Certain topics should not be allowed on sciforums

[James R]

Just a reminder - a few relevant extracts from the site rules for those who may have forgotten:

Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members

...
While we welcome contributions that reflect the diverse range of perspectives and experiences of our members, we do not believe in an unlimited right to free speech. Rather, we seek to provide a welcoming environment conducive to the critical examination of topics of discussion.

....

Posting on sciforums is a privilege, not a right. All material published on sciforums is at the discretion of the moderator team. Moderation may include editing, moving or deletion of posts or threads. Moderator actions are usually documented in some way, though members may not be contacted personally. The forum rules and guidelines are enforced at the discretion of the moderators. Sciforums is moderated bearing in mind the stated aims and ethos of the forum; we will not be bound by the letter of the rules as written, but by the spirit of the rules.

....

D.3.3. These rules and guidelines are enforced at the discretion of the moderators. Moderators may judge in any particular instance that in all the circumstances no action is required. Sciforums is moderated bearing in mind the stated aims and ethos of the forum; we will not be bound by the letter of these rules as written, but by their spirit.

....

I.6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of a group of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums.

....

I.15. The intentional posting of false or misleading information is unacceptable. This includes posting half-truths, i.e. leaving out relevant and known information to give a false impression.

....

I.18. Trolling is the posting of inflammatory posts with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (often angry) response. Trolls aim to disrupt normal on-topic discussion, often by raising tangential or irrelevant hot-button issues. Trolling posts are intended to incite controversy or conflict and/or to cause annoyance or offence.

....

I.19. Repetitive or vexatious posting is considered trolling. Sciforums reserves the right to reject contributions that have been widely canvassed in the forum and to reject contributions from participants who seek to dominate the discussion.

....
I.21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument. Examples include preaching one’s own religion as the only true religion, proclaiming that one’s favoured political party is superior to the opposing party, or proclaiming that one group is morally superior to another. The signature of propaganda is that it consists largely of a member expressing strongly held personal beliefs about things that can’t be proven, supposedly in the interests of achieving some important aim (e.g. world peace, governing the nation effectively, ensuring that people act morally).

....

23. Propaganda can include material copied verbatim from other websites, books or articles, which demonstrates a clear bias for or against a particular belief. It does not include articles which examine an issue objectively and rationally, looking at both sides of an issue.

....

26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.

....

27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk.

[Gustav]

Gustav:

So I take it your response to this thread is that you think that topics should be allowed to be debated. Is that correct?

yes
debated or discussed

What of the particular topic of holocaust denial, that started this thing off? Do you have anything to say about that?

/puzzled

its viability as a topic? of course it is

now a question for you
will you sanction...

Yes, in this particular context I was referring to the Islam that puts their women in cloth bags

...that?

[James R]

Syzygys:

[QUOTE=Syzygys;2951017]Lately some people have been wishing to discuss WTC 7 (not me) and their threads were closed down by saying:" we have had those discussions already."

1. The Star Wars thread is like 200 years old and still going, and nobody is closing it down.

It's one thread among thousands. It's in the Sci-fi forum. Most of the time it is harmless.

3. If there is interest for a topic, no matter how deadly beaten horse it is, why is it up to a moderator to decide if that should be discussed or not?

It is up to moderators to review every topic that is posted here and to decide whether the topic is a suitable one for sciforums, given its overall ethos, its membership, its history, and so on. That's what moderators are here for. There are unmoderated forums on the internet; this is not one of them.

If there is no interest, the thread will die anyway. If there is interest and people wish to discuss it, dear moderator, just shut the fuck up and let the thread go on...

sciforums is not obliged to provide storage space or at platform for every view that any poster wishes to express.

After all, it is the click rate what keeps the website going. By closing down discussions, you are killing the website... And no, not all discussions will be academic, you are on the internet after all...

It is ironic that I, an administrator, started the current thread particularly to argue that a certain discussion should not be shut down, don't you think?

Maybe you and I agree with each other.

P.S.: My other favorite grievance, when you guys close old threads down that has been activated by a newcomer... If there is new interest, let it live...

Newcomers can usually start a new thread rather than resurrecting one that is 10 years old.

P.P.S.: The whole Religion subforum could be closed down, since pretty much 90% of the topics have been beaten to death...

