EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 42 of 300 (238060)
08-28-2005 5:35 PM

can one of you make this guy stop?

godfearingathiest keeps posting something about his rejected pnt in my thread, totally off topic. i've told him a couple times to cut out, because it's completely the wrong place.

but i guess he really wants to talk about it.

http://EvC Forum: Discovery Institute's "400 Scientist" Roster

אָרַח

Replies to this message:
	Message 43 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 6:58 PM		arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 44 of 300 (238087)
08-28-2005 7:02 PM

Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
08-28-2005 6:58 PM

Re: can one of you make this guy stop?

well, they just suspended him. maybe he'll get the idea.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 43 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2005 6:58 PM		RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 45 by Nighttrain, posted 08-28-2005 11:26 PM		arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 59 of 300 (238684)
08-30-2005 8:53 PM

Reply to: Message 45 by Nighttrain
08-28-2005 11:26 PM

Re: can one of you make this guy stop?

Hi, Arach, try Nighttrain`s Ten Ironclad Rules of Communication
Rule 1. Never debate a fool or a fanatic
Rules 2-10. Refer to Rule 1.:-P

or, since we talk about the bible a lot,

quote:
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

although i like the rebuttal too:

quote:
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
	Message 45 by Nighttrain, posted 08-28-2005 11:26 PM		Nighttrain has not replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 86 of 300 (240510)
09-05-2005 7:33 AM

Reply to: Message 85 by wj
09-05-2005 7:07 AM

Re: Omnivorous ban

what exactly did he do? (adminben, a link would be nice...)

This message is a reply to:
	Message 85 by wj, posted 09-05-2005 7:07 AM		wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2005 7:39 AM	arachnophilia has replied
	Message 89 by Michael, posted 09-05-2005 7:53 AM	arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 88 of 300 (240516)
09-05-2005 7:52 AM

Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
09-05-2005 7:39 AM

Re: Omnivorous ban

oh, i see. yeah, that would do it.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
	Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2005 7:39 AM		PaulK has not replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 90 of 300 (240518)
09-05-2005 7:58 AM

Reply to: Message 89 by Michael
09-05-2005 7:53 AM

Re: Omnivorous ban

(no further comment)

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 09-05-2005 07:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
	Message 89 by Michael, posted 09-05-2005 7:53 AM		Michael has not replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 190 of 300 (250515)
10-10-2005 5:25 PM

Reply to: Message 189 by Phat
10-10-2005 10:05 AM

Re: D.H.R. expresses concerns over special consideration.

Do we not all judge based on evidence?

no, we don't. and that's essentially what makes this debate so hard. if the moderators don't make special allowances for people who do not judge based on evidence, and warn/ban for unsupported assertions, then we essentially don't have a debate.

the scientific community doesn't have a debate -- they all know where the evidence stands. if we have the same standards here, we won't have very many religious posters.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
	Message 189 by Phat, posted 10-10-2005 10:05 AM		Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 191 by Ben!, posted 10-10-2005 6:29 PM	arachnophilia has replied
	Message 193 by Admin, posted 10-11-2005 9:09 AM	arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 225 of 300 (251618)
10-13-2005 10:55 PM

Reply to: Message 191 by Ben!
10-10-2005 6:29 PM

Re: D.H.R. expresses concerns over special consideration.

This probably doesn't belong here... but I'm not sure where to go.

There's a time and place for logical thinking and evidence. And there's a time and place for working outside of that. The debate is not about TruthTM but a lot less than that, and a lot more than that.

yes, i agree.

Your post sounds to me like you think creation vs. evolution is a debate only about scientific theory and the history of life. I don't think so. Because of that, it IS possible to have both scientists and non-scientists here, just as it is possible to have both believers and non-believers.

well, i think you misunderstood what i meant. yes, there was some fundie-mocking in there, i will admit. but the point i was trying to make is exactly what you said. one said really does have nothing to do with evidence.

we look at truth different ways, science has one approach, religion has another. if don't allow the religious approach, we are indirectly limiting the debate and not allowing religous fundamentalists -- the core opponents here -- to debate.

and that's not FAIR. so we have to make allowances for religion, even if it allwos the crackpots and numerologists and pyramidologists too.

The purpose, in my eyes, is to find the boundaries of what kind of thinking and what kind of knowledge is applicable where and when, and to find ways to deal with each other.

well, the religion has a lot to say abotu the science. who says "god's trying to trick you with evidence!" is NOT a valid argument? heck, maybe they're even right. you certainly can't prove it.

