General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0

quote:

---

It comes down to this: Why would anybody examining same-sex sexual interactions immediately start thinking of sexual activity between species when they wouldn't make such a connection when examining mixed-sex sexual interactions?

---

Already answered: The whole point is to choose something most people would regard as nasty and perverted. It's an emotive argument that relies on presenting the acts as somehow equivalent.How anybody honestly seeking to avoid giving offence could use that argument is beyond me. It is possible that someone so completely lacking in empathy as NJ might do so. But I'd judge it more likely to be intentional. Because then he can put in disclaimers and try to play innocent when people are offended by his intentionally offensive arguments

It seems to me that if the similarity between homosexuality and bestiality is that he can't find a good reason to consider either wrong he should find a clearer way of saying so. His preferred phrasing implies a closer similarity and is offensive for that reason.If that is so - and he intends no closer comparison - then the correct (and accurate) reply is "we know you see nothing wrong with bestiality" or something similar.(There are numerous other flaws with the position you attribute to him, but that seems to be the best one to use as a reply).

quote:

---

he claims moral relativity cannot differentiate sexual immorality from morality.

---

Well obviously that isn't true - consider adultery for instance. Or rape.

quote:

---

I don't understand -who is replying to who here? That doesn't make any sense as a reply to nemesis's point or the other way around.

---

It's a reply to NJ's point. Obviously he doesn't see anything really wrong with bestiality. It's the whole point of his argument - according to you.

quote:

---

I don't understand -who is replying to who here? That doesn't make any sense as a reply to nemesis's point or the other way around.

---

I think it's relevant to point out that it's obviously false AND that it can be discussed without even mentioning homosexuality - let alone making statements which seem intended to offend homosexuals.

quote:

---

NJ finds something wrong with bestiality and he finds something wrong with homosexuality - I'm not sure how you concluded I thought otherwise.

---

Because you said that his comparison made a valid point. But the only point I can make out is that there is no valid objection to either. You say that he isn't arguing that there is a close similarity that should lead us to equate the acts. But if we don't equate the acts and he doesn't give any alternative reason for rejecting both all we're left with is no reason for rejecting either.No, NJ's argument is more FOR bestiality than it is AGAINST homosexuality.

If there were valid reasons then moral relativists could also accept those reasons. Therefore his argument presumes that he can't.

In fairness to Nosy, IamJoseph is also irrational and abusive.And he doesn't seem to be making much of an effort to explain himself despite repeated warnings that his writing doesn't make sense.So how do you propose that we deal with people who continually disrupt threads with nonsensical posts ? From a moderation point of view suspension is a solution even if it isn't a nice one or fair if seen as a penalty.

Generally speaking a mod should be careful when moderating a thread they are active in.However, when they aren't involved in a particular sub-discussion within that thread it isn't necessarily out of line to act on that. Especially if all participants in the sub-discussion are treated the same.

Why intervene in a thread that has been quite for nearly two weeks ?Why single out IaJ's opponents for warnings with no criticism for IaJ ?Why claim that IaJ had done a lot of work when many of his posts were unsupported assertions ?The post gives a distinct impression that creationists are above the rules, and that the rules will be deployed to censor anyone who dares to criticise a creationist.

quote:

---

Jar and PaulK, we all think our position is the one supported and factual. You two members need to understand that there are times when creationists do not think you are supporting your asertions as well.

---

I understand that there are times when creationists falsely claim that I have not supported my position. But if I am asked for support I provide it or retract. IaJ repeatedly refused such requests.

quote:

---

My admonitions did not support any position

---

They specifically support IaJ against his opponents. I notice that the current version even blames IaJ's oppopnents for leading HIM off topic when the reverse is more typically the case.So we are left with the question of why you need to jump into a dormant thread specifically to support one person in it. With your moderator hat on, too. You aren't given admin powers so that you can use them to prop up "your side". You're meant to be helping IaJ behave better, not excusing and condoning his bad behaviour.

quote:

---

You people generally are not in the position as IAJ was and the other few of us Biblicalist IDers where you are debating a number of counterparts.

