Inflammatory topic post

[Tiassa]

Invitation
To all interested parties
to convene a Jury of Review
in order that we might consider
issues pertaining to
Site Rules
​

• Case: Site Rules v. Dr. Lou Natic (04-001)

• Accusation: Inflammatory topic post in violation of Site Rules.

• Advocates (As of February 20, 2004):

For Site Rules - Tiassa
For The Defense - Dr. Lou Natic, Thefountainhed
​

Notes on Jury Voting - I'll figure something out; voting should not take place while arguments are being posted.

Notes on "Conviction Standard" - Obviously, Innocent until proven guilty should suffice.

Notes on "Sentencing Phase" - I do not propose a ban, and do not necessarily propose any direct administrative or moderating action at this time. Part of the purpose of this topic is to explore both the issue of inflammatory posts and what to do about them.

Necessary Information

Objectionable Topic:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33218
("If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in ...")

Site Rules:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20345
or
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20363
​

Principals and Accusation: The Site Rules have been in effect since April, 2003. Dr. Lou Natic has been a member for one year. The Objectionable Topic takes place in the Religion Forum, long known for acrimonious disputes.

Dr. Lou Natic now stands accused of devising and posting an inflammatory topic post in violation of the Site Rules, which read, in part:

You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening.

Schedule: Undetermined, experimental. Future challenges include invocation of a Jury Poll, establishing relevancy protocols, and what comes next in the event of conviction.

A Personal Note: By and large, I have little--if anything--against Dr. Lou Natic as a poster or in my impression of the greater human being on the other end of the network. But I must put my foot down at some point. Thus I request to convene this discussion in order to examine inflammatory posts and their effects in the Sciforums community.

Quite frankly, I enjoy Sciforums, except of late for the other posters around here. On the one hand, without them, there wouldn't be anyone to discuss anything with. To the other, even with them around, the same problem applies.

And given the Ban Wars, the tirades against posters, and of course the tantrums about the eventual moderation, I'm officially curious.

Lastly:

Accused, Dr. Lou, of posting an inflammatory topic post. I'm sick of that sort of topic around here, and except for the chance to bash ideas that escape knowledge and understanding, I don't see that other posters like them much either.

And, yes, I do have an extended purpose tucked away in a mayonnaise jar, though not in the custody of Price-Waterhouse. For now, determining whether or not such a topic post is inflammatory is all I need.

I'll give anybody interested in this exercise some time to think it over. Arguments can commence sometime this evening, if we like. I intend to begin with a discussion of site rules and principles, an evidentiary presentation with interpretive comments, and considerations of degrees.

Postscript: Apparently, there has been a six-hour delay in posting this topic as I never clicked the "submit new thread" button before tying myself up in domestic duties. As such, I'll probably worry about the opening argument tomorrow morning.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Define inflammatory (in a way i can understand)
I would call that post colourful.
Wouldn't the intent need to be to incite a flame war for it to be considered inflammatory? In truth the intent was to educate people by way of making them feel stupid for not already understanding. "Mean"? yes, inflammatory? Not by my definition. Not only was I not expecting a flame war, i wasn't expecting a response at all. I wanted any creationists left out there(and I honestly didn't think there was any here) to read it and say "seems I was wrong, how embarrassing".
Was that wishfull thinking? Probably, maybe I even knew that before I posted it, but thats what I hoped for, I did not scheme to ruffle feathers or propogate hate or anything else you try to claim I was doing.

Also, I'm out of the loop, i hadn't been stopping by much when I posted that and did not know there was heaps of inflammatory topics on the board(still haven't seen them).
It should be obvious to anyone that I'm not interested in muslim issues enough to be "against" muslims. I think you think I am pro-jew attacking muslims or something which is ridiculous, I am outside of all that crap and could not give half the end off a shit.
I AM firmly against creationists who don't "believe" in evolution as though they have a choice.
Trying to explain why they don't have a choice is all I'm guilty of, you can disagree with my lack of tact and a whole range of things, but the actual offenses you are trying to pin on me are unfounded and frankly confusing as though you are talking about someone else.

I do believe you need to lay off the bongs, and thats not a "quip" for entertainment value, I've seen what it can do to people and myself and making people confidently confused without them realising it is a rarely talked about yet prevalent symptom of consistent marijuana use over an extended period of time with no "detoxing" breaks.
What others call "laziness" as a symptom of thc use, I refer to as what I said above. Its not the laziness, its the not realising what a problem their laziness is. Everyone would be lazy if they didn't think there was anything wrong with it.
You seem to be confused into thinking I'm "attacking" certain cultures or races or religions because someone of a commonly persecuted culture was offended by my post. Like you're dazed and not paying attention, just reacting to the stimulai of a distressed muslim.
That is the impression I get. Could be wrong, but you continuously fail to show me how your beef makes any sense whatsoever.

