Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 5:25 AM
44 online now:
Tangle, vimesey (2 members, 42 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Whatever gets to take a break (suspension)
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 41 (148000)
10-07-2004 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Lammy
10-07-2004 2:53 AM


This is a clear case of everything-that-comes-in-one-ear-goes-out-the-other-ear.

People like Whatever believe that winning a debate means that you successfully refused to believe anything your opponent told you.

How do you argue with that mindset? No matter what proposition you offer, Whatever will disagree, simply because you're someone other than himself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Lammy, posted 10-07-2004 2:53 AM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 32 of 41 (148061)
10-07-2004 10:05 AM


Logically Challenged
I wanted to comment a little on the Whatever suspension that occurred as a result of his behavior in Which religion's creation story should be taught? starting at around Message 46.

I'm not going to sift through the various positions, but will only address Whatever's approach to discussion, which puzzles me a great deal. I think Crash's comment really hit the mark. In fact, I saw Crash's comment before reading the thread and figured it was just overstatement or exaggeration, but it wasn't. Crash said that Whatever seemed to believe he was successful if he refused to believe anything anybody else said.

While this characterization *is* an oversimplification, it is the key point. Whatever refused to address almost all the arguments from the other side, and those he did address were given a strong dose of illogic.

If Whatever's approach were an isolated case then it wouldn't be worth commenting on, but with the recent participation of Robert Byers, RiverRat, John Paul (ID Man) and WillowTree, and with the return of Salty, we must ask ourselves why it often seems impossible to engage Creationists on the field of rationality and logic with active moderators to nudge discussion back into productive channels. This board was created under the assumption that this was possible, but I'm beginning to wonder. I see little evidence supporting this hypothesis.

Whatever kept saying that churches accept a common creator, not a common designer, in response to any and all evidence that churches accept evolution, and refused to actually discuss anything. John Paul kept cut-n-pasting his description of the construction process of the bacterial flagellum as evidence of design, but refused to actually discuss how this constituted genuine evidence. Salty will tell us how horrible we are, not that he cares, and list over and over and over again the scientists he claims support him, but never address any of the rebuttals. I could go on with examples of others, but won't.

This leads to the question, are there any Creationists out there capable of making sense? The question is rhetorical, because of course there are. So the more relevant question is, why aren't capable Creationists coming here? What are we doing wrong? I really want to know.

--Percy


PS: I think restriction to the Free For All forum among the Main Topic forums would also have been an acceptable alternative, as it would allow Whatever to discuss his situation in the Side Order forums instead of just with me via email.

The Free For All forum was originally introduced as Remedial, but I shared the concerns expressed by Ooook! in Message 12 and felt a quick name change was necessary with no time for moderator discussion - forum name changes are easy to do, and the moderators will likely be discussing the name again, so suggestions for new names are still helpful).

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 10-07-2004 10:20 AM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-07-2004 2:21 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Lammy, posted 10-07-2004 2:42 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-08-2004 4:05 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 33 of 41 (148063)
10-07-2004 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Admin
10-07-2004 10:05 AM


Re: Logically Challenged
quote:
This leads to the question, are there any Creationists out there capable of making sense? The question is rhetorical, because of course there are. So the more relevant question is, why aren't capable Creationists coming here? What are we doing wrong? I really want to know.

While I agree with most of your post, I think you are overlooking the fact that there are some creationists who have been able to participate in heated but rational discussion. TrueCreation, Tranquility Base, mike the wiz, messenjah(after some work), Phatboy as examples. I think that salty, whatever etc. are very extreme, provocative and generate huge responses which tends to give the forums the appearance that only a lunatic fringe is participating at all.

Why more creationists don't participate or only stay a while as opposed to other places? I don't really know. I think many come thinking they will impress everyone with the two words they memorized out of a genetics book or ripped off from ARN or the Discovery Institute and think nobody here has ever heard their arguments before. When they realize this is false, they tend to cut and run. Hardcore fanatics like salty just repeat and repeat and hope to get suspended to feel as if they somehow "won" by getting suspended. The more rational creationsts might be overlooked a bit because the discussions may not generate huge responses or the discussions are low key....my two cents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Admin, posted 10-07-2004 10:05 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 34 of 41 (148125)
10-07-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Admin
10-07-2004 10:05 AM


The "Debate Bootcamp" forum
quote:
PS: I think restriction to the Debate Bootcamp forum among the Main Topic forums would also have been an acceptable alternative, as it would allow Whatever to discuss his situation in the Side Order forums instead of just with me via email.

Agree, BUT -

I don't think the "Debate Bootcamp" forum is yet properly set up. As we have been discussing in the "Private Admin Forum", I think the "Free For All" forum should be preserved under that name, albeit closed to any new topics. I thought we (myself, you, and AdminNosy) were in agreement on that, but you just renamed the FFA to "Debate Bootcamp" anyway.

