@tasfleur wrote:4channel, perhaps there is a purpose to your "discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances" thread, but such a discussion is doomed to failure by its very nature.
It gives no real allowance for what people really would like to safely and confidently post as their personal opinion without some, who have long term self imposed tunnel vision, attacking them.
Well there won't be any attacks from me tasfleur.
I do confess though to having one vision I won't deviate from. That is the vision of people being able to discuss certain topics abouut helth-issues openly and in freedom. And if people disagree then that's fine by me. They should just do it without silly name calling or character assassination. Sadly for racist bigots I don't support that and I'd suggest they do it under their own rock. I wish bullies could follow them.
There once were some posters called "suspects",
Who someone decided were rejects,
Our fun and joy spread,
By the end of the thread,
So "suspects" had made themselves "respects"
Getting personal with insults and derision if there's disagreement, is another.
That is exactly right. I agree that that is the worst behaviour. So those who do that should think about that... like calling people "usual suspects" etc ... whatever that is supposed to mean.
People are just people. Healthy discussion and debate should be civil and polite, even where there is disagreement.
@icyfroth wrote:
Ok I'm answering this even though your post was to 4channel, Tas.
Putting forward personal opinions for discussion are one thing.
Getting personal with insults and derision if there's disagreement, is another.
I haven't seen you attacking anyone 4channel ... but looking back on some threads, there have often been attacks on people who do not agree with each other.
Unless they are racist bigots. With or without any proof. Which, I suppose, is the subject of this thread.
Yes Dave, and that's what makes it (the subject) near impossible to navigate safely.