BTW I was expecting a proposal to ban me and a poll, you are going to make that right?

 

[thefountainhed]

Add, as one counsel to the defense, thefountainhed. Please illustrate to us how his post was "obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening" by citing specific examples-- within context, from that thread, that were not in response to specific individuals, and also present the people(s) who may have been threatened, thought the post obscene, vulgar or hateful.

 

[2inquisitive]

Example of an "obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented" post with no substance:
by tiassa;
"It could be heroin.
But aside from that, how's his wife? Would you do her?"

Example of a "hateful, threatening" post:
The first post in this thread.

Examples of inflammatory topics:
WE&P, Religion, Mac vs. PC, "alternative" physics, UFO's and anything else where there
are varied viewpoints.

 

[1368]

I am a creationalist and remain unoffended. This is because my belief rests on faith, so I generally avoid the debating of the religion forum. Dr Lou Natic had good supporting evidence and didn't seem to rant and rave (too much).

 

[Persol]

Plus, I think the odd doctor had a good point... even if it was not the best way to put the idea forward. 'Selective acceptance' is an interesting topic.

 

[Tiassa]

First Argument

First Argument​

On Site Rules

Over time, the posters at Sciforums have never much liked the site rules. The terms of agreement were eventually shortened, specific site rules were eventually put into place. Even the simplest of these are disregarded so openly that moderators have no real chance of keeping up.

Quite obviously, one of the challenges is to maintain a certain air of civility while allowing people the liberty of their passions. A perusal of topics in the Sciforums Open Government forum shows a series of Ban Wars as members proposed to ban one another. What is most interesting is people's criteria for wanting a ban. There was a proposal to ban Undecided for a week for "unprovoked personal insults and foul language" and "arguing an unsupported position ... when provided with ample references and citations [to the contrary]". One proposal sought to ban Wanderer for "being out of touch with reality . . . for at least a week." A proposal against Fluid1959 sought to ban him for cross-posting. Undecided sought action against EI Sparks in response to what he considered an offensive ban proposal.

The first thing we have to note is that none of these ban proposals were successful. Undecided won his vote, Porfiry offered rulings on cross-posting and being out of touch, and the counterproposal against Sparks was shut down for its admitted vindictiveness.

However, there is an important consideration to note: People were upset enough by what to propose a ban?

Unfortunately, our purpose here sets aside the cross-posting issue, which is an excellent example of how Sciforums Open Government can work. Because in the ban discussions arising from conflicts between members, the lack of a successful ban proposal indicates that the standards by which the complaining party sought action did not meet the necessary severity to convince a majority of voters, or, in some cases, administrative tolerance.

In the case of whether or not to ban Undecided, eight people were offended or annoyed enough to vote for his ouster.

So whether or not we agree with the ban proposals of the past, we can observe that people are upset by the state of discussion.

Moving through the more argumentative fora, we find a plethora of bad sentiment in a diverse variety of acrimonious topics. Some of this bad sentiment is an unfortunate result of posters trying to communicate with one another, but much of it is posters reaching out to zing one another, to needle and provoke.

How are the moderators, for instance, to handle this? The time commitment of "babysitting" certain fora to make sure absolutely no violations of Site Rules would be stupendous. It is obvious that the posters discussing certain topics choose a certain amount of distress between themselves, otherwise bad sentiment would be reserved to legitimate collapses of communication. Meanwhile, moderators are criticized both for overasserting themselves and also for not doing enough to calm the storm. Posters are left with the appearance of an inconsistent standard and often must choose between allowing perceived abuse to stand without response or risk sanction by moderators.

A glance at the Site Rules shows clearly that few of the standards are adhered to, but there are at least four standards which I hope to consider today:

(A) You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, or threatening.

(B) Posts that interrupt a serious thread with ANY inane comments that in no way, shape, or form relates to the original topic, will be deleted

(C) Threads that repeat a previously posted theme may be merged together or deleted in its entirety.

(D) It is our intention to moderate in such a way as to encourage profitable discussion and discourage flame wars, and no forum can be moderated to everyone's liking.

Regarding the Accusation

In the case we consider here in this topic, I hope to demonstrate that the topic in question violates these standards. While they are drawn from the Site Rules in the order they appear, it will be easier to work backwards. It will be asserted that such a topic post does not encourage profitable discussion (D); it will be asserted that the thread repeats a previously-posted theme (C). I hope to consider, in reference to posts interrupting a serious thread with any inane comment the idea of what to do about an inane topic post which cannot be said to warrant a serious thread (B). And, upon demonstrating these points, it should become clear that the topic post in question fails standard (A) by being hateful insofar as it is is not profitable, repeats an old theme, does not constitute a serious topic, and on top of that was designed as a provocative attack.

