Closing threads to win arguments

Magical Realist

Magical Realist

Valued Senior Member
Mods seem to do that quite often here. Shouldn't there be a rule against this? Against having the last word on an argument by either banning a poster from the thread or closing the thread with some bullshit reason like intellectual dishonesty or "dangerous information"? Guess what? If you have to win a debate by censoring the opposing view from replying, you haven't won anything. You've only shown that your own position cannot be defended.
 
Last edited:
If the opposing view just repeats the same lies over and over again, what is the point of continuing? What use is it to continue to "defend" a position from such attacks?
 
PhysBang said:
If the opposing view just repeats the same lies over and over again, what is the point of continuing? What use is it to continue to "defend" a position from such attacks?
Click to expand...

Are they lies? Have they been proven to be lies? Or is it just a claim made with no evidence to support it? Remember, a mod just saying so isn't evidence for shit.
 
Last edited:
Ethically, a moderator shouldn't close a thread that he/she has been active in. Does that happen here?
 
sideshowbob said:
Ethically, a moderator shouldn't close a thread that he/she has been active in. Does that happen here?
Click to expand...

It's happened many times here. For some mods it's standard practice. They get so pissed off and dumbfounded they just close the thread or ban the member from it.
 
PhysBang said:
If the opposing view just repeats the same lies over and over again, what is the point of continuing? What use is it to continue to "defend" a position from such attacks?
Click to expand...

Quite. But, more generally, regardless of whether the points being made by the parties are true or false, once a stage is reached at which the argument contains nothing substantively new and is just effectively recycling, the thread should be closed for lack of new intellectual content. Doing so does us all a favour because (a) recycled points are dull to read and (b) once it gets into a loop of this kind, tempers tend to fray and the thread can rapidly become unpleasantly vitriolic.

But this won't stop some people wrapping themselves in the mantle of victimhood, especially those who make a practice of trying to use the forum rules to their advantage. :D
 
Subject matter is the elephant in the room.

If I say "1+1=5" in the physics/math section, well... I trust no one would swallow that and think I was deliberately lying.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
Subject matter is the elephant in the room.

If I say "1+1=5" in the physics/math section, well... I trust no one would swallow that and think I was deliberately lying.
Click to expand...

Statements of language aren't subject to such a priori disproofs. Well some are: "All bachelors are married." But that by and large isn't like anything asserted here.
 
Magical Realist said:
Statements of language aren't subject to such a priori disproofs. Well some are: "All bachelors are married." But that by and large isn't like anything asserted here.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure of the specifics of why you seem angry.

In fact, I can't recall having a mod close a thread on me that I had some investment in. The mods here I think are rather lenient. If I said there are only two posters here that have gotten under my skin, one is permanently banned and the other hasn't been seen often at all, er... I guess what I'm saying is you've got to chill out.

Would you take offense if I said I find some of your posts crass?
 
In fact, I can't recall having a mod close a thread on me that I had some investment in.
Click to expand...

And yet I had mods close or ban me from a thread 3 times in the past 3 weeks on trumped up charges. The mod action is usually accompanied with an eloquent explanation of why I'm wrong and how I'm violating some rule that doesn't even exist. It's winning an argument thru censorship. By having the last word. Why shouldn't that piss anyone off? Because it didn't involve you? Wrong. Censorship involves everybody.

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
And yet I had mods close or ban me from a thread 3 times in the past 3 weeks on trumped up charges.
Click to expand...
Yes, you claim that these charges are "trumped up". Yet you might not be the best judge. The mods may be, rightly, sparing us all from dilatory distraction.
 
Magical Realist said:
And yet I had mods close or ban me from a thread 3 times in the past 3 weeks on trumped up charges. The mod action is usually accompanied with an eloquent explanation of why I'm wrong and how I'm violating some rule that doesn't even exist. It's winning an argument thru censorship. By having the last word. Why shouldn't that piss anyone off? Because it didn't involve you? Wrong. Censorship involves everybody.

