|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1792 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So if we are dealing with something that is the result of transliteration and/or translation it should count as a similarity. But that's not a similarity. That's an explanation for why they're not the same. And that's fine! As you'll recall, I was completely accepting of that explanation every time it was offered. But it's completely besides the point. It was besides the point every time it was raised. You can't just present a situation where a putative historic figure who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later have rise to a mythological figure who was named Jesus Christ who did miracles, was a carpenter, gave the Sermon on the Mount, magnified the fishes and loaves, was executed by the Romans, and rose from his grave three days later, just say "well, obviously the name could be a transliteration of the name of the historical figure!" and that's that. How on Earth does that address the point? I mean almost every single one of you said "Jesus is a Greek transliteration of Joshua" as though that settled the issue. And I agreed, Jesus is a Greek transliteration of Joshua. And? How does that even begin to address the point? It didn't then, it doesn't now, but you kept acting like it settled the entire issue and I just wasn't paying attention. But I was paying attention, which is why I stated that Jesus is a Greek transliteration of Joshua every time that it came up. You successfully communicated that to me, I didn't misunderstand. It just didn't address my point, I kept telling you that it didn't, and in response you presented an argument that it did address which you then attributed to me. Unintentionally, I'm sure, but that's nevertheless what happened. Again, please, a new thread if you'd like to pursue this further. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic hidden
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Clearly rational discussion with you on this point is impossible. You think that similar things aren't similar, you think that insignificant differences must be taken as significant. And much, much more. But thanks for proving my point about where the problem is. It's not me - it's you. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic hidden
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1792 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
t's not me - it's you. How do you think you've proven that it's me and not you? You admitted you were wrong in Message 39, and you've been rebutted throughout. I've politely asked you to open a new thread on this several times; you've refused to in every post, driving us further off-topic. Yes, PaulK, there's someone here in this thread who's allowing his negative emotions about his opponent to derail substantive discussion. Who would honestly believe that it's the participant who affirmed his genuine respect for his opponent:
quote: in Message 183, versus the one who said
quote: in Message 467? Look, I don't intend this thread, or any thread, to be an airing of past grievances against me. I'm just not that kind of guy, and truth be told, I just don't spend that much time remembering an individual history for participants at EvC. But a number of you have nominated yourselves to pop up and detail how I've wronged you, even in threads where it doesn't seem to be on topic, and I'm entitled to defend myself from misrepresentations of history and my arguments. I didn't make PaulK show up here and completely misrepresent my arguments in the Jesus thread, and if anyone can present a reasonable hypothesis for how my actions caused him to do that, I'll immediately change my behavior. I don't see how they could have. But, doubtless, a lot of you will nevertheless determine that the last eleven posts were all somehow my fault. If that sounds like you, you might wish to ask yourself if you're yet another person who has an irrational emotional response when you see that frog in that car over to the left, well in excess of a reasonable response to what I've actually said. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic hidden
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 897 Joined: |
Actually, that's something I'd like a moderator ruling on, since none of you have said one way or the other. If I respond to an argument my opponent didn't make, but I do so in a way that I'm implying like he made it, or at the very least I'm acting like he made it, is that a form of misrepresentation? Intentional or otherwise, just for the record - would that be a form of misrepresentation? Case by case basis. Whether someone misrepresented someone, and whether that constitutes a serious enough problem to warrant action is not something that can be defined in a straightforward manner.
This is inaccurate. Hooah did not construct an example where "black people had privilege." So he could not have been responding to my response to an example that wasn't given. Whether he succeeded or not is not a matter I'm going to discuss. That was clearly his intention.
Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood? Yes, you thought that in hooah's example the white person had privilege, but he intended for it to be understand that the black people held the privilege.
Did I misunderstand him when he called my statements lies in that message? An unpleasant way of saying that your new statements seem to run counter to early ones. Which was hooah's overall point.
Are you sure you didn't misunderstand (or, perhaps, misrepresent) Hooah's post, here? I suppose I could have been under the mistaken impression that hooah was trying to construct a scenario where the black people had the privilege to see if you would be prepared to call their actions racist.
quote: No, it looks like my understanding of hooah is pretty much what he was trying to represent.
