|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:01 pm
I'm all for educating. I hate the idea of not being able to choose.
But, I simply cannot bring myself to add to the problem in the abortion debate thread, and the guild I'd probably forget about (I honestly check my guilds about twice a week.)
I don't want to go up to someone and say, "HAY LETZ DEBATE ON ABORTION!" I'm non-confrontational that way.
True, many pro-life posts are post-and-runs, but honestly, that's OUR FAULT.
It's not that they're overwhelmed by the post CONTENT in the replies to them; they're overwhelmed by the sheer NUMBERS.
I'm sorry if anyone is offended, but seriously. It's ridiculous. It'd made me hate debating because I watch these poor people trying to respond to everyone, or face the wrath of people accusing them of skirting around answering their usually very good points. I've participated in it. But it makes me sick, it's no longer a debate.
It's a mob, and those that oppose it are buried underneath the uproars, and then hit when they don't reply to everyone individually.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:38 pm
Chickabiddy But, I simply cannot bring myself to add to the problem in the abortion debate thread That's fine. There are plenty of us who don't go into the abortion thread often because the sheer number of responces can be redundant. Chickabiddy True, many pro-life posts are post-and-runs, but honestly, that's OUR FAULT. Bullshit. If I go and make a thread called "Blacks are all thieves and borderline retarded" and went on to put as proof statistics showing higher dropout rates and criminal history rates among non-white people, I would get instantly bombarded by a lot of people telling me how extremely wrong I am. Does that make it THEIR fault for bombarding me? No. It's as much my fault for using statistics that do not in any way prove my point to further a racist argument. Sure, it'd be nice if everyone were all happy happy fun land and held hands and sang kumbaya. But just because I do not do that when people ADVOCATE THE TAKING AWAY OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS does not make it "my fault" that they are post-and-runs. Chickabiddy It's not that they're overwhelmed by the post CONTENT in the replies to them; they're overwhelmed by the sheer NUMBERS. So what? We should stand down? We should stop responding to people spouting ignorance and hatred towards us just because someone else might want to debate with them? What if *I* have an argument and *I* want to debate with them? Am I supposed to seek some sort of approval before doing so? Perhaps, if you would be willing to be online 24/7 and act as some sort of triage officer... Chickabiddy I watch these poor people trying to respond to everyone I hope that you are keeping in mind that these "poor people" think that it's ok to remove certain people's human rights based on their reproductive status. No, sorry. You'll get no pity from me. Once the "other side's" argument isn't that I should be considered less than human just because I was born with the wrong set of genitals, then I might be moved to treat them with more respect and curtesy. Chickabiddy It's a mob, and those that oppose it are buried underneath the uproars, and then hit when they don't reply to everyone individually. You have yet to offer a better solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:39 pm
petit_diable Kukushka Chickabiddy I personally would love to debate with someone. However, I CAN'T in the thread because we're scaring off lifers. There are debates in the thread. However, if it is that much of an issue, why not join the abortion debate guild? Or pick one who posts or from the pro-life guild and ask if they would like to debate with you via PM where they are guaranteed not to be swarmed? She's not saying that she won't/can't do that. She's just saying that she feels she can't do it in the official abortion thread. Actually she can. No one's stopping her. I don't reply to every post I see in there, simply because most of the time, people have already said what I was going too. Look at the time stamps. Most of the time, we post within minutes of each other. It can not be helped. We can't regulate when people get on the internet, or when they post. It's not our fault that they don't have anything to debate short of "I think so because my religion/parents/poor sexual education says so!" ********. They should grow a back bone or stfu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:21 pm
Fine. Keep mobbing, keep scaring, keep disrespecting.
I simply won't add to the problem and hope that someone on the other side takes a stand. No one deserves such a one-sided and unfair debate, and I see that. Being blinded by dislike for the other side to the point that you can't even respect the people is a bad habit to get into when debating.
And that's why I stopped. I'd likely get carried away and stop seeing the opposition as people and only as their opinions, and keep adding to the issue of mobbing.
