|
On November 15 2012 08:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 07:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 07:18 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 05:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:The REAL problem is not passive aggressive posting, that is fine so long as they are consistent and don't ban people for the same types of posts (which they do by the way)... The real problem is using moderation status to stifle debate. "Usual abortion topic rule"? What a joke. If people want to use the word baby to evoke a certain response, and someone wants to use fetus to prevent that response, no one has any right to dictate with force which side gets to frame the debate. This is just the most recent example. If mods want to engage in debate, they can say whatever they like. But using their position to force the framing of a debate is an abuse of power, and it occurs ALL the time on this site. I could name a dozen opinions which are not allowed to be expressed on this site, and I really think that detracts from the quality of the discussion. Having opposing ideas and opinions is a GOOD thing, even if you think they are wrong or ignorant or whatever. Banning or threatening to ban people for expressing an idea you don't agree with is purely abuse of position. On November 14 2012 10:42 semantics wrote:
What gets your banned or warned is often direct confederation, just being moody, sassy, sarcastic usually is fine depending on the topic is, but what gets your warned or banned is direct insults. It's a pretty easy line to follow. Also, this is completely wrong. I've been banned several times for making sarcastic posts. Using baby with you mean foetus and using murder when you mean abortion etc is nothing more than using intentionally vague or simply incorrect words in order to obfuscate the topic and avoid making an actual point. Furthermore when one of the core issues in any abortion debate is the value of the foetus' life then calling it a baby and refusing to acknowledge that it is not medically defined as a baby is a big issue. I don't think it's too much to ask that people actually argue the point they want to make and part of that is using the same set of words with strictly defined meanings. If you can't agree on a common language then no debate can take place. However another mod didn't even take the time to attempt to regulate that topic and instead just closed it, presumably because unlike me he felt you guys were incapable of even forming a semblance of a debate. Would you be happier if I did that in future? Of course. Especially if the alternative is making unilateral decisions about what are and are not legitimate uses of common words. What if I allowed you to use the term prebirth baby? As long as you're not grouping prebirth and postbirth together with the same catch all term and then going "well of course it's wrong to murder babies" then debate can happen. A common understanding of what words mean is always going to be necessary for communication though.
See this is the sort of discussion that would ideally happen in a civil debate. That way you don't end up with one side saying "you are only allowed to discuss this issue in terms that I find acceptable." I think striking up a compromise in terminology would be very useful.
|
|
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 08:19 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 08:07 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 07:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 07:18 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 05:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:The REAL problem is not passive aggressive posting, that is fine so long as they are consistent and don't ban people for the same types of posts (which they do by the way)... The real problem is using moderation status to stifle debate. "Usual abortion topic rule"? What a joke. If people want to use the word baby to evoke a certain response, and someone wants to use fetus to prevent that response, no one has any right to dictate with force which side gets to frame the debate. This is just the most recent example. If mods want to engage in debate, they can say whatever they like. But using their position to force the framing of a debate is an abuse of power, and it occurs ALL the time on this site. I could name a dozen opinions which are not allowed to be expressed on this site, and I really think that detracts from the quality of the discussion. Having opposing ideas and opinions is a GOOD thing, even if you think they are wrong or ignorant or whatever. Banning or threatening to ban people for expressing an idea you don't agree with is purely abuse of position. On November 14 2012 10:42 semantics wrote:
What gets your banned or warned is often direct confederation, just being moody, sassy, sarcastic usually is fine depending on the topic is, but what gets your warned or banned is direct insults. It's a pretty easy line to follow. Also, this is completely wrong. I've been banned several times for making sarcastic posts. Using baby with you mean foetus and using murder when you mean abortion etc is nothing more than using intentionally vague or simply incorrect words in order to obfuscate the topic and avoid making an actual point. Furthermore when one of the core issues in any abortion debate is the value of the foetus' life then calling it a baby and refusing to acknowledge that it is not medically defined as a baby is a big issue. I don't think it's too much to ask that people actually argue the point they want to make and part of that is using the same set of words with strictly defined meanings. If you can't agree on a common language then no debate can take place. However another mod didn't even take the time to attempt to regulate that topic and instead just closed it, presumably because unlike me he felt you guys were incapable of even forming a semblance of a debate. Would you be happier if I did that in future? Of course. Especially if the alternative is making unilateral decisions about what are and are not legitimate uses of common words. What if I allowed you to use the term prebirth baby? As long as you're not grouping prebirth and postbirth together with the same catch all term and then going "well of course it's wrong to murder babies" then debate can happen. A common understanding of what words mean is always going to be necessary for communication though. See this is the sort of discussion that would ideally happen in a civil debate. That way you don't end up with one side saying "you are only allowed to discuss this issue in terms that I find acceptable." I think striking up a compromise in terminology would be very useful.
