02-17-08, 08:17 AM #1
Thread on CP
I guess poor anti-CP posters got their asses whipped so badly that SAM had to quickly close the thread. Oh, the SHAME!
P.S.: Also not very good for democracy, but hey, we never said Sciforum was democratic, right?
02-17-08, 08:18 AM #2
If only anyone was interested in discussing the topic, rather than the IQ and religious proclivities of the posters.
02-17-08, 08:47 AM #3
The first rule of debating is that you shouldn't engage in an argument just with everybody. If one uses stupid non-arguments, he/she uses the PRIVILEDGE of debating me...
The thread was closed down too fast, although I could disagree with myself that it was done properly, because there was nothing new in it what we haven't addressed in the previous thread.
Kind of reminds me of the"Plane on a conveyor belt" problem, some people just never get it...
02-17-08, 09:12 AM #4
02-17-08, 09:35 AM #5
My, my. This is getting old. Care to show just 1 example when I did that? I tend to be sarcastic when one is using non-facts, non-sequiturs and other big no-no devices in a debate. I put them into their places.
Anyway, threadclosing was good, just not for the right reason. Happy??
02-17-08, 10:42 AM #6
Privilege of debating you? Your ego and insulting behavior got you added to my ignore list. You can be sure the reason Fraggle didn't respond was similar.
02-17-08, 11:22 AM #7
I am sure I will miss you. Fraggle simply couldn't handle the arguments...
And yes, I tend to sligthly insult those who insult common sense...
P.S.: I am an equal opportunity offender...
Last edited by Syzygys; 02-17-08 at 11:30 AM.
02-17-08, 08:28 PM #8
02-17-08, 08:29 PM #9
02-17-08, 10:48 PM #10
fraggle covered it with the error shit
i could also take the rap to save another
wrongly executed in both cases
02-18-08, 03:21 PM #11
02-19-08, 06:14 PM #12
02-19-08, 06:51 PM #13
I like to impress people, what can I say???
Now if you guys would stop CRYING about egos and care more about debating abilities, maybe we would have to close LESS threads.
P.S.: ...and my ego would be smaller if occasionally somebody was able to beat me in a debate...oh, but that was my big ego again, talking!!
02-19-08, 08:53 PM #14Originally Posted by Syzygys
Now, maybe nobody can beat you in a bullshit contest. Especially since you don't realize when you're drowning yourself in it.
02-19-08, 08:56 PM #15
02-19-08, 10:26 PM #16
It's not particularly surprisingOriginally Posted by Kadark
Fraggle Rocker tried to post a thoughtful contribution, and you responded by accusing, "You can't be serious", and then offered up some fairly subjective rehash. After all, if "most of the cowards who commit crimes bad enough to warrant the capital punishment fear for their worthless life", capital punishment would have a greater deterrent effect; the argument seemed more about judging convicted criminals' (at least) lives worthless.
Following rigid rules to reduce the "mistake count" is an interesting proposition, but as long as you're being subjective, it's the sort of thing that is better-suited for EM&J, where I am, indeed, still tolerating fact-free argumentation from homicide justifiers.
Enmos followed suit, responding to Sandy's tripe. Syz checked in with a wonderfully hypocritical admonition to check another topic—a topic in which he hadn't the time to bother with actually responding to other people's arguments—and then piled on some highly-subjective, politically skewed distortions. Think what you want of the automotive-deaths argument, but it has no place in Science & Society.
Fraggle Rocker responded as best he could manage given the anemic slop he was given to work with; Repo Man checked in with thoughts on history and a mention of statistics. While I, personally, appreciate that effort, it wasn't exactly Science & Society material. It would have been a fine contribution in EM&J; definitely above the par for those he disagreed with.
Syz popped off again. Sowhatifit'sdark made an obvious point about revenge. Sandy reiterated some typical conservative political slop. At that point, the forum moderator (S.A.M.) checked in with a general note about conduct in the discussion, which appears to be aimed tacitly at two specific posters.
And I have to admit, Kadark, your response in #16 is about as good as the homicide justifiers get around here. That doesn't necessarily say a whole lot—I would need to review it again—but more importantly, it's not really Science & Society fare.
