Should discussions of Politics and Religion be banned from CSR?

Should CSR ban discussions of Politics and Religion?

  • Yes

    Votes: 101 48.1%

  • No

    Votes: 109 51.9%
  • Total voters
    210
  • Poll closed .
66pony said:
You ban the discussion and attempt to be politically correct, the effectiveness of this board is diminished. People will not be ready to step up and take a stand in fear of being censored, red balled (PC?) or infracted.
Click to expand...
BRAVO!!! We need to send you Washington!
 
Todd, Thats funny !!. :smt043

As I said before ... No one is holding a gun to your head to go in there but yourself. :grin:

businessman-trying-to-suicide-with-gun-shoot.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We shouldn't ban it....my way of controlling it (not eliminating it) is to not participate. Like most everyone else, I'd rather discuss boating.

Don
 
Don't ban it. Choose not to participate in it. That is your right until they take it away.
I for one come here to escape the political bantering. I come here to read and escape into the world of boating with people who want to be on their boats right now instead of reading posts. As for my religion it is between me, my family and my God. The day we as CSR members need to ban something from the site will be the day the politicians take over the site and we need to ban oursleves from it.

So, how many days before we can launch our boats? I am in the mid-Atlantic region. I am thinking 100 (give or take a minute) :thumbsup:
 
MSN is now reporting "Obama Praises the Revival of Michael Vick". How's that for our fine Pres.?
 
sfergson727 said:
I am amazed at the 10, (at the moment) folks who would stiffle free speech. Boggles the mind, but then I would never consider banning Christmas trees either.
Click to expand...
I think we should recognize that this is not a free speech issue. This is about what Jim allows to go on in his forum. It may or may not be the same as what we want.
 
Hey I'm Baptist, we ban everything don't we? But now that you bring it up, how bout our non-registered birth certificated, muslim, pres? Everyone knows that Rush and Glenn will save the world.:grin:
(Let's get the BIG spoon out to stir this pot):wow:

Hey lighten up and post at will. If you don't like it just leave the thread.
 
sfergson727 said:
True, but the holding tank is expressly for discussions that others may not want to participate in such as politics. Why mess with what works? If someone doesn't want to participate, then don't, there is no reason to ban an activity just because one doesn't like it.
Click to expand...
I agree and think it's funny that the those that say they don't like such topics are obviously reading them. Reminds me of the time I was in a strip joint and a female customer threw a fit because there were naked women in there.
 
sfergson727 said:
True, but the holding tank is expressly for discussions that others may not want to participate in such as politics. Why mess with what works? If someone doesn't want to participate, then don't, there is no reason to ban an activity just because one doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

Like smoking in bars and restaurants.......
 
sfergson727 said:
True, but the holding tank is expressly for discussions that others may not want to participate in such as politics. Why mess with what works? If someone doesn't want to participate, then don't, there is no reason to ban an activity just because one doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

I am going to agree with Scott. (Did I just see a pig fly?)

The holding tank is a good safety valve; when a moderator pushes a thread down there, people understand why. Nobody has to read the posts down there. Or contibute.

Frankly. . .I think some of discussions down in the pit have been really positive in the last few months. I believe that not everyone needs to agree for a good discussion to take place.

Most importantly, none of the vehemence (some of it undoubtedly for effect) has spilled into the other parts of the site.

I am not going to vote: Ultimately, there is only one vote that counts; Jim's. I will respect his decision regardless. I highly respect the job that Jim and the Moderators have done on this site.
 
I always found them to be funny, in a pathetic, simple-minded, foolish way. I have heard that there is something called "reality tv" that sounds quite similar.
 
I vote to let Jim decide. If he wants a referendum, I'm on the side of letting everyone have their say. It helps people identify, and hopefully assist, the philosophically retarded...making time spent in the holding tank all but a mission of mercy. As an aside, one of the reasons I really dislike the banning of hate speech is that it makes me have to guess who the idiots are. I can usually figure it out, but it's a whole lot faster and accuracy is improved, if you let them ramble unchecked.
 
Woody said:
I think we should recognize that this is not a free speech issue. This is about what Jim allows to go on in his forum. It may or may not be the same as what we want.
Click to expand...

While agreeing this is Jim's site, we as members also have a collective say in what we want to tolerate on the site. We can use peer pressure to keep the site the way we want it without central authority censoring anything. We know when a post is meant to inflame and raise tensions. A post from Moveon.org is intended to "start it" while a post about gas prices and oil will generate passionate partisan debate about an issue near the heart of any power boater.

My hope is we can stop the gratuitous political posts by not engaging them therefore depriving the poster of the satisfaction of "starting it". This is self censorship at its best.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,247
Messages
1,429,263
Members
61,128
Latest member
greenworld
Back
Top