Debate Now Is "Structured Debate" another Euphemism for Censorship?

[Derideo_Te]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of those who constantly disparage onerous government rules and regulations being the same people who want to impose their own onerous rules and regulations in the SDZ?

It is becoming readily apparent that not many comprehend the concept of a "structured discussion".

Instead it appears as though what they really are demanding is a CONTROLLED "discussion" where they get to exclude everything that they disagree with.

How many of them have uttered the puerile whine "if you don't like it then just leave the thread"?

Don't they understand that defeats the entire purpose?

Without opposing viewpoints there is no debate.

If the discussion is so narrow so as censor everything but what the OP wants to spout off on then it is just a farce.

Think about it!

 

[RKMBrown]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of those who constantly disparage onerous government rules and regulations being the same people who want to impose their own onerous rules and regulations in the SDZ?

It is becoming readily apparent that not many comprehend the concept of a "structured discussion".

Instead it appears as though what they really are demanding is a CONTROLLED "discussion" where they get to exclude everything that they disagree with.

How many of them have uttered the puerile whine "if you don't like it then just leave the thread"?

Don't they understand that defeats the entire purpose?

Without opposing viewpoints there is no debate.

If the discussion is so narrow so as censor everything but what the OP wants to spout off on then it is just a farce.

Think about it!

Your confusion is based on your use of terms. You conflate good regulations with bad regulation, where everyone knows there is a difference between the two.

 

[BlackSand]

Your confusion is based on your use of terms. You conflate good regulations with bad regulation, where everyone knows there is a difference between the two.

"Control" is like the steering wheel on a vehicle ... You can point it down the road or at a tree ... One is certainly more positive and productive than the other.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of those who constantly disparage onerous government rules and regulations being the same people who want to impose their own onerous rules and regulations in the SDZ?

It is becoming readily apparent that not many comprehend the concept of a "structured discussion".

Instead it appears as though what they really are demanding is a CONTROLLED "discussion" where they get to exclude everything that they disagree with.

How many of them have uttered the puerile whine "if you don't like it then just leave the thread"?

Don't they understand that defeats the entire purpose?

Without opposing viewpoints there is no debate.

If the discussion is so narrow so as censor everything but what the OP wants to spout off on then it is just a farce.

Think about it!

Your confusion is based on your use of terms. You conflate good regulations with bad regulation, where everyone knows there is a difference between the two.

Absolutely!

Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?

Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?

What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?

 

[RKMBrown]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of those who constantly disparage onerous government rules and regulations being the same people who want to impose their own onerous rules and regulations in the SDZ?

It is becoming readily apparent that not many comprehend the concept of a "structured discussion".

Instead it appears as though what they really are demanding is a CONTROLLED "discussion" where they get to exclude everything that they disagree with.

How many of them have uttered the puerile whine "if you don't like it then just leave the thread"?

Don't they understand that defeats the entire purpose?

Without opposing viewpoints there is no debate.

If the discussion is so narrow so as censor everything but what the OP wants to spout off on then it is just a farce.

Think about it!

Your confusion is based on your use of terms. You conflate good regulations with bad regulation, where everyone knows there is a difference between the two.

Absolutely!

Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?

Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?

What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?

You asked, "Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?" No.

A partisan inflammatory definition in an OP, would be a bad definition. Not a bad rule.

You asked, "Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Yes. Free country and all.

Again if you don't like the definition don't use the word in your response. Use the definition in your response.

You asked, "What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Everyone has their own purposes for using specific definitions of terms. I would venture to say the number of possible purposes approaches infinity. So I can't list them all.

But, I do understand what you mean, I think. IMO one reason people use partisan inflammatory definitions is to coach others into agreeing with their world view.

For example, "change you can believe in..." In this phrase the "change" is being used as a noun, the definition of which is left to partisan inflammatory definitions. The lack of a definition is an appeal to emotion. The providing of a definition is to move to discussion of facts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of those who constantly disparage onerous government rules and regulations being the same people who want to impose their own onerous rules and regulations in the SDZ?

It is becoming readily apparent that not many comprehend the concept of a "structured discussion".

Instead it appears as though what they really are demanding is a CONTROLLED "discussion" where they get to exclude everything that they disagree with.