The post, in its entirety:

If you don't believe in evolution, than you are hearby forbidden from using the word "hereditary".
Now I understand that most people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce that word anyway, so I will make it more specific, you are not allowed to acknowledge the science behind black people having black children, in doing so you are acknowledging evolution, you must assume it is a coincidence that black people have black children, in fact you can't acknowledge that people birth children at all.

You don't believe in the sperm joining wih the egg, god is the creator, you were created by god, sex is what evil people do, it does not produce babies, god creates babies in a factory in the sky.
Perhaps black people have black children because god makes black children for them, ok for you the word hereditary refers to the way god customizes children to what will suit parents, remember you can't accept the passing on of genes as something that happens. This is evolution, what I'm basically saying is you can only have on or the other, if you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe in all the things associated with evolution.
Thats like saying you believe in 2, but you don't belive in 2 + 2 = 4. If you believe that 2 exists you have to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, right?
I mean I can prove it right now if you don't, two dots; .. another 2; .. we're agreed so far right? place them together= .... Thats 4 dots, end of story, case closed.

If you believe that sex creates babies, and you believe that the traits of the parents are passed onto the babies, if you believe in individuals, that people are different from one another and that different people produce different babies, you believe in evolution, bottom line. You can't go that far and back out, I am here by declaring such an act as illegal, or at least immoral or something(obviously its irritatingly ignorant but thats not enough anymore).

If you believe god created all, you can't believe in anything appearing by way of evolution (ie being birthed out of a female organism). You believe in creation, that means you believe things are created, not concieved, concieved is evolution, giving birth is evolution, sex creating babies is evolution.

You don't believe in these things, pregnant women are just lazy and fat, if a baby falls out of their vagina they must have put it in their themselves to try to trick theists into going over to the dark side.
The baby was not a product of evolution, you don't believe in evolution, obviously it was created by god and handed down to its parents.

Consistency is all I ask, you believe in creationism, you stick with it and try to live day by day believing in that. If you don't see hands coming out of the clouds delivering babies to newlyweds but you do see spiders laying eggs, recognise that you are indeed witnessing evolution.
If you do see giant god hands coming out of the sky with new creations, maybe planting a tree here and there and delivering puppies to your female dog at home, then by all means believe in creationism, untill then though I don't see why you would or how you could.

The topic begins with an absurd thesis--

If you don't believe in evolution, than you are hearby forbidden from using the word "hereditary"

-- but that's what theses are for: to be demonstrated, supported, proven, or otherwise validated. In support of that thesis, the author follows with a generalized personal attack:

• Now I understand that most people who don't believe in evolution couldn't pronounce that word anyway . . . .

The author clarifies the thesis:

• . . . . so I will make it more specific, you are not allowed to acknowledge the science behind black people having black children, in doing so you are acknowledging evolution, you must assume it is a coincidence that black people have black children, in fact you can't acknowledge that people birth children at all.

In order to support the thesis, the author continues by telling his target audience what they do and don't think:

• You don't believe in the sperm joining wih the egg, god is the creator, you were created by god, sex is what evil people do, it does not produce babies, god creates babies in a factory in the sky.

I would challenge the author to establish that such a sentiment exists among a significant percentage of creationists. Without statistical support, the assertion is absurd, and unheard of among Lutherans, Catholics, and others who believe God created the world.

• Perhaps black people have black children because god makes black children for them, ok for you the word hereditary refers to the way god customizes children to what will suit parents, remember you can't accept the passing on of genes as something that happens.

This characterization is faulty because it overlooks a central tenet of monotheism: that God is responsible for everything that happens. Thus, yes, black people have black children, from a monotheistic point of view, because God wills it to be so. If God did not want a child to be black, the child would not have black parents. So here we have a softball point from the author, one that utterly and completely ignores the most common theistic models involved in the Creationist movement.

The author then comments on his own argument, delineating his purpose:

• This is evolution, what I'm basically saying is you can only have on or the other, if you don't believe in evolution, you can't believe in all the things associated with evolution.

In other words, the author is trying to tell people what they are allowed to think and believe. Furthermore, he assets a wholly untenable position--

• Thats like saying you believe in 2, but you don't belive in 2 + 2 = 4. If you believe that 2 exists you have to believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, right?
I mean I can prove it right now if you don't, two dots; .. another 2; .. we're agreed so far right? place them together= .... Thats 4 dots, end of story, case closed.

