Those Darned Politics Mods!!!!!

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a general policy of not dicussing religion nor politics with anyone because those things can get touchy and ruin relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, the relationship isn't a very strong one. (or possibly your morals are so in disagreement that maybe it should be ruined after all) I have no problems having political discussions with some of my more liberal friends without problems, but if I discovered that a friend of mine was in full support of the War on Drugs, that would kill the friendship. Mostly though, I've found that friends refusing to talk about the subject hurts the relationship more than disagreement. Good friends should be able to talk about anything.

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder, do you guys ever learn anything from each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... yes... that's the whole point... I've found discussion such as this to be the best means to "correct" "incorrect" beliefs of mine.

[ConstantineX]

Ludicrous. I haven't seen any of these so called posters make an original OP on a current political issue. If people have such a problem with the AC agenda, there are a myriad of issues to talk about (like there was on Virginia). ACists, the vocal posters, come up with original OPs and frame their discussions in accordance with their political beliefs. Surely this is understandable? Indeed, I have seen very few statists come up with novel arguments, defenses or whatever on political theoretical stuff and little more than sparse commentary on US politics.

Recently, I posted about the French election. Few of the posters complaining responded, and of course threads take a different direction when the only people who take INTEREST in the politics forum are ACists, or in general libertarians. And that's not their fault.

Propertarian and moorobot should start posting more again.
And Jman you've been a terrible mod.

[tuq]

Alex, random re-registerer,

Fine, your forum has merit, but you guys keep being your own worst enemy. You realize two of the three people who regularly view this forum are admins, right? As in, they see the constant in-fighting and wonder "wow, is this really worth our trouble?" Discussion of politics in and of itself lends itself to arguments, but you're like the kids having the unnecessary late night pillow fight that just begs to wake up the parents and kill the party.

It does happen that most of my friends are very conservative and I am a fairly die-hard Libertarian, so maybe our feelings are in the ballpark, but we enjoy each others' company for the most part and aren't interested in political stances wrecking that. I guess a forum labeled "Politics" pits said beliefs against each other a bit more, but your inability to work things out must be disappointing for the rest of us.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Alex, random re-registerer,

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[ QUOTE ]
your inability to work things out must be disappointing for the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why in the world would you care? Seriously. What forums do you frequent? Would you appreciate it if I started talking about how worthless and disappointing your participation in that forum was to me? I could, you know. I can honestly say that anyone who isn't participating in political discussion is a grave disappointment to me and is part of the problem, but I don't generally like to just randomly attack people for doing what they want to do with their lives. Why do you feel the need to attack us?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I did in fact warn Borodog on that date and the usernote JMan posted is accurate. The reason why was his "gold star" program whereby he was mockingly congratulating people who he believed he destroyed in debate for helping him convince others to convert to AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you ever get anything right? You'd figure once in awhile you'd be right on accident.

[Steven Bickford]

[ QUOTE ]
lol. I have no doubt my user notes say things about personal attacks and other things. I got a * in OOT. I lose my temper and make personal attacks. But a personal attack is not trolling. Pointing out the legitimate flaws in someone's argument in a humorous way, even if it might piss them off, is not trolling. You don't even know what trolling is. Again:

[ QUOTE ]
a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Steven Bickford's repetitive use of fallacious arguments a "sensitive topic"? His OP was the troll, and any competent mod could see that. The whole purpose was to post an "inflammatory message about a sensitive topic in an established online community (of anarchocapitalists, whether you like it or not), to wit the Politics discussion forum, to bait users into responding. Then I responded by pointing out his fallacies and you call *me* the troll. Lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so posting an interesting article from a very reputable newspaper for the purpose of discussion is now considered trolling? And I am the is changing the definitions of words? Please Borodog, you can do better than that.

The Somalia thread had some pretty good discussion going until you posted that childish picture. Maybe the fact that the thread generated 150 replies is an indication that some people found the topic to be interesting and worthy of discussion. Sorry, but just because a post contradicts your world view does not make it a troll post. If you don't like people with opposing viewpoints posting in the politics forum, then start a private AC listserver where you and all your friends can congratulate each other on how smart you are.

In response to the picture you posted, your claim that I just stated conclusions without supporting them is ridiculous. The statements that I made were not made in a vaccum, but were supported by the article that preceded them. Of course I cannot prove with mathematical certainty that respect for property rights cannot exist without government, but the article that I posted is clearly relevant evidence with respect to that issue.

Regards,
Steven Bickford

[ShakeZula06]

Dude, your posts are so laughable many people assume your an ACist's gimmick account. You think that George Bush and Dick Cheney are great examples of moral clarity. That says about all anyone needs to know about you.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol. I have no doubt my user notes say things about personal attacks and other things. I got a * in OOT. I lose my temper and make personal attacks. But a personal attack is not trolling. Pointing out the legitimate flaws in someone's argument in a humorous way, even if it might piss them off, is not trolling. You don't even know what trolling is. Again:

[ QUOTE ]
a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Steven Bickford's repetitive use of fallacious arguments a "sensitive topic"? His OP was the troll, and any competent mod could see that. The whole purpose was to post an "inflammatory message about a sensitive topic in an established online community (of anarchocapitalists, whether you like it or not), to wit the Politics discussion forum, to bait users into responding. Then I responded by pointing out his fallacies and you call *me* the troll. Lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so posting an interesting article from a very reputable newspaper for the purpose of discussion is now considered trolling?

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be, but I don't think anyone's talking about the article itself. It's the choice of words you used in relation to the article.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see it as punishment, and its not like I'm banning discussion about the subject, just reorganizing how its being discussed. Truth be told, I'd prefer a separate AC forum, but Mat has made it clear that is not going to happen. In any event, I'll compromise, I'll just keep this policy active for one week till Friday, to see what happens, as an experiment. Come Friday, it can be debate as normal, and then myself and the other mods can analyze how posting was affected for possible future changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, I really don't understand how this is going to work.

If someone says in a thread in politics that the drug war is awesome, am I allowed to say that it's infringing on people liberties? Or do I have to say that in the AC thread? For the record I'm a minarchist, not an ACist. Would a liberal democrat be allowed to say that in the politics forum?

Please to clarify where the line is drawn.

Edit: Even more confusion. As an anarcho-syndicalist, is latefordinner allowed to post in the regular politics threads or does he have to come to the AC thread too?

Edit2: Maybe, is the rule that if you suggest anything that would reduce the size of government it should be taken to the AC thread?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Please to clarify where the line is drawn.

[/ QUOTE ]