How many of them have uttered the puerile whine "if you don't like it then just leave the thread"?

Don't they understand that defeats the entire purpose?

Without opposing viewpoints there is no debate.

If the discussion is so narrow so as censor everything but what the OP wants to spout off on then it is just a farce.

Think about it!

Your confusion is based on your use of terms. You conflate good regulations with bad regulation, where everyone knows there is a difference between the two.

Absolutely!

Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?

Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?

What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?

You asked, "Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?" No.

A partisan inflammatory definition in an OP, would be a bad definition. Not a bad rule.

You asked, "Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Yes. Free country and all.

Again if you don't like the definition don't use the word in your response. Use the definition in your response.

You asked, "What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Everyone has their own purposes for using specific definitions of terms. I would venture to say the number of possible purposes approaches infinity. So I can't list them all.

But, I do understand what you mean, I think. IMO one reason people use partisan inflammatory definitions is to coach others into agreeing with their world view.

For example, "change you can believe in..." In this phrase the "change" is being used as a noun, the definition of which is left to partisan inflammatory definitions. The lack of a definition is an appeal to emotion. The providing of a definition is to move to discussion of facts.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your example of a partisan definition was a good one. Political parties most definitely use for the explicit purpose of pushing their own agenda.

And yes, the questions I posed were too broad without a specific example to expect an answer so let's narrow it down and deal with this example.

The OP included definitions in the rules for this SDZ thread;

Debate Now - Democrats If Not Hillary then Who US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From rule #2 you can see that she used a partisan inflammatory definition for a thread that was about politics.

What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?

And I will give you my own answer first. To me it was an instant turn off. It told me that the OP wasn't interested in an honest structured debate at all. Instead she was just fishing for people to agree with her biased point of view. So it completely defeated the purpose of the OP from the outset. Instead of engaging in a structured discussion she was only going to have a chorus of like minded responses. The actual responses proved that to be correct.

Your thoughts?

 

[RKMBrown]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of those who constantly disparage onerous government rules and regulations being the same people who want to impose their own onerous rules and regulations in the SDZ?

It is becoming readily apparent that not many comprehend the concept of a "structured discussion".

Instead it appears as though what they really are demanding is a CONTROLLED "discussion" where they get to exclude everything that they disagree with.

How many of them have uttered the puerile whine "if you don't like it then just leave the thread"?

Don't they understand that defeats the entire purpose?

Without opposing viewpoints there is no debate.

If the discussion is so narrow so as censor everything but what the OP wants to spout off on then it is just a farce.

Think about it!

Your confusion is based on your use of terms. You conflate good regulations with bad regulation, where everyone knows there is a difference between the two.

Absolutely!

Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?

Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?

What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?

You asked, "Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?" No.

A partisan inflammatory definition in an OP, would be a bad definition. Not a bad rule.

You asked, "Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Yes. Free country and all.

Again if you don't like the definition don't use the word in your response. Use the definition in your response.

You asked, "What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Everyone has their own purposes for using specific definitions of terms. I would venture to say the number of possible purposes approaches infinity. So I can't list them all.

But, I do understand what you mean, I think. IMO one reason people use partisan inflammatory definitions is to coach others into agreeing with their world view.

For example, "change you can believe in..." In this phrase the "change" is being used as a noun, the definition of which is left to partisan inflammatory definitions. The lack of a definition is an appeal to emotion. The providing of a definition is to move to discussion of facts.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your example of a partisan definition was a good one. Political parties most definitely use for the explicit purpose of pushing their own agenda.

And yes, the questions I posed were too broad without a specific example to expect an answer so let's narrow it down and deal with this example.

The OP included definitions in the rules for this SDZ thread;

Debate Now - Democrats If Not Hillary then Who US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From rule #2 you can see that she used a partisan inflammatory definition for a thread that was about politics.

What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?

And I will give you my own answer first. To me it was an instant turn off. It told me that the OP wasn't interested in an honest structured debate at all. Instead she was just fishing for people to agree with her biased point of view. So it completely defeated the purpose of the OP from the outset. Instead of engaging in a structured discussion she was only going to have a chorus of like minded responses. The actual responses proved that to be correct.

Your thoughts?

Quote from foxfire:

2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics. For purposes of this discussion:
Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing.

