A: You asserted that the sky is yellow, but obviously, that is false. B: I asserted no such thing. A: Not so! These are your words from a previous message:
B: The sky is, obviously, blue.
A: See? There you are, clearly asserting that the sky is yellow - an outrageous error that calls into question your ability to reason, or to see colors at least. B: But I've never stated the sky was yellow, and I certainly didn't do so in the message you quoted. A: To the contrary; you asserted it then, and you're doing so now, and I proved it with my quote where you clearly said the sky was yellow. B: That's a-
the problem, crash, is that it rarely is so clear-cut. it's not even the case in randman and dr. a's conversation. these are "lies" that stem from obfuscation and misrepresentation -- and it's hard to say whether or not that's intentional. mostly, it seems to just be misunderstandings.
i think it fairly clear from any of the biblical debates that i've been involved in here that fundamentalists simply read one thing and think another. is their misrepresentation of the supplied text (whether it be from a member here, or their own holy writ) because they are trying to lie to us, or because that this is the way they honestly believe?
i suspect the latter.
so when dr a. posts about such and such a mechanism potentially leading to increases in diversity, complexity, and so forth, and rand references him as saying "it always increases" it may not be because randman is trying to lie. he may simply have not understood, or read closely enough. there are other options for intentions than deceit.
If it's obvious that a person is repeating things that they know are false
it's obvious to you and me, sure. but maybe it's not obvious to them. maybe they really don't know any better, even if they've been told a million times. i can't tell you how many times on this site i have ended up in debates that were "the bible v. fundamentalists." they really don't read things and understand things the way we do, source material first. they operate from a conclusion-first method, digesting all new information through the filter of what they've been told to believe. everything they take in has to confirm their a-priori assumptions, and if it doesn't, it has to be twisted to do so. this seems to operate on a subconcious level.
but it's really hard to get any contrary information through when you say one thing, and they hear another.
Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
The Showcase forum is here only because so many people expressed an interest in discussion with the unmoderatable like Randman.
so, wait, just to clarify.
the showcase exists as a place for people who are incapable of following the forum rules to post -- but unless you're forced to be there (because you can't follow the forum rules) you had better follow the forum rules while you're there?
i'm all for double-standards, but now i'm just confused.
the problem, crash, is that it rarely is so clear-cut.
It happens a lot more often than rarely; in fact, Herpeton is doing it right now in this very thread. See his exchanges with PaulK.
there are other options for intentions than deceit.
Self-deceit is still deceit. Just because someone won't, under any circumstances, admit to lying doesn't mean they're not lying. When somebody writes one statement in plain English and you assert a meaning that isn't even there, you're lying. Nobody reads that poorly.
Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
arachnophilia writes:
the showcase exists as a place for people who are incapable of following the forum rules to post -- but unless you're forced to be there (because you can't follow the forum rules) you had better follow the forum rules while you're there?
I think that makes perfect sense. The sane are expected to be sane, even when visiting the asylum.
I would like to compliment you all on a very fine train wreck. Personally, I'm not sure why anyone would bother to engage either Randman (though I've done so on other sites) or Herepton.
Edited by ekman, : No reason given.
"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin
Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
If that extends to calling people idiots and liars, then the Showcase Forum is a waste of time. The result will be that anyone who attempts to engage someone in the Showcase will just have ad hominem attacks hurled at them.
yes, but don't we know that going in? we don't have to participate there.
So the use is... what, exactly? How is the "serious debate" to which Percy refers aided in any way by its presence?
because that appears to be all one side has. creationism is simply misrepresentation -- of the bible, or science, or reality. i'm sure the creationists will take offense... but find me one creationist source that doesn't quotemine, or distort evidence, or just plain lie? even the name "creation science" is a lie -- science doesn't start with holy books they attempt to justify. it's just not science -- and it tries to pretend it is (in many different masks) to get into school systems.
that's why this site exists. to cut through those lies, and reveal them for what they are. but we are to extend every courtesy and respect in debate with our members here -- we can't call them liars. how are we to know? maybe they're simply wrong and don't know better. maybe they're not totally honest with themselves, and don't want to know -- still not liars. maybe a few are liars, but i suspect that everyone here thinks they are telling the truth to the best of their knowledge. we just can't make that assumption.
the showcase exists because without it, the opposition doesn't have much chance. their accusations of lies and conspiracies, and their "gish-galloping" topic derailing are core strategies of their debate style. every fallacy imaginable to distract from the evidence and the argument -- that's all creationism is. there is no scientific research, no evidence, no real argument. just books to buy and people to distract and confuse.
and that's the debate. and most of it is against the rules.
the use is that it gives the more extreme fundamentalists -- the ones that are simply incapable of doing anything besides breaking the rules -- a place to call their own, where they can post whatever they want, and feel like they're having an equal go of it with the threat of moderation in reaction to their basic arguments. but what they should realize is that it is a showcase. they are on display -- and they should really take this as an opportunity to try to construct real arguments instead of bullying and name-calling. because they are there representing creationism and fundamentalism. they should be good examples, lest everyone come to the same conclusions that i have -- that these childish games are all they have.
in fact, Herpeton is doing it right now in this very thread. See his exchanges with PaulK.
yes, i just read that. clearly, ray is misunderstanding what paul wrote. i understand what paul wrote, and so do you. ray understands it differently.
frankly, the original comment was skirting around the edges of the forum guidelines. if it didn't prompt a warning from a mod, it should have. the implication was the randman was mentally ill -- although this was tentative and based on evidence, it's still insulting. just worded more carefully.