--about Universal origins. He compares the issue of Universal origins to something as observable as 2+2. While to many it might seem this way, such a position is clearly erroneous, as the final answers of Universal origins are as remote as the idea that one can prove God exists.

From the untenable assertion, the author returns to his fallacious assignations:

• If you believe that sex creates babies, and you believe that the traits of the parents are passed onto the babies, if you believe in individuals, that people are different from one another and that different people produce different babies, you believe in evolution, bottom line. You can't go that far and back out, I am here by declaring such an act as illegal, or at least immoral or something(obviously its irritatingly ignorant but thats not enough anymore).

More of the same: the bulk of the post is a common fallacy and a frequent complaint around Sciforums - straw man, to a degree that transcends the ridiculous insofar as it would be exceptionally difficult to find a person who calls themselves a Creationist and would be even reasonably represented by the object of the author's focus:

• You don't believe in these things, pregnant women are just lazy and fat, if a baby falls out of their vagina they must have put it in their themselves to try to trick theists into going over to the dark side.
The baby was not a product of evolution, you don't believe in evolution, obviously it was created by god and handed down to its parents.

An appeal to consistency, and a plea for clarification, all couched in thick layers of straw:

• Consistency is all I ask, you believe in creationism, you stick with it and try to live day by day believing in that. If you don't see hands coming out of the clouds delivering babies to newlyweds but you do see spiders laying eggs, recognise that you are indeed witnessing evolution.
If you do see giant god hands coming out of the sky with new creations, maybe planting a tree here and there and delivering puppies to your female dog at home, then by all means believe in creationism, untill then though I don't see why you would or how you could.

So what we have for a post is a thesis that is in itself a fallacy, a mixture of a straw man and a description of composition, supported by a generalized personal attack and a series of straw men. Devoid in the topic is any foundation for profitable discussion (D); the topic itself is inane (B). Quite obviously, in undertaking the topic of evolution and creationism is nothing new (a two year-old topic on evolution and creation was recently revived, most likely through the Related Topics list) (C).

The author was even addressed by another poster on the object of his focus--

• I don't think your attacking theist in general, but a select group of Christians. (Okinrus)

--and responded accordingly:

• Yes I'm addressing those who don't believe in evolution more than the rational(yet stubborn) theists who can't deny the blindingly apparent and numerous evidences for evolution.

Now, just who are these folks? Absent from the topic post and the clarification is any evidence of a real argument coming from anyone characterized by the topic post. A hyperlink would do. A transcript of a few words from a book or magazine or tract, even.

The author offers further clarification in yet another post:

• I'm saying that creationists are constantly being disproven by everyday things, ie someone being born rather than created. I've never seen a creationist try to deny individual people come into existence in the way science describes, but right there to me they are acknowledging evolution in action, and so I question their faith if they don't question such things as, people being born. I don't think they are taking creationism seriously enough.

And this, apparently, is what the topic is about: Because certain people don't behave according to the author's prejudices, he is apparently offended.

For instance this argument:

• To be a creationist, you have to deny such things as different people produce different children.

The author is perfectly happy to tell us why this denial is wrong, but why must a creationist deny such a thing?

Because the author says they must.

And so we arrive at point (A)--In what way is this topic post hateful?

While it is true that simply because one stacks fallacies atop a personal attack and supports that combination with straw men does not necessarily mean one has acted in spite or hate, what if one does so simply because other people are not behaving according to one's prejudices?

The author, in the later clarification, notes:

• Some say god created the evolutionary system, and though its a cop out I can't really attack them with the logic I am using here, i can however attack the hardcore creationists that don't believe in evolution, I have an incredibly good case actually.

Again, who are these people? Why do we not have before us an example of their arguments so that we might understand what the author purports to understand?

Quite simply, it is because the author is presenting a fallacy.

Who are these people? The author asserts to have been inspired by an old thread, but offers no link by which other readers might understand the basis of his characterization.

The author suspected he might be shouting to an empty house.

The topic was not posted in any good faith. The topic was vindictive and spiteful, and based solely in the author's prejudices, and by this we might invoke the Site Rules and describe it as hateful.

Beware the Appeal to Popularity

What if the topic was aimed at Jews? What if the topic post asserted that if you are a Jew and do not cut your son's penis off, your faith is in question? It is a similar distortion; an exaggeration. It is a straw man constructed according to a bigoted template that depends on hyperbole in lieu of fact; circumcision is most definitely not castration.

What if the topic was aimed at gun owners? What if the topic post asserted that if you are a gun owner you cannot believe in the court system because you believe that killing is the only way to solve a problem?

I raise the issues of Jews and gun owners as comparative examples, to beseech the jury to not fall into the trap of a fallacious defense based in an appeal to popularity.