Conservative/right wing/libertarian (small "L") are defined as all the same thing.

Combining separate groups into two distinct groups is not defining, it's grouping.

I would treat her groupings as strange groupings. More particularly, if necessary to make my arguments, one effect of my arguments would be to point out that the Emperor of the thread has very odd world view of groupings for the topic of interest. I would without getting into definitions or semantics make sure everyone knows what she did in forming said groups was wrong.

You ask, "What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?" I don't know, she did not say. I venture it was probably to eliminate flaming of potential democrat candidates as being too "Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive" IOW.. she tried to kill the use of those terms by saying they all mean the same thing. If that was in fact her plan she would have been better off by just saying don't use these terms.

To be more clear. I think she made a mistake in grouping terms vs. banning their use, but I may be wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

 

[BlackSand]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your example of a partisan definition was a good one. Political parties most definitely use for the explicit purpose of pushing their own agenda.

And yes, the questions I posed were too broad without a specific example to expect an answer so let's narrow it down and deal with this example.

The OP included definitions in the rules for this SDZ thread;

Debate Now - Democrats If Not Hillary then Who US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From rule #2 you can see that she used a partisan inflammatory definition for a thread that was about politics.

What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?

And I will give you my own answer first. To me it was an instant turn off. It told me that the OP wasn't interested in an honest structured debate at all. Instead she was just fishing for people to agree with her biased point of view. So it completely defeated the purpose of the OP from the outset. Instead of engaging in a structured discussion she was only going to have a chorus of like minded responses. The actual responses proved that to be correct.

Your thoughts?

"2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics. For purposes of this discussion:"

What part of that were you unable to understand.
You don't have to agree with the speed limit on the highway ... But you have to obey it either way.

Edit:
Or you can use another road ...
Or you can build your own road ...
Or you can go to the racetrack ...

The options are unlimited.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of those who constantly disparage onerous government rules and regulations being the same people who want to impose their own onerous rules and regulations in the SDZ?

It is becoming readily apparent that not many comprehend the concept of a "structured discussion".

Instead it appears as though what they really are demanding is a CONTROLLED "discussion" where they get to exclude everything that they disagree with.

How many of them have uttered the puerile whine "if you don't like it then just leave the thread"?

Don't they understand that defeats the entire purpose?

Without opposing viewpoints there is no debate.

If the discussion is so narrow so as censor everything but what the OP wants to spout off on then it is just a farce.

Think about it!

Your confusion is based on your use of terms. You conflate good regulations with bad regulation, where everyone knows there is a difference between the two.

Absolutely!

Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?

Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?

What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?

You asked, "Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?" No.

A partisan inflammatory definition in an OP, would be a bad definition. Not a bad rule.

You asked, "Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Yes. Free country and all.

Again if you don't like the definition don't use the word in your response. Use the definition in your response.

You asked, "What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Everyone has their own purposes for using specific definitions of terms. I would venture to say the number of possible purposes approaches infinity. So I can't list them all.

But, I do understand what you mean, I think. IMO one reason people use partisan inflammatory definitions is to coach others into agreeing with their world view.

For example, "change you can believe in..." In this phrase the "change" is being used as a noun, the definition of which is left to partisan inflammatory definitions. The lack of a definition is an appeal to emotion. The providing of a definition is to move to discussion of facts.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your example of a partisan definition was a good one. Political parties most definitely use for the explicit purpose of pushing their own agenda.

And yes, the questions I posed were too broad without a specific example to expect an answer so let's narrow it down and deal with this example.

The OP included definitions in the rules for this SDZ thread;

Debate Now - Democrats If Not Hillary then Who US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From rule #2 you can see that she used a partisan inflammatory definition for a thread that was about politics.

What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?

And I will give you my own answer first. To me it was an instant turn off. It told me that the OP wasn't interested in an honest structured debate at all. Instead she was just fishing for people to agree with her biased point of view. So it completely defeated the purpose of the OP from the outset. Instead of engaging in a structured discussion she was only going to have a chorus of like minded responses. The actual responses proved that to be correct.

Your thoughts?

Quote from foxfire:

2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics. For purposes of this discussion:
Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing.

Conservative/right wing/libertarian (small "L") are defined as all the same thing.

