about recommendations

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Please answer the questions

You said " no one has stated that there is anything wrong with holding someone to account for their words or actions." And I say excellent to that. We agree. All the other sarcastic stuff you're flinging around is silly and not very funny.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you do not see yourself as a forum judiciary then why are you holding people accountable for their words?

Because that's what happens on debate and discussion message boards. It's got nothing to do with being a "judiciary"; it's about people swapping opinions and often about disagreeing about stuff.

Originally posted by FMF
I seek to participate fully on these debate and discussion forums and it's par for the course for people to say embarrassing things. There's no benefit to be had from trying inhibit free speech and the taking of proper responsibility by people for what they say with daft hyperbole about people talking on a message board being "morally reprehensible".

So you hope to make people more responsible for their words by dragging elements up from the past so as to confront, embarrass and discredit them. This is the motivating factor for doing so?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Please tell us why you need to hold people accountable for the same words again and again.

Please tell us what you hope to achieve by doing so.

Please tell us if you see yourself as a forum judiciary.

What's the matter with you? Is it inconvenient to your routine that I have answered all these questions?

Originally posted by FMF
Because that's what happens on debate and discussion message boards. It's got nothing to do with being a "judiciary"; it's about people swapping opinions and often about disagreeing about stuff.

So dragging elements up from the past so as to confront, embarrass and discredit people leads to productive discussion and debate, that's what you are saying?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you hope to make people more responsible for their words by dragging elements up from the past so as to confront, embarrass and discredit them. This is the motivating factor for doing so?

No. I invite people to hold me responsible for what I say. And I hold them responsible for what they say. It's called discourse.

Originally posted by FMF
What's the matter with you? Is it inconvenient to your routine that I have answered all these questions?

Yes you have answered them but not very satisfactorily, for some of your answers don't make much logical or rational sense, i have therefore asked some auxiliary questions so that we can fully understand your position.

Originally posted by FMF
No. I invite people to hold me responsible for what I say. And I hold them responsible for what they say. It's called discourse.

and dragging elements up from the past so as to confront, embarrass and discredit people leads to productive discourse?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So dragging elements up from the past so as to confront, embarrass and discredit people leads to productive discussion and debate, that's what you are saying?

I don't see why anything embarrassing in the past should be seen as such by people now because those people can simply say that they find it embarrassing and point out that they no longer believe it or can't remember why they said it, or whatever. I don't see a problem.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes you have answered them but not very satisfactorily,

That may well be the very nature of disagreement on this issue.

Originally posted by FMF
That may well be the very nature of disagreement on this issue.

I am going to attempt to synthesize your answers.

1. Its morally acceptable to drag elements up from the past so as to confront, embarrass and discredit other people because they should be held accountable for their words again and again.

2. The motivating factor in dragging elements up from the past so as to confront, embarrass and discredit other people is to help them be more accountable for their words.

3. Dragging elements up from the past so as to confront, embarrass and discredit other people leads to productive discussion and debate.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am going to attempt to synthesize your answers.

The answers I have given ~ as I have written them ~ will suffice. 🙄

Originally posted by FMF
The answers I have given ~ as I have written them ~ will suffice. 🙄

First morality exists on an internet chat room forum, that is why there are moderators to moderate those who overstep those bounds. I do not judge you personally for your actions are a reflection of no one but yourself, but i will simply note that you retrospectively drag elements up form the past not because it leads to productive discussion and debate, not because you want to see people held accountable for their words but the sole reasons are to confront, embarrass and discredit people and the reason that you do so is because it brings you pleasure to see people embarrassed and discredited. Is it not the case FMF?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I fond your answers to be luke warm and watery

I'm fine with you saying this. It's OK by me that you say this.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
... i will simply note that you retrospectively drag elements up form the past not because it leads to productive discussion and debate, not because you want to see people held accountable for their words but the sole reasons are to confront, embarrass and discredit people and the reason that you do so is because it brings you pleasure to see people embarrassed and discredited. Is it not the case FMF?

I do not concur.