Conflict is advantages

[wade]

Boy am I glad we resolved this. This question kept me awake last night.

On a side note, regardless of what you think you figured out here it won't effect how you were dealt with elsewhere.

 

[danielle]

Sorry we were typing at the same time- yes I agree If you dish it out take it when served back along with any punishment deemed necessary

 

[Snakes Incorporated]

Mr. Illusive you were quite intent on people answering your question of who is right when a debate turns into a conflict and so I did- now you are dancing around your own question without answering mine. I am all about a good debate without conflict so please tell us who you think is wrong.

Danielle pls lets keep this civil as I am not attempting to be illusive. My apologies if I have not answered your question. Would you be kind enough to remind me by repeating it, please.

 

[danielle]

Hence my sorry we were typing at the same time? You did answer my question in which I agreed- no lack of civility on my part

 

[Snakes Incorporated]

... If you dish it out take it when served back along with any punishment deemed necessary

Remember if there two parties involved both should receive the same "dishing out" or are be being unfairly prejudice?

 

[wstphal]

If an individual makes a rude suggestive remark without provocation this individual can be considered at faulty.
If the individual receiving this unprovoked rude remark reacts in kind both these person should be considered equally at fault.
In other words both should be equally dealt with or none at all?
Do you agree?

In general I agree. Two wrongs don't make a right, so the 1st person is wrong for making a rude remark without provocation, but the 2nd person is also at fault for launching rude remarks back.

There may be specific exceptions to this rule. If the provocation is EXTREME and everyone looking at the situation can see that person #1 was not just rude but, for example, threatened to go to person #2's home & physically harm person #2 or their family, and person #2 then said something rude but not physically threatening, it might be reasonable to give more serious consequences to #1 who made violent threats and less severe consequences to #2 who replied with rudeness but not violent threats.

Similarly, if person #1 is being rude to #2 without provocation and #2 owns the website, I think saying "Bye-bye!" is within the website owner's rights even if they do it rudely. A website is virtual private property. If you were on physical private property, and were rude to the owner, they would be allowed to ask you to leave immediately, and to call the police if you would not, so that the police could escort you off the property. I think the same should apply on a website, although I don't know the legal niceties.

I hope this response is helpful.

 

[tyflier]

Sorry we were typing at the same time- yes I agree If you dish it out take it when served back along with any punishment deemed necessary

Yup...I would agree with that. If you respond with the sole intention of antagonizing others, you should expect to be answered back in kind. Both are wrong, but really, I cannot blame someone for responding to antagonism with aggression. People should be expected to defend themselves from aggression by using aggression. It is human nature...

I had to learn this several months ago when my judgement was clouded by emotion. I made some inflammatory posts, and when my attention was called to it, I recognized where I was wrong, apologized for it, and moved on. Since that incident, some 4-5 months ago, now, I have been making a concentrated effort to very carefully choose the manner in which I phrase my responses so as to avoid falling in to this emotional trap in the future. So far it has worked very well in that I no longer find myself battling in every convresation, with very few, specific, individual exceptions. Which brings me to my next point...

In my experience, there are very few individuals that are intentionally antagonistic on this forum. There is one, in particular, that seems to enjoy making intentionally and personally antagonistic remarks against individuals, while contributing very little in the way of substance to a conversation, all while sitting atop a very high horse of moral superiority that they have created in their own mind. This individual, in my opinion, deserves no respect, and as such does not GET any respect from me. That is how it will remain until this individual ceases their antagonistic actions.

It takes all kinds of people to make this world go 'round. In the micro-universe that is this forum, you are always going to find individuals that care about little else than making themselves feel superior by belittling others. You have to deal with these immature, childish, and unintellectual individuals, and sometimes it is difficult to do. But there are enough good, intelligent, and respectful people on this forum to make up for the 2 or 3 that can't see through their own BS and hype...

 

[wade]

WOW Chris, I am so glad you are not on your high horse. That would have been awful.

 

[Snakes Incorporated]

…I hope this response is helpful.

Thank you Wstphal. I was under the impression at the being of this thread that I was going to get feathered and tarred for even suggesting that a good health debate was a good think. Thanks mate.

… It takes all kinds of people to make this world go 'round. ...

Your post was extremely enlightening and from what I gather you are Good People. Thank you.
I agree that there are those that may have the “power” and “freedom” to over look their own mistakes.