For while I feel comfortable asserting here that a majority of Sciforums users probably find evolution a secure scientific theory and see varying degrees of wrongness and even absurdity in the Creationist argument, it would be fallacious to appeal to the popularity of evolution and the mistrust shown Creationism in order to justify an inane topic that cannot be shown to seek any profitable discussion alongside a slew of other topics regarding the same basic issue devised in accordance and for the comfort of the author's personal prejudices against an ideology.

Matters of Degrees

Additionally, I accused out in the topic, the topic post is heavily invested in a relativist fallacy. Dr. Lou acknowledged this fallacy, and argued that he had in the past posted topics rejecting a number of topics, thereby demonstrating that he, personally, was not subject to this fallacy in this instance.

Which brings us to matters of degrees. Quite obviously, the productive end of the discussion comes from a disregarding of the topic post and a repetition of numerous prior topics concerning evolution and creationism. It is well enough to look past the relativist fallacy on two points:

• Lack of any bandwagon to the topic post itself
• A matter of degrees: While Dr. Lou may well be right, he is human, and thus cannot fully escape the relativist fallacy

On that second point, then, how fine a hair to split? While the point can reasonably assert some value in the long run, it serves in the immediate as a fine starting point to consider matters of degree.

The relativist fallacy is one that occurs so deep in the strata that it really is inconsequential to the discussion at hand. Thus it would be rather unreasonable to ask a jury of peers to hold against a poster a fallacy that occurs, in the metaphysical, on nearly a universal level.

Likewise, some may say--and the defense is already afoot to plead the case--that it is a matter of degrees. "Selective acceptance," as one poster has it.

I point to the examples above about Jews and gun owners. What is the criteria for acceptance? That a majority of people think it is okay to be deliberately provocative as long as it's directed at this or that minority group?

The Defense Afoot

We might for a moment examine the chosen defense of the topic post already recorded by the post's author.

• In truth . . . this thread was intended for nothing more than a reality check for anyone who was not in check, religion is not something I take into account, I'm talking to human beings and in reality there is only one way the world operates, we are all on the same planet and it is what it is.

• If representatives of certain religions come in here and say "wrong it works like my religion says", no I will not be sensative to their cultural heritage, no one is exempt from knowing the truth.

And:

• I would call that post colourful.

• In truth the intent was to educate people by way of making them feel stupid for not already understanding.

• "Mean"? yes, inflammatory? Not by my definition.

• Not only was I not expecting a flame war, i wasn't expecting a response at all.

• I wanted any creationists left out there(and I honestly didn't think there was any here) to read it and say "seems I was wrong, how embarrassing".

• Was that wishfull thinking? Probably, maybe I even knew that before I posted it, but thats what I hoped for, I did not scheme to ruffle feathers or propogate hate or anything else you try to claim I was doing.

• I AM firmly against creationists who don't "believe" in evolution as though they have a choice.

• Trying to explain why they don't have a choice is all I'm guilty of, you can disagree with my lack of tact and a whole range of things, but the actual offenses you are trying to pin on me are unfounded and frankly confusing as though you are talking about someone else.

• I do believe you need to lay off the bongs, and thats not a "quip" for entertainment value, I've seen what it can do to people and myself and making people confidently confused without them realising it is a rarely talked about yet prevalent symptom of consistent marijuana use over an extended period of time with no "detoxing" breaks.

• You seem to be confused into thinking I'm "attacking" certain cultures or races or religions because someone of a commonly persecuted culture was offended by my post. Like you're dazed and not paying attention, just reacting to the stimulai of a distressed muslim.

Colorful, indeed. But trying to make people feel stupid is downright inflammatory. Yet, the author wasn't trying to make anyone feel stupid, as he didn't expect anyone to respond, or at least respond the way he wanted them to.

The author admits it was a mean post. The author admits it was intended to make people feel stupid. The author admits it was not intended for profitable discussion. The author seeks to poison the well, declaring the issue tainted by marijuana use.

That the author preemptively defends himself without knowing what issues to defend is not by any means a self-indictment. But even if we take out the parts that are colored by the fact that Dr. Lou is "disturbed with tiassa's ass licking of pm and the islamic faith in general," we are left with,

• Acknowledgment that topic was intended to make people feel stupid
• Acknowledgment that the topic post was "mean"
• Acknowledgment that the topic post was not intended to foster profitable discussion insofar as no responses were expected
• Assertion against ideological freedom
• Acknowledgment of a lack of tact
• Aggressive fallacy
• Straw man

Admittedly, that last one, the straw man, was colored by Dr. Lou's disturbance at his perception of ass-licking. But still, we might hope that the next defense is better considered.

