Joel asked an interesting question:
I think this somewhat impolite and yet within the rules comment by Jerry triggered the question:
G2A Moderation Rules
"I wonder why such a flat out fabrication of someone else's position would be allowed to stand and not be deleted by our moderator?
I think this somewhat impolite and yet within the rules comment by Jerry triggered the question:
"Joel, you are free to eat anything you like but not to tell me what I will eat. And if you think that makes you healthier, great. But if you tell me you're doing it to save the planet from CO2 and/or methane, I'm going to laugh at you. See, that's the thing. We have all these folks running around telling us where we should get our energy, or that we shouldn't be getting our energy, and how much we should pay for it, just to do something for which they don't have a lick of conclusive evidence for the necessity."I guess my view is that Joel is free to correct Jerry in the next comment as he did.
"And you'll find that nowhere and at no time in my life have I ever suggested that the government mandate "such a radical totalitarian policy", so I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth." JoelLord know Sean has straightened me out more than once... So please play nice, argue lively and attack the topic... Not each other.
G2A Moderation Rules
- G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
- G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
- G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
- G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
- G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
- G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
18 comments:
No John-
This is jerry's utter fabrication of my position:
"And having government mandate such a radical totalitarian policy (as they are doing with energy) just to accomplish NOTHING is indeed worthy of derision, were it not so serious."
Never in the history of history has Joel ever said or suggested such a thing.
Joel
Also, I do not believe that calling a self-professed denialist a denialist amounts to name-calling.
Joel
I guess after reading it again, I still do not see how he claimed that is what you believe.
And your comment was not struck because you labeled him correctly.(ie denialist)
But because you called him an "ignorant denialist".
Maybe I am sensitive since Pat called me on using Democrat as an adjective the other day... In violation of MP rules.
"2. You represent that you have read and agree to abide by the following MinnPost.com Commenting Guidelines:
MinnPost welcomes user comments on our stories and posts. MinnPost's mission is to engage the public in news analysis of issues in their community and to encourage interaction with our editors, writers and other posters. We intend for this area to be used by our readers as a place for civil, thought-provoking and high-quality public discussion. In order to achieve this, MinnPost requires that all commenters register and post comments with their actual names and place of residence. MinnPost reserves the right to remove postings that include the use of foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment; however we are under no obligation to do so. User comments may be reviewed by moderators and may be included or excluded at our discretion.
By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, or engaging in any other form of communication through this Service, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, enhance, transmit, distribute, publicly perform, display, or sublicense any such communication (including your identity and information about you) in any medium (now in existence or hereinafter developed) and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so.
Joel has the correct comment and entirely the wrong interpretation. At no point did I suggest that he was promoting a mandatory vegan policy. I assumed based on past discussions that he WAS in favor of such a radical authoritarian policy with regard to "Climate Change," such as Obama's "clean power plan" or a binding form of the Paris agreement.
And yes, on that, you can call me a "denialist" but only if ad hominem is the only argument you have. More properly I would be called a skeptic, since you need information to be a skeptic, so "ignorant denialist" would be doubly wrong. The facts and simple logic dictate the truth and the only "denial" of the truth is from those whose vested interest is in keeping the scam of catastrophic manmade climate change alive.
I think you are ignorant if you don't understand the huge impact that meat consumption has on the environment and human health.
And your reaction was to laugh. That screams 'denial'.
Joel
I can understand it without having to change my lifestyle, just by accepting the trade-offs involved.
So tell me, what am I denying, and is that a good or bad thing, depending on what is being denied? Denial of proven truth is probably not good. Denial of baseless or unwarranted assertions is entirely reasonable.
The data is out there about meat consumption. Why would you laugh at the assertion that it's a problem...unless you are unaware or deny it?
Joel
I would laugh only at the assertion that going vegan would save the planet from global warming. I would NOT laugh at the hare-brained notion that government should step in and require it, because some fool congresscritter might think it a great idea.
I am aware of the dangers of high-fat diets. We're all told to eat more vegetables and fruit. I am under doctor's orders to eat a little fat and protein at every meal, along with the vegetables. Do you deny that human beings evolved as omnivores?
"Do you deny that human beings evolved as omnivores?"
When it is possible to derive all of the nutrients we need from a diet that does not include animal products, does it matter?
Joel,
Since this is the moderation post...
Do you think I should let someone call you an "Ignorant Chicken Little"? I mean you keep telling us how we need to change or the something TERRIBLE will happen...
The point is that you called Jerry an "Ignorant Denialist". Whether it was accurate or not is immaterial. It is not allowed in professional polite discussion.
That which we try to enable here at G2A. I will likely close this post to comment soon if it keeps straying to what should be on the food / carbon post...
'Do you think I should let someone call you an "Ignorant Chicken Little"?'
It would be inaccurate, but whatever.
I am saying we need to change because of what it is CURRENTLY doing to us.
Joel
I think the jury is still out on that "everything you need." The easy way to get all the nutrients you need is to have a varied omnivore-type diet. Moderation and variety in what is included in your diet would, I think, be healthiest, or at least make one happiest even with a slightly shorter (or longer) life. I'm simply suggesting that we each get to decide for ourselves what that diet includes (i.e. NOT government), and that we control our own health consequences. I apply the same logic to our energy sources-- we should get to decide for ourselves.
OH. I see. The topic is about how the COMMENTS are "moderated" and what may constitute an "immoderate" post. That's asking a lot. :-) The limited space available here makes it easier to take strong rather than "nuanced" positions.
"I am saying we need to change because of what it is CURRENTLY doing to us."-- Joel
Now you are the one being confusing. We need to change WHAT? What is "it" "doing to us"? We're all still alive and reasonably happy. Is there something wrong with that situation?
"I'm simply suggesting that we each get to decide for ourselves what that diet includes (i.e. NOT government), and that we control our own health consequences. I apply the same logic to our energy sources-- we should get to decide for ourselves."
There's an inherent difference here. Your diet, for the most part, affects only you. An energy choice, I would argue, can affect more than just yourself.
Joel
"Ignorant Chicken Little" "It would be inaccurate". Joel
It may or may not be inaccurate, that again is not the point. The point is that one does not call another person an "Ignorant Denialist" or an "Ignorant Chicken Little" in polite professional conversation no matter what one is thinking at the time.
That is unless you want to be compared to our favorite ranter Donald trump.
But your words don't hurt me. I take no offense. They are your opinion and you are entitled to them.
Joel
Maybe Jerry and yourselves are thick skinned enough not to mind, however I think most readers would prefer to not have a our discussions degrade to name calling and negative labeling.
You big nanna boo boo... :-)
"There's an inherent difference here. Your diet, for the most part, affects only you. An energy choice, I would argue, can affect more than just yourself."-- Joel
Agreed, however they are the same in that neither of them should be mandated by government without an overwhelming necessity for the public good. If I choose a diet that eventually kills me, that's my choice. If I choose an energy supplier that's low cost and high reliability, that should be my choice, too. I do NOT consider "saving the planet" from 0.02 degrees of "climate change" to be worth the tremendous price in personal and economic freedom.
I'll moderate my diet to live longer, and choose my energy sources to save money. That's moderation.
Post a Comment