# Trolls R Us redux \[Now the argument clinic\] **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 27, 2020, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349 "2020-06-27T06:30:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 234
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4683 "2021-09-11T01:19:31Z")
Classic ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4684 "2021-09-11T01:39:00Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Ironically (ISTM), the topic of this thread is nominally _who’s a troll?_ , and since a consensus has apparently been reached that **Max\_S** _isn’t_ one, maybe the entire subject could be dropped. Eventually SenorBeef and BigT will get tired of typing long dissertations at each other, and Octopus will get tired of dropping turds. It’ll die out soon enough. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4685 "2021-09-11T01:41:12Z")
Surely no one will stop coming to message boards and criticizing people for engaging in discussion, though. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4686 "2021-09-11T01:44:35Z")
I probably don’t have the endurance to span decades and multiple websites obsessing on the one true way to have a Woke board. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4687 "2021-09-11T02:14:48Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I did not ask the moderators to step in and protect me from LHOD’s insults. A little clarity here would be helpful: I think it was **Demontree** who was all petulant about how the mods didn’t moderate me insulting you, and I was like fuck off liar. In that context, I was talking about insults _of the sort that get moderated_, of course, since that was what she was claiming wasn’t getting moderated. When you were all YOUR A LIAR YOU INSULTED MY HONOR in this thread, I didn’t code-switch over to the normal meaning of the word “insult.” Which, of _course_ in regular conversation it’s an insult to tell someone that their attitude is disgusting, just like it’s an insult to tell someone that they’re easily offended. Your attitude _was_ disgusting, and your unwillingness to examine that (except in a half-assed way that you subsequently held up as further evidence of moral rectitude) is disgusting, and you betcha I don’t mean that in a sunny happy complimentary way. But the mods in their ineffable wisdom have decided that telling someone they’re easily offended, or telling someone they’re being disgusting in how they dismiss the concerns of survivors, are on the “allowed” side of the line and don’t count as insults. So I won’t deny that I had and have no nice things to say about your approach to the conversation. But Demontree’s wrong as shit, as per usual, and when you jumped in to YOUR A LIAR me you weren’t paying attention to the way the word was being used in that context. Hope it’s all clear now; toodles. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4688 "2021-09-11T02:18:49Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If _this_ is the lesson, don’t discuss justifications of rape or ask people if rape is justified, by all means I’ve learned it. Sweet! If I can add to the lesson, there’s a “take your lumps” aspect. You fucked up; you learned. Don’t write a multifaceted thesis in three-part harmony detailing all the ways in which you were technically innocent of some of the peripheral charges, and especially don’t call it “disputing my warning.” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4689 "2021-09-11T02:31:22Z")
Looks like I’m going to have to post parse this to deal with everything. It’s not my favorite style of posting, as it can feel like nitpicking or taking things out of context. I assure you this is not my intent. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > The “censorship is always bad” position is not something you hold, as have you argued the mods should have stepped in and stopped LHOD from saying what he said about you. Any and all moderation is technically a form of censorship, and the whole reason why insults get moderated is that they offend and hurt others. If you think that’s wrong, then you would have to be okay with all direct insults. You’d have to advocate that no rules are possible. > > You were doing so well in your other post, but you’re just wrong about this. > > I did not ask the moderators to step in and protect me from LHOD’s insults. What I did was simply to state his insult, which he implied, out loud. And then he tried the weasel shit of “I didn’t actually insult you! I didn’t get moderated so what I said wasn’t an insult!” when he was clearly being a weasel, fully and obviously intended to insult me, but carefully did it in a way that was less moddable. You specifically argued in this thread that the mods regularly allow people to do this sort of thing to you, and that this is unfair, claiming it’s because they and the other poster agree. To argue something is unfair is to inherently argue that it should not be. LHOD didn’t attack you. He attacked your position. You are inferring that this is an attack on you personally. Such indicates you found the remark offensive. And… > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > However, once you allow that there are indeed some things that can be censored, the argument that all censorship is bad doesn’t hold. > > A miss. > > I said I was against prohibiting discussions on a topic based on the topics potentially being offensive and hurtful to people who have a trauma related to that topic. That is not the same thing is believing that there can be no moderation or guidelines of any sort. That is not what you said in the post I specifically quoted and replied to, however, which was the post I was addressing. You said you were against censorship due to offense. Yet you had previously argued that your offense should matter in how the mods moderated. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > For example, what I’ve repeated over and over again - that I do not believe that any intellectually honest discussion should have topics be banned, has a limiting factor in it. I implicitly support the control/removal of non-intellectually honest discussion, which would include things like trolling, involving other people in your fantasies, that sort of thing. No such implication is inherent. All of those things are things where someone would be offended, and you argued that being offended shouldn’t matter. If you reduce trauma to “being offended,” as you did repeatedly, then you must treat all instances of offense the same. To treat them differently means you see that not everything can be reduced to “offense,” which was my point. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > I wouldn’t say you hate rape victims. I would say you are (intentionally or not) dismissive of them. You aren’t listening when they speak, and reducing everything they are saying to “this is offensive to me, so it should not be allowed.” As I pointed out in my previous reply, this is not what anyone is arguing. They are making a harm reduction argument. > > Could you at least say - could someone on these fucking boards say - they understand that I am advocating that people’s personal traumas, OF ANY TYPE, should not determine which topics are prohibited for discussion? I am not fixated on rape. That just happens to be the fucking topic at hand, but I would make the same fucking arguments whether it be another difficult issue about which people had trauma. Yes, of course. Unless I see you argue otherwise at some point, I will take you at your word that this is not specifically an issue related to rape, but of trauma in general. However, I would not argue that it matters too much. The current discussion is about rape victims, and thus it is inherently relevant. It’s possible that people would not react the same way if it were some other trauma, so it makes sense to stick with the topic at hand. (More about this after the next quote.) > [@SenorBeef](#): > > It’s possible that you meant that - but I just want to confirm - that if you replaced “rape victims” in that sentence, with “any victims of trauma” it would be more relevant to my specific arguments, right? I guess, but then it gets into parts that are irrelevant to the current discussion, as then you get into “are all traumas equal?” and other such discussions. The current issue is rape, so it makes sense to focus on that and not drop into such asides while this particular traumatic experience is on the table. We could discuss other traumas after this one is cleared up. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > No moderated forum is “anything goes,” by definition. Thus none are completely uncensored. There is always some level of censorship that is allowed. The argument comes down to the details of what should and should not be permissible, and those will inherently involve some sort of balancing act between competing ideals. > > My position is that whether this is an uncomfortable topic because it relates to trauma that people have should not be a determining factor in whether the discussion is allowed. What you have claimed, repeatedly, is that people being offended should have on bearing on whether something should be allowed to be discussed. You did not limit it to trauma, which was part of the issue. You were treating offense of any kind as the same. You are also still saying “uncomfortable due to discussing trauma.” We’re not discussing discomfort. We are discussing psychological harm. We are talking about discussions that are themselves trauma-inducing for some people. Making it about “discomfort” isn’t really any better than making it about “offense.” Both of these are terms used for much less harmful situations. And, given that trauma is more harmful that offense or discomfort, it stands to reason that anyone who permits traumatic discussion would also permit offensive or uncomfortable discussion. Yet, as I’ve already pointed out. that’s not the case here. The number 1 rule is “don’t be a jerk.” > [@SenorBeef](#): > > The chilling effect on discussion is itself a harm. The idea that we must not think about difficult subjects because it’s potentially hurtful is a harm to human intellectual development. The move to turn universities into “safe spaces” instead of places where people are challenged and grow is harmful. This would be true if (1) the discussion in question has value and (2) there is no other way to get at the value in that discussion. This is not the case. If this discussion is just “would rape be okay if…” the answer is very obviously “no.” If the discussion is about trying to iron out why rape is considered wrong, then that can be done in a less potentially harmful way. If the discussion is about our moral axioms in general, then you could choose another topic altogether to discuss. None of this is stopping actual fruitful discussion. It is merely avoiding unnecessarily hurting people, which is a moral imperative. