No problem buddy....YOU...
Good ... glad we cleared that up
when was the last time you posted in the general forum
I dunno ... why ?
A few weeks ago maybe ?
.....NOT that it is required per say
LOL ... then why are you even asking ?
... you've been asked to tone it down by another moderator
And I think I did ...
certainly at least for a time ...
I guess it all comes down to what is acceptable, by OTM's standards (whatever they might be) Since "toning it down" is a rather subjective thing - and largely in the eye of the beholder - it's sort of hard to know exactly where the red line is at ...
Am I permitted 10 posts a day ? ... 5 ? ... 1 ?
Threads ?
How
little do you want me to
participate ?
and you just keep flogging the old mare ... to what end?
To a couple of ends actually:
1. I have a political opinion, which I choose to express, and
2. Because I think that the American public, on certain matter, isn't quite as well informed as they could be, or - and I know this is entirely presumptuous of me - quite as well as they
should be.
I put a fairly substantial amount of time and effort into reading, researching, writing, collecting, and assembling
content to support and back up the political opinions that I choose to express ...
I consider these opinions to be related to serious issues, and to me at least, they are important.
People can choose to avail themselves of that content (quotes, articles, links) to perhaps better inform themselves ... or they can examine it if they wish, and choose to
reject if they deem that it has no merit.
They can also choose to simply
ignore it.
Some people may also find some of the content and opinions that I express to be objectionable for some reason or another. This could be because it goes against their own personal beliefs (philosophical, moral, religious, patriotic or other), or because it conflicts with what they have been taught ... and they are so invested in their own worldview that they can't countenance that another reality may plausibly exist besides the one that they
believe exists ... it may very well be quite threatening.
Sometimes this may be because they somehow feel it makes them "wrong" ... or because it causes them to be in possession of data which at least appears to be contradictory. I believe this is known as
cognitive dissonance - which is a condition which apparently can cause one to feel extreme discomfort under certain circumstances.
In terms of those which are covered in the last few paragraphs immediately above, it seems that at least some of them are so afflicted by this discomfort, that rather than engaging in a discussion/debate/argument over the relevant issue or opinion - in an effort to persuade me (or others) that their opinion/view/position has merit and is something I (or others) should adopt, or at least research further - they would prefer to focus their efforts on
stopping my communication.
I find that to be rather authoritarian ... as well as being decidedly un-American (again, just my opinion) I view it - when carried to the extreme - as something that leads to totalitarianism ... and as unhealthy for a pluralistic, democratic society.
(If fact, if one were to examine various folks posted opinions, it might be rather plain to see who it is that has
stopping or
preventing communication repeatedly come up as a sort of theme in their own communication. At times, there may be very legitimate reasons for doing so of course - such as the incitement, or threats, of violence, using utterly profane language, etc. - the question before letting the hammer drop is what it is appropriate, in light of circumstance or context)
Since I have no ability to enforce or otherwise cause others to read and examine what I write and post, mostly certainly in terms of threads that I start, I can hardly imagine I am somehow inflicting my views on others to any great extent or shoving them "anyone's throat" ...
(Interestingly, as a side note, I have observed that when I start a thread, there seems to be quite a few people (30 to 60 or so) who are at least interested in examining what I have posted (for whatever reasons) ... but I really have no idea who these people are - unless they choose to
participate by
responding)
WRT forcing someone to read what I write and post, I have heard tell - although I have never verified this personally - that there is actually some sort of "ignore" feature that is available whereby one can choose to have their tender sensibilities and eyes protected from any horrific (potential) heresies that some EO member might let pass their fingertips.
It seems to me that if someone's objection was that they did not wish see something from someone because it might be objectionable and could cause them discomfort, this feature could be used so that they could prevent their own distress.
Sadly, I think for some, the true reasons for their protest, are not really the ones that they claim them to be. Rather than the myriad of reasons which are given, it's simply that they don't like a particular
idea - and rather than take the time, and invest the energy and effort to equip themselves properly to prevail in an argument/debate/discussion, they take the lazy (and possibly somewhat cowardly) path and just seek to
eliminate that which might place them in a position where they feel as though they
should respond or participate.
A sense of duty is one of the highest motivations that there is ... and there are many, many ways to avoid or shirk it.
Moreover, I suspect that the prospect of actually participating raises the terrifying possibility that they may encounter
other ideas lurking out in the ether somewhere that they would just as soon avoid having to consider or deal with.
BTW - I wouldn't consider myself completely immune from any of the above mentioned human frailties, from time to time ...
... you've made your point Israel really isn't the good guy ...
It really isn't a case of
a good guy and
a bad guy ...
There are good guys and gals ... and bad guys and gals on
both sides ...
Victims and villains abound ... and sometimes it's even possible for some to be both. My position - which I don't think is unclear - is that I believe the scales are tipped where Israel is more the villain, than they are the victim. This is, for some, an absolute heresy.
There is no question however that Israel has an extreme quantitative and qualitative advantage both economically and militarily.
The also have the ultimate ace-in-the-hole: nearly unqualified/unrestricted/unthinking support - both politically and domestically - from the last remaining superpower ... the United States. This is particularly true in terms of a veto by the US in the UN Security Council, to say nothing of other diplomatic venues.
One might posit that having a child - who is never disciplined - and which allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no limits, who never suffers any consequences for their actions, and is never told the word "NO" ... might just result in a child which is spoiled, unruly, ill-tempered and prone to very bad manners.
I have even heard that some folks - who claim to be, and actually call themselves "conservative" - subscribe to this view.
I would suggest that this theory, if it is in fact true and workable, might have a wider applicability than just children.
I would also suggest that it's possible that raising a child in such a manner as described above, might well have
consequences, not only for the child, but for the
parent as well.
we get it ... maybe we can beat the Bengazi horse again
Personally, my vote would be "no" (at least in terms of my own personal participation) ... but hey, if it frosts someone cakes, fine by me - let 'em have at it.
My opinion ... probably worth just about as much as you had to pay for it.
