|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Already answered:
...it is primarily an emotive argument that relies on comparing homosexuality to bestiality for its force. If you chose an unoffensive example it would not work, would it ?
The whole point is to choose something most people would regard as nasty and perverted. It's an emotive argument that relies on presenting the acts as somehow equivalent. How anybody honestly seeking to avoid giving offence could use that argument is beyond me. It is possible that someone so completely lacking in empathy as NJ might do so. But I'd judge it more likely to be intentional. Because then he can put in disclaimers and try to play innocent when people are offended by his intentionally offensive arguments
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It seems to me that if the similarity between homosexuality and bestiality is that he can't find a good reason to consider either wrong he should find a clearer way of saying so. His preferred phrasing implies a closer similarity and is offensive for that reason.
If that is so - and he intends no closer comparison - then the correct (and accurate) reply is "we know you see nothing wrong with bestiality" or something similar. (There are numerous other flaws with the position you attribute to him, but that seems to be the best one to use as a reply).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Well obviously that isn't true - consider adultery for instance. Or rape.
quote: It's a reply to NJ's point. Obviously he doesn't see anything really wrong with bestiality. It's the whole point of his argument - according to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I think it's relevant to point out that it's obviously false AND that it can be discussed without even mentioning homosexuality - let alone making statements which seem intended to offend homosexuals.
quote: Because you said that his comparison made a valid point. But the only point I can make out is that there is no valid objection to either. You say that he isn't arguing that there is a close similarity that should lead us to equate the acts. But if we don't equate the acts and he doesn't give any alternative reason for rejecting both all we're left with is no reason for rejecting either. No, NJ's argument is more FOR bestiality than it is AGAINST homosexuality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If there were valid reasons then moral relativists could also accept those reasons. Therefore his argument presumes that he can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
In fairness to Nosy, IamJoseph is also irrational and abusive.
And he doesn't seem to be making much of an effort to explain himself despite repeated warnings that his writing doesn't make sense. So how do you propose that we deal with people who continually disrupt threads with nonsensical posts ? From a moderation point of view suspension is a solution even if it isn't a nice one or fair if seen as a penalty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Generally speaking a mod should be careful when moderating a thread they are active in.
However, when they aren't involved in a particular sub-discussion within that thread it isn't necessarily out of line to act on that. Especially if all participants in the sub-discussion are treated the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Why intervene in a thread that has been quite for nearly two weeks ?
Why single out IaJ's opponents for warnings with no criticism for IaJ ? Why claim that IaJ had done a lot of work when many of his posts were unsupported assertions ? The post gives a distinct impression that creationists are above the rules, and that the rules will be deployed to censor anyone who dares to criticise a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I understand that there are times when creationists falsely claim that I have not supported my position. But if I am asked for support I provide it or retract. IaJ repeatedly refused such requests.
quote: They specifically support IaJ against his opponents. I notice that the current version even blames IaJ's oppopnents for leading HIM off topic when the reverse is more typically the case. So we are left with the question of why you need to jump into a dormant thread specifically to support one person in it. With your moderator hat on, too. You aren't given admin powers so that you can use them to prop up "your side". You're meant to be helping IaJ behave better, not excusing and condoning his bad behaviour.
quote: How does this excuse IaJ's behaviour ? How does this excuse yours ?
quote: None in that thread. Perhaps you would like to supply examples so I can check your - and IaJ's - veracity.
quote: And likely in many cases he was not justified and refused to support his claim because he had neither evidence nor argument.
quote: Indeed, IaJ should never have raised the issue. But he did.
quote: By which you mean that only creationists should never be criticised - but are allowed to freely criticise others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You allowed that it MIGHT have happened - which is rather weak when it definitely DID happen. And it was NOT always stopped by other moderators.
quote: They certainly do. You've benefitted from it. And you damn well ought to know it.
quote: No, I'm not. I'm also not forgetting that IaJ needed MORE moderation than he actually got.
quote: Pointing out that IaJ got some moderator attention doesn't prove that he wasn't given leeway. ln fact I'd say that he got a lot.
quote: You're not supposed to use moderator powers to try to prop them up. Your position is intended more to help people like IaJ TO follow the rules. Not to encourage him by ignoring his activities and attacking his opponents. Especially not when it requires reopening a dormant thread to do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
This pretty much confirms that your purpose is to ban criticism of creationists, while permitting all criticism of their opponents.
quote: The substance of your complaint is that I criticised you, a creationist. And the treatment of myself specifically - or even Jar- is not the issue here.
quote: And here we have a completely irrelevant and unfounded dig at me. And a criticism that would be more fairly directed at IaJ in particular.
quote: I'd dispute that. Consider his exchange with Brian in these messages on Page 9 of the thread. In message 128 IaJ asks three questions (or four since one is really two questions) and only one of which is possibly relevant to the topic (and that is peripheral). Brian answers quite reasonably in message 130 In message 131 IaJ quotes Brian's entire message (failing to distinguish between Brian's reply and the quoted section of his earlier post) only to add
I thought the air needed cleaning. I suppose my next Q should be - was the OT written last friday?
Brian stays reasonable and writes a quite long reply - message 132 -explaining some of the facts and reasoning relevant to understanding the relevance of Merneptah stele to the history of Israel. The whole of IaJ's reply to that is
I asked those questions only to expose your not talking science or logic. I wasted time debating grammar with you - your grammar appears based on the answers you gave, thus has nothing to do with grammar!
But you didn't act then. When it might have made a difference. Even when you do look at the thread you don't acknowledge that that exchange even exists.
quote: He got away with the exchange I've quoted above. And probably could have got away with worse.
quote: Of course IaJ could have got away with it. He got away with the exchange above. And a number of off-topic posts. Which you somehow failed to notice. And I'm sure I can find more examples of creationists getting away with worse. Randman certainly did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
[quote]
The Forum Guidelines do apply to a reasonable amount of respect for one's counterpart. I saw all the work one member extended into painstakenly responding to a host of counterparts, who obviously chose to engage with him in the topic. At one point I recall Brian saying he saw where IAJ "was coming from" on a particular point et al.
[/quiote] That may be what you "saw". It isn't what's in the thread.
quote:That's pretty easy to do. He did post on Aug 10 to the "Adam was Created on the 3rd Day" thread. But the thread we are discussing has been inactive since 31st June. quote: Jar can defend himself. But you have no valid ground for objecting to my pointing out the blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations that many creationists post. Again, if you were really interested in helping the creationist side you should be policing this sort of thing.
quote: The fact that you were acting AGAINST balance probably has a lot to do with the lack of support. Moderation already favours the creationist side. It needs no correction. And none of the other mods resurrect threads 12 days after the last post to make completely one-sided assessments. If the sides were reversed you would be complaining loudly about the unfair moderation. And for once you'd be right to do so.
quote: Anybody can set up a website. And citing a website doesn't mean that it supports IaJ's claims. You should know that. In the big fuss over your last departure you cited an idiotic website AND one which in fact contradicted you.
quote: Well, I would suggest using accurate and reliable websites instead. If the creationist can't find any then it's time for the intellectually honest creationist to reassess his position.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024