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > People can have safe spaces, people can have places where they aren’t going to have to deal with things related to their trauma. But there should also be places where we are free to discuss difficult topics, and where the discussion is not shut down because it relates to someone’s trauma. It should, instead, be expected that that person avoids the discussion, rather than having the discussion shut down. But, as was pointed out several times, there was no way for people to avoid that discussion due to the title, which could not be avoided until it was edited. There was also no attempt to mitigate any potential harm in the discussion itself. That’s why the discussion got shut down. This is part of what I meant by saying you didn’t seem to be listening. You keep on acting like people are saying “we can’t discuss rape at all” when that is not what is being said. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > In no way am I downplaying the role of trauma in anyone’s life, or the events that lead to that trauma. But I think that allowing them to dictate what can and cannot be discussed is, itself, a harm. A harm to free and open discussion, to finding our ethical boundaries, to engaging in thought experiments to explore and communicate the limits of our worldview.[/quote] > > It’s not, however, a significant harm if those things can still be discussed, but you have to have to be circumspect and compassionate about how you discus them. > > > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > > Some people think that harm is not significant, and the absolute protection of people with trauma trumps any concerns about any of that. I am not saying that is somehow not a valid position, I simply disagree. > > > > However, I am not afforded the same courtesy. People cannot simply acknowledge that I believe that there should be places to discuss difficult issues without banning any discussion that may trigger someone’s trauma. Which is a totally comprehensible, and consistent position. No, they all have to make unfounded assertions about how I don’t care about victims of trauma or that I secretly get off on hating victims. > > Because these are not the positions at hand, for the reasons I sated above. > > The presumptions are not being made because of you think topics should be able to be dicussed. They are being made because you continue to show a lack of that circumspection and compassion while discussing this topic. You make this about “offense” and “discomfort,” which minimize the issue. > > Or, to put it another way: > > [quote=Most of the people here cannot seem to understand that they can disagree with me without making unfounded assumptions about my motivations and attacking my character. Assumptions which are unsupportable given that my motives and intentions, as stated, are sufficient and complete to explain the position I’m advocating. This is because of the way you are addressing the topic. It isn’t so clearly unwarranted as you believe. You are taking a position that many find to be morally abhorrent. Yet you are doing so in a very hostile manner. The way you have been arguing this has not seemed empathetic to rape victims. The way you act all offended by the other side suggests that you find that more important than the issues regarding rape and trauma. Again, **how** you discuss things matters. All conversations have subtext, and that subtext still exists even if the text itself is sufficient. And, when dealing with sensitive subjects, subtext is very, very important. It will be analyzed, and there’s nothing you can do to stop that. You analyzed LHOD’s subtext, after all. You assumed an implicit attack on you, even though the actual text did not attack you. If you think he should be more careful, then you need to do be, too. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4690 "2021-09-11T02:37:12Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > > > Ironically (ISTM), the topic of this thread is nominally _who’s a troll?_ , and since a consensus has apparently been reached that **Max\_S** _isn’t_ one, maybe the entire subject could be dropped. > > Eventually SenorBeef and BigT will get tired of typing long dissertations at each other, and Octopus will get tired of dropping turds. It’ll die out soon enough. It’s not so much that I’ll get tired of them. It’s that I will see that I’m getting nowhere. Right now, I seem to be getting somewhere, and I hope that @SenorBeef also thinks he is getting somewhere. Once I am no longer getting somewhere, or ideally, we work out our differences, the discussion ends. I also don’t get the disdain some people have for long dissertations. To me, that’s what a board about fighting ignorance should feature heavily. I get more frustrated when discussions get reduced to one liners. (I’m not referring to you or @kaylasdad99, BTW. Y’all are having a different discussion than we are.) ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4691 "2021-09-11T02:55:23Z")
Using 5000+ words to post some trite idea that has an actual content of 20 words isn’t fighting ignorance of any kind. It’s bloviation. ---