---

How does this excuse IaJ's behaviour ? How does this excuse yours ?

quote:

---

There were times when IAJ felt you were not supporting your claims as well, but he was a gentleman enough to say so in a manner conducive to keeping the peace.

---

None in that thread. Perhaps you would like to supply examples so I can check your - and IaJ's - veracity.

quote:

---

Likely in some cases he was justified in making the claim, just as you think you were. I thought he kept his cool remarkably well, considering the way he was being treated.

---

And likely in many cases he was not justified and refused to support his claim because he had neither evidence nor argument.

quote:

---

Some of the supportive documentation such as the Davidic kingdom, for example would have been leading off topic. There were others as well

---

Indeed, IaJ should never have raised the issue. But he did.

quote:

---

All I ask/require is that instead of (particularly Jar) calling everthing stupid and other demeaning remarks to in a respectful manner state your specific problem with the point which you feel needed clarified or corrected, et al rather than to get personal. T

---

By which you mean that only creationists should never be criticised - but are allowed to freely criticise others.

quote:

---

Perhaps you need to reread my moderation where I already addressed this. I said that there may have been times when IAJ was the one leading off. I added that other moderators had already taken care of that, implying that there was no need for me to do so.

---

You allowed that it MIGHT have happened - which is rather weak when it definitely DID happen. And it was NOT always stopped by other moderators.

quote:

---

Creationists get no leeway here.

---

They certainly do. You've benefitted from it. And you damn well ought to know it.

quote:

---

Are you forgetting that three moderators moderated IAJ before my actions?

---

No, I'm not. I'm also not forgetting that IaJ needed MORE moderation than he actually got.

quote:

---

I'm not being critical of them for doing so. I'm supporting my claim that we get no leeway just because we're creationists.

---

Pointing out that IaJ got some moderator attention doesn't prove that he wasn't given leeway. ln fact I'd say that he got a lot.

quote:

---

I'm supporting my claim that we get no leeway just because we're creationists. My understanding is that one of my purposes for being moderator is to be representative of the minority constituency when I see the need. Had I opened that thread earlier in the debate, likely I would have said something in one of the earlier pages of the thread.

---

You're not supposed to use moderator powers to try to prop them up. Your position is intended more to help people like IaJ TO follow the rules. Not to encourage him by ignoring his activities and attacking his opponents. Especially not when it requires reopening a dormant thread to do it.

This pretty much confirms that your purpose is to ban criticism of creationists, while permitting all criticism of their opponents.

quote:

---

PaulK, Your bulligerency is typical of why I said what I said. I'm not the perfect moderator, but I've treated you and Jar no worse or better than the treatment IAJ got from those who moderated him.

---

The substance of your complaint is that I criticised you, a creationist. And the treatment of myself specifically - or even Jar- is not the issue here.

quote:

---

Don't expect creationists who take a different position than you to cowtow to everything you claim to be factual.

---

And here we have a completely irrelevant and unfounded dig at me. And a criticism that would be more fairly directed at IaJ in particular.

quote:

---

Whether IAJ always supported his position fully I don't know, but I do know that he was more of a gentleman in his conduct than some of his counterparts and that he put a lot more time and work into the one on many debate than any other single participant did, simply because he had to single handedly debate them all. He deserved better treatment than he got from some members and that's mainly what motivated me to act.

