The Gestapo Is Among Us.

[mark45y]

And then there's who post merely to stir things up and it has nothing to do with others opinions or even particularly having one of their own. And while the usual term for such posters is troll, I prefer stirrers myself, often with the expletive included because some people lead such sad lives thats the only thing they can find pleasure in.

Sad lives? I guess. But how many people watch “talk shows?” I think some talk shows have very wide audiences with millions of viewers world wide. Mostly the content of those talk shows is what you refer to as “Stirrers.”

Thai Visa in some respects is like a talk show where the audience gets to talk back.

Do the people with sad lives sit in a bar and stare at women talking in a language they don't understand?

Do the people with sad lives rob banks or scam people on long distance phone lines? No. They simply sit in front of a computer screen and contribute thoughts, regardless how silly or futile to a discussion. Seems they have to think to contribute (however irrational) and thinking keeps the mind alert.

I think there are a lot worse things to do in life.

Of course if one (not you SBK) has control issues and feel your destiny is to control all thought to correct avenues of expression then maybe the stirrers are to be stopped. After all who wants two opinions when everyone knows there is only one correct one.

[harrry]

you forgot the middle aged white men who have never had their opinion or view questioned before then come to thaivisa expecting to have free reign to post without having anyone disagree or question them, then get all huffy & indignant throwing words like "dictator & gestapo" around. I think that category is #9

God dam_n upstart white women & poofs for daring to have a voice. (sarcasm in case anyone missed it)

Do you really need to qualify women with the word white in that sentance. I thought it applied to all.

[mark45y]

you forgot the middle aged white men who have never had their opinion or view questioned before then come to thaivisa expecting to have free reign to post without having anyone disagree or question them, then get all huffy & indignant throwing words like "dictator & gestapo" around. I think that category is #9

God dam_n upstart white women & poofs for daring to have a voice. (sarcasm in case anyone missed it)

Name calling? A prime example might be the use of "Gestapo" and "Dictator"

Gestapo and dictator are descriptive terms applied to a segment of the posting population. I didn't call you a dictator. I posted a subject about dictators. Quite a bit different than name calling, because one can't mount an adequate argument to refute an idea. I could of course have defined all the traits of a dictator. But in the interest of brevity used the term to save on space.

I think there is common agreement on what a dictator is and does not necessitate everyone going to a dictionary.

I take it from your post that you are in favor of one person being able to halt discussion of an issue if that person is not in favor of the content? Correct?

[jdinasia]

you forgot the middle aged white men who have never had their opinion or view questioned before then come to thaivisa expecting to have free reign to post without having anyone disagree or question them, then get all huffy & indignant throwing words like "dictator & gestapo" around. I think that category is #9

God dam_n upstart white women & poofs for daring to have a voice. (sarcasm in case anyone missed it)

Name calling? A prime example might be the use of "Gestapo" and "Dictator"

Gestapo and dictator are descriptive terms applied to a segment of the posting population. I didn't call you a dictator. I posted a subject about dictators. Quite a bit different than name calling, because one can't mount an adequate argument to refute an idea. I could of course have defined all the traits of a dictator. But in the interest of brevity used the term to save on space.

I think there is common agreement on what a dictator is and does not necessitate everyone going to a dictionary.

I take it from your post that you are in favor of one person being able to halt discussion of an issue if that person is not in favor of the content? Correct?

Strawman argument ---- (that part at the end) The intent of my post was to point out your hypocrisy and had no other purpose.

and Gestapo --- a label to anyone that disagrees with your interpretation of how the TVF should operate? Dictator --- another label for people that disagree with you on how this website should function?

The fact that both words are emotionally loaded (they carry a connotation that outweighs the usefulness of their denotation) is telling.

The beauty of the internet is that you are, of course, free to create your own space with as little (or even none at all) moderation as you choose. You can ban those that disagree with you and would like to see discussions remain civil and adhere to Thai law so that those of us in Thailand can continue to participate.

[mark45y]

you forgot the middle aged white men who have never had their opinion or view questioned before then come to thaivisa expecting to have free reign to post without having anyone disagree or question them, then get all huffy & indignant throwing words like "dictator & gestapo" around. I think that category is #9

God dam_n upstart white women & poofs for daring to have a voice. (sarcasm in case anyone missed it)

Name calling? A prime example might be the use of "Gestapo" and "Dictator"

Gestapo and dictator are descriptive terms applied to a segment of the posting population. I didn't call you a dictator. I posted a subject about dictators. Quite a bit different than name calling, because one can't mount an adequate argument to refute an idea. I could of course have defined all the traits of a dictator. But in the interest of brevity used the term to save on space.