I don't feel I have in any way compromised here. My insistence that we refer to a human before birth in terms which strictly mean before birth remains. Prebirth baby is a fairly nonsensical term, like calling a cow a pre-slaughter steak, but as long as everyone knows what everyone else means and nobody is deliberately obfuscating because they don't want to make a rational argument then I'm happy.
|
On November 15 2012 08:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 07:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 07:18 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 05:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:The REAL problem is not passive aggressive posting, that is fine so long as they are consistent and don't ban people for the same types of posts (which they do by the way)... The real problem is using moderation status to stifle debate. "Usual abortion topic rule"? What a joke. If people want to use the word baby to evoke a certain response, and someone wants to use fetus to prevent that response, no one has any right to dictate with force which side gets to frame the debate. This is just the most recent example. If mods want to engage in debate, they can say whatever they like. But using their position to force the framing of a debate is an abuse of power, and it occurs ALL the time on this site. I could name a dozen opinions which are not allowed to be expressed on this site, and I really think that detracts from the quality of the discussion. Having opposing ideas and opinions is a GOOD thing, even if you think they are wrong or ignorant or whatever. Banning or threatening to ban people for expressing an idea you don't agree with is purely abuse of position. On November 14 2012 10:42 semantics wrote:
What gets your banned or warned is often direct confederation, just being moody, sassy, sarcastic usually is fine depending on the topic is, but what gets your warned or banned is direct insults. It's a pretty easy line to follow. Also, this is completely wrong. I've been banned several times for making sarcastic posts. Using baby with you mean foetus and using murder when you mean abortion etc is nothing more than using intentionally vague or simply incorrect words in order to obfuscate the topic and avoid making an actual point. Furthermore when one of the core issues in any abortion debate is the value of the foetus' life then calling it a baby and refusing to acknowledge that it is not medically defined as a baby is a big issue. I don't think it's too much to ask that people actually argue the point they want to make and part of that is using the same set of words with strictly defined meanings. If you can't agree on a common language then no debate can take place. However another mod didn't even take the time to attempt to regulate that topic and instead just closed it, presumably because unlike me he felt you guys were incapable of even forming a semblance of a debate. Would you be happier if I did that in future? Of course. Especially if the alternative is making unilateral decisions about what are and are not legitimate uses of common words. What if I allowed you to use the term prebirth baby? As long as you're not grouping prebirth and postbirth together with the same catch all term and then going "well of course it's wrong to murder babies" then debate can happen. A common understanding of what words mean is always going to be necessary for communication though.
These are the arguments you should give to people then in the thread. We aren't discussing objective truth here. You are making an argument, and there are counter arguments that deserve a hearing as well. Using the term "baby" is also an argument, it is an argument intended to evoke certain imagery and certain emotions. In claiming it's about "choosing correct language" what you are actually doing is eliminating the possibility for this argument to take place simply because you don't agree with it.
It takes a real arrogance to think a debate has to conform to what you consider to be correct because you are so sure of being correct. We are discussing things like values, opinions, judgments, and whether to call a fetus a baby should certainly fall within that realm. You are using your personal conviction to silence opposing convictions in issues that are clearly far from settled.
There are dozens of other opinions that I have seen stifled in exactly the same way. We aren't allowed to call a fetus a baby. We aren't allowed to say that false claims of rape do occur. We aren't allowed to say that anyone with a penis is a man. I've seen people getting banned for giving their honest opinion on matters from homosexuality to Islam to race. These may be controversial or sensitive subjects, but that doesn't mean we need to enforce what opinions people are allowed to have or express. What exactly is the point of having a forum for discussion if entire spectrums of belief are off-limits and eliminated?
