|
On November 14 2012 09:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote:
Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus just like the rest of the civilized world.
God it sucks to be a straight white Christian male in today's world.
This is a singular example as I haven't been keeping a running track but I'm pretty sure everyone knows here that Kwark is passive aggressive when he posts and posts things that would get most users banned or warned progressively until a ban.
I was just bringing this up as more of a curious statement, is it just because the mod power is there so nothing can be done or no one really cares? And if that's the case why can't everyone just post as poorly as this specific post.
I mean I've had my share of similarly rude posts I've typed and I got my equal share of warnings for the stupidity, I feel it should be equated or at least not brushed aside.
NOTE**** this isn't the first time someone mentioned Kwark as being passive aggressive, in the general election thread he was inferring that a user was an idiot.
EDIT:
Example of a user warning
On November 13 2012 13:16 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 12:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:50 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments. in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.) in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss. But in a perfect world where everyone worked hard and took their fair share and was willing to help out their fellows, communism would work. isn't the fair share whatever they can get, minus the agreed upon wages and paying back investments? even in a perfect world, communism wouldn't exist because communism presupposes that the workers deserve as much of the profit as the investors and managers. they don't. That's just adorable. Maybe you should rush back to the drawing board because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. User was warned for this post
Similar post in nature, adds nothing but ad hominem yet one is warned and one is allowed.
This is especially noteworthy since Kwark uses his mod functions, or so I've noticed, readily on hand and in some cases this is mildly ironic.
|
OMG yes another KwarK thread
*grabs popcorn 
|
United States42957 Posts
It was sarcasm. It doesn't suck to be one of the entitled group in society and being one of them while simultaneously complaining about the poverty of the out groups is worthy of ridicule.
Since the civil rights movement and women's liberation there's been this strange thing where straight white men like to complain about those groups while being completely unaware of their privilege. It's typified by statements such as "why can't we have straight pride rallies" and the like.
|
On November 14 2012 10:08 KwarK wrote:Since the civil rights movement and women's liberation there's been this strange thing where straight white men like to complain about those groups while being completely unaware of their privilege. It's typified by statements such as "why can't we have straight pride rallies" and the like.
!!!
This needs to be a modnote at the top of all threads with anything to do with these sorts of things.
|
On November 14 2012 10:08 KwarK wrote:
It was sarcasm. It doesn't suck to be one of the entitled group in society and being one of them while simultaneously complaining about the poverty of the out groups is worthy of ridicule.
Since the civil rights movement and women's liberation there's been this strange thing where straight white men like to complain about those groups while being completely unaware of their privilege. It's typified by statements such as "why can't we have straight pride rallies" and the like.
You've debated his stance in this thread, not your facetious post. What makes it alright, other then the fact your name is red, act the same as the people you so willingly ban? I don't see Falling seeming to ever act in such a way and he gets very much invested at times into debates (especially that US debate thread).
This isn't about whether he was insinuating the suppression of women but the way you reply to posters you moderate on multiple occasions. I don't understand how there is such a disconnect.
I also (along with I believe every poster after the specific users post you're referring to) argued his stance as ridiculous, but they didn't resort to rhetoric and disconnect through sarcastic plies.
Hope that clears the meaning of this thread up, no one is disagreeing that what he was inferring was ridiculous.
|
United States42957 Posts
I did not feel that his post merited a full response as it was mainly bitching about women and blacks. I felt the simplest way to illustrate what was wrong with his post was to illustrate how myopic and entitled he was by parodying the core of his argument.
|
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.
Don't want mods on your back about posting style don't do these things.
1. Image macros
2. memes
3. one liners(it's risky you can sometimes get away with a nice one liner at a start of a thread but it's also very likely to get you banned, although puns seem to get past this for w.e reason.)
4. Direct insults, really making anything personal, ie calling a specific player/person out.
5. Conspiracy theories (Probably a conspiracy in itself :D)
6. Hater comments, ie something that has a fanbase you just go into the thread to post xxx is lame, yyy is great. Which is pretty unrelated to the topic.
7. Backseat moderating(if you're going to do it you have to be very sly about it, usually be being passive aggressive, or hyper aggressive and just berate the specific post not the poster just the post)
probably other things too, but it's really number 4 that gets people in trouble the most.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I don't see any problems here.
|
On November 14 2012 10:42 KwarK wrote:
I did not feel that his post merited a full response as it was mainly bitching about women and blacks. I felt the simplest way to illustrate what was wrong with his post was to illustrate how myopic and entitled he was by parodying the core of his argument.
Well then I suppose we have this thread as a source as to the limits of one line rhetoric permitted as long as it is the simplest way to illustrate what is wrong with a users post.
Thanks for clearing all of this up.
|
Just posting to correct you in that KwarK doesn't have a red name; KwarK has a banling icon.
|
I don't think brevity and meaning are closely correlated enough to warrant an equivalent comparison; in the vast majority of cases, the "message" of a post is fairly clear, regardless of length, and its propriety ought to be regarded as such.
|
thats the worst post of kwark's you could find?
|
On November 14 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thats the worst post of kwark's you could find?
No, not by a long margin but I don't have active records of mod postings as I never thought I'd need them but it's a seemingly continous process lately.
|
On November 14 2012 11:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thats the worst post of kwark's you could find? No, not by a long margin but I don't have active records of mod postings as I never thought I'd need them but it's a seemingly continous process lately.
hard to take the thread seriously when that is the only example mentioned and you make such a bold statement:
I'm pretty sure everyone knows here that Kwark is passive aggressive
|
Katowice25012 Posts
I don't find this to be passive aggressive, this is just normal sarcasm to me. I don't think it's unwarranted at all in situations like this, if anything it's an amusing way to keep the thread on track that bypasses possibilities of a derail.
|
Political sensitivity, and far more snarky than sarcastic. But not aberrant.
I don't really think this warrants this much attention. I also don't know the purpose of this thread is. Are we supposed to bash Kwark, or shall I quote my sarcastic post from an LR thread in response to another flame-starter:
On November 04 2012 12:04 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 12:03 Nick_54 wrote:
Why does Naniwa have to be such a dick. Just gg like a normal fucking person. HANG HIM
|
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.
|
No, the reason why I like to read Kwark threads and bring out the popcorn isn't because it's another growing list of instances in which Kwark was unreasonable.
It's because 9 times out of 10, he was entirely justified in doing what he did, and is reasonable enough to explain the obvious in amusing ways to us. The popcorn is laughing at clueless users who have no idea what posting on TL should look like. The only issue I have with Kwark is with how he treats any and all religion-related argument, but that's the 1 out of 10.
|
Oh look its the weekly Kwark thread! Maybe we should email Kwark's sponsors?
|
On November 14 2012 11:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thats the worst post of kwark's you could find? No, not by a long margin but I don't have active records of mod postings as I never thought I'd need them but it's a seemingly continous process lately.
Well clearly its time to start taking active records of mod postings.
Come with a proper case i say.
|
On November 15 2012 01:00 iamperfection wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 11:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 14 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thats the worst post of kwark's you could find? No, not by a long margin but I don't have active records of mod postings as I never thought I'd need them but it's a seemingly continous process lately. Well clearly its time to start taking active records of mod postings. Come with a proper case i say.
agreed. keep us informed.
|
On November 14 2012 18:28 Joedaddy wrote: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): Show nested quote +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.
I love KwarK threads, and I rejoice and grab popcorn whenever I see one because it invariably shows the amount of logic and reasoning that goes through each warning/ban, and it also shows how much patience the mods have in answering every idiot who comes to website feedback with actual arguments and logic. It is also entertaining to see how far the complainers will go in trying to justify themselves. All for nothing, because they are always in the wrong.
|
When kwark is being "aggressive" he usually isn't very passive about it, he's very well articulated when he's calling someone out.
The example you presented is just sarcasm.
|
Attacking a strawman with contemptuous sarcasm is the number one right of the internet, please do not take it away from Kwark or we might all be in danger.
|
On November 14 2012 18:48 Funnytoss wrote:
No, the reason why I like to read Kwark threads and bring out the popcorn isn't because it's another growing list of instances in which Kwark was unreasonable.
It's because 9 times out of 10, he was entirely justified in doing what he did, and is reasonable enough to explain the obvious in amusing ways to us. The popcorn is laughing at clueless users who have no idea what posting on TL should look like. The only issue I have with Kwark is with how he treats any and all religion-related argument, but that's the 1 out of 10.
glad to see im not alone.
|
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.
|
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.
Yeah, I'm still shocked that the "usual abortion topic rule" is either usual or a rule. It's nonsense to say that you can express your belief that the unborn child is a baby (human) (the essence of the pro-life argument) but you cannot actually use the word baby.
|
Website feedback needs a single dedicated thread for KwarK. And then Fan Clubs needs another.
|
((I was going to create a thread about the "usual abortion topic rule," but it looks like it came up here already. Here is what would have been my OP. Also, I would like to point out this is like my third Website Feedback foray in like two months. I'm becoming quite the crusader.))
I just wanted to register my discontent with the mod note in the “Irish abortion law” thread that just got closed. KwarK is correct that the words “baby” and “fetus” have meanings. Those meanings, however, are often interchangeable. Several online dictionaries support their interchangeability:
ba•by (b b )
n. pl. ba•bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
ba•by
[bey-bee] Show IPA noun, plural ba•bies,adjective, verb, ba•bied, ba•by•ing.
noun
1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.
You also have the definitive dictionary of the English language, The Oxford English Dictionary. It’s first entry for “baby” is as follows:
A very young child, esp. one not yet able to walk and dependent on the care of others; an infant. Also applied to an unborn child.
Wegandi evidently got banned for “being a dick over correct spelling” to the mod, Kwark, that he was arguing with. Fine. It happens. But I think it’s important to recognize that the whole disagreement was subsequent to an unnecessary attempt to restrict the definition of the word “baby.” Words are defined by their usage, not by fiats from on high. And insisting that other people conform to your habits of language use is at best pedantic.
I think that mod notes ought to be reserved for less trivial purposes.
There, TL, consider yourself feedbacked.
|
wegandi was banned for questioning kwark's use of "foetus" instead of "fetus." kwark is from the UK.
interesting that he got a 1 week ban for being a dick and saying "Can we spell fetus correctly?"
Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other.
If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
PS: One of the risks of sex is pregnancy. If you do not want to take that risk then do not engage in the act. Just the same as in banking - a loan is a risk. If you don't want to happen to lose the money you loaned, perhaps you shouldn't make the loans in the first place. It is a voluntary choice, just because ex-ante you dislike your choice, doesn't mean you have the right to murder.
User was temp banned for this post.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=382015¤tpage=5#93
Wegandi was just temp banned for 1 week by KwarK.
That account was created on 2011-03-12 14:09:12 and had 877 posts.
Reason: My language is called English too and tl is not an exclusively American forum. Next time you feel like being a dick over correct spelling of words you should remember this moment.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=1442#28829
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37032 Posts
KwarK threads are the best threads :D
|
United States42957 Posts
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. Show nested quote +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?
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:wegandi was banned for questioning kwark's use of "foetus" instead of "fetus." kwark is from the UK. interesting that he got a 1 week ban for being a dick and saying "Can we spell fetus correctly?" Show nested quote +Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other.
If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
PS: One of the risks of sex is pregnancy. If you do not want to take that risk then do not engage in the act. Just the same as in banking - a loan is a risk. If you don't want to happen to lose the money you loaned, perhaps you shouldn't make the loans in the first place. It is a voluntary choice, just because ex-ante you dislike your choice, doesn't mean you have the right to murder.
User was temp banned for this post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=382015¤tpage=5#93Show nested quote +Wegandi was just temp banned for 1 week by KwarK.
That account was created on 2011-03-12 14:09:12 and had 877 posts.