I think there is common agreement on what a dictator is and does not necessitate everyone going to a dictionary.

I take it from your post that you are in favor of one person being able to halt discussion of an issue if that person is not in favor of the content? Correct?

Strawman argument ---- (that part at the end) The intent of my post was to point out your hypocrisy and had no other purpose.

and Gestapo --- a label to anyone that disagrees with your interpretation of how the TVF should operate? Dictator --- another label for people that disagree with you on how this website should function?

The fact that both words are emotionally loaded (they carry a connotation that outweighs the usefulness of their denotation) is telling.

The beauty of the internet is that you are, of course, free to create your own space with as little (or even none at all) moderation as you choose. You can ban those that disagree with you and would like to see discussions remain civil and adhere to Thai law so that those of us in Thailand can continue to participate.

My confusion is in your use of hypocrisy. My entire point was to allow discussion and not allow people who want to forbid discussion (not mods) to have an opportunity to stop discussion.

Since you are trying to point out negative things about me I can only assume you want to stop this discussion ergo because you know best.

I also assume you would ban all emotionally charged words because they are not useful in your mind?

Am I correct? Would you like to stop this discussion? And if so why?

[smokie36]

Is this thread really all about george?

'Ve haff vays of making you talk!!'

Just ignore the BS or laugh at 'em......

[smokie36]

My confusion is in your use of hypocrisy. My entire point was to allow discussion and not allow people who want to forbid discussion (not mods) to have an opportunity to stop discussion.

Since you are trying to point out negative things about me I can only assume you want to stop this discussion ergo because you know best.

I also assume you would ban all emotionally charged words because they are not useful in your mind?

Am I correct? Would you like to stop this discussion? And if so why?

For some here its not about participating yet more about winning an argument.....dogma rules.....

Of course it leads on from that they must have the last word on anything.....imagine the frustration for the poor afflicted souls.....Touretts don't come close!

Edit: Typo

Edited October 29, 2010 by smokie36

[jdinasia]

Name calling? A prime example might be the use of "Gestapo" and "Dictator"

Gestapo and dictator are descriptive terms applied to a segment of the posting population. I didn't call you a dictator. I posted a subject about dictators. Quite a bit different than name calling, because one can't mount an adequate argument to refute an idea. I could of course have defined all the traits of a dictator. But in the interest of brevity used the term to save on space.

I think there is common agreement on what a dictator is and does not necessitate everyone going to a dictionary.

I take it from your post that you are in favor of one person being able to halt discussion of an issue if that person is not in favor of the content? Correct?

Strawman argument ---- (that part at the end) The intent of my post was to point out your hypocrisy and had no other purpose.

and Gestapo --- a label to anyone that disagrees with your interpretation of how the TVF should operate? Dictator --- another label for people that disagree with you on how this website should function?

The fact that both words are emotionally loaded (they carry a connotation that outweighs the usefulness of their denotation) is telling.

The beauty of the internet is that you are, of course, free to create your own space with as little (or even none at all) moderation as you choose. You can ban those that disagree with you and would like to see discussions remain civil and adhere to Thai law so that those of us in Thailand can continue to participate.

My confusion is in your use of hypocrisy. My entire point was to allow discussion and not allow people who want to forbid discussion (not mods) to have an opportunity to stop discussion.

Since you are trying to point out negative things about me I can only assume you want to stop this discussion ergo because you know best.

I also assume you would ban all emotionally charged words because they are not useful in your mind?

Am I correct? Would you like to stop this discussion? And if so why?

I have not pointed out anything negative about you. I don't know you. Your assumptions are just that, assumptions. They are not based upon what I have written, and instead are based upon how you choose to interpret what I have written.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of your topic. I didn't argue that you can't name-call. I pointed out that your use of "gestapo" and "dictator" for people that see things differently was in fact name-calling. The fact is that your topic is an attempt to control other people's posts that disagree with you.

The rules of TVF are the rules of TVF. If people operate within that framework of rules then you have no real right to complain since you agreed to abide by that framework of rules when you joined TVF.

I additionally pointed out that you can exercise your right to disagree with how things function here by voting with your feet.

You are welcome to "assume" anything you wish but your assumptions about my replies have so far not been based in fact.

