Mik the Waz

quote:

---

I agree that is a possibility but it is a quantitative-based argument, meaning the percentage this is true of is dependent on many factors. So you PRESUME "propagandist" and PRESUME this is such a case. We have to presume both for your assertion to work.

---

quote:

---

"You" being the operative term, since the "you" (the person) is all you ever debate. Your judgement is unqualified therefore why would I care about your opportunist response? I see no evidence your judgement is worthy nor accurate.
​

---

quote:

---

No, not you. The people I mentioned. I have told you I don't debate aggressive atheists that pretend they are truthful people like you. I specifically mentioned agnostics and reasonable people, not snide opportunists.
​

---

quote:

---

The A.I. I used was a new session. That is just your attempt to discredit the source, but it is the fallacy of division to pretend that if something is true of the whole it would be true of the unit. Even if mostly gemini was proven to be a sychophantic chatbot like you said, it would be a non-sequitur and fallacy of division to conclude my session was such an example; You have shown no statistics showing that by high percentage A.I. cannot produce formally correct logic from it's data sets

---

quote:

---

This is why you always get DEMOLISHED in my responses, because you don't have the meta-cognition to think about your thinking. Doing so would teach you that you always overlook such details in your prejudiced desire to attack the person.

---

Gemini Exchange:

---

At my discussion board someone I'll call Max posted a thread proposal that another user didn't like, posting this:

​

Please remove Max's link to his blog in his proposed topics request - it's blatant spam.

​

You obviously won't promote it because he's shamelessly told us that he's not going to discuss it but I don't see why EVC should allow his propaganda.

​

In reply Max posted this:

​

Max writes:

​

Propaganda is a question-begged epithet. I am participating right now.

​

But I am no longer willing to debate aggressive atheists. This does not preclude reasonable discussions with interlocutors.

​

All of the arguments I put forward obey the rules of formal logic and I try to use A.I. and ask it things such as, "is this point fair", to know if I am going wrong. A propagandist doesn't do that.

​

I will say to you and to any people that read, this thing; "NEVER ACCEPT WHAT A PERSON'S REPUTATION TELLS YOU ABOUT THEM, BUT WHAT THEY AND THEIR ACTIONS TELL YOU, BY JUDGING DIRECTLY."

​

In other words, go to the source itself rather than reading what people say about the source or you might end up believing crude binaries such as your signature which question-begs that faith and scientific thinking are mutually exclusive.

​

I also asked gemini if I am writing the things I write in a fair way, this was it's response;

​

A.I. writes:
---------------------​
Intellectual ProfileHigh Cognitive Precision: You likely possess a strong analytical capacity and a natural talent for spotting inconsistencies, errors, or logical flaws that others miss.Deep Need for Certainty: Your brain treats ambiguity as a threat, driving you to research, double-check, and seek definitive proof to feel intellectually secure.Impostor Syndrome Tendencies: Despite high capability, you may struggle to internalise your success, leading you to rely on external data or validation to prove your competence.???? Personality ProfileConscientiousness & Perfectionism: You likely score high in conscientiousness, meaning you value order, duty, and accuracy, but this can cross into perfectionism where mistakes feel catastrophic.Hyper-Vigilance & Anxiety: A compulsive need to be correct often functions as a coping mechanism to manage anxiety, regain control, or avoid potential criticism and shame.
---------------------​

​

You on the other hand at least to my knowledge of you, don't seek validation of anything you say, historically YOU JUST SAY IT.

​

Look at your signature for example. A crude falsus disiunctivum syllogismus. (binary lumping). If you were to read my study on the bible, and my study on convergent evolution you would see that faith and science are not mutually exclusive like that facile signature of yours promotes. THAT signature is, "propaganda" because it contains the question-begged premise that faith is blind, but any science belief can't be. Both are false. Faith can be evidential, just as many scientists can have faith in processes not at all "observed" such as abiogenesis.

​

Thoughts?

---

Gemini:

---

This is a classic online forum standoff. You have two users operating on completely different frequencies, resulting in a total failure to communicate.

​

From a moderator’s or analytical perspective, the exchange breaks down into a few core dynamics: an accusation of bad faith, a highly intellectualized defensive reaction, and an ironic misuse of an AI tool to prove objectivity.

