What happened to my Powell at the UN thread?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,956
Likes: 0
From: Land of the landeaus
Any military man or woman in here fully understands my analogy of time/experience. A career in the military in most cases sends one to the far reaches of the globe most often in harm's way. One hour spent with a gas mask on in the middle of conflict is certainly a LONGER hour than one spent behind a computer screen
under the warm glow of a desk light. In no way did I attempt to place a value on Strike's contributions to society, my point was as a military man or woman, one tends to file away experiences that oftentimes, they would not wish on their worst enemy. I wear my facial stress lines proudly but would have preferred the aging process not to have been as a result of seeing so many good men perish for their country. To me, a "disservice to rights" is pulling dead 18-yr-olds out from the carnage of an exploded barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, not wondering why I can't talk about Colin Powell's visit to the UN. It's watching a battleship on fire knowing there are men inside those turrets that will never come out as one. I'm not trying to be melodramatic, I'm just saying minutes spent in the environment of war and chaos surely seem longer to the soul than the ones I've spent typing about them.
That's all.
As for the discussion, I'm still wondering why the moderators would even feel its their job to hose down some good conversation, despite the rhetoric. Other than feelings getting hurt, what true harm came from the discourse and heated debate? BAD words were said? Did someone call another stupid? To me, it's like a teacher banning kickball because she doesn't want the slow kid to know what it's like having something bouncing off their arse.
Life is kickball ain't it? 
I can strongly disagree with my fellow S2K members (as I have in the past) and may even cross the line at times while making a point but at the end of the day, I'm asking them to follow me through the woods for a spirited drive. It's no surprise that politics and religion are heated discussions as they SHOULD be. A world in which we all agree on the best tasting cheeseburger would be about as exciting as one in which our President receives 100% of the vote, like you know where.
Ooops...I almost got political there. I suppose we should just move on to something lighter as has been suggested. Beating a dead horse won't get us to our destination.
under the warm glow of a desk light. In no way did I attempt to place a value on Strike's contributions to society, my point was as a military man or woman, one tends to file away experiences that oftentimes, they would not wish on their worst enemy. I wear my facial stress lines proudly but would have preferred the aging process not to have been as a result of seeing so many good men perish for their country. To me, a "disservice to rights" is pulling dead 18-yr-olds out from the carnage of an exploded barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, not wondering why I can't talk about Colin Powell's visit to the UN. It's watching a battleship on fire knowing there are men inside those turrets that will never come out as one. I'm not trying to be melodramatic, I'm just saying minutes spent in the environment of war and chaos surely seem longer to the soul than the ones I've spent typing about them.
That's all.
As for the discussion, I'm still wondering why the moderators would even feel its their job to hose down some good conversation, despite the rhetoric. Other than feelings getting hurt, what true harm came from the discourse and heated debate? BAD words were said? Did someone call another stupid? To me, it's like a teacher banning kickball because she doesn't want the slow kid to know what it's like having something bouncing off their arse.
Life is kickball ain't it? I can strongly disagree with my fellow S2K members (as I have in the past) and may even cross the line at times while making a point but at the end of the day, I'm asking them to follow me through the woods for a spirited drive. It's no surprise that politics and religion are heated discussions as they SHOULD be. A world in which we all agree on the best tasting cheeseburger would be about as exciting as one in which our President receives 100% of the vote, like you know where. Ooops...I almost got political there. I suppose we should just move on to something lighter as has been suggested. Beating a dead horse won't get us to our destination.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
From: San Leandro,
yeah, we can go on and on about "why we can't talk politics here"...but I guess in the end its the rules that the owner of the site sets up and that's that.
Its like at McDonalds, how they require you to have shoes and shirts on when you go in. How many people question that rule? I mean, its THEIR restaurant, even though WE are the one's that are making use of it. They have their reasons for that requirement and you go into the restaurant knowing this. NOW, just as an example, what if they the "shoes and shirts" rule in place but at the same time made it ok for you to throw food at each other in the restaurant, and, in fact, encouraged it?
That's what I think is the in question here (see my obove reply on the "street encounters" forum). And that is, why is the same judgement and standard that is used to limit something that is "seemingly" and "potentially" bad and offensive (politics), NOT applied towards something that IS IN FACT equally, if not, much worse ("street encounters" forum)?
I mean, whether or not a discussion on politics is wrong, offensive, or anything else you can think of, is all subjective. BUT, breaking the law is not subjective at all. You are either breaking the law, or you are not breaking the law.
Its like at McDonalds, how they require you to have shoes and shirts on when you go in. How many people question that rule? I mean, its THEIR restaurant, even though WE are the one's that are making use of it. They have their reasons for that requirement and you go into the restaurant knowing this. NOW, just as an example, what if they the "shoes and shirts" rule in place but at the same time made it ok for you to throw food at each other in the restaurant, and, in fact, encouraged it?
That's what I think is the in question here (see my obove reply on the "street encounters" forum). And that is, why is the same judgement and standard that is used to limit something that is "seemingly" and "potentially" bad and offensive (politics), NOT applied towards something that IS IN FACT equally, if not, much worse ("street encounters" forum)?
I mean, whether or not a discussion on politics is wrong, offensive, or anything else you can think of, is all subjective. BUT, breaking the law is not subjective at all. You are either breaking the law, or you are not breaking the law.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,956
Likes: 0
From: Land of the landeaus
In this case, I have made it no secret where I stand on this issue. While I don't agree with the site's stance on political banter, I value each moderators contribution nonetheless. In the end though, the owner is free to set the rules but such decisions do not come without consequence. I feel without the privilege to discuss matters which are affecting each of us in a forum meant to spare us from yet ANOTHER exhaust thread, as good as s2ki.com is, silencing such discourse makes this little parcel of online real estate less valuable than it could be. I received an explaination from cthree on why s2ki.com restricts political banter and he made some compelling points but in the end, while respecting his opinion, I cannot cast away my own personal opinion, wonderfully echoed below:
Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing the ground. They want the rain without the awful roar of the thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Without struggle, there is no progress. This struggle might be a moral one. It might be a physical one. It might be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. People may not get all that they pay for in this world, but they certainly pay for all that they get.
--Frederick Douglass, 1857
Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing the ground. They want the rain without the awful roar of the thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Without struggle, there is no progress. This struggle might be a moral one. It might be a physical one. It might be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. People may not get all that they pay for in this world, but they certainly pay for all that they get.
--Frederick Douglass, 1857
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post