StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Samuel wrote:No, it would be like discussing who shot first in Bloody Kansas. Which is irrelevant to the Civil War.

Answer me honestly, do you even understand how analogies and similes work? I'm serious here, because it really looks like you don't. I am constantly galled by the total inability of people on these forums to relate differing, but similar concepts to one another. Maybe it's my bad for assuming that people would "get" a simple rhetorical device, and I should stop using them altogether.

The point of an analogy or simile is not that the two things are precisely the same. The point is that they share some salient characteristic which can be compared in an illuminating fashion. Your analogy attempts to show "Bloody Kansas happened before the Civil War, and the Israeli occupation of Palestine commenced before the present conflict, thus both relationships are exactly comparable!" This is so obviously stupid that you should be embarrassed for yourself. My analogy attempted to relate two present arguments by showing that both were strongly affected by the fundamental conditions from which the arguments arise; the moral standing of the Confederacy (of which the flag is symbolic) and the moral standing of Israel's foundation. Since I guess you didn't get this, I'll address the idea directly.

It is pointless to argue about right and wrong in the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict without reference to the ethical and moral quandary presented by the foundation of Israel on land seized from the Palestinians. If this was wrong, the Palestinians are taking action against an immoral occupation. If we instead accept the rightness of Israeli claims at face value, then they are simply defending themselves against terrorism. Ignoring or displacing this issue and discussing only the present, as Uraniun235 suggests, is at best distorting the discussion, at worst effectively a decision in favor of Israel (as it is typically the one initially provoked in each discrete incident, and because the alleged theft of Palestinian lands is the whole reason that Palestinians fight in the first place).

It's possible to calculate the ethics of actions in isolation. It is unarguably unethical for Hamas to fight Israel by randomly killing civilians and using their own noncombatants as human shields, just as it unarguably unethical for Israel to contain 1 1/2 million people in a de facto open air prison. But when we look at issues in this way we lose all sense of context and the decision is meaningless. Hamas fights Israel in this fashion because it lacks the capacity to fight conventionally but is still under pressure to appear to be doing something; Israel keeps people in Gaza because it has to put them somewhere they wouldn't be a huge danger to security. In either case, to understand why this is so, we have to go back, and back... and so on.

Now, I'm not saying that I think the IvP moratorium is good. I'd be willing to open the issue to discussion, and if people want to be babies about it and form vendettas over it, then I'll be willing to ban them. What I'm saying is that the concerns people are citing in favor of the moratorium are true--the debate will turn to these issues because otherwise its stupid--but despite that they aren't sufficient reason to keep the rule around.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:A thread titled "Israel Invades Gaza" doesn't necessarily need to explore the merits of some incident forty years ago; moderators can exercise the "split thread" power in such cases.

It's impossible to honestly discuss the ethics and morals of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict without reference to the foundational events. It's like discussing whether it is okay to wave the Confederate battle flag around, only you're not allowed to mention slavery.

Alright, I'll concede that point.

I think Faqa and Edi have done a very good job of summing it up.

While I believe that the IvP morotarium could perhaps be eased, too many posters have too much emotional investment tied up in this debate. Unlike the SW v ST debate it is intellectual dishonest to pretend one side has some clear advantage. Instead we are dealing with supererogatives and suberogatives. And no one can really place it, we just have an endless argument of who is the lesser asshole.

You can't really allow such an argument and expect anyone who has an axiomatically defined position to remain civil.

Perhaps we could allow IvP debates to develop for a longer time than we currently do (the mods are exemplary efficient and killing them in under a dozen posts) but to let them go unchecked is to allow people to debate basic ethical axioms, a task that generally results in broken friendships. I should know... I have a hard time talking anything political with my brother for these very reasons.

As it stands, lifting the IvP moratorium will only lead to a massive shitfest that'll leave a good portion of the board butthurt for some reason or another. But as already mentioned, once the mod staff gets reinforced, it wouldn't hurt to ease up a bit. After all, that's what the mods are there for: to clamp down on flamefests and blatant threadjacks.

