"Ask The.." thread in Great Debates

[Czarcasm]

In this Ask the "crazy" settler thread in Great Debates, there was a bit of a kerfluffle about whether or not establishing settlements outside of Israel's border are legal. The OP says no, others disagree, then tomndebb steps in:

Originally Posted by tomndebb

TWEEEET!

The issue of the opinion of the OP as to whether the "settlements" are illegal has been answered in the negative.

Any further questions or challenges to that position will be taken up in a separate thread because it is just going to result in a hijack and a trainwreck in this one.

[ /Moderating ]

Now I realize that "ask the.." threads are usually for the purpose of asking questions of the OP, accepting the answers and moving on...but this particular "Ask the.." thread is in Great Debates, where the rule is that people are allowed to disagree with the OP and post their reasons why. If participants are not allowed to debate the OP in a situation like this, why is it in Great Debates in the first place?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Thank you. The OP in that thread has is ostensibly taking questions on a very controversial and incendiary subject regarding a practice which most of the world sees as illegal (and which is, as a matter of pure fact, against international law), but the moderators appear to be unwilling to allow and challenge or disagreement on the core issues. The OP is allowed to freely post his/her own views and political opinions with no obstruction and with no one allowed to rebut or debate them. Why is that thread allowed to remain in GD if no debate will be permitted on the most core, controversial points? If the OP is not willing to take any fire, the thread should be closed.

[Bryan Ekers]

If I may suggest, the subject was broached in a tone more hostile than necessary. I suppose better phrasing would have been "How do you feel about organizations that claim your resideny is illegal?", as opposed to "How do you feel about doing something that is illegal?"

The OP of the other thread is under no obligation to recognize the authority of "international law" as defined by whatever agencies were being cited. Possibly the government of Israel is, depending on which treaties are in effect.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

If I may suggest, the subject was broached in a tone more hostile than necessary. I suppose better phrasing would have been "How do you feel about organizations that claim your resideny is illegal?", as opposed to "How do you feel about doing something that is illegal?"

The OP of the other thread is under no obligation to recognize the authority of "international law" as defined by whatever agencies were being cited. Possibly the government of Israel is, depending on which treaties are in effect.

I asked the second question because that was what I wanted to know. I am not interested in the OP's opinion about what other organizations think. I'm interested in how the OP feels about being a criminal. That the settlements are illegal is a fact, not an opinion.

[John Mace]

Aren't "ask the..." threads supposed to go in another forum now? That would make more sense because, in large part, we are getting that one person's opinion. We're just trying to learn about what that person does or sees or experiences, not challenge that person's beliefs.

And with that particular subject (the settlements in Israel), I could easily see the thread devolving into a pissing contest.

Open a thread specifically about the settlements and be done with it.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

If I may suggest, the subject was broached in a tone more hostile than necessary. I suppose better phrasing would have been "How do you feel about organizations that claim your resideny is illegal?", as opposed to "How do you feel about doing something that is illegal?"

The OP of the other thread is under no obligation to recognize the authority of "international law" as defined by whatever agencies were being cited. Possibly the government of Israel is, depending on which treaties are in effect.

I f I might suggest, the OP is stating is opinion in Great Debates where, under normal circumstances, we are under no obligation to let him have his say without debate.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I asked the second question because that was what I wanted to know. I am not interested in the OP's opinion about what other organizations think. I'm interested in how the OP feels about being a criminal. That the settlements are illegal is a fact, not an opinion.

Here we go again... No, that is not a fact.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Aren't "ask the..." threads supposed to go in another forum now? That would make more sense because, in large part, we are getting that one person's opinion. We're just trying to learn about what that person does or sees or experiences, not challenge that person's beliefs.

And with that particular subject (the settlements in Israel), I could easily see the thread devolving into a pissing contest.

Open a thread specifically about the settlements and be done with it.

If it's a pissing contest, the OP started it with the very nature of the thread itself. The OP has also been permitted free reign to espouse whatever views he wants, I might add. To start a thread on a subject as incendiary as this one, and then brook no debate or challenge about it, is just trolling.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Here we go again... No, that is not a fact.