Combining separate groups into two distinct groups is not defining, it's grouping.

I would treat her groupings as strange groupings. More particularly, if necessary to make my arguments, one effect of my arguments would be to point out that the Emperor of the thread has very odd world view of groupings for the topic of interest. I would without getting into definitions or semantics make sure everyone knows what she did in forming said groups was wrong.

You ask, "What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?" I don't know, she did not say. I venture it was probably to eliminate flaming of potential democrat candidates as being too "Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive" IOW.. she tried to kill the use of those terms by saying they all mean the same thing. If that was in fact her plan she would have been better off by just saying don't use these terms.

To be more clear. I think she made a mistake in grouping terms vs. banning their use, but I may be wrong.

I posted my definitions a few hours ago and I took those definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary when that source defined the terms. I don't really care what the technical definitions of each are or in what ways they technically differ. I don't see any of them as pejorative terms in and of themselves, and IMO and observation they are commonly used interchangeably on message boards in in many political articles and in other modern day vernacular.

Those who do see them as too pejorative to overlook can simply not participate in the discussion. It is that simple. If you have a real bone to pick with it, make your own thread and discuss it. Just don't plan to do it on a thread that is designated for a different discussion.

(P.S. If I objected to a definition or use of a term and did wish to participate on the thread, I would simply post that my personal definition was different and would probably qualify my remarks to reflect that. I wouldn't presume to dictate to the thread author that he or she had to conform to what I think.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

I several here who are in favor of SDZ but resent the OP informing them that what they really want is a controlled discussion with the power to exclude those who irk them.

Such is anathema to open dialogue that seeks to explore and reveal concepts and ideas.

And the "well go elsewhere then" is as meaningful as "doen't like America, go elsewhere."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go with the Structured Propaganda Zone and have done with it.

 

[BlackSand]

I several here who are in favor of SDZ but resent the OP informing them that what they really want is a controlled discussion with the power to exclude those who irk them.

Such is anathema to open dialogue that seeks to explore and reveal concepts and ideas.

And the "well go elsewhere then" is as meaningful as "doen't like America, go elsewhere."

Meh ... That would only apply if you feel excluded because you require others to agree with you to be included.
The rest may just accept that they are in the same boat ... And don't need agreement to understand that.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your confusion is based on your use of terms. You conflate good regulations with bad regulation, where everyone knows there is a difference between the two.

Absolutely!

Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?

Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?

What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?

You asked, "Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?" No.

A partisan inflammatory definition in an OP, would be a bad definition. Not a bad rule.

You asked, "Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Yes. Free country and all.

Again if you don't like the definition don't use the word in your response. Use the definition in your response.

You asked, "What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Everyone has their own purposes for using specific definitions of terms. I would venture to say the number of possible purposes approaches infinity. So I can't list them all.

But, I do understand what you mean, I think. IMO one reason people use partisan inflammatory definitions is to coach others into agreeing with their world view.

For example, "change you can believe in..." In this phrase the "change" is being used as a noun, the definition of which is left to partisan inflammatory definitions. The lack of a definition is an appeal to emotion. The providing of a definition is to move to discussion of facts.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your example of a partisan definition was a good one. Political parties most definitely use for the explicit purpose of pushing their own agenda.

And yes, the questions I posed were too broad without a specific example to expect an answer so let's narrow it down and deal with this example.

The OP included definitions in the rules for this SDZ thread;

Debate Now - Democrats If Not Hillary then Who US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From rule #2 you can see that she used a partisan inflammatory definition for a thread that was about politics.

What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?

And I will give you my own answer first. To me it was an instant turn off. It told me that the OP wasn't interested in an honest structured debate at all. Instead she was just fishing for people to agree with her biased point of view. So it completely defeated the purpose of the OP from the outset. Instead of engaging in a structured discussion she was only going to have a chorus of like minded responses. The actual responses proved that to be correct.

Your thoughts?

Quote from foxfire:

2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics. For purposes of this discussion:
Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing.

Conservative/right wing/libertarian (small "L") are defined as all the same thing.

Combining separate groups into two distinct groups is not defining, it's grouping.

