Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 10:40 PM
26 online now:
14174dm, AZPaul3, DrJones* (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,666 Year: 6,703/19,786 Month: 1,244/1,581 Week: 66/393 Day: 49/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 302 (350718)
09-20-2006 3:00 PM


This is the place to comment on moderation procedures.

The following are the 7 previous "General discussion on moderation procedures" topics, from earliest to most recent:
Change in Moderation?
General discussion of moderation procedures
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel
General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added list of previous topics.


Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 4:05 PM AdminJar has responded
 Message 258 by Brad McFall, posted 12-19-2006 4:26 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 2 of 302 (350727)
09-20-2006 3:18 PM


Holmes writes:

If you have a suggestion for improving my writing style, please let me know.


Your writing style is fine. It's just hard for us non-philosophy folks to wrap our minds around what you try to say, especially for those of us who have spent years hating the post-modern style.

If a someone must be blamed for the communication difficulties, it'll have to be me. I consider myself to be somewhat of a minimalist, and it is far easier for someone like you to understand me than it is for me to understand you. So technically speaking, it is I who should be improving my reading skills to catch up with your writing style.

This is NOT the place for such discussion. Anyone responding to this will be suspended.

Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.


robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 302 (353002)
09-28-2006 10:47 PM


AdminPD's warnings are misguided
The topic is: "Why do Christians make God out to be dumb?"

Dumb here means immoral. We were discussing God's morality.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminJar, posted 09-28-2006 10:51 PM robinrohan has responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 302 (353003)
09-28-2006 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
09-28-2006 10:47 PM


Re: AdminPD's warnings are misguided
Read the OP. Saw nothing there to suggest that dumb equaled morality. AdminPD was right on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 10:47 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 10:55 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 302 (353004)
09-28-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminJar
09-28-2006 10:51 PM


Re: AdminPD's warnings are misguided
Saw nothing there to suggest that dumb equaled morality

There's no other reason to call it "dumb."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminJar, posted 09-28-2006 10:51 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminPD, posted 09-29-2006 3:57 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 6 of 302 (353033)
09-29-2006 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by robinrohan
09-28-2006 10:55 PM


Re: AdminPD's warnings are misguided
The originator of the topic gave examples which show that "dumb" was used as in "not brilliant" and possibly "not logical", but there is no implication that "dumb" referred to immorality.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by robinrohan, posted 09-28-2006 10:55 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 09-29-2006 12:47 PM AdminPD has responded

AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 302 (353073)
09-29-2006 8:46 AM


Neutralmind: General Comments on Forum Behavior
From the PNT "Greetings and - Uncalled for, Forum Behavior". The original post can be found here. The only changes that have been made to the original post were formatting.

Neutralmind writes:

I like this forum because people usually stick to the OP topic and arguments. But the one thing I hate about this forum is that many times evo's ( sorry for the generalization ), when asked a troubling question start to represent their own scenarios, invented logical fallacies as facts and then ask creo's for facts to disprove their scenarios into which they have provided no facts for. When said that they actually have no facts the reply is something like " even if you can't see / don't like the facts it doesn't mean they aren't there".

I think this is enraging. It's either that I'm too stupid to understand these simple facts or that the person telling wasn't actually very clear about what/which were facts and which were his own reasoning and conclusions drawn out of nothing or from the real facts. I think this in a way is the same as what many teenagers do when they feel their position threadened, " you're too stupid, I can't be bothered to try to explain it to you".

And then the cycle continues... " Could you explain one more time what the facts are?" " It's this and that and this" " That's not facts, that's just your own reasoning from within the facts" " even if you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there" And so on...

I know creo's also resort to logical fallacies, strawmans, whatever. What makes evo's different though is that there are usually people backing up the failed logics. It's hard to explain, I'll try though :p . I still sometimes get that spontaneous reaction when someone says to a creo " even if you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there". " HAHHA, TAKE THAT YOU STUPID CREO!" Then after a moment I'm " Hey wait a minute. That actually does make no sense. What the BLIIP was he on about...?"

I don't know if that's true for anyone other than me but it looks to me like so on many occasions. Except for the after thinking.

I think on one hand at least this situation is true, maybe not exactly about the thinking method/pattern but about this, kind of herd culture. Defending your tribe, whatever. Why I think it doesn't happen with creo's is because god is a bit different, personal to everyone. A lot fewer share just about the same image of god than about evolutionism ( I think). After all, only one conclusion can be right in science ( simplified ), but many can be about god. That's why I think evo's are more into defending each other than creo's.
It can be a good thing, but it's not if you're in there just trying to win points for the evo side. Also, I've noticed that when this kind of argumentation goes on all the "pro" knowledgeable people from the evo side stop responding to the thread.

I don't know if anyone else thinks this but for me it has been sad to see many good threads "devolute" (never seen this anywhere but in this forum :rolleyes: ) into these win over one little petty point of argument, competitions.

What I suggest is that admins should jump in and tell people to move on in the subject whenever someone's trying to sweet talk their argument into making sense without providing any real material even when asked for it.

General Discussion of Moderation Procedures is okay for this topic. I'd like this discussion to be about, if moderating should be done in the situation(s) I presented above and if there really is some kind of herd culture among evo's as I claim there to be.

As the moderator who has processed this topic, I am going to recuse myself from responding. I remind all participants that comments on this post should remain factual and "unheated". Anyone posting anything resembling a flame or personal attack will enjoy a temporary suspension. The post was placed here to avoid the dogpile that would be inevitable as a coffeehouse topic.