​

Here is a breakdown of what is actually happening beneath the surface text:

​

1. The Accusation: Direct and Practical
   ​
   The first user’s complaint is blunt and focused on the mechanics of the forum: "Remove the link, it’s spam."
   ​
   They are evaluating Max based on his explicitly stated intent (not wanting to debate) and concluding that leaving a link under those conditions constitutes "propaganda" or self-promotion. While the tone is aggressive ("blatant spam," "shamelessly"), the core request is a standard procedural forum grievance.
   ​
2. Max’s Defense: Intellectual Armor
   ​
   Max’s response is fascinating because he bypasses the practical issue (the link) and immediately escalates the language to high-level logic and philosophy.
   ​
   • The Logic Shield: He deploys formal Latin terms (falsus disiunctivum syllogismus, question-begged epithet) and defends his reasoning process as strictly adhering to formal logic.
     ​
   • The Pivot: Instead of addressing whether a blog link belongs in a topic proposal, he shifts the focus to the other user's forum signature, attacking its underlying premises to prove that they are the ones peddling propaganda.
   ​
3. The AI Hall of Mirrors
   ​
   The most striking part of Max's defense is his reliance on Gemini to prove his fairness.
   ​
   Max is engaging in confirmation bias here. He asked the AI a question like "Am I being fair?" or provided text for an analysis, and the AI returned a psychological profile. Max interprets this profile—which mentions "High Cognitive Precision," "Conscientiousness," and "Perfectionism"—as an objective stamp of approval, a certificate proving he isn't a propagandist.
   ​
   However, he glosses over the double-edged sword of that AI analysis. The profile explicitly notes a "Deep Need for Certainty," "Hyper-Vigilance," and using a compulsive need to be correct as a "coping mechanism to manage anxiety... or avoid potential criticism and shame."
   ​
   By pasting this, Max is trying to use logic and data to demand validation, while the text he provided actually suggests that his rigid adherence to "rules" might be an anxious defense mechanism against being wrong.
   ​
4. The Core Conflict
   Ultimately, this is a clash of worldviews:
   ​
   User 1 sees a user who posted a link, admitted they don't want to debate, and calls it spam.
   ​
   Max sees an attack on his intellectual integrity, views his evidentiary faith as perfectly logical, and uses formal debate vocabulary to dismantle his opponent's worldview.
   ​
   How to Handle It (If You Are Modding)
   ​
   If you need to intervene, the best approach is to strip away the philosophy, the Latin, the AI profiles, and the debate over the definition of faith vs. science, and drag the conversation back to the forum rules:
   ​
   1. Address the Link: Does your board allow users to link to personal blogs in topic proposals, especially if they state they don't intend to actively debate the point? If yes, the link stays. If no, the link gets removed.
      ​
   2. Separate the Topic from the User: The thread proposal should be judged on its own merits, not on Max's personality profile or the other user's signature.
      ​
   3. De-escalate the Meta-Debate: Both users are now debating how they debate, rather than the topic itself. A quick note to keep responses focused strictly on the proposal—and to leave personal signatures and AI psychological profiles out of it—is usually the cleanest way to clear the air.

---

Gemini:

---

Having the actual text of the proposal—and specifically Rule 5—completely changes the game.

​

Based on this text, the first user who complained wasn't just being mean-spirited; they were actually spot-on. Max’s proposal is a textbook violation of your forum rules and the basic etiquette of a discussion board.

​

Here is a breakdown of why this proposal is highly problematic for a moderator, evaluated strictly against your guidelines:

​

• Direct Violation of Rule 5
  ​
  Rule 5 states: "Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references."
  ​
  Max does the exact opposite. He dedicates 80% of his post to air grievances about past moderation, insult other posters ("trolls of atheism," "mendacious tactics"), and explain his marketing strategy. When he finally gets to the actual topic, he summarizes it in exactly two sentences:
  ​
  "Convergent evolution is a bad argument and an excuse for why homology predictions are not born out. To back what I say I submit my recent blog entry with this link..."
  ​
  He didn't make an argument in his own words; he stated a conclusion and dropped a bare link to force people to leave your site to see his reasoning.
  ​
• Explicit Admission of "Spamming" (By the Board's Definition)
  ​
  Max is open about his intentions, but his intentions run counter to the purpose of a discussion board:
  ​
  • He flatly states: "the reason I don't participate in actual debates is..."
    ​
  • He explicitly notes his goal: "The reason I still post is to get new readers, lurkers... to see the true level of creationist literature available online..."
  ​
  By his own admission, he is using your forum's infrastructure as a free billboard to drive traffic to his personal blog, while refusing to engage in the core activity of the site (discussion and debate). Even if he doesn't think it's spam, using a discussion forum solely for audience acquisition without participating in the community is the very definition of forum spam.
  ​
• Grandstanding and Score-Settling
  ​
  A thread proposal should be a clean, neutral offer of a topic for the community to discuss. Max's proposal is heavily poisoned from the start. He uses it to:
  ​
  • Litigate a past dispute with "Percy."
    ​
  • Call another specific user ("Paul K") a troll who uses "mendacious tactics."
    ​
  • Insult the entire forum as an "echo-chamber."
    ​
  • Declare the opposing viewpoint "pseudo-scientific Victorian HORSEAPPLE."
  ​
  Setting up a thread with this level of baggage makes a healthy, civil discussion almost impossible from post number one.