I would treat her groupings as strange groupings. More particularly, if necessary to make my arguments, one effect of my arguments would be to point out that the Emperor of the thread has very odd world view of groupings for the topic of interest. I would without getting into definitions or semantics make sure everyone knows what she did in forming said groups was wrong.

You ask, "What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?" I don't know, she did not say. I venture it was probably to eliminate flaming of potential democrat candidates as being too "Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive" IOW.. she tried to kill the use of those terms by saying they all mean the same thing. If that was in fact her plan she would have been better off by just saying don't use these terms.

To be more clear. I think she made a mistake in grouping terms vs. banning their use, but I may be wrong.

I posted my definitions a few hours ago and I took those definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary when that source defined the terms. I don't really care what the technical definitions of each are or in what ways they technically differ. I don't see any of them as pejorative terms in and of themselves, and IMO and observation they are commonly used interchangeably on message boards in in many political articles and in other modern day vernacular.

Those who do see them as too pejorative to overlook can simply not participate in the discussion. It is that simple. If you have a real bone to pick with it, make your own thread and discuss it. Just don't plan to do it on a thread that is designated for a different discussion.

(P.S. If I objected to a definition or use of a term and did wish to participate on the thread, I would simply post that my personal definition was different and would probably qualify my remarks to reflect that. I wouldn't presume to dictate to the thread author that he or she had to conform to what I think.)

Yes, however the definitions you posted are in conflict with the rules of your thread where those different terms are to have no difference in meaning. I'm pretty sure the reason for this OP was not that you said "2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics." The reason for this thread, IMO, is that you said "For purposes of this discussion: Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing." That you now show proof that the terms do mean different things... just points out to the conflict. That you say these words are used interchangeably just points to the tower of babel problem, where the biggest problem is not having two people speaking different languages, but rather having different people speaking the same damn language but meaning entirely different things because they are not coming from the same context or using the same definitions of terms.

IOW you said we won't get bogged down in definitions or semantics and then in the next sentence you got bogged down in definitions and semantics.

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely!

Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?

Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?

What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?

You asked, "Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?" No.

A partisan inflammatory definition in an OP, would be a bad definition. Not a bad rule.

You asked, "Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Yes. Free country and all.

Again if you don't like the definition don't use the word in your response. Use the definition in your response.

You asked, "What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Everyone has their own purposes for using specific definitions of terms. I would venture to say the number of possible purposes approaches infinity. So I can't list them all.

But, I do understand what you mean, I think. IMO one reason people use partisan inflammatory definitions is to coach others into agreeing with their world view.

For example, "change you can believe in..." In this phrase the "change" is being used as a noun, the definition of which is left to partisan inflammatory definitions. The lack of a definition is an appeal to emotion. The providing of a definition is to move to discussion of facts.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your example of a partisan definition was a good one. Political parties most definitely use for the explicit purpose of pushing their own agenda.

And yes, the questions I posed were too broad without a specific example to expect an answer so let's narrow it down and deal with this example.

The OP included definitions in the rules for this SDZ thread;

Debate Now - Democrats If Not Hillary then Who US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From rule #2 you can see that she used a partisan inflammatory definition for a thread that was about politics.

What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?

And I will give you my own answer first. To me it was an instant turn off. It told me that the OP wasn't interested in an honest structured debate at all. Instead she was just fishing for people to agree with her biased point of view. So it completely defeated the purpose of the OP from the outset. Instead of engaging in a structured discussion she was only going to have a chorus of like minded responses. The actual responses proved that to be correct.

Your thoughts?

Quote from foxfire:

2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics. For purposes of this discussion:
Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing.

Conservative/right wing/libertarian (small "L") are defined as all the same thing.

Combining separate groups into two distinct groups is not defining, it's grouping.

I would treat her groupings as strange groupings. More particularly, if necessary to make my arguments, one effect of my arguments would be to point out that the Emperor of the thread has very odd world view of groupings for the topic of interest. I would without getting into definitions or semantics make sure everyone knows what she did in forming said groups was wrong.

You ask, "What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?" I don't know, she did not say. I venture it was probably to eliminate flaming of potential democrat candidates as being too "Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive" IOW.. she tried to kill the use of those terms by saying they all mean the same thing. If that was in fact her plan she would have been better off by just saying don't use these terms.

To be more clear. I think she made a mistake in grouping terms vs. banning their use, but I may be wrong.