I'm afraid that it is. The settlements are illegal under international law. That is a fact.

[Captain Amazing]

I think the question behind it all is, you know, it's an "Ask the" thread. Do you actually want to find out how she lives and how she feels about things, or do you just want to yell at her?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

That the settlements are illegal is a fact, not an opinion.

It's a fact that some people claim so, yes. Illegality isn't a matter of demonstrable physics, though.

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

If I might suggest, the OP is stating is opinion in Great Debates where, under normal circumstances, we are under no obligation to let him have his say without debate.

It's not clear that any amount of debate will advance that particular issue beyond "it's illegal / no, it's not" (a pattern already being repeated in THIS thread) and it was already pretty hostile, with promise of more hostility to come.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If I start a thread called "Ask the meth cook," and invite questions about my methamphetimine manufacturing and resale business, can I expect the mods to admonish other posters for challenging me on the legal and/or ethical issues of my business? I would still expect to be allowed to espouse my OWN view with full force, of course, I just don't want to be rebutted on anything because that would be rude.

Also, in my opinion, making meth is not illegal, so there's no reason for anyone to keep saying that it is.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm afraid that it is. The settlements are illegal under international law. That is a fact.

Please do not restart that debate here. That fact that it is debatable at all is the point of this thread. Letting someone start a very controversial "Ask the.." thread in Great Debates without letting the rest of membership debate just doesn't seem right to me. If it is allowed, other people with questionable points of view will demand the same consideration.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I think the question behind it all is, you know, it's an "Ask the" thread. Do you actually want to find out how she lives and how she feels about things, or do you just want to yell at her?

These kinds of "ask the" threads are trolling if they don't allow challenges.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

It's a fact that some people claim so, yes. Illegality isn't a matter of demonstrable physics, though.

It's not clear that any amount of debate will advance that particular issue beyond "it's illegal / no, it's not" (a pattern already being repeated in THIS thread) and it was already pretty hostile, with promise of more hostility to come.

The nature of the thread is already hostile by its very nature, and it would hardly be the only subject in GD which is polarizing and prone to be endlessly argued without resolution.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If I start a thread called "Ask the meth cook,"

Well, unless you're actually a meth cook and can speak from knowledge and experience, that thread would be started under false pretenses.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I think the question behind it all is, you know, it's an "Ask the" thread. Do you actually want to find out how she lives and how she feels about things, or do you just want to yell at her?

It's an "Ask the.." thread in Great Debates-a new situation.

[Captain Amazing]

If you start a thread called "ask the meth cook", it would probably be shut down because you'd be talking about how to violate US law. The settlements don't violate US law. They may or may not violate "international law".

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, unless you're actually a meth cook and can speak from knowledge and experience, that thread would be started under false pretenses.

This doesn't really address the rhetorical point of my question, does it?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

It's am "Ask the.." thread in Great Debates-a new situation.

Then if the mods should do anything, it should be to move it to MPSIMS.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

If you start a thread called "ask the meth cook", it would probably be shut down because you'd be talking about how to violate US law. The settlements don't violate US law. They may or may not violate "international law".

But I don't consider it to be illegal under US law, therefore everybody else should have to go along with that.

[Shodan]

The thread does not belong in Great Debates.

If the SDMB in general wants to find anything out about being a settler, put the thread in IMHO. If people want to call her a crinimal, let them start a Pit thread.

Regards,
Shodan

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

These kinds of "ask the" threads are trolling if they don't allow challenges.

How? All the OP is saying is basically, "I live in a yishuv on the West Bank. Do you have any questions about my life in the settlement?" The OP isn't even making an argument. If you have such a problem with the OP living in a settlement on the West Bank that you can't participate in the thread other than yelling at the OP and calling them a criminal, that's your problem, not the OP's, and you're derailing the thread with a debate as to whether the settlements are right or wrong rather than the point of the thread, which is to find out how people in the settlements live.

