Members' Feedback

Notes for Pronatalist

Well, let's take a look at that discussion. For instance, this:

See, on that part, you're doing fine. And that last sentence does qualify as a mini-thesis of sorts. But what you follow it with—

—is clearly a religious argument. And if we consider a couple of your characterizations of the issue—

—we find that you really are misrepresenting the issue. Likewise—

—isn't an argument you can back scientifically. Furthermore, it would appear that your religious injections distort certain meanings. People are "subject to base economic 'supply and demand' valuations", whether you or I like it or not. People after all, provide the demand. And, furthermore, when it comes to international politics, people do have a limited value. Some would argue, for instance, that the war in Iraq is ethically unjustified as its original support derived ultimately from fallacy. In this sense, the result includes the notion that human life is worth less than _____. And you can fill in that blank with any number of things: "the ability to increase petroleum and defense contractors' bank balances", "jingoism", "an American president's egocentrism", &c. While none of those statements are definitive, the reality is that merely feeding the people we already have on the planet is a secondary consideration compared to personal profit. While the world wrangles with even greater than usual food-supply and -distribution problems, we still have grain going to waste in farm country because nobody is willing or able to pay a certain price for it, and the American government still pays out subsidies to farmers in order to prevent them from growing certain crops so that the price of food doesn't get too low. All of this suggests that people are, in fact, subject to base economic supply and demand valuations, even if nobody wants to officially quantify those values. Whether or not you or I appreciate that outcome is a separate issue from the fact itself. The technical relationship between population and food supply and distribution networks is a question for the Business & Economics forum; the ethical or moral value of those outcomes is an issue for EM&J; the value imputed unto people by God, babies as a divine blessing, and training children in the way of God are all arguments for the Religion forum. In terms of Science & Society, while moral and ethical comment is not entirely beyond the purview of any given discussion, it does not make for a proper, rational argument.

Now, there are at least two legitimate questions you might ask about Fraggle's response to your proselytizing; those are yours to figure out. Additionally, you might observe a certain irony about the example he chose to make. At no point, however, does the incident reflect your characterization of a moderator using his authority "to banish people for correct and moral positions on the issues".

True enough, but how does that work in a scientific discussion? Indeed, there are places around Sciforums for that discussion to take place. To make the point in EM&J, mere recitation of a religious outlook would be insufficient. To make it in Religion? Well, the the bar has been pretty low there for a while, so that kind of open preaching would fit right in.

We might consider that if God's will is apparent in the Universe, it is manifest in certain conditions, events, or processes that are, in fact, observable. In other words, instead of proselytizing, one might consider using the gifts God has given—e.g., mind and brain—to explain that will in scientific terms, thus rationally showing how ungodly notions are erroneous. Furthermore, in a scientific context—

—you don't even need to drag the word "God" into it. How does using the tools bestowed unto you by God in order to make a rational argument—the results of which reflect God's will as you understand it—claiming to believe one thing while acting as if you do not believe it?

Actually, it was a clear injection of religion. Whether or not it constitutes a banning offense is its own question, and I reserve judgment on the grounds that I really haven't paid that much attention to you during your five years at Sciforums. In other words, there are circumstances under which it does become a banning offense, but I don't know where you, personally, stand in relation to those circumstances.

This is all well and fine to the point that I won't pick the nit about how many people enjoy playing a half-assed version of "Devil's Advocate". However, as relates your suggestion that moderators "banish people for correct and moral positions on issues"—or even threatening to ban someone, such as the circumstance before us describes—I would only make the point that you weaken your appeal with such rhetoric. Your suggestion that "Forums by definition, should seek to invite, a diversity of views" is well and fine, except that the example you cite is not about diversity of views in and of itself, but, rather, manner of expression.

Sciforums was never intended to be just another forum, or just any random forum. It has, since its creation, intended to foster rational discussion about a broad range of issues. The Religion subforum, for instance, was never intended to be the intellectual wasteland it has been over the years; rather, it was viewed as a necessary concession insofar as various scientific issues had certain religious implications. But religious folk, in discussing their religions, tend to disdain objective views of history and science, so the outcome was, to a certain degree, predictable.

