Welcome to Gaia! ::

I love you too. I love you more.

Heh. I was originally only quoting this so that I could break it into paragraphs and understand it (my brain will only process so much text at a time, so paragraphs are my friend *wink*) but I felt the need to reply after reading it.
I agree. When someone refuses to be civil about this debate, when someone insist on using offensive terms to refer to people on the "other side" they are basically stating that they are not going to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with them (and sometimes not even then).
Well, I say how I feel about the terms used. And I give my reasons why I feel they are being needlessly offensive, and how that looks to people on the "other side" of the debate (as well as to people, like me, on "their side"). But I try not to blow up at them, because they are often already angry, and my anger would just make things worse.
I disagree. While some members of the Pro-Choice Gaians' Guild might believe that all Pro-Lifers are evil (though I hope they don't), I don't think that most Pro-Choicers believe this. I mean, I sure don't (and I'm still a Pro-Choicer). And I never did, even before I got to know (and better understand) all of the people in this Guild.
Wait...they believe that Pro-Choicers are wrong? That's what I thought you meant at first. But now I wonder if you mean that Pro-Lifers think that Pro-Lifers are wrong? (Which obviously isn't the case, otherwise they wouldn't be Pro-Lifers, now would they? *grin*)
Are you talking about things we've talked about in here (the SubForum), which is a place for discussion between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice persons, and viewpoints?
Personally, I disagree. If someone doesn't act like the bigger person, then all one has is two (or more) people quipping and flinging emotions and insults (and sometimes poo *laughs* not really) at each other.

Emotionally insecure people need someone to demonize. Showing people that it's possible to move past that and actually try to accomplish something, I feel, is very important. It is possible to actually debate things, not insult people, and even find some compromises (like that better Sex Ed should be taught, not Abstinence Only - and that conditions should be better for pregnant women).
Good Karma points, maybe. Anyway, obviously their parent(s) and/or social worker(s) didn't teach them how to interact with people. It's always possible that seeing me being civil to people on both "sides" of the issue might allow something to click in their brain and they will understand that even when they don't agree with someone, they don't have to insult them or think of them as less than human.

Not to mention, if someone baits you into not being civil, then they've won. If I get angry enough to name-call someone back (and I almost did, in this case on another forum - though I left and ranted here instead) then I would be dropping down to their level. All that happens when two people start insulting one another, is that both will probably be reported for flaming, and that it is certain that no actual debating will be going on.

Also, managing to remain civil against someone who can only insult, both makes them really angry (which amuses me) and shows that one is winning. At least, under normal debate conditions.

I guess I don't buy into the idea that "they've won, if you respond in kind". I think of it as a car. What do they tell you in Driver's Ed? If your car starts to skid, turn into the skid. To regain control.

When I was duking it out in the Abortion Thread, I called this one girl "damaged goods" and alluded to several others. Here's why: if I say "y'know, I don't like the idea of abortion because pregnancy is easily avoidable if you double-down on the birth control and condom use, and/or abstain from sex" and someone else says I'm full of s**t for thinking that way, I'm going to ask some questions. If your stance -- since mine is apparently bullshit -- goes, "I'm pro-choice AND I abhor the idea of pregnancy, I abhor the idea of motherhood, I don't ever want kids, I don't want to be pregnant, the idea sickens me that anybody would be staunchly against women aborting their unborn children", then when I ask, "hmm, have you suffered from sexual or domestic abuse or anything like that?" and they go, "yeah, so what?" Uhhh, yeeeeah.

"Damaged goods" may not have sounded "nice", but how I would know to ask that? And by the way? I've not been wrong once. Every girl I either outright asked or even assumed has admitted to being the victim of some kind of abuse or neglect. Then when I tried to suggest, hey, maybe this bad thing that happened to you is some, if not all, of the reason you feel the way you do about this debate, they got all pissed off and tried to make it seem like I'm the bad guy. They weren't listening, so why be nice?

The pro-choice advocates I've seen both here and elsewhere seem to be under the impression that pro-lifers are mean or evil or anti-woman. All those don't have anything to do with our argument and EVERYTHING to do with who we are as people.

Aww, no one loves me?


Anyways, I agree with Watersmoon. It best to try and be the better person or all you would do is agrue and you'll never get anywhere.

Yes I know it's hard and we all make mistakes,espeacially when your angry or the other person is insulting you;but insulting them make is just making you as bad as them and it won't help anyone.

I know for a fact when agruing back at them and insulting them only made things worse and not better and it didn't help either sides.

Best to give out real facts then your opinons in a respectful mannor, answear questions if someone ask (or ask questions if you have any) and just leave at that. That is how a real debate is suppost to work.

If by "re-think their position" you mean "report your post" then you are right.

I love you Sachiko!

And I agree with Waters.

When you see one person throwing a tantrum like a child and one person being an adult, who looks like he/she has stronger grounds? Resorting to the same tactics makes your own argument look just as emotionally-based...making it seem weak.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorists, but that's what overly emotional, unstable people who throw temper tantrums want you to think. The truth is, that's all they know. Your composed demeanor isn't going to do anything but come off like you didn't care anyway, or you're afraid to debate them. It's just like when some of those people in ADT were like, "uch! At least Texas Gypsy and kc is dcvi were nice and respectful!" Oh please. I could be wrong, but both of them were sick and tired of your asses, too. I just gave them a piece of my mind BEFORE leaving.

Neither, really. It's to discuss views, and why they feel that way, and to explain my views, and why I feel that way. Most arguments I get into I don't intend on fighting it out. Discussion =/= debate. I also don't go in to referee and police people's views. That's a common disposition. I don't go in to basically say, "uh, appeal to tradition, two minutes in the penalty box!" or "you're gonna have to pay a hefty fine for that ad hominem, young lady". That's ridiculous, but a lot of people have that attitude.