The quote above is an example of why I voted no.. . . well then it's just the same as a religious discussion to me. I have no interest in debating opinions that aren't based on sound reasoning
Rick
The quote above is an example of why I voted no.. . . well then it's just the same as a religious discussion to me. I have no interest in debating opinions that aren't based on sound reasoning
I see no reason there should not be a dedicated pace for political/religous debate. We are all adults, and I enjoy testing my opinions against others. That is how opinions are evolved.
In contrast, the "beer only" crowd is largely unwilling to compromise and seeks to have these topics forbidden everywhere.
Thoughts?
The quote above is an example of why I voted no.
Rick
The quote above is an example of why I voted no.
If I'm wrong and a sound argument that doesn't rely on faith can be presented, I'd likely go ahead and engage in a debate on the topic despite what I said earlier.
Can't say for sure, but if made in the same way, I'd have felt the same. By the way, I'm not sure why a religious discussion is "breaking out." My point wasn't meant to have anything to do with religion, but was to the subject at hand.If he had posted the opposing opinion (i.e. pro-religion), would you have made the same post (above)?
As an aside, I've had interesting debates on other forums where all sides did respect the viewpoint of others; unfortunately that respect is clearly missing by some here on HBT, it isn't held in check by the moderators, and I doubt it will change.
Rick
...The "bring in on" crowd is largely willing to compromise and move their discussions into the back room where they can easily be avoided.. In contrast, the "beer only" crowd is largely unwilling to compromise and seeks to have these topics forbidden everywhere.
Thoughts?
Check the URL. "homebrewtalk.com"
Maybe we should have a Political forum with two sub links. One called the right wing, the other the left wing, and have a no troll policy. EX. me going into the Left wing area just to cause trouble.
Check the URL. "homebrewtalk.com"
Check out the poll - 2:1
The topic is
Political Threads / Religious Threads
Yes, Allow them.
No, Do not allow them.
There is no need to campaign either way.
However, another valid rational for a "no" vote are those who can't self-censor their own comments, and with any highly-polarizing topic quickly degenerate into name calling.Unfortunately, I find that much of the time (not always, of course), those who do favor censorship do so because they're too lazy to self-censor.
The topic is
Political Threads / Religious Threads
Yes, Allow them.
No, Do not allow them.
There is no need to campaign either way.
In general, the majority of people tend not to favor censorship, so the poll numbers don't surprise me one bit. Unfortunately, I find that much of the time (not always, of course), those who do favor censorship do so because they're too lazy to self-censor. It's more about convenience than anything else---they don't want to have to scroll through a bunch of OT links on the new posts page, so they think OT talk should be banned. It reminds me of lazy parents who don't want to have to program their V-chip or actually pay attention to the video games their kids are watching, they'd rather have them banned altogether. Now, I'm not equating this to a first amendment issue---Tx has the right under the law to do whatever he wants, as it's his forum. I'm just saying that those who favor censorship tend to think (erroneously, in my opinion) that blanket censorship is an easier solution since it does their own job for them. I, on the other hand, tend to think that one-size-fits-all censorship of this kind is far too heavy-handed, like using a wrecking ball to squish some flies. The problem is, that wrecking ball not only gets the flies, it wrecks the building too. So why not use a fly swatter on the flies, and let the building remain standing?
The topic is
Political Threads / Religious Threads
Yes, Allow them.
No, Do not allow them.
There is no need to campaign either way.
However, another valid rational for a "no" vote are those who can't self-censor their own comments, and with any highly-polarizing topic quickly degenerate into name calling.
I voted no because, in general, this site is more civil than most. That changes when religion or politics is the subject. That there is no regard or respect for another's opinion is already apparent with many even when religion or politics isn't particularly the subject; there are those whose posts clearly indicate they have no sensitivity to what others think or believe. I'm not sure the usefulness of a discussion in which one side has disdain and disregard for the other person's opinion, even if they keep it civil.
I don't like football, so I don't go to football games.
I like s*ccer, so I log in to my computer and listen to my s*ccer team's games.
I make decisions based on my own preferences,not someone else's.
I really don't understand how this issue even arose.
Honestly, if you ask me (and remember this is JUST my OPINION), it probably has to do with $$. As this site grows and grows, I think that Tx might be concerned that people who are brand new to the site might stumble across a political thread and not realize that even heated arguments are usually under control, and be scared off...and thus Tx loses a potential member.
Then make it available to subscribers only? That would give the noobs a year at least to grow accustomed.
Check the URL. "homebrewtalk.com"
It is a valid rationale for a "no" vote, just one with which you may disagree.No, that's a valid rationale . . . .
I would agree. I also think the government shouldn't tax me a lot and then waste my money. 1) Not talking "should" here, and 2) my analogy wold be a political discussion; sorry.A few bad apples with poor self-control should not spoil the fun for everyone else who wishes to discuss political matters in a civil manner.
Regarding lack of self control, you pointed out in the first half of the above quote that you think most who voted no are not participants in such threads; apparently they have the self control to avoid them. It isn't about staying away, it's about the overall affect such threads have on the general community, which affects us even if we do stay away.It is little surprise to me that most of the people who favor a ban are the ones who don't usually participate in the first place---but it does strike me as curious why none of those people feel like they have enough self-control to just stay the hell away from that which bothers them.
It is a valid rationale for a "no" vote, just one with which you may disagree.
Regarding lack of self control, you pointed out in the first half of the above quote that you think most who voted no are not participants in such threads; apparently they have the self control to avoid them.
It isn't about staying away, it's about the overall affect such threads have on the general community, which affects us even if we do stay away.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a civil, reasoned discussion on politics or religion. I just don't think it's possible here and the net result of the fallout on the community is negative. I may be wrong, but it's my opinion and why I voted "no."