[Bernardo]

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.

[MtnGoat]

[Damian]

[Malachai Constant]

Friends do not allow friends to drink and post.

[Tom]

[Bernardo]

I think many an otherwise valid point is lost with bogus language. #It's-a-hiker-forum

[cdestroyer]

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.

[cdestroyer]

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/

[RayD]

I would argue that to argue about argument is so metahiker.

[MtnGoat]

[Damian]

Thx dude. I was just bustin' your balls.

[Anne Elk]

Tom's narrowing acceptable discussions under Stewardship is ok with me.

[MtnGoat]

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.

[MtnGoat]

[Tom]

Going to lock this one up as the decision will not change and is not open for discussion.