|
|
|
|
admin
Level 1
Reputation: 10
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Group: Administrators
Posts: 21
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
|
No, I think anything should be allowed -- of course there are some sources that are more worthy than others, but that is for the viewer to figure out and decide.
I am not going to engage in censorship per se, but of course any blasphemy or vulgarity will be deleted.
Admin
|
|
| Posted Aug 19, 2006, 4:07 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Matthew
Level 5
Reputation: 1677
(Likers: 113 / Critics: 35)
Group: moderator
Posts: 11,397
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
|
I guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we get there.
On the one hand, it's childish and shows a lack of ability to argue one's point -- and it should be considered a "loss" for the person who uses such attacks.
When person A is arguing with person B, and person A uses an Ad Hominem attack, everyone should agree that person A lost.
But on the other hand, when a discussion gets heated, as many good discussions do, it's very frustrating for the "attacker" -- especially if he's been repeatedly frustrated by the person that he just attacked (say, he's been guilty of bad logic again and again, and can't seem to think clearly) -- when his little vent of frustration gets "modded" by someone uninvolved in the conversation.
Perhaps the answer is for a moderator to defend the person "in the right", and lock the topic.
Recently on Fisheaters there was an example of some VERY POOR modding -- a certain moderator closed a topic, after posting a defense of a very immature poster whom everyone else in the post agreed was acting poorly. Very immature, I think.
Matthew
|
.........................
Amazon.com sells just about everything, and they have excellent prices.
Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase! It costs you nothing extra.
Buy from Amazon.com and support CathInfo
Thank you,
Matthew
|
| Posted Aug 19, 2006, 7:47 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