Reason: My language is called English too and tl is not an exclusively American forum. Next time you feel like being a dick over correct spelling of words you should remember this moment. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=1442#28829
Complaining about spelling in lieu of actually making a point is pretty fucking retarded. Complaining about it and being wrong is even more retarded. But the biggest prize goes to the guy who does both of the above to a moderator. It would have been banworthy shitposting either way, whoever he did it to could have reported it and he'd have been moderated but skipping the middle steps and just going right up to the guy empowered to act is pretty fucking dumb.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On November 14 2012 18:28 Joedaddy wrote: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): Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 15 2012 07:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:wegandi was banned for questioning kwark's use of "foetus" instead of "fetus." kwark is from the UK. interesting that he got a 1 week ban for being a dick and saying "Can we spell fetus correctly?" Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other.
If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
PS: One of the risks of sex is pregnancy. If you do not want to take that risk then do not engage in the act. Just the same as in banking - a loan is a risk. If you don't want to happen to lose the money you loaned, perhaps you shouldn't make the loans in the first place. It is a voluntary choice, just because ex-ante you dislike your choice, doesn't mean you have the right to murder.
User was temp banned for this post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=382015¤tpage=5#93Wegandi was just temp banned for 1 week by KwarK.
That account was created on 2011-03-12 14:09:12 and had 877 posts.
Reason: My language is called English too and tl is not an exclusively American forum. Next time you feel like being a dick over correct spelling of words you should remember this moment. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=1442#28829 Complaining about spelling in lieu of actually making a point is pretty fucking retarded. Complaining about it and being wrong is even more retarded. But the biggest prize goes to the guy who does both of the above to moderator. It would have been banworthy shitposting either way, whoever he did it to could have reported it and he'd have been moderated but skipping the middle steps and just going right up to the guy empowered to act is pretty fucking dumb.
let me clarify: ban justified, but curious as to the length.
edit: i was actually trying to help out because the post above mine could be read as you banning someone that you were arguing with willy-nilly; wasnt trying to ride your ass (this time!!!). ;-)
|
On November 15 2012 07:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
In order to have an intelligent debate on the issue(hardly a possibility to begin with) you NEED a unilateral definition of the words. Otherwise you will find yourself arguing over semantics.
The merits of a persons argument on the topic is not judged by the connotation of the words he or she uses. That should make the definitions irrelevant. The idea is to make it simpler for the audience to understand EXACTLY the argument rather than have to infer the meaning of a potentially foggy word. This is why usually it is accompanied by an exact number of weeks into pregnancy.
|
On November 15 2012 07:45 Gene wrote:
In order to have an intelligent debate on the issue(hardly a possibility to begin with) you NEED a unilateral definition of the words. Otherwise you will find yourself arguing over semantics.
The merits of a persons argument on the topic is not judged by the connotation of the words he or she uses. That should make the definitions irrelevant. The idea is to make it simpler for the audience to understand EXACTLY the argument rather than have to infer the meaning of a potentially foggy word. This is why usually it is accompanied by an exact number of weeks into pregnancy.
I would agree with you about the importance of shared definitions, but that's just it: they have to be mutual. Something both sides can agree with. Something that was arrived at through discussion, not a one-sided declaration.
And it's naive to think that, in the context of an abortion debate, "fetus" is not an ideologically charged word, which is why you don't get to suddenly declare it the only appropriate word to use.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 07:35 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 08:05 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 07:45 Gene wrote:
In order to have an intelligent debate on the issue(hardly a possibility to begin with) you NEED a unilateral definition of the words. Otherwise you will find yourself arguing over semantics.
The merits of a persons argument on the topic is not judged by the connotation of the words he or she uses. That should make the definitions irrelevant. The idea is to make it simpler for the audience to understand EXACTLY the argument rather than have to infer the meaning of a potentially foggy word. This is why usually it is accompanied by an exact number of weeks into pregnancy. I would agree with you about the importance of shared definitions, but that's just it: they have to be mutual. Something both sides can agree with. Something that was arrived at through discussion, not a one-sided declaration. And it's naive to think that, in the context of an abortion debate, "fetus" is not an ideologically charged word, which is why you don't get to suddenly declare it the only appropriate word to use.
It's ideologically charged only because one side of the debate insists on claiming that a prebirth baby is the same thing as a postbirth baby because it helps their rhetoric of baby killing. It's a nonsense. You can believe they have exactly the same value and then make your case for the prebirth baby having value without having to call it the same thing as a post birth baby, it's not like recognising that you can use different words for them means that one is intrinsically less valuable than the other, the word simply describes the thing accurately. Meaningful communication is not ideologically charged, it gets in the way of the more extreme pro-life rhetoric but extreme pro-life rhetoric is not meaningful communication.
If you think a three year old toddler has value that's great, you can argue why.
If you think a 20 week old foetus has value, also great, you can argue why.
Recognising the distinction between the two and explaining which it is you are talking about when you make your case does not weaken your case at all unless your case only applies to one of the two and you're making stuff up.
If you are talking about a foetus and they're talking about a foetus then calling it a word which applies exclusively to foetus does absolutely nothing to hinder your discussion but ensures a degree of intellectual honesty through making accurate points.
|
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 States42957 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 States42957 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 States42957 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 States42957 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 States42957 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 States42957 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.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote: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.
Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue.
|
On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote: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 same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. 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 always 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. 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. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy.
In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is.
|
On November 15 2012 08:59 Gene wrote:
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.
connotations of terms is like 90% of the battle though in rhetoric. i am working on a class action in New York right now, and the putative class plaintiff is complaining about the use of ascorbic acid, retnyl palmitate, etc. in the food products. they used those terms specifically because they sound awful, but in reality they are Vitamin C and Vitamin A. by classifying the language, you control the debate.
|
On November 15 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote: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 same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. 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 always 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. 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. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy. In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is.
Its really not. People believing that is the problem right there. You can't tie your opinions to buzzwords and phrase's and expect them to have any logical play for you.
|
On November 15 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote: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. Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue.
i actually think the whole thing is trivial. regardless, let them call them babies, but clarify that they are unborn. then everyone is happy. you get your clarity, they get to say you're murdering babies (unborn). i dont even know why people care about this issue so much.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote: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 same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. 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 always 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. 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. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy. In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is.
As long as you're happy to clarify that whether it's before birth or after birth that you're making your point about then you can come up with your own words. Just be check that the word you decide upon doesn't also mean something completely different.
|
On November 15 2012 09:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote: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 same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. 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 always 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. 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. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy. In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is. As long as you're happy to clarify that whether it's before birth or after birth that you're making your point about then you can come up with your own words. Just be check that the word you decide upon doesn't also mean something completely different.
We've established several times in this thread that baby can mean a child in the womb. Words have meanings, KwarK!
|
On November 15 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote: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. Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue. i actually think the whole thing is trivial. regardless, let them call them babies, but clarify that they are unborn. then everyone is happy. you get your clarity, they get to say you're murdering babies (unborn). i dont even know why people care about this issue so much.
Because no one actually wants to kill babies or be labeled that they do. Pro life people believe that fetus's are babies and pro choice people don't. Thats the core of the argument between them if you can frame it away from that black or white thing to your advantage your going to either knowingly or unknowingly.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 09:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:18 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote: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 same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. 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 always 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. 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. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy. In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is. As long as you're happy to clarify that whether it's before birth or after birth that you're making your point about then you can come up with your own words. Just be check that the word you decide upon doesn't also mean something completely different. We've established several times in this thread that baby can mean a child in the womb. Words have meanings, KwarK!
So don't use it because it can also mean something else according to an online dictionary and makes certain people very confused. Instead come up with terms which precisely refer to the thing you want to refer to and nothing else.
|
On November 15 2012 09:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:25 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 09:18 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 09:04 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 09:02 Sermokala wrote: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 same way as it wouldn't get you anywhere by getting them from msnbc. 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 always 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. 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. Also Kwark 2016. I'm not going to let facts dictate my fantasy. In the context of abortion debates, "fetus" is every bit the propaganda term that "baby" is. As long as you're happy to clarify that whether it's before birth or after birth that you're making your point about then you can come up with your own words. Just be check that the word you decide upon doesn't also mean something completely different. We've established several times in this thread that baby can mean a child in the womb. Words have meanings, KwarK! So don't use it because it can also mean something else according to an online dictionary and makes certain people very confused. Instead come up with terms which precisely refer to the thing you want to refer to and nothing else.
That's not really how the language works. And it's not necessarily a principle of effective communication, which relies on commonly accepted and widespread definitions of the words more often than it relies on definitions of the words specialized for a particular discipline.
That's the point. We don't get to micromanage how other people express themselves.
|
On November 15 2012 09:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote: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. Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue. i actually think the whole thing is trivial. regardless, let them call them babies, but clarify that they are unborn. then everyone is happy. you get your clarity, they get to say you're murdering babies (unborn). i dont even know why people care about this issue so much. Because no one actually wants to kill babies or be labeled that they do. Pro life people believe that fetus's are babies and pro choice people don't. Thats the core of the argument between them if you can frame it away from that black or white thing to your advantage your going to either knowingly or unknowingly.
well, nobody wants to be called a baby killer, but i dont think the debate is over whether you can classify a fetus as a baby. its whether a fetus/unborn child is truly alive since it cannot survive on its own. i dont want to put words in pro-choicer's mouths though. the whole abortion debate is kind of stupid to me. Supreme Court has ruled; stare decisis governs; U.S. is gradually becoming more liberal; further debate is a waste of time.
|
Wow, this thread exploded.
What were talking about again? Not fetuses iirc
|
On November 15 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 15 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote: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. Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue. i actually think the whole thing is trivial. regardless, let them call them babies, but clarify that they are unborn. then everyone is happy. you get your clarity, they get to say you're murdering babies (unborn). i dont even know why people care about this issue so much. Because no one actually wants to kill babies or be labeled that they do. Pro life people believe that fetus's are babies and pro choice people don't. Thats the core of the argument between them if you can frame it away from that black or white thing to your advantage your going to either knowingly or unknowingly. well, nobody wants to be called a baby killer, but i dont think the debate is over whether you can classify a fetus as a baby. its whether a fetus/unborn child is truly alive since it cannot survive on its own. i dont want to put words in pro-choicer's mouths though. the whole abortion debate is kind of stupid to me. Supreme Court has ruled; stare decisis governs; U.S. is gradually becoming more liberal; further debate is a waste of time.
It's not about simply calling it life or not life. People have no trouble at all swatting a mosquito knowing full well it's alive. It's about establishing the emotional connection which we call empathy, and using emotionally connected words is crucial to that aim.
I'm not here to debate abortion in either case. I just think people should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of moderation, which includes of course the opinion that an unborn fetus is a baby.
|
On November 15 2012 09:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Wow, this thread exploded.
What were talking about again? Not fetuses iirc
It all comes back to the fetuses.
Or foetuses.
|
On November 15 2012 09:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Wow, this thread exploded.
What were talking about again? Not fetuses iirc
It was never about fetus it was about the usage of words when debating or arguing about things. Some guy got banned because they thought kwark was talking down to them when he was just clarifying what the guy was saying. You can argue that a fetus is a person but you can't call a fetus a baby.
|
On November 15 2012 09:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Wow, this thread exploded.
What were talking about again? Not fetuses iirc It was never about fetus it was about the usage of words when debating or arguing about things. Some guy got banned because they thought kwark was talking down to them when he was just clarifying what the guy was saying. You can argue that a fetus is a person but you can't call a fetus a baby.
You better alert the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary!
|
|
|
On November 15 2012 09:47 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:41 Sermokala wrote:On November 15 2012 09:35 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Wow, this thread exploded.
What were talking about again? Not fetuses iirc It was never about fetus it was about the usage of words when debating or arguing about things. Some guy got banned because they thought kwark was talking down to them when he was just clarifying what the guy was saying. You can argue that a fetus is a person but you can't call a fetus a baby. You better alert the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary!