Iceaura took up a point with you, to which you responded with what seems like "common sense" but isn't. Norsefire put consecutive posts asserting a highly subjective point. Madanthonywayne made a subjective assertion, and Norsefire agreed. Draqon made an Anarchist's point, and failed to justify it in response to Norsefire's subsequent inquiry.
MetaKron checked in. An interesting thesis, indeed. It would do just fine in EM&J, but not in Science & Society.
Iceaura responded to a couple of posts, and, again, while I personally appreciate the sentiment, it's not really Science & Society fare. Syz apparently popped off about something, but S.A.M. struck the post for flaming/trolling.
Syz then posted another load of rancid potted meat and capped off his three posts in thirteen minutes with a repost of a moderator-deleted flame. He's lucky to have not taken a trip for that one.
S.A.M. made the point about reposting moderated material. Syz took a bizarre swing at Iceaura, and S.A.M. finally put the topic down for good.
Now, what exactly is this idea of "Science & Society fare"? Very simple: if we consider the difference between something like Free Thoughts and EM&J—in the latter, I would prefer even the slightest measure of academic integrity from participating members, but don't always get my way—a more scientific forum like Science & Society should, by just about any measure, expect a higher standard than EM&J.
This is a general problem all over the board. It's not hard to show minimal integrity about our arguments in EM&J, Religion, or even Politics. In the more scientific fora, though, it is even more important that people should show some academic standards. I am aware that this concept does confuse a few people who think it's because they're so smart that their topics get moved over to Pseudoscience, Free Thoughts, and the Cesspool. But in truth, it's not too much to ask that the discussion take on a more reliable form of argument if it's in Science & Society. I let people be crack-whore sloppy about their arguments in EM&J despite the ethical quandary that comes in saying something is so important to make a point about it but not important enough to put any decent effort into it. And I let that happen because I'm simply not going to win that fight, so it's not worth having. (Although we're going to try in the near future.)
In the end, we come back to a point I repeat every now and then: this board is only what the members make it. And that particular discussion was a disgrace. I applaud your sincerity, Kadark, insofar as I'm presuming part of your argument was in some way actually genuine confusion. But aside from that and the only actual good posts in the topic (Fraggle Rocker), it's hard for me to figure how that topic would have lasted much longer.
Last edited by Tiassa; 02-20-08 at 01:02 AM. Reason: Typo
02-19-08, 10:34 PM #17
Well, I suppose I was surprised because Fraggle and I were having a serious discussion. I wasn't really reading most of the other posts, to be honest. Maybe moving the thread would have been a better option than locking it? Not sure. Thanks for the lengthy response, though. Out of curiousty, how long does a post like that take to compose? I'd imagine you write approximately 115 words per minute.
02-20-08, 10:35 AM #18
Hehe, I see Tiassa had to say something. Unfortunatelly, he is still "non-comunicado" for me, so he stays on my manual Ignore. Piss me off once, shame on you, piss me off twice, shame on me, but you won't piss me off again!
He was so happy to ban me for no good reason I didn't have the heart to tell him I was posting 5 mins after the ban. I let him have a good time, enjoying his little powertrip, my slogen is "Don't get mad, get even!"
Anyway, going back on topic I think Sam should have moderated first (after all that's why moderators exist) and if that didn't work, after a "fair warning" she sould have closed the thread.
Although as it seems by the members there is a need to discuss the subject so moderators should just chill out for a while. They are too triggerhappy...
But I will be a good boy and if there is a new thread on the topic, I won't participate, after all I already said everything in the original thread...(and there are no new arguments)
02-22-08, 10:34 PM #19
shut yer mouth, boy!
02-22-08, 10:43 PM #20
"Locked threads may be reopened if genuine interest is expressed in the topic; posters may avail of this by sending a PM to me."
IOW, no ruling is final. On several occasions I have reopened threads if there was an interest expressed in genuine discussion. While I tend to give a lot of leeway in the interests of discussion, I am not prepared to let the Science forums be completely filled with subjective fantasies.
If you find a thread is locked, PM me and I'll consider reopening it, depending on your interest in the thread.
By Tnerb in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 08-24-10, 06:18 PMReplies: 10
By Roman in forum SF Open GovernmentLast Post: 12-20-07, 03:31 AMReplies: 12
By Thoreau in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 11-15-07, 10:37 PMReplies: 3
By Lord Hillyer in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PMReplies: 11
By MacM in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 02-28-06, 03:20 AMReplies: 345