|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Just what is our attitude supposed to be? I read through that entire thread and I can't see anywhere that crash crossed the line, unless calling creationist nonsense lies is considered crossing a line. I had 3 thoughts about Admin's actions: 1) I agreed that I've taken a non-constructive attitude in the past.2) I was probably due for a suspension for that and if it gives Admin examples to use of fair-handed treatment of evolutionists, so be it. 3) In the particular post that Admin replied to, I actually hadn't intended to take the attitude at all, but upon subsequent reviewing I totally understand how my words would be interpreted in that way. So, I had no problem with the suspension; it was a long time coming to me. I think we can agree that evolutionists around here are better, generally, than the creationists at framing arguments in a legitimate basis. To use an analogy, in a wealthy suburb, the cops give tickets to speeders and jaywalkers. In the poor urban center the cops arrest crack dealers, and you can pretty much jaywalk wherever you want. In other words because the evolutionists tend to avoid poor argumentation, we're more likely to have our attitudes "corrected." While creationists, who are receiving so much attention to their technical shortcomings, are less likely to be corrected for their tone. Everybody's going to have a different idea of what constitutes fair play, and for most of us, that idea is probably going to be unfair to everyone but ourselves. When we appoint a few people as admins, naturally they're going to administer according to their personal sense of fairness, and naturally, some of the rest of us are going to disagree. I've always thought Percy and the rest - even you, Moose - do the best job they're capable of. And I don't expect the board to be perfectly fair, because after all its run by human beings, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
EvC Forum: Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts
Sheesh Frog, how about slowing down!!! You're doing more than your share in flooding topics. Remember the "piling on" problem? The quality vs. quantity problem? Did somebody wake up with an itchy trigger finger this morning? Just couldn't wait to get up and do some authoritarian moderating? Remember the "half-assed moderation" problem? You know, where you moderate in threads you haven't been paying attention to, and don't bother to investigate the context or history of the situation in which you're so ham-fistedly inserting yourself? I've only posted in 5 different threads in the past 2 days. I hardly think that's "flooding topics", your personal and long-standing vendetta against me notwithstanding. Then again, according to our resident cranky moose, pretty much any board activity at all is way too much. I realize that I tend to pull a little broader latitude around here from most of the moderators. This is something that I've never asked for nor do I welcome. But I would much prefer to be dealt with fairly by all moderators, rather than have Moose take it upon himself to single-handedly right the balance by dogging my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crashfrog has 8278 messages in 769 days. Averaging over 10 messages per day for 2+ years Gosh, I guess I missed the rule in the forum guidelines that says we're only allowed a certain number of messages per day. Could you point that out for me, please? What's the magic number? Clearly 10 is too many; how many is ok? 5? 3? 1? Oh, right. It's Moose. He'd prefer if no one ever posted, ever. It keeps down the "clutter", where "clutter" = "people talking."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Also look at Crashfrog's recent messages Yes, lets do that.
quote:Source Oh, shit! Absolutely no arguments or supported assertions there, right? Why, that whole message is nothing but an ad hominem, off-the-hinges screed against my opponents that contributed nothing to the discussion, right? Or this one:
quote:Source Boy, now there's a completely useless post, isn't it? I guess everybody already knew that the taste buds detected five, not four, different tastes? Nope, not a thing to be learned from my stupid ass. Or this one:
quote:Source God, how can you people stand it when I ask such obvious and trivial questions? The existence of God? No real significance there, right?
quote:Source Merciful Christ is there no end to my relentless, empty, value-less contrarianism? Is there any assertion I won't simply toss off with no supporting background or elucidation whatsoever? Apparently not. After all, every single one of my messages are "heat, not light." Not once in over eight thousand posts have I meaningfully contributed to debate. Or isn't that what the Moose would have us believe? The funny thing is, I'm not sure I can think of a single post in weeks where Moose's participation in a debate has been in his capacity as a participant and scientist and not as a moderator.
and while you're at it, General Krall's. Oh, right. It's not so much that I'm a bad guy; it's that I'm to be punished for the habits of others. Gotcha. {Added "Source" links - AM} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-28-2005 07:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Are you equally proud of those? I stand by all my messages. Did I violate a particular forum guideline with any of those messages? If so, by all means take whatever action you feel appropriate. But censuring me (that's censure, not censor) because my contributions have failed to consistently meet your approval is not something that I'm prepared to accept without comment.