My teacher no tought me the englishess well enough to know some fansy tansy oxford dictionary any more then the regular words one.
|
On November 15 2012 09:37 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 09:25 Sermokala wrote:On November 15 2012 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 09:04 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 08:54 KwarK wrote: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. Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue. i actually think the whole thing is trivial. regardless, let them call them babies, but clarify that they are unborn. then everyone is happy. you get your clarity, they get to say you're murdering babies (unborn). i dont even know why people care about this issue so much. Because no one actually wants to kill babies or be labeled that they do. Pro life people believe that fetus's are babies and pro choice people don't. Thats the core of the argument between them if you can frame it away from that black or white thing to your advantage your going to either knowingly or unknowingly. well, nobody wants to be called a baby killer, but i dont think the debate is over whether you can classify a fetus as a baby. its whether a fetus/unborn child is truly alive since it cannot survive on its own. i dont want to put words in pro-choicer's mouths though. the whole abortion debate is kind of stupid to me. Supreme Court has ruled; stare decisis governs; U.S. is gradually becoming more liberal; further debate is a waste of time. It's not about simply calling it life or not life. People have no trouble at all swatting a mosquito knowing full well it's alive. It's about establishing the emotional connection which we call empathy, and using emotionally connected words is crucial to that aim. I'm not here to debate abortion in either case. I just think people should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of moderation, which includes of course the opinion that an unborn fetus is a baby.
i agree as to the baby/fetus thing, but think its trivial. i agree that people should be allowed to express opinions (in a reasonable manner) without fear of moderation. i find moderating ambiguous language silly, and i have had this discussion before (also in relation to kwark oddly enough).
|
That's because kwark is the only mod courageaous enough to regularly dwell into those threads.
What he's asking is perfectly reasonnable. He's asking that people have a debate instead of throwing mud at each other.
|
Calling a fetus a baby is just a way to paint abortions as morally wrong because no one wants to kill babies (right?), because even if a baby is technically a fetus, the use of the word baby is just to arouse feelings of the "common" definition of baby, namely, a living, cute, innocent gift from above.
It's like a loaded question: "Do you support killing innocent babies?" instead of asking if someone is pro-choice.
The vagueness of terms should certainly monitored and moderated in some cases. Especially when their primary use is to appeal to your emotions rather than your intellect. Even if the argument itself is based on morality or something else subjective, it should not validate the use logical fallacies and dishonest language.
|
On November 15 2012 11:17 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Calling a fetus a baby is just a way to paint abortions as morally wrong because no one wants to kill babies (right?), because even if a baby is technically a fetus, the use of the word baby is just to arouse feelings of the "common" definition of baby, namely, a living, cute, innocent gift from above.
It's like a loaded question: "Do you support killing innocent babies?" instead of asking if someone is pro-choice.
The vagueness of terms should certainly monitored and moderated in some cases. Especially when their primary use is to appeal to your emotions rather than your intellect. Even if the argument itself is based on morality or something else subjective, it should not validate the use logical fallacies and dishonest language.
a fetus is a baby (its not technical, its the definition of baby)....saying a fetus isnt a baby is silly. and saying people dont call fetuses a baby is silly: nobody refers to fetuses as fetuses, they call them babies....
|
On November 15 2012 11:17 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Calling a fetus a baby is just a way to paint abortions as morally wrong because no one wants to kill babies (right?), because even if a baby is technically a fetus, the use of the word baby is just to arouse feelings of the "common" definition of baby, namely, a living, cute, innocent gift from above.
It's like a loaded question: "Do you support killing innocent babies?" instead of asking if someone is pro-choice.
The vagueness of terms should certainly monitored and moderated in some cases. Especially when their primary use is to appeal to your emotions rather than your intellect. Even if the argument itself is based on morality or something else subjective, it should not validate the use logical fallacies and dishonest language.
Moral issues are completely about emotion, not about "intellect." Values are based upon value, which is a subjective emotional assessment by definition. It makes no sense to even talk about eliminating emotional arguments with respect to a moral debate. Empathy is the foundation for all morality.
In either case, you may disagree personally with the use of a term or specific argument, but that doesn't mean the site should restrict it as a matter of protocol, which is the whole point here. Just look at the terms themselves... Pro-choice is meant to imply the other side is anti-choice. Pro-life is meant to imply the other side is anti-life. Debate is all about words and how you use them, and restricting the words that can be used is to restrict the arguments that can be made, and is therefore stifling opinions.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 12:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 11:17 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Calling a fetus a baby is just a way to paint abortions as morally wrong because no one wants to kill babies (right?), because even if a baby is technically a fetus, the use of the word baby is just to arouse feelings of the "common" definition of baby, namely, a living, cute, innocent gift from above.
It's like a loaded question: "Do you support killing innocent babies?" instead of asking if someone is pro-choice.
The vagueness of terms should certainly monitored and moderated in some cases. Especially when their primary use is to appeal to your emotions rather than your intellect. Even if the argument itself is based on morality or something else subjective, it should not validate the use logical fallacies and dishonest language. Moral issues are completely about emotion, not about "intellect." Values are based upon value, which is a subjective emotional assessment by definition. It makes no sense to even talk about eliminating emotional arguments with respect to a moral debate. Empathy is the foundation for all morality. In either case, you may disagree personally with the use of a term or specific argument, but that doesn't mean the site should restrict it as a matter of protocol, which is the whole point here. Just look at the terms themselves... Pro-choice is meant to imply the other side is anti-choice. Pro-life is meant to imply the other side is anti-life. Debate is all about words and how you use them, and restricting the words that can be used is to restrict the arguments that can be made, and is therefore stifling opinions.
Restricting the argument that abortion means aborting babies in general as opposed to just pre-birth babies is a good thing and if you feel stifled by it then you're just mad you can't use absurd and illogical statements to appeal to emotion.
|
If you want a term that your demographic doesn't find vulgar, try "prenatal" instead of "fetus".
If you say that you find it abhorrent to terminate a baby in the prenatal stage, you're no longer being unspecific, which is good debate.
Frankly, the extreme polarization in most issues like this prevents any rational discourse, though. When everyone wants an all or nothing approach, you're doomed.
|
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful.
|
United States24701 Posts
On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful.
I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder).
Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies.
|
United States42957 Posts
I disagree.
Fortunately I see two solutions to this. Solution A, autoclose any discussion of topics such as abortion. Solution B, trust you guys to attempt a reasonable debate but impose my rules upon it. If you dislike the rules then you can choose to either pretend solution A has been used and not post in it or follow them anyway and just accept that you don't get to imply they kill cute little toddlers while you call pro-choice advocates murderers. I'm going to go with B but if you object to the rules then, as always, website feedback is your friend.
|
On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies.
do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?"
|
United States24701 Posts
On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?"
I'm not sure how to respond to such a crazy loaded question lol
Can you just stick to the spirit of what I'm going for?
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?"
Yes.
Example below.
Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies"
Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded"
Example #2
Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus"
Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)"
Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...."
Pro choice: "well I disagree because...."
|
On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful.
There is, in fact, something illogical in referring to unborn children as babies, in this case. One of the cooperative principles proposed by Grice in semantics is the maxim of Manner, which says, among other things, to avoid ambiguity. In this case, it'd be to specify that it's an unborn children, otherwise it may cause confusion.
Also, basing your argument of descriptive English (such as dictionaries) is a really, really bad idea. It's not because a meaning has been attested by lexicographers that it has any weight; if you looked into the kind of work lexicographers do you'd see that much of what they do has to with archaic meanings or words. As an example, if you used lexicographers' work, you could argue that -dom (such as kingdom, sheepdom, dogdom) is a common affix, just because it was in the 18th century. Not to mention that dictionaries are years, if not decades behind actual word use, and that they cling to old meanings and forms way longer than actual people do.
If you haven't realized by now, pointing at a dictionary will not help you get your point across. You just have to accept that and choose another way of saying "unborn baby" that isn't just "baby", otherwise you guys won't get a decent discussion going.
|
On November 15 2012 13:22 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" I'm not sure how to respond to such a crazy loaded question lol Can you just stick to the spirit of what I'm going for?
well, the idea is that if you change the words they can use then you can somehow lessen the emotions involved in the discussion with the idea that it makes the discussion better. i believe that is unrealistic. if people think that abortion is murder then allowing and disallowing words is not going to make the conversation any less heated, its just going to piss off the people who are being censored. the mod note dooms the discussion, it doesnt make the discussion better.
i dont know. if you feel you need to censor people's word use then you should just go with banning the discussion altogether. especially where you are only censoring one side of the discussion.
|
On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...."
example #3
Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies"
Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)"
Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...."
why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards?
|
United States24701 Posts
On November 15 2012 13:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:22 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" I'm not sure how to respond to such a crazy loaded question lol Can you just stick to the spirit of what I'm going for? well, the idea is that if you change the words they can use then you can somehow lessen the emotions involved in the discussion with the idea that it makes the discussion better.
This isn't my idea. I only shared one specific thing in this thread.
|
On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies.
People have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as fetuses as well. People have trouble discussing abortion. Period. I don't know that there's a more vexed issue in our shared public lives today.
In one sense, a one-to-four month baby is much more comparable to an unborn child than a 30 year old crackhead who is dying from leukemia, and the human life ended by abortion is much more similar to that of a newborn than that of an adult. But I guess that's neither here nor there. I mean you might think that pro-life people are guilty of emotional manipulation by talking about "babies" in the context of abortion. That's fine. I happen to think that pro-choice people are guilty of emotional manipulation by using vocabulary like "fetus" to distance themselves from the act of abortion. I also think they're frequently guilty of emotional manipulation when they frame the issue as a necessary component of women's liberation, as something only opposed by misogynists and fanatics.
One approach to this impasse is to do our best to respect one another's worldviews and the values and the emotions that each one of those worldviews includes. This would include, I think, allowing people to express themselves in the terms they find most fitting to the debate and/or to collaborate on more neutral lexical ground.
Another approach would be to continue to insist that the other side adopt our language and the worldview that such language inheres. I don't think that approach goes much of anywhere, personally.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards?
Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness.
|
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous.
|
United States24701 Posts
On November 15 2012 13:37 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. People have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as fetuses as well. People have trouble discussing abortion. Period. I don't know that there's a more vexed issue in our shared public lives today. In one sense, a one-to-four month baby is much more comparable to an unborn child than a 30 year old crackhead who is dying from leukemia, and the human life ended by abortion is much more similar to that of a newborn than that of an adult. But I guess that's neither here nor there. I mean you might think that pro-life people are guilty of emotional manipulation by talking about "babies" in the context of abortion. That's fine. I happen to think that pro-choice people are guilty of emotional manipulation by using vocabulary like "fetus" to distance themselves from the act of abortion. I also think they're frequently guilty of emotional manipulation when they frame the issue as a necessary component of women's liberation, as something only opposed by misogynists and fanatics. One approach to this impasse is to do our best to respect one another's worldviews and the values and the emotions that each one of those worldviews includes. This would include, I think, allowing people to express themselves in the terms they find most fitting to the debate and/or to collaborate on more neutral lexical ground. Another approach would be to continue to insist that the other side adopt our language and the worldview that such language inheres. I don't think that approach goes much of anywhere, personally.
I'm not sure why there is such a negative connotation attributed to the word fetus, but technically it isn't even the right word to refer to an unborn human child, so I'd personally be fine with not using it either. I still feel people who want to be taken seriously by obvious pro-choice debaters should avoid using the word baby in exchange for the pro-choicers not incorrectly using medical terms in an effort to dehumanize the discussion.
|
On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness.
lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up).
the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness. lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up). the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself.
I would react perfectly evenly if you said I was in fine with feoticide. It invites them to explain why they think it's justifiable rather than just calling them murderers. Imagine the same situation with a vegan challenging a meat eater.