I was hoping at least someone would make an effort, but oh well. I'm sorry PCG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:48 pm
Chickabiddy Fine. Keep mobbing, keep scaring, keep disrespecting. I simply won't add to the problem and hope that someone on the other side takes a stand. No one deserves such a one-sided and unfair debate, and I see that. Being blinded by dislike for the other side to the point that you can't even respect the people is a bad habit to get into when debating. And that's why I stopped. I'd likely get carried away and stop seeing the opposition as people and only as their opinions, and keep adding to the issue of mobbing. I was hoping at least someone would make an effort, but oh well. I'm sorry PCG. What would you propose we do? Assign days to the active members of the ED? The only reason I really ever log on is to debate in one, or both, of the abortion threads. I've created two different topics in the past; but, to be honest, they don't have as much appeal to the masses as the abortion threads do, so I cannot simply spend time within my own topics as they lack the popularity necessary to allow me to do so. I could find other topics but, for the most part, they either bore me or I do not have much information regaurding them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:59 pm
Asexual-Slut~Enya Chickabiddy Fine. Keep mobbing, keep scaring, keep disrespecting. I simply won't add to the problem and hope that someone on the other side takes a stand. No one deserves such a one-sided and unfair debate, and I see that. Being blinded by dislike for the other side to the point that you can't even respect the people is a bad habit to get into when debating. And that's why I stopped. I'd likely get carried away and stop seeing the opposition as people and only as their opinions, and keep adding to the issue of mobbing. I was hoping at least someone would make an effort, but oh well. I'm sorry PCG. What would you propose we do? Assign days to the active members of the ED? The only reason I really ever log on is to debate in one, or both, of the abortion threads. I've created two different topics in the past; but, to be honest, they don't have as much appeal to the masses as the abortion threads do, so I cannot simply spend time within my own topics as they lack the popularity necessary to allow me to do so. I could find other topics but, for the most part, they either bore me or I do not have much information regaurding them. -I don't know,- okay? But it still bugs me that no one makes at least an effort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:09 pm
The mobbing I don't regard as too much of a problem, seeing how we can't control it short of regulating what times we're on, and it's not really our problem we outnumber them.
The scaring, well, if it's the facts that scare them, so be it. If it's the numbers, they can either bring a lifer friend to debate with, or inform us they're choosing to debate with only choicers because they can't keep up with all five posts from the others. And we shouldn't rag them about it, unless they're selectively choosing only the most obscure and weakest points out of many strong ones to reply from. That's just irritating. If it's hostility, well, I do feel that sometimes we need to cut down on that.
The disrespecting, however, I can see why quite a lot of people would feel this way, and why they would refer to lifers as ignorant people- though I think some of us generalize a bit much. I do not, will not respect someone who believes I don't have the right to vote. Similarly, I do not, will not respect someone who believes that I don't have the right to bodily integrity, unless I knew them personally, and have gone through a long period of friendship with said person without finding out. (And even that's debatable.) People are their opinions, and I don't see anything wrong with not respecting people for their opinions. Hell, I don't respect Fred Phelps in the least- for his opinions.
However, I don't feel we need to be all that nasty about it. If you think that lifers are spineless pussies who spout nothing but ignorance and bigotry (example here.), then so be it. That's your decision. You, however, don't need to work that into the debate, and start calling lifers woman-hating spineless pussies without extreme provacation. And I wouldn't consider them simply being pro-life extreme provacation. Yes, they are trying to take away our rights. However, it doesn't make name-calling on our side look any better- and I'd say that it's an appeal to emotion, just like fetus = baby is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:54 pm
Chickabiddy -I don't know,- okay? But it still bugs me that no one makes at least an effort.
So, anyway, arguing about the problem really isn't getting anyone anywhere. So... I'm just gonna propose some ideas to the general audience, readers, et cetra...
- Make a list of average times the pro-choice debate regulars are online so pro-life debators can pick a less active time. Maybe create a debating schedule, but that would be a bit of a pain to when-I-have-time pro-choicer regulars.
