EPTWould that satisfy all sides? (Or a similarly worded note that was a little more clear.)
Mod Passive Aggressive Posting? - Page 16
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
Falling
Canada11272 Posts
Would that satisfy all sides? (Or a similarly worded note that was a little more clear.) | ||
|
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11272 Posts
 We just need a slightly more detailed/ expansive note.At least it solves it for me. I did express disagreement over banning the word 'baby' entirely as a term for fetus. But I think requiring 'pre-birth' 'unborn' or similar qualifiers is no great hardship. And furthermore, despite my reservation expressed elsewhere and regardless of my own personal views, we certainly do need to prevent people from coming into a thread and simply posting "you are all baby-killers" as though that were a comment that would further the debate in any way, shape or form. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
Person A: Man, I sure do love cars! I think that they ought not be hit with sledgehammers whether they're parked on the street or in a garage. Person B: I, too, love cars! I'm glad that we see eye to eye on this. But I do disagree on one point. Person A: Oh no! Pray tell, friend, where do we disagree? Person B: Well, I don't consider an automobile that is still parked in the garage to be a car per se. I consider it a garage-parked vehicle, which is a much more specific and precise term. Person A: Well... OK. Surely that's just semantics, though, right? Person B: To a certain extent but you also have to take into account that, while I accept that cars ought not be hit with sledgehammers, I think it's perfectly acceptable to hit garage-parked vehicles with sledgehammers. Person A: What? You think it's alright to hit cars with sledgehammers?! Person B: Absolutely not! How dare you character assassinate me you retard, moron, lazy person, stupid-head, etc. etc. etc.!!! Person A: But you just said you believed in sledgehammering a car so long as it's parked in a garage! Person B: Let's stop this nonsense. The usual rule for these debates must now apply. You cannot conflate the terms "car" and "garage-parked vehicle." Words have meanings! Respect them! If you're talking about an automobile on the street, it's a car. If you're talking about an automobile in a garage, it's a garage-parked vehicle. Person A: What? Since when? Why? Person B: Well, the way you're using the language is far too vague for my taste and it seems to paint me as some sort of car sledgehammering monster. Simply unacceptable. We need more precision to properly execute this debate! Person A: I don't know... This seems like it's unnecessary stricture... not to mention it sort of privileges your side of the debate... Person B: You only think that because you're an intellectually dishonest retard. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
We won't eliminate terms like "war on women" from discussion, will we? Those terms are vague, it could be taken to mean some sort of military campaign intended to kill women, and it is often used as pure rhetoric and uses words as an argument. I could go on all day with terms that meet that same ridiculous standards that are being imposed here which are perfectly tolerated, and should be. No matter how many ways we deflect this into half-baked philosophy discussions about ontological arguments and such, this will appear to me another example of moderation bias on this site. The minority of us who complain about double standards will have to suck it up again it seems. we certainly do need to prevent people from coming into a thread and simply posting "you are all baby-killers" as though that were a comment that would further the debate in any way, shape or form. You can very easily take care of such people without restricting the terminology of the entire user base. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11272 Posts
| ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34483 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:30 HULKAMANIA wrote: Wait, wait, wait. I wrote bracing bit of dialogue myself! Hear me out! Person A: Man, I sure do love cars! I think that they ought not be hit with sledgehammers whether they're parked on the street or in a garage. Person B: I, too, love cars! I'm glad that we see eye to eye on this. But I do disagree on one point. Person A: Oh no! Pray tell, friend, where do we disagree? Person B: Well, I don't consider an automobile that is still parked in the garage to be a car per se. I consider it a garage-parked vehicle, which is a much more specific and precise term. Person A: Well... OK. Surely that's just semantics, though, right? Person B: To a certain extent but you also have to take into account that, while I accept that cars ought not be hit with sledgehammers, I think it's perfectly acceptable to hit garage-parked vehicles with sledgehammers. Person A: What? You think it's alright to hit cars with sledgehammers?! Person B: Absolutely not! How dare you character assassinate me you retard, moron, lazy person, stupid-head, etc. etc. etc.!!! Person A: But you just said you believed in sledgehammering a car so long as it's parked in a garage! Person B: Let's stop this nonsense. The usual rule for these debates must now apply. You cannot conflate the terms "car" and "garage-parked vehicle." Words have meanings! Respect them! If you're talking about an automobile on the street, it's a car. If you're talking about an automobile in a garage, it's a garage-parked vehicle. Person A: What? Since when? Why? Person B: Well, the way you're using the language is far too vague for my taste and it seems to paint me as some sort of car sledgehammering monster. Simply unacceptable. We need more precision to properly execute this debate! Person A: I don't know... This seems like it's unnecessary stricture... not to mention it sort of privileges your side of the debate... Person B: You only think that because you're an intellectually dishonest retard. Cars go in and out of garages. Pretty sure babies don't go in and out of wombs. It has a phase when they are inside, and then they come out, and they never go back. Using terms to distinguish between those two is much more valuable than to describe a car in your situation. I actually get the impression you wrote your post simply for the sake of writing a post and trying to look silly. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:30 HULKAMANIA wrote: Wait, wait, wait. I wrote bracing bit of dialogue myself! Hear me out! Person A: Man, I sure do love cars! I think that they ought not be hit with sledgehammers whether they're parked on the street or in a garage. Person B: I, too, love cars! I'm glad that we see eye to eye on this. But I do disagree on one point. Person A: Oh no! Pray tell, friend, where do we disagree? Person B: Well, I don't consider an automobile that is still parked in the garage to be a car per se. I consider it a garage-parked vehicle, which is a much more specific and precise term. Person A: Well... OK. Surely that's just semantics, though, right? Person B: To a certain extent but you also have to take into account that, while I accept that cars ought not be hit with sledgehammers, I think it's perfectly acceptable to hit garage-parked vehicles with sledgehammers. Person A: What? You think it's alright to hit cars with sledgehammers?! Person B: Absolutely not! How dare you character assassinate me you retard, moron, lazy person, stupid-head, etc. etc. etc.!!! Person A: But you just said you believed in sledgehammering a car so long as it's parked in a garage! Person B: Let's stop this nonsense. The usual rule for these debates must now apply. You cannot conflate the terms "car" and "garage-parked vehicle." Words have meanings! Respect them! If you're talking about an automobile on the street, it's a car. If you're talking about an automobile in a garage, it's a garage-parked vehicle. Person A: What? Since when? Why? Person B: Well, the way you're using the language is far too vague for my taste and it seems to paint me as some sort of car sledgehammering monster. Simply unacceptable. We need more precision to properly execute this debate! Person A: I don't know... This seems like it's unnecessary stricture... not to mention it sort of privileges your side of the debate... Person B: You only think that because you're an intellectually dishonest retard. You've missed the problem. Reread my above posts. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:44 KwarK wrote: You've missed the problem. Reread my above posts. You've missed my insightful analysis-via-hypothetical. Reread my hilarious story. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:49 HULKAMANIA wrote: You've missed my insightful analysis-via-hypothetical. Reread my hilarious story. You are an intellectually dishonest retard. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11272 Posts
Both sides probably know what each other means, but both sides insist on looping back on the same argument. Unborn baby adequately keep the moral value that a pro-lifer places on unborn babies, while unequivocally specifies that we are talking about pre-birth (which a pro-choicer would object to the lack of specificity). It cuts out the excuse to have an entire endless cycle of willful misunderstandings from both sides of the debate. (Or at least I think it would, in theory.) | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote: You are an intellectually dishonest retard. Awww... KwarKy, no need to be cross! In this world we will meet people with whom we don't see eye to eye! Defaulting to name-calling isn't the best strategy in these instances. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:51 Falling wrote: Additionally, the debate seems to inevitably loop back to somewhere in an argument, someone uses the word 'baby.' And then the counter comes back that everything in the argument is invalid because they are not talking about 'babies' but 'fetuses.' And then the rejoinder is that it is in fact valid because baby refers to an unborn child and an infant. And around it goes. Both sides probably know what each other means, but both sides insist on looping back on the same argument. Unborn baby adequately keep the moral value that a pro-lifer places on unborn babies, while unequivocally specifies that we are talking about pre-birth (which a pro-choicer would object to the lack of specificity). It cuts out the excuse to have an entire endless cycle of willful misunderstandings from both sides of the debate. (Or at least I think it would, in theory.) Read back a few pages. The people insisting that baby was a perfectly valid word for both were also making the argument that because both pre birth and post birth babies are defined (by them) as babies they both have the same moral value. It was an argument from the definition itself and they insisted that categorising babies into born and unborn while not adding any other qualifier or judgement beyond whether they live in a womb was forcing them to become pro-choice. It was quite a remarkable failure to understand why the ontological argument fails. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:53 HULKAMANIA wrote: Awww... KwarKy, no need to be cross! In this world we will meet people with whom we don't see eye to eye! Defaulting to name-calling isn't the best strategy in these instances. I'm not cross, I'm frustrated. This isn't especially complicated and I've explained why the difference is important using simple examples which don't even refer to abortion. Even if you're so invested in being pro-life that you feel the need to defy logic it's no longer relevant to why using the "they're both babies therefore they're the same" line is wrong. This is purely a question of how logical arguments can be constructed and a foundation in "I define X = Y, therefore of course Y = X" is not a solid one. I can't see how a rational human can fail to understand the logical flaws underpinning the "they're the same because I defined them as the same" argument when separated from a discussion in which he is personally invested. I gave an example of it in the case of puddings and you still seem to have missed the point. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11272 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:55 KwarK wrote: Read back a few pages. The people insisting that baby was a perfectly valid word for both were also making the argument that because both pre birth and post birth babies are defined (by them) as babies they both have the same moral value. It was an argument from the definition itself and they insisted that categorising babies into born and unborn while not adding any other qualifier or judgement beyond whether they live in a womb was forcing them to become pro-choice. It was quite a remarkable failure to understand why the ontological argument fails. not all of us made that argument, or even agree with it. my argument is simple: you shouldn't censor people unless you have a compelling reason to do so, and you do not have a compelling reason to do so. i have explained why i dont think your reasons are compelling, and i assume you have rejected them. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41979 Posts
| ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:59 Falling wrote: I read through the entire thing which is why I thought requiring a qualifier pretty much addressed both sides' concerns. I think you're right on the money. A compromise over terminology is always a reassuring gesture in a debate. Most of the impetus behind the reaction to the mod note was not that the content of the note was wrong (which it was) nor even the suggestion that a shared definition would be useful (which it certainly would be), it was the presumption that it's OK for one side of the argument to unilaterally decide how language ought to be used in a debate where semantics are so central. | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote: not all of us made that argument, or even agree with it. my argument is simple: you shouldn't censor people unless you have a compelling reason to do so, and you do not have a compelling reason to do so. i have explained why i dont think your reasons are compelling, and i assume you have rejected them. KwarK's style of argument works best if he gets to decide what both sides of the disagreement are saying. | ||
| ||
