|
On November 16 2012 03:46 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 03:41 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
because I'm an idiot confirming When you post like this, you are displaying the same level of maturity with which you moderate these forums. It's very revealing imo. It's pretty clear that you are the one who is immature and raging here, not Kwark.
You have got to be kidding me. I have been absolutely nothing but respectful to Kwark in this entire discussion. He has called me idiot, retard, delusional moron, he has said I have "personal problems", etc.
No one in the world could reach the conclusion that I am the one raging or being immature here. I'd really love to hear other mods opinions on this matter besides Kwark's. I don't think it's right to take someone who is being respectful in his arguments and repeatedly call him idiot and retard and moron.
|
On November 16 2012 05:02 Gene wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:54 Gene wrote:
To be honest I wasn't ever really putting this argument in context of the abortion thread. It does necessarily dictate pre birth. I'm still uncomfortable with the whole imprecision thing but it does sound more like censorship in context. I would go on to argue if you want to say baby you should need to qualify it with unborn in acceptance of the fact that the word vague and being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
I expect you would call me an idiot. no, i wouldnt call you an idiot. ;-) i am perfectly fine with people saying you should use fetus for pre-birth and baby for post-birth (although infant would be better in my mind). i only have a problem with people saying you have to or you will be warned/banned/moderated. Arguing for one and against the other only leaves room for bad discourse, and eventually the argument we are having right here. Which is clearly not an abortion argument.
i dont understand what you mean. the only thing i am arguing against is censorship, which so far everyone seems to be okay with.
|
Lalalaland34483 Posts
On November 16 2012 05:08 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:02 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:54 Gene wrote:
To be honest I wasn't ever really putting this argument in context of the abortion thread. It does necessarily dictate pre birth. I'm still uncomfortable with the whole imprecision thing but it does sound more like censorship in context. I would go on to argue if you want to say baby you should need to qualify it with unborn in acceptance of the fact that the word vague and being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
I expect you would call me an idiot. no, i wouldnt call you an idiot. ;-) i am perfectly fine with people saying you should use fetus for pre-birth and baby for post-birth (although infant would be better in my mind). i only have a problem with people saying you have to or you will be warned/banned/moderated. Arguing for one and against the other only leaves room for bad discourse, and eventually the argument we are having right here. Which is clearly not an abortion argument. i dont understand what you mean. the only thing i am arguing against is censorship, which so far everyone seems to be okay with.
No one was banned for it. Yes, it is the mod note, and I would argue it shouldn't be stated as a 'rule', but it wasn't actually enforced on any one.
|
To say that people should be precise but that you can't say they have to be. It only serves to Allow poorly formed arguments that will degenerate into either this conversation or more likely endless flaming.
I guess I ought to be clear too. It doesn't -only- serve said terrible things. But it's the Internet.
|
On November 16 2012 05:24 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 05:02 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:54 Gene wrote:
To be honest I wasn't ever really putting this argument in context of the abortion thread. It does necessarily dictate pre birth. I'm still uncomfortable with the whole imprecision thing but it does sound more like censorship in context. I would go on to argue if you want to say baby you should need to qualify it with unborn in acceptance of the fact that the word vague and being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
I expect you would call me an idiot. no, i wouldnt call you an idiot. ;-) i am perfectly fine with people saying you should use fetus for pre-birth and baby for post-birth (although infant would be better in my mind). i only have a problem with people saying you have to or you will be warned/banned/moderated. Arguing for one and against the other only leaves room for bad discourse, and eventually the argument we are having right here. Which is clearly not an abortion argument. i dont understand what you mean. the only thing i am arguing against is censorship, which so far everyone seems to be okay with. No one was banned for it. Yes, it is the mod note, and I would argue it shouldn't be stated as a 'rule', but it wasn't actually enforced on any one.
Google "chilling effect."