Still though, religious proselytization in a science-related subforum does not do much for bashing a person's views to illogical pieces. In fact, it becomes something of a target, especially when deployed in such an irrational and clumsy manner.

The argument that we cannot drill our way out of this mess pertains to two specific points. First, it will be a decade before that oil reaches the market in any "significant" quantity. Secondly, I put quotes around the word "significant" because that oil won't make any great impact on prices. We do not have enough oil domestically to provide for American consumption. Period. And that's what the point is about. It has nothing to do with oppressing the poor. Indeed, the greatest argument on behalf of tapping that oil is that American petroleum executives want larger bank accounts. That oil won't bring down prices, and it's a shallow appeal considering the fact that, at some point, we must necessarily find other fuel for energy production. Claiming that we can, domestically, drill our way out of high gas prices in the short term is a flat lie. Claiming that we can drill our way to "energy independence" is laughable.

Five years ain't exactly yesterday, you know. The nearest thing I've seen to what you accused would be the first member banning that I recall, in which a user was banned not for being Christian, but for posting exclusively Biblical quotes in questionable context with absolutely no personally-generated content to explain what the hell she meant. Dave may have sent a couple of spammers on their way before that, but that was the first visible banning I'm aware of. And the fact that this board has been besieged by Christians over the years should be adequate proof that it was not the member's religious or moral views, but, rather the manner of presentation.

You never met Sir Loone?

Look, at some point, the Reply button is merely a way to play to the gallery.

News flash: Some folks don't care that there are other reasons or views.

In cases where people are approaching discussions in good faith, I agree with you entirely about exercise and opening minds. But there are some people out there who just don't give a damn, who just want to tell you you're going to Hell, or call you a pinko faggot, or satisfy some other internal need that drives their antisocial behavior. And when these people disrupt the board and civilized discussion breaks down, would you rather treat the symptoms, or go after the disease? Cutting off a limb here and there will not necessarily do a damn thing about the cancer, so if we're going to rein in those who would lash back, we must address the source and instigation of the problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"As some preacher put it, people are supposed to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, to spread God's image (people) throughout the world, among many other great reasons."

Is not a disrespectful or flaming argument. You may disagree with it, or you may think it's not valid, but it is definitely something that cannot be censored.

Anybody can use any argument they want freely regardless of how idiotic it might be.
X is true because my dog said so.
X is true because the bible said so.
X is true because X is true because circular.

However irrational, anybody can use any argument they want without censorship. Quote the bible, koran, hitler mein kamf, or whatever the hell you want to support your argument. Hell people quote infedels.com site all the time, and even use it as a source to prove their point. You can use whatever source, wikipedia, dumbpedia, or anything you want to support your argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I argue that I'm sure plasma is overjoyed his thread has been invaded by people with axes to grind, when a new thread would have been far more appropriate. If it were me, I'd be Modding the SF-forums(the bottom 3, not including cess) with an iron fist, and be deleting post after post of stuff that doesn't belong here. This is like getting a chance to talk to the ceo of your work, and spending time talking to them about how someone always steals your tuna from the refrigerator. If you have more useless arguments, PLEASE start a new thread, where the rest of us can properly ignore it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well one thing I would like to see is a crack down on people using logical fallacies and implied personal attacks.

 

Jawohl!

 

I'd like to see "Private Messages" be actually private. Did you know that they aren't private? Did you know that you can be banned for things you might say in "private" messages? I should know ...I was banned for seven days for a private message to someone.

Be careful what you say in private messages ...be very careful, 'cause they ain't private in any way, shape or form.

Baron Max

 

In what way?

In what way aren't they private?

 

That it will be come acceptable to treat people the way they treat the people they disagree with.

 

Good point Baron.

Thanks for beating me to the punch!

Let it be known: If a moderator is attempting to do his/her job via private messages and you attack back with blatantly disrespectful and dismissive attitude, coupled with outrageous profanity, then you can be banned. Gosh. How horrible. Also, it should be known that in the pursuit of doing our jobs, from time to time, Mods and Admins share private messages. Here's a novel idea: if nature of your message is so sensitive and so--well--private, then you should take care not to influence the Mod or Admin to need to share the message in order to help resolve said problem.