Has anybody criticized Hooah's execution of it? I raised hooah's potentially poor execution as a possible reason for the issue.
The only one anyone seems to want to criticize is me. quote: I appreciate your look, but you don't seem to be done, yet. Is it your contention that every one of the seven examples I've given so far has just been a "misunderstanding"? Are you sure that's the case? Before you arrive at that conclusion, could you please look at each one, and consider them as a pattern and not merely individual isolated cases each to consider in the light of the maximally generous interpretation for my opponents? I'm really not sure that's going to improve your mood, but here's what I made of a few of them Your citing of Message 376 falls down as that is a question about your position, not a representation of your position. For some reason when you quoted it you omitted the words 'Are you citing' and the question mark at the end. You then changed the word 'as' to 'is'. In Message 369, Straggler said "you have effectively defined", indicating that Straggler believes that your position amounts to that, not that he was saying you had explicitly stated that as your position.
Message 316 is a conditional. You quoted hooah as saying 'you think it's a-ok to be racist as long as you aren't white.' When what he actually said was " I said that racism is not dependent on race to be qualified as racism. Black people can be just as racist as white people. It's about seeking equality, something you will never be able to do if you think it's a-ok to be racist as long as you aren't white." This seems a reasonable, though not particularly eloquent, continuation of the argument that black people can be racist to white people or any other race, even when they lack the privilege to institutionalise that racism or enact some kind of policy or whatever. With Message 312, I will grant that hooah didn't quite get it right - but you did introduce 'upsetness' as a flag of sorts for racism.
Message 288, you omitted the 'So' and the question mark.
Message 282 was Straggler saying he was not convinced of the misogyny or sexism in EG's actions, which he says runs in contrast with 'lots of blog entries' that cite it as a 'prime example of sexism in action'. How is that misrepresenting you? Are you one of those blog entries? Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1792 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yes, you thought that in hooah's example the white person had privilege, but he intended for it to be understand that the black people held the privilege. No, not true. Again, I understood that he intended to present an example of where black people had the privilege. I mean, duh, I'm not an idiot. But I made a convincing argument that he failed to do so, which constituted my reply. In this case you appear to have misunderstood me, rather than me misunderstanding Hooah. Surely Hooah's arguments are not so universally convincing that to dispute them is to prove that one has not understood them? (I would not even ascribe such power to my own posts.) And again, we're speaking specifically about positions misattributed to me, so I'd like to repeat my question from earlier:
quote: If your answer is "no, that wasn't the misunderstanding" that would seem to be your admission that I correctly understood that Hooah had attributed to me a position I don't hold. Could you address this? It's the central point, and I'd like it to not be lost in your general habit of addressing peripheral statements and asides while ignoring the main point.
I'm really not sure that's going to improve your mood My mood is calm and rational. Have I given any indication to the contrary? Rahvin asked that this be discussed in this thread, Admin asked me for more evidence for what I've asserted, and I'm perfectly happy to oblige. Contrary to your earlier imprecations I'm perfectly happy to have you take a look at this regardless of your decision. My only objection is with being dismissed as a paranoid delusional by people who have not actually reviewed the situation.
Your citing of Message 376 falls down as that is a question about your position, not a representation of your position. Irrelevant. It's called a "loaded question." A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the discussion to date might easily be mislead, since they would assume that Straggler would have no reason to ask that question unless I'd said something like it. This stands as an example of a position attributed to me that I don't hold. Straggler has already admitted to doing so on the basis of his misunderstanding and my lack of clarity, and I accept that.
In Message 369, Straggler said "you have effectively defined", indicating that Straggler believes that your position amounts to that, not that he was saying you had explicitly stated that as your position. Um, I don't see the difference. It's precisely Straggler's act of asserting my position amounts to something it doesn't amount to where he's misrepresenting it. This stands as an example of misrepresentation - again, unintentional I'm sure.
This seems a reasonable, though not particularly eloquent, continuation of the argument that black people can be racist to white people or any other race, even when they lack the privilege to institutionalise that racism or enact some kind of policy or whatever. What argument are you referring to? Hooah didn't make that argument, so how could he "continue" it?