**Author:** ![DeadTreasSecretaries](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deadtreassecretaries/32/4817_2.png) [@DeadTreasSecretaries](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeadTreasSecretaries)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4692 "2021-09-11T03:07:38Z")
For some reason I’m reminded of this scene: > **[The Vicar Is Preparing For A Radio Show But When Jim Talks About His Show, So...](https://dawnfrenchvideos.com/vicar-of-dibley/the-vicar-is-preparing-for-a-radio-show-but-when-jim-talks-about-his-show-so-funny/)** > > Have you ever had the opportunity to be on the radio? It’s a rather interesting experience and, although people aren’t seeing you, it can still be unnerving. In this clip, the Dibley radio show is about to begin and they are filling the time slots.... ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4693 "2021-09-11T03:19:00Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Looks like I’m going to have to post parse this to deal with everything. It’s not my favorite style of posting, as it can feel like nitpicking or taking things out of context. I assure you this is not my intent. I’m not going to respond to all of it in detail, because I think a lot of it is pedantic and not substantive. > [@](#): > > You specifically argued in this thread that the mods regularly allow people to do this sort of thing to you, and that this is unfair, claiming it’s because they and the other poster agree. To argue something is unfair is to inherently argue that it should not be. So several things wrong with this. First, it was an aside, it’s not at all a component to any of the arguments I made. I was more or less saying “you don’t even have to bother to make your insults of me mod-proof, they won’t mod personal insults directed towards me anyway” Secondly, you are still operating under the presumption that I believe that any sort of moderation or restriction is censorship, and since I oppose all censorship, I’m a big hypocrite. First, this style of “gotcha ya!” argument is really boring and almost never makes a good point. Secondly, it’s a straw man - not only have I never said that I am opposed to moderation or restriction/censorship of any kind, I specifically repeated that in the last post I made to you. I do not want a list of banned topics based solely on their potential to upset people who have trauma related to those topics. That does not mean that I want no rules of any sort. > [@](#): > > LHOD didn’t attack you. He attacked your position. No, he tried to attack my motivations, not my position. He attempted to smear my argument by saying that I had a disdain for rape victims, a personal failure on my part, rather than addressing the argument itself. That’s both a straw man, an ad hominem, and a personal insult. A lot of the rest of your post is pedantic nitpicking about the words offense, discomfort, and trauma. That level of precision is not needed for understanding what I have to say. It’s plain that I’m acknowledging that people have negative emotional reactions to certain topics, and that I do not believe, in the right venue (GD), that those negative reactions should make those topics off limits. Moderators have since clarified that that’s not what happened, so I was mostly just addressing the people who personally attacked me by repeatedly telling me that I don’t care about trauma or rape victims or implying worse than that. > [@](#): > > But, as was pointed out several times, there was no way for people to avoid that discussion due to the title, which could not be avoided until it was edited. There was also no attempt to mitigate any potential harm in the discussion itself. That’s why the discussion got shut down. This is a good point. I am fully supportive that while I believe all things should be open to discussion, people should be able to have the information needed to avoid the discussion, and it should work to minimize the potential harm insofar as that does not restrict the discussion. > [@](#): > > This is because of the way you are addressing the topic. It isn’t so clearly unwarranted as you believe. You are taking a position that many find to be morally abhorrent. Yet you are doing so in a very hostile manner. The hostility is mostly based around the personal attacks. People can understand my position and disagree with me, and that’s fine, but see what I said above about regaining the moral high ground: they don’t feel great as the people in favor of shutting down discussion, so instead they reframe the issue as being opposed to some sort of monster who has no sympathy for trauma of any type. The problem, being, of course, that that’s a completely invented position they’re attacking me with that has nothing to do with what I’ve said in this thread nor who I am or what I do in reality. > [@](#): > > You analyzed LHOD’s subtext, after all. You assumed an implicit attack on you, even though the actual text did not attack you. If you think he should be more careful, then you need to do be, too. I didn’t tell him he should “be more careful”, nor did I meaningfully analyze subtext. It is plain as day that his intent was to malign my intentions and motivations. Just because he left out a few words to avoid moderation does not mean that he didn’t attack me, that’s absurd. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4694 "2021-09-11T05:04:47Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I also don’t get the disdain some people have for long dissertations. Anyone can spout off for multiple paragraphs. It doesn’t require any special skills, despite the opinion of some that long dissertations are required for “intellectual” conversation. It does require skill, however, to make your point clearly with few words. Concise writing is difficult, but worth the effort. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4695 "2021-09-11T09:24:58Z")
[GO AWAY!](https://wondermark.com/1k62/) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4696 "2021-09-11T09:30:40Z")
