Vote on Adopting "No Thread-crapping, etc" Rule (A Mod Sponsored Community Poll)

[JSt0rm]

Nice. And i want to be able to point at the muslims for the terrorists they are.

This new rule would really give absolute power to someone who makes flowcharts on how to moderate a forum...fuck that.

I want you to have that right and i want to have the right to do battle with you on that position.

 

[Sinsear]

I want you to have that right and i want to have the right to do battle with you on that position.

But with the new rule being proposed we will both be flowcharted into silence...

 

[JSt0rm]

But with the new rule being proposed we will both be flowcharted into silence...

Not really. You will be able to create a thread on your hatred for all things muslim and be totally protected in your thought. Like a 2 years old you will be able to sit in your little walled garden and be protected from any other thought.

 

[SparkyJJO]

No. What I dont like are peoples idiotic ideas being protected

No, you don't like the idea that you can't do this:

I want to be able to tell a creationist he is a fucking idiot.

Why? Why can't you have a discussion, argument, or debate without throwing personal attacks around?

I dont want someone to be able to start a thread on it without being contested. The righties and anyone with a strong position on these forums are loving this new idea. Its bullshit.

As I understand it, the new rules are NOT saying that you can't disagree, argue, debate, discuss, or even attack someone's position. They are putting the brakes on the utterly useless and inflammatory garbage such as attacking the person. They serve zero purpose in any intelligent discussion - you don't need to be a professional debater to understand that much. Attack the position, NEVER the person.

Unless I have misunderstood how the new rules apply, I stand by what I said - you don't like them because they would force you to be a more civil person (or get silenced if you refuse to).

 

[JSt0rm]

When someones position is steeped in logically fallacy and dogma you can only attack the person because that's all there is.

 

[JSt0rm]

Take the guy from AK bitching about welfare people. AK is 10th!!! on the list of welfare states taking in an amazing 1.53 for ever $1 they pay in taxes. And yet this guy is complaining about welfare. Fuck yes I'm going to attack this idiot.

 

[SparkyJJO]

When someones position is steeped in logically fallacy and dogma you can only attack the person because that's all there is.

No, you point his logical problem and leave it at that.

Take the guy from AK bitching about welfare people. AK is 10th!!! on the list of welfare states taking in an amazing 1.53 for ever $1 they pay in taxes. And yet this guy is complaining about welfare. Fuck yes I'm going to attack this idiot.

Maybe that simple fact is one thing that caused him to complain about welfare people in the first place. Did you ever stop and think about that for a moment? Just because he lives in AK, and AK has a lot of people on welfare, does NOT mean he is on welfare! You're making illogical assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and ready to beat the guy over the head with your "idiot" rhetoric while having a very good chance of being totally wrong about him. Nice going

You complain about people being steeped in logical fallacy while you yourself are stuck in it just as badly.

 

[JSt0rm]

No, you point his logical problem and leave it at that.



Maybe that simple fact is one thing that caused him to complain about welfare people in the first place. Did you ever stop and think about that for a moment? Just because he lives in AK, and AK has a lot of people on welfare, does NOT mean he is on welfare! You're making illogical assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and ready to beat the guy over the head with your "idiot" rhetoric while having a very good chance of being totally wrong about him. Nice going

You complain about people being steeped in logical fallacy while you yourself are stuck in it just as badly.

You dont understand. His state pays less in taxes then they receive from the FEDERAL government. I have no doubt their are a lot of people in AK on welfare but the entire state is on welfare.

 

[shira]

I want it to be understood that regardless of the subject of a thread, it is NEVER thread-crapping to challenge the validity of a post on the basis that the poster is engaging in demonstrably fallacious reasoning OR that the poster is explicitly or implicitly stating a principle that the same poster explicitly or implicitly rejects in either the same or different thread.

But when someone is so challenged, I believe the rule should be that the one doing the challenging should be required to -at the same time - provide substantiation of the claimed invalidity.

For example, claiming that a post is using a "logical fallacy" without at the same time providing substantiation of that claim SHOULD be considered thread-crapping. But asserting a "logical fallacy" while at the same time providing substantiation should not be considered thread-crapping (unless the substantiation is transparently false).

 

[dmcowen674]

Icarealot has 16 hours a day to devote to modding p&n into what he envisions all you numnuts voted for.

YOU ARE ALL VOTING FOR SOME UNDEFINED CRAZY OVERERACH.

You will get what you deserve - A boring lifeless forum.

I agree on over moderation not a good thing.

All they had to do was reign in a couple of rabids and all would be fine.

 

[Sinsear]

I agree on over moderation not a good thing.

All they had to do was reign in a couple of rabids and all would be fine.

All they have to do is nothing. Change by not changing. But nooooo, you guys vote for flowcharts.

 

[waggy]

Actually if you read the article you will know its false and can make adjustments by stating it is false......

IF a person repost a story from a big well known paper (fox, cnn, msnbc etc) and it turns out to be false the poster can not and should not be held responsible. It's rather insane to even suggest.


I just hope whatever "rules" that are applied are fair. I suspect that one side will be shouted down and have the rules enforced to keep them quit.

 

[JEDIYoda]

IF a person repost a story from a big well known paper (fox, cnn, msnbc etc) and it turns out to be false the poster can not and should not be held responsible. It's rather insane to even suggest. -- thats just plain stupid. You can read the article and post the link. You know you can`t do anything about the articles accuracy. If a few days or weeks later later on down the line the article is found to be inaccurate. Thats no excuse not to read the entire link that you post!


I just hope whatever "rules" that are applied are fair. I suspect that one side will be shouted down and have the rules enforced to keep them quit.--- I suspect your just crying wolf.....there will always be those who push the envelope; who when they are busted will cry foul. Those who push the envelope seem to think everybody pushes the envelope even if they don`t!

shalom

 

[CallMeJoe]

I agree on over moderation not a good thing.
All they had to do was reign in a couple of rabids and all would be fine.

The irony here is that were a poll taken on "rabids" who need to be reined in, poor Dave might well lead the list.

 

[JEDIYoda]

When someones position is steeped in logically fallacy and dogma you can only attack the person because that's all there is.

NOT TRUE.....now its up to you to debate and defend your position or prove their position wrong. The sad part is quite often their are two sides and both sides are correct......no matter how much you support your side...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

NOT TRUE.....now its up to you to debate and defend your position or prove their position wrong. The sad part is quite often their are two sides and both sides are correct......no matter how much you support your side...

A major problem is that this is being done in the wrong order. The standards of posting ought to be that thread titles and premises must have merit in that they are reasonable and not posed in an adversarial way. That makes everything easier. As it stands it should ready to construct a train wreck thread technically within the rules.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Ah that's the crux of it, isn't it?

The requirement to post would then be for every poster to maintain a very well organized and easy to access catalog of specific links for each subject of argument.

Then for every poster to construct EACH post containing statements with online references specific to each point made. Valid posts will look like wiki articles themselves. Prevailing 'wisdom' need not apply, but everyone else will risk sanction otherwise.

SO Whats the issue????
You either back up your opinion/diatribe or you stay the hell out of the thread -- iether way its a win, win......the thread crapping is down and the insesant name calling goes away because you are busted for entering a thread to call somebody a name...just because you can`t back your opinion up....so you back your opinion up with name calling == busted..lol

 

[JSt0rm]

And that would be perfect for people with entrenched stances on certain issue.

 

[Greenman]

When someones position is steeped in logically fallacy and dogma you can only attack the person because that's all there is.

Then you don't have any idea of how to debate an issue, and probably shouldn't post until you learn how to disagree without resorting to insults. This has become an almost fundamental issue here, and it's all based on the assumption of intellectual superiority. An assumption that's often incorrect.

 

[JEDIYoda]

And that would be perfect for people with entrenched stances on certain issue.

So whose mind are you trying to change??

 

[JSt0rm]

Then you don't have any idea of how to debate an issue, and probably shouldn't post until you learn how to disagree without resorting to insults. This has become an almost fundamental issue here, and it's all based on the assumption of intellectual superiority. An assumption that's often incorrect.

If you see I do actually debate but I enjoy letting things get a little spicy. This has more entertainment value to me then just x = y type debating. Considering this is the internet I'm not too worried about hurting anyones feelings or having my feelings hurt.

So whose mind are you trying to change??

Certainly not the person I am debating with. I will expose what I see are the flaws and let others judge. certainly it is welcome for the op to change his or her mind but i learned long ago thats probably not going to happen.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Certainly not the person I am debating with. I will expose what I see are the flaws and let others judge. certainly it is welcome for the op to change his or her mind but i learned long ago thats probably not going to happen.

Then it should not be an issue!!

 

[JSt0rm]

Then it should not be an issue!!

i still like to insult people at the same time. It helps to round out my position. I take my insulting seriously and try to do it in unique and wonderful ways that help tie my points together. I find great pleasure in it. Take the guy from Arkansas for instance.

 

[SparkyJJO]

i still like to insult people at the same time. It helps to round out my position. I take my insulting seriously and try to do it in unique and wonderful ways that help tie my points together. I find great pleasure in it. Take the guy from Arkansas for instance.

It doesn't round out anything, nor does it help tie your points together. Personal insults break down - not strengthen - your position. As soon as you throw in the use of ad hominem attacks you damage your credibility. I'd even go so far to say that with your extremely excessive use of such things that you have zero credibility left when it comes to any sort of meaningful debate. If you can't figure out that simple fact, well, I cannot help you. I've tried to point it out to you, and you refuse to comprehend, so why I'm even wasting my time I have no idea

 

[JSt0rm]

It doesn't round out anything, nor does it help tie your points together. Personal insults break down - not strengthen - your position. As soon as you throw in the use of ad hominem attacks you damage your credibility. I'd even go so far to say that with your extremely excessive use of such things that you have zero credibility left when it comes to any sort of meaningful debate. If you can't figure out that simple fact, well, I cannot help you. I've tried to point it out to you, and you refuse to comprehend, so why I'm even wasting my time I have no idea

You seem to think I care what you think. This places exists for my amusement. you are just a name on the internet for me to interact with on my many micro breaks. Now stfu.