Melissa, I don't think this is a forum where anti-paleo opinions are going to thrive.

If we try to establish a "constructive" threshold, who's going to decide what's constructive and what isn't? Clearly this community is a "herd of cats" and we do thrive on looking at questions from all angles and then looking at them again.

Yes, I may get annoyed at answers that are clearly off topic but I can down-vote or ignore them. I admit I will try to avoid down-voting very often since I have to give up points to do so. I prefer to just ignore comments that are way out of line and let them fade away in the silence. Anyone who likes to argue with them is free to do so.

Honest disagreement can be very important in the effort to learn; it can also get pretty heated and some viewpoints may be labeled "anti-paleo" and yet have much to offer to open-minded thinkers.

I guess my answer is yes, they are annoying when clearly not offering food for thought. For now, I would leave them up--one person's graffiti is another's art.

If we experience a noticeable increase in such postings in the future, we might need to look at this question again.

Melissa, I can not remember the philosopher who said it but I hold with the idea that the mass of society is no more justified to silence one man than if one man had the power to silence the masses. Let them vent, alternative hypothesis are necessary and healthy even when presented by a madman.

I'm a fan of good judgment over inflexible rules. We'll know if/when they start causing more clutter/problems than are worth dealing with. Until then, I say we can benefit from listening to all opinions.

banning for opposite views doesn't have to be "totalitarian" or evil. It all depends on the motives behind, I think. It's different when someone comes with very different views, but is ready and open to discussion and respects others, and when someone comes with very closed mind and obviously takes pleasure in being argumentative, attacking and disrespectful. There wouldn't be anything wrong in banning someone on, let's say, hunting-lovers forum, someone who constantly attacks and calls all around "murderers!". People gather in interest-related forums for a reason... it's a one thing to be challenged, other to be attacked.

I don't think that we're at the point where we need to take any drastic measures. Free debate and exposure to conflicting viewpoints is IMHO preferable to banning vegan/frutarian/concretearian trolls, and kind of runs counter to the site's educational vocation anyhow...

I just think when the top five questions of the day that crowd the top of the list are all vegan related we need to step up.

I believe voting down has a negative effect on one's points rating?

It's a little bit totalitarian to ban people because of their views, isn't it? However wrong we think they are.

I find that letting non-paleo or anti-paleo people speak is fine because they usually don't have very intelligent arguments or it's the same old same old that has shown repeatedly in "real world" cases NOT to WORK so truthfully, they don't hurt us, they just continue to make the noose around the Food Pyramid's neck a little tighter. As they say the proof is in the pudding...none of us have "pudding" bellies but those on the normal food pyramid diet sure do. We're not obese, sporting diabetes, high blood pressure & every conceivable ailment known, we're the ones finding ourselves freed of most of those, being able to get off medications & treatments due to our diet. They can't say that. Let the votes speak for themselves.

I think paleo could appreciate some different perspectives. Now I see it seems like high-fat, low-carb is now the standard of the paleo community. Maybe they should consider that wild game and pastured meat has much less fat.[1]

[1] http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm

There is no negative to being voted down... Suspend with explanation followed bans if it's not constructive. Anti paleo that's constructive should be left up so that we can learn from it

I'd say, SO FAR, they don't seem to be causing much trouble. THey get voted down, they don't come around much, irritation level on my part has been minimal. I'd say use the minimum level of force necesary to maintain order. If the problem becomes worse in the future, you can always revisit the issue and perhaps increase the level of counterforce.

Also, I'd prefer to error on the level of openmindedness than to be overly closeminded. Also, even the most negative comments can serve a purpose like educating me as to what and how others think and what rumors and data (even if false) happen to be circulating in other circles. I don't like to become overly insulated from what is happening and being talked about elsewhere. I think even diehard vegans have much to teach me as far types of mindsets to be wary of as well as what kind of research is out there that might not be fully supportive of my current theories. THe best way to find holes in my theories is to let them out there and let others have at em. If my theories are strong, than I have nothing to fear, and if my theories are weak, then the naysayers are doing me a favor by attacking them and exposing that weakness. Hopefully, I and we are wise enough to tell which is which.

If the clutter gets too...cluttery?, then delete sounds good. Otherwise, not a huge deal for me personally. Banning often gets very very dramatic.