As is, the "Debate Bootcamp" still contains all the old FFA topics. Plenty of places for Whatever to run amuck.

I feel strongly that the "Debate Bootcamp" needs to be an entirely new forum.

Adminnemooseus

And in a Whatever like PS: Whatever's debate style can also found in the various discussions of the current Presidental campaign. As he and the non-admin mode (minnemooseus) hold polar opposite political positions, I felt I was on shakey ground in squashing his participation. But it did seem to be blatantly obvious that Whatever was unable or unwilling to carry on rational discussion. Someone needed to act - So I did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Admin, posted 10-07-2004 10:05 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2004 3:17 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 35 of 41 (148132)
10-07-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Admin
10-07-2004 10:05 AM


Re: Logically Challenged
Admin writes:

This leads to the question, are there any Creationists out there capable of making sense? The question is rhetorical, because of course there are. So the more relevant question is, why aren't capable Creationists coming here? What are we doing wrong? I really want to know.


Isn't it possible that there are no true blood creationists that are capable of coherent thoughts? The ones that are capable of carrying on coherent conversations seem to be hybrids (correct me if I'm wrong).

The problem I see here is the difference in methodology. If you are coherent enough then you would probably be able to see the flaws in the creationist method of inquiry. I really think this is the number one reason why we hardly ever get any true blood creationists that is not a crackpot.

I'm actually serious about what I'm going to suggest. What if we lower the standards of debate guidelines in certain forums? What if we start allowing simple assertions be accepted as facts in, like, the "pseudo-science forum" for example? Would this be possible? Of course people are free to not participate in such a forum (I personally wouldn't).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Admin, posted 10-07-2004 10:05 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 10-08-2004 3:25 AM Lammy has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 36 of 41 (148145)
10-07-2004 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Adminnemooseus
10-07-2004 2:21 PM


Re: The "Debate Bootcamp" forum
I agree with Mooseus's post.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-07-2004 2:21 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 41 (148257)
10-08-2004 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Lammy
10-07-2004 2:42 PM


Isn't it possible that there are no true blood creationists that are capable of coherent thoughts?

No, this is definately not the case. The creationists like Whatever are harmless because they can't deliver the "payload", so to speak - they're not likely to convince anyone simply because they're not very good at crafting compelling arguments.

The really scary creationists are folks like Johnson, Gish, Hovind, and Baugh - the guys that really can craft compelling arguments and are skilled at concealing their fallacies. Those are the guys that produce people like our friend Whatever, and create the arguments for them to parrot.

The minute that you let yourself think that all creationists are mental midgets is the moment you get your ass kicked all over the room. Intelligence is never a guarantee that someone won't hold erroneous positions; in fact, the only difference between a wrong idiot and a wrong genius is the quality of their rhetoric.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Lammy, posted 10-07-2004 2:42 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 41 (148263)
10-08-2004 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Admin
10-07-2004 10:05 AM


Re: Logically Challenged
Whatever is what I call a flag waver.

He has no intention of learning or engaging in serious debate. He merely flies the flag on Creationist canards to give some phsychological support to Creationist lurkers on this site. This is also why he evades addressing points and is dismissive of most.

I liken him to a propaganda machine. The Kerry vs Bush thread was a good example of this where he kept repeating over and over the same rebutted points.

I make these assumptions based on my own experience with the company of thousands of Australian fundamentalists over the last 10 years. I suspect that he is a mature church elder used to being similarly evasive and dismissive when dealing with difficult questions from his flock.

I have always been amazed at your tolerance for his behaviour.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Admin, posted 10-07-2004 10:05 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Nighttrain, posted 10-08-2004 4:18 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2069 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 39 of 41 (148264)
10-08-2004 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Gilgamesh
10-08-2004 4:05 AM


Re: Logically Challenged
I debated a couple of JW elders off and on for nearly twelve months (I know, a glutton for punishment). The interesting thing was, every time I persuaded them there was a possibility their doctrine could be in error, the following meeting they would turn up claiming vindication of their dogma and moving on to a new subject. It was awe-inspiring to watch (bit like refilling your fuel tank after running near empty) :-P
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-08-2004 4:05 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 40 of 41 (181721)
01-29-2005 8:55 PM


Tom is whatever
Whatever has registered a second account as Tom. Whatever had been restricted to the Boot Camp forum. The two accounts have been merged, and the posting privileges for the merged account have been suspended.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2005 10:25 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 41 of 41 (181734)
01-29-2005 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Admin
01-29-2005 8:55 PM


Re: Tom is whatever
How very remarkable! Similar methods, but Tom seems much more literate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Admin, posted 01-29-2005 8:55 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019