Posted by tealady on February 4, 2006, at 4:37:32
In reply to Re: Let me see if |I understand this?, posted by teejay on February 3, 2006, at 19:41:31
> <i>This is also not the only site on the internet for discussing politics or faith.</i>
>
> No its not, but i'm sure its the most moderated ;-)))
>
> I know you feel like i'm being pedantic, but I do feel that to express political opinion properly, you cant shackle those who choose to voice their opinions.
>
> For example, if I disagreed with your opinions on george bush's stance on Iran for example, provided I attacked GB's standpoint rather than your stance then I wouldnt be being uncivil to you whilst still allowing me to fully express my point of view. The way things stand at the moment, people are shackled as to the way they express their opinions of Bush's policies in case they upset one of his supporters which is clearly not correct! (I'm trying to watch my own wording here! LOL)
>
> TJLOL I think you're making some good points as well as doing a good job of watching your wording. I sure hope DrBob reads them.
"The way things stand at the moment, people are shackled as to the way they express their opinions of Bush's policies in case they upset one of his supporters which is clearly not correct! "
As far as I can make out, I think they are only shackled if they do not support bbbb's policies?
Can anyone see anything different here?
That is, your allowed to fully express your opinions and views provided you are in support of bbbb's policies or even bbbb himself?It seems to me that the fact that the support may upset or discomfort the others that do not so strongly support bbbb's views is not taken into account. They have to let the supporters only air their views, so they must think that everyone agrees with them?, Any attempt at openly and plainly expressing an opposing view, no matter how friendly it was said, would not be supportive and so, under what seems to be at least the recent interpretation and application of the civility guidelines, it's not civil???
At least that's the point I've been attempting to ask? Is civil= supportive and complimenting only?
Can you not state your opinion ..just openly and plainly if it is not in support of BBBB or BBBB policies?
Personally I don't feel comfortable reading the style of writing that the application of these civil rules is creating.I guess I like friendly and open. You could add any of relaxed, funny, thought provoking on top of the open and friendly :-) Maybe it's me that just doesn't fit in here.
I guess I've always appreciated it, if anyone has an opposing view of anything, if they take the trouble to let me know how they feel.
I appreciate and value their effort and the time put in in doing so, especially if they can help me see their view of things as well. A real open 2 -way conversation is the best:-) I guess I really don't like it if everyone just agrees out of civility? Maybe they don't think I'm worth the effort to share their thoughts/experiences/wisdom with?
Whst if I (or others) may have been comparatively discomforted by a supportive statement of bbbb or bbbb's policies, as those who support bbbb are by the statements that openly voice non support of bbbb or his policies?
Do I then voice my discomfort of their complaint that they are discomforted? or voice my discomfort at their support? I ( & I suspect maybe others)arguably feel "uncomfortable" just as strongly .. although I do not see how anyone including myself can judge how anyone else feels.What if bbbb= Osama bin Laden or Saddam Or Hitler or.. does the same apply?.. supportive statements only?
Well I know I'm not doing a great job here of witting succinctly :-)
BTW I didn't think Jakeman did anything wrong either.Jan (who deosn't fit in here)
poster:tealady
thread:603925
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060111/msgs/606189.html