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings
Click to expand...

OK then, if you choose to accept it, here's the challenge: make me understand, more specifically, why you are pissed off.

So, me, and everyone else can see better where you're coming from.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
OK then, if you choose to accept it, here's the challenge: make me understand, more specifically, why you are pissed off.

So, me, and everyone else can see better where you're coming from.
Click to expand...

I already have. Being banned from threads and having threads closed that I participate in simply for arguing my points too well. Mods should not be so emotionally invested in a thread that they abuse their power just to win an argument or to shut someone up.
 
PhysBang said:
Yes, you claim that these charges are "trumped up". Yet you might not be the best judge. The mods may be, rightly, sparing us all from dilatory distraction.
Click to expand...

A thread is only a distraction is you choose to view it. Noone is making you participate in it. If you are distracted from something else you want to do, that's on you.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
I already have. Being banned from threads and having threads closed that I participate in simply for arguing my points too well. Mods should not be so emotionally invested in a thread that they abuse their power just to win an argument or to shut someone up.
Click to expand...

You could link a thread and make a small statement.

I have no clue as to the evidence for you accusations. I can't say yay or nay.
 
This one was cesspooled when the mod blamed me for derailing it with ufo talk which I had several times tried to refrain from but which like 5 posters kept going with.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/are-you-a-quack.157899/

This one accused me of spreading dangerous information. lol!

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/antivax-behind-the-stupid-and-other-notes.157916/

And this one claims the DNA study on Bigfoot was debunked. It was not. There were lies circulated about it by the Houston Chronicle, but none were ever proven true.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/family-catches-bigfoot-on-camera-calgary-alberta-canada.157928/
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
This one was cesspooled when the mod blamed me for derailing it with ufo talk which I had several times tried to refrain from but which like 5 posters kept going with.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/are-you-a-quack.157899/

This one accused me of spreading dangerous information. lol!

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/antivax-behind-the-stupid-and-other-notes.157916/

And this one claims the DNA study on Bigfoot was debunked. It was not. There were lies circulated about it by the Houston Chronicle, but none were ever proven true.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/family-catches-bigfoot-on-camera-calgary-alberta-canada.157928/
Click to expand...
I felt the "are you a quack" thread you took more personally and it wasn't directed at you i.e. you had a 'readiness' for anger simply by the mention of 'quack'. Hence, off topic.

The antivax thread, I believe I posted that I wasn't vaccinated for small pox, and that measles was declared eradicated in the Americas. This would lend service to vaccinations to have previously eliminated the bubonic plague. Vaccinations are a good thing.

The bigfoot thread, I really can't comment.

If you want an opinion of mine, I'd say it was your temperament that was your undoing. If you don't value my opinion, that's fine. Just don't accuse me of not being honest, please.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
I felt the "are you a quack" thread you took more personally and it wasn't directed at you i.e. you had a 'readiness' for anger simply by the mention of 'quack'. Hence, off topic.

The antivax thread, I believe I posted that I wasn't vaccinated for small pox, and that measles was declared eradicated in the Americas. This would lend service to vaccinations to have previously eliminated the bubonic plague. Vaccinations are a good thing.

The bigfoot thread, I really can't comment.

If you want an opinion of mine, I'd say it was your temperament that was your undoing. If you don't value my opinion, that's fine. Just don't accuse me of not being honest, please.
Click to expand...

Conclude what you will. I value all honest opinions that aren't laden with bias.
 
Magical Realist said:
And this one claims the DNA study on Bigfoot was debunked. It was not.
Click to expand...
It's hard to debunk something that doesn't exist. You believe it exists because you believe the people who told you it exists. But these people have not shown evidence to anyone else, nor have they provided samples for analysis to anyone else. Your gullibility is your problem, until you start filling threads with the same nonsense. Then the mods take action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top