Moreover, this is especially true if the moderator in question was acting with due diligence and not attacking you personally; but you continued to act with childish intransigence throughout the entire dialog, which dialog was initiated due to your off-base remarks and other sundry flaunting of the site rules.

So, I guess: Be afraid, be very afraid.

~String

 

being able to discuss practically anything under the sun with like minded, and not so like minded, people.
the friends i have made here.

ad hom attacks on the posters.

all of the "the mods are shitting on me" threads deleted or moved to the cesspool.
when i left it was because of moderator actions against me.
it rubbed me the wrong way and a big fire fight ensued.
so i left, and pissed off at that.
done me a world of good. i suggest others try it.

huh, where did the bold print come from??? :confused

 

Hi leo.
Thanks for the input. Good to see you again on board.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, ...basically what you're saying is what I've already said ....that "private" messages are NOT private.

And I must say, in my own defense, that Tiassa was NOT trying to "do his job", he was trying to browbeat me into submission. And worse, he tried to do it in his usual style ....by using so many fuckin' words that nothing made any sense even if I had read the whole thing ....which I didn't!

I think I still have those "private" messages that Tiassa sent ...perhaps I should post them here for all to read, and for all to see how and why I was banned for seven days?!

No, String, you're right ........private does NOT mean private. It means that the moderators can access those messages and, worse, can ban you for anything you might have said in private!

Baron Max

 

Keep on tryin', keep on cryin'; whatever makes you feel better

They are up until a point. We'll get to that in a minute.

You wouldn't be the first.

Access the messages? How?

It would seem you're overlooking a specific aspect of sending messages. And that aspect represents the point that the messages cease to be private.

 

Oh, yeah, sure .....but who gets to determine when it's no longer private? And, of course, I'm sure you can see the problem. ...or maybe not!

Baron Max

 

Man, you are growing in my eyes day by day! Honestly, I don't think anyone actually reads his po.. I mean novels, and if someone does, he/she deserves it.
Beside Sam's trolling (not her moderation!), Tiassa is the only moderator whom I had trouble with. The dude is anal!!! I mean seriously, who uses 4-5 different letter types in a post, not to mention footnotes? This is not the Library of Congress, but a silly messageboard! But that is personal, if he wants to do so, so be it, but his moderation he takes it personal. The reason I mention it, because this thread is supposed to be a feedback so I am providing feedback. By the way since I stopped reading his posts life (more than a year ago) is pretty great!

So Baron, just ignore him and your quality of life will improve a lot!!!*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*You will probably live longer.Also I noticed improvement in bowel movements.

 

This and that

The person you send the message to.

Is that short enough for you? Or do you have some obvious question that I could have covered in this post, but will only end up getting to in another, because you're going to ask it anyway despite the fact that the answer is obvious?

• • •​

Actually, it's only three.

The effort one chooses to put into their messages is entirely their own. You say anal, but I might look around and find a number of posts reflective of laziness. If it's not important enough for a member to put whatever effort into their posts, why should the content be any more important to anyone else?

The way I see it is that I can try to cover certain issues in a thousand words in one post, or spend thrice that over ten posts. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my experience, the questions asked in response to short posts are often fairly obvious, and could have easily been covered at the outset since they arise from a certain perceived lack of information. But, hey, that's just me. Quite obviously, some people prefer to do it the other way.

 

Then it's NOT "private" ....and shouldn't be termed as such!

And more to the point, everyone around here should be made aware that "private messages" are NOT private ......by any means! And it's definitely un-fuckin'-ethical to call it private when it ain't.

It's also funny when people can't fight their own battles ...they have to go cryin' and whinin' to someone else to protect their delicate, tender, little feelin's.

Baron Max

 

Presuming naivete?

I think you're overestimating the number of people who hadn't already figured out the obvious.

Which raises the question of why you're trying to play to the gallery on such a shaky pretense.

 

Everyone should also know that they shouldn't use their personal email address when they send bomb threats in to the police department.

 

Ben-That's why I only use your email address for things of that nature. Speaking of which, did Homeland Security contact you in reference to your plot to kidnap Chelsea Clinton and make her your personal gimp?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!