Split: SAM's intellectual dishonesty and poor moderation

Why it's good to be an American, and other petty considerations

Every once in a while, someone reminds me of why it's good to be an American.

You know what's really funny is that when I do some of the things S.A.M. does that annoy people, nobody ever drags my religious outlook into it. They're happy to denounce me as a liberal (gasp!) or a Communist (won't somebody please think of the children!), but nobody ever denounces me as a nondescript theist, sabbat witch, Sisyphan Camusite, Anarchist sympathizer, or anything else of the sort. Just like liberal and Communist, Muslim is a great inflammatory accusation. And so is "anti-Jewish".

But the fact remains that as long as Israel's identity is tied up in theocratic, supremacist ideology, arguments about what Israel is doing wrong will involve accusations of people who happen to be Jewish doing something wrong.

And, well, you know, that's just "anti-Jewish" around here. Hell, I refuse Judeosupremacism, also known as Zionism, and for that Zionists will occasionally accuse me of hating Jews.

American neo-Nazis, in the end, will owe Zionists a debt of gratitude, as Israeli politics are finally pushing so hard that people are beginning to put aside their fears of criticizing people who happen to be Jewish. So suddenly, amid a fierce debate about legitimate issues of politics and social justice raised by the actions and justifications of Judeosupremacists, all manner of ridiculous conspiracy Jew-baiting conspiracy theories won't stand out in such stark contrast to fresh eyes of coming generations.

Learn to tell the difference, Enmos. "Israel is murdering innocent people!" is a far cry from "The Jews are taking over the world!"

I'll worry about it the next time I hear S.A.M. denouncing the secret Rothschild-UN-Hollywood-Zionist conspiracy to overthrow democracy around the world.

 

I would suggest you actually read through this thread and others and you might, just might, get some idea. I am well aware that Sam has begun several threads about atheism. I am even posting in several of them. Do you know why she started those threads John? I'd suggest you read through them so that you gain some perspective.

I am not the one claiming that her moderations is being affected by her religious beliefs. Do you actually read what has been written, or are you just imagining what you want me to write?

How in the hell can anyone "run" another individual off an internet forum? I can assure you, I would never destroy my monitor by stabbing at people's names on the screen with a pitchfork.

No she has not. So you disagree with those who are protesting about her moderating abilities? Correct?

Good.

Good grief man! You made me snort my coffee so that it came out of my nose.

Help with what John?

I actually need the hedge trimmed and my husband tends to go overboard and 'trims it back to its bare root' and I'm scared of heights, so yes, I might need help trimming the top of the hedge from the ladder... Is that what you mean by "help"?

I am guessing there is some logic or sense in what you have just written...

Ermm.. maybe..

Ok, I'll bite.. what in the hell are you on about?

"Besmirching"?

Did I refer to their mother as hamsters? Or tell them their father smelled of elderberries?

How am I "besmirching" my fellow atheists by asking them to show proof that she was moderating according to her religious leanings?

Attack you? No. I am merely laughing at you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If I were to attack you, believe me, you'd know it.

Considering you keep confusing the issues in this thread and appear to have no idea of what exactly is going on, I'd suggest you are more confused than I.

Yes John. I tracked down those people and poked them in the butt with my pitchfork and told them to 'git'.

You gotta lay off the :m: John. You're losing track of reality.

 

Well, he wouldn't have gotten the keys in the "strange place" if he did not try to grope my unmentionables and try to force me into the car.

I'd tell you your mother was a hamster, but you're a theist now.:bawl:

Damn your conversion!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

She started this thread with a post you had posted in the biology forum, which was completely off topic. So you complain when she deletes off topic posts, flames and trolling and you complain when she opens up a new thread with the off topic posts you made in her forum, to allow the discussion on the topic you started to continue?

Is there no pleasing you?

If you feel she made false accusations against you, you can simply send a PM to plazma. If you think she is lying, you can simply disprove what she has been saying with facts. Sitting there and ranting "liar" only makes you look foolish, especially when you are unable to substantiate your own claims.

You made the claim that she was "intellectually dishonest and a liar", and then claimed it made her a poor moderator. But you did not give a single example of what you were accusing her of.

Seriously, act your age. This isn't 2nd grade where you go running to teacher and say 'Sam is lying, make her stop'. If you think she is lying, why not respond and show where she has been "intellectually dishonest" with proof of the actual truth? Imagine this is a debate and you find the opposition is stating untruth. Would you just stand up and say 'liar liar pants on fire'? Or would you stand up and give a rebuttal, showing where your opponent was being dishonest and present the truthful facts?

What shoe?

And that bugs you, doesn't it?

If she is indeed lying, then disprove her and prove where she has been lying. You know damn well that the administrators can view deleted posts, do you honestly think they would allow her to remain a moderator if she had been lying as you say and deleting the posts unfairly to cover herself?

 

Thoughts on pitchforks, and such

For the record, it can be done. Not with a pitchfork, obviously. To the other, they don't always stay gone, and it's a lot harder than one might think. Seriously, it takes some dedicated loathing and the willingness to exploit another person's stupidity. It involves getting so pissed off at them that you're willing to spend the time absolutely smothering them, keeping them backing up until they finally lash out and find their only reaction boxed in by moderators and the administration. I can think of at least two members whose absence (one extended, one continuing) can be at least partially attributed to things I said and did.