"you eat meat"
"yes I do, here's why"
as opposed to
"you participate in a modern day Holocaust and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent lives every year"
".... are you some kind of retarded vegan?"
|
On November 15 2012 13:42 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:37 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. People have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as fetuses as well. People have trouble discussing abortion. Period. I don't know that there's a more vexed issue in our shared public lives today. In one sense, a one-to-four month baby is much more comparable to an unborn child than a 30 year old crackhead who is dying from leukemia, and the human life ended by abortion is much more similar to that of a newborn than that of an adult. But I guess that's neither here nor there. I mean you might think that pro-life people are guilty of emotional manipulation by talking about "babies" in the context of abortion. That's fine. I happen to think that pro-choice people are guilty of emotional manipulation by using vocabulary like "fetus" to distance themselves from the act of abortion. I also think they're frequently guilty of emotional manipulation when they frame the issue as a necessary component of women's liberation, as something only opposed by misogynists and fanatics. One approach to this impasse is to do our best to respect one another's worldviews and the values and the emotions that each one of those worldviews includes. This would include, I think, allowing people to express themselves in the terms they find most fitting to the debate and/or to collaborate on more neutral lexical ground. Another approach would be to continue to insist that the other side adopt our language and the worldview that such language inheres. I don't think that approach goes much of anywhere, personally. I'm not sure why there is such a negative connotation attributed to the word fetus, but technically it isn't even the right word to refer to an unborn human child, so I'd personally be find with not using it either. I still feel people who want to be taken seriously by obvious pro-choice debaters should avoid using the word baby in exchange for the pro-choicers not incorrectly using medical terms in an effort to dehumanize the discussion.
I think most of the negative connotation comes from the word's history in the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Like I said, it's just such a fraught issue. And I think the solution that you're proposing would be a useful place to start in an attempt to build some sort of common ground between the two camps. I really like that sort of thinking, especially because it places the responsibility to improve the discussion on both sides rather than just one.
One a personal note, though, I don't care if a pro-choice debater, especially one as aggressive and dogmatic as the average TL pro-choice debater (whose aggressiveness and dogmatism are matched only by the average TL pro-life debater), takes me seriously or not. Such approval is just not a priority for me. My only reason for being in website feedback today is because I thought the mod note that started this shitstorm was in poor form, and I just wanted to register that opinion.
|
On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous.
Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this.
|
On November 15 2012 13:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness. lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up). the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself. I would react perfectly evenly if you said I was in fine with feoticide. It invites them to explain why they think it's justifiable rather than just calling them murderers. Imagine the same situation with a vegan challenging a meat eater. "you eat meat" "yes I do, here's why" as opposed to "you participate in a modern day Holocaust and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent lives every year" ".... are you some kind of retarded vegan?"
i'll admit that if censoring language turns the person in your second example into the person in the first example then censorship is awesome. i just dont see that it will happen. before the thread was closed did the mod note help anything, or was it closed too fast?
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this.
This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want.
The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:48 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness. lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up). the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself. I would react perfectly evenly if you said I was in fine with feoticide. It invites them to explain why they think it's justifiable rather than just calling them murderers. Imagine the same situation with a vegan challenging a meat eater. "you eat meat" "yes I do, here's why" as opposed to "you participate in a modern day Holocaust and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent lives every year" ".... are you some kind of retarded vegan?" i'll admit that if censoring language turns the person in your second example into the person in the first example then censorship is awesome. i just dont see that it will happen. before the thread was closed did the mod note help anything, or was it closed too fast?
It was closed almost immediately unfortunately.
|
On November 15 2012 14:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:48 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:On November 15 2012 12:56 HULKAMANIA wrote:
Once again, there's nothing absurd or illogical about referring to unborn children as babies, whether you append some qualifier or not. It's an acceptable use, preserved in idioms and ratified by lexicographers for a great number of native English speakers. Calling unborn children babies is no more or less rhetorical sleight of hand than calling them fetuses.
Coming to some sort of understanding that would allow constructive dialogue to take place between the pro-life, pro-choice camps could be useful. Insisting that the other side use your terminology and then calling them ridiculous, unintelligent, and lazy when they balk at your demands isn't all that useful. I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder). Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness. lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up). the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself. I would react perfectly evenly if you said I was in fine with feoticide. It invites them to explain why they think it's justifiable rather than just calling them murderers. Imagine the same situation with a vegan challenging a meat eater. "you eat meat" "yes I do, here's why" as opposed to "you participate in a modern day Holocaust and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent lives every year" ".... are you some kind of retarded vegan?" i'll admit that if censoring language turns the person in your second example into the person in the first example then censorship is awesome. i just dont see that it will happen. before the thread was closed did the mod note help anything, or was it closed too fast? It was closed almost immediately unfortunately.
social experiment ruined. lets see what happens with the next one. i'll go in and accuse everyone of foeticide and make them all look it up in the dictionary. note, its sad that all the references to foeticide on google relate to female foeticide almost exclusively....
|
I think Kwark's point still stands. Regardless of the nature of the original topic, posting standards and reasonable arguments/ civil exchange of opinions are still enforced. Ambiguity and appeal to emotions are fair game for moderation. I do agree that there are some instances where the sword does not cut both ways (meaning overall moderation [all mods] is not entirely balanced). The opposite example should be moderated as well: "So you don't think a woman has a right over her own body?"
An infant is also a baby. A baby is {allegedly) also a fetus. But an infant is not a fetus. This is why baby is ambiguous and wrong. If you ask, "Is it okay to kill babies?" Well that depends: Did you mean fetuses or infants? Two distinctly different states of life. Those two terms should be used in this regard. Since "baby" can be one or the other, it, as George Carlin would say, obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Thus, the word "baby" is misapplied in an argument regarding abortion, unless of course the argument is also about infanticide.
But that's meaningless because you attempted to argue that asking, strictly regarding unborn children, "Is is okay to kill babies?" is defensible. It is not.
|
On November 15 2012 14:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:03 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:48 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:39 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:26 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 13:16 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
I often see pictures of cute babies (say, 1-4 months) on bumper stickers that say things like "abortion kills babies." While there may be a linguistic justification for using the word baby to refer to an unborn child, such ambiguity in what 'baby' means is taken advantage of by people with agendas all the time. Why does it make sense to put a 3 month old baby on an abortion bumper sticker? Why not put a 30 year old crack head who is dying from leukemia? They each have the same amount of a relationship with abortion (barring infanticide/murder).
Yes, obviously they don't put a picture of a miscarried fetus because well, that's gross. This doesn't change my point though. There is a reason why people have trouble discussing the pros/cons of abortion with people who intentionally refer to unborn children as babies. do you honestly think that the conversation will go any better if they refer to it as "fetus killing" rather than "baby killing?" Yes. Example below. Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded" Example #2 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...." Pro choice: "well I disagree because...." example #3 Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies" Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)" Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a baby because...." why dont you just ban the people who call the pro-lifers retards? Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness. lol. i am sure that pro choice advocates will react well if you say that they are in favor of feoticide (had to look that one up). the point about retards was that in both your examples the issue was how the pro-choicer reacted, not the question (albeit ambiguous) itself. I would react perfectly evenly if you said I was in fine with feoticide. It invites them to explain why they think it's justifiable rather than just calling them murderers. Imagine the same situation with a vegan challenging a meat eater. "you eat meat" "yes I do, here's why" as opposed to "you participate in a modern day Holocaust and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent lives every year" ".... are you some kind of retarded vegan?" i'll admit that if censoring language turns the person in your second example into the person in the first example then censorship is awesome. i just dont see that it will happen. before the thread was closed did the mod note help anything, or was it closed too fast? It was closed almost immediately unfortunately. social experiment ruined. lets see what happens with the next one. i'll go in and accuse everyone of foeticide and make them all look it up in the dictionary. note, its sad that all the references to foeticide on google relate to female foeticide almost exclusively....
Another grand social experiment in forced linguistic conformity shot down in the dawn of its life! Alas!
|
On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways.
I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least.
I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out?
|
On November 15 2012 14:09 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I think Kwark's point still stands. Regardless of the nature of the original topic, posting standards and reasonable arguments/ civil exchange of opinions are still enforced. Ambiguity and appeal to emotions are fair game for moderation. I do agree that there are some instances where the sword does not cut both ways (meaning overall moderation [all mods] is not entirely balanced). The opposite example should be moderated as well: "So you don't think a woman has a right over her own body?"
An infant is also a baby. A baby is {allegedly) also a fetus. But an infant is not a fetus. This is why baby is ambiguous and wrong. If you ask, "Is it okay to kill babies?" Well that depends: Did you mean fetuses or infants? Two distinctly different states of life. Those two terms should be used in this regard. Since "baby" can be one or the other, it, as George Carlin would say, obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Thus, the word "baby" is misapplied in an argument regarding abortion, unless of course the argument is also about infanticide.
But that's meaningless because you attempted to argue that asking, strictly regarding unborn children, "Is is okay to kill babies?" is defensible. It is not.
lol. why do you say allegedly? baby encompasses born and unborn children.
|
On November 15 2012 14:09 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I think Kwark's point still stands. Regardless of the nature of the original topic, posting standards and reasonable arguments/ civil exchange of opinions are still enforced. Ambiguity and appeal to emotions are fair game for moderation. I do agree that there are some instances where the sword does not cut both ways (meaning overall moderation [all mods] is not entirely balanced). The opposite example should be moderated as well: "So you don't think a woman has a right over her own body?"
An infant is also a baby. A baby is {allegedly) also a fetus. But an infant is not a fetus. This is why baby is ambiguous and wrong. If you ask, "Is it okay to kill babies?" Well that depends: Did you mean fetuses or infants? Two distinctly different states of life. Those two terms should be used in this regard. Since "baby" can be one or the other, it, as George Carlin would say, obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Thus, the word "baby" is misapplied in an argument regarding abortion, unless of course the argument is also about infanticide.
But that's meaningless because you attempted to argue that asking, strictly regarding unborn children, "Is is okay to kill babies?" is defensible. It is not.
If the mod note recognized that emotionally duplicitous language frequently occurs on both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice divide, I think I personally would have less of a problem with it. Not none, but less.
|
On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out?
Well these bans were a long time ago. The problem now is that my "mod history" is used as the justification for making my history worse, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in the last ban I got the mod directly said "Normally I would give a warning for this, but your history isn't helping you." I don't care to rehash old history, this thread isn't about me anyway.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:19 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:09 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I think Kwark's point still stands. Regardless of the nature of the original topic, posting standards and reasonable arguments/ civil exchange of opinions are still enforced. Ambiguity and appeal to emotions are fair game for moderation. I do agree that there are some instances where the sword does not cut both ways (meaning overall moderation [all mods] is not entirely balanced). The opposite example should be moderated as well: "So you don't think a woman has a right over her own body?"
An infant is also a baby. A baby is {allegedly) also a fetus. But an infant is not a fetus. This is why baby is ambiguous and wrong. If you ask, "Is it okay to kill babies?" Well that depends: Did you mean fetuses or infants? Two distinctly different states of life. Those two terms should be used in this regard. Since "baby" can be one or the other, it, as George Carlin would say, obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Thus, the word "baby" is misapplied in an argument regarding abortion, unless of course the argument is also about infanticide.
But that's meaningless because you attempted to argue that asking, strictly regarding unborn children, "Is is okay to kill babies?" is defensible. It is not. If the mod note recognized that emotionally duplicitous language frequently occurs on both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice divide, I think I personally would have less of a problem with it. Not none, but less.
If you would like to use another term as specific as foetus then you can feel free.
|
Okay, Daphreak: remove the word allegedly. My argument remains unhindered (pending your reply  ). A baby is a fetus or an infant. It is not a descriptive word in this context and should be dropped for either fetus or infant depending on the nature of the conversation. Infanticide? Infant. Abortion? Fetus. Justin Bieber? "Baby." Let's rock!
|
On November 15 2012 14:30 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Okay, Daphreak: remove the word allegedly. My argument remains unhindered (pending your reply ). A baby is a fetus or an infant. It is not a descriptive word in this context and should be dropped for either fetus or infant depending on the nature of the conversation. Infanticide? Infant. Abortion? Fetus. Justin Bieber? "Baby." Let's rock!
actually, i may have to back off my statement. merriam and the online oxford dictionaries dont include fetus or unborn children in their definitions of baby. i may have been had with the post a few pages back saying its included.... only online dictionaries are showing fetus/unborn child as baby, and online dictionaries are less than reliable in my view.... my world is crumbling about me.... although, in common parlance, everyone still uses baby. =P
|
On November 15 2012 14:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:19 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 14:09 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I think Kwark's point still stands. Regardless of the nature of the original topic, posting standards and reasonable arguments/ civil exchange of opinions are still enforced. Ambiguity and appeal to emotions are fair game for moderation. I do agree that there are some instances where the sword does not cut both ways (meaning overall moderation [all mods] is not entirely balanced). The opposite example should be moderated as well: "So you don't think a woman has a right over her own body?"
