Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 2:12 AM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 3 of 134 (446379)
01-06-2008 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 11:04 PM


Re: PD
molbio, my reaction to reading that thread was, "wow, what's gotten into her."

like it or not, there will always be some degree of trash-talk here, and two of those three are pretty much under the radar. but you lost your cool.

try not to let stupid things people say on the internet get to you too much. PD's warning was at both of you, and looks entirely fair to me. it's just a warning to behave, not a suspension.

edit: though it does look like he kept it going...

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 11:04 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 6:59 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 50 by obvious Child, posted 01-08-2008 7:22 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 53 of 134 (447363)
01-09-2008 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by obvious Child
01-08-2008 7:22 PM


Re: PD
But this entire thread seems nothing more then whiner channel. So someone called you this or that, are we to sanitize everything?

no, and that is not the purpose. this thread (the whining channel) is precisely what ensures that. you will find many complaints that when aired get shot down pretty quickly. you will also find that evos often defend creationists here, from inappropriate moderator action.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by obvious Child, posted 01-08-2008 7:22 PM obvious Child has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 76 of 134 (449192)
01-17-2008 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by macaroniandcheese
01-15-2008 9:27 AM


Re: "ongoing crankiness"
but. since when is "ongoing crankiness" against the forum rules?

stop acting like a troll, yelling at other people (even in lowercase), and infusing your posts with profanity to demonstrate your frustration. you insist that you take [don't] this place seriously, but sometimes you get into pissing matches.

seriously, you know i love you and all, but you also know that sometimes you just gotta chill the fuck out.

Edited by arachnophilia, : oy catching typos too late


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-15-2008 9:27 AM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 2:31 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 80 of 134 (449986)
01-20-2008 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 2:57 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
Tell that to NJ. He is the only one who ever brings up rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, murder, etc. when discussing sexuality. That is not arguing the position. Since he is the only one who ever does it, it is his responsibility to explain why he immediately jumps to visions of raping his infant son while blowing the family dog when he thinks of having sex with someone of the same sex.

How is my calling on him to justify his rhetoric "arguing the person" when his rhetoric is not?

*blinks* you did not just say that, did you?

seriously rrhain, characterizing your opponent as fantasizing about raping babies and felating canines is the very definition of ad hominem. not to mention a clear misrepresentation of NJ, nevermind his argument. two wrongs do not make a right.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 2:57 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2008 4:14 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 82 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 4:25 AM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 98 of 134 (450065)
01-20-2008 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Rrhain
01-20-2008 4:25 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
Then why does NJ keep bringing it up? The thought never appears in any post until NJ decides to tell us what he thinks and apparently when he thinks of having sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately starts to think about raping his infant son.

see, there you go again.

But since there is no connection to sexual orientation and rape, incest, pedophilia, drug use, murder, etc., why is it that NJ keeps equating being gay with all of the above. What is it about the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex that makes him immediately envision raping his infant son?

and again.

If it's unacceptable when I do it, how is it of no concern when he does it?

NJ, nearest i can tell, is arguing that allowing homosexuality opens the door for other forms of sexual deviations that he feels are wrong. his logic may be flawed and his connotation insulting... but you're directly calling him a rapist and a pedophile. do you honestly not understand the difference?

Surely you're not saying that the problem is that I'm being graphic while he maintains the use of clinical terms...that this is just a question of semantics, are you?

yes, actually, it is about how you're phrasing your argument. when you phrase it as an attack on your opponent, it is an ad hominem.

That when he equivocates gay people to rapists, we shouldn't be thinking of an actual act of rape? That when he equivocates gay people to pedophiles, we shouldn't think of an actual child being molested? That when he equates gay people to those who commit incest, we shouldn't think of people actually being exploited?

and he has said repeatedly that this is not what he's trying to do. perhaps you feel he is, but you are rather basically misrepresenting his argument... and then attacking him for it.

If it is inappropriate to apply the actual acts to him that he accuses gay people of promoting, then surely it is inappropriate to apply them to gay people.

yes, but one of them is against the forum rules, and the other is a bigotted position you should argue against as opposed to flinging poo.

Or are you also arguing that gay people are incestuous rapers of children?

yes, rrhain, everyone who expects you to behave yourself like an adult is a baby-raper.