- Preview button!
- Set a reply limit. Reply limit = number of people a pro-lifer is expected to debate with to be considered an actual debator, not a post-and-runner. Also keeps down the amount of people they're expected to reply to. Thus, less more "Hey, you forgot me!"s.
- Have a phrase pro-lifers can say when they're overwhelmed, but post it in the second or third post on the front page so only people who actually read the first page will know it. Like a safety word. xD
(I'm rambling because I've drunken a bunch of Vault. Sorry.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:56 pm
Chickabiddy Being blinded by dislike for the other side to the point that you can't even respect the people is a bad habit to get into when debating. I do see them as people which is more, as a woman with a functioning uterus, than I can say for them. And like I said, you've bitched and moaned, but you have offered NO workable solution. This, too, is a very bad habit to get into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:01 am
sybex Shark - Make a list of average times the pro-choice debate regulars are online so pro-life debators can pick a less active time. Maybe create a debating schedule, but that would be a bit of a pain to when-I-have-time pro-choicer regulars.
- Preview button!
- Set a reply limit. Reply limit = number of people a pro-lifer is expected to debate with to be considered an actual debator, not a post-and-runner. Also keeps down the amount of people they're expected to reply to. Thus, less more "Hey, you forgot me!"s.
- Have a phrase pro-lifers can say when they're overwhelmed, but post it in the second or third post on the front page so only people who actually read the first page will know it. Like a safety word. xD
(I'm rambling because I've drunken a bunch of Vault. Sorry.) Someone more creative than I! At last! Thanks sybex, those actually are good ideas. :3 I'm not idea person, just an "execution" type person. The safety word sounds good. (My sister drinks every other kinda of energy drink. .__.) @ Kukushka: Look, I'm sorry I actually respect other people's opinions. If I had an idea, it would have been inserted into the first post and all this whining and "BUT THAT'S OKAY WE'RE BETTER SO WE CAN SWARM THEM!" would have never happened, or stopped at a certain point. I' not an idea person, which is why I came to you guys. Therefore, I'm also sorry I had FAITH in you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:21 am
Wow, you are blowing this way out of proportion and putting words in my mouth.
1) Some opinions are not worth respecting. I knew someone in High School who believed that everyone a shade darker than he was is a criminal waiting to happen and should be deported immediately. This is racism. This is an opinion. I do not respect this opinion. I also do not respect the opinion that I, as a woman, should have fewer rights than men. If you do, that's great. However, I do not see why I should act kuddly-fuddly towards someone who, had they their own way, would control every aspect of my life, tell me what to eat, how much to excercise, when to have sex, and so forth because of their believe that I, as a woman, am not capable of making these sorts of decisions for myself.
2) I NEVER said "we're better so we can swarm them." I NEVER said that it is in any way good or favorable that we 'swarm' them. I merely said that there is no real workable alternative and I do not think that whining about it helps. I also said that it is good that we don't stand down. There is a difference.
3) When I respond to a post that has already had a great deal of replies, it is because NONE of the replies touched on *MY* argument. I come to Gaia to debate. I do not come by "schedule." This is not my job. When I do come, and I come wanting to debate, I will debate - whether it's my "time slot" or not.
4) And finally, I do not appreciate your cheapshot of "I'm sorry I had FAITH in you."
The reason the right wing is gaining so much headway in the US is because the left keeps trying to be nice. We don't want to offend, so we don't "swarm." We agree to argue things on the right's terms, using the right's diction. We're too ******** afraid to get our hands dirty and to FIGHT BACK that we just sit down in a chorus of "but, I... but... please... I..." while our rights are being stripped away.
So no, sorry. I am not going to sit down, be quiet, be polite, be respectful, and be unheard. They are loud, and if we are to have any hope at all of preserving our rights, we have to be just as loud. The fact that they've gone back into the woodworks on Gaia, where we ARE loud, is only proof that I am right and that far from using the real world's strategy here, we need to be using our strategy in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:28 am
Well, if you've been trolling the PLG thread about why the intelligent Pro-Lifers don't go into the Debate, you've seen my replies.
