Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 304 (410794)
07-17-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 10:52 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
First of all, it is not a comparison it is an alleged statement of fact that needs to be backed by evidence were you to seriously propose it. This is not comparable to nemesis' statements in any way whatsoever since he did not say that all gay people have sex with animals.
Fine. Amend it to "if you support the right of Christians to worship freely, you have no reason for not supporting the rape of goats."
And no, I feel no need to back it up with evidence. It has exactly as much support as NJ's statements do.
Second, whim does not count as a valid reason to make a statement.
NJ's posts, paired with Berberry's suspension, adequately counter this statement all on their own.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 10:52 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 11:32 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 304 (410796)
07-17-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Admin
07-17-2007 10:54 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
I understand he's upset, but this can't go on for days and days while moderators trial-and-error their way toward the proper words but in the meantime just become substitute targets.
Yeah... in this vast, complex tapestry of trial and error, that has no doubt taxed the cunning and ingenuity of the moderators to their very limit, you know what hasn't been tried? The statement, "NJ, stop being a prick." In fact, there has been a great deal of support for him on the side of the moderators, including the repeated suggestion that he's making a perfectly valid comparison between Berberry and a rapist.
Of course, "stop being a prick" is just how I'd phrase it. (What with all the prickitry.) But then, I haven't seen anything along the lines "NJ, support the comparison or drop it" either.
If you'd like to take responsibility for coaxing him back into a realization that we're not his enemies and into conformity at least of a sort with the Forum Guidelines I'd be more than happy to unsuspend him.
I make it a point not to try and coax people into realizations with which I disagree.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Admin, posted 07-17-2007 10:54 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Admin, posted 07-17-2007 12:31 PM Dan Carroll has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 63 of 304 (410798)
07-17-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dan Carroll
07-17-2007 10:25 AM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
This would be a valid point, if NJ had, at any time, pointed out what objective act involved in homosexuality is comparable to rape and/or bestiality, and how it is comparable.
They are both sexual acts. However, relativists see them as morally different. What nemesis was trying to demonstrate that relativists have no basis to differentiate the two acts, whereas he does - thus elevating his moral framework (absolutism) as superior.
Let's not confuse this for an intelligent criticism of Berberry's lifestyle which he doesn't like hearing, because it's fucking well not.
Nor was it intended to be. It was intended to be an intelligent criticism of moral relativity and how as a moral philosophy cannot differentiate between homosexuality and bestiality.
All NJ is doing is saying "they're the same, they're the same, whee!" over and over again.
It is extraordinarily simple to directly quote NJ as saying the contrary. From Message 1 and beyond:
NJ writes:
I'm not equivocating homosexuals to dogs. I'm merely showing that moral relativism is a bit absurd when you view it in these contexts.
NJ writes:
What difference is there if its all relative? You are making it sound as if marrying dogs and children is an immoral action.
From this very thread:
NJ writes:
I don't make comparisons between homosexuals and animals. What I do is show why if you should morally support one, why don't you morally support the other by the same premise?
NJ writes:
Me showing you how your relative morals really aren't relative is me showing you how your hypocrisy knows no end.
It is quite clear that NJ isn't saying they are the same, but instead asking why don't relativists consider them morally equivalent.
His comparison is, to carry your metaphor, a baby-raper comparison, not a mental abuse comparison.
I've looked through a few NJ posts as you can see and I find nothing where he directly compares homosexuals to zoophiles concluding that they are similar - instead he concludes that the relativist philosophy demands they be viewed equally but relativists do not - which, contends NJ, is hypocrisy.
If you can find some post where NJ states that in his moral framework, bestiality and homosexuality are equivalent, then I'd see your point. If you find one, please link to it so that I can read it. I'm not going to sanction somebody for criticising a philosophy, I'm sure you understand that would eliminate any debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 10:25 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Chiroptera, posted 07-17-2007 11:39 AM AdminModulous has not replied
 Message 66 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 11:39 AM AdminModulous has not replied
 Message 84 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2007 2:05 PM AdminModulous has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 64 of 304 (410799)
07-17-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dan Carroll
07-17-2007 11:03 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
"if you support the right of Christians to worship freely, you have no reason for not supporting the rape of goats."
