I'm not starting another thread
 

We had a great thread going about hetero and homo sexuality. I was in Kerry's corner most of the way, because of his proposal of thought stimulating comments. I was about to tell him that I thought Froggy had him up against the ropes on a final point when the thread was closed. I believe that the complaints came from the religious right who have never read any other book but the bible. I believe my rights to free speach and the right to receive free speach have been violated. I believe the dialogue was thought provoking and stimulating for the most part with a few interjections from a few that didn't have a clue. I don't think any group was attacked or harmed in the discussion, and if any were, I apologize since I was part of the discussion. I am sorry to see the thread closed by such a small group of individuals. Correct me if I am wrong moderator. I enjoy this forum, and my intent is not to cause a problem: I just wanted to make a point. THREAD CLOSED

Peter

Oh no Mr. Bill. It's the one liners again. Will they ever relent?

Peter

Its simple.

The medium is owned by a company that sets policy for the medium. If we violate their policy, its their right to shut us down.

Don't like it?

Start your own forum. Its a free country.

Botnst

W126, where do I tune my er...uh, hat to receive signals from your conspiracy club? I tried to surf the tinfoil waves, but couldn't find www.strongright.com -- must be even more cryptic and conspiratorial than we think...

I won't even read it...

Ron
http://germanstar.net

Whether or not I agree with the particular threads that have been shut down doesn't matter at the moment.
I don't argue the rights of the webmaster and/or mods to shut down threads, ban members, ect at their disgression. Like Botnst says, if I don't like it, I can move on. But hey! Some of us have been here for awhile, and I for one feel I do contribute something here. After all, if we all went away, there would be no forum. Then MBAutowerks would need to find another way to get so much cheap advertising. I've always tried not to be the source of problems here, and to get along with everyone, and have even stood behind our moderators.
But this is getting ridiculous!!!!:mad:
I guess I'll start protesting about anything that I find offensive.
What about that pretty girls thread? I think I actually saw a nipple there the other day.
I'll probably get banned now:rolleyes:

I need help with my door handle...brainpower could be shifted to that front?:p

Re: I'm not starting another thread
 

bulls#%t. this forum and website are privately owned. Any use of this board is your PRIVELAGE, not your right. If the owner of this site, or the people he entrusts with the moderating of this site believe a thread is offensive, they can lock it down without any explination needed. I'm sick of people getting mad at the moderators and thinking that it's their god-given right to slander people on somebody else's website. I'm not saying you did (I never even saw the thread), but enough is enough.

Dang it 4NDELIT, you beat me to it...
 

Your "rights to free speech and what ever else" haven't been violated here. That is a load of bull and you know it. The only organization you can claim that about is the government, whom is your servant.

When you joined, you were entering an agreement with the people who run this forum that you would stay within the guidelines of posting. Even if your initial post was cordial and non-inflamatory, that doesnt prohibit your entire thread from turning into a flamefest with or without your interference.

In short, the mods here can shut down anything they please. It is their perogative to shut down threads that have left the realm of good taste and civility, or those that have reliably generated very heated flamefests.

If are leaving because those in control whom you entered into a contract with made a decision within the realm of their purveyance, than too bad. Dont let the door hit you on the way out...:rolleyes:

There were absolutely no flames on the thread in question.

The guy that said this has got his marbles in order. Private site, freedom of speech does not apply here, this is not a court of law. Go to another site if you don't like it.

My partial list of "stuff" that should be banned for being too controversial:

Old europeans that like to Ameri-bait
Left wing opinions that I don't agree with
Right-wing opinions that I don't agree with
Liberatarian opinions that I don't agree with
Comparasions between Mercedes and Lexus
Discussions between creationists and evolutionists
Any discusion the mentions the word "ttt" (could be a sexist term)
Any positive attitude towards BMW's
Anything to do with France
Any discussion where the prefix "homo-" is involved
Any discussion where the prefix "hetero-" is involved
Any religous opinions
Any agnostic opinions
Any atheist opinions

Services for the Open Discussion Forum will be held Friday at 3:00 PM. Since words will not be allowed, all interested parties should bring appropriate weapons :eek:

Ron
http://germanstar.net

I gottan idea..lets burn a few books too. No, keep one, and read it ad nauseum.

It's quite pathetic, isn't it?

Yes, the moderators do have the right to cater to the weak-minded whiners and censor our interesting discussions, whether they were "out of hand" or not, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Oh, well...there's more important things to lose sleep over.

Mike

Agreed. I just had to speak up on this one. I'm done now.
As Bartels & James used to say:
"Thank you for your support, and have a nice day"
:D

You know, when you get right down to it, it is pretty weird going into stuff like sex orientation on a gearhead site. I had never been to the open forum before, but saw the (now defunct) "gay high school" thread when doing a unrelated search, and got intrigued.

