This has been on my mind recently, and I figured this was as good a time as any to bring it up.

All of us here share an interest in preparedness and survival, and to be effective in these things, it seems to me, that one must have a very rational process of thought and action. I (and I'd be willing to bet others here) have learned the hard way that an action taken with little or no thought given to it very rarely comes out the way in which it was intended. It would follow then, that this forum should be a place where we all can discuss an issue, no matter how contentious, in a logical manner.

I guess this is why I'm surprised when we, who try to think of every possible contingency, who plan out exactly what should be done in any given situation, get caught up with the thoughtless bantering and name calling that we sometimes do. I realize that the situation in the world today is a very sensitive one, but I think that's a reason, not an excuse.

Maybe we should all take the little card out of our altoids tin and re read the part that says Stop, Think, Observe, Plan. It's very easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment, especially when typing and not talking, having to guess weather the other person had any implication beyond what he actually said is tricky, and often emotional rather than logical.

If in a survival situation one was to get pissed off and irrational every time something didn't go his way, what would his chances be? Probably not as good as if he had stayed calm and collected.

I think it is also important to remember that an opinion stated in a post here is the opinion of the individual posting it, not of his country, not of anyone but himself. Assuming anything else is simply playing into the stereotypes that are so divisive.

In closing, I would like to ask for your prayers for all the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines involved in the war in Iraq. Even if you disagree with the war, please don't take it out on the men and women in uniform, they're just doing their job.

Well said, Hutch66.....and heartily seconded
Ed

I completely endorse this position! I would add prayers also for Iraqi soldiers and civilians.

Individual survival is rather desperate, cold and lonely if it is not within the context of the survival of the civilization which makes it possible to live in peace and hope and work for prosperity. The rule of law within a framework where the ruled individuals have representation in the process that forms that law seems to be one of the best ways to ensure ongoing peace and prevent the rise to power of despotic individuals that oppress their own. Let us hope that the current and any future armed engagements between states will actually end with the improvement of the lives of the individuals being governed within all states involved in that engagement.

I have attempted to drag this group in to larger discussions of survival of civilization or even community with no effect before - I don't expect to succeed now. I will continue to throw in thoughts and provocations in this direction until Chris shuts me down - so far so good <img src="images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Saying prayers for all people in the combat areas, military and civilian. Hoping for a quick end to the hostilities. Regards, Keys

I wholeheartedly agree with this thread.

I would also strongly urge that forumites refrain from discussing politics, except insofar as it is actually and legitimately involved in the discussion of genuine survival/campfire subjects, or matters reasonably germane to our survival/campfire discussions. I am going to try do this. Maybe my newest Lenten sacrifice. ;-} We'll see how well I do.

I also ask the authorities to reconsider the banning Mike. He's blunt. He can be argumentative. But he's straightforward and refreshing. I think he should be allowed to stay.

John

Well, I took your advice and sat on this overnight. I've gone over this post several times, and tried to cut out anything that might fan the flames and restart the animosity. But in the end, I came to the conclusion that this one last post (from me, on this topic) is worth making.

What is "civility"? If something offends me, is it uncivil of me to protest?

At what point does "standing up for what you believe in" turn into "childish, testosterone-ridden behaviour"?

I've argued points on this forum - vehemently and passionately. My philosophy on this is based on a story I once read, about an American tourist travelling in (pre-war) China. He saw two rickshaw drivers who'd had an accident engaged in an all-out screaming match at each other. He marveled that they had not come to physical blows, to which his guide responded "Oh, no. He who resorts to physical violence is only admitting that he has run out of words."

Well, I try very hard not to run out of words. I've argued controversial points, yes - but I try always to argue the point, not the person. I don't trot out my qualifications to say "I'm an expert, you have to listen to me", nor do I stoop to insulting the other party. The last personal insult I levelled was a reference to airport security guards as "rent-a-cops", and I apologised for that without being asked to. I've made fun of people's ideas, yes; but I was making fun of the idea, not the person who floated the idea. More importantly, I'm prepared to articulate why I think the idea was silly. If I can't, then I'll admit that the idea wasn't as silly as I thought.

I truly believe that, as long as you argue the issues, no matter how vehemently, passionately, even violently - as long as you stick to arguing the issues, you stand an odds-on chance of learning something. But if all someone wants to do is sidestep the issue, whether it's by deliberately misquoting other posters, verbally abusing them, simply ignoring points that have been raised, or changing the subject (which I've caught myself doing, I'll admit), then IMO that person is wasting everyone's time and bandwidth, including his own.

If you disagree with me, that's great - tell my why you disagree. My colleagues at work disagree with me all the time, and I disagree with them, and the customer disagrees with both of us. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, sometimes we compromise; but we have to be able to back our arguments up. That's being civil. "You're a jackass" or "That's the stupidest thing I ever heard" are not usually heard in the meeting rooms of corporations, because they're not rational arguments.

Point me to a URL, or some other reference. Come up with some facts, and tell me where you got them. Find a flaw in my argument, if you can; there's probably at least one.

Don't call me names.

Tell me why you think my idea is the stupidest thing you've ever heard, and I'll listen.

Don't use arguments if they won't stand up to close scrutiny; and if they don't stand up to close scrutiny, please don't get ticked off at me because I point that out.

I'm sorry, I don't know any other civilised way to have a discussion, unless we want to turn this forum into some Polly Purebred Playskool where nobody says anything that hasn't been pre-approved by a Committee, with ten signatures in purple crayon, in case we somehow, maybe, just might inadvertently offend someone. <img src="images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />