I think my point is misunderstood.  My question is not whether there is a place for satire in a debate, it's whether the P&R Forum on 1bc is a debate forum only (in which satire can take place within the debate) or if other politically or religiously sensitive material can be posted which does not have any intention of a debate such as a thread which is purely satirical in nature.  The "comedy in P&R" thread does not seem to be meant to be anything other than satire.  It doesn't seem to be instigating debate in any real sense (other than the one about it of course).  So my whole point was to question whether P&R should be limited to threads which are meant to be debates or if it is a place for other types of threads which are not appropriate for the general site yet do not involve or intend a discussion as such.

This hits at the heart of what I'm trying to ask.  Black Owl, you are asking why a person can't post a pic to illustrate a point while Rabi is asking if a picture should be the point.  This is what I think we are trying to clarify.  It would be different if in the middle of a discussion someone posts a relevant satirical picture which pertains to the discussion.  I may be wrong, but I think that this discussion would never have started if this is what was going on. 

Remember, I'm one of those that advocated more fences and control in P&R.  But I also accept the fact that somethings just shouldn't be controlled to the point of choking off discussion.  I think if you meant to debate as a member Rabi, you not start a thread announcing your the new mod on the block.  We could have just as easily discussed this in the topic I started and kept it in that context, that corral.  And then after that we could have brought the results here.  Does that not sound just a little more fair?

I think this is a bit unfair.  Rabi is simply trying to clarify what the ideal should be.  He has not sensored anyone or anything and I doubt he intends to ever do so.  Should he have hijacked your thread further by continuing to discuss the subject there?  This seems like the perfect thread to debate this subject if you ask me.  He started this thread as a moderator (and pinned the topic) so that it could almost be the ultimate debate thread in which we can debate the rules of debate.  Who better to start such a discussion than a moderator.  I think it is also unfair that you are taking this all so personally.  He has stated that he did not mean to zero in on you but hey, you posted a pretty controversial picture which helps illustrate the point [presumably] better than the others. 

That was satire? Damn... But kids are tasty. Its alright I picked up a new book the other day. Maybe you heard of it? "To serve man." (You can really sink your teeth into it.

I did indeed start that thread to find the humor in the everyday problems EVERYBODY in the world faces.  Just as simple as that.  If any thing posted there incited debate and discussion all the better.  It is because I don't believe pictorial satire should be bandied about the place, that, that topic exists.  If you all feel it is detremental to 1bc.  Then by all means delete it.  We'll carry on with a monotone discussion of the events of a colorful world.

It was good to dicuss this, I don't argue that.  I take issue in the way it was presented for discussion.  It also could have been raised in Konrads thread.  So yes, I feel singled out here for doing what I thought was the right thing.  I did not start this in someone else's thread.  I showed Konrad the respect of taking it else where.  And had the ***** to post completely relevant if not somewhat troublesome material in my own thread.  It could be a good thing.  But I can see for the most part my points are not being well accepted.  So, inorder not to cause another Bang Your Head Here discussion.  I bow out.  But I leave with this last.  It (satire) is going to raise it's head from time to time.  Better to have a topic to take it too other than a "Hot" thread, or risk inflaming a thread with it.    

But he did let you know.  This was writen in the Comedy in P&R thread only minutes after he first posted in this thread about the pictures issue:

There has hardly been a consensus Black Owl.  I for one, have not decided whether it's appropriate or not.  That is the whole reason I brought up the "question" that needed to be asked (and when I say asked, I mean for the debate, not whether it should be moderated). 

--

The problem then becomes one of breaking off topic and derailing a perfectly good discussion.  It is hard to have a good discussion when people keep changing the subject.  I think it was wise of you to go to another thread to post humorous pictures instead of making an uncomfortable tone in Konrad's thread which may lead the discussion to... well.. this.  The same goes for moving this discussion here.  It should have been done earlier, I'll agree, but when something gets momentum, it's hard to stop (re: the slavery sidetrack in this thread). 

