|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
In the case from a month ago, NJ appears to be arguing that if bestiality (I don't believe beastiality is an accepted variant, but maybe someone knows for sure) is judged acceptable, how does one know where to draw the line about anything else. Your reading is wrong. The thread is about homosexuality. The response (originally someone else's, but NJ picked it up and ran with it) was that since bestiality is not okay, obviously neither is homosexuality.
I can't see how these are the same thing. In both cases, he's ignoring the sticking point, that consent is the difference between these acts. Whether he phrases it as a slippery slope or as moral relativism, he's making the same argument and ignoring the same rebuttal. Both arguments hinge around a lack of any context with which to morally seperate homosexuality from other sexual acts, and the response in each case is the same. Changing the dressing slightly doesn't mean he's not harping on the same point. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Your judgement is balls-on accurate. See how easy that is? Suspend if you please. My first response on this thread expected a suspension. It is my judgement you almost want a suspension and I don't want to disappoint. Take a few days off. For the technical minded who would want more than a judgement call: violation of rules 1,2 and 10. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Well, okay, then the next step, after it is explained how a relative moral relativist can distinguish between the two, is to discuss the reasoning. NJ never does that. In fact, he constantly ignores the reasoning. Can you back up this assertion, please? No, I'm not being condescending. I truly want to know how you think I've avoided it so that I can clarify my own position. Also, can you please not just quote me, but also provide a link to the thread. I was trying to look for old threads yesterday where we've delved in to similar conversations but had trouble locating them.
Personally, I think he says that homosexuality is the same as bestiality because he likes to say it. AdminModulus has stated my position in a way that explains it better than I have thus far. It is not comparison that says homosexuals are the same as zoophiles. The comparison, as AdminMod has elucidated, is about moral relativity and how the two conflict without an established set of principles that people can reference. If I were really one of those kinds of people that hold up mean-spirited signs, like, "God hates fags," you would know about it. I couldn't fly under the radar this long. Besides, I'm pretty sure everyone knows that I'm straightforward and call 'em how I see 'em at this point. Anyone want to disagree about that? I think those hateful sentiments are atrocious, counterproductive, and sinful to speak about anyone like that! Not only is NOT true, but its disgusting. The irony is that the very people that claim I'm a mean and nasty homophobe do far worse than I've done or said. (Please refer to the Jerry Falwell thread, where Berberry danced on Falwell's grave). Hypocrites! The problem, as I see it, is that its all or none for people like Crash, Taz, Berberry, or Dan. For some reason, they are incapable of distinguishing that, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, they assume that I must somehow hate them for it. I don't. In fact, its the opposite. Now, I am willing to cede the point that after long, arduous, and redundant dialogue, I have been known to get uppity. I admit that, and I apologize for that. It does me no good in the long run if you think that I'm condescending you. However, at no point am I disengenuous, inconsistent with my beliefs, or trying to offend a single person intentionally. I have tried to be clear as a crystal about my position, without compromising my position. I think I've done a fairly good job at that, whether you personally like my views or not. I have made a conscious effort to try and do that to the best of my ability. Again, if my sarcasm was derrogatory or sardonic to the point where it extended past jocularity, I apologize. What I will not apologize for is my usage of comparisons strictly for the use of dethroning the rationale behind relative morality. I believe that I have a valid point and make no apology for it. Until I can get a rebuttle with some substance, I will continue to use because it is effective. Hope that sets the record straight. "The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
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. I'm sure there are other examples, but there are lots of threads that discuss morality and homosexuality and homosexuality is a debate point separating nemesis from most other posters.
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. Nemesis' point is that there is no valid objection to either, from the point of view of moral relativism. Nemesis' moral framework obviously objects to both homosexual marriage and marrying other species and he can provide what he believes validity for this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
If there were valid reasons then moral relativists could also accept those reasons. Therefore his argument presumes that he can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
STOP! Lets move on to other things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Care to reply to Message 37?