Sounds like a fine opening - I'd like to see the reasoning now I can try and make one for you:
In order for Christians to worship freely they must be allowed sacrifice animals in a way that is not sanctioned by a government body (otherwise it wouldn't be free). Government sanction is there to ensure that the animals are slaughtered in a humane way. If Christians are allowed to slaughter in an inhumane way (using the free practice of religion as an excuse) then we should also another group of people to rape goats (far less cruel than a painful death, arguably) if they too use the free practice of religion as justification.
Assuming the premise is true in one or more cases, I'd agree with the conclusion and go on to say that I do not believe that anyone can engage in immoral behaviour under the shield of religion so I do not believe in total freedom of worship.
NJ's posts, paired with Berberry's suspension, adequately counter this statement all on their own.
If you wish to make an actual criticism of moderator policy with links then so be it. However, Percy's comments regarding Berberry's suspension clearly show that whim was not the reason. If you wish to specify something NJ has said which the reason put forward for making said statement was that of whim, please let me know so that I can examine it.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 11:03 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 11:47 AM AdminModulous has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 304 (410802)
07-17-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 11:18 AM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
It was intended to be an intelligent criticism of moral relativity and how as a moral philosophy cannot differentiate between homosexuality and bestiality.
Well, okay, then the next step, after it is explained how a relative moral relativist can distinguish between the two, is to discuss the reasoning.
NJ never does that. In fact, he constantly ignores the reasoning.
Personally, I think he says that homosexuality is the same as bestiality because he likes to say it. It certainly has never been a part of a argument of a discussion that he has showed any interest in following through.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 11:18 AM AdminModulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2007 2:51 PM Chiroptera has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 304 (410803)
07-17-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 11:18 AM


Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
They are both sexual acts.
So is the sex NJ has with his wife, something with which he has no problem. What's your point?
What nemesis was trying to demonstrate that relativists have no basis to differentiate the two acts...
See, that's where you're wrong. He's making absolutely no attempt to demonstrate that fact whatsoever... he's just stating that we don't, over and over again.
It is extraordinarily simple to directly quote NJ as saying the contrary.
Yeah. You quote him saying the contrary in one breath, then quote him going right back to "WHEEEEEEE! THEY'RE THE SAME!" in the next.
It is quite clear that NJ isn't saying they are the same, but instead asking why don't relativists consider them morally equivalent.
And as Chiroptera points out, this difference has been explained to him, over and over and over again, ad nauseum. Really, for years now. He's not innocently asking for an explanation of what he sees as a hypocrisy, because he already knows the difference. He's conflating acts that he wants to associate with one another, with no basis for doing so.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 11:18 AM AdminModulous has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 304 (410805)
07-17-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 11:32 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
In order for Christians to worship freely they must be...
Oops. You've gone farther in your reasoning than NJ. So now you're officially defending a completely fictional NJ, who is far more competent than the genuine article.
But yes, I agree that this fictional NJ is quite persuasive, and just making a neat little point about a philosophy.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 11:32 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 11:54 AM Dan Carroll has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 68 of 304 (410807)
07-17-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dan Carroll
07-17-2007 11:47 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Oops. You've gone farther in your reasoning than NJ. So now you're officially defending a completely fictional NJ, who is far more competent than the genuine article.
But yes, I agree that this fictional NJ is quite persuasive, and just making a neat little point about a philosophy.
I cannot force you to read the words NJ wrote, where he explains why moral relativists should consider the two to be morally equivalent. Nor can I force you to read the posts which agree with NJ that he wasn't comparing homosexual sex to bestiality or even force you to read what I have said and where I have quoted NJ's explanations.
What I can do is this: I can ask you one more time to specify a post where NJ writes whatever disgusting thing regarding this topic. Until then I have nothing further to say since I have said it all several times already and you may refer to my earlier posts if you wish to read it.
Abe: I think berberry's early comments about this might worth adding here though:
berberry writes:
I never said there was no basis whatever for the comparison, I said that there's no way to use the comparison without it being insulting
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 11:47 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 12:05 PM AdminModulous has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 304 (410809)
07-17-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 11:54 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
I cannot force you to read the words NJ wrote, where he explains why moral relativists should consider the two to be morally equivalent.
Nor can I force you to do your fucking job, and view his statements in the context of his history on this forum, and the information we all know he already has. Life, as they say, is difficult.
you may refer to my earlier posts if you wish to read it.
Here's a nifty bit from an earlier post of yours.
quote:
comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
Then it was a comparison, sure, but it was an okay comparison. Now it's not a comparison at all. How odd.