"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson

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
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
    Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by AdminNWR, posted 09-29-2006 9:15 AM AdminQuetzal has not yet responded
     Message 10 by Taz, posted 09-29-2006 1:18 PM AdminQuetzal has not yet responded
     Message 12 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 3:58 PM AdminQuetzal has responded

  • AdminNWR
    Inactive Member


    Message 8 of 302 (353086)
    09-29-2006 9:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by AdminQuetzal
    09-29-2006 8:46 AM


    Examples?
    Unfortunately, Neutralmind did not link to any thread or post that he considers an example of the problem. Without an example, it is a bit difficult to know what the problem is supposed to be.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by AdminQuetzal, posted 09-29-2006 8:46 AM AdminQuetzal has not yet responded

    Taz
    Member (Idle past 1427 days)
    Posts: 5069
    From: Zerus
    Joined: 07-18-2006


    Message 9 of 302 (353123)
    09-29-2006 12:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by AdminPD
    09-29-2006 3:57 AM


    Re: AdminPD's warnings are misguided
    AdminPD writes:

    The originator of the topic gave examples which show that "dumb" was used as in "not brilliant" and possibly "not logical", but there is no implication that "dumb" referred to immorality.


    I normally don't want to argue with an admin, but this time I have to say something. I see morality as having a direct connection to "not brilliant" and "not logical". For example (and please understand I'm only pointint out an example to show my case), God gave moses the 10 commandments, one of which forbids the act of murder. He then later commanded his chosen people to murder innocent women and children. Yes, they were at war but only the dumbest of a whole line of dumb gods couldn't make the connection that murdering innocent women and children had absolutely nothing to do with their war campaign.

    This is why I said my atheistic morality seemed to be superior to that of god's. In this particular case, reason and logic actually play a role in determining the morality, or immorality, of the situation.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by AdminPD, posted 09-29-2006 3:57 AM AdminPD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by AdminPD, posted 09-29-2006 1:41 PM Taz has not yet responded

    Taz
    Member (Idle past 1427 days)
    Posts: 5069
    From: Zerus
    Joined: 07-18-2006


    Message 10 of 302 (353131)
    09-29-2006 1:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by AdminQuetzal
    09-29-2006 8:46 AM


    Re: Neutralmind: General Comments on Forum Behavior
    I agree with AdminNWR. You've failed to provide a single shred of evidence for us to nitpick.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by AdminQuetzal, posted 09-29-2006 8:46 AM AdminQuetzal has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Neutralmind, posted 09-29-2006 6:40 PM Taz has not yet responded

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 11 of 302 (353137)
    09-29-2006 1:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
    09-29-2006 12:47 PM


    Re: AdminPD's warnings are misguided
    Please read the Opening Post in that thread.

    Morality deals with right and wrong, not smart or dumb. This thread is not about God's morality or yours.

    originator writes:

    This brings me to the point of this thread, please list any examples that you have of the Bible making God (or Moses or whoever) out to look unreasonably dumb.

    While we feel that murdering innocent people is wrong and not a smart thing to do, I feel that the OP is pointing more towards silly, stupid or ridiculous. Yes you can say that murdering innocent people is stupid or ridiculous, but read the OP and the example given.

    The direction the thread was taking was not in the spirit of the OP.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Taz, posted 09-29-2006 12:47 PM Taz has not yet responded

    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 31256
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 12 of 302 (353188)
    09-29-2006 3:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by AdminQuetzal
    09-29-2006 8:46 AM


    Re: Neutralmind: General Comments on Forum Behavior
    Doesn't this post need its own thread? He could just have posted it directly into the moderation thread himself in other words.

    I agree with those who say this needs examples. Many if possible.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by AdminQuetzal, posted 09-29-2006 8:46 AM AdminQuetzal has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by AdminQuetzal, posted 09-29-2006 4:26 PM Faith has responded

      
    AdminQuetzal
    Inactive Member


    Message 13 of 302 (353200)
    09-29-2006 4:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
    09-29-2006 3:58 PM


    Re: Neutralmind: General Comments on Forum Behavior
    I considered giving it it's own thread, but since the complaints revolve around administrative inaction, I felt this was appropriate. In addition, it's own thread would likely lead to a pile-on. These types of posts generally do. Therefore, keeping it a thread which has the immediate attention of all the administrative personnel is likely to preclude that from occurring.

    As an admin yourself, you are of course free to re-open the now closed original and repost it in another forum if you think that would get better play. I'm not wedded to one idea over the other.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 3:58 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 4:32 PM AdminQuetzal has not yet responded

    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 31256
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 14 of 302 (353203)
    09-29-2006 4:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by AdminQuetzal
    09-29-2006 4:26 PM


    Re: Neutralmind: General Comments on Forum Behavior
    I might at least see what he would like to do about it I suppose.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by AdminQuetzal, posted 09-29-2006 4:26 PM AdminQuetzal has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 09-29-2006 4:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

      
    Quetzal
    Member (Idle past 4008 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 01-09-2002


    Message 15 of 302 (353209)
    09-29-2006 4:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
    09-29-2006 4:32 PM


    Re: Neutralmind: General Comments on Forum Behavior
    And then again, I am going by what neutralmind wrote:

    Neutralmind writes:

    General Discussion of Moderation Procedures is okay for this topic. I'd like this discussion to be about, if moderating should be done in the situation(s) I presented above and if there really is some kind of herd culture among evo's as I claim there to be.

    If you feel strongly about it, move the thread.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 4:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    1
    23456
    ...
    21NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019