[geriatrickid]

We had a Thai ladyboy who was nice and posted all of the time for a few years and then drifted away.

Was she a veterinarian?

She was not a ladyboy, but had the sex reassignement procedure, so she was technically a female.

A very convincing female at that. Long before she ever acknowledged that, I just thought she was a good natured guardian of angel for crtters. I even had a bit of a cyber crush on her and used to ask myself, fawk, how come I never meet girls like that? After all, what's better than a girl that likes critters, is smart, has a sense of humour and can beat up anyone that messes with her? And now you know why I often have a chaperone when I go out.

[Ulysses G.]

The rules of TVF are the rules of TVF. If people operate within that framework of rules then you have no real right to complain since you agreed to abide by that framework of rules when you joined TVF.

I am not trying to give anyone a hard time. However, if one wants to play here, it is better to forget about what you consider to be right or wrong or false or true or logical or illogical and accept the fact that you are playing in someone else's sandbox and that they can make you get out any time that they want to.

Never forget that the gods have little patience and very long memories.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[harrry]

[she was not a ladyboy, but had the sex reassignement procedure, so she was technically a female.

A very convincing female at that. Long before she ever acknowledged that, I just thought she was a good natured guardian of angel for crtters. I even had a bit of a cyber crush on her and used to ask myself, fawk, how come I never meet girls like that? After all, what's better than a girl that likes critters, is smart, has a sense of humour and can beat up anyone that messes with her? And now you know why I often have a chaperone when I go out.

Surely the forum is not a place to talk like that about the poster. I am sure she is a loverly person and has gained the respect of many on this forum but any poster is entitled to some respect and privacy.

[jdinasia]

The rules of TVF are the rules of TVF. If people operate within that framework of rules then you have no real right to complain since you agreed to abide by that framework of rules when you joined TVF.

I am not trying to give anyone a hard time. However, if one wants to play here, it is better to forget about what you consider to be right or wrong or false or true or logical or illogical and accept the fact that you are playing in someone else's sandbox and that they can make you get out any time that they want to.

Never forget that the gods have little patience and very long memories.

Agreed

Now --- to the strawman that the esteemed OP is continuing to use. ...

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Exposition:

Judging from my experience, Straw Man is one of the commonest of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and religion.

The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.

[mark45y]

Reply to JDinAsia

I have no problems with the rules of TV. I was pointing some posters are “wanna be mods.” Telling other posters when it is time to close a thread. That is all I was trying to say.

I think you are in that category. Sure I could be wrong. If I am my apologies conveyed.

[jdinasia]

Reply to JDinAsia

I have no problems with the rules of TV. I was pointing some posters are "wanna be mods." Telling other posters when it is time to close a thread. That is all I was trying to say.

I think you are in that category. Sure I could be wrong. If I am my apologies conveyed.

Feel free to point out where in any of my posts I have said this thread should be closed (or any thread). Otherwise you are continuing with your strawman argument. Misrepresenting what is stated in order to attempt to score a point.

[mark45y]

Reply to JDinAsia

I have no problems with the rules of TV. I was pointing some posters are "wanna be mods." Telling other posters when it is time to close a thread. That is all I was trying to say.

I think you are in that category. Sure I could be wrong. If I am my apologies conveyed.

Feel free to point out where in any of my posts I have said this thread should be closed (or any thread). Otherwise you are continuing with your strawman argument. Misrepresenting what is stated in order to attempt to score a point.

In my argument there are two sides. Nothing to do with rules or moderation. Two groups of posters.

One group is in favor of free debate the other is in favor of stopping debate if that debate disagrees with the persons personal beliefs.

There is no straw man.

I thought you were setting up a scenario to stop debate. You said you are not. Sorry I misinterpreted your motives.

[jdinasia]

There is a strawman as you continually attributed a position to me that I had in no way stated. I pointed out the hypocrisy in your posts and you attributed it making statements about you, a person I do not know. You continued to attribute a position to me that I had in no way stated.

If you want open discussion yet continue to misrepresent what others have said then you are in fact working against your own stated reasoning.

My reasoning still stands. The very nature of the original post and the use of "gestapo" and "dictatorship" is an emotional appeal attempting to control others. Your argument that there are 2 groups has not been supported by fact. That some people choose to direct things in their own way (even to the point of closure of a thread) is by nature no more or less valid than attempting to keep a thread open. Assuming of course they are doing so within the framework of the rules that we all agreed upon when joining this site. My argument, that if you want it to be YOUR way then all you need to do is set up your own forum remains un-refuted.