It’s a choice between allowing any discussions on rape, or keeping a bunch of posters we think are very valuable whose personal experiences and trauma would cause them to leave if we allowed these discussions. That’s a pretty easy choice, because I don’t think these discussions add any significant value, but those posters definitely do. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4697 "2021-09-11T09:34:05Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > Octopus will get tired of dropping turds. What, at the heat death of the Universe? ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4698 "2021-09-11T10:05:11Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > When you imply your insults to avoid moderation and so you can be super douchey and say “I never insulted you, I just implied it!”, you can’t act like it’s some great crime if someone interprets your intended insult as being slightly more severe than you had in mind. They call it ‘I’m not touching you’. Attacking someone without crossing the line so it’s moddable. LHoD has done it to me a few times, too. He’s _good_ at it. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > And I really can’t understand it, because a thought experiment should be one of the most basic cognitive functions that we have. Do you guys really not test the bounds of your worldviews? Do you just refuse to think about uncomfortable things? I think that’s exactly it. They don’t mind thinking about uncomfortable things in general, but they’ve got their worldview all settled, and it’s a nice, comforting one - one where the solutions are simple, there are clearly defined bad guys that need to be defeated, there is no need for compromise, and we are assured of being on the right side of history - and they do **not** want it challenged, because that makes them just as uncomfortable as a religious person told there is no god. They want to protect people from trauma, and that’s a good thing to do, and something we should be trying to do. But they don’t want to admit there are trade-offs involved; that we may be sacrificing something else that is important and beneficial to accomplish this. So they minimise it by pretending open discussion is just about entertainment, and avoid addressing your arguments by accusing you of not caring about rape victims. ---
**Author:** ![omenran](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omenran/32/3318_2.png) [@omenran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/omenran)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4699 "2021-09-11T10:07:58Z")
[quote=“Max\_S, post:4519, topic:913349, full:true”] > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > > {…} debates involving the morality of rape {…} > > > [/quote] > > > > > > Could you provide some links for those? > > Off the top of my head, > > Among other considerations, how did the wrongness of the man’s rape weigh against the woman’s right to abortion? “[Hypothetical: Man raped, wife and child stabbed, rapist becomes pregnant, faces death penalty](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hypothetical-man-raped-wife-and-child-stabbed-rapist-becomes-pregnant-faces-death-penalty/923355)” > > Is rape is immoral even if the victim’s memory is wiped? “[Versed, the Persistence of Memory, and Assault](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/versed-the-persistence-of-memory-and-assault/832674/28)” > > ~Max Looking at those thread’s OP, I wouldn’t say either of those is looking at the morality of rape. While rape is mentioned, neither is examining the rape itself. The first is about what is moral to sentence a pregnant murderer who got pregnant by rape. Abortion and the death penalty is the question your OP opens with. Your second link has an OP that, again, mentions rape but does not make it central to the OP. And seems like it could be debated without rape. Admittedly, both threads could later get to a debate about the morality of rape, but it seems tangential at best. But for my opinion, they are threads about morality of other actions. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4700 "2021-09-11T11:22:03Z")
Holy shit, can one of you pit the other so we can get this thread back on topic?? As a wise man once said: > [@Pleonast](#): > > This is the complaints department. The arguments room is down the hall. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4701 "2021-09-11T11:31:55Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > LHoD has done it to me a few times, too. He’s _good_ at it. 🙄 coming from the person who splashed onto the board telling people they were misogynists if they supported trans rights, that’s pretty rich. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2021, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349/4702 "2021-09-11T12:57:22Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > {…} Attacking someone without crossing the line so it’s moddable. {…} Ya know, if you’d spend half as much time listening to what the mods say about the ‘’‘rules’‘’ as you do talking about how the rules need change you might be able to pass the SDMB-SATs! THERE. ARE. NO. BRIGHT. LINES. And if ‘you’ think ‘you’re’ cute and make it a habit of trying to post close to, but not over, that non-line? ‘You’ will regret it. And why am I, almost, abso-fucking-lutely certain that you fucktards are complaining about un-modded posts that none of you bothered to report? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349.md?page=233) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trolls-r-us-redux-now-the-argument-clinic/913349.md?page=235)