A few people here hold that opinion. And yet, the Religion forum is a popular forum, judging by the number of posts and views there.

[James R]

Gustav:

now a question for you
will you sanction...

Yes, in this particular context I was referring to the Islam that puts their women in cloth bags

...that?

What are you asking for? What sanction do you think is appropriate?

Also, where can I find the original post? Nobody appears to have hit the "report" button on that.

[GeoffP]

But absolute censorship harms any agenda.

Only in the case of the judicious reviewer. With enough time and immersion, even violently one-sided philosophies can proceed to fixation; though probably largely in conjunction with demographic or political process. When you permit the promotion of such ideas, you risk having people believe them. This is a road our society has been down.

Then again, who watches the watchmen? I've seen some by-the-mirror-darkly examples of mal-ethics on here that would make Goebbels take notes.

[Balerion]

I think that in both cases it is reasonable to allow the issues to be debated - but not endlessly rehashed.

We spent a LOT of time and words on pedophilia a while back. It is done.

Who is "we?" This is what I'm confused about. You mean you? I certainly never saw such a discussion. Theoretically several people could begin such a conversation today with no prior knowledge to it having been done to death already. And I'm not following the logic of banning new participants from having the discussion just because others had already been there. I just don't get that. But hey, I guess it's my problem.

As far as I am aware, we have not yet had a definitive discussion on sciforums of whether gassings occurred at Auschwitz. Sure, there has been a lot of outraged expressed when such claims have been made, and spotty refutation of the faulty claims. But not a proper, definitive attempt to address the substance of the claims in detail.

Are you sure? Or are you just demonstrating my point that such discussions can happen without future participants having any freaking clue as to their existence?

At any rate, even if I were to agree with you that one Ultimo debate over the gassings was necessary, you're not going to find it in steampunk. Before any of this "ban the topic" stuff came up, the argument was that steampunk's just preaching his bigoted conspiracy theories and Nazi apologetics. He's already proven he has no interest in hearing any evidence that goes against his claim. I would love to say something like "At least find a worthy opponent," but as I argued in a previous thread, these kinds of arguments aren't made by reasonable people--they're made by bigots with (usually antisemitic) agendas.

Correct. A subject is not currently off limits just because it has been discussed before. Nevertheless, as it says in our site rules, moderators may, at their discretion, reject discussions of topics that have been widely canvassed previously on sciforums.

Well, I guess I can't argue with that.

Questions such as "Does God exist?" are perennial favorites, and tend to remain open questions. Questions such as "Did gassings occur at Auschwitz?" are much less open ended. They can be relatively easily dealt with.

And yet here we are.

Actually, steampunk has been banned twice so far, and a couple of his threads have been closed. So, I see some moderation there. Also, please bear in mind that when a moderator looks at a matter and decides to take no action, that does not mean that the matter has not been moderated. Moderation involves positive as well as negative actions.

Okay, forgive my grammatical error. But steampunk has not been banned for what he's said about the Holocaust or the Nazis. He's been banned for "intellectual dishonesty" in one case--which isn't even against the rules, though I do agree it should be--and one for telling everyone to "go fuck themselves" or something similar.

If you can find a thorough prior discussion of this topic on sciforums, I'd love to see it. Please post a link.

I'm not saying I know there was one, and I have no interest in slogging through years of topics in hopes of finding one, because it's irrelevant to my argument.

As to the issue of authority, I'm not sure what you're after with that. We're not a court of law here. Nobody's opinion in a discussion is "authoritative", except to the extent that it is persuasive.

What I meant was you're choosing this debate, even before it has begun, to be the final debate on the matter, and I don't know why. But you've since answered that you don't believe there has been a debate on the matter, so that's that.

Not as far as I can see.

I'd look again, if I were you. But no matter, because you're right to put an end to the nonsense, even if you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

I wasn't talking about this particular issue, but a more general one. As I said, I'll get to that later - it's a separate matter.

Okay.

[Bells]

Then again, who watches the watchmen? I've seen some by-the-mirror-darkly examples of mal-ethics on here that would make Goebbels take notes.

Really?

Goebbels?

Exaggerate much, GeoffP?