Look, I have no problem with you taking issue with Rabi's position.  I'm not sure I disagree with you.  My problem is with the tone in which you are taking issue.  As a totally unbiased source, I don't see how Rabi has intentionally offended you or stiffled discussion.  He has only encouraged it.  This illustrates some of the previous points brought up by others earlier in this thread about what should be expected of the poster and the reader.  Taking offense to other people's opinions when it's not warranted just does not have a place in a discussion. 

So, I think we need to continue this debate (I for one am not satisfied).  Let's try and define the debate though so we know what the other guy is in fact saying.  We may find that we don't have much disagreement after all.  If we do, at least we'll know what it is.

My read of Jerm, and RA's posts indicate to me Black Owl that, there really is not any point of contention from their point of view. I have the impression that RA raised this topic because he was anticipating that _MAYBE_ the thread with the Taliban.com online dating cartoon would raise the hackles of some. I think he was trying to be preemptive and discuss the _potential_ controversy before it became a heated discussion and controversy. I can only applaud his attention in approaching it this way, though I do not agree with the supposition he RAISED (but did not say he had decided on one way or another) that the picture was "inappropriate," "disempowering," exploitative, or whatever.

Black Owl, I really think he was just trying to be fair, and diligent in being a good moderator, not pick on you.

A related point that has emerged is this: is it a good policy for 1BC that people be allowed to post cartoons or other images that might justifiably be thought of as satire, IF such images are not presented in such a way as to promote a discussion or debate, or to make a point of some sort, i.e., to argue a certain point?

I think the underlying concern with raising such a question is this: we don't want the site to become an arena for mudslinging. If we can post "satire" without really making the deeper point about what it is about the topic being satirized that we disagree with or wish could be changed or improved, then so can "they" (whoever "they" might be). Don't take this to be such a huge critique or corralling of your actions Black Owl. We're just saying, maybe next time you post a pic that is satirical, include one or two lines of text that sort of go beyond or clarify the idea or intent of the satire. Then nobody can accuse of you trolling, which basically means, just trying to start inflammatory interactions.

For example, in association with the Taliban online cartoon, you could have said simply something like this:

"Seems to me that this requirement to cover women stands as a serious impediment to modernization and change in socieities like Afghanistan. I mean, if you cannot court your mate the way we do in democratic nations then that would seem to represent one basic impediment to the smooth transition to democracy, no? If women have to be covered, and are cloistered at home, then that means that their mating, courting, marrying, and reproduction are essentially under the control of men. If women do not even have control over their own reproduction or marrying, how can you have a "democracy?" --insert satirical image of Taliban online dating--

If all that would have been beyond your textual prowess, I would have been happy to take up the slack for ya.

Can I use a pic to illustrate a point?

The idea for this thread was brilliant. It was RA's idea and myself and the other mods/members that discussed this backed this idea fully.

Do you understand that the intention of this thread wasn't for moderators to set rules for you guys other than what's already been outlined? The intention was to stimulate discussion about posting decorum among those who post in P/R so that maybe, just maybe, admins/mods won't have to do any moderation at all.

A shocking concept, isn't it? Debate without browbeating...... Discussion without insult.....

And what happened? The same thing that happens in many other threads in P/R, the original post and the replies to it are picked apart line by line, dissected, and regurgitated back as if every single post was a personal affront to another member/ideal/whatever.

If it isn't possible to discuss some sort of standard of posting in a way that doesn't degenerate into another argument, then how are we supposed to discuss any political or religious topic without it becoming some sort of trolling flame war?

I'm not saying that this thread is a troll/flame war, I said:

I think of an argument and a troll/flame war as two different things... or perhaps two different degrees of a similar situation.

ADDED: and I didn't intend my post to be some chastisement toward anyone, just a frustration that these topics can't seem to be discussed without some sort of ordeal.