Debate Ethics (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

Hypothetical:

You post a story about a major paper doing something you think is very wrong. A debator who admits to "loving" this paper and "giving it the benefit of the doubt any day of the week" demands to know what law has been broken.

You post information about the law the Attorney General is considering charging the paper with. There is a little discussion about it amongst the other debators, but the person who made the demand avoids the whole topic for a couple days and then posts the same demand again as if no one had addressed it the first time. You post it again, and they do the same thing again and again.

You finally get sick of this game and get curious about what other things this person has said about the issue. You check it out and find that same person on the record making the exact opposite assertion on another thread.

You post it. The person puts you on ignore, just as they have several others right about the time they proved her wrong on something.

Then the person repeatedly posts things about having put you on ignore, and keeps telling everyone how little your opinion matters to them (which they wouldn't be so fixated on if that was true).

 

[niftydrifty]

Wow. If you have to appeal to others' opinions about a debate, rather than simply debating over in the thread where the debate occurred, then, sure, I'd say you definitely have a credibility problem, aquapub. :roll:

Ethics deals with good and bad, right and wrong. The right/good thing to do in this case, aquapub, would be to debate the topic, not make another debator the topic, outside of the realm of the debate. This is what's known as an ad hominem argument. And on the "debate ethics" scale, an ad hominem is a zero.

I'm not posting all this stuff to attack you, aquapub. I'm posting this stuff to help you. Good luck. And when you lose, try to not lose the lesson.

 

[Jerry]

Hypothetical:

You post a story about a major paper doing something you think is very wrong. A debator who admits to "loving" this paper and "giving it the benefit of the doubt any day of the week" demands to know what law has been broken.

You post information about the law the Attorney General is considering charging the paper with. There is a little discussion about it amongst the other debators, but the person who made the demand avoids the whole topic for a couple days and then posts the same demand again as if no one had addressed it the first time. You post it again, and they do the same thing again and again.

You finally get sick of this game and get curious about what other things this person has said about the issue. You check it out and find that same person on the record making the exact opposite assertion on another thread.

You post it. The person puts you on ignore, just as they have several others right about the time they proved her wrong on something.

Then the person repeatedly posts things about having put you on ignore, and keeps telling everyone how little your opinion matters to them (which they wouldn't be so fixated on if that was true).

This person simply has a need to feel good. If you don't facilitate that then they feel rejected, even hostile, and choose to ignore you so that they can go out and get their next fix without a hang-up.

It's nothing to worry about.

 

[Pen]

You have so many options to make a complaint other than enlisting the members to support your vague question. Have you tried any of these?

- I am not entirely certain about the meaning and purpose of the Basement, but wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to take your objection to this person's posting there?

- There is also the "report post" function, or simply ignore this person's posts or lack of response to yours.

- If the mods haven't covered "debate ethics" thoroughly, then bring your issue up with them for clarification.

I would think that passive-aggressive manipulation would be frowned upon here. :roll:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted aquapub:
Hypothetical:

You post a story about a major paper doing something you think is very wrong. A debator who admits to "loving" this paper and "giving it the benefit of the doubt any day of the week" demands to know what law has been broken.

You post information about the law the Attorney General is considering charging the paper with. There is a little discussion about it amongst the other debators, but the person who made the demand avoids the whole topic for a couple days and then posts the same demand again as if no one had addressed it the first time. You post it again, and they do the same thing again and again.

You finally get sick of this game and get curious about what other things this person has said about the issue. You check it out and find that same person on the record making the exact opposite assertion on another thread.

You post it. The person puts you on ignore, just as they have several others right about the time they proved her wrong on something.

Then the person repeatedly posts things about having put you on ignore, and keeps telling everyone how little your opinion matters to them (which they wouldn't be so fixated on if that was true).

Would you like to be my buddy, ............................buddy!

I don't ignore anyone. That ignore button is for *****'s with limited debating skills and even fewer balls! Not to mention the logic of logging on to a debate forum just to ignore people.