Maybe if there's enough interest, we could hold a Colosseum debate -- but with a very specific topic. Rather than having it on the intractable/useless "who's worse" or "who started it", we could have a debate on "solutions to the IvP problem." The difficulty of the debate is coming up with solutions that address all the current problems and might actually be accepted by the warring sides. But the difficulty would be what could make it a discussion-worthy debate.

Turin wrote:Maybe if there's enough interest, we could hold a Colosseum debate -- but with a very specific topic. Rather than having it on the intractable/useless "who's worse" or "who started it", we could have a debate on "solutions to the IvP problem." The difficulty of the debate is coming up with solutions that address all the current problems and might actually be accepted by the warring sides. But the difficulty would be what could make it a discussion-worthy debate.

To take this a little further, perhaps two participants that have don't have a vested interest in one side or the other taking up the debate there. Give them a chance to research their chosen side and then debate based on what they find as an impartial researcher. Don't know if that is very feasible, as it will surely lead to accusations of not doing proper research or raising the correct points for the side in question.

Also I think that if you have a specific topic isolated from the overall situation, it will not be representative of the situation enough to make it an interesting or worthwhile debate.

havokeff wrote:Believe me, I see your point. I am also for giving it a go like I said, with heavy mod oversight. I'm just saying, that no matter the venue, this is an argument that gets heated. Not that the people here can't handle the argument. Although from past reading, the track record isn't very good.

The track record isn't good? No shit, why do you think there's a fucking moratorium? What I'm saying is, leave the past in the past, and try it again. SDN is not the same place it was when I joined up, and it's definitely not the same place it was when it started. When was the last time someone made a thread in OT about how they cut their penis with crusty bread? That's right, that kind of thing goes in Testing now. Views change, people change (good example, look at the Duchess, and I'm not talking about physical change). Yeah, you're for it, but you don't need to go on about what happened before, we know what happened before, and if shit blows up, yeah, you can say "I told ya so!" but what good is that going to do?

havokeff wrote:And for the record, I think this is maybe, the second worthwhile topic this place has spawned. Good job Uraniun.

Second that, brother.

ray245 wrote: I was thinking, is it possible for people to argue against their personal belief and stance in regards to the IvP issue? There are a number of legitimate supporters from both sides of the camp who are capable of making viable arguments.

If the problem is the fact that people may get too personal when they are being attacked on a personal stance, let this be an academic exercise.

Let people know that whoever that wins the debate isn't necessarily correct. Instead, the winner won this debate BECAUSE he is a better debate, and made better arguments even when he is arguing against an issue that is important to him.

Of course it's POSSIBLE; I could easily argue either side of this situation. If it wasn't easy to support either side, it wouldn't be an issue.

I think the problem is certain people use this topic as some SERIOUS wish-fulfillment, whether for the kind of inane 'might makes right lol shoot darkies = problem goes away' nonsense or 'fight the power down with aparthied you deserve it' finger-pointing. The Israelis are of course massively biased for extremely understandable reasons.

Back in the day, I couldn't get enough of posters on the board using the debate as a soapbox for their political philosophy, which is of course far too personal (and too speculative, since there either isn't nearly enough terrorism for it to work or nearly enough violence to make it stop) to go anywhere. However, I agree that this is an issue for moderation, not for a blanket ban on discussion.

Ender wrote:As I recall, the problem came about that, since it is pretty much one nasty cycle of hate over there, arguments were not about recent actions, but about which side was "worse". Which meant instead of the standard logic and rationalism that the board was trying to promote, both sides were posters utterly convinced they held the moral high ground and making appeals to emotion for their arguments. And of course, when you get extremely emotionally involved in a subject (like those arguments did) and held a position of "who has the moral high ground" things got EXTREMELY personal and very nasty with great speed. This lead to vendettas, IRC nonsense, etc.

Basically, it was what we trying to stamp out in N&P now, on crack. Given that we are trying to get rid of that kind of behavior, I can't see lifting it as a good thing. I suppose you could try a Coliseum debate for it, with extra rules to reign it in from the boards usual style to keep it from going down that road (eg "entries must be rated PG"), but that doesn't strike me as a very good plan.