An infant is also a baby. A baby is {allegedly) also a fetus. But an infant is not a fetus. This is why baby is ambiguous and wrong. If you ask, "Is it okay to kill babies?" Well that depends: Did you mean fetuses or infants? Two distinctly different states of life. Those two terms should be used in this regard. Since "baby" can be one or the other, it, as George Carlin would say, obscures meaning rather than enhances it. Thus, the word "baby" is misapplied in an argument regarding abortion, unless of course the argument is also about infanticide.
But that's meaningless because you attempted to argue that asking, strictly regarding unborn children, "Is is okay to kill babies?" is defensible. It is not. If the mod note recognized that emotionally duplicitous language frequently occurs on both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice divide, I think I personally would have less of a problem with it. Not none, but less. If you would like to use another term as specific as foetus then you can feel free.
I certainly appreciate the green light, but that's not what I was discussing. I got no problem coming up with alternate phrases for unborn child no matter how many of them get randomly outlawed.
|
On November 15 2012 14:33 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:30 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Okay, Daphreak: remove the word allegedly. My argument remains unhindered (pending your reply ). A baby is a fetus or an infant. It is not a descriptive word in this context and should be dropped for either fetus or infant depending on the nature of the conversation. Infanticide? Infant. Abortion? Fetus. Justin Bieber? "Baby." Let's rock! actually, i may have to back off my statement. merriam and the online oxford dictionaries dont include fetus or unborn children in their definitions of baby. i may have been had with the post a few pages back saying its included.... only online dictionaries are showing fetus/unborn child as baby, and online dictionaries are less than reliable in my view.... my world is crumbling about me.... although, in common parlance, everyone still uses baby. =P
As I pointed out in my original post, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language (the OED) clearly states that baby can be used to refer to an unborn child.
|
On November 15 2012 14:38 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 14:30 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Okay, Daphreak: remove the word allegedly. My argument remains unhindered (pending your reply ). A baby is a fetus or an infant. It is not a descriptive word in this context and should be dropped for either fetus or infant depending on the nature of the conversation. Infanticide? Infant. Abortion? Fetus. Justin Bieber? "Baby." Let's rock! actually, i may have to back off my statement. merriam and the online oxford dictionaries dont include fetus or unborn children in their definitions of baby. i may have been had with the post a few pages back saying its included.... only online dictionaries are showing fetus/unborn child as baby, and online dictionaries are less than reliable in my view.... my world is crumbling about me.... although, in common parlance, everyone still uses baby. =P As I pointed out in my original post, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language (the OED) clearly states that baby can be used to refer to an unborn child.
i checked the online Oxford dictionary and it doesn't. are you looking at a paper copy, or what?
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/baby
noun (plural babies)
1a very young child:
his wife’s just had a baby
[as modifier]:
a baby girl
a very young animal:
bats only have one baby a year
[as modifier]:
baby rabbits
the youngest member of a family or group:
Clara was the baby of the family
a timid or childish person:
‘Don’t be such a baby!’ she said witheringly
(one's baby) informal one’s particular responsibility or concern:
‘This is your baby, Gerry,’ she said, handing him the brief
2 informal a lover or spouse (often as a form of address):
my baby left me for another guy
a thing regarded with affection or familiarity:
this baby can reach speeds of 120 mph
|
On November 15 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:38 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 14:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 14:30 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Okay, Daphreak: remove the word allegedly. My argument remains unhindered (pending your reply ). A baby is a fetus or an infant. It is not a descriptive word in this context and should be dropped for either fetus or infant depending on the nature of the conversation. Infanticide? Infant. Abortion? Fetus. Justin Bieber? "Baby." Let's rock! actually, i may have to back off my statement. merriam and the online oxford dictionaries dont include fetus or unborn children in their definitions of baby. i may have been had with the post a few pages back saying its included.... only online dictionaries are showing fetus/unborn child as baby, and online dictionaries are less than reliable in my view.... my world is crumbling about me.... although, in common parlance, everyone still uses baby. =P As I pointed out in my original post, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language (the OED) clearly states that baby can be used to refer to an unborn child. i checked the online Oxford dictionary and it doesn't. are you looking at a paper copy, or what? http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/babynoun (plural babies) 1a very young child: his wife’s just had a baby [as modifier]: a baby girl a very young animal: bats only have one baby a year [as modifier]: baby rabbits the youngest member of a family or group: Clara was the baby of the family a timid or childish person: ‘Don’t be such a baby!’ she said witheringly (one's baby) informal one’s particular responsibility or concern: ‘This is your baby, Gerry,’ she said, handing him the brief 2 informal a lover or spouse (often as a form of address): my baby left me for another guy a thing regarded with affection or familiarity: this baby can reach speeds of 120 mph
Online "oxford dictionaries" are not to be confused with the Oxford English Dictionary, which is an institution unto itself. You have to pay to access it, though, because it's that legit. Personally, I get "free" access because I'm a graduate student. I'll post the entire definition tomorrow when I'm on campus if you'd like, but I posted the relevant portion in this thread already.
At any rate, goodnight all.
|
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.
Just wanted to provide some examples here so the discussion isn't 100% about the word "baby"...
On rape:+ Show Spoiler +On August 23 2012 18:10 VPCursed wrote:
rape is when you and another get stupid drunk and have sex, then she decides 2 weeks later she wants to change her mind and reports you the police. thats rape. At least in maine thats how it is.
User was banned for this post. On August 23 2012 22:27 Masvidal wrote:
Rape is when a woman decides to have sex with a man, and then at a later time, decides she regrets it and takes legal recourse to assuage her shame.
User was banned for this post.
On gender:+ Show Spoiler +On April 03 2012 18:12 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 05:02 JOJOsc2news wrote:On April 03 2012 03:41 StimFesT wrote:
I seriously feel wierd when I look at the picture and know that she/he was born as a regular male. But she/he is actually beautiful Wow... stumbling over the he/she awkwardness in this post. She chose to be a woman, just call her her. He's a man who had surgery/hormone therapy; just call him him. User was temp banned for this post. On April 03 2012 18:40 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Sorry about his feelings, but working as intended. A man should not be able to qualify as Miss Universe; he may be wearing a skirt, but there's a smelly sausage under it. I'm not trying to come across as ignorant, but that's the simple truth and no amount of surgery can truly change what nature gave him. Well unless he wants to castrate himself, but that still wouldn't give him ovaries and a vagina, and his body will never naturally produce female hormones (without supplements) in the amount biological females produce it.
User was warned for this post On April 03 2012 19:34 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:30 judochopaction wrote:On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived. the whole point is you wouldnt change because you think of yourself as a man. thats why she changed herself because she was a woman with male body parts. so then it comes to the issue of why he felt like a woman despite being born a man. User was temp banned for this post. On April 03 2012 23:09 TheRhox wrote:
So I've read the article and I can't seem to understand why this is an issue, he's clearly not a female. Just a man that had some surgery done to appear female. That's why he was disqualified right, because it's Miss Universe Canada?.. As far as I know you have to be biologically female to compete in this competition.
You can't change who you are just because you want to, like if you were born asian you can't just decide one day to be white and go around telling people you're native Irish, no matter how much you "feel" white inside.
User was temp banned for this post.
On Islam:+ Show Spoiler +On September 16 2012 04:18 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 04:11 Jormundr wrote:On September 16 2012 03:55 Supert0fu wrote:On September 16 2012 03:20 FrogOfWar wrote:On September 16 2012 03:02 Supert0fu wrote:
Muhammad was a warlord and Jesus was a healer. I'm glad with my choice Yes, a shame that christians never followed him but only use him to make themselves feel better while being just as militant as everybody else. And I mean that. Jesus was a great person. (Not sure about miracle healings though.) Yes I'm not sure either, but Jesus's core philosophy is something that everyone should really take heart in. The point is Jesus never fought or killed ANYONE for his cause, while Mohammed killed many. I am also dismayed that Christianity has been twisted, but you never see Christians start burning shit in the streets when someone makes a retarded video of their profit. Take the westborough bapist church, probably the worst portrayal of Christianity in America. They have never killed anyone and only have their horrible protests. Muslims however are responsible for the deaths of many in America and around the world, Plug your ears, forget about abortion bombings, fag-bashings, and the KKK. Or you could just say that those people weren't 'true christians' (while Muslims say the same thing about Al-Qaeda and other militant sects.) The truth is that no religion is willing to accept responsibility for the actions of its extremists. Hence why nobody called Anders Breivik a 'Christian terrorist' - it's not profitable for news media to alienate their viewers. Beating homosexuals is against the law, this means there will be a severe penalty involved for the culprits, meanwhile throwing homosexuals of buildings is almost a national sport in the islamic world. Abortion bombings are rare, happen not even once a year, Islamic Jihad attacks happen daily. the KKK is a group with 3.000 members, you have nearly no social life if anyone knows you are part of this extreme group. But if you are in the Muslim Brotherhood ( supports terrorism, main goal is a global Islamic Calpihate) people will shrugg. Christianity as a religion is more peaceful, modern and openminded then Islam is, Islam has yet to even reach an enlightment age so people are actually EQUAL if they have a different religion. Breivik was not inspired by a bible, but rather political and most likely simply insane. But Muslims attack homosexuals, beat infidels and bomb the twin towers with the Koran in their hands. And for good reason, the Koran has some extremly violent parts in it, and unlike Christianity all of it has to be taken literal. Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they! Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement User was temp banned for this post.
Now I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think these posts are good, or that I think they are correct, or that I agree with them. My only point here is that these are opinions which should be allowed to be expressed without people being punished for them. If they are wrong, then part of the purpose and benefit of the thread is to clearly articulate why they are wrong and to have a better discussion. Just foregoing the persuasion and using authority to silence them is bound to have a chilling effect on posting many opinions, which detracts from the conversation as a whole. Personally I'd love to hear these sorts of posts debated, it's far more interesting then everyone repeating the same arguments over and over. We all know TL doesn't believe in complete freedom of speech, but I would advocate that people have a right to be wrong on certain issues without being punished for it or silenced. We should avoid as much as possible excluding entire perspectives which large numbers of people hold from the discussion. The standard argument is that the quality of discussion improves when you eliminate these people, but I would argue greater consensus is worse for the quality of discussion than a wide variety of tolerated perspectives.
|
On November 15 2012 14:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out? Well these bans were a long time ago. The problem now is that my "mod history" is used as the justification for making my history worse, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in the last ban I got the mod directly said "Normally I would give a warning for this, but your history isn't helping you." I don't care to rehash old history, this thread isn't about me anyway.
Sounds familiar.
|
On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least.
I agree with everything you've posted in this thread, except for this part. I've had some pretty heated back and forths with moderators (especially Kwark), and I haven't seen even the slightest inkling of a grudge.
Kwark's even gone out of his way to remove a mod action that he gave me when I pointed out the misunderstanding that instigated it. We all know his stance on religion, but he was the only mod willing to remove the negative language regarding religion in a recent thread. It took a couple days of pm'ing staff, other mods, and a website feedback thread, but he did it (even after other mods declined to do so).
I sincerely disagree with your opinion that the staff let a grudge affect their moderation. If that were the case, I wouldn't have an account on here anymore.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out? Well these bans were a long time ago. The problem now is that my "mod history" is used as the justification for making my history worse, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in the last ban I got the mod directly said "Normally I would give a warning for this, but your history isn't helping you." I don't care to rehash old history, this thread isn't about me anyway. Sounds familiar.
He got a 2 day ban for that and it was for back seat moderating. Entirely justified and definitely not worth bitching about. Jd's being retarded about this "they're out to get me" shit, if we were out to get him on the basis of his history or because we disagree with him then we would actually get him. I get that you can't see his mod history the way I can but as much as what he's saying may be in line with your view of tl moderation it is entirely baseless, he's being an idiot. He's had nothing done to him for near a year now.
|
That Koran guy deserved to be banned because he said that the hate-filled speech rampant in the King James bible is somehow not supposed to be taken literally, while the Koran is. He's an ass.