Minnemooseus has pretty much had nothing to say. Oh? Is that a fact? (Would that it were true of your other persona as well.) The Moose has no unique insight into any of the topics of conversation? Haven't thought of any new metaphors to explain tricky scientific concepts? I understand that your moderation duties may leave you precious little time for "regular" participation. Or perhaps you simply find it more fun to shakedown the people you assume are out of line than to engage and be engaged in the debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And I mean all of you. Grow up. I'm pretty sure we're dead-on topic here. What's the problem, exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think it's SO funny that you all consider the normal style here to be well-behaved That is well-behaved. Well-behaved people do not simply believe everything that they are told, or fail to challenge falsehood when it is put forth as truth. I mean, look. It's obvious that you can't cut it here; that any level of rigorous questioning is far too much for you. You should understand, at least, that for many of us here - for instance anyone involved with any of the sciences to any extent - the level of scepticism you find so antagonistic on this board is as a playful picnic - an orgy of credulity and acceptance - compared to the level of scrutiny, interrogation, and outright antangonistic inquiry that constitutes one average day among the scientific community. It's that level of questioning and skepticism that moves science forward and trims the fat, skims the dross, purifies by fire our scientific models and conclusions. Keeps your medicine safe and effective. Keeps your transportation safe and reliable. Keeps your technology safe and useful. Of course it's too much for you. This is how we separate the truth from the lies. Anyone who shows up trying to offer lies as truth is going to find no easy berth here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But then again, this is the way society operates these days. Christians are held to a looser standard everywhere. But, hey, there's no theocracy, right? Can't use the T-word... (Not disagreeing with you, of course, nor suggesting that you specifically have denied incipient theocracy.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm not saying you need to believe all this, but you're saying we must debate on what you people call your evidence while you're free to ignore ours. That's absolutely false. Creationists and evolutionists are on exactly the same footing, around here - neither side is allowed to appeal to the supernatural in their models. Both sides must argue from the physical evidence, not from holy texts or scriptures. Both sides have the same restrictions. Where's the unfairness?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Scientific investigations based on that inviolable premise are no less subject to objective testing and refutation than any other. Er, but no, they're not. Your own post makes that plain, when you continue:
For instance, we KNOW a worldwide Flood occurred Because you make that claim based on your inviolable belief in the Bible, you've asserted a scientific question - "did the Flood occur as described in the Bible?" - that you've specifically disallowed investigation or refutation of. Your so-called "Biblical science" ceases to be science the second that you set certain positions immune to scientific challenge. There's no legitimate reason that "did the flood happen?" can't be scientifically investigated; your only reason for disallowing the investigation of that question is the possibility (well, let's be honest, likelyhood) of contradiction of established dogma. That's not science. That can't ever be science, and that's why faith and science can't mix. The result simply isn't science, contrary to your assertions.
BUT I'd like to think that SOME accommodation could be made to our different view point for the sake of fostering a GENUINE balance and fairness in the signature debate at EvC. What further accomodation needs to be made? We're already on the same equal footing - you can't appeal to the supernatural, neither can we. You have to ground your arguments in testable, verifiable physical evidence, so do we. If you have genuine, verifiable physical evidence, that evidence will be accepted no matter what. (I wish that the same could be said for your side.) It's perfectly fair and balanced. What you and Buz want are lower standards for the creationists, and I don't see why you should have them just for the sake of some purported "balance." You don't balance the truth with lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What distiniguishes the science forums (IMO) is pretty much as stated in your second point. Propose the supernatural by all means, but do it in the light of the empirical evidence. We clearly mean two very different things when we say "supernatural."
Supernatural is not the same thing as being divorced from physical evidence. See, those are exactly the same thing to me. If something can be substantiated and detected by natural, physical evidence, then it must be, by definition, natural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm also for having a "Let Buz say anything he wants to" forum. Yup, lower standards for the creationists. Why, exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I've only disallowed investigation of the BIBLICAL PREMISE Which is certainly a question we could investigate scientifically, if we chose to. The only reason you choose not to is the likelyhood of the contradiction of your Bible; that's not a legitimate scientific reason. Thus, it's not science. Get it, yet?
Ya know, I didn't even use that term but there you are putting quotes around it as if I did. Fine, whatever. I was trying to be generous - the term I would have used would have been "bullshit" - but if it's such a big deal, exactly what nomenclature would you prefer in order to refer to your proposed epistomology? Faith-based science? Christoscience? What you're proposing is fundamentally different than the secular science everybody else does, so it would be nice to have a term for which to call it.
Once again, there is nothing inherently unscientific about starting from a stated inviolable premise. Absolutely there is. It's absolutely inherently unscientific. Inherent in the scientific method is the freedom of inquiry - science investigates all that it can, asks whatever questions it can answer. Your Biblical premise is a scientific question that can be scientifically answered. The only reason you refuse to ask it is because you know you won't like the answer; thus, not science.
but I'd like one Bash-Free Zone to exist if possible. You mean "critical-thinking free." Why should such a zone be allowed to exist, either here or in the scientific community at large? Why should you get special treatment and lower standards? Mainstream scientists don't get to have their assertions go unquestioned; why should you?
And AGAIN, if nobody can see their way clear to accommodating to this, I don't see why we are having this discussion at all If you can't cut it under fair treatment, I don't see why we should lower the standards just for you. We wouldn't lower the fitness requirements for a weakling wannabe firefighter or a police officer, just because it was too hard for them, now would we? Isn't special treatment and lower standards exactly the sort of liberal feel-good nonsense that I know you hate so much? Why do you insist that it be applied to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
By supernatural, you mean totally unrelated to the natural, whereas I mean beyond the natural domain, but still possibly interacting with the natural world. No one's ever been able to show me how such a thing would be logically coherent. The natural domain is everything that is and interacts with the physical world; the only closed system, if you will. I don't see how an entity could interact with the natural domain and yet be beyond it. If you reach into a closed system, you open it (or prove that it was always open), and the closed system now has to be the one that contains both the original system and you.
I guess this makes the creator "natural", by your use of the term; but in any case it is certainly permitted in the science forums. If they have a creator whose existence can be affirmed or denied by physical evidence, then I agree that they can posit that creature in a science forum, because that's not supernatural. If they assert that their creator is beyond denial by physical evidence, then he can neither be natural, nor influence the natural world, nor be introduced into a science forum. (Since he would have no ability to affect change in the physical world, his proposed existence would be rather pointless in such a forum. anyway.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024