To say that people should be precise but that you can't say they have to be. It only serves to Allow poorly formed arguments that will degenerate into either this conversation or more likely endless flaming.
It is a matter of opinion to be settled by debate and by each person in their own mind. It is the debate itself. The language and the positions are twisted tightly together here.
I guess I ought to be clear too. It doesn't -only- serve said terrible things. But it's the Internet.
You have to trust that the competition of ideas - the ideas themselves, and their presentation - will allow the good to rise over the bad. Or you can just give up on the human race, that seems like a pretty good option sometimes.
|
On November 16 2012 05:24 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 05:02 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:54 Gene wrote:
To be honest I wasn't ever really putting this argument in context of the abortion thread. It does necessarily dictate pre birth. I'm still uncomfortable with the whole imprecision thing but it does sound more like censorship in context. I would go on to argue if you want to say baby you should need to qualify it with unborn in acceptance of the fact that the word vague and being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
I expect you would call me an idiot. no, i wouldnt call you an idiot. ;-) i am perfectly fine with people saying you should use fetus for pre-birth and baby for post-birth (although infant would be better in my mind). i only have a problem with people saying you have to or you will be warned/banned/moderated. Arguing for one and against the other only leaves room for bad discourse, and eventually the argument we are having right here. Which is clearly not an abortion argument. i dont understand what you mean. the only thing i am arguing against is censorship, which so far everyone seems to be okay with. No one was banned for it. Yes, it is the mod note, and I would argue it shouldn't be stated as a 'rule', but it wasn't actually enforced on any one.
your stance is vague. yes, it was not enforced because the thread was closed. if it had been enforced and someone was banned for the sole reason that they used baby to refer to pre-birth would you be okay with that? it seems you are saying no, but its unclear.
|
Again, I'm not speaking specifically for the abortion thread. In all debates being precise is explicitly a good thing. Like kwark said a trillion times, by all means make the case that infants and unborn babies are the same thing. He is simply asking you to be precise. I am however really not interested in continuing an abortion discussion. Hence I hadn't once posted about it.
|
He is simply asking you to be precise.
It is precise, he just doesn't like it.
|
Lalalaland34483 Posts
On November 16 2012 05:38 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:24 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 05:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 05:02 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:54 Gene wrote:
To be honest I wasn't ever really putting this argument in context of the abortion thread. It does necessarily dictate pre birth. I'm still uncomfortable with the whole imprecision thing but it does sound more like censorship in context. I would go on to argue if you want to say baby you should need to qualify it with unborn in acceptance of the fact that the word vague and being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
I expect you would call me an idiot. no, i wouldnt call you an idiot. ;-) i am perfectly fine with people saying you should use fetus for pre-birth and baby for post-birth (although infant would be better in my mind). i only have a problem with people saying you have to or you will be warned/banned/moderated. Arguing for one and against the other only leaves room for bad discourse, and eventually the argument we are having right here. Which is clearly not an abortion argument. i dont understand what you mean. the only thing i am arguing against is censorship, which so far everyone seems to be okay with. No one was banned for it. Yes, it is the mod note, and I would argue it shouldn't be stated as a 'rule', but it wasn't actually enforced on any one. your stance is vague. yes, it was not enforced because the thread was closed. if it had been enforced and someone was banned for the sole reason that they used baby to refer to pre-birth would you be okay with that? it seems you are saying no, but its unclear.
No. I would tell them they shouldn't use 'baby' to refer to pre-birth in an important debate, but I disagree with them being banned. And no one was banned.
|
On November 16 2012 05:38 Gene wrote:
Again, I'm not speaking specifically for the abortion thread. In all debates being precise is explicitly a good thing. Like kwark said a trillion times, by all means make the case that infants and unborn babies are the same thing. He is simply asking you to be precise. I am however really not interested in continuing an abortion discussion. Hence I hadn't once posted about it.
nobody disputes that precision is ideal (i hope). the question is: if they arent precise, should someone be able to moderate them (warn/ban)?
|
Lalalaland34483 Posts
On November 16 2012 05:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:It is precise, he just doesn't like it.