|
On November 15 2012 07:31 heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 18:28 Joedaddy wrote:On November 14 2012 10:59 Plexa wrote:
I don't see any problems here. The only real question I have is, Why is it always Kwark? At what point do the TL staff say enough is enough? Kwarks snarky posts usually align with the popular majority of TL, but that doesn't make them any better (or worse). Or, at what point does Kwark decide to stop pissing people off just for the sake of pissing people off? I've always been told that if you're pissing everyone around you off, maybe the problem isn't everyone around you. Granted, not "everyone" thinks Kwark takes his mod powers to far, but if we're being honest, there's probably a reason why users post things like "Yay! another Kwark thread /popcorn" and "oh look! the weekly Kwark thread." In Kwark's defense, its been my personal experience that he can be reasonable, but from me to you kind sir, please stop pissing on people's toes just because you can. Found this just a minute ago. I believe it was a warning sent to the user quoted in the OP. Seems applicable here (please correct me if I'm wrong): Don't take the easy way out of making an actual argument by being a condescending dick. I have my own reservations about the thought process of a lot of people in this thread in particular but to post like this is unacceptable.
Hold yourself to a higher standard and people will think more of your for it, especially if you are arguing against someone is is determined to ignore your positions. Essentially it seems like it is "always Kwark" because he is the one who most often engages in moderating the general forum. It has much less to do with his posting or style of moderation, and more with the fact that he exposes himself to these kinds of grievances far more than any other moderator. We have a large moderation staff and when these threads come up we all discuss if there was any wrong-doing involved and come to the conclusion we agree with the way he handled the situation. If you remember the last thread the crowd consensus was largely agreeing with him as well.
Given that the minority on TL happens to be straight, white, christian males I personally don't give a lot of weight to the majority consensus on the offensiveness of snide remarks directed at them. Its like a black man asking for an unbiased jury in a 1950's Mississippi court room. The level of tolerance for inflamatory remarks directed at TL's minority is much greater than those concerning the popular majority.
The injustice isn't any less just because the majority doesn't agree.
Edit: ^ JD sums it up nicely in that post.
|
United States41976 Posts
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.
|
United States41976 Posts
Also saying that the ten months following conception can be loosely categorised as the bit before birth and the bit after birth is in no way arrogant and I am not imposing my belief that it can be categorised that way upon anyone because it's not a belief. There really is a bit before birth and then a bit after birth. Ask anyone. Like I have literally no clue what point you're trying to make here but I'm fairly sure it's stupid. Unless you would like to argue that the bit before birth isn't always the bit before birth or that sometimes it can be both before birth and after birth at the same time then I have no clue what problem with the distinction you seem to be having.
|
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted.
|
why dont you guys just agree to use the English language as defined in dictionaries rather than putting limitations on the English language?
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 08:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted.
There is no opinion being stifled. You are more that welcome to say that the bit before birth is no less valuable than the bit after birth. You are just not allowed to say that it is the same thing because it is not. One of them lives in a womb, that's how you tell.
|
On November 15 2012 08:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
why dont you guys just agree to use the English language as defined in dictionaries rather than putting limitations on the English language?
Not all dictionaries agree you know. Making this about whose definition of a word is correct is missing the point entirely.
|
On November 15 2012 08:43 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 08:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
why dont you guys just agree to use the English language as defined in dictionaries rather than putting limitations on the English language? Not all dictionaries agree you know. Making this about whose definition of a word is correct is missing the point entirely.
im not aware of this wide divergence as to the meaning of words between dictionaries, and i actually think its stupid to say you cant call a fetus a baby so I am actually agreeing with you it appears.
|
On November 15 2012 08:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 08:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted. There is no opinion being stifled. You are more that welcome to say that the bit before birth is no less valuable than the bit after birth. You are just not allowed to say that it is the same thing because it is not. One of them lives in a womb, that's how you tell.
Definition: baby
An unborn child; a fetus.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/baby
a human fetus.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby
The first few I googled, I'm sure I can find more. This distinction may be settled in your own mind, but it is not settled in everyone's. Mandating that we conform to your definitions is also stifling opinion.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 08:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 08:42 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted. There is no opinion being stifled. You are more that welcome to say that the bit before birth is no less valuable than the bit after birth. You are just not allowed to say that it is the same thing because it is not. One of them lives in a womb, that's how you tell. Definition: baby An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/babya human fetus. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babyThe first few I googled, I'm sure I can find more. This distinction may be settled in your own mind, but it is not settled in everyone's. Mandating that we conform to your definitions is also stifling opinion.