He makes blanket statements and actually said that Christianity is more peaceful, modern, and openminded, which is historically debatable at the very least, but the MAIN issue is that we shouldn't judge all Muslims based on the acts of extremists. Just because there are more monsters hiding behind the Koran than there are hiding behind the bible does not mean that Christianity, or Christians, are better people. There are enough peaceful people on both sides that do not pervert their books to their own political, financial, and extremist pursuits.
How about I make a long list of controversial Bible verses. Oh right, they're not to be taken literally, looks like I lose.
|
On November 15 2012 14:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2012 14:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out? Well these bans were a long time ago. The problem now is that my "mod history" is used as the justification for making my history worse, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in the last ban I got the mod directly said "Normally I would give a warning for this, but your history isn't helping you." I don't care to rehash old history, this thread isn't about me anyway. Sounds familiar. He got a 2 day ban for that and it was for back seat moderating. Entirely justified and definitely not worth bitching about. Jd's being retarded about this "they're out to get me" shit, if we were out to get him on the basis of his history or because we disagree with him then we would actually get him. I get that you can't see his mod history the way I can but as much as what he's saying may be in line with your view of tl moderation it is entirely baseless, he's being an idiot. He's had nothing done to him for near a year now.
I've always been very careful about avoiding backseat moderating. When I read a horrible conspiracy theory thread without solid sources, I sat back and waited for mods to take care of it. When it was still around the next day, I was surprised. I didn't think that saying "I'm surprised this is still open" amounts to what was called "snide and sarcastic backseat moderating." Now I know that I can't even express surprise that a thread is open. The funny thing is the thread was closed 2 pages after I got banned for lack of reliable sources.
But I appreciate you calling me an idiot and a retard. I've never insulted people like this on this site, I'm always careful to be courteous and respectful to people, and yet I'm considered a bad poster, according to my history.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:47 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Just wanted to provide some examples here so the discussion isn't 100% about the word "baby"... On rape: + Show Spoiler +On August 23 2012 18:10 VPCursed wrote:
rape is when you and another get stupid drunk and have sex, then she decides 2 weeks later she wants to change her mind and reports you the police. thats rape. At least in maine thats how it is.
User was banned for this post. On August 23 2012 22:27 Masvidal wrote:
Rape is when a woman decides to have sex with a man, and then at a later time, decides she regrets it and takes legal recourse to assuage her shame.
User was banned for this post. On gender: + Show Spoiler +On April 03 2012 18:12 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 05:02 JOJOsc2news wrote:On April 03 2012 03:41 StimFesT wrote:
I seriously feel wierd when I look at the picture and know that she/he was born as a regular male. But she/he is actually beautiful Wow... stumbling over the he/she awkwardness in this post. She chose to be a woman, just call her her. He's a man who had surgery/hormone therapy; just call him him. User was temp banned for this post. On April 03 2012 18:40 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Sorry about his feelings, but working as intended. A man should not be able to qualify as Miss Universe; he may be wearing a skirt, but there's a smelly sausage under it. I'm not trying to come across as ignorant, but that's the simple truth and no amount of surgery can truly change what nature gave him. Well unless he wants to castrate himself, but that still wouldn't give him ovaries and a vagina, and his body will never naturally produce female hormones (without supplements) in the amount biological females produce it.
User was warned for this post On April 03 2012 19:34 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:30 judochopaction wrote:On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived. the whole point is you wouldnt change because you think of yourself as a man. thats why she changed herself because she was a woman with male body parts. so then it comes to the issue of why he felt like a woman despite being born a man. User was temp banned for this post. On April 03 2012 23:09 TheRhox wrote:
So I've read the article and I can't seem to understand why this is an issue, he's clearly not a female. Just a man that had some surgery done to appear female. That's why he was disqualified right, because it's Miss Universe Canada?.. As far as I know you have to be biologically female to compete in this competition.
You can't change who you are just because you want to, like if you were born asian you can't just decide one day to be white and go around telling people you're native Irish, no matter how much you "feel" white inside.
User was temp banned for this post. On Islam: + Show Spoiler +On September 16 2012 04:18 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 04:11 Jormundr wrote:On September 16 2012 03:55 Supert0fu wrote:On September 16 2012 03:20 FrogOfWar wrote:On September 16 2012 03:02 Supert0fu wrote:
Muhammad was a warlord and Jesus was a healer. I'm glad with my choice Yes, a shame that christians never followed him but only use him to make themselves feel better while being just as militant as everybody else. And I mean that. Jesus was a great person. (Not sure about miracle healings though.) Yes I'm not sure either, but Jesus's core philosophy is something that everyone should really take heart in. The point is Jesus never fought or killed ANYONE for his cause, while Mohammed killed many. I am also dismayed that Christianity has been twisted, but you never see Christians start burning shit in the streets when someone makes a retarded video of their profit. Take the westborough bapist church, probably the worst portrayal of Christianity in America. They have never killed anyone and only have their horrible protests. Muslims however are responsible for the deaths of many in America and around the world, Plug your ears, forget about abortion bombings, fag-bashings, and the KKK. Or you could just say that those people weren't 'true christians' (while Muslims say the same thing about Al-Qaeda and other militant sects.) The truth is that no religion is willing to accept responsibility for the actions of its extremists. Hence why nobody called Anders Breivik a 'Christian terrorist' - it's not profitable for news media to alienate their viewers. Beating homosexuals is against the law, this means there will be a severe penalty involved for the culprits, meanwhile throwing homosexuals of buildings is almost a national sport in the islamic world. Abortion bombings are rare, happen not even once a year, Islamic Jihad attacks happen daily. the KKK is a group with 3.000 members, you have nearly no social life if anyone knows you are part of this extreme group. But if you are in the Muslim Brotherhood ( supports terrorism, main goal is a global Islamic Calpihate) people will shrugg. Christianity as a religion is more peaceful, modern and openminded then Islam is, Islam has yet to even reach an enlightment age so people are actually EQUAL if they have a different religion. Breivik was not inspired by a bible, but rather political and most likely simply insane. But Muslims attack homosexuals, beat infidels and bomb the twin towers with the Koran in their hands. And for good reason, the Koran has some extremly violent parts in it, and unlike Christianity all of it has to be taken literal. Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they! Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement User was temp banned for this post. Now I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think these posts are good, or that I think they are correct, or that I agree with them. My only point here is that these are opinions which should be allowed to be expressed without people being punished for them. If they are wrong, then part of the purpose and benefit of the thread is to clearly articulate why they are wrong and to have a better discussion. Just foregoing the persuasion and using authority to silence them is bound to have a chilling effect on posting many opinions, which detracts from the conversation as a whole. Personally I'd love to hear these sorts of posts debated, it's far more interesting then everyone repeating the same arguments over and over. We all know TL doesn't believe in complete freedom of speech, but I would advocate that people have a right to be wrong on certain issues without being punished for it or silenced. We should avoid as much as possible excluding entire perspectives which large numbers of people hold from the discussion. The standard argument is that the quality of discussion improves when you eliminate these people, but I would argue greater consensus is worse for the quality of discussion than a wide variety of tolerated perspectives.
Dismissing the existence of rape entirely is an appalling thing to say, as well as being utterly stupid and simply wrong. It's not only a factually wrong thing to say, such that it doesn't fall under the category of an acceptable opinion, but is also a despicable view.
Standing by shitty, outdated, offensive and factually wrong stances on the grounds that you're allowed to misunderstand the difference between sex and gender as long as it's your opinion that you don't understand the difference is fucking retarded. Transgender women aren't men and when we have a mod note that kindly explains this for people then it's little more than martyring to insist upon spouting offensive bullshit for the sake of it.
We ban people for religion arguments on both sides. There was a recent religion topic where I banned everyone from both sides for refusing to drop shit.
All of those bans are not only completely justified but they're not even in any way contentious. If those are your examples of bad moderation then we're really good at doing our jobs here.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 15:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:54 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2012 14:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out? Well these bans were a long time ago. The problem now is that my "mod history" is used as the justification for making my history worse, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in the last ban I got the mod directly said "Normally I would give a warning for this, but your history isn't helping you." I don't care to rehash old history, this thread isn't about me anyway. Sounds familiar. He got a 2 day ban for that and it was for back seat moderating. Entirely justified and definitely not worth bitching about. Jd's being retarded about this "they're out to get me" shit, if we were out to get him on the basis of his history or because we disagree with him then we would actually get him. I get that you can't see his mod history the way I can but as much as what he's saying may be in line with your view of tl moderation it is entirely baseless, he's being an idiot. He's had nothing done to him for near a year now. I've always been very careful about avoiding backseat moderating. When I read a horrible conspiracy theory thread without solid sources, I sat back and waited for mods to take care of it. When it was still around the next day, I was surprised. I didn't think that saying "I'm surprised this is still open" amounts to what was called "snide and sarcastic backseat moderating." Now I know that I can't even express surprise that a thread is open. The funny thing is the thread was closed 2 pages after I got banned for lack of reliable sources. But I appreciate you calling me an idiot and a retard. I've never insulted people like this on this site, I'm always careful to be courteous and respectful to people, and yet I'm considered a bad poster, according to my history.
Next time PM a mod if you want mod action taken rather than bitching about it in the topic. You did something wrong and then got modded for it, learn from it.
|
Canada11363 Posts
I actually disagree that 'baby' should be a disallowed term for a 'fetus' because it forces one side to use their opponents set of definitions and thereby the control of the debate goes to those that are allowed to use their 'own' terms. Both sides feel they are justified scientifically or linguistically to use fetus or baby. Both sides use the terms they do because of they implicitly support their own positions: amoral, routine procedure vs immoral killing.
But then again, I also generally refuse to get involved in any abortion debate on the internet as it is an exercise in futility.
|
They didn't deny the existence of rape entirely, obviously. They were simply making the argument "this happens sometimes." And they were banned for it, when it does in fact happen.
People should be allowed to have differing views on what gender means. It's not something that can be pinned down scientifically, it's still largely taken to be "whatever the person says they are." This should be a discussion that people should be allowed to have without having a single perspective forced down their throats.
The Islam post was in a thread which was dedicated to discussing Islam. It wasn't a matter of banning any mention of religion, because religion was allowed in that thread. And he brought up some real issues which are worthy of debate as well.
Stifling these sorts of opinions is indeed bad moderation in my view. I realize you think that's "bullshit," but I don't dismiss the idea of protected speech as lightly as the ten commandments do.
|
On November 15 2012 14:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
He makes blanket statements and actually said that Christianity is more peaceful, modern, and openminded, which is historically debatable at the very least, but the MAIN issue is that we shouldn't judge all Muslims based on the acts of extremists.
Speaking of making blanket statements, and in the spirit of the double standards in moderation enjoy:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374083¤tpage=8#150
On October 10 2012 11:04 MooMu wrote:
Blemish the brand's reputation in the eyes of bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists. Good stuff.
This was allowed because it is the (incorrect) belief of some moderators that anyone who takes a fundamentalist viewpoint of the Bible is a gay-hating bigot. Curious that so many confessed non-believers know the minds of every religious person in existence better than the believer.
While I was happy that part of the OP was edited out in that thread, his blanket statement implying that all believers in the living Christ supported the persecution of gays didn't warrant a mod action. I can go on, but I think we're lying to ourselves by saying that there isn't a double standard when it comes to broad sweeping generalizations.
|
Canada11363 Posts
@Joedaddy.
On the otherhand, I do seem to recall that Kwark offered to receive any future complaints of similar nature. (I was conserving posts at the time for my 5K.) But I do remember something to that effect.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 15:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:
They didn't deny the existence of rape entirely, obviously. They were simply making the argument "this happens sometimes." And they were banned for it, when it does in fact happen.
People should be allowed to have differing views on what gender means. It's not something that can be pinned down scientifically, it's still largely taken to be "whatever the person says they are." This should be a discussion that people should be allowed to have without having a single perspective forced down their throats.
