|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Out of curiosity, is there anything in the forum guidelines about supporting one's points... such as, say, the idea that homsoexuality is the same, morally, as rape... with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation? Maybe something about addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument? Maybe, and I know this is a longshot, an admonishment against repeating previous points without further elaboration?
Now, maybe I'm all wacky, but I think that since NJ has heard, over and over down the months and years, the reasons why moral relativists do not consider rape and homosexuality to be moral equivalents, his mindless repitition that we have to do so might just violate a point or two on that list. And while we're on the subject of basic decency, I can't imagine there's anything in the forum rules about treating other members with respect, but maybe there should be. Even if it would occasionally require a judgement call or two. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Dan Carroll writes: 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. It isn't that judgment calls are scary. It's that they're so unreliable, error-prone and subject to individual biases. Right now you want a judgment call to sanction NJ for non-existent guideline violations, but judgment calls are subjective and can go both ways. If guideline enforcement were up to judgment calls then we'd be open to situations where a moderator might consider that you're actually motivated by a desire to make trouble rather than from a sincere belief that an unfairness has been committed, and that you're not interested in constructive dialog but just in complaining ad infinitum to waste as much moderator time as possible because you're angry at their handling of NJ. Participants in threads cannot exert control over what other members say just by claiming offense. Berberry cannot prevent NJ from presenting his homosexuality/bestiality comparison just because he finds it offensive.
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. If this is true then it does constitute a guideline violation, since one of EvC Forum's guidelines requires participants to constructively move discussion forward by offering supporting evidence and argument for positions, and by forthrightly addressing rebuttals, but when spread across multiple threads over weeks of time they can be incredibly hard to detect. If you can document this with links I can take a look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
One month ago:
NJ writes: The use of something like beastiality is primarily to show that if one thing is tolerated, why not another, or another, or another? Jaderis writes: Because they are completely different! And you've been told why (animals cannot give informed consent, nor can children). NJ writes: Animals don't give consent in the wild either. Ever see bulls and cows mate? Or alley cats? Its not consentual. Nator writes: That is ridiculous. I've witnessed horses breed in the pasture. A mare that is not ready will kick the shit out of the stallion if he is too pushy. She allows mating when she is ready, and not before. No response from NJ.
Last week:
NJ writes: Your reasoning goes on thus: I haven't been raped. Since no one has hurt me, rape must be extrapolated and manipulated in to terms that grant its freedom from prohibition. NJ has had it explained to him, less than a month earlier, that a difference in determining the morality between his pet fetishes and homosexuality is consent. He does not respond. He waits a month, chooses rape (which by definition is nonconsensual) as his new comparison, and launches right back into it. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Participants in threads cannot exert control over what other members say just by claiming offense. Berberry cannot prevent NJ from presenting his homosexuality/bestiality comparison just because he finds it offensive. It's worth noting that I haven't asked for NJ to be banned or suspended for making offensive remarks, nor suggested that he shouldn't be allowed to do so. What I've done is goggled, slack-jawed, at Berberry getting suspended for calling him on being offensive. (And right there with Berberry at his anger at moderator insistence that no, NJ's not being offensive.) 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
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? NJ is clearly stating that to the relativist the same moral premise comes into play for both acts. I do not see where NJ is excluding heterosexuality from this moral premise. He is not saying that the same moral premise comes into play in actuality. Do you agree that this means that moral relativists should consider the two morally the same?
So it wasn't ever a comparison, even when you said it was. Yes, it was a comparison. A comparison between the conclusions one draws from applying moral relativity and the conclusions that moral relativists say they have reached. It was not a comparing homosexual relations with cross-species relations in the sense of showing how they are similar.
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. Other than the fact I don't consider it to be at all insulting, just wrong that sounds like a day in the life of EvC in general.
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. This kind of behaviour is called upon when it reaches randman-like levels. I have not seen NJ become as disruptive as randman was with his repetitive claims - of you'd do me the honour of providing me with the links of all the times this has come up I'll happily reassess that opinion.
No, you're quoting him out of context immediately after removing his ability to respond. Except it was in context and I didn't remove his ability to respond. If you would care to explain why you think I am quoting him out of context in more detail we can continue discussing this moderator action otherwise we will just be saying 'is' 'is not' at each other ad infinitum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
This kind of behaviour is called upon when it reaches randman-like levels. But defending yourself against insult is called upon within twenty minutes. Got it. I'm really not gonna bother going back and forth with you anymore on whether NJ meant offense. Don't worry though, I'm sure he meant to imply that moral relativists should also reject heterosexuality. And remember... when you take the test? Peel the banana first. THEN eat it. Common rookie mistake. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
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. Well that's a matter of taste I guess. I found his point sufficiently clear, he claims moral relativity cannot differentiate sexual immorality from morality.
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. 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. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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. I know that you and I most often don't share the same philosophies, but I very much appreciate you clarifying my position. Thank you, Mod. "The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Well obviously that isn't true - consider adultery for instance. Or rape.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
But defending yourself against insult is called upon within twenty minutes. Got it. No. Losing your temper and making insulting comments directed at a particular member does stand you a good chance of getting suspended. Your chances increase in a discussion with several moderators since it is obviously more apparent.
And remember... when you take the test? Peel the banana first. THEN eat it. Common rookie mistake. You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan, but my best judgement is that you just disrespected a member of this forum, namely myself. Right now since you have stated you are not going to continue with the discussion I am going to make a judgement call and not suspend you for 24 hours. If your tone continues on this forum, my best guess is that my judgement call will be to suspend you to cool down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Well obviously that isn't true - consider adultery for instance. Or rape. What is true, is that nemesis' claim is that moral relativity cannot differentiate sexual immorality from morality. Whether the claim is true or not is not really relevant to this discussion - if you are prepared for the firestorm, you can try proposing a topic dedicated to it.
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. NJ finds something wrong with bestiality and he finds something wrong with homosexuality - I'm not sure how you concluded I thought otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You all do realize that we have used up some 80 posts on this one sub topic alone! (Berberry's sensitivity and Nemesis's insensitivity perceptions)
Sheesh! On behalf of all EvC moderators, I apologize for being insensitive, being misunderstood, and/or moderating inappropriately. Now lets move on to other discussion!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
In the case from a month ago, NJ appears to be arguing that if bestiality (I don't believe beastiality is an accepted variant, but maybe someone knows for sure) is judged acceptable, how does one know where to draw the line about anything else.
In the case from a week ago, he appears to be assigning to others the view that it's not possible to reject as wrong acts to which we have not been subjected ourselves. I can't see how these are the same thing. Can you find a case where he repeatedly ignores the same rebuttal of the same point? Sort of like Randman used to do with Haeckel's drawings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan, but my best judgement is that you just disrespected a member of this forum, namely myself. Your judgement is balls-on accurate. See how easy that is? Suspend if you please. My first response on this thread expected a suspension. "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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024