Gustav, what the fuck have you been smoking lately? :m: My understanding of "assail" is to "viciously attack". Why would I do as you suggest? In any event, since I'm a gentleman, take your best shot, if you must. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! On topic, Sci can reform itsef if the participants are willing. There are some who would prefer to hustle the hustlers out the door, pour a glass of sherry for those remaining, dim the lighs, select a fine cigar, and discuss the woes of the world while reposing in our leather wingbacks. In such an atmosphere, it would, of course, be impossible to distinguish between black, brown, yellow and white, or gay and straight or even man and woman. I believe some neighbors (Tiassa and Gustav perhaps) would be comfortable here. This is a POV I endorse. Then there are those that prefer the atmosphere of a loud, rowdy pool hall, with half (fully?) nude harlots dancing about. Here we can settle our disputes with pool sticks, broken beer bottles and Glocks. First order of "bizness" would be to clear out all the "furriners", such as Christians, Muslims, Blacks, Whites, Fags and everyone else not "like" them. I believe some neighbors (Tiassa and Gustav perhaps) would be comfortable here, even if it were in the past tense. This is a POV I endorse. Do either of you, or anyone else disagree? Calm, order and harmony have their place, as do anarchy, bedlam and disarray. Meanwhile, I believe a great deal of stimulation, humor and perhaps even a form of "justice" lies in balance. Comments? *Disclaimer - reflections on any given members' characters as enumerated here is meant as examples only. After all, we are on an internet forum here - how in the hell can anyone even begin to really know anyone else through such a medium? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You'd thank... an ive also enjoyed discussin wit you who i thank is a perty sharp nutter... lol... an Ive been able to discuss any issue im interested in... in any forem ive posted in an i dont have a prollem wit any body... but then... i enjoy herin diferent opinions an i ant a control freek :shurg:
(I loved this post) As far as I can tell the people who complain about atheists and theists the most, spend a great deal of time arguing with each other. Can't we make this one of those victimless crimes, you know, like two consenting adults want to dress up in leather and whip the crap out of each other, hell, is that a crime? Is there really someone wanting to discuss math or physics or geology getting interfered with by theists? Are their really theists here who are not fascinated and drawn to argue with atheists over and over and yet somehow end up doing this? Or is everyone claiming noble motives? Come on, you love it. And if you don't, trust me, you are not making the world a better place, get off that cross and just participate in the threads on other topics.
See! I mean, we are adults. I think one can avoid the nutters - whoever one thinks are the nutters. I mean if there were fundamentalist Christians always posting in geology threads that the world is 5 thousand years old - or whatever the number - that would be a problem. And if every time a theists wanted to discuss, let's see how the apocrypha were placed in that category and atheists came flying in to say there is no God. Then there is a problem. But it seems to me most of the fight, right now at least, is between people who willingly step into the ring. They gonna beat that ________ist's butt. Two consenting adults.
O my God... so what... pont out that ther positon ant rational an move on :facepalm: PS It realy is oK if you dont change everbody to you'r way of thankin :bugeye:
Could you show me an example? 'Religious Nutters' are posting in forums outside the philosophy subsection and they are not being heavily moderated? I certainly see some confused people in these forums, though I have to say in the EM&J forum, I see most people approaching issues - with varying degress of ability - by trying to support their positions. I also don't immediately see theist atheist splits there either. Again, I see most people doing this, but to varying degrees of ability. The main problem I see are the ad homs. A tricky area since one can be subtly insulting without directly ad homming, but nevertheless, this is where I would weigh in as a mod. My suggestion to any remaining intelligent people is that they ignore people who repeatedly fail to back up what they say. Don't feed what you consider a troll. I think a little responsibility needs to be taken by people who enter ongoing debates with people they do not respect. In another thread I investigated a person's claim not to have used a specific ad hom before. I found through a search that this person had been engaging in 'debates' with people he considered insane FOR YEARS. I am afraid I have trouble seeing such a person or group of persons as victims. And further I must question the casual assignment of 'intelligent' to all those who found themselves forced to leave. If a person repeatedly engages in a, come on let's face it, fairly insignificant activity - we could be out actually doing scientific research or auditing a course, let alone volunteering to read to children dying of cancer or whatever - you have to assume the person is getting something out of that activity, whatever their noble claim about fighting off the barbarians or converting infidels.
Its to simple... jus ignore whatever "nutter" bugs ya... ther mus be mor to it.!!! Ignor 'em... prollem solved.!!! Ignor 'em... prollem solved.!!! I sware... its an embrasment... cause i thank som of my fellow atheist types are throwin tantrums cause the "nutters" get the bes of 'em over relegous/political/ect... issues an they cant stan it... so they manufacture issues to get rid of 'em <pitiful>
these mia's are sci's equivalent of bush's yellowcake the smoking gun it is how these fundies issue their call to war it is how they deprive us of our liberties god bless the sciforum nation we shall return thee to thine glory we shall smite thine enemies may divine providence guide us thru these troubled times redemption is now at hand
That wasn't quite my point. They shouldn't have free reign to post unintelligibly in any subfora. However, to answer your question, just take a look in B&G, in particular, things like the "Denial of Evolution III" thread. Again, it has nothing to do with how they're relatively (or not) moderated. What is of concern is their perception that irrational posts are evn to be posted at all.... You're right; to varying degrees, we're all confused. Thus, we're here to explore and to learn. Which is my point. In the end, the 'nutters' have no concern for learning. As far as they're concerned, they already have the answers... Again, you're right. The difference however is (as I've mentioned), when 'push comes to shiove', and one is driven to support one's position, the nutter invariable falls back on the old dead horse I mentioned.