________________________________________

Um...what? You have a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier on the roster right now, and his discussion threads still stand. Hence, it was not moderated.

JDawg, it doesn't bring us joy or comfort to have a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier on this site. Not at all.

His threads, to date, and he, have been heavily moderated. He has been banned twice, numerous of his threads closed down.

So what is the purpose of keeping him around?

He has so far, brought nothing to the table to show "his proof". So the purpose of allowing him to debate this issue is to provide him with the correct information. If he persists in ignoring said correct information and keeps telling lies, then we would have something to go with.

Personally speaking, I don't like the thought that we are allowing this. But in saying that, allowing him to formerly debate this issue means that we now know who believes like this... If others then come to this site with the same beliefs, we can then refer them to the debate and advise them that this has been done here before and therein contains the correct information.

To cite an example, we need only to look at the paedophilia issues we had in the past. It needs to be asserted, that discussing paedophilia isn't banned on this site. What is not acceptable is further encouragement or pushing of paedophilia. And what happened with the threads that discussed the topic was that some certain members, who shall remain nameless, not only supported it, but also encouraged it and attempted to state the benefits to the child if said child had sex with an adult, and they went further and also discussed how an adult could have sex with a child or have sexual relations with them and avoid physically damaging the child. That is not only unacceptable by any standard, but also placed this site at legal risks and also would have put us on the radar of paedophiles - we do have underage members here and we do not want paedophiles on this site. And so, we made a conscious decision to ban any discussion that went along the lines of the acceptability and benefits of paedophilia.

Now applying those rules and that standard to Holocaust denial... What we can do at present is present the true facts and if with the presentation of the truth and all the evidence that clearly states the Holocaust did in fact occur and over 11 million people were murdered, results in this individual refusing to accept those actual facts and instead comes up with empty assertions and lies, then we deal with the person as a troll. Because then, he would be a troll. But then, for future reference, the information would be there.

What this also does is that it would be one of the very few times where this forum can get together and tell such individuals, with facts, evidence, and truth, that such ideology is not welcome here and we can do that by pointing them in the direction of the facts and evidence.

This isn't a positive experience. At all. It's a disgusting notion that anyone can actually deny the deaths of over 11 million people. But we can't pretend such individuals do not exist. What we can do is try to educate them and show that we don't find it acceptable by telling them the actual truth. That isn't providing them with a platform, but it is providing them with the correct information to allow them to hopefully make the correct decisions.

[Gustav]

Also, where can I find the original post? Nobody appears to have hit the "report" button on that.

/sigh

the link is in post #26

Gustav:

What are you asking for? What sanction do you think is appropriate?

well lets look at one of jdawg's concerns...





i propose that you show some consistency, if spider can be banned for bigotry, so can jdawg. please sanction with a equivalent penalty and thank me for availing y'all with an opportunity to rectify matters

On the other hand, if you're really worried that some people may take a false claim seriously, then here's an idea: address the point. Don't seek to censor the person making it.

So, you're an eyewitness to the planes hitting the Twin Towers? Great! What better way to respond to a ridiculous claim that no planes hit the towers than with a first-hand account of what happened?

Why this need to resort to a demand for censorship?

and despite this high minded moralizing, we have 2 locked threads on that topic. rather hypocritical, right james? on the one hand you advocate openness, with the other, you censor. why the discordance?

[Gustav]

His threads, to date, and he, have been heavily moderated. He has been banned twice, numerous of his threads closed down.

ja
steampunk got his
spider did too
now jdawg demands consistency so give it to him
restore his faith in the system

[Balerion]

JDawg, it doesn't bring us joy or comfort to have a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier on this site. Not at all.

First, an aside: If I could go back to 2003 and opt out of this stupid screen name, I would. In a heartbeat. And not just because I'd be 22 years old again. You have no idea how bad it sucks to have a serious discussion with someone calling you "JDawg."

Bells, you know me well enough at this point. Call me Joe. For the love of Christ, call me Joe.

Okay, that's done. To your statement, I do not think that having him here gives any of you guys and gals a warm and fuzzy feeling. Fraggle made some troubling comments, but that's about it.

His threads, to date, and he, have been heavily moderated. He has been banned twice, numerous of his threads closed down.

