by umannyt » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:44 am
Light Seeker,
Personally, I'm open to and have no fear about such an unmoderated (or self-moderated) forum--as long as discussions are done rationally/logically, kept within the issues and personal ("ad hominem") attacks are strictly avoided. In other words, no drama.
Let's face it: Inspite of the fact that this forum is a moderated one, we've not been always able to keep our discussions strictly within the subject of congas, bongos, timbales and other percussion instruments, including some of those who themselves have been adamant about keeping discussions within these subjects. In the past, we've had on certain occasions, whether unintentionally or not, veered away into other peripheral subjects.
Sadly, it's very difficult, even impossible, for some to maintain a rational/logical discussion and without resorting to "ad hominem" attacks. IMO, this is the real cause of discussions becoming haywire, deteriorating into demagoguery and/or going on and on ("ad infinitum"). Why? Because one has to first rebut and clean up all "ad hominem" attacks and thereafter try to re-direct the discussion back to a rational/logical one. This can be a frustrating process, particularly if the other party is either unable to see or refuses to acknowledge the irrationality of his/her response(s).
It is interesting to note that there seems to be a great reluctance, even a kneejerk prejudice (an anti-intellectual attitude), against discussions about religion and politics. Yet, the fact of the matter is, as some of us are already aware, historically both religion and politics have significantly influenced the invention and evolution of congas and other percussion instruments, particularly in African and Latin American countries. Not only were these percussion instruments used as tools of social and cultural communication, some of them were essential instruments in conducting various sacred rites (religion) and, unfortunately, warfare (politics).
IMO, this reluctance or kneejerk prejudice, denies some of us the benefit of gaining important historical information and education--again, if only discussions covering both religion and politics are pursued in a strictly rational/logical fashion.
Now, someone might ask what objective parameters are there to determine whether one's response is logical or not? Answer: The Rules of Syllogism from the Art and Science of Logic.
On a personal note, contrary to the impression of some, I didn't temporarily leave/unsubscribe (which, by the way, I did only once) from this forum for the shallow reason that someone simply disagreed with me. On the contrary, I welcome disagreements and rebuttals--again if done rationally/logically and without "ad hominem" attacks. In fact, as some may have already observed, I love engaging in healthy discussions, even if they sometimes become spirited.
The real reason I left was because a moderator himself was guilty of an "ad hominem" attack by including a personally insulting photo (which was totally unnecessary and uncalled for and had nothing to do with the issue then at hand) in his last response prior to the thread being locked. To me, it was not only unacceptable but also childish and scandalous.
Moderators, by default, are put on a higher standard and expectation to have the inner fortitude, self-restraint and integrity to be above making such "ad hominem" attacks. In other words, they're not only expected to practice what is preached (forum rules), but are to be the first ones to set the good example.
But then, after a period of cooling down, I decided to re-subscribe to this forum and was graciously re-admitted.
My thoughts,