 

[aquapub]

Wow. If you have to appeal to others' opinions about a debate, rather than simply debating over in the thread where the debate occurred, then, sure, I'd say you definitely have a credibility problem, aquapub. :roll:

Ethics deals with good and bad, right and wrong. The right/good thing to do in this case, aquapub, would be to debate the topic, not make another debator the topic, outside of the realm of the debate. This is what's known as an ad hominem argument. And on the "debate ethics" scale, an ad hominem is a zero.

I'm not posting all this stuff to attack you, aquapub. I'm posting this stuff to help you. Good luck. And when you lose, try to not lose the lesson.

This has nothing to do with you. Thanks for all the ego-sensitive menstration though. :lol:

 

[Stace]

Moderator's Warning:

Hypothetical, my ***. You're not fooling anyone here. If you can't privately deal with your grievances with another member......well, that's your own problem, but we have a very special room for these sorts of things. It's called Lover's Quarrel, and it's located in the Basement. Perfect place for threads like this.

 

[taxedout]

What Billo said.

If you feel you need to ignore someone, then ignore them and don't mention them.

I'd say credibility is in question.

 

[DeeJayH]

this is where this post belongs
have at it

 

[tecoyah]

This has nothing to do with you. Thanks for all the ego-sensitive menstration though. :lol:

So...uh....let me get this straight.

1) you post a hypothetical, asking others to post opinion on the situation.

2) someone replys in a way you didnt anticipate.

3) you then tell them to get lost.


Seems to me this may explain the reason you needed to post the "Hypothetical" in the first place.

 

[teacher]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/336785-post167.html

You post it. The person puts you on ignore,

I don't ignore anyone.

If you did I'd just have to learn how to hack.

That ignore button is for *****'s

Doctors. Repo men. Gynacolgists. Shrinks. Police. Landlord. Dog catcher. Exterminator. Santa Claus. Neil Boortz. But this post is not for you.

Not to mention the logic of logging on to a debate forum just to ignore people.

Gotta be a typo. That's logic Billo. What gives? Shi*thead.

Then the person repeatedly posts things about having put you on ignore, and keeps telling everyone how little your opinion matters to them (which they wouldn't be so fixated on if that was true).

http://www.debatepolitics.com/354759-post224.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/354762-post31.html






Damn. I mean damn. Thought I was reading a girls post until I looked at the gender. Hands down the gayest thing I've ever read here. Except every post by galenrox. But thanks none the less. Forced me to improve my computer skills. Like to new tricks? What have youdona lately? Bought a pink highlighter to mark in Al Fraken's book when you learn howto read? Finally figured out the place image in the text box instead as attachments thing. I've been asking that since I started doing cartoons. Only two answers. One to down load off site. Another just wrong. Opportunity. Why answer when you don't know? But I digress. Aqua, it's your lucky day. The Warden is feeling magnanimous. No idea of your politics. You must stay in the needlepoint and homo forums. Not gonna find out either. My advice is just say you were joking and get out with only this post. See the first link? The date? Like I knew you were coming. Creepy, ain't it?

HWSOH won't tell me how many people put me on ignore or how many times I've been reported. Many a little bird will let me know. And of course, I'd make it worth your while.

 

[talloulou]

If you have a problem with aps just say so! :rofl Passive aggressive whining is so boring. If you're gonna get ridiculous and have an immature fit then do it like I did with my jfuh is a whiney little bitch thread. Sure it lets everyone know how juvenile you are but who gives a shite! I certainly don't.

And as far as Aps...she put me on ignore too in the very thread your complaining about. She told me I was obnoxious and then put me on ignore for a few days. She took me off eventually 'cause deep down she has an uncontrollable need to hear what I have to say. :rofl

Anyway I think she kinda knows the NYT was a "little wrong" for printing the article but she loves them too much to let anyone make a mountain out of a molehill. Basically she won't ever admit that to you 'cause you're obnoxious like me. :mrgreen:

Oh and I don't like the way your thread title tricked me. I thought it was gonna be an interesting thread about ethics when really it's just a lame whine thread. At least when I make threads like that I label them correctly...jfuh is a little bitch.....that way everyone is forewarned of the stupidity before viewing.