---

I'd dispute that. Consider his exchange with Brian in these messages on Page 9 of the thread.In message 128 IaJ asks three questions (or four since one is really two questions) and only one of which is possibly relevant to the topic (and that is peripheral).Brian answers quite reasonably in message 130In message 131 IaJ quotes Brian's entire message (failing to distinguish between Brian's reply and the quoted section of his earlier post) only to add Brian stays reasonable and writes a quite long reply - message 132 -explaining some of the facts and reasoning relevant to understanding the relevance of Merneptah stele to the history of Israel.The whole of IaJ's reply to that is But you didn't act then. When it might have made a difference. Even when you do look at the thread you don't acknowledge that that exchange even exists.

quote:

---

I stand by my action and so long as I'm a moderator, just like the others I will call it as I see it. I will hold you, Jar and others to the same standard of conduct that is expected of IAJ and the rest of us. You can't tell me that if IAJ treated Jar as Jar consistently treated him that he would have gotten by with doing so -- no way would that have been allowed, nor would he have been allowed to assume the bulligerent meanspirited attitude others expressed towards him on occasion.

---

He got away with the exchange I've quoted above. And probably could have got away with worse.

quote:

---

I stand by my action and so long as I'm a moderator, just like the others I will call it as I see it. I will hold you, Jar and others to the same standard of conduct that is expected of IAJ and the rest of us. You can't tell me that if IAJ treated Jar as Jar consistently treated him that he would have gotten by with doing so -- no way would that have been allowed, nor would he have been allowed to assume the bulligerent meanspirited attitude others expressed towards him on occasion.

---

Of course IaJ could have got away with it. He got away with the exchange above. And a number of off-topic posts. Which you somehow failed to notice.And I'm sure I can find more examples of creationists getting away with worse. Randman certainly did.

[quote] The Forum Guidelines do apply to a reasonable amount of respect for one's counterpart. I saw all the work one member extended into painstakenly responding to a host of counterparts, who obviously chose to engage with him in the topic. At one point I recall Brian saying he saw where IAJ "was coming from" on a particular point et al.
[/quiote]That may be what you "saw". It isn't what's in the thread.

quote:

---

As for IAJ being absent, I thought I saw an August 10 date of one of his posts, perhaps in that thread. I'll have to check that out.

---

That's pretty easy to do. He did post on Aug 10 to the "Adam was Created on the 3rd Day" thread. But the thread we are discussing has been inactive since 31st June.

quote:

---

Some of the members who engaged in the thread were able to do so without being meanspirited. Imo, Paulk and Jar in particular have a fairly consistent caustic attitude toward creationist counterparts. I believe you at one time that I registered a complaint about Jar's caustic behavior advised me to the effect that I should deal with it as moderator instead of whining or something like that.

---

Jar can defend himself. But you have no valid ground for objecting to my pointing out the blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations that many creationists post. Again, if you were really interested in helping the creationist side you should be policing this sort of thing.

quote:

---

It seems that my role as Biblical creationist moderator for balance gets a lot less support from the team and a lot more flack than I had hoped for. I don't think I was being more picky on these people than other mods are on occasion. We all make our mistakes and we all have our times when we see the need to deal with what we may see and others don't.

---

The fact that you were acting AGAINST balance probably has a lot to do with the lack of support. Moderation already favours the creationist side. It needs no correction.And none of the other mods resurrect threads 12 days after the last post to make completely one-sided assessments. If the sides were reversed you would be complaining loudly about the unfair moderation. And for once you'd be right to do so.

quote:

---

I don't see IAJ as an idiot as you appear to have implied in the saying. If you really think he's that bad, maybe it's time to let him go. He cited some links supportive of his position meaning that there were at least some other significant creationist sites who's position was as his was and I'm quite sure they're not all that idiotic.

---

Anybody can set up a website. And citing a website doesn't mean that it supports IaJ's claims. You should know that. In the big fuss over your last departure you cited an idiotic website AND one which in fact contradicted you.

quote:

---

One of his counterparts (don't remember who) at one time criticized him for using creo links, but hey, what ta heck is a creo to do in debate? Use links supportive of the opposition's position?

---

Well, I would suggest using accurate and reliable websites instead. If the creationist can't find any then it's time for the intellectually honest creationist to reassess his position.