Is a mean post intended to make people feel stupid that is based on a fallacy supported by a personal attack and a series of fallacies inflammatory? To what degree is such a post, in its assertion against ideological freedom, hateful? Do we split hairs and cite degrees invested in fallacies of their own?

As one who believes in evolution, I was personally offended by the topic post; that someone would assert such fallacies with such belligerence in an attempt to reinforce science was a gross disservice to those of us who believe in evolution and feel that humanity can prosper through education. It is hypocritical, demanding consistency while providing only hyperbole at best. It is agit-prop intended to demean a vague and unrepresented body politic--without any specific examples of the doctrine or argument he's objecting to, the author leaves the audience addressed as a generalization.

Recap

It looks like a duck, it smells like a duck, it quacks and waddles like a duck. The author calls it a mallard, and declares he was aiming to goose the loons.

There is no doubt that the post in question is rooted in fallacy. There is no doubt that the post was mean and intended as such. There is no doubt that the post was not intended to facilitate profitable discussion. There is no doubt that this topic was intended to demean.

And as much as Dr. Lou might wish a ban war, that is not our purpose today. Rather, all I ask is whether or not the jury agrees that the post in question is inflammatory.

Beyond that, we can figure out what to do. Because what I put before a jury of peers is, in its extended form, a rather simple decision: Is this what we want at Sciforums?

To find the post in question inflammatory will simply represent an attempt to declare a conventional standard. To find that the post in question is not inflammatory will be to license such topics in the future, and to leave a traditionally acrimonious body social to continue, potentially unabated.

Go ahead and put the specifics to it; they'll read like a shock liturgy. White supremacy, Muslim militancy, American warmongering, sexism, anti-Semitism--all will have a toehold, and a license to seek to offend for no better reason than seeking to offend.

Which, while it won't invalidate the Site Rules, will reduce them even further.

What do we want for our community? Put before you is an opportunity to make such a declaration.

Yes, the post is inflammatory. No, we're not going to ask to kick him. No, we won't even ask him to apologize. But we can begin to establish the shape of the community in which we wish to operate.

We can choose mean, demeaning, and without intellectual merit or profit, or we can choose something better.

Thank you.

See Also

• Labossiere, Michael C. Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Sciforums Links

• If you don't believe in evolution . . . . See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33218

• Deal with Fluid1959. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32464
• Proposal: Ban Undecided from WE&P for one week. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32278
• I propose to ban Wanderer for being out of touch with reality. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32431
• Proposal: Ban Fluid1959 (with poll). See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32359
• Re: Proposal, EI Sparks. See http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32359

 

[thefountainhed]

Come on man, be damn serious. I need to be high to read through all that! Perhaps later tonight...

 

[Silverback]

In Re: Site Rules v. Dr. Lou Natic (04-001)

Interesting style, Tiassa.

As we have already had the Complaint and Answer, followed by a First Argument, I suggest we either move to the Argument of the Defense, by Dr Lou Natic (or counsel Hed, if accepted as such by Dr Lou), or we backtrack just a bit to discuss the Voir Dire process. Is the jury just a free-for-all, open to anyone and everyone? Or were you expecting to select neutral parties to eventually vote for a verdict? You (Tiassa) seem intent on following a court room style here, so I thought a bit of clarification was in order.

Personally, I am neutral in this matter (thus far). I have read the opening post in question.

Rude? Yes.

Inflammatory? A: Hateful and/or Threatening; B: Inane; C: Repeated topic; and/or D: Unprofitable and encouraging of Flame Wars? That all remains to be proven.

I am also rather new here, so that is one reason I think clarification is needed. New enough that many might consider me a passer-by. Is inclusion in this jury based on a minimum length of membership, or post count?

 

[Tiassa]

Silverback

There is no minimum length of membership required to vote. This is your community, too. Welcome to it; in the long run this process, which even I admit is overstated, hopes to enhance your time here.

Additionally, on edit, I would add that your sense of the process is fairly accurate; I have no demand for a maximum number of allowable rounds of discussion, so "fairly" merely indicates that there is no set process. Furthermore, anyone can join the party. I only included an advocates list at all for formality's sake ... er, perhaps it was even more ceremonial than that.

 

[Ozymandias]

Well, tiassa definitely gets kudos for crafting his defense miraculously, and putting more effort into keeping his posts readable and organized.

After reviewing the first post in the thread (which I believe is the post in question?), I am siding with the Doctor on this one. There are so many worse posts out there, that to single out one which violates the Site Rules to a minor magnitude is not a great course of action to take. The post did have a bit of substance, an argument sprinkled lightly with the fuel for a potential flame war, but at least it had more of a topic and a more logical debate than some threads in other parts of these forums...