Is that behavior necessarily tied to IvP? If you are correct that IvP discussions will invariably lead to emotional appeals and personal moral high grounds, regardless of modding or punishments for people who discuss based on emotions, then IvP should remain banned. However, I'm rather skeptical that an IvP discussion must be accompanied by emotional appeals for their arguments; if, as you claim, that behavior is essentially what we're trying to eliminate in N&P now, then I think lifting the moratorium would be useful in eliminating the behavior from discussions about IvP.

I feel that IvP ban should be lifted on the condition no one is allowed to use emotional appeals. Anyone who do that will receive a punishment of some sort. Don't just lock the thread when it get out of hand. Deal out some form of 'light' punishment to anyone who tried the emotional appeal tactics on either side.

Don't ban or punish the discussion topic itself, punish those who broke certain rules that is not helpful to the discussion of that topic.

We are supposed to be a board based on rational and logical thinking. We need to find a way to encourage such as behavior, even if it is a sensitive topic such as IvP.

In some ways, some of us is afraid of punishing long time members because they have been here for a long time.

ray245 wrote:In some ways, some of us is afraid of punishing long time members because they have been here for a long time.

You get over that, eventually. I felt the same way but very early on when I was but a n00b I got into a debate about religion with DW and Durandal both and I thouight "aw, hell, I'm gonna get banned". But if you do well and show a propensity to learn and seek answers rather than hide behind dogma or ignorance, it's actually quite a respectable learning experience.

ray245 wrote:I feel that IvP ban should be lifted on the condition no one is allowed to use emotional appeals. Anyone who do that will receive a punishment of some sort. Don't just lock the thread when it get out of hand. Deal out some form of 'light' punishment to anyone who tried the emotional appeal tactics on either side.

Right: since we're cracking down on shitty arguments anyway, we may as well allow IvP and crack down on it there, too.

havokeff wrote:

Turin wrote:Maybe if there's enough interest, we could hold a Colosseum debate -- but with a very specific topic. Rather than having it on the intractable/useless "who's worse" or "who started it", we could have a debate on "solutions to the IvP problem." The difficulty of the debate is coming up with solutions that address all the current problems and might actually be accepted by the warring sides. But the difficulty would be what could make it a discussion-worthy debate.

To take this a little further, perhaps two participants that have don't have a vested interest in one side or the other taking up the debate there. Give them a chance to research their chosen side and then debate based on what they find as an impartial researcher. Don't know if that is very feasible, as it will surely lead to accusations of not doing proper research or raising the correct points for the side in question.

I have a semi-weird idea.

What if we did a "multiparty talks" debate? We put a couple of decent debaters in the Colosieum, each of whom takes a role of one of the involved parties -- Israeli government, Palestinian leadership, and the US State Department. Each starts their position with a series of demands, and puts a few of them into a "spoiler block" indicating that these items are the highest priority and are non-negotiable (the debate participants would be honor-bound not to read these spoilered items; they're just for the audience). Then you set them loose for an extended number of rounds and see what comes out. Could be interesting.

Turin wrote:I have a semi-weird idea.

What if we did a "multiparty talks" debate? We put a couple of decent debaters in the Colosieum, each of whom takes a role of one of the involved parties -- Israeli government, Palestinian leadership, and the US State Department. Each starts their position with a series of demands, and puts a few of them into a "spoiler block" indicating that these items are the highest priority and are non-negotiable (the debate participants would be honor-bound not to read these spoilered items; they're just for the audience). Then you set them loose for an extended number of rounds and see what comes out. Could be interesting.

Interesting, but I don't know if it would work-- after all, we're reasonable people that actually want a solution, and are willing to negotiate give-and-take to reach an end product. It is hard to really play out an obstructionist with impossible goals because, for whatever reason, the state of war serves their needs.

Trust me, if it was up to us, we'd've solved MidEast peace by now!

Coyote wrote:Interesting, but I don't know if it would work-- after all, we're reasonable people that actually want a solution, and are willing to negotiate give-and-take to reach an end product. It is hard to really play out an obstructionist with impossible goals because, for whatever reason, the state of war serves their needs.

Yeah, I keep turning this over in my head and I can't really come up with a way for it to be useful. Oh well; I did say it was a semi-weird idea.

Need I remind you all just because we are talking about the Israel-Palestine Moratorium does not mean the Moratorium is lifted?