'Baby' is not precise. You're the only person who seems to think it is. The implication should be obvious, yes, but it's not at all a precise term.
|
On November 16 2012 05:41 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 05:24 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 05:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 05:02 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:54 Gene wrote:
To be honest I wasn't ever really putting this argument in context of the abortion thread. It does necessarily dictate pre birth. I'm still uncomfortable with the whole imprecision thing but it does sound more like censorship in context. I would go on to argue if you want to say baby you should need to qualify it with unborn in acceptance of the fact that the word vague and being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
I expect you would call me an idiot. no, i wouldnt call you an idiot. ;-) i am perfectly fine with people saying you should use fetus for pre-birth and baby for post-birth (although infant would be better in my mind). i only have a problem with people saying you have to or you will be warned/banned/moderated. Arguing for one and against the other only leaves room for bad discourse, and eventually the argument we are having right here. Which is clearly not an abortion argument. i dont understand what you mean. the only thing i am arguing against is censorship, which so far everyone seems to be okay with. No one was banned for it. Yes, it is the mod note, and I would argue it shouldn't be stated as a 'rule', but it wasn't actually enforced on any one. your stance is vague. yes, it was not enforced because the thread was closed. if it had been enforced and someone was banned for the sole reason that they used baby to refer to pre-birth would you be okay with that? it seems you are saying no, but its unclear. No. I would tell them they shouldn't use 'baby' to refer to pre-birth in an important debate, but I disagree with them being banned. And no one was banned.
well, we are in agreement then. my discussions have never been that Kwark shouldnt suggest that people use terms, its that Kwark shouldnt demand and threaten to ban (which is how i read the modnote).
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
Even assuming that everything you say about passive aggressive moderating is true--it's the internet, did you really expect to have a quality discussion about political issues?
that's pretty much on the same productivity level as "sticking your hand in beartraps" and "not hurting esports"
|
On November 16 2012 05:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:38 Gene wrote:
Again, I'm not speaking specifically for the abortion thread. In all debates being precise is explicitly a good thing. Like kwark said a trillion times, by all means make the case that infants and unborn babies are the same thing. He is simply asking you to be precise. I am however really not interested in continuing an abortion discussion. Hence I hadn't once posted about it. nobody disputes that precision is ideal (i hope). the question is: if they arent precise, should someone be able to moderate them (warn/ban)?
I think so, absolutely. If it is an offhanded comment I'm sure it'll be disregarded as I assume was the case. In the place of someone trying to propose a serious idea and repeatedly arguing against aborting babies, they deserve mod action
|
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +It's not that it isn't entirely transparent what pro-life advocates mean when they do it, it's that they are exploiting the vagueness of the word, and the fact that both sides use it to mean different things, to skip the stage where the actual argument is found. The "of course they're comparable, I'm using the same word for both, they're the same thing" is the problem, the word is vague. To skip the stage where the actual argument is found? That is the actual argument!
I know that's the actual argument they use. That's the problem. It's not an argument.
"I use the same word for both" is not and will never be a valid argument for why two things are the same in a debate with somebody else who thinks they are different. How are you not getting this? This is getting into the damn ontological argument here. You can't demonstrate something to be true through simply defining it as true with words, you need to fill in the argument.
|
'Baby' is not precise. You're the only person who seems to think it is. The implication should be obvious, yes, but it's not at all a precise term.
You and KwarK seem to be the only people who think that in the context of the abortion debate it isn't precise. Which, of course, has been said over and over again, yet you and KwarK seem to have some trouble comprehending precisely what is being said by others. Over and over again. And over. And over.
I know that's the actual argument they use. That's the problem. It's not an argument.