 

[danielle]

I love looking at my own mistakes- it humorous after the fact...usually. I'm guilty of biting back when provoked, sure it's human, but it's also wrong. I look at Kathy Love who to me is the perfect example of someone who NEVER bites back- she must chime in and share her secret to Zen,lol In a forum setting it can be hard to determine who really provokes first since what angers one is sometimes easily brushed off by another- I think in general things are handled fairly around here though

 

[wstphal]

Thank you Wstphal. I was under the impression at the being of this thread that I was going to get feathered and tarred for even suggesting that a good health debate was a good think. Thanks mate.

SI, there have ben some major blowups here that have caused hurt, at least one huge one long before my time, and some smaller episodes in the 6 months I have hung out here every day. Some of the people here got really hurt in those episodes & I think they have a lower tolerance for conflict & debate because of the previous situations.

Also, forums have a tendency to switch from healthy debate to meanness very suddenly because people can't see each other (so they miss indications the other person is joking and because if you can't see the other person, you are more apt to get upset & retaliate). So that may play a role too.

And lastly, forums are attacked by "trolls" who try to start fights & meanness. I don't think you are one of them, but we have had trolls here before who clearly intended to start, not a healthy discussion with disagreement, but a FIGHT.

I hope this helps.

 

[susang]

My view on a lot of this lately is some just refuse to see another side, or even allow for other views. Often people respond with anecdotal situations, which is fine. We each come with our own baggage and beliefs, also fine. What has become hurtful is the refusal to see others baggage.
I know I recently apologized for statements I made, my view was my view, but I stepped on others toes. At the same time please try to see the other side. I also think the forum is polarizing again based on poltical views and also geografical.

 

[tyflier]

WOW Chris, I am so glad you are not on your high horse. That would have been awful.

No high horse here, wade. Just simple observations of what I see from a very select few members of this forum...

The trouble with high horses is how easily one can fall down. All it takes is a racist joke made in the wrong place, or for someone to actually prove that an individual talks without any real information, without any intent to contribute anything other than antagonism, or without even being honest with themselves. I'm glad I don't have to worry about such things...

 

[wade]

You have lost the topic here Chris, if you want to talk about all the bad people start another thread. If you are going to make accusations, bring some facts.

 

[tyflier]

You have lost the topic here Chris, if you want to talk about all the bad people start another thread. If you are going to make accusations, bring some facts.

Again...no accusations. Just observations. In this topic, an opinion was asked for, and I provided mine...just like everyone else.

Of course, I could quote your intentionally antagonistic posts in this topic...see where that takes us.

Or, we could agree to disagree, maintain our own opinions based on our own observations and leave the facts where they lie...within the archives of this fine forum...for everyone to see...

 

[wade]

Chris you have repeated this threat to me several times. I quoted the thread you are talking about myself the last time you brought it up. If you are going to make slanderous comments about me either prove them or shut up.

Don't play innocent here Chris, you joined this discussion late and went straight to thinly veiled insults with your first post.

 

[jpccusa]

I believe that conflict is where we all learn from one another.

Though we sometimes over react or under react to opinions that we do not agree with. We should be respectful of others and behave accordingly.

If a conflict of interest arises who is wrong. The individual that makes the first personalized rude remark at the other who reacts to it?

I believe that although discussion/debate can add to someone's knowledge about a different perspective of opinion, it is pretty hard to change opinions by debate alone. Both parties involved would need to reflect on the perspectives presented and really be willing to "step into the other side."

No doubt, respect is primordial. I believe the individual reacting to a rude remark is more responsible than the one making the remark. In the end, that person will apologize when he/she understands how that was uncalled for. He/she may not ever apologize, but at least you are still feeling good about your respectful answer.

The "AZ boycott spreading like a virus" thread is a good example of this. Illegal immigration is a hot topic and yet, we have managed to keep it very civil.

 

[tsst]

Many questions are unanswerable. Many answers are questionable.

Quote of the day!

 

[tyflier]

Chris you have repeated this threat to me several times. I quoted the thread you are talking about myself the last time you brought it up. If you are going to make slanderous comments about me either prove them or shut up.

Don't play innocent here Chris, you joined this discussion late and went straight to thinly veiled insults with your first post.

Threats? What threat have I EVER made towards you? EVER? ANYWHERE?

None. That's what threats....

What slanderous comments? Have I mentioned your name? No? I didn't think I did.

Of course, you could very well be thinking about something from your past that very readily fits my examples. In which case, a guilty conscience on your part certainly does not imply wrongdoing on my part, now does it? No...it doesn't. Just because I give examples that you think are directed towards you does not mean they are.

I didn't specifically state your name, quote your posts, or say anything specifically regarding you. I simply made some generalized observations based on the years that I have been here. If one or more of them hit home for you, perhaps that is something that YOU need to work on...not me...:shrugs:

 

[wade]

You're cute Chris, everyone here knows who you are talking to. Put up or shut up.