I haven't seen this, at least not in the case of his Nazi apologetics or Holocaust denial. Have I overlooked something?

And his bans, as I pointed out, had nothing to do with the things we're talking about. One was for profanity, and the other for "intellectual dishonesty."

So what is the purpose of keeping him around?

He has so far, brought nothing to the table to show "his proof". So the purpose of allowing him to debate this issue is to provide him with the correct information. If he persists in ignoring said correct information and keeps telling lies, then we would have something to go with.

I guess the difference between you and me is that I don't agree he should be given the opportunity to provide "his proof." James spoke earlier about definitive debates/conversations, and okay, supposing there hasn't been on one this subject here at Sciforums--there have been plenty elsewhere. There is no need to open that can of worms here.

Personally speaking, I don't like the thought that we are allowing this. But in saying that, allowing him to formerly debate this issue means that we now know who believes like this... If others then come to this site with the same beliefs, we can then refer them to the debate and advise them that this has been done here before and therein contains the correct information.

And that person, just like steampunk's response to various evidences presented by you and others, will say that steampunk actually won the debate and he (the new guy) wants to avenge his brethren.

You can't reason with these people.

To cite an example, we need only to look at the paedophilia issues we had in the past. It needs to be asserted, that discussing paedophilia isn't banned on this site. What is not acceptable is further encouragement or pushing of paedophilia. And what happened with the threads that discussed the topic was that some certain members, who shall remain nameless, not only supported it, but also encouraged it and attempted to state the benefits to the child if said child had sex with an adult, and they went further and also discussed how an adult could have sex with a child or have sexual relations with them and avoid physically damaging the child. That is not only unacceptable by any standard, but also placed this site at legal risks and also would have put us on the radar of paedophiles - we do have underage members here and we do not want paedophiles on this site. And so, we made a conscious decision to ban any discussion that went along the lines of the acceptability and benefits of paedophilia.

But the same could be said (largely) of Holocaust denial. I'm sure there are Jewish members here who don't need to be accused of being in some global conspiracy to defame the wonderful Adolph Hitler. And that's exactly what steampunk is doing. As I said to James, he isn't simply here to talk about it and exchange ideas, he's here to forward his agenda. And I also said to James, this is the only kind of person who makes this argument. In other words, there is no "good" or "honest" Holocaust denier.

Now applying those rules and that standard to Holocaust denial... What we can do at present is present the true facts and if with the presentation of the truth and all the evidence that clearly states the Holocaust did in fact occur and over 11 million people were murdered, results in this individual refusing to accept those actual facts and instead comes up with empty assertions and lies, then we deal with the person as a troll. Because then, he would be a troll. But then, for future reference, the information would be there.

Then ban him now, because he's already done that. He's already denied scientific evidence and eyewitness testimony. How much more does he need to deny before you see him for what he is?

What this also does is that it would be one of the very few times where this forum can get together and tell such individuals, with facts, evidence, and truth, that such ideology is not welcome here and we can do that by pointing them in the direction of the facts and evidence.

It's already been done.

This isn't a positive experience. At all. It's a disgusting notion that anyone can actually deny the deaths of over 11 million people. But we can't pretend such individuals do not exist. What we can do is try to educate them and show that we don't find it acceptable by telling them the actual truth. That isn't providing them with a platform, but it is providing them with the correct information to allow them to hopefully make the correct decisions.

No one is saying we should pretend they don't exist. We're saying they shouldn't be allowed to peddle their poison here.

[James R]

JDawg:

Who is "we?" This is what I'm confused about. You mean you?

In the case of the pedophilia issue, yes.

For example, see the Formal Debate on the topic here:

Debate: Pedophilia is Pseudoscience

I certainly never saw such a discussion.

We have a search facility. Or you can use google. And in the case of Formal Debates, they are all listed in a sticky thread in the Formal Debates subforum.

Theoretically several people could begin such a conversation today with no prior knowledge to it having been done to death already.

Yes. And I'm sure they'll soon be told.

And I'm not following the logic of banning new participants from having the discussion just because others had already been there.

We have no general policy of banning new participants from having a discussion that has been had before. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there is such a policy.

The issue of closing troll threads and the like is quite a different one from banning discussions on certain topics.