I never said it did. But here's a hint: Three wrongs don't make a right, either.

you know, it's rather hard to claim to have the moral high ground when you're content to sling mud down in the gutter with the worst of them. i don't care if you think your mud is cleaner, or that it's justified. just try to behave yourself and not attack other forum members.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 4:25 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Rrhain, posted 01-21-2008 4:15 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 99 of 134 (450067)
01-20-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
01-20-2008 4:14 AM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
I agree that characterizing NJ as actually fantasizing about this stuff is too far,

that's really all i'm saying. rrhain doesn't seem to understand that this behaviour is totally inappropriate, and comes whining here when an admin tells both him and NJ to cut it out.

in every thread about homosexuality, has done this. He equates homosexuality to pedophilia, rape, and bestiality in every thread he participates in where the morality or legality of homosexuality or gay marriage are discussed.

christianity has a very small definition of what is morally accepted sex. they tend to feel that if the state opens the door for one of the things they consider unacceptable, the rest will come through with it. perhaps the thread could argue against that position instead of merely attacking the person who feels that way.

Personally, since NJ seems to like to use such threads as an outlet for his hate speech and doesnt like to debate honestly about such topics, I think he should be barred from discussions on homosexuality. He has the right to his beliefs and opinions, but he's not bringing any form of debate to the table, just offensive hate speech.

if that's the case, that's for the moderators to say. but hate-speech in return is not the answer.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2008 4:14 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Rrhain, posted 01-21-2008 5:05 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 101 of 134 (450089)
01-20-2008 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2008 2:31 PM


Re: "ongoing crankiness"
But I know you two are friends outside of this place, and I'd hate to see you two getting mad at each other over something that could be spoken about quietly outside of this place.

I don't wanna see you two in a tiff.

nah. we're cool. like that was supposed to say, she doesn't take this place too seriously, and sometimes she just needs to be reminded of that and not get so worked up over stuff.

besides, we're kinda strange people who communicate jokingly through insults. strange sense of humor, but it fully allows for her to tell me when i'm being a fucktard and vice versa.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 2:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 115 of 134 (450373)
01-21-2008 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Rrhain
01-21-2008 4:15 PM


Re: NJ's incestuous same-sex rape fantasies and same-sex marriage
edit: seems admin action has taken place, didn't see it before i posted. post hidden.

Yep. And until we get a ruling from the admins that it is ALWAYS unacceptable to make the blanket claim that anybody or any number of people are incestuous, pedophilic rapists, then I shall keep doing it.

in other words, you know the rules, but you're going to keep breaking them because you don't understand the rules.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is no problem with NJ declaring gays to be incestuous, pedophilic rapists, why is it a problem to turn that prejudice back around on him? He's the one who brought it up.

because attacking your opponent in debate instead of his argument is a very basic logical fallacy and disrupts the flow of civil debate on the site. i understand that you think you are attacking his argument by using it against him, but that's irrelevent. you are attacking a member of the board.

Now, I'm not saying that NJ is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist.

just like rush limbaugh wasn't saying all drug addicts should go to jail? the body of your posts disagrees with you. you repeatedly asked NJ why he fantasized about raping his infant son. i would call that an accusation that he is an incestuous pedophiliac rapist. perhaps, rrhain, the more important question at hand is why are you obsessed with imagining him doing such things? there's a certain logical disconnect between what he says and what you accuse him of, so one must wonder where this idea in your head is coming from.

I'm simply saying that he thinks about it an awful lot.

on the contrary, you seem to think about it an awful lot. i certainly read nothing about his desires in his posts.

But since he is the only person who ever deigns to think about raping one's infant child when considering the topic of sex between adults, it is not personal to ask him why. It is merely specific.

it seems that you very basically do not understand what "personal" means.

NJ is the one that brought it up. Therefore, he needs to explain why it is that the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex immediately made him think of raping his infant son.

and i explained it to you above, whether or not NJ did. the christian right feels that all these things fall under a broad category of "sexual deviancy" and that if you open the door for one sexual deviancy, the rest will come with it. that is the point you should be arguing against, not what you fantasize about NJ doing.

He's the one who brought it up. Why is it taboo to make him justify it for his own case?

it's not. it's taboo to specifically attack a single person you are engage in debate with. i realize that you think certain positions are disgusting, but turning generally bigotted arguments into specific attacks...