There must be about a billion websites out there for people who like to think about issues that don't have clear answers. The simple fact is that this is not one of them, and probably should not be.

I enjoyed the joust while the patrons tolerated it, but this just isn't the place. I wasn't getting near enough work done last week anyhow.

But geez, how come nobody complains about the zitz thread? Different strokes, I guess.

Probably because everybody gets them, regardless of your sexual, religous, or political orientation.;)

I'm not making any more posts to this thread.

Bump.

Actually, the moderators also have the right to tell the weak-minded whiners that they are whiners, and the thread is not closing. it's up to the moderators, and not the whiners. It could also be possible that nobody "whined" and the moderator used his own discression in looking at the thread personally and closed it himself.

I am still not posting to this thread.

rickg

You cannot forget the two most controversial topics ever in the history of Mercedess shop.

Oil, dino vs. synthetic

How to change it.:D

I just read that, and the post before it...

sorry, but that seems a little out of line. Maybe I'm taking it out of context, but I don't see how that can be taken without offense. If you really want to slander people and their ideas, go join offtopic.net ...

I didn't get involved in the aforementioned thread. What happened?? Did somebody call a queer a homo or sumthin'???:p

Who knows. The thread was clearly labeled, so anyone that went there, should have gone with open eyes as to the topic, and where it could go(and probably did go).

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/79868-homo-hetersexuality-hard-wired-not.html

That was me being misrepresented there. I certainly never said anything about the first part of that of that misconstrual but I have mentioned the second topic before. However, I never got a chance to explain what I meant.

Either way, I did not take it to be slander. I took it to be a compliment. Mike couldn't find a logical reason to disagree with me so had to resort to misrepresentation. I guess I had a watertight argument.

The curious fact is that no one knows why the thread was closed. The exact nature of the complaints has never been disclosed.

Dude, you were trying to make a logical argument FOR pedophilia, as compared to homosexuality, saying that "studies had not conclusively proven that pedophilia causes lasting mental harm in adulthood", blah blah blah...even if you were just "playing devil's advocate". So as I see it, I did not "misconstrue" anything.

The complainers never have the courage to post the "exact nature" of the complaints. Or their names.

Mike

I vote that all secret whiners must be brought out into the open for public floggings:p


Then we'll close the thread that offended them;)

It wasn't slander...I was just calling him out on his position. He had said in a previous post that he "saw nothing wrong with beastiality, as long as the animal was not harmed", and we were in the midst of a similar debate about the reasons for pedophilia being illegal, the mental damage that it does, etc...I was making the point that his arguments had gotten to the point of completely abandoning common sense.

As long as you and I have been posting on this site, by now you should know that I DO NOT resort to mindless slander in these debates.

Mike:
You read something into my comment that was not there. You thought that because I said that the studies that showed harm from childhood molestation were flawed, that I thought pedophilia was morally permissible. I never said such a thing nor do I believe such a thing. I NEVER made any argument in favor of pedophilia. I think the grounds for opposing pedophilia are strictly the lack of informed consent. This is completely separate from the issue of whether or not childhood sexual experiences have long term detrimental effects. I have not read any studies on the long term effects of childhood molestation that were not fraught with methodolgical problems. It is a very difficult task to prove that psychological states that occur 20 years later are a result of a specific event. I also have immediate acquaintance with a great deal of harm produced by therapists relying on these flawed studies.

Bestiality is another moral issue altogether. Animals fall into a different moral category since they can never consent. The issue may be disgusting but the arguments about it are totally different because the relationship does not involve two rational agents.

Uh oh. Controversial Thread, Part III.

Lessee how long it takes to shut this thread down;)

mike, I know that you are very intelligent and that any personal remarks would be your last resort, but that's why I posted the comment. I figured that the whole thread had degenerated so far that logic and reason had gone out the window and people were just being bitter. Obviously based on your response and Kerry's, I was very wrong, but there still seems to be a misunderstanding between your interpretation of his point and his intentions with his post. I guess I spoke way too soon... sorry mike and kerry!

oh, and just to throw in my $0.02, I can't totally agree with the pedofilia argument, 'cause I'm 19 and I'm thinking of dating this girl I knew in high school, but she's 17 (turns 18 in april) so even though we're 2 years apart, she's considered a minor and I'm an adult (and her parents are crazy enough to try to get me in trouble). Would I be considered a pedofile because she's not quite 18? Can she not make wise, informed decisions untill april? Am I just as bad as some guy from N.A.M.B.L.A. or Michael Jackson?

That's a good point, 4.

As a parent, I am concerned abouot an age differential. But the diff between you and the young lady is not signif to this dad. As the dad, I'd feel bound to warn you that you're now legally as well as morally responsible for the girl. But to me, more important would be the content of your character.