EDIT FOR EDIT: Yes, let's point to Berberry's comments from eight months ago, in response to a completely different statement from a completely different poster. Wow, you really do suck at context.
In fact, let's do it right after fucking suspending him, so he's not here to say what he did and did not mean. Wow, I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 11:54 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 12:32 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 70 of 304 (410815)
07-17-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dan Carroll
07-17-2007 11:11 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Dan Carroll writes:
I understand he's upset, but this can't go on for days and days while moderators trial-and-error their way toward the proper words but in the meantime just become substitute targets.
Yeah... in this vast, complex tapestry of trial and error, that has no doubt taxed the cunning and ingenuity of the moderators to their very limit, you know what hasn't been tried? The statement, "NJ, stop being a prick."
Do you follow the NFL at all? If so, you might know that the NFL rules are formulated so that referees never have to make judgment calls. A player either violated a rule or he didn't, but his intent is never an issue. Hence, a "roughing the quarterback" call does not depend upon whether it was intentional or not, only on whether it happened or not. Similarly, a face mask violation is strictly a function of whether the face mask was touched (minor penalty, 5 yards and a 1st down) or grasped (major penalty, 15 yards and a 1st down). Intention to rough the quarterback or grab the face mask is never a factor in making the call.
As the Forum Guidelines have evolved over the years we've tried to keep this in mind. As much as possible we want to avoid making forum guideline enforcement a judgment call. I don't think we've done anywhere near as well as the NFL in this, but that is our goal, to never make judging a member's intent part of the assessment. Your view of NJ's behavior is a judgment call.
Further, political correctness seems a philosophy best viewed askance. I'd prefer that EvC Forum not serve as a haven for those who are easily offended on some topic or another. The censoring of minority or offensive views is anathema to open discussion.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 11:11 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 12:40 PM Admin has replied
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 07-17-2007 12:53 PM Admin has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 71 of 304 (410816)
07-17-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dan Carroll
07-17-2007 12:05 PM


Context is important
Nor can I force you to do your fucking job, and view his statements in the context of his history on this forum, and the information we all know he already has. Life, as they say, is difficult.
If you have somehow got the impression that I think NJ is not a homophobe let me correct you. I think NJ is a homophobe. However I do not believe that all homophobes believe that homosexual marriage is as bad as marrying a dog. I imagine many do. Perhaps even NJ does. He has not stated that this is the case, he has stated the opposite.
abe: I cannot sanction a homophobe for criticising moral relativism, nor can I sanction a creationist for criticising naturalism nor can I sanction a racist for attacking determinism. Or is that what you think my job as an Admin is?
Then it was a comparison, sure, but it was an okay comparison. Now it's not a comparison at all. How odd.
It was not a comparison in the sense of putting two things side by side and stating they are more similar than not. It wasn't a comparison in the sense of 'homosexual sex is like having sex with another species'. It was a comparison in the sense of demonstration, an demonstration of where moral relativity should lead you. It was not a comparison that NJ subscribes to, according to his own words, but a comparison of what relativists should subscribe to if they are to be consistent with the morality they actually subscribe to.
Yes, let's point to Berberry's comments from eight months ago, in response to a completely different statement from a completely different poster. Wow, you really do suck at context.
Let us examine the context together shall we?
NJ says: I can see that you are a homosexual and that I offended you. You misinterpreted my post. We are discussing morals. If homosexual marriage is okay, relatively speaking, then so is marriage between a man and a child or a woman and a dog.
berberry replies: No it is not, because there is no valid comparison between them. There is only a thinly veiled insult, and I don't for one second believe it wasn't intended.
holmes replies: You need to stop and think about this carefully as you are talking past him. In the very quote you cited he sets the context for his statement as "relatively speaking". He is saying that the comparison would be true for relativists, which he most clearly is not.
berberry replies: holmes, you're reading past what I'm saying. I never said there was no basis whatever for the comparison, I said that there's no way to use the comparison without it being insulting.
The context is clear: This is the start of the very argument we are discussing here his response is to Holmes because Holmes tries to get NJ's point across in a different and clearer fashion after NJ takes insult to NJ's alleged disgusting comparison.
In fact, let's do it right after fucking suspending him, so he's not here to say what he did and did not mean. Wow, I just threw up in my mouth a little.
