# Senate blocks repeal of DADT **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 9, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-blocks-repeal-of-dadt/563585 "2010-12-09T21:34:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 62
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-blocks-repeal-of-dadt/563585/62 "2010-12-16T07:45:09Z")
> [@What do outsiders think about Thai politics?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-outsiders-think-about-thai-politics/535714/14): > > There’s a time and place for charitable argument. For example, among two people arguing in good faith, one should assume the best possible interpretation of one’s opponent’s argument. But a pitting of U.S. Senators need not be that place. If someone wants to debate DADT in GD, then I agree with your principle. But I don’t agree that we must always imbue the non-participant subjects of pit threads with the most charitable possible position. > [@Trivia Dominoes: Play Off the Last Bit of Trivia](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trivia-dominoes-play-off-the-last-bit-of-trivia/527657/2755): > > OK, fair point. The Pit does not require this approach. > > Although, ETA thought: by that same logic, The Pit should not require this concession on my part. Theoretically, even though your point is correct and I now agree with what you’re saying, that’s no reason to admit it; I should hurl a few random insults your way and change the subject instead of conceding. While I’m generally in favor of random insult-hurling (when it’s done with the panache and style I’ve come to associate with the SDMB ;)), I’m not completely comfortable with calling it “that same logic.” ISTM that the operative term in **Richard Parker** ’s conditional is “arguing in good faith.” The accusation against the non-participant subjects of this Pit thread in particular is that they are not arguing in good faith. Under the circs, it is entirely reasonable that these subjects not be granted the best possible interpretation of their argument. This would be so even if the discussion of (alleged) bad-faith arguing on the part of non-participants were taking place in GD. In fact, you and **Richard Parker** may have muddied the waters by suggesting that a dichotomy exists between what happens in a GD thread and what happens in a Pit thread; I feel that the relevant question is: is this an argument among two good-faith participants? It’s not my sense that the presence of a thread in the Pit _automatically_ requires the participants to assume bad-faith arguing on the part of their opponents. Random insult-hurling should wait until an accusation has been leveled, and until then, “charitable argument” should be the order of the day. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-blocks-repeal-of-dadt/563585)._