Major rant -- may get me booted

[LawDog]

The iteration on this board is to ban or strongly discourage, by convenient means, certain subjects from discussion.

You got that one right. You don't discuss abortion; you don't discuss the sins of homosexuality, and the Eternal Damnation of those who practice it; you don't discuss the superiority of the White Race vs. the mud races; and you don't discuss Final Solutions to groups of people based on race, religion or favorite foods.

That doesn't speak well for those who would feign adherence to the rules.

Just what, exactly, does that non sequitor mean?

It's as if the members:

1. Can't be trusted to discuss those subjects in a rational manner, or;

Boy, you hit that one on the nose. How long was TFL going? How long has THR been on-line? After all those years of TFL, plus the experience of looking in on some of the unmoderated discussion forums on the World Wide Web, we have learned that there are some subjects that can not be discussed without winding up as a spew of oral diarrhea.

You want to discuss abortion? You aren't chained to THR. Go to another board where it's allowed and discuss abortion to your hearts' content.

2. It's too much "trouble" to moderate a discussion when the outcome might not be to certain moderators' liking.

Again, you're right. When the outcome is banning a long-standing Member for continual flaming, back-stabbing and knee-biting, it by God isn't "to my liking".

So, we shut down discussions that are spinning out of control, or heading that way.

Most Members get the bloody hint. Some don't.

Those who don't get the hint get a PM or e-mail warning. Most mend their ways. Some don't.

Then I gotta haul off and ban the ones who don't bloody well learn, which flat plain pisses me off.

So. In order to avoid me feeling guilty for having to ban someone who is begging -- no -- crying out for a digital ???-kicking, follow the simple Rules of the House:

Be polite.

Debate using facts, not insults.

Treat other Members the same way you want them to treat you.

Stay away from the topics that the Founder of the Feast (Oleg Volk) doesn't want discussed on his board.

It boils down to having courtesy for others. Do that, and you won't force your Staff to metaphorically smack you (and your THR account) with an axe.

LawDog

 

[themic]

think of it this way:
the Democrats want to register gunowners.
the republicans want to use a registered list.

both sides work for control and power of the future, in different ways.

the alternative?
Liberatrians aren't necessarily the answer, because they by definition won't play the game the way it needs to be played in order to be truly effective. Does that mean they're wrong? I don't know. It'd be nice to be effective AND right one day. pick one, or work to combine them, I say.

 

[Zander]

You got that one right. You don't discuss abortion; you don't discuss the sins of homosexuality, and the Eternal Damnation of those who practice it; you don't discuss the superiority of the White Race vs. the mud races; and you don't discuss Final Solutions to groups of people based on race, religion or favorite foods.

I didn't make reference to any of those subjects nor was that my intention. My entire post pertained to the subject at hand...period.

Perhaps you are referring to my smart-???, sarcastic comment re: 'abortion' in another thread. Looked like low-key and humorous responses by the posters until I blundered in...shortly after someone showed up with a 10-pound sledge to deal with the "cockroach".

You want to discuss abortion?

Actually, no...I don't want to discuss abortion per se. There are a couple of current subjects that I think would be of interest in a forum that is labeled 'Legal and Political', though:

1. The Laci Peterson case and the impact of Scott Peterson being charged in the murder of his unborn son, Connor;

2. The likely passage of a Congressional ban on partial-birth abortion and the influence it might have on the 2004 races.

Instead, the mere utterance of certain words [note the plural, please] triggers immediate flares and and the inevitable scream of "conservatives/Republicans/theocrats in the wire!"

A second later, there's the sound of full-auto fire.

But wait, that isn't necessarily the case...as a simple search of the archives shows; there you can find actual on-the-record posts of intelligent, reasoned opinion [even involving polls] of members and staff alike which don't descend into "oral diarrhea" no matter what triggers the flare. References on request.

I'll shut up now...

 

[Zander]

Do I believe that, sometime in the near future, the Libertarians have a chance of fielding a viable candidate for the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives? Yes, I do. -- Oracle

How? Candidates become viable by moving up from lesser-level political positions. Unless there is some secret to jumping levels in wholesale manner, I just don't see it. Even in those areas/states where Libertarian Party candidates should have the greatest chance in general elections, they continue to fail.

The idea that a Libertarian Party candidate could become a US Representative in the near future is questionable; that one could be become a US Senator is, frankly, silly. The passion for such an overwhelming victory is undeniable, but what's the game plan?!?

Not commenting on the advisability of such a thing, you understand...just that the odds are overwhelmingly against it.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I'm not in favor of off-topic topics, as I believe all it does is splinter the RKBA community here at the High Road. Let's say there are 10,000 pro-RKBA members here. Let's say that 70% of them are pro-life on the abortion issue. If the 30% pro-choice are heckled and harassed on abortion topics, potentially 3000 pro-RKBA members are driven away (or maybe they go away because they preceive that THR is both a pro-RKBA and pro-Life site, and they don't want to support pro-Life). Of the remaining 7000, let's say 5000 of them are Republicans and 2000 are Democrats. If the Republicans are intolerant to the Dems in "Who here is a Democrat?" threads, suddenly there are only 5000 pro-RKBA left. By the time you throw in another three or four divisive (non-RKBA) issues, there may be only 1000 members left.

On one of the threads here a few weeks ago, I saw one of the most liberal members here, very articulate and well-spoken, and very pro-RKBA, being referred to as a troll because he was in the minority position on the Iraq war. We need this High Roader as much as any other High Roader; he adds to our RKBA strength. If we want to utilize our collective strength to the maximum extent possible, it doesn't make sense to drive off good members on non-RKBA topics.

Just my opinion.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

@Steely

I agree. I've been put in the same pack of anti-gun, liberal Democrats even though I'm Independent. Our new governer is Republican -- a man I voted for -- who is actually anti-gun. Being from Massachusetts gives a lot of folks the feeling that can attack me and my views just because I'm from this state -- and open minded about the importance of other issues along with the second amendment right. They seem to be of the belief that I'm too ignorant about how it all "really works," and that I'm in some strange way the cause of all their woes as a gun owner. I've kind of given up trying to understand the extremes of others who are too closed-minded to listen to different views -- and color everyone with one brush. This isn't to say everyone on THR behaves in this way -- a lot of folks here are quite good about sticking up for people and don't tolerate these attacks -- but they happen....

I've learned at times you have to ignore and move on...

 

[Zander]

...it doesn't make sense to drive off good members on non-RKBA topics. -- Silver Bullet

Agreed...but does it automatically follow that disagreement on any issue alienates RKBA supporters to the extent that they abandon the board and/or their stance on the RKBA?

I've kind of given up trying to understand the extremes of others who are too close-minded to listen to different views -- Mastrogiacomo

Seems a bit of a conflict to me...much in the pot/kettle/black mold. Personally, I find some views unworthy of consideration, and no amount of PC-pressure is likely to have an effect on my opinion.

It isn't necessarily worth consideration just because it is different. Judgement is like that.

References if you'd like...

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

 

[Wildalaska]

I've learned at times you have to ignore and move on...

Thats what I do I have a few guys on an ignore list because I really dont care what they have to say..even if they say it about me or address anyhting I say...

WildmostguysarecoolAlaska

 

[Oleg Volk]

Silver Bullet -- well said!

 

[Sir Galahad]

I'll settle this once and for all....

Vote for me. I plan to legalize all firearms. Your birth certificate will have a detachable coupon good for "buy one, get one free" at your favorite gun shop. I'll be changing the name of the White House to "Sir Galahad's House of Catfish, Chili and Barb-B-Que and Medieval Style Smorgasbrod. Foreign diplomats who can't shoot won't be invited to the World Round Table Conference and Dollar-A-Shot Jackpot Shoot (This is going to replace the UN) and will be politely asked to refrain from ever speaking on world affairs again until they get some firearms savvy. I plan to put an archery 3D range where the current White House Rose Garden is. I won't fault world leaders if they can't shoot bow, but if they can't shoot at least a halfway decent group with a rifle, I fail to see further discourse with that leader until he gets hisself up to snuff. How can a man who can't shoot lead???

Vote for me. I'm going to run for Pres'dent and am seeking campaign contributions. I guaruntee to keep the nuking of pee-ant little countries to a minimum, provided they don't upset me too overly much. Oh, and I'm thinking of replacing civil courts with legalized dueling. Choice will be pistols, Bowies, or swords. Parties involveds lawyers will be the seconds for the duels. Dear friends, can I count on your contributions? They're not currently tax deductable, but after I'm elected, we'll work something out.

 

[Zander]

Vote for me. -- Sir Galahad

Are you running on the Libertarian Party platform?

 

[P95Carry]

Sir G . you just got my vote dude ...

 

[Ian Sean]

Oh, and I'm thinking of replacing civil courts with legalized dueling. Choice will be pistols, Bowies, or swords. Parties involveds lawyers will be the seconds for the duels.

Why can't the lawyers go first?

Who is your V.P. gonna be?

Keg parties in the rose garden, isn't there a bowling alley in the white house basement? Convert that into an indoor range.

 

[Sir Galahad]

I'm running on the Poker Party platform. We are committed to the idea of everyone getting dealt their cards and how they play them is up to them, but no whining if you threw away an ace and wound up losing. Gambling legal in all 50 states, too, by the way. That's my economic prosperity plan. That and no federal tax. "House" just takes 5% from the table each game. And it'll help the kids. Kids will be more motivated to learn how to count properly when they know that a straight is a great poker hand. Plus, the blackjack games will teach them about counting past 13. Welfare? Sure. Why not. Give 'em a rifle and point them towards deer country. Best welfare there is. FBI will be Federal Blackjack Inspectors (them's the boys what'll grab the House 5%) and will make sure all the decks and dice is square.

 

[Justin]

I didn't make reference to any of those subjects nor was that my intention. My entire post pertained to the subject at hand...period.

The subject at hand being whether or not THR has a libertarian slant. Dunno if you noticed but the thread is still open, which indicates that you're free to debate the topic.

Actually, no...I don't want to discuss abortion per se. There are a couple of current subjects that I think would be of interest in a forum that is labeled 'Legal and Political', though:

Lawdog stated above why certain topics are not discussed. To repeat, it's because some topics are so divisive that any discussion on them will inevitably devolve into a flame-war. As for the Laci Peterson thing, I work with a bunch of journalists, and they're as perplexed as I am as to why it's even on the news. I've never seen an instance of something that so flagrantly fails the 'so what' test. Hence any threads dealing with Laci will get canked. Doubly so those that involve Laci and abortion. Don't like it? I'm sure there's plenty of discussion about it to be had on other forums.

 

[keithernTN]

One of the main issues that the libertarian party falls short is borders. You can't have open borders and expect stability and security. There are many terrorists that hate us from foriegn lands that would have a red carpet rolled out for them by the libertarian party. We have enough trouble with illegals rotting american society as it is. Millions more will not help.

Also there is a certain segment of our society that will never amount to anything, they will never take responsibility for themselves, they will always be lazy, never want to work, or have the education or skills to be productive citizens. What is the libertarian solution to these people when they eliminate the social programs that keep them from becoming even more criminal. I don't like my taxes being given away anymore than the next person but these people would be the main criminal element and there are millions of them.

In a perfect world everyone would take responsibility for themselves, but this is not the reality that we live in.

 

[Glock Glockler]

of the main issues that the libertarian party falls short is borders

Agreed. I would never support completely open borders for the security reasons you just mentioned. I find it odd that someone would agree to let millions of "former members" of the Chinese PLA into the country. Now, if we did eliminate all the social welfare BS we have, we could have a relaxed immigration policy, as we'd only attract those who wanted to work hard and get ahead.

What is the libertarian solution to these people when they eliminate the social programs that keep them from becoming even more criminal

You assume that people become criminal due to lack of social programs? The UK has plenty of social programs, far more than here, they even have national healthcare (the Socialists love that one) yet their crime is skyrocketing, so what gives? Crime is the result of low charachter people, not lack of socialism.

Eliminate welfare and watch the economy really blossom, as all that wasted capital can now be put into productive use into the economy. If that economic opportunity is not good enough for them, they can move to socialist countries that want slugs to get on the govt nipple. If that's not good enough for them, they can starve for all I care, and if they try to rob others to get by, it'll be a good thing that RKBA will be fully reinstated.

 

[keithernTN]

quote:

Crime is the result of low charachter people, not lack of socialism.

_________________________________________________

Agreed. Crime is the result of people with low character, and America has no shortage of those. Not everyone on welfare are criminals, that is what I said but not what I meant. I just think that if you take away the free ride more people will become criminals to survive because they have no ambition to do something productive with their lives, or they would have already. These low-lifes will not pack up and leave we would have to deal with them.