Question for Moderators
Moderator: Moderators
-
ThatGirlAgain
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
- Location: New York City
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #4
In the general post on Respect (“The overriding principle of this forum�) it says “Show respect to others. If you do not respect others, don't expect any in return.� When I had dogs (*), they were other than myself, so they were “others�.
In the Rules it says:
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about any person that is negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
My dogs were definitely persons, with unique and definite personalities. As far as I know, cockroaches (for example) are not persons.
Therefore dogs deserve respect. Lack of respect for someone’s dog is reportable.
* Sadly, we both work and go to school. That would not be fair to a dog.
In the Rules it says:
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about any person that is negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
My dogs were definitely persons, with unique and definite personalities. As far as I know, cockroaches (for example) are not persons.
Therefore dogs deserve respect. Lack of respect for someone’s dog is reportable.
* Sadly, we both work and go to school. That would not be fair to a dog.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell
- Bertrand Russell
Post #5
Thank you I agreeThatGirlAgain wrote: In the general post on Respect (“The overriding principle of this forum�) it says “Show respect to others. If you do not respect others, don't expect any in return.� When I had dogs (*), they were other than myself, so they were “others�.
In the Rules it says:
1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about any person that is negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
My dogs were definitely persons, with unique and definite personalities. As far as I know, cockroaches (for example) are not persons.
Therefore dogs deserve respect. Lack of respect for someone’s dog is reportable.
But your dog would wait for you all day and be there to love you unconditionally when you got home.ThatGirlAgain wrote:
* Sadly, we both work and go to school. That would not be fair to a dog.
Post #6
Why is it that a dog must be respected on this forum but not Jesus Christ?
I find that extremely disappointing.
The central tenant of this forum is supposed to be respect. The first rule is about respect, do we get to decide who that applies to? And yet extend it to dogs?
...
I find that extremely disappointing.
The central tenant of this forum is supposed to be respect. The first rule is about respect, do we get to decide who that applies to? And yet extend it to dogs?
...
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20838
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 363 times
- Contact:
Post #7
There is no rule that dogs must be respected. But, there is the general rule that posters must be respectful and civil. This would apply to any area of discussion.
In terms of respecting Jesus Christ, it depends on the circumstance. Do you have a particular post that you have in mind?
In terms of respecting Jesus Christ, it depends on the circumstance. Do you have a particular post that you have in mind?
-
Philbert
Post #9
As a dog myself, I will now bark noisily.....
Imho, there's a bit too much worry about respect on the forum. Members might be encouraged to take responsibility for the management of their own emotional states....
Imho, there's a bit too little concern about content quality.
I suggest the mods set up one little section of the forum where they pre-approve all posts, and set a higher standard for both manners AND content quality. This one little section of the forum would serve as a live example of what the mods hope the whole forum might be like.
As for manners, another idea is....
Instead of putting up those little mod notices scolding members about their manners, why not simply delete any post which contains personal attack statements the mods find to be objectionable. This would seem to be more persuasive with posters than the little lectures.
Imho, there's a bit too much worry about respect on the forum. Members might be encouraged to take responsibility for the management of their own emotional states....
Imho, there's a bit too little concern about content quality.
I suggest the mods set up one little section of the forum where they pre-approve all posts, and set a higher standard for both manners AND content quality. This one little section of the forum would serve as a live example of what the mods hope the whole forum might be like.
As for manners, another idea is....
Instead of putting up those little mod notices scolding members about their manners, why not simply delete any post which contains personal attack statements the mods find to be objectionable. This would seem to be more persuasive with posters than the little lectures.
-
keithprosser3
Post #10
Complete deletion is a bit harsh if the poster hasn't got a back-up copy. I suggest it is deleted from view but PMed back with the advice to fix it.
In most cases it only means editing 'Your stoopid' into 'I think if people re-examine the evidence the contrary stance is more readily justifiable.' and 'Your dog smells worse that his poo does' into 'One has to query the levels of hygiene manifested by your canine pet'. People will know what you wanted to say.
In most cases it only means editing 'Your stoopid' into 'I think if people re-examine the evidence the contrary stance is more readily justifiable.' and 'Your dog smells worse that his poo does' into 'One has to query the levels of hygiene manifested by your canine pet'. People will know what you wanted to say.
Last edited by keithprosser3 on Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