The Islam post was in a thread which was dedicated to discussing Islam. It wasn't a matter of banning any mention of religion, because religion was allowed in that thread. And he brought up some real issues which are worthy of debate as well.
Stifling these sorts of opinions is indeed bad moderation in my view. I realize you think that's "bullshit," but I don't dismiss the idea of protected speech as lightly as the ten commandments do.
They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. You're being willfully ignorant here because you want to build it into your narrative that we're disallowing views that don't conform with our feminazi agenda.
No, you don't get the difference between gender and sex either. You can try and learn if you like but it's not going to change, whether or not you understand it.
The religion one was just grabbing verses out of context and using them to condemn Islam as a whole. We can do the same for Christianity and it'd be equally irrelevant. Finding your favourite atheist/hating X religion website and copy and pasting your favourite list of despicable/absurd things that religious people said a thousand years ago as if you're making a legitimate point against the religion is retarded. If you want to discuss a religion then the way to go about it is not "check out what some warlord said back in the time of warlords, clearly religion is dumb".
|
On November 15 2012 15:23 Falling wrote:
@Joedaddy.
On the otherhand, I do seem to recall that Kwark offered to receive any future complaints of similar nature. (I was conserving posts at the time for my 5K.) But I do remember something to that effect.
He did, and I have. I've credited him a few times in this thread for how reasonable he can be. However, Kwark's admirable position to receive future complaints of similar nature doesn't change the persistent double standard that is seen here and in past threads.
I still think Kwark takes it way_way to far and needlessly steps on people's toes because in his mind he thinks he's inherently smart and the poster is inherently dumb. The dumbness being the result of foetal alcohol syndrome in some cases, and possibly being dropped on their head as baby in others.
|
United States42957 Posts
Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. Two separate groups which can independently agree with not letting gays in Christian institutions. I don't think it's an especially controversial thing to claim that fundamentalist Christians aren't in favour of including gays.
|
The obvious fact is that moderating is not completely fair. I've been banned for the stupidest nip-picking bullshit you'll see, but I've also gotten away with some rather unsavory posts with just warnings. It almost evens out, though I am was a little bitter about my first ban (which was also backseat moderating), but regardless I learned to just not do it again. Why tempt fate? In the end, the bad posters eventually fall, and the good posters rise. And the posters like me slip up occasionally and come back.
I think you're straight up nuts for thinking that you are memorable enough to be unfairly attacked. I'm sorry for opening up the past here, but before Kwark was a banling, I posted on TL that he should not be allowed to write for the OSL write-up team (he wrote something I didn't like  oooooh ). Except I didn't use kind words like that. It was pretty rude and a direct attack. I'm pretty sure Kwark has no more than maybe 2 mod actions against me (who knows, not me). If mods were more vengeful I'm pretty sure you and I would be permabanned by now if they really cared about backseat moderating so much or personal attacks from years ago.
Oh, hi Joedaddy, I remember you. And I don't disagree.
|
Canada11363 Posts
Only 1 by Kwark. I've given you more, but they were just warnings.
|
On November 15 2012 15:40 Falling wrote:Only 1 by Kwark. I've given you more, but they were just warnings.
I appreciate it. Warnings have always been more effective for me personally. When I see a warning, I say, "Woops, erm, better not do that again," and I even feel a little embarrassed. But when I see that I've been banned, and I look the reason, it's always, "What? Banned for that? That is bullshit! There are worse posts that very thread and they weren't even warned, talk about oversensitivity!" The mind is a wonderful thing 
|
On November 15 2012 15:31 KwarK wrote:
Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. Two separate groups which can independently agree with not letting gays in Christian institutions. I don't think it's an especially controversial thing to claim that fundamentalist Christians aren't in favour of including gays.
Believing homosexuality is a sin does not mean that I "agree with not letting gays in Christian institutions." I've said this a few different times, and its a truth that applies to a lot of self described fundamentalist Christians. The truth may be inconvenient to those with preconceived notions about the Christian faith and the Bible, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I agree that homophobic is an accurate description of some religious people. I can assure you though that not everyone who holds a literal view of the bible fears and/or has contempt for homosexual people. My literal understanding of the Bible is quite the opposite. I think the catch phrase is, "love the sinner, but not the sin."
Similar to if a close loved one did something you disapproved of. You wouldn't hate your loved one because of it. But, I digress.
|
They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different.
Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists.
You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here.
I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing.
|
On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Show nested quote +Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing.
i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want."
|
United States42957 Posts
I'm the one contorting things after you said that "rape is when women lie about consensual sex" means that "I am open to the possibility of false rape accusations"?
You're being an idiot for the purpose of furthering your "I'm being oppressed" narrative. It's nonsense, nothing more there than your "a mod has a grudge against me and is out to get me" paranoia when you're not being banned for shit. Utterly ridiculous.
|
Canada11363 Posts
@jd
Well that's a catch-all.
And certainly there are some topics that are right out. Conspiracy theories for one. But generally speaking moderation isn't trying to go out of our way to ban based on personal hate. Actually, we'll generally leave moderation to someone else when we are personally involved in the thread or argument. Not always, but often. Moderation tries to moderate fairly regardless of the " if we don't like you we simply ban you." rule.
Internal discussions that 'lead to nothing' may simply mean that staff came up negative. For instance for the original complaint in this thread, several admins or red names have weighed in seeing nothing at issue with that specific complaint. (Now I guess this is a catch-all thread.)
|
On November 15 2012 16:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing. i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want."
I love that TL reserves the right to "rule" (lol) as they see fit. Support it 100%. But what I love even more is their statement, "We try of course, and that's why we're consistently considered one of the best gaming sites on the web..."
and
"We will make all attempts to treat everyone with due respect and to accommodate everyone's wishes as far as reasonably possible..."
I think the double standard argument is justified when reading these parts. You can't tell one group of people to "grow thicker skin," and then ban someone because they are being insensitive about a belief the mod believes to be justified.
Or maybe you can, but at least be honest about it. If you are going to live by the motto of "we will do what we want" then there's no reason to hide behind the pretense of objectivity.
|
On November 15 2012 16:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing. i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want."
I've seen that sort of "discussion" myself. I've received ridiculous bans before, and when someone questioned them in ABL they received the stock answer "he's got history you don't know" and they are forced to be content with that. It's not a matter of calling out the mods in particular, it's about being harsher on people they don't like, for whatever reason. In my own case it started with criticism of moderation, I noticed an immediate change after that.
|
On November 15 2012 16:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 16:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing. i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want." I've seen that sort of "discussion" myself. I've received ridiculous bans before, and when someone questioned them in ABL they received the stock answer "he's got history you don't know" and they are forced to be content with that. It's not a matter of calling out the mods in particular, it's about being harsher on people they don't like, for whatever reason. In my own case it started with criticism of moderation, I noticed an immediate change after that.
can you point to a single ban of yours that you dont feel is justified?
as far as i know mod history usually goes towards the length of the ban, not the fact of the ban. only in rare cases have i seen someone banned because they are just a shitty poster in general.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 16:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 16:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing. i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want." I've seen that sort of "discussion" myself. I've received ridiculous bans before, and when someone questioned them in ABL they received the stock answer "he's got history you don't know" and they are forced to be content with that. It's not a matter of calling out the mods in particular, it's about being harsher on people they don't like, for whatever reason. In my own case it started with criticism of moderation, I noticed an immediate change after that.
In your own case what? Nobody is banning you, how have you possibly noticed a change in the way we're moderating you if you're not receiving any?
This is flat out delusional at this point.
|
On November 15 2012 16:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 16:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 16:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 15:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. You've got to be kidding... First the semantic "babies have to be born" argument, and now these? You are really doing some contortions. Personally, I'm gonna go with Occam's razor here. I don't know why people are in such denial that double standards and opinion stifling and personal bans occur when the rules of the site themselves say "we don't believe in freedom of speech, this is our house, if we don't like you we simply ban you." That says it all in a nutshell. The rules lend themselves to abuse, and so there is abuse, that's all. It's been brought up countless times in this forum and other threads and the response is always to circle the wagons and hint at "internal discussion" that leads to nothing. i think thats a bit excessive. there are a lot of people in the ABL thread that like to review the bans and call out what they consider bullshit bans. believe me, nobody is shy about calling out the mods, and the mods justify bans more often than not. its pretty transparent actually. plus, you cant really have a double standard when the standard is "this our site, we will do what we want." I've seen that sort of "discussion" myself. I've received ridiculous bans before, and when someone questioned them in ABL they received the stock answer "he's got history you don't know" and they are forced to be content with that. It's not a matter of calling out the mods in particular, it's about being harsher on people they don't like, for whatever reason. In my own case it started with criticism of moderation, I noticed an immediate change after that. In your own case what? Nobody is banning you, how have you possibly noticed a change in the way we're moderating you if you're not receiving any? This is flat out delusional at this point.
According to Nyvone, I've received 19 moderation actions on this account. I know I am not a bad poster, I see some of the people you keep around here who are atrocious in comparison. I should not have that many moderation actions, and when I look at many of the bans, I cannot justify or explain them in the context of what is usually allowed.
|
United States42957 Posts
Your last long ban was January when you made a retarded sheeple post which was obviously banworthy. Since then nothing but routine warnings, despite your history. You got a 2day ban for bitching about moderation in the topic, entirely standard and no more than anyone else would have gotten. How does a single 2 day ban in 10 months for a completely standard offence which you should have known better than to do amount to a moderator conspiracy to get you?
You're at 7 bans and 7 warnings at the moment by the way. The rest were comments on you, several of which relate to your ongoing conspiracy bullshit. Get over it, it's in your head, nothing more.
|
I said before I didn't want to rehash old history, I ought to stick to that. This thread shouldn't be about me, but about the larger moderation policies and practices in place. I apologize for derailing.
|
Sorry if this has been answered somewhere else.
How does the mods mod so quickly? Its like a couple of minutes after a bad post is made a mod has seen it, the post gets moderated. Do you guys get alerted to new posts or get assigned to certain members and just get a huge list of recent posts? Or do you guys just constantly check every thread like the other forum goers?
I'm starting to think that you guys are just really well programmed AI made to look like real posters with built in post reaction time delays, personalities, preset opinions, etc
= P
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 15 2012 18:19 MasterCynical wrote:
Sorry if this has been answered somewhere else.
How does the mods mod so quickly? Its like a couple of minutes after a bad post is made a mod has seen it, the post gets moderated. Do you guys get alerted to new posts or get assigned to certain members and just get a huge list of recent posts? Or do you guys just constantly check every thread like the other forum goers?
I'm starting to think that you guys are just really well programmed AI made to look like real posters with built in post reaction time delays, personalities, preset opinions, etc
= P
Users can report posts they feel go against the site rules. Moderators can look through a list of reports.
Users only get the 'report' button after a year of being on TL.
|
By the way, with the new search feature on your PM inbox, you can look for tl.net bot PMs to see your mod actions without wading.
Also, I bet I could debate pro-gun ownership with KwarK and not manage to get banned in the process. I can definitely imagine worse mods to have an argument with.
|
If I post here, do I also get to know my "moderation actions"? I only know of one warning, are there any comments? ^^
+ Show Spoiler +They say that curiosity killed the cat. My response: miew.
|
On November 15 2012 22:50 Ghanburighan wrote:If I post here, do I also get to know my "moderation actions"? I only know of one warning, are there any comments? ^^ + Show Spoiler +They say that curiosity killed the cat. My response: miew.
You can find your warnings/bans like this:
put the following text: [b][red]User was warned for this post
into the search bar. Search, and then add your name to the username slot. Make sure the search is set to "content" and not "title". This will bring up your warnings, though some of the results might not be your warnings; if you've ever quoted someone who was warned, that might appear there too.
You can use the same method for your bans, but a far easier way is to search your name (in bold) and set to content. This way you can find your bans in the ban list.
|
Yeah but you don't get the "this guy is a fucking annoying bw/movie elitist." "he likes tvz better than zvp. what a noob lol-harem" part.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 22:50 Ghanburighan wrote:If I post here, do I also get to know my "moderation actions"? I only know of one warning, are there any comments? ^^ + Show Spoiler +They say that curiosity killed the cat. My response: miew.