But I'll leave the decision up to the moderators. *walks out of room*

 

[wesmorris]

Claiming Lou's post as inflammatory is like calling 'a time of being mad at your friend' betrayal. Maybe it's more like accusing someone of being an unfit human because of their incorrect answer on a calcus test. Lou didn't hurt anyone, he merely expressed an opinion contrary to yours tiassa. Maybe you should try to remember the days before you thought you had the perfect view of all issues... or was there ever such a day? He even put it up for us to dissect. Perhaps the young doctor was thinking about an issue, was in the middle of trying to figure it out, thought he came to a reasonable conclusion and posted it to see what people thought. Calling that "inflammatory" is IMO; fascist.

You know if you simply showed him where his logic is flawed he'd likely even have thanked you for it (regardless he might have actually learned something other than to ignore you). It baffles me that you think the approach of;

admonishing someone as inflammatory because you don't think his analysis lives up to your standards

- is the way to solve a problem or educate anyone. It makes me think you had a cruel parent (and it skewed your ability to judge people as you continue to project your pain upon them) or were particularly sensitive (or some combination) , or that your perception is somehow skewed to a paranoid slant (perhaps a touch of mental illness) in which you consistently accuse people of doing exactly what you're doing while accusing them of doing it.

Did it at all occur to you tiassa that you might be wrong, that he wasn't trying to piss people off, that he wasn't concerned if people were pissed at all but just putting what he thought? You seem to act like the idea of people not being exactly what you say they are is wholly inconceivable.

"I think it's symptomatic of people's conditions that so many words and so much energy has been wasted on an irresponsible and intentionally-provocative topic"

That amounts to character assasination, as you claim knowledge you can't possible have. You are not privvy to Lou's intent, yet pretend you are. From what I can directly see, you are horribly inaccurate at gauging people's intent, yet you seem to consistently claim you are right beyond question about something that again... you simply aren't privvy to. "Irresponsible and intentionally provacative"? Could you be any more hypocritical?

How did it not occur to you that it is inflammatory to call someone who isn't being inflammatory, inflammatory? Since you are wrong, you are being inflammatory so you can now proceed with admonishing your own presumptuous, pretentious and obnoxious behavior. On with it then.

 

[Tiassa]

Claiming Lou's post as inflammatory is like calling 'a time of being mad at your friend' betrayal. Maybe it's more like accusing someone of being an unfit human because of their incorrect answer on a calcus test. Lou didn't hurt anyone, he merely expressed an opinion contrary to yours tiassa. Maybe you should try to remember the days before you thought you had the perfect view of all issues... or was there ever such a day? He even put it up for us to dissect. Perhaps the young doctor was thinking about an issue, was in the middle of trying to figure it out, thought he came to a reasonable conclusion and posted it to see what people thought. Calling that "inflammatory" is IMO; fascist.

And your opinion is valid, but in this case you've merely stated your opinion. It would be helpful to this process if you could fill in the detail of what leads you to your opinion.

You know if you simply showed him where his logic is flawed he'd likely even have thanked you for it (regardless he might have actually learned something other than to ignore you).

And I did discuss the problems of the topic post, within the topic.

• http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33218&page=9&pp=20

You'll notice that Dr. Lou chooses to not respond to those issues.

It baffles me that you think the approach of;

admonishing someone as inflammatory because you don't think his analysis lives up to your standards

- is the way to solve a problem or educate anyone. It makes me think you had a cruel parent (and it skewed your ability to judge people as you continue to project your pain upon them) or were particularly sensitive (or some combination) , or that your perception is somehow skewed to a paranoid slant (perhaps a touch of mental illness) in which you consistently accuse people of doing exactly what you're doing while accusing them of doing it.

I would invite you to read through the topic and watch how that situation develops. Resorting to accusations of mental illness don't really do much to establish the validity of your complaint.

Did it at all occur to you tiassa that you might be wrong, that he wasn't trying to piss people off, that he wasn't concerned if people were pissed at all but just putting what he thought?

I did. And in the context of your question I am vindicated by later expressions.

You seem to act like the idea of people not being exactly what you say they are is wholly inconceivable.

Again, it would be helpful to this process if you chose to fill in the detail.

That amounts to character assasination, as you claim knowledge you can't possible have. You are not privvy to Lou's intent, yet pretend you are.

If you check the record, Dr. Lou responded rather quite appropriately. I don't think this issue has merit.

From what I can directly see, you are horribly inaccurate at gauging people's intent, yet you seem to consistently claim you are right beyond question about something that again... you simply aren't privvy to. "Irresponsible and intentionally provacative"? Could you be any more hypocritical?

Again, it would be helpful to this process if you could fill in the detail of your complaint.

How did it not occur to you that it is inflammatory to call someone who isn't being inflammatory, inflammatory?