I am comfortable with the framework that TVF uses. When I have something to say that cannot, for whatever reason, be said within that framework; I find another outlet for it.

[smokie36]

We've had the rep feature.....now its time for Mod for a day......certainly beats this threads 'Are you smarter than a 50 year old .'

Like a prepacked sarnie this thread....looked great but a tad lacking on content.

Do carry on.....please don't let me stop you.....honestly.

[mark45y]

There is a strawman as you continually attributed a position to me that I had in no way stated. I pointed out the hypocrisy in your posts and you attributed it making statements about you, a person I do not know. You continued to attribute a position to me that I had in no way stated.

If you want open discussion yet continue to misrepresent what others have said then you are in fact working against your own stated reasoning.

My reasoning still stands. The very nature of the original post and the use of "gestapo" and "dictatorship" is an emotional appeal attempting to control others. Your argument that there are 2 groups has not been supported by fact. That some people choose to direct things in their own way (even to the point of closure of a thread) is by nature no more or less valid than attempting to keep a thread open. Assuming of course they are doing so within the framework of the rules that we all agreed upon when joining this site. My argument, that if you want it to be YOUR way then all you need to do is set up your own forum remains un-refuted.

I am comfortable with the framework that TVF uses. When I have something to say that cannot, for whatever reason, be said within that framework; I find another outlet for it.

Relax. I am not trying to participate in an argument. The strawman thing as you propose it is too complicated for me to understand anyway.

Daddy buy me a dog.

No.

Daddy a dog would protect our house.

No

Daddy do you want to leave our house unprotected.

That I understand. Strawman.

I am far more simplistic. I like free speech within the rules. Some people would rather their opinions be the rule. I don't think that is a strawman argument. But I will admit to not being the brightest star in the sky.

If you say it is a straw man argument OK.

[canuckamuck]

Next

[mark45y]

We've had the rep feature.....now its time for Mod for a day......certainly beats this threads 'Are you smarter than a 50 year old .'

Like a prepacked sarnie this thread....looked great but a tad lacking on content.

Do carry on.....please don't let me stop you.....honestly.

Don't give up. Most of the gestapo posters don't live in Thailand so are in different time zones. As they wake up they'll be here to try and close the thread.

[IanForbes]

Next

Next what? I don't like straw men. I don't even like straw women. I prefer the real ones. I used to enjoy snow men, though.

I'm all for free speech so long as there is no slander and no personal attacks. I can understand that I'm playing in somebody else's sandbox and I have to abide by the rules. It's just confusing occasionally when the rules change depending on who starts the thread. Unfortunately, some people are so upset about other's perceived life style that they let personal grudges supercede a good topic.

[endure]

Next

[mark45y]

Next

Your first post was “You go girl.” Which supported a sarcastic reference to middle aged white men. OK I got that one.

“Next” in my TV experience is the dismissive answer by one active poster who thinks he knows more than just about anyone.

I assume the first “next” reference was a copy of that dismissive attitude about my OP.

I also assume you are agreeing with the person who copied the dismissive answer of the poster who knows more than just about anyone.

From your combined post I get the message, “How dare you question your betters. Of course we know more than you can ever hope to know.”

Is this an accurate reading of your cryptic message?

Perhaps I am missing something. Maybe you could explain.

Oh, if you don't mind a personal question. Do you think the laughing symbol was A.a cute response, B. A well thought out and devastating put down. C. Something an grown up would normally do. D. A little kid got access to your computer for a minute while you were out.

[jdinasia]

and mark is STILL at it

(creating things that just aren't there ... AND talking down about people as in his original post.

[endure]

Next

Your first post was “You go girl.” Which supported a sarcastic reference to middle aged white men. OK I got that one.

“Next” in my TV experience is the dismissive answer by one active poster who thinks he knows more than just about anyone.

I assume the first “next” reference was a copy of that dismissive attitude about my OP.

I also assume you are agreeing with the person who copied the dismissive answer of the poster who knows more than just about anyone.

From your combined post I get the message, “How dare you question your betters. Of course we know more than you can ever hope to know.”

Is this an accurate reading of your cryptic message?

Perhaps I am missing something. Maybe you could explain.

Oh, if you don't mind a personal question. Do you think the laughing symbol was A.a cute response, B. A well thought out and devastating put down. C. Something an grown up would normally do. D. A little kid got access to your computer for a minute while you were out.

