Should the forum encourage civility and right to disagree?

[Voltage]

First I am very happy to see how the forum has been reformed in the past year and want to applaud the progressive reforms put in place. Some of those memorable reforms include the clamping down on atheist extremism that had the habit of degrading our faith and prophet, the ban on tribal talk in generals, the clamping down on rampant racism of intolerable nature particularly against fellow Africans, the clamping down on religious extremism and the proliferation of intolerant and misguided views of this nature; now I ask should the forum encourage civility, the right of free expression safe from obscenities, and the right of contributors to disagree without engaging in ad hominems.

Though I have watched for a period now the lack of decorum and debating etiquette (even my own-self becoming susceptible to the conducive environment) I received this idea while reading a young woman make a political statement of which the response was not the refuting of her statements but rather responding with a negative indictment on her person. My response was thus:

Sxb you are one lone Somali and your opinion represents you and whatever of the Somali population shares with you. Similarly Qoroxeey's opinion represents herself and whatever of the Somali population shares it like myself. Neither of you has a monopoly on "Somali" representation because we are not a homogenous entity with massive group think. We should respect the right of us to have diverse points of view and freedom of expression like all civilized societies.

My question to you is should the forum start encouraging civility and the right of us to disagree without hurting our right of free expression?

[Lamagoodle]

I do agree that the forum should encourage civility and the right to disagree. However, the right of expression comes with a responsibility. Pathelogically lying and munchenhausen attitudes (and I can present numerous examples written by the person who you attempted defend) should not be called disagreements. It is not. It is one liner to seek attention or to knowlingly mock/belittle people and hence shouldn't be classified as disagreement. I will be more than happy to provide a metaphysical analysis if you so need.

Your example above does not really do justice to your good intention (title of this thread) because it was taken out of context.

Anyway, thanks for reminding us that we need to agree and disagree.

May I suggest that you google and read Imannuel Kant.

[Estarix]

Sxb you are one lone Somali and your opinion represents you and whatever of the Somali population shares with you. Similarly Qoroxeey's opinion represents herself and whatever of the Somali population shares it like myself.

Neither of you has a monopoly on "Somali" representation because we are not a homogenous entity with massive group think. We should respect the right of us to have diverse points of view and freedom of expression like all civilized societies.

The fact that people disagree with one another is why people debate here all the time, the fact that their are topics, polls and emoticons reinforces this.

[Kukri]

[qoraxeey]

there is no civility in soomaaliiidaan

[AhmedBoqor]

It's the internet and you're dealing with Somalis; Civility and disagreement will rarely come together.

[FAH1223]

It's the internet and you're dealing with Somalis; Civility and disagreement will rarely come together.

[bareento]

from experience I can say that when Voltage starts to quote himself, its a sign of imminent outburst of voltagian discourse

B.