I understand that. But Q is giving them responsibility for driving away intelligent and scholoarly posters. He considers religious people insane. I put these two ideas together and it seemed unlikely to me that the 'nutters' had driven them away. IOW they must have done this outside of philosophy subf. Unless a lot of these scholars were interested in religion, I find this unlikely. You agreed with his post, so I responded to you as I did. Or perhaps there were a lot of philosophers who also dabbled in the religion forums and became outraged after awhile, but I remain skeptical. I realize I asked for an example, so feel free to come with more, but in this case an intelligent and scholarly poster has a wonderful warning sign in the title of thread. They can check in and see if a delightfully creative and interesting creationist is in there if they want to spar or they can avoid the thread. I was thinking of examples where intelligent discourse is being derailed. You want to get rid of irrational posts. Oh my God. See a lot of posts that seem to be providing evidence or using deduction strike me as irrational. I am not sure what would be left. I mean let's say we had some of the great philosophers gathering in the philosophy forum - you think Plato would consider Nietschze's posts rational? How about Sartre and a Zen monk meeting in Eastern religion? And since ethics and morality must be founded on non-rational axioms - at least one I would think - most of us have to fall back on a non-rational justification. The sociopath will not be swayed with logic, nor should he be. I am not sure how many 'intelligent and scholarly people' engaging in arguments are open to learning. I get shocked when someone actually seems curious. I mean I do see people get enthusiastic when a link is presented, and I suppose we could be a kind of link forums, where we post links we think are interesting and enthuse. But I must say that I have not gotten the impression that anyone in political discussions, for example, is really out there to learn - except perhaps to learn how to win the debate. But that's true of pretty much everyone. At least that is the impression. I understand that some people, theoretically, would be open to convincing if someone could provide this or that scientific research. But that is different from not 'thinking they have all the answers'. I know, no one would claim that physics is over as a subject, but in general in many of the main topics has anybody really changed their minds about anything in years of participating? Have you changed any significant belief in your time participating here? or learned something beyond particular facts? (iow finding out that there is a species of ant that can change color would not be considered significant, unless it had implications that....well, I can't think of offhand, but I am sure you get the idea)
Wow. Can of worms. I think we can be more charitable and say that they perhaps expected their own arguments to certainly overwhelm their opponents and it is frustrating when they did not.
**Bump** There are some who would prefer to hustle the hustlers out the door, pour a glass of sherry for those remaining, dim the lighs, select a fine cigar, and discuss the woes of the world while reposing in our leather wingbacks. In such an atmosphere, it would, of course, be impossible to distinguish between black, brown, yellow and white, or gay and straight or even man and woman. This is a POV I endorse. Then there are those that prefer the atmosphere of a loud, rowdy pool hall, with half (fully?) nude harlots dancing about. Here we can settle our disputes with pool sticks, broken beer bottles and Glocks. First order of "bizness" would be to clear out all the "furriners", such as Christians, Muslims, Blacks, Whites, Fags and everyone else not "like" them. This is a POV I endorse. Does anyone else disagree? Calm, order and harmony have their place, as do anarchy, bedlam and disarray. Meanwhile, I believe a great deal of stimulation, humor and perhaps even a form of "justice" lies in balance. Comments?
You haven't been here that long to have observed the exodus, hence your assertion is based on ignorance.
hahaha what did i tell you, sci? just look at this fundy look! gimme the goddamn names, freak! get rigorous!
While I consider theists to be insane (though not necessarily religious people..), I don't really think that's the reason why Q recommends driving them away. Not that I can speak for Q, but I think he and I are on the same position here: whether religious or not, it is the quality of the post that determines its value. The problem being, there's a large correlation to be found between religious posters and specious arguments.... You think that thread exhibits intelligence??? If I were Mod there, the thread wouldn't even have been allowed; evolution cannot be rationally denied (particularly in a Biology and Genetics fora...). As for religiously derailed threads, just take a perusal through any of the closed threads in GP.... Of course. That's the purpose here. In all cases, I have no doubt that all parties could come to agreement. While they all have differing positions, they all respect reason [OK, maybe with the exception of the Zen monk... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!]. eek. I disagree. As would Kant, Bentham, Mill, etc., etc. There's no room for sociopaths here. [nor non-rational justifiers, though I don't think such is possible...] Their loss. I suppose ultimately it comes down to one's agenda. If you're here to fill time, then sure, nothing can be learned.... A fine example. Alas, like the religious ideologue, the politico is similar: just concerned with affirming. To the first: no. I'm not here to explore my beliefs. To the second: most definitely. To the rational mind, little else can be derived from discourse. And that (IMO) is the entire purpose to being here.
huh... i already learned two things today*: first of all, i had always thought that a "nutter" was just a devoted fan of van der graaf generator. guess not though. so they're irrational just 'cuz they spelled his name wrong(?) [someone really ought to get crackin' on that embedding situation.] secondly, that one can actually conclude with some degree of certainty whether or not a claim is "rational." so who be the judge of that? and is one who "does not go by ...logical reasoning, inferential reasoning, by reflection on reasons, etc.," but rather by what "one knows for oneself" de facto a "nutter"? * i also learned that no matter how hard one tries, uniformity of roast cannot be achieved with tanzanian peaberry beans. and possibly a few other things.
