hazy123 wrote on May 14
th, 2014 at 4:46am:
Oh, master debater! Yeah, I get it. Good one! O.k...Tony Abbot as Adolph Hitler. Important topics with hardly any replies ( like muslims pioneers of Ŕustralia) that permanently sit at the top of every page while topics like 'Muslims want to intimidate and silence you' with over 500 replies which will soon drop off. The destination of posts. Why is this post in extremism exposed? At the same time, why isn't 'Q and A audience full of socialists' under ABC. Just two examples. Why is there such a leaning of moderators to the left, even to the extent o defenfing the last Labour government ( the worst government in Australia's history).
Also, for a start, why isn't this forum moderated to stop hysterical luvvies attacking anyone with opinions they don't like.
Coz its good [healthy,
for everyone], to let others reveal themselves to us.
i.e.
Why should we be frightened of other peoples opinions ?
hazy123,
Aren't you in favour of people being able to engage in
free and open debate ?
And if,
"hysterical luvvies [are] attacking anyone with opinions they don't like"
, isn't that [EXPOSED] attacking posture,
a reflection on the inability of attacker, to engage in meaningful debate ?
Hmmmmm....
Why do some see it as 'productive' to attack anyone with opinions they don't like ?
Perhaps that is because their own argument/position is so, so weak/exhausted, that verbal attack is all that they have left ?
And doesn't that 'attacking posture', expose the attacker as being bereft of any logical argument, to counter to the 'opinions they don't like' ?
We should let people 'vent' [in debate].
It is another way of allowing others, to expose the intellectual invalidity/worthlessness, of their own position/argument.