Apperntly I do
The Israel-Palestine Moratorium is still in place, violating it is still breaking forum rules, and those who have will be dealt with.
There are two things that can raise the Moratorium, one is Darth Wong coming in and waving his hand and declaring it over and done with. The second is a full senate senate vote. Neither of which has occurred.
Be on notice.

Mr Bean wrote:Need I remind you all just because we are talking about the Israel-Palestine Moratorium does not mean the Moratorium is lifted?

Apperntly I do
The Israel-Palestine Moratorium is still in place, violating it is still breaking forum rules, and those who have will be dealt with.
There are two things that can raise the Moratorium, one is Darth Wong coming in and waving his hand and declaring it over and done with. The second is a full senate senate vote. Neither of which has occurred.
Be on notice.

Sorry about that, I was wondering if a discussion about what actions, from the perspective of one side, to take as compared to who is right and who is wrong can be acceptable to a certain degree.

ray245 wrote:
Sorry about that, I was wondering if a discussion about what actions, from the perspective of one side, to take as compared to who is right and who is wrong can be acceptable to a certain degree.

Which would be an exact violation of the moratorium good job there.






[confusing syntax error fixed ~~ Coyote]

Mr Bean wrote:

ray245 wrote:
Sorry about that, I was wondering if a discussion about what actions, from the perspective of one side, to take as compared to who is right and who is wrong can be acceptable to a certain degree.

Would would be an exact violation of the moratorium good job there.

Oh OK, I misunderstood the nature of the ban. I thought that accusation of who is right and who is wrong is the reason why threads covering that issue is banned. I thought that a using different angle to talk about that issue might be acceptable.

If nothing else, can we get the thread(s) that led to the creation of the moratorium put in the famous threads subforum as tacit reminders of why the subject is verboten?

TithonusSyndrome wrote:If nothing else, can we get the thread(s) that led to the creation of the moratorium put in the famous threads subforum as tacit reminders of why the subject is verboten?

Not all of them, but there are some pretty spectacular fireworks in OT, though many of those were from before the moratoriumn was considered. It came about later, but I don't remember exactly when.

Well, if there's no one catalyzing thread that directly inspired the policy, then maybe a thread that exemplifies why we have the policy in the first place would be better? Be it from sooner, later, etc.?

From what I understand, the reason why there is so many anger and flames over that issue is because people are arguing over who has a right to be there, and not discussing about what can be done.

Mr Bean argued in the Senate that we need to have a central theme where both sides can work towards. What is the thing that both sides can agree on? Peace in the region perhaps?

Why can't we discuss over the possible solution, and discuss what compromise can be made by both sides over this senstitive issue?

We are not debating over who is right and who is wrong here, we can simply discuss about the methods and actions that can benefit both sides.

ray245 wrote: Why can't we discuss over the possible solution, and discuss what compromise can be made by both sides over this senstitive issue?

We are not debating over who is right and who is wrong here, we can simply discuss about the methods and actions that can benefit both sides.

They don't want peace however as I pointed out. HAMAS wants the Jews dead or fled and the Zionists want a racially pure homeland. That is not an area one can work for come understanding.

I will speak no further on the matter or I will be violating IvP myself.

Mr Bean wrote:

ray245 wrote: Why can't we discuss over the possible solution, and discuss what compromise can be made by both sides over this senstitive issue?

We are not debating over who is right and who is wrong here, we can simply discuss about the methods and actions that can benefit both sides.

They don't want peace however as I pointed out. HAMAS wants the Jews dead or fled and the Zionists want a racially pure homeland. That is not an area one can work for come understanding.

I will speak no further on the matter or I will be violating IvP myself.

Why do we need to argue from the perspective of the HAMAS? Surely we can be more neutral when we are debating on that issue, and seek a rational solution that can benefit both sides.

I mean from what I understand, both sides( meaning the members of this board) can agree that peace is beneficial to both parties, if a fair agreement was made. The HAMAS and the current Israel government may disagree with the idea of peace, but I would highly doubt that any member here would actually suggest that war is the preferred solution.

Why can't we discuss over a fair agreement that can benefit both parties?