A counterpoint to be considered here, though, is that compared to those disputes—and others of a bygone era—the people John99 might be referring to, "run off the board" in his time here since August, 2006, have withdrawn according to their own thin skin.

Many of the people "run off" the board in our history have disappeared in the face of a tit-for-tat response. In other words, people treated them as they would treat others, and they just wilted in the heat.

I would suggest a couple of argumentative juxtapositions. First, a political consideration:

• Bush and his cohorts lied about the reasons for war—e.g., WMD, Iraq/Al Qaeda/9/11—and on that level at least the war is wrong.

• You don't like Bush, you think he lied, and you think torture is wrong. Why are you supporting the terrorists?​

And then a religious:

• You cannot prove that something that cannot be measured, perceived, or tested is actually there. As the hypothesis involves an assertion that cannot be measured, perceived, or tested, it is not scientific.

• You cannot prove that something that cannot be measured, perceived, or tested, isn't there. Why are you oppressing me?​

There is a philosophical spectrum among the membership that feels oppressed. And the reason they feel oppressed is that they cannot tell the difference between the content of an idea and the fact that the idea exists. Failing to recognize this difference, all they see is that idea = idea. Thus, if we give respect to idea1, we must give equal respect to idea2 regardless of the content of either idea.

As a result, we have among our membership many who feel oppressed because, for instance, a non-scientific theory—one that cannot be tested according to the scientific method—is considered non-scientific. You'd think these people would feel their opponents were cheating at poker by not tipping their hands before the wager. Politically, the fact that one argument is demonstrable and the other purely rhetorical doesn't matter to some people. For instance, if George W. Bush is a liar because he got caught in a lie, this might irritate some of our members. So some of those would seek to irritate in response. After all, irritation should be equal opportunity. Thus, I apparently want the terrorists to win because (member) says so. The difference between the content of the arguments is beside the point to these members, so when they find no sympathy among moderators struggling to establish and enforce standards of rationality in order to keep this board from disintegrating into mudslinging juvenilia, they feel oppressed and marginalized.

And in some cases, there's not much we can do about it. I encountered the bizarre claim a couple weeks ago that having and communicating opinions was the functional equal to having a penis inserted into your body. That the people making or affirming the comparison will not admit to ever having a penis inserted into their bodies only casts the notion even further into dubious light. But, yes, there are people out there who feel oppressed because of this bizarre comparison. But seriously, the idea that a man giving his female sexual partner the same kind of ideological, moral, and sympathetic respect he would give his best male friend obliges a woman to satisfy his sexual needs whenever he wants is not going to get a whole lot of respect from me. And if my opinion hurts anyone's feelings, there's not much I can do about it. And if those hurt feelings "run them off" the board, there's not much I can do about that, either. Like I said, those who have lately been "run off" have withdrawn according to their own thin skins. After all, the sick misogyny I've encountered of late in EM&J is the kind of thing I am inclined to "run off" the board.

But, you know, we need to be "politically correct" so that some of our more irrational elements can "feel validated".

So we do our best to find any reason to respect the spiteful, irrational, and even the openly hateful. And on some days we're left pretending. Others, we don't have the patience for pretense, so we tell people what we think of their moronic inability to distinguish between what is observable and what they have no clue about. And, sometimes, their feelings are hurt, so they crawl back to wherever they came from, and others who are just looking for something to complain about make a note and say, "Gosh, s/he was run off by a bunch of elitists who won't admit that obligation equals obligation, or idea equals idea, regardless of the content of those obligations or ideas."

I'm left repeating a question over and over: "Can people really not tell the difference?"

And if the people who can't feel so alienated that they don't want to be here, fine. If they need to tell themselves or others that they were "run off", fine. It's like something I wrote in a moderator discussion about a particular religious issue that came up. There are certain conversations that won't ever happen. Self-righteous students will never go to their professors; religious crusaders will never run to their preachers. There is a possibility that the informed elder would look at the situation and say, "Well, of course they're receiving you poorly! What the hell do you think you're doing?"

So let them hide away in their shadowy lairs, licking their wounds and plotting their revenge. If they ever wish to venture up from their valley of shadows, we'll welcome them with open arms. And some of us will even throw a rope to help them with the steeper parts.

 

On intellectual dishonesty and (Q)'s credibility

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, (Q), what, exactly, do you hope to accomplish by it?

(1) It doesn't matter whether or not "Sam ignores facts". You are trying to have her removed as a moderator.

(2) Perhaps it feels good to tell Bells that you're not here to convince her of anything, but you are trying to have S.A.M. removed as a moderator.​

In either case, your responses are utterly dishonest, and if you're not smart enough to figure that out, you probably shouldn't be complaining.

So I'll try to say it simply, that you won't get confused:

• Using facts to show S.A.M. is lying will help your case to have her removed as moderator.

• Giving examples of what you are accusing S.A.M. of doing wrong will help your case to have her removed as moderator.​

Now then, are you just pretending you're too stupid to recognize these most basic points? Or are you actually that stupid, and this incredibly cheap whine and cheese session about gratifying your unrefined, unrestrained egotism?