Like I said, I think this takes a really narrow view of what's going on here. I don't think this is the case. And I don't think admins have to compromise as much as you think.

i think they have to compromise more. i've noticed a lack of fundamentalists and evangelicals on the board lately. haven't you?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
	Message 191 by Ben!, posted 10-10-2005 6:29 PM		Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 227 by Ben!, posted 10-13-2005 11:14 PM		arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 226 of 300 (251620)
10-13-2005 11:05 PM

Reply to: Message 193 by Admin
10-11-2005 9:09 AM

Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists

You can't get blood from a stone,

no, but water's just fine:

quote:
Exd 17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

and we know god can turn water into blood:

quote:
Exd 7:20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that [were] in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that [were] in the river were turned to blood.

so the logical conclusion is that you CAN get blood from a stone, if only indirectly.

and apparently you can't get scientific discussion from Creationists.

well, you have to remember that we're dealing with people who totally accept the miraculous. heck, maybe even i do too. science is meaningless; they know the truth.

It is very difficult for me to see any point in a scientific debate where one side is unable to keep up even a pretense of being scientific, but the alternative appears to be very little or no debate at all.

i think that where you're mistaken actually. because fundamentally, that *IS* the debate. it's not "science v. science" and "religion v. religion." it's "science v. religion." one side is evidently NOT science and doesn't intend to be. like i said, there's no big debate about in the scientific community.

now, the debate won't be productive, will it? we all know that. but that's the debate nonetheless. this site is "evolution v. creation" and we have to remember that we really ARE pitting the two sides against one another -- not separating them.

My stomach churns at the thought of allowing reentry of Creationists like John Paul and John Davison, or of complete loons like WillowTree, or of allowing anyone to simply ignore all central issues as is the style of TrueCreation and Tranquility Base.

that's the problem. i'm really sad to say to this, but you do have to realize that the fundamentalist side does tend to include some wackos -- maybe even a lot. if you're not willing to duke it out with them, don't -- but i don't think banning people simple because they refuse to understand science is acceptable at all. it's rigging the game.

But holding Creationists to some minimal standards of scientific debate seems equivalent to greatly reduced dialog with them.

i take it you've noticed that there are alot less of them now?

My thoughts on this conundrum swing like a pendulum. At present I seem to have swung to the opinion that we should, at least at present, reduce the burden on Creationists by not requiring them to discuss scientifically, even in the science forums.

i might agree. sadly.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
	Message 193 by Admin, posted 10-11-2005 9:09 AM		Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 245 by nator, posted 10-16-2005 10:18 AM		arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 228 of 300 (251628)
10-14-2005 12:07 AM

Reply to: Message 227 by Ben!
10-13-2005 11:14 PM

Re: D.H.R. expresses concerns over special consideration.

Sorry that I don't have a better answer.

it's ok, i don't suspect there is one.

either way is a compromise.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
	Message 227 by Ben!, posted 10-13-2005 11:14 PM		Ben! has not replied

arachnophilia

Member (Idle past 1370 days)

Posts: 9069

From: god's waiting room

Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 278 of 300 (261583)
11-20-2005 2:18 PM

cutting the creationists some slack

percy made a really good post in the now-closed "talk some sense into randman" thread. it's always entertaining when someone says something so outrageous that the owner of the board steps in in this manner.

i'm sure randman and co will just read this as biased, but it's a really good point:

percy writes:

Faith was coddled here for a long time, and I took a lot of abuse for it from the evolution side. If I and the other moderators are not even going to be acknowledged for it by the Creationist side, i.e., by people like you, if you guys can't even tell it is happening, well, I guess I just don't know what to say. I guess I'll just say it feels to me that you must either be uninformed or irrational on this topic.

you sort of have to feel bad for percy. i remember him getting all of that flack from the evolution side for being so lenient on faith. for the side he was defending to pretend like it never happened is just plain insulting.

i also want to echo chiroptera's comment that i agreed with percy's stance. although i did ask a few tough questions, in the end i found myself arguing for faith to stay.

also, i'm not sure i agree with moose suspending randman, but i'm sure he does need a break. {edit} ok, it looks like moose didn't actually do it, but was just thinking about it. either way, i don't really think it would help.{/edit}

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-20-2005 02:32 PM

אָרַח

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	LamarkNewAge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0