As far as I am aware, we have not yet had a definitive discussion on sciforums of whether gassings occurred at Auschwitz. Sure, there has been a lot of outraged expressed when such claims have been made, and spotty refutation of the faulty claims. But not a proper, definitive attempt to address the substance of the claims in detail.

Are you sure? Or are you just demonstrating my point that such discussions can happen without future participants having any freaking clue as to their existence?

I'm an administrator here. I have been here since 2001. It is my job to keep up with threads that are posted here. I also note that I said "As far as I am aware...". And, I will be very pleased to be corrected if I am wrong.

So, while I am confident, I am not 100% sure. You've said you don't want to go digging, so why labour the point?

At any rate, even if I were to agree with you that one Ultimo debate over the gassings was necessary, you're not going to find it in steampunk.

We take our debaters as they come. He proposed a debate. If he is not equipped for it, that's not our problem.

Also, again you seem a bit fixated on the idea of a "definitive" or "ultimate" debate. You're not likely to see any of those on sciforums. What would such a thing look like, anyway?

Before any of this "ban the topic" stuff came up, the argument was that steampunk's just preaching his bigoted conspiracy theories and Nazi apologetics. He's already proven he has no interest in hearing any evidence that goes against his claim. I would love to say something like "At least find a worthy opponent," but as I argued in a previous thread, these kinds of arguments aren't made by reasonable people--they're made by bigots with (usually antisemitic) agendas.

I don't particular care what he has an interest in hearing. I am under no illusions that any debate will immediately change his views about the holocaust.

He has made claims. We've invited him to put his best case. Let's see what happens.

Questions such as "Does God exist?" are perennial favorites, and tend to remain open questions. Questions such as "Did gassings occur at Auschwitz?" are much less open ended. They can be relatively easily dealt with.

And yet here we are.

Yes, here we are, with you and a number of others calling for censorship, and with me arguing against it.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for steampunk to decide whether he is going to going through with what he said he'd do and actually debate me, or whether he will wimp out.

But steampunk has not been banned for what he's said about the Holocaust or the Nazis. He's been banned for "intellectual dishonesty" in one case--which isn't even against the rules, though I do agree it should be--and one for telling everyone to "go fuck themselves" or something similar.

I think that one ban was for trolling, and the other was for the insult you mention. You're right - we don't have a rule about "intellectual dishonesty", because that is often in the eye of the beholder and too hard to police. We do have a rule about knowingly lying, however.

What I meant was you're choosing this debate, even before it has begun, to be the final debate on the matter, and I don't know why.

I have never said that this will be the final debate on the matter. It will, however, certainly be the final debate with steampunk on the matter.

[Gustav]

First, an aside: If I could go back to 2003 and opt out of this stupid screen name, I would. In a heartbeat. And not just because I'd be 22 years old again. You have no idea how bad it sucks to have a serious discussion with someone calling you "JDawg."

i like it
it has the same blustery quality as your moniker.......

I'm kind of a big deal

[Balerion]

Yes. And I'm sure they'll soon be told.

Interesting.

We have no general policy of banning new participants from having a discussion that has been had before. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there is such a policy.

I'm getting it from you:

I think that in both cases it is reasonable to allow the issues to be debated - but not endlessly rehashed.

I'm an administrator here. I have been here since 2001. It is my job to keep up with threads that are posted here. I also note that I said "As far as I am aware...". And, I will be very pleased to be corrected if I am wrong.

So, while I am confident, I am not 100% sure. You've said you don't want to go digging, so why labour the point?

I'm not, I'm just saying that it's possible you aren't aware that a discussion has been previously had, and so it's entirely possible that two new members wouldn't know it has been done to death either.

We take our debaters as they come. He proposed a debate. If he is not equipped for it, that's not our problem.

We've strayed from the point here.

Also, again you seem a bit fixated on the idea of a "definitive" or "ultimate" debate. You're not likely to see any of those on sciforums. What would such a thing look like, anyway?

I don't know. You're the one who brought it up:

As far as I am aware, we have not yet had a definitive discussion on sciforums of whether gassings occurred at Auschwitz.

I don't particular care what he has an interest in hearing. I am under no illusions that any debate will immediately change his views about the holocaust.