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: Again, if my sarcasm was derrogatory or sardonic to the point where it extended past jocularity, I apologize. See, that apology would ring a lot truer if it had come fifty posts ago, or six threads ago. When you step on somebody's toes (as I stepped on berberry's toes a while ago), you should apologize immediately and try to rectify the situation. You shouldn't deny, deny, deny all the way to the hospital and shout, "Keep your big feet out from under mine," through the operating-theater window while the toes are being reattached. Now berberry and I are on good terms and most of you probably don't even remember what the hell incident I'm talking about. You, on the other hand, have taken a third of a thread to apologize and in the process, two people have been suspended. That, I think, is why some people have expressed dismay at your admin appointment. Are you an admin because you're qualified for the job, or just because you're on "the other side"? A lot of the success of EvC is down to respect for the admins, I think. Don't spoil that. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Can you back up this assertion, please? Fair enough request. I can't find the thread that I do remember, and don't quite remember the other threads I thought I saw this. So I'll withdraw my accusation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
See, that apology would ring a lot truer if it had come fifty posts ago, or six threads ago... you should apologize immediately and try to rectify the situation. You shouldn't deny, deny, deny I was apologizing for being snippy and condescending. I could have been more constructive. I stand by everything else I've said. I will go a step further and say to Berberry that I'm sorry if I had anything to do with him misunderstanding me. A few other people seem to understand what I'm saying, so I'm not sure the obligatory response would be to apologize for anything else other than getting snippy and, perhaps, not relaying my position well enough.
You, on the other hand, have taken a third of a thread to apologize and in the process, two people have been suspended. Excuse me, but are you blaming me for their suspension? Among the myriad of things I'm capable of, mind control, I'm pretty sure, isn't one of them.
That, I think, is why some people have expressed dismay at your admin appointment. Are you an admin because you're qualified for the job, or just because you're on "the other side"? You'd have to ask my employer. Are you suggesting that I'm not fair? Are you suggesting that I show bias in the capacity of my Admin duties? If so, back up your assertion.
A lot of the success of EvC is down to respect for the admins, I think. Don't spoil that. Speak rationally and calmly... get chastised Clarify my position... get chastised Apologize for my role in the fiasco... get chastised and have my integrity challenged I feel fortunate that Jesus is willing to forgive a sinner like me. "The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Fair enough request. I can't find the thread that I do remember, and don't quite remember the other threads I thought I saw this. So I'll withdraw my accusation. No worries, Chiro. Seriously, I meant what I said. I would rather you show me if you think I'm being inconsistent so that either I can better explain my position, or rectify a flaw in my reasoning. If by chance you stumble onto an old thread and see any discrepancy, please, by all means, call me out on it so I can rethink it. "The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: Are you suggesting that I'm not fair? Are you suggesting that I show bias in the capacity of my Admin duties? I'm saying that I can understand why others have complaints. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
The Berberry/NJ homosexuality/morality issue should have been its own topic somewhere else, a long time ago.
I'm going to force the issue by closing this topic. Will reopen topic in about 4 hours or so, if I remember. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Dan,
Sorry you got suspended, more on that later. I read your message yesterday and still couldn't see how they're the same thing, so I waited till today and read it again, and I still don't see it. Sorry, but I don't see it. I recognize the two arguments share similarities, and I realize you think the common issue of nonconsensuality is key, but there were also key differences, and the fact that neither of NJ's arguments made any sense at all, combined with the fact that illogic and simple error always cause me to try to figure out what someone really meant, further clouds any attempt at comparison. And spending much time analyzing poorly constructed arguments is a waste of time anyway. Back to suspensions. I think both you and Berberry have to ask what you want out of this process of discussion with moderators. If there's only one outcome acceptable to you, and if you post more and more strident messages each time your request isn't granted, then it isn't really a discussion. Put slightly differently, if you'll only relent when you get what you want, and if there's nothing moderators can do or say to get you consider other alternatives or perspectives, then there's no point to the discussion. Before your suspension we'd about gotten to the point where I was already going to raise this issue. Are you posting to this thread merely to make clear your dissatisfaction with board moderation? If so, then once that message has been communicated there's no reason to continue. And if you're trying to make clear to moderators where they went wrong while learning more about the rationale behind moderator actions and working toward a common understanding and mutually agreeable solutions, as time went by and you posted more messages that seemed increasingly unlikely.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024