You really need to calm down a little there. I am not attacking Berberry but showing the origins of the debate and Berberry's own words as to his 'beef' - if Berberry contests that he meant something other than what he said then he is free to comment once his suspension is ended. This thread is not going anywhere in the next week as far as I know.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : bleeding typos *shakes fist*
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 12:05 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 12:55 PM AdminModulous has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 304 (410819)
07-17-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Admin
07-17-2007 12:31 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
As much as possible we want to avoid making forum guideline enforcement a judgment call.
Wouldn't want to go thinking about the reasons for the rules or anything.
Further, political correctness seems a philosophy best viewed askance.
Treating Berberry with a little basic decency is not something I'd refer to as "political correctness."
The censoring of minority or offensive views is anathema to open discussion.
As I've said several times... if NJ had, at any point, followed up with, "And here's WHY I'm comparing them," and offered up anything that hasn't been countered on this forum a thousand times, TO HIM, then great.
He hasn't. It's not censoring of offensive views. It's smacking down someone who's acting like an ass. Instead, you chose to smack down the person to whom he was being an ass.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Admin, posted 07-17-2007 12:31 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Admin, posted 07-17-2007 12:55 PM Dan Carroll has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 73 of 304 (410821)
07-17-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Admin
07-17-2007 12:31 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Admin writes:
... that is our goal, to never make judging a member's intent part of the assessment.
So it comes down to this: A smart crook doesn't get sanctioned but an honest fool does.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Admin, posted 07-17-2007 12:31 PM Admin has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 304 (410822)
07-17-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 12:32 PM


Re: Context is important
However I do not believe that all homophobes believe that homosexual marriage is as bad as marrying a dog. I imagine many do. Perhaps even NJ does. He has not stated that this is the case, he has stated the opposite.
Yes he does. Then he states it again. One of your own quotes shows it.
quote:
What I do is show why if you should morally support one, why don't you morally support the other by the same premise?
His argument presupposes that the same moral premise supports both acts. This moral premise, according to NJ, excludes heterosexuality.
How can this not be read as saying that the two are morally the same?
It was a comparison in the sense of demonstration, an demonstration of where moral relativity should lead you.
So it wasn't ever a comparison, even when you said it was. Hm.
The context is clear: This is the start of the very argument we are discussing here his response is to Holmes because Holmes tries to get NJ's point across in a different and clearer fashion after NJ takes insult to NJ's alleged disgusting comparison.
Then, after a couple months have passed, NJ shows up and repeats his opening, insulting version again, as though nothing was ever said. Somebody points out why he's mistaken. So wait a little while more. Then he starts up again, with the same insulting version. Somebody again points out why he's mistaken. So he waits a while more. Then starts up again, with the same insulting version. Every time somebody points out why he's wrong, he not only completely ignores it, he pretends next time that nothing was ever said to him.
By this point, only a retarded monkey who was thrown out of retarded monkey school for being too retarded and monkeylike to pass the qualifying exams for retarded monkeydom could not realize that NJ really has no desire to discuss moral relativism, and just wants to put the words "homosexual" and "rape" (or "bestiality" or what have you) in the same sentence as many times as possible.
The moderators don't call him on it, because that would require some sort of judgement call, and we all know how scary those can be. So Berberry does, since really, he's the one being repeatedly insulted, over the course of months. Berberry gets suspended.
I am not attacking Berberry...
No, you're quoting him out of context immediately after removing his ability to respond.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 12:32 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Admin, posted 07-17-2007 1:16 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 81 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 1:48 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 75 of 304 (410823)
07-17-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dan Carroll
07-17-2007 12:40 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Dan Carroll writes:
Wouldn't want to go thinking about the reasons for the rules or anything.
We think about them all the time.
Treating Berberry with a little basic decency is not something I'd refer to as "political correctness."
Inability to give your opinion because someone might be offended is the definition of political correctness. "Basic decency" is a judgment call.
He hasn't. It's not censoring of offensive views. It's smacking down someone who's acting like an ass. Instead, you chose to smack down the person to whom he was being an ass.
Berberry's in protective suspension to prevent her from further saying things she may later come to regret during a period where being upset has affected her judgment. And acting like an ass isn't against the Forum Guidelines. If it were we'd have few members.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 12:40 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dan Carroll, posted 07-17-2007 1:09 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 109 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2007 2:23 AM Admin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024