It occurred to me. And, again, in the context of your question, I am vindicated by later expressions.

Since you are wrong, you are being inflammatory so you can now proceed with admonishing your own presumptuous, pretentious and obnoxious behavior. On with it then.

Again, it would be helpful to this process if you could detail your complaints. That way, you can clearly establish both the validity and relevance of those issues.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Thesis- Tiassa makes fallacious pressumptions and is a cyborg

Evidence-

I would challenge the author to establish that such a sentiment exists among a significant percentage of creationists. Without statistical support, the assertion is absurd, and unheard of among Lutherans, Catholics, and others who believe God created the world.

Here the accused(tiassa) presumes dr lou has made a claim regarding the beliefs of creationists.
When one of biological origins examines the material from which the accused came to these conclusions, it is clear that dr lou was using his human-personality to illustrate the repurcussions of not believing in evolution.
Rather than claiming this is what creationists do believe, he was giving an example of what they could believe without contradicting their lack of belief for the process of evolution amongst living organisms.
The accused flagrantly has displayed that he is incapable of distinguishing the layered styles in which the human species is capable of arguing a point.
Although it is aknowledged that a human being of inferior mental ability could also struggle to distinguish this, it is argued, and there is evidence for, the accused being of stable 'mind', and in some ways superior to real human beings in certain mechanical processes of the 'mind'
*jury rabbles "mind? lololol"~"the guys a cyborg he doesn't have a mind"*
judge- "order! order!"
hehe ahem, thank you your honour.
There is no way a homo-sapien of tiassa's apparent mental capacity would fail to detect the subtleties, and consequent intent, within the structuring of the human language in this instance.
Ofcourse had a cyborg that is open about his artificial origins made this mistake, no one would raise an eyebrow, infact, we would expect a metal man to make such a mistake.
But the accused has, on numerous occassions, indicated that he is indeed a human being, he has gone out of his way to convince others that he is a hominid(perhaps to make them feel comfortable we don't know) even "confessing" that he too is at times a slave to his primal desires...
Were he to clearly state these desires as drinking motor oil, chewing aluminium foil, rubbing himself with a magnet or playing "pong", we again would have no reason to incriminate him, BUT his alleged primal desires were clearly human in nature, he also has clearly said "I am a human being"(2001) and he is therefore breaking cyborg-law #08764: No cyborg shall impersonate a human being on an internet message board or imply that they are anything but cyborg at anytime, failure to abide by this sacred law will result in the crushing and recycling of the offending cyborg, at the taxpayers expense
Now it was certainly not the intent of this investigation to waste the taxpayers money crushing and recycling a cyborg, but we must put our foot down, if cyborgs are going on the internet without their mandatory cyborg identification number post-user name honest hard working human beings could end up talking to them as though they are talking to another fine young human being. This is the worst case scenario, and unfortunately it is what we have seen here today.
Tiassabot77 has been impersonating a human being at sciforums.com since july 29th, 1999.
I apologise but I'm struggling to hold back my emotions, if you'll excuse me ... *bites fist*.... *exhale* *blink repeatedly*
In light of this horriffic detail we believe there is no choice but to punish the defendorg to the fullest extent of the law.
Thank you, your honour.

Judge- "will the defendent..err "org" please be switched onto "honest-mode" and wheeled to the bench"...

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I find Tiassa guilty of an inflammatory post. Now piss off and get a life.

 

[Tiassa]

Ri-ight. Remember, Dr. Lou wanted this discussion too, Spurious.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Ri-ight. Remember, Dr. Lou wanted this discussion too, Spurious.

So what. You started this childish behaviour. And you can forget about an apology. Since I can't figure out why you should get one. And don't bother to PM me anymore. If you have something to say then say it in the open.

 

[Tiassa]

Okay. Don't be dishonest. If you're having a bad day, don't take it out on me. Take your own advice and don't worry about it.

I won't message you anymore. I just thought I'd give you a chance to resolve this issue forthrightly, but I now have my answer.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I did not want this discussion.
I could very easily find this thread offensive if I wanted to with all the mocking of my literary skills and such. And in this case the inflammatory intent is flagrant.
The irony is what gives this thread the little value it has.

 

[Tiassa]

I did not want this discussion.

So ... which one did you want?

I could very easily find this thread offensive if I wanted to with all the mocking of my literary skills and such.

The mocking of your literary skills? And such? Please, do expand.

And in this case the inflammatory intent is flagrant.

How so?

The irony is what gives this thread the little value it has.

Okay. If you say so. I just don't see why you're so upset.

But hey, I don't want to discourage anything, I'm not even interested in this crap anymore, when will I be making my debut in sfog?
I'm genuinely excited.