With Message 312, I will grant that hooah didn't quite get it right Ok, so there's the one example where you actually do admit that Hooah misrepresented my position.
Message 288, you omitted the 'So' and the question mark. ...And?
Message 282 was Straggler saying he was not convinced of the misogyny or sexism in EG's actions, which he says runs in contrast with 'lots of blog entries' that cite it as a 'prime example of sexism in action'. That's not what Straggler said. He said that he was "unconvinced that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts." Reading that statement now, don't you get the impression that he's referring to an argument someone made, trying to convince him that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts? But since no such argument was made, isn't that an attempt to attribute to someone, at least, an argument that they did not make? So, just to sum up, we have 5 examples that you misunderstood, 1 you admitted was an example of misrepresentation of my argument, and 1 you simply didn't make any kind of ruling about at all. Again, I'm not asking that these be considered examples of "actionable misrepresentation" - which is a new category of misrepresentation introduced by you - merely as examples that I'm not making this shit up because I'm a paranoid delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 897 Joined:
|
Again, I understood that he intended to present an example of where black people had the privilege. I mean, duh, I'm not an idiot. I see.
But I made a convincing argument that he failed to do so, which constituted my reply. You did? I thought you said it wasn't racist and then said that SWPL is not racist. What was the convincing argument that he had failed to construct a scenario in which black people had privilege? Another way to look at it is that you were just arguing that it was fine for a black person to say 'White people can't play ball' (which would make it a bit like SWPL I suppose), but hooah's example has them denying the white person the opportunity to play ball. Perhaps you missed that? Perhaps there is some alternative I'm not seeing.
Could you be more specific about what I misunderstood? Yes, you thought that in hooah's example the white person had privilege, but he intended for it to be understand that the black people held the privilege. I appreciate that you claim not to have misunderstood this, but that is what I was referring to. Maybe you misunderstood it in the way described above. If you understood hooah's intention and meaning fully, your reply to him looks pretty misleading to me - and I can't fault him for being misled.
...was it that I misunderstood that he was attributing that position to me? I'm not sure further explanation will get us anywhere. Hooah believed that he had presented an example where black people had privilege and were racially discriminating. When you said that wasn't racist, he criticised you for it. He believed you held the position that when black people held privilege they still wouldn't be being racist, as that is how you had responded to him.
My mood is calm and rational. Have I given any indication to the contrary? I wasn't implying your mood was uncalm or irrational.
Irrelevant. It's called a "loaded question." A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the discussion to date might easily be mislead, since they would assume that Straggler would have no reason to ask that question unless I'd said something like it. This stands as an example of a position attributed to me that I don't hold. Straggler has already admitted to doing so on the basis of his misunderstanding and my lack of clarity, and I accept that. It's not a loaded question. If you answer 'no', the follow up would just be 'can you provide such an example?'. I see no unjustified or controversial assumptions built into the question here. I don't think anybody reading that would reasonably infer anything incorrect about your position.
Um, I don't see the difference. It's precisely Straggler's act of asserting my position amounts to something it doesn't amount to where he's misrepresenting it. This stands as an example of misrepresentation - again, unintentional I'm sure. If your opponent is wrong about what your position leads to, that isn't misrepresentation. Or if you want to say that it technically is on some level, it's certainly not the kind of thing that will get moderator intervention - as it would be unworkable and if applied fairly it would kill discussion dead.
the argument that black people can be racist to white people or any other race, even when they lack the privilege to institutionalise that racism or enact some kind of policy or whatever. What argument are you referring to? Hooah didn't make that argument, so how could he "continue" it? He made it in Message 312,
quote: And back in Message 291 he said
quote: Hooah was clearly of the opinion that one can be racist without having privilege and was making that argument.
...And? That means it wasn't a representation of your position, but a viewpoint as to what your position implies. It's perfectly fine in an argument to use the 'so you think x, then?' line of attack. I mean it can be used problematically, of course. But just because someone says 'So then x?' and you don't agree with x, that isn't necessarily misrepresentation.
