact that we see someone's position as "uninformed, obnoxious, insulting, prejudiced and misrepresenting" are reasons we are likely to regard the views as intolerable. Clearly we do not respect the views, but that does not require that we treat the person holding them without respect. We may at the same time despise them for holding them, but that is another matter.

It occurs to me that some people may feel that to treat someone with respect while despising them is somehow dishonest or inauthentic. That is not a view I hold, but perhaps it might be worth considering.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM

That is far too simplisitic. "Intolerable" (according to my point of view) and "uninformed, obnoxious, insulting, prejudiced and misrepresenting" are entirely different matters. Entirely. The distinction is well worth learning.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 07:25 PM

We've had lots of threads about the issues that have flared up in this thread, and generally they have spun down into shouting matches between a couple of people, while other contributors have slipped away.

The fact that the focus of this thread is on "respectful boundaries" has seemed to (largely) prevent that. I think there are still some aspects of that which could be usefully explored, and perhaps throw up some ideas for dealing with the discussion of those specific issues of controversy and similar hot potatoes, when they come up in other threads.

The thing that seems to cause difficulty for some is a sense that when faced with views they find intolerable, it is necessary to express this in language that conveys contempt and a wish to offend, and that it impossible to reconcile that with maintaining the forms of courtesy. I'd argue that that is is not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 07:15 PM

Don, I wasn't ignoring you, but I thought we had all agreed to leave specific issues out of this thread from now on?

How odd. I don't recall being asked... "All agreed"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 06:25 PM

Mc Grath, thank you for your exceptional wisdom. A discussion does not have to revolve around polemics. In fact, it's better if it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Larry the Radio Guy
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:09 PM

What I'm enjoying about this thread is that as we 'drift', we keep coming back to thinking about boundaries. I don't have a huge problem w. the violation of boundaries---it's a normal part of the human condition, particularly since 'boundaries' by definition are flexible and easily penetrated.

All we can do is state our own boundaries and call people on it when you feel they are violating them (whether it's through polite and seemingly reasonable conversation that expresses opinions that we feel disrespect certain people (violating their boundaries) or whether it's a violation of 'style'..i.e. swearing, calling people names, adults acting like 6 year olds, etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:03 PM

"There must be an argument somewhere"

I get a feeling that that is rather what is wanted by some...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 02:18 PM

So we have this thread, which seems to be completely unobjectionable. People would be stumbling all over themselves to vie with each other in agreeing with the premise.

I figure they could take care of that in , say, 50 postings.

But all of a sudden, it's over 300 postings.

What? I say.   There must be an argument somewhere.

Bingo.

Situation normal.

The best things in life don't change.    Dewar's whiskey (I think it was) and Mudcat arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket on train from test match
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:56 PM

Nobody agreed to save you your embarrassment. In fact Steve Shaw said as much and I totally ignored your request as it is not in the gift of those posting hitherto to say what comes next.

Are you going to answer the points raised by others, not, you will notice just me? Will you ignore difficult questions or take this opportunity to see reason and like many of us, allow your outlook to be influenced by others on the forum?

Your move.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:36 PM

...oh, and in keeping with the spirit of the thread.

Fuck you

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:31 PM

300 :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:25 PM

I suppose everyone is in one sense a minority of one, potentially subject to hate and rejection by others.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 12:31 PM

Don, I wasn't ignoring you, but I thought we had all agreed to leave specific issues out of this thread from now on?
I'm always happy to debate, as long as the debate is honest and civil.
As I said earlier there are quite a few valid arguments against the redefinition of marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:51 AM

Oh, congratulations, Wannabee Pharaoh, you've just proved you don't won't or can't read.