If I said that I felt that blacks were of inferior intelligence and lacked self-control, yet did not specifically insult a black poster, I would still thing that would be insulting. Same thing here, she says that people who enjoy hunting are sick, that insults people who enjoy hunting, even if she doesn’t specifically say ‘So-and-so is a sick person’.
‘thing’ should have been ‘think’. I hate that we can’t edit posts here.
Badtz Maru
If I said that I felt that blacks were of inferior intelligence and lacked self-control, yet did not specifically insult a black poster, I would still thing that would be insulting. Same thing here, she says that people who enjoy hunting are sick, that insults people who enjoy hunting, even if she doesn’t specifically say ‘So-and-so is a sick person’.
I see your point. Has she ever actually said that all hunters are sick? I can only find statements that say that she believes that to be so, and that definitely isn’t the same thing.
So when is Stoid gonna answer yosemitebabe?
OK, how about “I believe that gays are deviants and are going to Hell, but that’s just my belief”. Still insulting, according to many posters here.
I’ve always believed everyone has the right to express their opinions, no one has a right not to be offended. Stating an opinion is not insulting in its own right. It is a statement of fact. If someone is insulted by it that is unfortunate.
What if I were to discover incontrovertible evidence that hunting is caused by a mental defect, or that black people do exhibit less self-control than other people or that gays are going to hell. Could I still not state what I believe because I would offend people.
Charles Darwin’s beliefs offended many, and he had only observation and speculation to base those views on. Thankfully he wasn’t stopped from speaking because his view offended some people.
The opinions of abolitionists in the USA offended most of the population in some areas and thankfully they weren’t stopped from speaking.
The problem is that people expressing there opinions is the only way I can see that we can either come to understand them or try to convince them they are wrong if we believe that is so.
But this is a hijack, and I’m going to start another thread if anyone cares to follow.
I think I speak for a vast sea of lurkers on this thread when I ask: If I were to start a betting pool as to whether or not Stoid will answer yosemitebabe, does it go in IMHO, GQ, or should we just short-cut straight to the Pit?
Thank you.
I’m one of those lurkers, and I must say it is a very frustrating thing. I disagree with most of the positions yosemitebabe holds, but to just ignore someone like that is possibly one of the most childish things I’ve seen on this MB. I mean it would be one thing if she didn’t talk any sense, but she has real and valid points that add to the discussion, and saying,“LA LA LA I can’t hear you” doesn’t change that.
PeeQueue
Take it to the pit!!!
Ah, I don’t care. I think its been pointed out that it is a contradictory stance. That doesn’t mean it still isn’t sick to kill animals.
Or, an equivalent expression, “That’s the pot calling the kettle black.” Well, it IS black, isn’t it? 
If someone were “needling” and “teasing” me on purpose in order to provoke a response, I’d ignore them, too.
All that ::cluck, cluck, clucking:: and childish taunting really has no business in a civil debate.
How often do we hear the admonition, “if you don’t like [fill in the blank], you don’t have to click on their posts or reply to their threads, etc.”? That’s exactly what Stoidela is doing, and I commend her for not being sucked into what is clearly an intent to mock her instead of having a resonable discussion.
I’ve seen nothing in Yosemitebabe’s behaviour that would lead me to believe she’s interested in, or capable of, a reasoned discussion on an issue with which she disagrees with Stoidela, so why should Stoidela see her needling any differently? And what rule says Stoidela has to respond just because Yosemitebabe demands it or tries to goad her into it?
I came right out and admitted that I hold clearly conflicting (read hypocritical) views on hunting. Yet you don’t see Yosemitebabe climbing all over me for it, do you?
Clearly, Yosemitebabe has a bug up her butt for Stoidela. If she had one for me (and made it this obvious), I wouldn’t dignify her mocking with a response either.
[sup]AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER I AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE STANCE OF EITHER POSTER ON THE ISSUE OF HUNTING OR VEGETARIANISM. THIS IS ABOUT, AND ONLY ABOUT, THE WAY YOSEMITEBABE HAS CONDUCTED HERSELF IN THIS PARTICULAR THREAD WITH REGARD TO STOIDELA. PERIOD.[/sup]
How about…not being contradictory? How about, having a stand and sticking to it? How about…trying to argue something instead of saying “Yuck.” I don’t feel that “yuck” is a strong tool in debate, no matter how much it is used. And the “yucks” were flying in the incest thread and the pedophile thread.
“Yuck.” Thanks Siskel and Ebert. Care to say something productive?
Purposes of debate would be to correct errored reasoning, show some else the error in their reasoning, talk out both sides to find that we must agree to disagree, etc. If I brought up a legitimate point more than once I would expect a response. My concept of “the non-existence of rights” wasn’t adressed by a single poster.
That makes me–what? Whiny? Correct?
In a forum like great debates, it should be expected that if you hold a contradictory viewpoint you’re gonna get called on it. Again. And again. And again. I expect no less, and I’ve been beat to pulp in my own threads.
Fighting ignorance, yo. S’what its all about.
Back in the People Hunting thread, I asked Stoidela that, given humans being naturally omnivores, what’s wrong with enjoying one’s nature? No response yet…unless you count that bit earlier in this very thread about some folks bordering on sub-human (when she said in the other thread she doesn’t make such distinctions).
To aynrandlover and Monty
I guess you both must have missed the part of my above reply that reads:
Frankly, I couldn’t care less what other threads people have or have not posted replies to, or when/where Stoidela in particular has seemingly or purposefully ignored people.
Let me make this perfectly clear… No one is required to reply to anyone in any thread at any time on this message board. Even if you taunt them or cluck at them. In fact, especially then.
And no one has to like each other or respect other posters’ opinions or posting habits (or non-posting habits, as the case may be).
I think it’s safe to say that the people who run and moderate these boards are attempting to create a civil environment here. Clucking and self-professed “teasing” and “needling” aren’t civilized or respectful no matter how disrespectful you may think it is not to reply at all.
Being someone whose feelings are in conflict over this issue, I was looking forward to a reasonable, even if spirited, debate on this topic so that I might perhaps come away learning something and erradicating some of my own ignorance on the topic. Instead, I’m just walking away with a sour taste in my mouth.
Too bad.
Let me clarify this statement:
I meant to say that no one has to like each other or agree with other posters’ opinions or posting habits (or non-posting habits, as the case may be). Obviously, everyone should be respectful towards others, even if they disagree with their opinions.
Yosemitebabe:
Ok, we have Scylla with one set of morals that he follows.
We have Stoid, with a more restrictive set of morals (roughly, don’t hurt animals) that she follows only partially (i.e she eats meat). Surely there’s nothing wrong with that. People who have such a restrictive moral sensibility that they never do anything questionable (in their opinion) should perhaps expand their ethical horizons.
Now Stoid has said repeatedly that she finds hunting (um) --icky. No problem there. She also implies that she shuns people who enjoy killing mammals, or who (at least) enjoy hunting mammals for sport and are not sufficiently repulsed by the actual killing part. Now shunning is perhaps anti-Christian in certain ways, but it seems to me to be one of the lesser sins.
Oh, and I think she sort of responded to you on page 1, when she admitted to be too “weak, lazy and selfish” to become a vegetarian.
A slight hijack here but this is important stuff
Stem cell research on Rats
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=51893
Read it now while the link is still there.
OK, I have had a bad case of the flu for the last day, and haven’t been on the boards. And I see this thread is still going!
Well, I’m too tired to address all points here, but I will say, if Stoid admits she is too lazy and weak-willed to be a veggie (though I am not insisting she be one of course) well, at least she admits it. I don’t see why she needs to use words like “vile and disgusting” in regards to the killing of an animal (when hunting) when she eats animals herself. And I do think she has been insulting to hunters, and hunting, something she doesn’t know much about. But if she is making peace with this, with hunters, and everything, cool. Oh well.
As far as my “cluck cluck” thing - yeah, it was juvenile, I suppose, but I had some actual real bonafide questions for Stoid, and she was doing the “I CAN’T HEAR YOU” thing, which was getting irritating. The thing that prompted the “clucking” was when she quoted one of Gaspode’s posts, (which he/she had directed at me). I saw this as the ultimate passive-aggressive way of not responding to me, but still kinda sorta “getting a message” to me. And I thought - this has gotta be the most gutless thing ever. God Forbid she just respond to my question. What a spineless tactic, I thought. Hence, the clucking.
Give it up Yosemitebabe. Stoid can’t see or hear you.
Yeah, she’s blind and deaf, when it comes to me! And Freedom2 as well. I bring up this quote (from earlier in this thread) from Freedom regarding Stoid “selectively” ignoring people.
She’s done it on other threads, she’s developing a habit of this, IMO. And I guess that’s what got my dander up this time. If at least she had been consistent in ignoring me, I probably wouldn’t have “clucked” at her - but when she quoted Gaspode’s post to me (in her passive-aggressive and gutless way of getting a message to me while still “ignoring” me) well - as I said before, I saw that as completely and totally spineless.
Agreed yosemitebabe. Not that I really have a problem with Stoid at all, but you don’t post in great debates just to ignore people.
I dunno. Maybe, semantically, “debate” means something different than I thought. 
Speaking of debates, what do you guys think about people who hunt? Are they sickos?
[sub]had to get something in there about the OP haha[/sub]