When somebody writes one statement in plain English and you assert a meaning that isn't even there, you're lying. Nobody reads that poorly.
again, go participate in the bible forums for a while. i think you'll find that they do read that poorly.
Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
arachnophilia writes:
the showcase exists as a place for people who are incapable of following the forum rules to post -- but unless you're forced to be there (because you can't follow the forum rules) you had better follow the forum rules while you're there?
I think that makes perfect sense. The sane are expected to be sane, even when visiting the asylum.
Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
Dr A kept saying the he wanted to debate rand but in practice he had no more debate than randman has ability to refrain from mentioning Haeckel.
yes. when the entire message for half a dozen consecutive posts is:
quote:this is a lie.
this is a lie.
this is a lie.
etc, especially when you've been warned by the admins to quit with the accusations of lies, it really is kind of stepping over the line of contructive debate, into troll-dom. randman at least had a little content (or at least, other words) between his accusations of lies and ad hominems.
still, i don't know if a month-long suspension is warranted. a week, maybe, since he was warned. permanent removal from (OR TO!) the showcase, maybe.
You and Dan Carroll said anyone who does not agree with you are mentally ill.
Why have you lied?
why is acceptable for ray to accuse people of lies, outside of the showcase forum? when it is not acceptable for more darwinist-inclined members to accuse people of lies inside the showcase?
Is it because that you know that the Mods will let you get away with it?
why do you accuse people of lying, ray? because you know the mods will let you get away with it?
Re: An Elegy for Dr. Adequate, Over-Suspended Over A Troll
Faith is gone for example. The issue is that maschocistic people here at EvC keeping demanding them back.
i'm one of those masochists.
they way i see it is that the debate from this side of the aisle is actually masochism. we're not solving anything. we're not convincing anyone, especially not our opponents. we don't win anything. we just beat our heads against brick walls -- and when those bricks fall, there's just another wall behind. a fresh wave of fundamentalists.
there's no debate in the scientific community. all of this matters for almost nothing. we're here because we like the pain, and frustration, and the challenge. it gives us something to take up our time.
personally think that the board has been better without Faith.
less interesting, though. i know i've participated less.
it's mathematical. the interest of the board is function of the number and ferocity of the fundamentalists. the more we ban, the more quickly we approach our asymptote.
I am of the opinion that they just need to be banned. NJ I think is an example of a "good" creationists, someone who will actually somewhat respond to what is being talked about rather than some meta-martyr or broken record type discourse that the above mentioned are famous for.
yeah? let's ask ray.
ray, nemesis_juggernaut gets along nicely with the people here, debates rationally with evolutionists. do you consider him a creationist?
And I argue that they are evidence of mental illness,
I would say there are four possible categories for denial of evidence - borrowed heavily from Dawkin's comment on evolution:
(1) lack of ability to understand the evidence (stupid), (2) lack of {background\education\knowledge\etc} to understand the evidence (ignorant), (3) malignant intentional deception (lying) - the creatortionista types on so many websites, and (4) belief that the evidence is wrong (delusion).
Often there are mixes between these categories.
In this last category are those that range from (a) being told a string of {lies\misrepresentations\etc} by people they trust (and thus also crosses into ignorant), to those (b) who are absolutely convinced of their belief no matter what evidence contradicts it - the psychotically deluded, whether they believe they are Napoleon, that Pompeii was destroyed in 1631 (not 79ad), or that the earth is flat doesn't matter, it is the conviction that defines this level.
The difference between (a) and (b) is the ability to admit being wrong when the evidence is presented.
I also remember an old "definition" of fanatic: someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject. People like this can become "new" members under a different user name and they are quickly identified by their fanaticism on their pet subjects. "John Jaeger" (aka spiderMBA aka mirabel auditu aka etc) is one I have run across on a number of websites that fits this description.
There is no real debate with a fanatic, you just beat your head against the wall(s) they have erected. All you can do is expose their logical fallacies and false information and show the evidence that contradicts their belief -- for others to see.
Evidence of mental illness is just one possibility. Some possibilities are curable and some aren't. What I see "showcase" doing is restricting those that show a tendency to being incurable ... unless and until they show otherwise.
Personally, I'm not sure why anyone would bother to engage either Randman (though I've done so on other sites)...
I have a question for you. In response to Randman's continual charges that the evos at EvC Forum have their heads up their asses, I told him that the problem was more likely his, and that if he went to other boards he would experience the same problems there as he does here. He said he'd been to other boards and had absolutely no problems, and that it was just the idiots at EvC Forum that caused problems.
So what's the real story? Is Randman really all peaches and cream at other boards? Or is that just another li..., er, misunderstanding.
I know I've phrased this facetiously, but I am sincerely interested in the answer, because if his behavior *is* actually better at other boards then he may have a point, and there be something to be learned in this.
™ Version 4.2