He has made claims. We've invited him to put his best case. Let's see what happens.

But what's the point, then?

I think that one ban was for trolling, and the other was for the insult you mention. You're right - we don't have a rule about "intellectual dishonesty", because that is often in the eye of the beholder and too hard to police. We do have a rule about knowingly lying, however.

I say "intellectual dishonesty" because that' what was given as the reason on the Ban List. Fraggle also confirmed this in a discussion we had at the time.

I have never said that this will be the final debate on the matter.

Yes, you did:

If the currently-proposed Formal Debate goes ahead, it is unlikely that further debates on the same topic will be permitted.

As to the "Cloth bags" thing Gustav is griping about, am I mistaken in my understanding that there is an interpretation of Islam that requires women to cover themselves from head-to-toe in cloth?

[James R]

Gustav:

the link is in post #26

Thankyou. I took a look. That post was not moderated at the time, back in April. I don't know if there were any complaints at the time about it. The particular comment you complain about was in the context of a longer post, and another similar post followed that one. In between, a moderator responded to the first post. And then, several posts later, the entire thread was closed.

I can only assume that the moderator who looked at that thread decided that the most appropriate action to take was to close the thread. Clearly he or she did not think that JDawg should be banned for his comment.

I am not going to second-guess the original moderator's decision on this matter.

i propose that you show some consistency, if spider can be banned for bigotry, so can jdawg.

Correct.

and despite this high minded moralizing, we have 2 locked threads on that topic.

No. The locked thread was on the topic of whether there was a controlled demolition of the World Trade Centre. The debate Proposal currently under discussion is that no planes hit the World Trade Centre.

rather hypocritical, right james? on the one hand you advocate openness, with the other, you censor. why the discordance?

I have censored nothing.

I note that it was not my decision to close the recent thread on the supposed controlled demolition. That decision was made by another moderator. I did close a subsequent attempt to repost the same discussion, which amounted to an attempt to go around the moderator involved.

[Gustav]

I did close a subsequent attempt to repost the same discussion, which amounted to an attempt to go around the moderator involved.

isnt mac dying to debate the issue? steam is a no show so...

I'm full of BS...does that count? I might be interested in debating you.

why aggravate the summer slump? let em have at it

trippy
consider reversing your closure and moving to conspiracies
jdawg's talents are wasting away in here

[James R]

JDawg:

Yes. And I'm sure they'll soon be told.

Interesting.

What I'm saying is that when a new poster comes here and posts something that has been done to death before, there are usually a number of long-term members who will immediately inform the newbie of that fact.

We have no general policy of banning new participants from having a discussion that has been had before. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there is such a policy.

I'm getting it from you:

I think that in both cases it is reasonable to allow the issues to be debated - but not endlessly rehashed.

Endless rehashing is not the same as a few repeats of similar discussions.

Just to be clear: there is no policy that discussions on a particular topic can only be had once. Nothing in the site rules says anything about that, either. Nevertheless, moderators do have the discretion to shut down certain discussions where they have been widely canvassed. As a matter of practice, I would say that this usually tends to happen when we get a spate of threads on essentially the same topic over the space of a few days or a week or two.

Also, again you seem a bit fixated on the idea of a "definitive" or "ultimate" debate. You're not likely to see any of those on sciforums. What would such a thing look like, anyway?

I don't know. You're the one who brought it up:

As far as I am aware, we have not yet had a definitive discussion on sciforums of whether gassings occurred at Auschwitz.

Ok. Sorry I misled you. My mistake.

I obviously should not have used the word "definitive" there, because it has led you on a wild goose chase.

The word I should have used, perhaps was something like "substantive" or "substantial".

I don't prticular care what he has an interest in hearing. I am under no illusions that any debate will immediately change his views about the holocaust.

He has made claims. We've invited him to put his best case. Let's see what happens.

But what's the point, then?

Interestingly enough, I had a similar exchange with quadraphonics just a day or two ago. He couldn't think of any reason why a public discussion forum like this one would allow discussion of topics he considers to be "pseudoscience".

Let's see if you can do any better.

Why would a public discussion forum with some aspirations to the scientific testing of claims want to allow debate on a pet topic of holocaust deniers?

Any ideas?

