Your conclusion does not logically follow your premise.




This is illogical. Linking to Breitbart is banned, because of the incredibly vague PC rule? This is ridiculous, and illogical in the truest sense of the definition of the word.

Sigh.

They for sure break his rules with some of their stuff. But like donnie banning them form being (linked) is not helping.

Sorry I'm new here, I don't really follow what you said.

Who are you referring to as "they", and who is donnie and what is donnie banning?

Not quite sure what you eman.

Banning links to stormfront is an easy call
Allowing links to CNN is an easy call

Somewhere in between we have to make harder calls.

Breitbart is they and they break some of the rules in this subforum. Dont think there is an article on Islam form them that could be linked.


Donnie is trump. If he ain't banned then the source for his idiocy should not be for the same reasons. If he twitters something then someone should be able to link to the article he got his 'knowledge" from.

Mono wants his state-run propaganda ingested by all, forced down our throats. I applaud chez standing up to mono's brand of authoritarianism.

What I mean is that your conclusion does not logically follow your premise.

Your premise is that,


But your conclusion is that,


Your premise is that you (assuming to mean moderators of the forum) are not banning Breitbart. Your premise is also that you don't have the power to do so.


Your conclusion, however, is that you are Banning Breitbart by prohibiting linking to the site's articles. This does not logically follow your premise. Furthermore, your second premise was that you do not have the power, but yet you are doing it. Again, the conclusion does not logically follow the premise.

This rule is entirely illogical. Illogical rules do not make good rules, because they are illogical.

The organization, Breitbart, is not a member of this forum. How can a person or organization violate a forum's rules if they are not members of that forum?

I know...and they cant be linked here because they break this subforums PC rules with many of their articles. I cant explain my posts better.

Besides dont think this is changing so, meh.

Hi there. Would you care to answer this question?

Maybe you should ask instead if articles in the Klan's paper can be linked here

The subject of discussion is Breitbart. We are discussing a rule prohibiting linking to Breitbart.

A joke at Breitbart, not you.

That wasn't an argument it was statement of facts (with an appropriate smiley). We have no power to ban Breitbart. It carries on, most likely oblivious, to the fact that this forum bans links to it.

I don't know what you mean, can you please clarify?

Willfully ignoring an answer you already know, gotcha.

Generally, to promote a healthy and viable environment in tune with the forum's rules and objectives, the moderators of every 2+2 forum decide what types of posts and links are permitted in that forum. Often the decision is not evident until a "disapproved" post or link appears and then the moderators remove the post and/or link.

In this forum, to promote a healthy and viable environment in tune with the forum's rules and objectives, the moderators have decided to not allow direct links to the Breitbart website. This decision was made in light of that website's pervasive and systematic slanting of articles to bring great offense to disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.

In short, it is the opinion of the moderators that the preponderance of material appearing on that website would violate the forum's PC rule if the material were originally posted here.

Of course, we fully expect content from that website will be referenced and discussed vigorously in this forum, especially to the extent that the content is relevant to the current government's policies. We are only prohibiting direct links to that website.

So no, you're not interested in discussing the prohibition on posting links to Breitbart on the basis of violating the incredibly vague PC rule?

That makes two people that have neglected to try to answer this. It's not sounding like a very defensible rule iyam

You know the answer, but apparently you like pretending to be ignorant for some reason.

Hi whosnext, thanks for posting!

I have a lot to say about your post, but I'm very unclear on something that you said, and I'd love it if you would clarify for me before I continue.




Could you describe this process in detail? I'm not really sure what you mean by a 'disapproved post or link appearing', could you clarify? Do you mean like as a function of the forum software, certain links are flagged and the report functionality is automatically performed and the post is flagged in the area where mods can see reported posts? I don't understand this process.

Also, how is it determined a post or link is disapproved when one happens to appear?

This is an ad hominem, which means "to the person". Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies, because you are attacking the person, rather than their arguments.

That said, yes, I've concluded that you're not interested in trying to answer SenorKeeed's question, which is what I asked you. I asked you because you seemed supportive of the rule we are debating in post 158, but by post 163 you seemed to forget what the topic of discussion was.

As far as I know there is no automated process within 2+2 forums to delete specific links or posts. Moderators delete links or posts manually as they see fit.

My point above about prohibited posts or links was not difficult to understand. In a Pot Limit Omaha forum, for example, posts or links pertaining to automobiles or dancing would very likely be immediately deleted by a forum moderator who is charged with those types of decisions.

The history of this forum is long and varied. Too long and too varied to try to describe in a single post. Having said that, I don't think it is exaggerating overly much to assert that the forum's PC rule is fundamental to the current incarnation of this forum.

Of course, the PC rule is difficult to pin down (though the spirit of the rule seems perfectly clear). To some extent it is purposefully vague and will likely ebb and flow over time. Discussion about the rule is welcome but the rule will almost assuredly remain in place.

Oh I see. So is it correct to say that you and chezlaw have established among yourselves that if you see someone post a link to Breitbart, this is a violation of the PC rule?

If so, would you care to answer this question?



Secondly, if it is the case that you two have decided that posting a link to Breitbart is a violation of the PC rule, how specifically is this addressed? What exactly happens when you see someone has posted a link to Breitbart? Could you provide examples of this process happening?

Your first question has been answered several times now and I will not repeat myself. You can review the prior answers given in the thread above.

We don't expect any forum posts to contain links to the Breitbart website as the prohibition has received a fair amount of notice both in this thread and at least one of the major ongoing forum threads.

In the event a member includes a link to that website in a post in this forum, the link will be removed. In extreme cases the post itself could be removed though this would not be the norm. Additional moderation action would not be likely except in the case of subsequent links by the same poster.