"I use the same word for both" is not and will never be a valid argument for why two things are the same in a debate with somebody else who thinks they are different. How are you not getting this? This is getting into the damn ontological argument here. You can't demonstrate something to be true through simply defining it as true with words, you need to fill in the argument.
You really, truly are incapable of honestly responding to what people actually say.
"I use the same word for both because they are the same because I use the same word for both" is not what people say. 'I think they are the same morally (and that is why I use the same word)' is. Is that your "argument"? That people are employing circular logic?
How you are not getting this? How can you actually believe anything you have said here about the way other people think? It's all bullshit, grade-A KwarK opinion, with absolutely nothing behind it. You fill in your argument.
It's not getting anywhere because you are incapable of even acknowledging what people actually said.
No one is trying to define something as true simply through defining it as true with words - oh wait that's what you've been doing, so someone is, actually. My bad.
No one is trying to say that a fetus is a baby biologically, or that there are zero differences period between in the womb and out of it. The argument is that there are zero differences morally. And this is expressed most commonly by saying "baby." If you don't like it, grow up. No one is trying to pull the wool over your eyes or anyone else's by saying "baby" when you feel they should be saying "fetus." (Or foetus, if you'd rather.) No one is trying to be dishonest. They consider it morally a baby and that's why they say "baby." That's all there is to it. There is nothing imprecise, vague, or confusing about it.
|
On November 16 2012 05:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +'Baby' is not precise. You're the only person who seems to think it is. The implication should be obvious, yes, but it's not at all a precise term. You and KwarK seem to be the only people who think that in the context of the abortion debate it isn't precise. Which, of course, has been said over and over again, yet you and KwarK seem to have some trouble comprehending precisely what is being said by others. Over and over again. And over. And over.
They know it's a shoddy argument. It's a farce and an excuse to frame the debate in terms they like. They are being intentionally disingenuous in my eyes by repeating this as their case.
|
United States41979 Posts
Pro-lifer defining baby as foetus "you're killing babies, you're a murderer"
Pro-choicer defining baby as infant "pretty sure I didn't kill any babies, your argument is invalid"
Unless you actually get to the bit where you explain why a prebirth baby is the same a postbirth baby then all you have done is failed to communicate. Saying "the explanation for why they are the same is that I use the same word" does not cut it because the other side doesn't agree with that premise (and it's not an argument in any sense of the word), all you have done is shown that the word is vague because two sides can take a different meaning from it.
|
On November 16 2012 05:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:It's not that it isn't entirely transparent what pro-life advocates mean when they do it, it's that they are exploiting the vagueness of the word, and the fact that both sides use it to mean different things, to skip the stage where the actual argument is found. The "of course they're comparable, I'm using the same word for both, they're the same thing" is the problem, the word is vague. To skip the stage where the actual argument is found? That is the actual argument! I know that's the actual argument they use. That's the problem. It's not an argument. "I use the same word for both" is not and will never be a valid argument for why two things are the same in a debate with somebody else who thinks they are different. How are you not getting this? This is getting into the damn ontological argument here. You can't demonstrate something to be true through simply defining it as true with words, you need to fill in the argument.
I think this is by far the best frame of reference presented by KwarK thus far; the unequivocal manner with which the poster in question presented the word "baby" outright lowers the standards of debate and is in total ignorance of how the discussion ought to go. Furthermore, Wegandi repeatedly continued posting using only the word "baby" in such a way as to rhetorically render the opposition "baby killers". One might say that it is on these very grounds that the debate ought to take place; the fact is that Wegandi repeatedly ignored any and all linguistic concessions in order to steadfastly vilify the opposition IN PLACE OF AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT. He made it clear that he was unwilling to actually discuss the words he used.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
you are seriously complaining about people using terminology that is self-consistent with someone's ideology?
you are surprised that the people who make arguments assume that their arguments are correct? and that this somehow critically drags down the quality of a discussion?
(if you're really going to go down the road of blacklisting terms like that, I'll start by suggesting "fair")
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