Hint: we don't expect to change their minds (or the minds of many "pseudoscientists", for that matter).

I say "intellectual dishonesty" because that' what was given as the reason on the Ban List. Fraggle also confirmed this in a discussion we had at the time.

This is an issue I might have to take up with Fraggle, then. Nevertheless, the ban was justifiable on the grounds of trolling.

I have never said that this will be the final debate on the matter.

Yes, you did:

If the currently-proposed Formal Debate goes ahead, it is unlikely that further debates on the same topic will be permitted.

Well, I can say that, almost certainly, no further debates on that topic will be allowed that involve steampunk.

As to the wider issue, we'll need to take each case as it comes. An identical debate proposal would be unlikely to get up. A sufficiently different one might. It depends on a whole bunch of factors.

Having said that, I stand by my original assessment that similar debates would be "unlikely" to stand.

As to the "Cloth bags" thing Gustav is griping about, am I mistaken in my understanding that there is an interpretation of Islam that requires women to cover themselves from head-to-toe in cloth?

No. But, arguably, that's not quite the same thing as saying that there is "an Islam" that demands that its women dress in cloth sacks (or whatever the original comment was).

[James R]

isnt mac dying to debate the issue? steam is a no show so...

There's currently an open Proposal thread on a similar topic. If our newest member is interested in taking part in that debate, he might suggest a team debate. Or, if steampunk doesn't put in an appearance, he could do it single-handed.

On the other hand, my impression is that our new 9/11 denier friend may have been a one or two post wonder. I'm sure he's incredibly busy over at 911truther.org or whatever it is, spreading the truth about the Great Conspiracy. Then again, things may have gone quiet out there, so they may be looking for somewhere new to proselitise.

But you seem keen, Gustav. Why don't you join the debate yourself? You know, you could post some actual content on sciforums, instead of just meta-content.

[Gustav]

thinking is hard work kiddo
you should know more than most

[James R]

Yeah, Gustav. I'm employed as a professional thinker. I do the hard yards so you don't have to straing your pretty little head.

Edit: *duh* strain

[Balerion]

Just to be clear: there is no policy that discussions on a particular topic can only be had once. Nothing in the site rules says anything about that, either. Nevertheless, moderators do have the discretion to shut down certain discussions where they have been widely canvassed. As a matter of practice, I would say that this usually tends to happen when we get a spate of threads on essentially the same topic over the space of a few days or a week or two.

Okay.

Interestingly enough, I had a similar exchange with quadraphonics just a day or two ago. He couldn't think of any reason why a public discussion forum like this one would allow discussion of topics he considers to be "pseudoscience".

Let's see if you can do any better.

Why would a public discussion forum with some aspirations to the scientific testing of claims want to allow debate on a pet topic of holocaust deniers?

Any ideas?

Hint: we don't expect to change their minds (or the minds of many "pseudoscientists", for that matter).

I don't see how the questions are related. Pseudoscience isn't an affront to humanity. I also don't see how your answer to Quad would work as an answer to me. That this place is for non-scientists (and by extension non-philosophers) doesn't mean we should have to put up with hate speech and things of that nature.

This is an issue I might have to take up with Fraggle, then. Nevertheless, the ban was justifiable on the grounds of trolling.

Okay, that's cleared up, then.

Well, I can say that, almost certainly, no further debates on that topic will be allowed that involve steampunk.

Well, I guess that'll have to do.

As to the wider issue, we'll need to take each case as it comes. An identical debate proposal would be unlikely to get up. A sufficiently different one might. It depends on a whole bunch of factors.

Having said that, I stand by my original assessment that similar debates would be "unlikely" to stand.

Again, I'll have to live with that.

No. But, arguably, that's not quite the same thing as saying that there is "an Islam" that demands that its women dress in cloth sacks (or whatever the original comment was).

That's kind of nitpicky, I'd say. I said Islam was a corrosive element--a statement which I stand by, but one that I could easily make about any Abrahamic faith--and Geoff was kind enough to point out that I was certainly talking about "reactionary" or "fundamentalist" Islam. Then I clarified that I was speaking of "the Islam that puts their women in cloth bags."

At any rate, I'm no bigot, and I certainly didn't say anything untrue about the faith in that thread.