 

[aps]

aquapub, I had no idea how much my posts bothered you. I'm a little surprised. Wow. I don't even know what to say. :shock:

 

[talloulou]

aquapub, I had no idea how much my posts bothered you. I'm a little surprised. Wow. I don't even know what to say. :shock:

You could throw him a bone and admit the NYT was a little teensy bit wrong :shock: or (what would be funnier) just ignore everything he said since it's all hypothetical anyway and tell him he's on ignore again. :rofl

 

[aps]

You could throw him a bone and admit the NYT was a little teensy bit wrong :shock: or (what would be funnier) just ignore everything he said since it's all hypothetical anyway and tell him he's on ignore again. :rofl

I honestly do not think that the NYT was wrong in publishing the article. The Wall Street Journal published an article, as did the Washington Post and the L.A. Times. To me, if that information was truly classified and the leaking would have gotten someone into trouble, none of these newspapers would have published the story. Also, based upon the articles I have read on this topic (whether what they did was wrong or not), it further substantiates my belief that what they did was not wrong.

The NYT was never prosecuted for publishing the Pentagon Papers. As such, it will not be prosecuted in this case either because what they did was not illegal. I could see how some could argue that their publishing the story was unethical--but illegal, nope.

It's amazing how much one misses when they put someone on ignore.

 

[talloulou]

I honestly do not think that the NYT was wrong in publishing the article. The Wall Street Journal published an article, as did the Washington Post and the L.A. Times. To me, if that information was truly classified and the leaking would have gotten someone into trouble, none of these newspapers would have published the story. Also, based upon the articles I have read on this topic (whether what they did was wrong or not), it further substantiates my belief that what they did was not wrong.

The NYT was never prosecuted for publishing the Pentagon Papers. As such, it will not be prosecuted in this case either because what they did was not illegal. I could see how some could argue that their publishing the story was unethical--but illegal, nope.

It's amazing how much one misses when they put someone on ignore.

Holy crap Aps....I was just asking for "they may have been a teensy tiny eeeny weeny bit hasty in their printing of info the white house thought was too specific" and you had to get all blah blah blah on me. :rofl No wonder you got aquapub's panties all in a bunch. :rofl

 

[aps]

Holy crap Aps....I was just asking for "they may have been a teensy tiny eeeny weeny bit hasty in their printing of info the white house thought was too specific" and you had to get all blah blah blah on me. :rofl No wonder you got aquapub's panties all in a bunch. :rofl

Look, young lady , I cannot say that they were hasty in their decision even to a teensy tinsy eeeny weeny bit.

 

[talloulou]

Look, young lady , I cannot say that they were hasty in their decision even to a teensy tinsy eeeny weeny bit.

Yeah but you did say this at one point:

I mentioned last week that based upon an article I read (whose author escapes me), I agreed that the publishing of the story would have some negative impact in that terrorists who did not know of the program would change the way they got money. Thus, I agree with Levey. Do I think it compromised national security to the extent that Bush and Cheney would have us believe? Nope.

I feel that you as a "highly partisan partisan [sic]" are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Which lets face it is basically the same as agreeing with aquapub a teensy tiny eeeny weenie bit is it not?. :rofl And most likely the post that sent him over the edge as that's what he's been trying to tell you for days and days.

 

[aps]

Yeah but you did say this at one point:



Which lets face it is basically the same as agreeing with aquapub a teensy tiny eeeny weenie bit is it not?. :rofl And most likely the post that sent him over the edge as that's what he's been trying to tell you for days and days.

I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't think that agreeing that the article had some negative impact means that I believe the NYT was wrong or hasty in publishing the story.

They closed down a major portion of an interstate in my area. It caused severe traffic on that road.

Did it have a negative impact on traffic? Yes
Was it wrong for them to close it down? No

Should I take aquapub off ignore?

 

[talloulou]

I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't think that agreeing that the article had some negative impact means that I believe the NYT was wrong or hasty in publishing the story.

They closed down a major portion of an interstate in my area. It caused severe traffic on that road.

Did it have a negative impact on traffic? Yes
Was it wrong for them to close it down? No

Should I take aquapub off ignore?

Yeah but aps if they close down traffic to fix an interstate or clear it from obstruction then the negative (severe traffic) is out weighed by the positive (safe clear road or new road construction.)