Like I said in there, I don't blame them for not going in. Many of us Pro-Choicers heart LOVE heart debating, and we tend to all stop lurking and talk if an actual Pro-Lifer shows up and sticks around in the Debate (or also the newly re-animated Pro-Life ED thread).
Pro-Lifers don't seem to enjoy debating so much (maybe because they don't tend to have the numbers/facts/laws on their side that we do?) and do seem to be just overwhelmbed (think of my spelling errors as personality quirks) by our long and numberous replies. They also tend to be (though some are better about this, like *tear* kp usually and a few other) less up on the facts, more emotional, and often just not as good at debating.
I'm trying to convince them that avoiding the Debate(s) makes the problem worse. Us Pro-Choicers get all sorts of debating practice and get to share info (and even find great quotes) with eachother in the Debates, and even help each other to become more aware of the world. The Pro-Lifers who can't deal with the Debate don't get that edge, and so are just outnumbered and often out-debated when they feel brave enough to go in.
I don't know if we should be trying to not reply so much to them. I don't think that's fair. But maybe they should learn to pick and choose what they reply to, so that they don't end up trying to reply to everyone. And maybe we can try not to pout so much if a Pro-Lifer doesn't reply to the parts of our posts that we think are most important? I know I feel upset when I make a thoughtful, insitive, informative post in the Debate (hasn't happened lately, I know) and a Pro-Lifer chooses to respond to a post-and-run choicer who called them a name or something, but I'm sure that responding to their lack of response makes the problem even worse.
I do think that some effort to be slightly more polite, occasionally, if not exactly nice, might help. I know it's really hard to let go of one's emotions when it comes to this issue, no matter what side one agrees with, but it can help to keep the debate slightly more civil at times.
I think it is more the rude comments (which I feel are very occasional, but the Pro-Lifers seem to feel are more common) that seem to be more of a problem than the swarming, though both seem to be a big deterant.
So yeah, I'm still totally waiting for a formally trained team of Pro-Life debators to show up, because then I would get the joy of debating with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:39 am
WatersMoon110 I don't know if we should be trying to not reply so much to them. I don't think that's fair. But maybe they should learn to pick and choose what they reply to, so that they don't end up trying to reply to everyone. And maybe we can try not to pout so much if a Pro-Lifer doesn't reply to the parts of our posts that we think are most important? I know I feel upset when I make a thoughtful, insitive, informative post in the Debate (hasn't happened lately, I know) and a Pro-Lifer chooses to respond to a post-and-run choicer who called them a name or something, but I'm sure that responding to their lack of response makes the problem even worse. This I agree with. It was the parts of Sybex's idea that addressed this that I quite liked. When they come in and get their replies, just mention in their next post that they will be Replying only to this and this debater. Everyone else can continue posting, but shouldn't expect to be responded to. As for the second part of your paragraph, I agree with that, too. Like when I make a long argument, but make a diction error half way through and the pro-lifer will just harp on the error and not address ANY of what I actually said. I always have a policy of splitting up my opponent's post into chunks and responding to each and every single one because that is good debating form. But, of course, there is no way to force them to acknowledge arguments they cannot counter. WatersMoon110 I do think that some effort to be slightly more polite, occasionally, if not exactly nice, might help. I know it's really hard to let go of one's emotions when it comes to this issue, no matter what side one agrees with, but it can help to keep the debate slightly more civil at times. This I agree with as well. As you said, pro-lifers tend to be more emotional. That's generally why they are pro-life at all (since the argument is founded almost entirely on appealing to emotions). Being polite and respectful (and I am not talking about being all sugar and honey, but resorting to swearing or calling your opponent names and such would be a big no-no) would certainly serve our purposes better. HOWEVER, I do not want to see these things becoming rules. A guideline, an encouragement, but not a rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