I posted my definitions a few hours ago and I took those definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary when that source defined the terms. I don't really care what the technical definitions of each are or in what ways they technically differ. I don't see any of them as pejorative terms in and of themselves, and IMO and observation they are commonly used interchangeably on message boards in in many political articles and in other modern day vernacular.

Those who do see them as too pejorative to overlook can simply not participate in the discussion. It is that simple. If you have a real bone to pick with it, make your own thread and discuss it. Just don't plan to do it on a thread that is designated for a different discussion.

(P.S. If I objected to a definition or use of a term and did wish to participate on the thread, I would simply post that my personal definition was different and would probably qualify my remarks to reflect that. I wouldn't presume to dictate to the thread author that he or she had to conform to what I think.)

Yes, however the definitions you posted are in conflict with the rules of your thread where those different terms are to have no difference in meaning. I'm pretty sure the reason for this OP was not that you said "2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics." The reason for this thread, IMO, is that you said "For purposes of this discussion: Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing." That you now show proof that the terms do mean different things... just points out to the conflict. That you say these words are used interchangeably just points to the tower of babel problem, where the biggest problem is not having two people speaking different languages, but rather having different people speaking the same damn language but meaning entirely different things because they are not coming from the same context or using the same definitions of terms.

IOW you said we won't get bogged down in definitions or semantics and then in the next sentence you got bogged down in definitions and semantics.

IMO re how these terms are used in modern day vernacular, they are used interchangeably and as synonyms for each other. Which is why that despite the expanded definitions varying, they are all cut from the same cloth. If I didn' have to deal with people who come into threads for the specific purpose of hijacking it by demanding that THEIR definitions be used, the rule never would have been put in the thread. A discussion of the thread topic did not have to include those definitions at all.

But again, if you don't approve of how I structure a thread that's fine. Everybody isn't going to be interested in what I'm interested in and for damn sure everybody isn't going to love me. I want people participating in my thread who will actually argue the thread topic--pro, con, for, against, up, down, or whatever. Those with a different agenda, I will be thrilled if they just find something else to do.

But to accuse me of suppressing opposition to my point of view just because I won't allow them to derail the thread with their own agenda is pretty specious.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

Instead of addressing the legitimate criticism the only response is a meaningless deflection.

The onus is still out there to PROVE that "liberalism equals statism".

Your credibility depends upon providing that substantiation.

The clock is running out of time.

 

[Ravi]

In political science, Statism is the belief in the primacy of the State over the rights of the individual.

It seems odd to me that "the left" would be labeled statist by someone that firmly believes the state should regulate women's bodies, consenting adult marriage, means testing for voting, and etc.

As used in the context being discussed it is derogatory and partisan.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your example of a partisan definition was a good one. Political parties most definitely use for the explicit purpose of pushing their own agenda.

And yes, the questions I posed were too broad without a specific example to expect an answer so let's narrow it down and deal with this example.

The OP included definitions in the rules for this SDZ thread;

Debate Now - Democrats If Not Hillary then Who US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From rule #2 you can see that she used a partisan inflammatory definition for a thread that was about politics.

What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?

And I will give you my own answer first. To me it was an instant turn off. It told me that the OP wasn't interested in an honest structured debate at all. Instead she was just fishing for people to agree with her biased point of view. So it completely defeated the purpose of the OP from the outset. Instead of engaging in a structured discussion she was only going to have a chorus of like minded responses. The actual responses proved that to be correct.

Your thoughts?

"2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics. For purposes of this discussion:"

What part of that were you unable to understand.
You don't have to agree with the speed limit on the highway ... But you have to obey it either way.

Edit:
Or you can use another road ...
Or you can build your own road ...
Or you can go to the racetrack ...

The options are unlimited.

.

So if the OP posts a malicious insult your only option is to ignore it?

You don't get to call them out on their defamatory insult and make them own it?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

Why are they excluded from the SDZ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

IMO re how these terms are used in modern day vernacular, they are used interchangeably and as synonyms for each other.

Violation of the OP rules yet again.

Why do the SDZ rules only apply when you want them and don't apply when it is convenient for you to ignore them?

Either the SDZ apply to everyone or that don't?

Which is it?