The AEF vs. HO Debate Thread

[Breath]

What?
If abortion is wrong, then it should be legal?

 

[HouseOvaries]

Yes. Stop asking me questions and ask AEF for once. Damn...

 

[Peter Parka]

And HO is banned! Guess this means AEF wins this debate!

 

[All Else Failed]

why was he banned?

 

[Peter Parka]

Among all the things he said to me which are carefully archived in Donnies sig, he also told a 14 year old girl member to go slit her wrists!:mad

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Among all the things he said to me which are carefully archived in Donnies sig, he also told a 14 year old girl member to go slit her wrists!:mad

And thereby continues the debate.

Should one be held accountable/responsible for one's behaviour and for what one says on the internet?

 

[Peter Parka]

Yes !

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Yes !

:homo:

 

[All Else Failed]

And thereby continues the debate.

Should one be held accountable/responsible for one's behaviour and for what one says on the internet?

Depends.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Depends.

If the behaviour is irresponsible and/or done with malicious intent should they be held accountable?

This is a pretty straightforward question.

 

[All Else Failed]

If the behaviour is irresponsible and/or done with malicious intent should they be held accountable?

This is a pretty straightforward question.

It depends on what is being said, what context, and the very fact that you cannot tell if someone it being serious over the internet. There was a case where this depressed person who wanted to kill himself went into a forum that HE KNEW was just a joke forum, where people always made fun of each other, and he asked for help. But, the people there thought it was just a joke, because similar things like this happened before and they made fun of him, unknowing that he was really serious, and he killed himself that night. Now, they had no clue that he was suicidal, so I don't think they should be held accountable.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

It depends on what is being said, what context, and the very fact that you cannot tell if someone it being serious over the internet. There was a case where this depressed person who wanted to kill himself went into a forum that HE KNEW was just a joke forum, where people always made fun of each other, and he asked for help. But, the people there thought it was just a joke, because similar things like this happened before and they made fun of him, unknowing that he was really serious, and he killed himself that night. Now, they had no clue that he was suicidal, so I don't think they should be held accountable.

If it is not a joke forum and the subject matter is not a joke and the perpetrator's behaviour is irresponsible and/or done with malicious intent should they be held accountable?

There ya go. I've made it a lot easier for you now by eliminating the "depends". What sayeth thou?

 

[All Else Failed]

If it is not a joke forum and the subject matter is not a joke and the perpetrator's behaviour is irresponsible and/or done with malicious intent should they be held accountable?

There ya go. I've made it a lot easier for you now by eliminating the "depends". What sayeth thou?

I'd say its still not their fault since you can never really tell if someone is joking.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

I'd say its still not their fault since you can never really tell if someone is joking.

There's just no winning with you is there AEF?

 

[All Else Failed]

Do you expect me to agree with you to just make you happy?

 

[Breath]

There's just no winning with you is there AEF?

I thought the same thing when I was reading the interchange between you two.
AEF's role is to never agree. It would go against his character. In some ways, it is endearing, because there should always be the opposing voice, there should always be the devil's advocate. But at other times, I'd like to break out the duct tape and tie him up, tape his mouth shut and do awful things to him. Feel me?

 

[All Else Failed]

I thought the same thing when I was reading the interchange between you two.
AEF's role is to never agree. It would go against his character. In some ways, it is endearing, because there should always be the opposing voice, there should always be the devil's advocate. But at other times, I'd like to break out the duct tape and tie him up, tape his mouth shut and do awful things to him. Feel me?

You are wrong.


I agree with a lot of people here. You guys just don't like it when I don't sway to your side of thinking, I'm led to believe at times....


What I say here isn't for "playing devil's advocate". Its what I really believe.

 

[Breath]

You are wrong.
I agree with a lot of people here. You guys just don't like it when I don't sway to your side of thinking, I'm led to believe at times....
What I say here isn't for "playing devil's advocate". Its what I really believe.

If you say I am wrong about your intentions, then I will believe you.
But...the PERCEPTION I have is that you oftentimes argue for the thrill of it. What happens is that a point will be made and instead of agreeing/disagreeing with it, you'll pull it to another tangent, make an argument about that new point, but never fully finish the original point.
Nah'mean?
When THAT happens is when the duct tape comes into play. I myself don't care one way or the other if you agree or disagree with anyone. I enjoy reading your posts, truth be told. I just want you to finish what is started and emphatically agree or disagree before new points are added to the mix.

 

[All Else Failed]

If you say I am wrong about your intentions, then I will believe you.
But...the PERCEPTION I have is that you oftentimes argue for the thrill of it. What happens is that a point will be made and instead of agreeing/disagreeing with it, you'll pull it to another tangent, make an argument about that new point, but never fully finish the original point.
Nah'mean?
When THAT happens is when the duct tape comes into play. I myself don't care one way or the other if you agree or disagree with anyone. I enjoy reading your posts, truth be told. I just want you to finish what is started and emphatically agree or disagree before new points are added to the mix.

I like to give examples a lot, that may turn things into a different direction and so forth, but I try and address the question at hand.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

I thought the same thing when I was reading the interchange between you two.
AEF's role is to never agree. It would go against his character. In some ways, it is endearing, because there should always be the opposing voice, there should always be the devil's advocate. But at other times, I'd like to break out the duct tape and tie him up, tape his mouth shut and do awful things to him. Feel me?

:homo:

Altho have to admit, I like his spirit.

BTW, i'd repped ya if I coulda.