Message 282 was Straggler saying he was not convinced of the misogyny or sexism in EG's actions, which he says runs in contrast with 'lots of blog entries' that cite it as a 'prime example of sexism in action'. That's not what Straggler said. He said that he was "unconvinced that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts." It's a pretty close description of what Straggler said, indeed what he said exactly was
quote: Some blogs said it was sexism, Straggler is unconvinced that it was either sexist or the exhibition of misogynistic thoughts. Where's the misrepresentation of your position?
Reading that statement now, don't you get the impression that he's referring to an argument someone made, trying to convince him that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts? I thought he was referring to some blog posts. I got that from where he said 'I've found lots of blog entries citing the elevator-gate incident as some sort of prime example of sexism in action'
Again, I'm not asking that these be considered examples of "actionable misrepresentation" - which is a new category of misrepresentation introduced by you - merely as examples that I'm not making this shit up because I'm a paranoid delusional. Whether or not misrepresentation is something that can be acted upon is not a concept invented by me. Since in debates, people regularly misunderstand what their opponents are arguing - the charge 'misrepresentation' as a debate problem is a difficult one to establish. I would normally look for some intent to deceive in place, or some other egregious act. As I said, I don't think there is any particular act of misrepresentation going on here. At best your opponents are trying to demonstrate problems with their perception of your position. I guess its up to you how much work you want to put into explaining the errors in their perception before you give your opponents up as hopeless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1792 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What was the convincing argument that he had failed to construct a scenario in which black people had privilege? It was Message 408, and the reason I know it was convincing was that he stopped using the example.
Yes, you thought that in hooah's example the white person had privilege, but he intended for it to be understand that the black people held the privilege. But.. that's not a misunderstanding, that's my argument. (If I were Rrhain, I'd be making some kind of "boggle" type remark because I'm really boggling at this.) Look, Mod, you're not making any sense. I didn't misunderstand Hooah's example, I refuted it. Do you really not understand the difference? Again, am I supposed to treat Hooah's arguments as so inherently convincing that to not be convinced by them is to be taken as proof that they weren't understood? That's absurd - doubly absurd to suggest that Hooah, of all people, is the one of us capable of arguments of such power. You're just not making any sense. I think you're scrambling to defend your erroneous conclusion than I've misunderstood Hooah in some way, when it's clear that I haven't.
I'm not sure further explanation will get us anywhere. I'm not asking you to explain, I'm asking you to answer a simple question. Did I misunderstand Hooah when I understood that he attributed to me the position that
quote: or not? Was that a misunderstanding on my part, and if it was, why did he agree that he had attributed that position to me in Message 410? And if not, is that my position? And if it isn't, isn't it a misrepresentation to attribute it to me? Can you please answer these questions?
I wasn't implying your mood was uncalm or irrational. Fair enough, but then let's leave my mood out of it, ok? Remember, "argue the position, not the person."
Or if you want to say that it technically is on some level, it's certainly not the kind of thing that will get moderator intervention - as it would be unworkable and if applied fairly it would kill discussion dead. That's fair. Like I said, I'm not looking for moderator intervention on something like that unless it keeps happening over and over again and genuinely disrupts conversation. What I would like it to lead to is the recognition among moderators that people are misrepresenting me and it's not just something I'm making up out of paranoid delusion. How does that sound?
He made it in Message 312, I don't see the argument you refer to in Message 312, but maybe I'm just missing it in between all the times I'm called a "honky" and a "cracker" which isn't racist, but are certainly violations of the forum guidelines. I dunno, I guess personal attacks make it kind of hard for me to see whatever argument you think you're referring to in there. For instance I don't see the word "institutionalize" in any of that.
That means it wasn't a representation of your position, but a viewpoint as to what your position implies. How, exactly? How do you get "viewpoint of the implication", whatever that means, out of "So" and a question mark. How does that work? Can you show me in a dictionary or something where the word "so" plus a question mark is defined as a "viewpoint to what one's position implies"?
Where's the misrepresentation of your position? It's the part where he attributes to me the position that "Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts." Since that's not my position, but it was attributed to me as though it was, that's a misrepresentation of my position.