Your argument is that because the dictionary definition is vague then we must be vague also? I maintain that vagueness helps nobody and clarifying what it is you are talking about doesn't in any way stifle an opinion. You also haven't explained why it is arrogant to assume that everybody must conform to the idea that there is a thing called birth which happens roughly 9 months after conception. I don't think it's in any way arrogant to tell everyone that they must accept that birth happens and clarify which side of birth they are referring to.
|
Let's be honest here, it's not about being precise, it's about a word being emotionally charged and wanting to eliminate the power of the word by eliminating the word itself from the discussion. That's all it is.
|
On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 08:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 08:42 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Distinctions can be opinions too. Distinctions between what is homophobic and what isn't, distinctions between what gender and sex actually mean, distinctions between what a baby and a fetus is. Just because these are all settled in your own mind doesn't mean everyone else holds the same views, nor does it mean the discussion should be forced to conform to your views. You are making this entirely a semantic argument to avoid the obvious fact that opinions are indeed being stifled and restricted. There is no opinion being stifled. You are more that welcome to say that the bit before birth is no less valuable than the bit after birth. You are just not allowed to say that it is the same thing because it is not. One of them lives in a womb, that's how you tell. Definition: baby An unborn child; a fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/babya human fetus. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/babyThe first few I googled, I'm sure I can find more. This distinction may be settled in your own mind, but it is not settled in everyone's. Mandating that we conform to your definitions is also stifling opinion. Your argument is that because the dictionary definition is vague then we must be vague also? I maintain that vagueness helps nobody and clarifying what it is you are talking about doesn't in any way stifle an opinion.
its not vague. people call fetuses babies. the dictionary refers to fetuses as babies. he is saying that you (or whomever) creating a mod note that says you cant call fetuses baby is "stifling opinions." its a trivial point, but its correct.
plus, seriously, have you ever heard anyone use the term fetus in common parlance. "oh dear, the fetus is kicking." "i think i will call my fetus bob." "how is your fetus doing today?"
using fetus instead of baby has the (i would argue sole) purpose of dehumanizing the child, which is the whole debate when it comes to pro-lifer's arguments.
|
the argument that defining a word stifles an opinion merely indicates a persons unwillingness to separate an argument from a connotation of a term.
The counter argument to that is usings terms like prebirth and post birth. In my eyes, and clearly Kwarks eyes, the difference is literally semantics. Getting caught up in this debate is precisely what defining, unilaterally, the words we choose to use in our argument attempts to avoid.
That being said, I don't mean to undermine this discussion, only to help make it clearer. It is clearly a worthwhile topic outside of the other thread.
I can concede that people, despite being told exactly the definition of a word, will subconsciously assign their own learned connotations anyway. However, that is not a failing or criticism of the practice of defining the words one should be using in a debate.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 08:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let's be honest here, it's not about being precise, it's about a word being emotionally charged and wanting to eliminate the power of the word by eliminating the word itself. That's all it is.
It's about idiots being deliberately vague because they're too lazy or too stupid to make an actual argument and then getting upset when told that birth is a dividing line in terms of the word we use, even if they can maintain that in all other ways it is of identical value. Making an argument which refers precisely to the issues at hand should not be a burden.
|
The whole abortion debate revolves around the status of the unborn child in the mother's womb, whether or not that child ought to be treated as fully human or something less. That's why the debate is so contentious. That's why it revolves so often around definitions and semantics. And that's why it's important to be respectful of one another's preferred vocabularies, rather than simply demanding that everyone else conform to yours.
|
I'm on the (lets just say conservative for the sake of understanding) side of things and I agree with kwark. You can easily express your opinions and ideas without being insulting or coming off like a complete dick about things. taking your talking point from propaganda from fox news isn't going to get you anywhere. The problem you get on forums is a really hard case of the backfire effect. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_effect ) which makes people emotional about their arguments instead of thinking logically about them. The guy we're all talking about clearly went over the line of just over emotional arguing and became a dickish elitist prick that he probably thought kwark was being. Kwark was making a point to try and clarify what the guy said for the sake of everyone understanding exactly what the guy was saying. He wasn't arguing in that case about what the guy said.
You can say that you believe that life begins at conception and not box yourself into a ideological corner that you end up with your back to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