[Marley23]

Point of order: the thread was started in MPSIMS Wednesday afternoon and was moved to Great Debates Thursday morning. I haven't had a chance to read it, so I can't offer much comment yet on how it's been moderated. But the placement of the read should not be attributed to the OP. He started it in the forum where "Ask the..." threads usually get started.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Then if the mods should do anything, it should be to move it to MPSIMS.

It started in MPSIMS and got moved to GD because MPSIMS did not allow for rebuttals or debates. Now we're being told that GD doesn't either. In my opinion, if the core issues can't be challenged, them the thread needs to be closed. It's too imflammatory otherwise. It's like allowing an "ask the pedophile" thread and allowing no criticism of pedophilia.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Point of order: the thread was started in MPSIMS Wednesday afternoon and was moved to Great Debates Thursday morning. I haven't had a chance to read it, so I can't offer much comment yet on how it's been moderated. But the placement of the read should not be attributed to the OP. He started it in the forum where "Ask the..." threads usually get started.

OK. Then it should be moved back, and posters should be told that debate about the settlements is not allowed.

Problem solved.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It started in MPSIMS and got moved to GD because MPSIMS did not allow for rebuttals or debates. Now we're being told that GD doesn't either. In my opinion, if the core issues can't be challenged, them the thread needs to be closed. It's too imflammatory otherwise. It's like allowing an "ask the pedophile" thread and allowing no criticism of pedophilia.

Agreed. It was moved to Great Debates because the mods saw that debating would ensue:

Originally Posted by twickster

Fair enough. I'll move it to Great Debates.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

How? All the OP is saying is basically, "I live in a yishuv on the West Bank. Do you have any questions about my life in the settlement?" The OP isn't even making an argument. If you have such a problem with the OP living in a settlement on the West Bank that you can't participate in the thread other than yelling at the OP and calling them a criminal, that's your problem, not the OP's, and you're derailing the thread with a debate as to whether the settlements are right or wrong rather than the point of the thread, which is to find out how people in the settlements live.

This is disingenuous. The OP knows how inflammatory the subject is, and even recognizes it with a sarcastic thread title. The OP is admitting to an illegal act and inviting questions about it. It's trolling, pure and simple.

[CaveMike]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The thread does not belong in Great Debates.

The thread was in MPSIMS originally and got moved to GD when the heated questions began.

Personally I was really interested in the OP's response to the question, but I wasn't all that interested in seeing the GD denizens debate among themselves and take it down the usual rabbit hole. We have enough threads like that already with the same people making the same arguments.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by John Mace

OK. Then it should be moved back, and posters should be told that debate about the settlements is not allowed.

Problem solved.

No, that would be sanctioning a troll.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by CaveMike

The thread was in MPSIMS originally and got moved to GD when the heated questions began.

Personally I was really interested in the OP's response to the question, but I wasn't all that interested in seeing the GD denizens debate among themselves and take it down the usual rabbit hole. We have enough threads like that already with the same people making the same arguments.

Then there's no reason for an "ask the" thread to exist at all. I see no reason why the OP should be allowed to boast about something this incendiary without any challenge.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

No, that would be sanctioning a troll.

No, it wouldn't. I don't know how you come off calling her a troll.

She's not boasting, and you're engaging in internet psychoanalysis. Again.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by CaveMike

The thread was in MPSIMS originally and got moved to GD when the heated questions began.

The heated questions were expected by the OP, hence the title and the mention of controversy in the first post.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by John Mace

No, it wouldn't. I don't know how you come off calling her a troll.

I don't see how she can be called anything else. She's being intentionally inflammatory. Isn't that the definition.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't see how she can be called anything else. She's being intentionally inflammatory. Isn't that the definition.

I'll stand corrected when and if she gets banned for being a troll

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't see how she can be called anything else. She's being intentionally inflammatory. Isn't that the definition.

She's not. If anybody's being intentionally inflammatory, you are, with your first post in the OP asking "Does it bother you that you're a criminal?"

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't see how she can be called anything else. She's being intentionally inflammatory. Isn't that the definition.

It may or may not be the definition for it, but is this the forum to bring up that word?

[Acid Lamp]

This issue is getting treated with special attention IMHO. There has been plenty of debate in other "ask the" threads before; My own included. I fielded several questions from posters who had contrasting views to my own regarding the topic of the thread. We didn't have any problem there. Even the infamous paedophile thread had some significant debate as I recall.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

She's not. If anybody's being intentionally inflammatory, you are, with your first post in the OP asking "Does it bother you that you're a criminal?"

She know the subject is inflammatory because she said so. She is also a criminal. That is a fact. I just wanted to know how she felt about. She started a thread explicitly admitting to an action that is illegal (and WIDELY viewed around the world as immoral) and inviting people to ask questions about it. Denying that she knew the subject matter was inflammatory is disingenous.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

It may or may not be the definition for it, but is this the forum to bring up that word?

I thought issues like that were exactly why this forum existed.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

No, that would be sanctioning a troll.

Then I guess we'd just have to live with you feeling that way.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

She know the subject is inflammatory because she said so. She is also a criminal. That is a fact.

It's not a fact. She's not a criminal. Everything she's doing is legal under Israeli law, and she's not violating international law. International law governs conduct between states, not conduct by individuals. Israel may or may not be violating international law by allowing the settlements, but she's not by living there.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Thank you for that.

1. Move thread back to IMHO, with mod instruction to avoid debate on the legality of the settlements.

2. Start a separate GD or Pit thread if you want to bitch about the OP or the settlements.

3. Yay.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

It's not a fact. She's not a criminal. Everything she's doing is legal under Israeli law, and she's not violating international law. International law governs conduct between states, not conduct by individuals. Israel may or may not be violating international law by allowing the settlements, but she's not by living there.

Israeli law is irrelevant. She is breaking international law. You can rationalize it all you want, but you can't say that the settlements are uncontroversial or that claiming to be a settler would not be easily predictable as inflammatory.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Thank you for that.

1. Move thread back to IMHO, with mod instruction to avoid debate on the legality of the settlements.

This would be ludicrous.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Then I guess we'd just have to live with you feeling that way.

But apparently I'm not permitted to say it.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The OP knows how inflammatory the subject is, and even recognizes it with a sarcastic thread title. The OP is admitting to an illegal act and inviting questions about it.

Illegal and crazy are not the same thing. You can be crazy but not be doing anything illegal and vice versa.

Independent of the issue of whether the settlements are illegal, the settlers themselves are frequently portrayed in the media as fanatics. The thread was intended to be a discussion of the OP's lifestyle, and the reference to "crazy" was appropriate in that context. The legality of the settlements is another issue.

[Marley23]

Diogenes the Cynic, the OP is not trolling. Opening a discussion on an inflammatory subject is not trolling. If it were, we wouldn't have a Great Debates forum. Deliberately aggravating people is trolling, and while some people have gotten worked up in that thread, it's not because Shinna Minna Ma is baiting them.

I don't have any issues with tomndebb's instruction. By that point the thread was on page three and the OP had been asked over and over again about that issue. It was starting to drown out any other discussion in the thread. It's not as if he preempted the question before anyone could ask about it. I think the thread would be fine in MPSIMS or Great Debates but I'm inclined to leave it where it is because there are other GD-type issues that could still be discussed.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Opening a subject on an inflammatory subject is not trolling as long as everyone is permitted an equal voice. This is a case where only one opinion on a controversial debate is being allowed. Whether or not that is technically "trolling" on the part of the OP, it is certainly counter to the spirit of this board and smacks of political censorship. This person is boasting of criminality and being protected from challenges.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Opening a subject on an inflammatory subject is not trolling as long as everyone is permitted an equal voice. This is a case where only one opinion on a controversial debate is being allowed. Whether or not that is technically "trolling" on the part of the OP, it is certainly counter to the spirit of this board and smacks of political censorship. This person is boasting of criminality and being protected from challenges.

Eh. Moderators restrict the scope of debate all the time to keep threads from degenerating into rat holes. This is no different.

And she's not boasting, and she's not a criminal.

If you want to challenge her, open a thread about that topic and invite her to participate.