Page 1 of 1
The Rules of Non-Engagement
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:10 am
by _moksha
Godwin's rule has worked tolerably well for FAIR/MAD in closing down discussions. I would like to offer another that could help them in many circumstances.
Rule: The argument is already lost when one must defend the moral low ground on a religious forum. Examples would include defending the Priesthood Ban for Blacks, God cursing folks with a darker skin, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, not having an open financial reporting system, etc....
MAD could invoke this rule to avoid discussing these items. You could call it Moksha's Rule or name it after one of your own moderators. Hope you find it helpful.
Re: The Rules of Non-Engagement
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:54 am
by _Mercury
moksha wrote:Godwin's rule has worked tolerably well for FAIR/MAD in closing down discussions. I would like to offer another that could help them in many circumstances.
Rule: The argument is already lost when one must defend the moral low ground on a religious forum. Examples would include defending the Priesthood Ban for Blacks, God cursing folks with a darker skin, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, not having an open financial reporting system, etc....
MAD could invoke this rule to avoid discussing these items. You could call it Moksha's Rule or name it after one of your own moderators. Hope you find it helpful.
Whoa...thought you were saying here...
Hmmm, They don't believe their arguments are indefensible.
its like fighting chopsticks with a meat cleaver.
Re: The Rules of Non-Engagement
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:59 am
by _Jersey Girl
moksha wrote:Godwin's rule has worked tolerably well for FAIR/MAD in closing down discussions. I would like to offer another that could help them in many circumstances.
Rule: The argument is already lost when one must defend the moral low ground on a religious forum. Examples would include defending the Priesthood Ban for Blacks, God cursing folks with a darker skin, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, not having an open financial reporting system, etc....
MAD could invoke this rule to avoid discussing these items. You could call it Moksha's Rule or name it after one of your own moderators. Hope you find it helpful.
Moksha,
There are no rules on FAIR/MAD. There are reactions.
Jersey Girl
Re: The Rules of Non-Engagement
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:56 pm
by _Yoda
Jersey Girl wrote:moksha wrote:Godwin's rule has worked tolerably well for FAIR/MAD in closing down discussions. I would like to offer another that could help them in many circumstances.
Rule: The argument is already lost when one must defend the moral low ground on a religious forum. Examples would include defending the Priesthood Ban for Blacks, God cursing folks with a darker skin, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, not having an open financial reporting system, etc....
MAD could invoke this rule to avoid discussing these items. You could call it Moksha's Rule or name it after one of your own moderators. Hope you find it helpful.
Moksha,
There are no rules on FAIR/MAD. There are reactions.
Jersey Girl
Classic statement, Jersey Girl! :) I would like to add this to my signature.