I am attempting to reframe the discussion. Rather than trying to force the justification be of gays, I am having NJ justify straights.

that's fine. attacking him in the process, specifically, is not.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that when he thinks about having sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately starts to think about raping his infant son. That doesn't mean he actually does it. It simply means that he can't help but think about it. And the thought is so compelling that he feels the need to tell us about it. It is up to him to explain why.

Do honestly not understand the difference?

when you get a grasp of what your opponent's argument actually is, feel free to come back and lecture the rest of us on "not understanding the difference."

But it isn't about him personally

then don't attack him personally. is this really so hard to understand?

And we believe him why?

because he's making the argument. he's probably a better source on what he's trying to say than you are.

So what you're saying is that if I tell you repeatedly that I am not trying to say that NJ is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist, that'll be good enough for you?

it's a useful clarification, yes, but your actions are still inappropriate.

Hint: There is a festive clue in there about NJ's defense of his own argument. Can you figure out what it is? Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?

yes, like there is a legal "double" standard that allows the KKK to exist and spew their hate speech, but when they start burning crosses on peoples' lawns they get in trouble. that's not a double standard, it's a standard. and part of it is specificity. do you really not understand this concept? don't personally attack your fellow members.

Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? I do not ask this for my health. It is not rhetorical. I really want to know your answer to that question. For if you do, it would explain a lot about your defense of NJ.

i do not.

If you don't, then we're back where we started with your inability to understand that if NJ's argument shall not be applied to him, then it necessarily means that it shall not be applied to anybody else, either, and he should stop making it.

you're still missing the very basic point. i understand that you feel attacking many people is a lot worse than attacking one person, but generalities and specific attacks are two very different things. you cannot make specific attacks. period.

Since he seems to be incapable of controlling himself, since he seemingly cannot help but tell us all of his visions of raping his infant son when he thinks about sex with someone of the same sex, perhaps he should be told to have those thoughts somewhere else.

and constantly mischaracterizing your opponent in this manner, whether or not you say he is doing these things, is in rather poor taste -- regardless how tasteless you feel NJ's point may be. if you think his behavious is disgusting, don't do it yourself.

And yet, NJ is still allowed to post. If it is against the forum rules, why is NJ still allowed to post?

no, rrhain. try to parse the sentence more carefully, and not live in your own little la-la land. personal attacks are against the forum rules. being a bigot is not.

Again, it's like the idiots in schools who seem to think that the solution to bullying is to punish the ones being bullied for fighting back.

yes, well, when the bullies are fighting with fists, and the bullied brings a gun to school... it's hardly the same thing, is it? but oh, no, wait, that's okay because bullying is wrong, and people should be able to fight back? anything in the name of stopping the people you hate? not much better here, but a whole lot worse.

yes, rrhain, everyone who expects you to behave yourself like an adult is a baby-raper.

Yes, arachnophilia, that's what I'm trying to say. You hit it spot on. Couldn't have nailed it any better. I'm amazed that you were able to read my mind so clearly.

Hint: I didn't really mean that. I know my words seemed to indicate that I did, but I didn't. Perhaps just because somebody says something, that doesn't mean they're telling the truth.

perhaps you should stop fantasizing about people raping babies.

Who said I was claiming the moral high ground?

perhaps that's my problem. you're content to be a bigot too.

What I said I was doing was trying to make a point. Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?

you are held to the same standard. in fact, if there's a double standard, it's that you got off when you personally attacked another poster. i promise that NJ wouldn't have been so lucky.

Three wrongs don't make a right, arachnophilia. If it's wrong when I do it, then it's just as wrong when NJ does it and it is just as wrong to come down on me and not him.

you attacked another member personally. he did not. why do you not understand this?

I have not attacked NJ. I have simply pointed his own argument back against him. If it is personal to have his argument applied to him, then it is personal to have it applied to anybody else.

So why is NJ still allowed to make that personal argument?

congratulations! you have used logic to prove that black is white! i'm sorry, rrhain, but words have meanings. "personally" is when something is directed at a specific person. "general" is when it is not. your logic is faulty.

Edited by arachnophilia, : typos

Edited by arachnophilia, : post hidden


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Rrhain, posted 01-21-2008 4:15 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019