A single completely innocuous warning I'm afraid. No comments.
You are what we refer to as a good poster.
|
On November 16 2012 00:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 22:50 Ghanburighan wrote:If I post here, do I also get to know my "moderation actions"? I only know of one warning, are there any comments? ^^ + Show Spoiler +They say that curiosity killed the cat. My response: miew. A single completely innocuous warning I'm afraid. No comments. You are what we refer to as a good poster.
Out of interest, what about me? So far I've only got a singular warning, but I am interested.
|
On November 16 2012 00:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 22:50 Ghanburighan wrote:If I post here, do I also get to know my "moderation actions"? I only know of one warning, are there any comments? ^^ + Show Spoiler +They say that curiosity killed the cat. My response: miew. A single completely innocuous warning I'm afraid. No comments. You are what we refer to as a good poster.
My secret lives remain hidden. Mwahahahaahaa!
Actually, that's surprisingly disheartening... Thanks for the effort, though.
|
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?
The crux of the abortion debate is that there is not a common language because there are two very divergent beliefs. One, that the fetus is morally a human being - and the natural inclination is to, thus, call it a baby - and the other that the fetus is not morally a human being, and the natural inclination is to call it a fetus because why create another name for it when you already have fetus available. "Not-baby"? "Not-human-yet"? The meaning of those two words in the context of the abortion debate have been settled for 30-40 years. Only in KwarK-land is it unacceptable to call a fetus a baby, on the flimsiest of pretexts.
You are simply placing your opinion with a weak foundation of "it's vague" - how? That is ridiculous - to call an unborn child a baby - seems pretty specific to everyone but you - to the point of settled fact (where it is no such thing anywhere but apparently in medical literature, so what) and that you are apparently so very concerned about preciseness in language that you must place a restriction that just so happens to severely curtail the ability of the side you disagree with to make an effective argument articulating its core belief.
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.
You simply want the debate on your terms that make no sense, where one side is heavily favored because the most effective argument of the other side has been ruled out by you "because." The reasoning behind your decision is entirely laughable.
It's ideologically charged only because one side of the debate insists on claiming that a prebirth baby is the same thing as a postbirth baby because it helps their rhetoric of baby killing. It's a nonsense. You can believe they have exactly the same value and then make your case for the prebirth baby having value without having to call it the same thing as a post birth baby, it's not like recognising that you can use different words for them means that one is intrinsically less valuable than the other, the word simply describes the thing accurately. Meaningful communication is not ideologically charged, it gets in the way of the more extreme pro-life rhetoric but extreme pro-life rhetoric is not meaningful communication.
Oh, so calling a fetus a fetus to deny that it is morally a human being is also not ideologically charged? To one side of the debate it certainly is... the side you are not on. Surely this is mere coincidence.
It simply offends your sensibilities to read a fetus being called a baby, so we can't be having that.
We see once again you making judgments that are matters of debate and simply declaring them not to be.
If you think a three year old toddler has value that's great, you can argue why.
If you think a 20 week old foetus has value, also great, you can argue why.
Recognising the distinction between the two and explaining which it is you are talking about when you make your case does not weaken your case at all unless your case only applies to one of the two and you're making stuff up.
If you are talking about a foetus and they're talking about a foetus then calling it a word which applies exclusively to foetus does absolutely nothing to hinder your discussion but ensures a degree of intellectual honesty through making accurate points.
The foundation of the pro-life argument is that they are indistinguishable morally and this is expressed by using "baby" instead of "fetus." "Baby" is not a medical term; the correct term is "infant." To actually be living up to this standard you profess, "baby" should not be allowed be at all.
All you are doing is tilting the debate towards the side you favor and insisting that all you're doing is ensuring intellectual honesty and accuracy in language.
We can see again and again how you feel that your opinions are fact and that they should be authoritative because they are "right" and an expression of settled matters and that not adhering is a sign of dishonesty or an unwillingness to engage in constructive debate. This is a classic amateur-hour debate tactic. Rather than actually argue the merits, you declare the argument settled in your favor and refuse to engage on it.
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.
Your insistence is based solely on your personal opinion masquerading as accepted fact, which it is not. Billions of people sincerely believe, based on both emotion and reason, that a baby is a baby whether it is inside the womb or not. They sincerely believe that abortion is the murder of a baby. Many of them are not unwilling to engage in honest debate about it. But you, gazing into their minds through some amazing process (arrogance), have divined otherwise.
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.
roflmao
I'm not arrogant, but I can't really figure out your point but I think it's stupid. That is not arrogance at all.
As your position becomes less and less tenable, at least the humor level of your posts is rising.
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.
There is no opinion being stifled here, except that one you hold that I think is stupid and wrong. Because.
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.
I don't think it's in any way arrogant to construct a strawman and then burn it down.
Pray tell, how is it vague? Everyone knows what is being referred to. So how is it vague?
It is arrogant to compel everyone to conform to your belief because sadly while you are grasping wildly to construct an authority here based on something other than your banling icon, that does not exist. Your entire argument is that "oh well there's a difference between being in the womb and being out of it, so they must be called two different things." Why?
Because being out of the womb and being in the womb is the dividing line. Only the most radical pro-abortionists would say that the woman has the right to an abortion after birth, and even they only say that is justified in the very rare cases where a doctor messes up a partial-birth abortion and the baby is successfully born. Oops, did I say baby to refer to the baby before birth? Sorry. I believe that it is a baby, morally indistinguishable from you or me, and that to call it "fetus" in anything other than a biological sense is "ideologically charged." Because it is. Both terms are ideologically charged, but KwarK has invented a way to say that only one is, and only it should not be allowed, and just by coincidence, it is on the side he doesn't agree with.
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.
No, it's about one person making a ridiculous rule based on his personal feelings and then arguing terribly in defense of it. Birth is not the dividing line in the terms we use except in a biological sense, and to pro-abortionists. The two sides do use two different languages; the pro-abortion side looks at it biologically to arrive at its conclusion; the anti-abortion side looks at the situation morally from the beginning, biology is far down the line of importance to them.
You've devolved to the level of "idiot," "stupid," and you're still clinging to the truly stupid "vague" argument. This is going well for you so far and we're not even halfway through!
Then make the argument that a foetus is a human instead of referring to it as something not a foetus which everyone agrees is a human. Nobody is saying you can't have the opinion that a foetus is a human. If you believe that then you can make your point by going "I believe that a foetus is a human because". You just can't deliberately use vague terms which imply that it is a post birth human over and over without ever doing the "I believe that a foetus is a human because" stage. I'm only asking that people make clear arguments that refer to the issue.
How is it vague? Oh right, it isn't, you're just asserting ad nauseum that it is...
As long as you're happy to clarify that whether it's before birth or after birth that you're making your point about then you can come up with your own words. Just be check that the word you decide upon doesn't also mean something completely different.
Still clinging to your incredibly untenable position, huh?
So don't use it because it can also mean something else according to an online dictionary and makes certain people very confused. Instead come up with terms which precisely refer to the thing you want to refer to and nothing else.
We're sorry that it makes you confused (no one else has expressed confusion or the belief that it could cause confusion), and this confusion of yours makes your repeated use of insults about intelligence deliciously ironic.
Restricting the argument that abortion means aborting babies in general as opposed to just pre-birth babies is a good thing and if you feel stifled by it then you're just mad you can't use absurd and illogical statements to appeal to emotion.
Restricting the argument that abortion means aborting babies in general as opposed to just pre-birth babies means that you're afraid of the impact of that argument and you're just mad that no one believes your absurd and illogical statements that everyone but you is being absurd and illogical.
And sorry, but appeals to emotion are perfectly valid and are used thousands of times daily just here at TL. It is only in this one particular instance that you apparently feel it is so pernicious that it must be reined in.
I disagree.
Fortunately I see two solutions to this. Solution A, autoclose any discussion of topics such as abortion. Solution B, trust you guys to attempt a reasonable debate but impose my rules upon it. If you dislike the rules then you can choose to either pretend solution A has been used and not post in it or follow them anyway and just accept that you don't get to imply they kill cute little toddlers while you call pro-choice advocates murderers. I'm going to go with B but if you object to the rules then, as always, website feedback is your friend.
"I disagree." So your opinion really does have the weight of fact? Let me call up the Encylcopedia Britannica, or perhaps Wikipedia, if you prefer that.
Solution C, KwarK stops embarrassing himself, is apparently not an option. Any solution where KwarK does not use strawmen as a way to personally attack others with withering sarcasm is also apparently not an option.
Yes.
Example below.
Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing babies"
Pro choice: "..... you're fucking retarded"
Example #2
Pro lifer: "you're okay with killing foetus"
Pro choice: "yes, as long as it's before it can exist independently outside of the womb (or whatever other rules that pro-choicer puts on it)"
Pro lifer: "oh.... well, I think you shouldn't kill a foetus because...."
Pro choice: "well I disagree because...."
Can I borrow your crystal ball, I have some calls to Vegas I'd like to make...
Because making the argument that a pro choice advocate is in favour of infanticide is such a stupid thing to say that calling them a retard is an act of charity. Someone stupid enough to actually say that may have gotten to that point in their life without noticing that they're a complete moron because they're simply too stupid to understand it, flat out telling them is a kindness.
Ah yes, you're so stupid that I'm being nice calling you stupid.
Someone stupid enough to advance the arguments KwarK has advanced needs the kindness of a mental and psychological evaluation, not the kindness of actually entertaining their egomania.
I'm not sure why there is such a negative connotation attributed to the word fetus, but technically it isn't even the right word to refer to an unborn human child, so I'd personally be fine with not using it either. I still feel people who want to be taken seriously by obvious pro-choice debaters should avoid using the word baby in exchange for the pro-choicers not incorrectly using medical terms in an effort to dehumanize the discussion.
Could you stop piling up adjectives that make absolutely no sense in the way you use them? I know you're trying very hard to appear intelligent, but calling an unborn child a baby being "dehumanizing" simply beggars belief.
You are not the arbiter of who gets taken seriously or not, despite your fervent belief that you are.
This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want.
The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways.
Are you capable, emotionally, of responding to what people actually say? Did xDaunt or jdseemoreglass express a desire to call anyone a godless liberal?
You are very adept at setting up these situations that have no resemblance to the actual reality of the discussion and then responding in a way emotionally pleasing to you, but other than that, it isn't getting you much.
FallingI actually disagree that 'baby' should be a disallowed term for a 'fetus' because it forces one side to use their opponents set of definitions and thereby the control of the debate goes to those that are allowed to use their 'own' terms. Both sides feel they are justified scientifically or linguistically to use fetus or baby. Both sides use the terms they do because of they implicitly support their own positions: amoral, routine procedure vs immoral killing.
Has KwarK told you how absurd, illogical, retarded, stupid, idiotic, and dehumanizing you are yet?
It is very telling that KwarK cannot make his argument without including it in these generic and lazy insults. How about a little intellectual honesty from KwarK: simply admit that you frame the terms of the debate in a way favorable to the side you agree with because it is offensive to you to read a fetus being called a baby. There is no reason-based explanation for your behavior. Your contention that the dictionary definitions are meaningless because they are "vague" is hysterically laughable. Baby is defined that way because large numbers of people believe that the word "baby" includes the time in the womb. If you don't like it, if you think it is stupid, then argue so. Do not use your authority to simply declare yourself the winner in an argument that you obviously hold a high emotional stake in. If your poor widdle feelings can't handle it, then don't engage in that debate. Isn't that the advice you've been giving?
|
Wow, that's a mouthful, but well said!
I agree the problem is arrogance: the arrogance of knowing you are right and others are wrong, the arrogance to enforce that position on others, the arrogance to think people who disagree with you are idiots. I was very put off when Kwark started referring to me and others as "idiot" and "retard." Being condescending and insulting to other posters should always be considered a greater offense than being considered wrong on an issue. my2cents.
|
United States42957 Posts
You're very wrong. The simple point remains that if you think foeticide (killing a baby in the womb in your terms) is wrong then you should be able to argue that specific point without accusing the other side of infanticide (killing a baby outside of the womb). