Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > New restrictions on topics in stewardship
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author     Message
AA+
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 2107 | TRs | Pics
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
Member
PostSun Dec 22, 2019 12:24 pm 
The Post in its entirety is not nonsense.  It already got a thumbs up from one reasonable person so there most likely is something of worth in there to consider.  You make a good point, that critizing upbringing could be a personal attack.  I am not sure what the intended point of that sentence was in the context of the whole post which makes a lot of sense.  For one thing, the poster recommends  lowering the tension by not naming names and I agree that when making negative responsives, justified or not, it's better to keep names out of it in this forum.  (I may have done this in the past, but I agree this is a best practice.)  We are not trying to score points against each other, or document for posterity someone's errors.  There should be an element of kindness in what we post.  Does it add value?  If it's not kind, it probably isn't adding value.  Posts should not be retribution or punishment.  Finally, putting "person" in quotes is pretty harsh; is it a dehumanization of someone?  Let's ask the poster to clarify what he meant by introducing upbringing.  Even if part of the argument is offbase, I don't think it is complete nonsense.  If it is, what does not nonsense look like?   Personal attacks are probably good for one thing.  They stifle expression (if that's your goal) because many will not subject themselves to personal attacks, even if means foregoing joining a conversation.  Speaking generally, justifying personal attacks because you are outraged by someone's view is certainly not ok as a first or second resort.  In the GW discussion, there probably would have been may more contributors if the likelihood of personal attacks was lower.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostSat Jan 04, 2020 10:30 am 
Slugman wrote:
What kind of ďpersonĒ thinks attacking peopleís upbringing is not a personal attack? What a hypocritical bit of nonsense.

It's merely a comment about people's approach to discussions having strong influences from their upbringing.

It's this kind of emotional entanglement in topic which results in taking things which aren't,  as a personal attack

You want to see personal attacks, go review the closed thread and see the aspersions and outright insults constantly leveled at non believers.

Which are not the same as critiques. When you demand control, it is not an attack noting this fact. When you want top down govt central planning of industry or life at nearly every level but won't admit it when the fact is noted , its not an attack to note it. Nor is it an attack to note evasion of the facts of what you want. Nor is it an attack to note refusal to ban outcomes the purveyor of controls, methods, or limits claims to not want,use, or support.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3237 | TRs | Pics
Damian
Member
PostSat Jan 04, 2020 9:18 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
Nor is it an attack to note evasion of the facts of what you want. Nor is it an attack to note refusal to ban outcomes the purveyor of controls, methods, or limits claims to not want,use, or support.

Whoa.  I  have no clue what this means but it gave me a headache.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 15191 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostSat Jan 04, 2020 9:26 pm 
Friends do not allow friends to drink and post.

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16809 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostSat Jan 04, 2020 9:58 pm 
Damian wrote:
Whoa.  I  have no clue what this means but it gave me a headache.

Put it in a downfall parody and it might be funny as heck.

https://www.captiongenerator.com/make-a-hitler-reacts-video

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 2107 | TRs | Pics
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
Member
PostSat Jan 04, 2020 10:50 pm 
I think many an otherwise valid point is lost with bogus language.  #It's-a-hiker-forum

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
cdestroyer
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 824 | TRs | Pics
Location: montana
cdestroyer
Member
PostSun Jan 05, 2020 8:18 am 
As to your request bernardo about my intent,, please see mtngoat reply. I am old, I have been around people for a very very long time. I have learned that peoples upbringing often times does indeed influence how we feel about any particular subject and what our response might be. It was NOT a person attack.
I mentioned some time back yall argue to dang much.
You wanna see my argument!!!
Dog poop/baggies you dont wanna see em go some place else
You think hiking fast down a trail is what HIKING is all about, hey stop and smell the flowers!
You like sceenery? Then why tear down the old buildings from years past that represent a way of back country life, just so you can have a campfire..where are the buildings at the old chancellor power house??
Why did someone not care enough to ensure the historic cabin on canyon creek hwy 20 mp 141 remain in useable condition and not have the roof cave in. It was a great temp shelter from weather or one night out.
yall needs to rethink your enjoyment of the great out of doors!
p.s. I have stashed items in the back country to use on my return only to have them taken by someone.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
cdestroyer
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 824 | TRs | Pics
Location: montana
cdestroyer
Member
PostSun Jan 05, 2020 9:01 am 
By coincindence this article appeared on the arstechnica web site, and I think has a relation to this thread.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/its-the-network-stupid-study-offers-fresh-insight-into-why-were-so-divided/

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
RayD
the griz ate my pass



Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 1746 | TRs | Pics
Location: Vacaville
RayD
the griz ate my pass
PostMon Jan 06, 2020 12:02 am 
I would argue that to argue about argument is so metahiker.

--------------
don't believe everything you think
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Jan 06, 2020 9:25 am 
Damian wrote:
Whoa.  I  have no clue what this means but it gave me a headache.

Merely laying out many of the things I have seen claimed to be personal attacks.

When you *want* to control what other people drive, or eat, for example, it is not a personal attack to note the fact.

When you *want* to use govt against innocent people in order to stop, ban, or impose something, it is not a personal attack to note the fact.

When you refuse to support an outright ban on what you claim you're not wanting ( "I don't want to ban IC engines, that's nuts"..."OK, then let's agree to put that in writing in the bill"..."no, and stop making personal attacks") and this refusal is noted, it is not a personal attack to note either fact.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3237 | TRs | Pics
Damian
Member
PostMon Jan 06, 2020 10:51 am 
Thx dude. I was just bustin' your balls.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist



Joined: 07 Sep 2018
Posts: 1490 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist
PostMon Jan 06, 2020 2:50 pm 
Tom's narrowing acceptable discussions under Stewardship is ok with me.

Damian wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:

Nor is it an attack to note evasion of the facts of what you want. Nor is it an attack to note refusal to ban outcomes the purveyor of controls, methods, or limits claims to not want,use, or support.

Whoa.  I  have no clue what this means but it gave me a headache.

My observation/opinion is that MtnGoat spends more time critiquing other posters' alleged thought process errors than discussing the merits of an issue, which may be one reason Tom felt it necessary to finally shut down the GW thread.  Sometimes the meta-issues need to be addressed, but when certain topics are so politicized, nothing is to be gained by going up a level.  The 700+ GW pages surely stand as a monument to that.  I doubt many entrenched views were changed, either by arguing facts, whether facts were "facts", or pointing out errors in logic, etc.

--------------
"There are yahoos out there.  Itís why we canít have nice things."  - Tom Mahood
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Jan 07, 2020 10:15 am 
Tom claims his mind was changed.

The 'merits' of an issue are not valid if the thought processes which are the basis of determination of the merits are not correct.

The argument being presented above essentially consists of complaining my practice of examining the logic of an argument is somehow flawed... while simply wanting to accept 'merits' as a given, which they are not.

Yup...I want to see that the basis of arguments is sound before I accept the conclusions as valid arguments. This is how you make sound decisions. I am very interested in seeing any defense of simply accepting arguments without examination of the processes and ideas behind them.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Jan 07, 2020 10:16 am 
Damian wrote:
Thx dude. I was just bustin' your balls.

Yeah, I'm used to that!

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16809 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostTue Jan 07, 2020 4:31 pm 
Going to lock this one up as the decision will not change and is not open for discussion.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > New restrictions on topics in stewardship
  Happy Birthday HundsSolo!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy