Internet forum responsibilities for posters.
 

Lily and Bob,

Both of you have suggested things that sound good, and may make life less confrontational, but I have a question.

If a person posts something that you know is propaganda, something that you know is intended to influence ignorant people to a certain perspective, but that perspective is false or inappropriate, what should your responsibility be?

If you see one person cheat another, but you have no particular relationship with either person, yet you know the cheat is in play, what should your responsibility be?

Turing the other cheek is a great policy, till it comes back to hurt someone.

I recall a theme from the Diaries of Ann Frank, where the Green Police came for the gypsies, and I said nothing. They came for the Jews, and I said nothing. They came for the Polish, the Catholics, etc., etc., etc., and still I said nothing. Then they came for me, and there was no one to say anything.

If I see a lie, or a falsehood, and I let it go unchallenged, is that not an endorsement? If I challenge the falsehood, and then get attacked, is that not a small price to pay for defending the truth? Is not Virtue its own reward?

Now, many of my arguments on line are a matter of subjective perspectives. But does a subjective falsehood, offered as a fact when it is not, require a person with capacity to respond and attempt to set the record straight?

Even if one subjective perspective is offered as a fact, then it is challenged, does that not offer the reader two perspectives, and therefore more capacity to divine the truth for themselves?

To misquote a great bard, 'If cut, should I not bleed?'

I do not offer all this to assault you or annoy you, but I truly want to know your perspective on the responsibility we all have to see the truth (as we know it) to win out.

Why ignite a fuse?
 

My initial reaction to reading this post was, "why start a very deep and potentially volatile thread when it will very likely only polarise opinions with no useful outcome?"

I feel some contributors need to over-analyse/disect/pursue a tangental issue unreleated to an opening post which then degenerates into a personal conflict of words. It alienates the vast majority of other viewers and then opinions (I suspect largely adverse opinions too) about the personalities of those prolific posters are formed by readers, even if no comment is made on the thread. Philosophical debates on here tend to be dominated by a very small number of this sort of contributor.

The trouble is the prolific posters have a wealth of useful knowledge and information that they potentially can impart, however it does require the wheat to be sifted from the vast majority of chaff. This is too much trouble for a lot of forum readers.

I know the "General Discussion" section of the forum is for miscellaneous topics and for general social, non-Segway discussions, but is this a debate for SegwayChat?

I don't post a lot on here although I read almost every day...I often feel frustration at how some threads dissolve into tit-for-tat exchanges. I see another example emerging. :(

Karl, which posts from Bob and Lily are you referring to? I feel I should really read them before responding to yours... so my response here only directly relates to what you have said. And I think that in general, I would agree with what you have said.

However, if the matter is so trifling and insignificant, I don't think it is always worthwhile nitpicking, especially if the point is otherwise only a small part of a much stronger and accurate argument UNLESS, the correction can be done politely and with the best interest of the discussion in mind.

The second comment I would make is that in my experience, its not that people mind other people questioning or correcting their views/mistakes, it is more likely that people take offence at the manner or tone of such replies. As we all know, it can be difficult to convey the intended tone without any room for misinterpretation. Also, if people make a habit of correcting "falsehood's", and that is their only contribution, then even if their tone is eloquently put and they are indeed correct, people will see beyond their words and assume that person is just being a troublemaker or contrary just for the hell of it, rather than someone on a quest for truth and justice.

Oh, and I also agree with what Rob has just posted ahead of my post.