EPTMod Passive Aggressive Posting? - Page 17
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
| ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:12 dAPhREAk wrote: you know another compromise can be: "Everyone should assume that references to 'baby' in this abortion thread refer to pre-birth babies; unless it is specified that they are post-birth babies (e.g., infants) then the assumption is that they are not." Everything is clarified! Now that is a mod note! | ||
KwarK
United States42652 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:12 dAPhREAk wrote: you know another compromise can be: "Everyone should assume that references to 'baby' in this abortion thread refer to pre-birth babies; unless it is specified that they are post-birth babies (e.g., infants) then the assumption is that they are not." Everything is clarified! As long as it exclusively refers to pre birth babies and nobody makes the assertion "babies (as in pre birth) clearly shouldn't be killed because you wouldn't kill an infant and they're the same thing because we call both babies" then that would work. As long as a linguistic distinction between the two is made meaningful communication can happen. It would be confusing until everyone got used to it but it wouldn't invalidate any discourse. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:24 KwarK wrote: As long as it exclusively refers to pre birth babies and nobody makes the assertion "babies (as in pre birth) clearly shouldn't be killed because you wouldn't kill an infant and they're the same thing because we call both babies" then that would work. As long as a linguistic distinction between the two is made meaningful communication can happen. It would be confusing until everyone got used to it but it wouldn't invalidate any discourse. fine with me. | ||
MountainDewJunkie
United States10341 Posts
Here's the TLDR of this now train wreck: JD: I'm not a bad poster; mods are out to get me Mods/others: no one is out to get you JD: you can tell me otherwise, but I know Kwark: you are paranoid (next day) [more arguing] Kwark: your argument is flawed, and you're still paranoid JD: I never said mods were out to get me Me: -_- Kwark: language should not be ambiguous especially in settings of high emotional charge Some: but it's technically correct Kwark: here's why I disagree with its use Some: here's why I disagree with your disagreement (next day) Kwark: here's the same thing I've posted 40 times in this thread Some: No, here's the same thing we've posted 40 times in this thread Kwark: you are retards Some: We disagree. Here's why... We've all made our position clear. No one is changing their minds here, so can we talk about something else? This is boring! | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Wow, this thread was going so well a day ago. I can't turn my back on you guys for a second. Here's the TLDR of this now train wreck: JD: I'm not a bad poster; mods are out to get me Mods/others: no one is out to get you JD: you can tell me otherwise, but I know Kwark: you are paranoid (next day) [more arguing] Kwark: your argument is flawed, and you're still paranoid JD: I never said mods were out to get me Me: -_- Kwark: language should not be ambiguous especially in settings of high emotional charge Some: but it's technically correct Kwark: here's why I disagree with its use Some: here's why I disagree with your disagreement (next day) Kwark: here's the same thing I've posted 40 times in this thread Some: No, here's the same thing we've posted 40 times in this thread Kwark: you are retards Some: We disagree. Here's why... We've all made our position clear. No one is changing their minds here, so can we talk about something else? This is boring! at least the OP wasn't banned. the anti-kwark threads are improving! | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
On November 16 2012 08:44 Falling wrote: So if in future mod notes, it read: "Either use Fetus OR specify pre-birth and post-birth babies. But do not indiscriminately use 'baby' without geographical qualifiers." Would that satisfy all sides? (Or a similarly worded note that was a little more clear.) So I can go in the thread, after the mod note, and ask everyone using the term foetus to clarify what they meant? While every foetus is an unborn baby not every unborn baby is also a foetus. You cannot use those terms interchangeably. Pre-birth babies includes both foeti (?) and embyros, while foetus is just foetus. So just put those embryos in the mod note as well  They also have rights! (And if it's a right to live would be another topic of the abortion discussion) | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:12 dAPhREAk wrote: you know another compromise can be: "Everyone should assume that references to 'baby' in this abortion thread refer to pre-birth babies; unless it is specified that they are post-birth babies (e.g., infants) then the assumption is that they are not." Everything is clarified! This is a reasonable suggestion that I can support. Good idea. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42652 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: This is a reasonable suggestion that I can support. Good idea. You realise this is still making the distinction between baby and feotus that you were upset about. It's just now you're calling foetus baby and baby infant. The distinction is still there. That doesn't actually change anything really because the distinction (in terms of where you can find them, womb or not) was always there whether you acknowledged it or not but still, pretty huge step. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:56 KwarK wrote: You realise this is still making the distinction between baby and feotus that you were upset about. It's just now you're calling foetus baby and baby infant. The distinction is still there. That doesn't actually change anything really because the distinction (in terms of where you can find them, womb or not) was always there whether you acknowledged it or not but still, pretty huge step. But the term baby can be used both before birth and after birth, what distinguishes the two are context. The term fetus cannot, nor can qualifiers such as pre-birth or post-birth. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Wow, this thread was going so well a day ago. I can't turn my back on you guys for a second. Here's the TLDR of this now train wreck: JD: I'm not a bad poster; mods are out to get me Mods/others: no one is out to get you JD: you can tell me otherwise, but I know Kwark: you are paranoid (next day) [more arguing] Kwark: your argument is flawed, and you're still paranoid JD: I never said mods were out to get me Me: -_- Kwark: language should not be ambiguous especially in settings of high emotional charge Some: but it's technically correct Kwark: here's why I disagree with its use Some: here's why I disagree with your disagreement (next day) Kwark: here's the same thing I've posted 40 times in this thread Some: No, here's the same thing we've posted 40 times in this thread Kwark: you are retards Some: We disagree. Here's why... We've all made our position clear. No one is changing their minds here, so can we talk about something else? This is boring! thanks for the summary, MDJ! | ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:59 jdseemoreglass wrote: But the term baby can be used both before birth and after birth, what distinguishes the two are context. The term fetus cannot, nor can qualifiers such as pre-birth or post-birth. No, it cant. After said distinction. A baby is by definition unborn, in the context of the thread. An infant is born. A baby can not be an infant. You seamlessly miss every point made in this thread. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 16 2012 11:15 Gene wrote: No, it cant. After said distinction. A baby is by definition unborn, in the context of the thread. An infant is born. A baby can not be an infant. You seamlessly miss every point made in this thread. I'm talking about the use of the word outside the context of the thread. No need to get all snippy with me, I get the points pretty damn well. | ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
| ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On November 16 2012 11:20 Gene wrote: sorry. That was indeed snippy. I think we've all said things in this thread that we wish we could take back. Tempers flared! Emotions ran hot! The important part is that we got through it as a family. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
I kid, I kid. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On November 15 2012 08:33 KwarK wrote: Of course you're allowed to say false claims of rape occur. I'll do it right now. There are cases in which people accuse others of rape when no rape occurred. You're not allowed to be willfully ignorant of the difference between sex and gender, there is a difference whether you keep up to date with science or not, get over it. Having a sincerely held homophobic belief doesn't make it any less homophobic, homophobia isn't welcome here. I admit I did not read the whole thread. I randomly sample some pages and it was always the discussion of "baby vs fetus" that I don't give a cow about. So sorry if this has been discussed before ... ... but I really like this post from page 2. It neatly summarises "the KwarK problem". For him, these kinds of his opinions are just "facts" and he apparently can't imagine a sane mind disagreeing with them (mind you, they are "facts", you can't disagree with facts, can you?). I can't really blame him personally, he just does, what the society does. When the state does this to you, it feels kinda natural to do it to others, doesn't it? Most of the Europe has laws that dictate how certain parts of history happened. But if "homophobia" (whatever that is) is not welcome here, that should be probably right in the rules and explainet thoroughly, because, surprise, KwarK's idea on what is homophobia is not everyones. Also for the other stuff. Because I don't know about you, but I don't read mods' minds. Also, this forum is so diverse that to assume that everyone has the same view of what opnions are "offensive" is absurd. I shouldn't t care so much personally neither about KwarK's stances, nor Europe's. I am not a rapist (never had sex with anyone but my wife), my best friend is gay and from what information I have been able to procure, I lean towards believing that the Holocaust actually happened. But it still irritates me, because a) it hinders certian paths of discussion b) it's conceptually wrong, because it's an extremely close-minded approach. Also, it's worth mentioning, that, purely based on what he wrote, I really, really don't like him. Just to be honest with the potential reader. | ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
God I wish I could say that was a typo. Idk what that was. | ||
| ||