The NYT's article, if it really had any negative impact and changed the way even a tiny number of terrorists exchange money, is a negative with no positive to counter the negative thus bad decision making. If the NYT's believed the administration was acting illegally and they were attempting to shed light on that behavior that could be a positive. However they never claimed "illegal behavior." So basically it appears to me that they took a risk (albeit I agree that it was a molehill and not a mountain) and possibly produced a "negative" with no positive at all to justify the action. If small harm is possible from the release of info the white house doesn't want released and release of that info benefits noone (except maybe a dumb terrorist) and basically serves no driving purpose then how is it not a bad decision to print it?

And as for Aquapub isn't he off ignore if you are following this thread? :rofl

 

[aps]

Yeah but aps if they close down traffic to fix an interstate or clear it from obstruction then the negative (severe traffic) is out weighed by the positive (safe clear road or new road construction.)

The NYT's article, if it really had any negative impact and changed the way even a tiny number of terrorists exchange money, is a negative with no positive to counter the negative thus bad decision making. If the NYT's believed the administration was acting illegally and they were attempting to shed light on that behavior that could be a positive. However they never claimed "illegal behavior." So basically it appears to me that they took a risk (albeit I agree that it was a molehill and not a mountain) and possibly produced a "negative" with no positive at all to justify the action. If small harm is possible from the release of info the white house doesn't want released and release of that info benefits noone (except maybe a dumb terrorist) and basically serves no driving purpose then how is it not a bad decision to print it?

And there is where we differ. The article I read that made me agree that it had a possible negative impact was addressing this very issue--whether the NYT was right in publishing the information. The author of the article had determined that the benefits of Americans being put on notice of the SWIFT program outweighed the negative impact of a few terrorists learning about the SWIFT program.

And as for Aquapub isn't he off ignore if you are following this thread? :rofl

Nope. Only because someone else quoted his original post could I see what he had written.

 

[talloulou]

Nope. Only because someone else quoted his original post could I see what he had written.

Personally I don't get the point of "ignore." If you don't feel like responding to someone than don't...but putting them on ignore is kind of like when my 5 year old puts her hands over her ears and mindlessly repeats I can't hear you I can't hear you. Kinda lame.

But then again you and aquapub just need to agree to disagree 'cause you're gonna send him over the edge with this NYT's crap either way. :rofl At this point I can't see why either one of you still cares. It's old news.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Aquapub,

Hypothetical:

You post a story about a major paper doing something you think is very wrong. A debator who admits to "loving" this paper and "giving it the benefit of the doubt any day of the week" demands to know what law has been broken.

You post information about the law the Attorney General is considering charging the paper with. There is a little discussion about it amongst the other debators, but the person who made the demand avoids the whole topic for a couple days and then posts the same demand again as if no one had addressed it the first time. You post it again, and they do the same thing again and again.

You finally get sick of this game and get curious about what other things this person has said about the issue. You check it out and find that same person on the record making the exact opposite assertion on another thread.

You post it. The person puts you on ignore, just as they have several others right about the time they proved her wrong on something.

Then the person repeatedly posts things about having put you on ignore, and keeps telling everyone how little your opinion matters to them (which they wouldn't be so fixated on if that was true).

Liberals inherently lack creditability. Your Master simply skips their post I don't wast time punting people on a silly ignore list.

 

[aps]

Personally I don't get the point of "ignore." If you don't feel like responding to someone than don't...but putting them on ignore is kind of like when my 5 year old puts her hands over her ears and mindlessly repeats I can't hear you I can't hear you. Kinda lame.

But then again you and aquapub just need to agree to disagree 'cause you're gonna send him over the edge with this NYT's crap either way. :rofl At this point I can't see why either one of you still cares. It's old news.

I know it's lame, and I am fine with that. The problem is that when people in my "real" life insult me, I choose not to spend time with them. The "ignore" button on this message board is equivalent to my choosing not to be subjected to rude behavior.

 

[talloulou]

I know it's lame, and I am fine with that. The problem is that when people in my "real" life insult me, I choose not to spend time with them. The "ignore" button on this message board is equivalent to my choosing not to be subjected to rude behavior.

Yeah well people in real life can be quite toxic so I can understand cutting them off. Likewise there are people on here I rarely respond to. I just can't imagine trying to follow online conversations with missing pieces.