I thought he was referring to some blog posts. I asked him several times who had asked him to be convinced that Elevator Guy had misogynistic thoughts. If the answer is "blog posts", why didn't he say "blog posts"?
I got that from where he said 'I've found lots of blog entries citing the elevator-gate incident as some sort of prime example of sexism in action' But he doesn't say "misogynistic thoughts", does he? So that's not a statement of his saying that "blog posts" are asking him to be convinced that Elevator Guy was exhibiting misogynistic thoughts. Straggler never attributed that to "blog posts"; by implication, he attributed them to me.
Whether or not misrepresentation is something that can be acted upon is not a concept invented by me. In this discussion, you're the one who introduced the idea of "actionable misrepresentation." I don't care whether it's actionable or not - I'm not a moderator, I have no reason to be concerned about that. I'm very concerned about getting the moderators who accused me of paranoid delusion - which is a pretty serious accusation as well as a deeply personal attack - to recognize that, in fact, people are misrepresenting my arguments just exactly as I said.
As I said, I don't think there is any particular act of misrepresentation going on here. Well, yes, you do. You said so:
quote: "It", being, his representation of my argument. Again, I'm not asking for Hooah to be punished on the basis of it. I've not asked for anyone to be punished. I'm asking for moderators to acknowledge what is plainly at the end of their own noses, something that now includes the text of your own posts, Mod.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 897 Joined: |
I've given my view of the situation. I looked at your examples. I answered questions you asked of me regarding my position on it, though I appreciate not fully to your satisfaction. Experience tells me that continuing in this vain will be futile and counter-productive.
Sorry if you didn't get what you wanted from me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1792 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Experience tells me that continuing in this vain will be futile and counter-productive. Yes, it's certainly been my experience that discussing moderation issues with you is futile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
Your post just confirmed what evil sons of bitches people from the UK are. Go crawl back under the rock you came from you slimeball. Do we really have to continue to put up with this abuse? Dr. A made a very well presented refutation to a lame assertion by Forever and instead of a defense of his original comments FEY responds with this. ABEI see the Moose is on duty, I guess the plan is to give FEY more rope to hang himself. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3968 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Why do we put up with this idiot? Moose has just closed a perfectly respectable, topical, and interesting thread (and I don't blame Moose) because it has been trolled by FEY, and others simply can't help feeding the troll. We're not remedial school, we're not here to handhold some angsty teenager through pubescence, and I don't see why discussion and debate should be curtailed because of one immature poster.
And this has nothing at all to do with that twit jeering everyone in sight, resulting in me losing my perfect 10 score. Not at all. Doesn't bother me one bit. Nope. Did I mention it was 10 before he starting being a twat?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Why do we put up with this idiot? Moose has just closed a perfectly respectable, topical, and interesting thread (and I don't blame Moose) because it has been trolled by FEY, and others simply can't help feeding the troll. We're not remedial school, we're not here to handhold some angsty teenager through pubescence, and I don't see why discussion and debate should be curtailed because of one immature poster. Because he has a spark of intelligence and morality in him. Deep down inside him, I believe, there is a good and sane person fighting to get out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member (Idle past 200 days) Posts: 4001 From: Adirondackia Joined:
|
Adminnemooseus writes: A fool and fools chasing the fool (OSLT). Apologies to topic started Straggler, who was not one of the fools. Adminnemooseus Gee, I wonder how that could have happened? The Kid has learned he can spit, scream and post pure insult here without consequence. So he does. Undisciplined kids are like that. We have terms for parents who let kids do that in public places; "moderator" ain't among 'em. If you want to pinpoint the foolishness that derailed that thread, check out the fellow calling other people fools. It's right at the end of the thread."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2620 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
cavediver writes:
Quite. You know what would've been a perfectly viable solution? Asking him to stop posting to that thread. Problem would've resolved itself within 10 messages after the request, and we could've had a reasonable discussion about the glory of a true European Union / World Government. And this has nothing at all to do with that twit jeering everyone in sight, resulting in me losing my perfect 10 score. Not at all. Doesn't bother me one bit. Nope. Did I mention it was 10 before he starting being a twat? I think....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18061 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
RPG.net has the concept of a "thread ban". Maybe the moderators here should be using it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025