What age would you consider too young for an 18 year-old to date? How would the age difference apply between various permutations of sex?


Botnst

Robert:
No. Most issues are matters of degree. My brother-in-laws mother married in Maine when she was 13. (She is about 75 now) That would be child abuse nowadays.

Personally, I would say an 18 year old guy should be able to date a 16 year old girl, but maybe if I end up having a daughter (we're talking years down the line... 10 or 15 at least) my opinion might change. It also depends on the person, wether they are responsible or not. I think judgement of character should be a basis for dating, because older does not always mean more responsible.

Alright 4, you passed the dad's secret date test. You can date my daughter.

If people got wiser as they got older, all us old farts on this forum would be bleeding Delphic Oracles.

Botnst

Makes sense to me, I think the same way, and when I was 18 I was dating a 17 year old, and no one thought anything of it. That was many years ago though, and people are MUCH more lawsuit-happy and statutory-rape happy, so BE CAREFUL. You might want to wait until April, just to be safe, legally! It's not that long...

Mike

True, a shotgun is quite effective, but it's such an inelegant instrument. I suggest that you invite him into your parlor for a little man-to-man chat. You could regale him with your fond memories of the joys of abstinence before marriage, and the benefits of all those invigoratingly 'brisk' showers.

Then I'd take him into your den for a brief tour of your weapons cache.

Ah, the power of persuasion...

Perhaps I am subconsciously in favor of pedophilia. I have very good memories of dating a 21yr old the summer I got my driver's license at 16. Definitely consented to it.

There's a big difference in the way society views the age relationship. I recall that depraved teacher in Seattle having sex with some middle school kid and getting arrested for child abuse. I'll bet the boy's peers were consumed with envy.

I am never starting a thread. I am so afraid to start a thread on this site I am getting chills running down my spine and those chills are getting chills running down their spines! ..and so on...

Another forum member and I have been e-mailing back and forth for awhile now. This other person tried it here for awhile, but feels it's just a bit too crazy here, and has moved on. In light of the past couple weeks, I don't blame this person. You gotta like eating crushed glass to hang out here:D
Pass the glass, please!:p

Rick:
What did your friend find troubling about the forum?

Not real specific, but mostly a combination of the subject matter, and the confrontational atmoshere of some of the threads. They said they'd follow some of the threads, but overall stayed out of everything after trying to join in a few times. No hard feelings as such, just didn't find this forum suited their personal preferences. This person came down from MBCanada, and the open discussion areas that were up there tended to stay alot calmer, and generally avoided real controversy, except a couple anti-Catholic threads that were started, but that's another story.(This person is not Catholic, but found the views unneccesary) We all used to say it had a more "at home" feel to it. A place to come, put your feet up, and chew the fat with each other. Much more relaxed. I really enjoyed it there. Here, we tend to pick stuff apart to the 'nth degree. Not a bad thing always, and even needed sometimes. But not everyone enjoys that kind of thing.
But alas, MBCanada seems to be no more:(

I suspect things may be perceived to be a bit too 'over the top' because the U.S. is once again in a state of slow boil turmoil. Given the lousy economy, our state of perpetual war, the culture clashes, etc., I think folks come to the open discussion section to blow off steam in a relatively consequence-free environment.

Politics tends to be a contact sport, so folks used to such aggressive discussions can become a bit insensitive to the abuse. It's always a fine line between attacking the message, and attacking the messenger -- that line gets crossed here all the time. I guess the key is to not take yourself too seriously, and likewise, not to demonize your fellow discussion participants, no matter the absurdity of their comments.

That's OUTRAGEOUS, you *&^%$£.

But anyway, some of it is down to writing styles, some of it the medium, some of it that some people are a wee bit dogmatic.

We had a discussion on this a while back - that it is strange that very few of us seem to change our minds about anything after an exchange of views, so perhaps it is all pretty pointless. After all, we can't claim to be educated by these discussions if we don't alter our thinking, can we?

Frankly, I don't believe that line should ever be crossed. Attacking a position, a concept, a conclusion -- no problem, but attacking another forum member is indefensible to me. Besides the obvious fact that it's ill-mannered and unconstructive, it strikes me as a very poor way to make a case. If the only way to promote one's point is to attack the credibility of an opponent, the point apparently can't stand on its own merit.

While controversy is obviously a way of life here, the players rarely cross that line, and thankfully so.

Ron
http://germanstar.net

Well, there you go...and might I add, that you're doing a damn fine job of it as well.

Yes, I've noticed the same thing. The juicier topics, in particular, seem to be more of a contest than a learning experience. Perhaps it's more of an affront to one's ego to accept an opposing position in print for all to see than in person...

Ron
http://germanstar.net