# Why not just ban people you don't like/agree with outright?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-ban-people-you-dont-like-agree-with-outright/585905>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [June 18, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-ban-people-you-dont-like-agree-with-outright/585905 "2011-06-18T02:40:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 32

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\
**Post date:** [June 18, 2011, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-ban-people-you-dont-like-agree-with-outright/585905/32 "2011-06-18T06:52:01Z")

</div>

> [@Oakminster](#):
>
> Instead of saying “it makes _you_ X”, say “that argument is X because…”
> 
> You can easily give the impression that your opponent is a blithering idiot without actually attacking him directly. Shred his argument, and let the reader draw the “this guy is a fuckwit” inference for themselves.

Note to self: Let blithering idiot opponent show his own colors.

(:

I just read pages 1-3 and so far, I’ve kept it impersonal. [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13921513&postcount=104) is personal.

> [@Prop 8 trial update: Walker's ruling upheld](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/104):
>
> CP, I think you need to go back and read the decision and familiarize yourself with how laws fundamentally work. You are a person who has a partial grasp of the subject and tries to stretch that out into an argument. It’s not working, everyone can see it but you, and further arguing is not going to help anyone because you either can’t or refuse to become more knowledgeable in the subject.

So I clearly tried to address that before my final exasperation on the subject.

> [@Prop 8 trial update: Walker's ruling upheld](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/108):
>
> YogSosoth, your demeaning post does nothing to bolster your claim. As it stands, Walker’s ruling is _not_ the law of the land, nor is it immune from critique. Nor is Walker himself immune. **Dio** and others wanted to conflate the constitutionality of same sex marriage with recusing one’s self, but whatever.

Others clearly violated the ‘drop the polygamy’ rule hours before and after I did. No warning.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-just-ban-people-you-dont-like-agree-with-outright/585905)._