[473geo]

Marks observations about the way some posters try to assert an element of control are correct, none more evident than in the political posting arena you regularly visit JD. I guess for some open discussion of topics is not acceptable due to their limited debating skill,. hence the calls for threads they cannot contribute to intelligently, to be closed. Opinions are always welcome, however it is always advisable to have the ability to support your opinions with reasoned argument, should your ultimate aim be to have others on the forum support your opinion.

Edited October 29, 2010 by 473geo

[jdinasia]

Marks observations about the way some posters try to assert an element of control are correct, none more evident than in the political posting arena you regularly visit JD. I guess for some open discussion of topics is not acceptable due to their limited debating skill,. hence the calls for threads they cannot contribute to intelligently, to be closed. Opinions are always welcome, however it is always advisable to have the ability to support your opinions with reasoned argument, should your ultimate aim be to have others on the forum support your opinion.

I rarely see people asking for political threads to be closed. I do, however, often see red shirt supporters resorting to flaming or using non-factual arguments to try and score points. (I see this in anti-reds as well ... but the anti's usually have factual arguments to use.)

mark on the other hand talks down to and about people on a constant basis, it seems. All the while, misrepresenting what is said and doing exactly what he accuses others of. Take for example .... his "Never" threads, or his "Why I don't", thread, simply not very well veiled sneers at other people

(note: when I sneer ... you know it

[domprz]

Marks observations about the way some posters try to assert an element of control are correct, none more evident than in the political posting arena you regularly visit JD. I guess for some open discussion of topics is not acceptable due to their limited debating skill,. hence the calls for threads they cannot contribute to intelligently, to be closed. Opinions are always welcome, however it is always advisable to have the ability to support your opinions with reasoned argument, should your ultimate aim be to have others on the forum support your opinion.

I rarely see people asking for political threads to be closed. I do, however, often see red shirt supporters resorting to flaming or using non-factual arguments to try and score points. (I see this in anti-reds as well ... but the anti's usually have factual arguments to use.)

mark on the other hand talks down to and about people on a constant basis, it seems. All the while, misrepresenting what is said and doing exactly what he accuses others of. Take for example .... his "Never" threads, or his "Why I don't", thread, simply not very well veiled sneers at other people

(note: when I sneer ... you know it

Thanks. The straw man concept makes sense. It does make mark45y's topics entertaining and instructive though - not so much by his tilting at windmills, but the responses they inspire.

[473geo]

Intersting JD, I've never felt Mark was sneering, maybe some observations hit too close to the mark for some.

I guess all comments are open to interpretation, you can constantly draw in a political context too, if that is where you feel at your best on the debating front.

try a sneer on me if you wish....I'm not even sure I would recognise one on the forum......

[richard_smith237]

For a more rounded view point of Thailand I'd like to hear more from the uneducated Thai's, but thats perhaps a little difficult given the fact that they won't have the capacity to articulate their views on this forum as 'we have not taught them English'....

....... they don't have internet access either!

Not true. The mother of the rural Thai family I look after is always on a local internet cafe asking me for more money for the sick buffalo, or the lazy tather who had to go to the hospital, or the 14 year old daughter who got pregnant to a 15 year old boy, or the 3 kids who needs school books, or a new uniform, or is in the hospital for crashing the motorbike I bought them, or any one of a hundred other problems that happen continually. I'm not sure how they survived before I came into their life to help them out.

Sorry Ian, I was talking about the 'uneducated Thai's' that Richard wants to hear from. My MIL fits into his niche, but unfortunately can't read or write, so couldn't use the internet even if it were in her village. Not much point in anyone opening up an internet cafe there either ...... hardly anyone in the village can read or write!

My comment was more in reference to Marks other thread "Why I don't teach my girlfriend English" than anything else....

...For those of us who have been here any length of time we have our own balanced view points from a cross section of society. This forum I find useful to observe how my fellow Westerners perceive Thai's and Thailand, this in itself is as much an eye opener as the topics themselves.

Everyone is indeed welcome to their opinion and I agree with the posters who have pointed this out and that people should refrain from slurs and personal insults, that said I believe the objective of some posters in their anonymity is to simply 'wind others up'.... a lot of people on this forum are rather highly-strung and sensitive when it comes to that....

As the saying goes... Opinions are like arse holes, everyone has one but everyone else's stinks !

Edited October 29, 2010 by richard_smith237