If someone suggest draconian penalties for doing X due to political motivations, it is right and proper to ask why A, B, C etc, which kill more people or whatever, do not have the same draconian penalties.
If doing X kills people, we all know it is bad, We all agree it should be penalized. So there no debate there. But how much of a penalty and how easy or draconian? That’s the debate.
So if a OP suggests, for example, life in prison for doing X, and doing A is a minor fine despite the fact it kills ten times more Americans, clearly (at least to me) the reason for proposing such a draconian penalty is the OP hates X for political reasons. And that is the real debate. Because the debate isnt that it kills people, now is it?
Otherwise you stifle all debate but a greek chorus. “X is bad as it kills people”: then the only possible replies are “Yes”. Yep. You are right. OK. Sure. etc. And often, that is exactly the kind of “debate” the Op wants- none.
There can be no actual debate.
Are you saying for example, in a debate about UHC, people cant bring up other nations successes? Same with gun control, it will be verboten to mention that more western Euro states have much lower gun deaths?
Possibly. However, it is still proper debate if someone wants to argue, for example, that pools are not a good analogy to guns because pools have X, pools have Y, pools have Z, and then the first poster wants to point out that they are a good analogy because the rules around X are this way, etc.
In other words, what is wrong with fleshing out how similar or dissimilar pools are from guns to see if the proposal is consistent with other general laws regarding dangerous products? Because in all of these threads, there are two sides which are miles apart. One side claims that guns are almost completely unregulated and the other says that there are stringent regulations against guns. How do we decide who is right without comparing and analyzing the regulations against these types of products and arguing if the product is even comparable?
By listening to, and responding to, all those posters that aren’t at those extreme sides. By not ignoring the excluded middle just because you are only prepared to confront the extreme sides.
My happiness has nothing to do with it-I have no control over the moderation of that thread or any other.
Perhaps there is a difference of opinion as to the definition of “off topic”?
Other people here disagree. And in fact, there hasnt been anything like modding for a single post going “off topic” before. Yes, true, a hijack is often modded when it gets too far. And a threadshit is modded. But a post that simply doesnt go along with where the OP wants it to go has not been modded in GD before. And that is what happened here. In effect, the Op didnt like my arguments and reported them.
I carefully followed your Mod notes as to what was on or off topic. I even deleted two posts after I read one of your instructions.
Would you explain how his posts were off topic because I genuinely don’t understand and neither do many others. Have you run this through the mod loop? Is argument by analogy forbidden from the board now?
And often, that is exactly the kind of “debate” the Op wants- none.