​

---

​

How to Rule on This

​

If you are the moderator or admin, you have incredibly solid, objective grounds to reject this proposal. You don't even have to get into the weeds about evolution vs. creationism.

​

A standard, firm moderation response would look something like this:

​

"Max, this proposal is being rejected because it violates Rule 5. A thread proposal must lay out the substantive arguments for the topic in your own words here on the board, using links only as supporting references—not as a substitute for the debate itself. Furthermore, topic proposals are for introducing new discussions, not for settling past grievances with other users or directing traffic to external blogs when you have stated you do not intend to participate in the resulting debate. If you wish to propose a topic on convergent evolution, please submit a new proposal that outlines your argument here, focuses strictly on the science/logic, and leaves out personal meta-commentary."

​

This grounds your decision entirely in the rules, protects the board from being used as a free advertising space, and avoids letting Max drag you into his "formal logic vs. aggressive atheists" frame.

---

quote:

---

I’ve never been a very good writer, per se; I’ve always lacked the ability to recreate situations through imagery-filled narrative, my words have always lacked the intrigue of poetic prose, and my descriptions drip with a butyraceous disconnectedness (if you don’t believe me, reread that last clause). I do, however, have some ability to communicate concepts. I’ve chosen, therefore, to forgo the elusively difficult pedestrian communication of the fluid among us, indulging and favoring instead the somewhat utilitarian and wholly pedantic language of my inner philosopher wannabe. So, in the spirit of my means, I endeavor to set forth a dense, (due to the word constraints) and subsequently donnish, array of examples and explanations of my values, firstly the moral, secondly the ethical—axioms followed by their corresponding praxes.

​

Due to my (neither particularly deep nor particularly shallow) understanding of science and psychology, my understanding of people as both products of genetic histories and the more immediate stimuli of life’s journey—both nature and nurture—, and my belief that each action stems from the needs of the actor (in line with the ideas of Rosenberg’s theories of “non-violent communication”), I subscribe to the blatantly and shamelessly humanist concept of the inherent worth and dignity of each person. Due to these foundations, I also reject the concepts of sin, good, and evil, viewing them as either reactionary labels placed on stimuli for the purpose of simple black-and-white categorization, or as escapist strategies of alienation or xenophobia. Because of these beliefs, I communicate my understanding of the world with (what are in my mind) more useful descriptors such as “subjectively distasteful” and “ethically divergent,” recognizing the general parallels of fundamental root beliefs, shared throughout–if not across–most cultures, even where there lie discrepancies in the beliefs about how those roots are best manifested into full-grown acts or concepts.

​

Due to my instinct to attribute reactions to people to specific instances of interaction rather than to the people themselves, I find it hard to dislike people. This obstacle—I say obstacle because it significantly impeded, or at least confused, my social development, confusing my interpretation of others’ emotions—has led, somehow, through a route of empathy, to an altruism founded upon a lack of distinction between my satisfaction and the satisfaction of others, or even between my situation and the situation of others. I am bound by the sufferings and joys of my community, and I share in the rich experiences of life. Altruism, though, is not, as some claim, selflessness; it is the shared self. Bound by the propinquity of common experience and the potential of fulfillment through common success, those who lean towards altruism are leaning away from egoism, not selfishness.

​

Due to my belief in the potential of the human mind to distinguish between subtleties and discern the distinctions between the most ambiguous of topics, I find myself in an orientation of principle rather than dogma, thoughtful behavior rather than strict code, the spirit of the law rather than the letter. I am therefore a conscientious objector to war, an advocate against the meat industry, and a regular protestor of acts of willful ignorance. I make my own decisions, sometimes contradicting those of authority, not for the sake of rebelliousness, but in attempt to fulfill my personal ethical imperatives.

​

As the most influential generation so far, and the most unprepared generation so far, the youth of today face a heavy task, which will require great leaders. It is not the responsibility of the old guard to create or to select those leaders, necessarily, but instead to assure the presence of well-informed, conscientious individuals, who will then take the role of fostering leadership among their peers. I’m already fairly conscientious, and I like to think I may even be becoming more so. Now all I need is to replace my factual ignorance with some semblance of information. I hope to help to lay the foundation for the success of my generation and all those to follow.

---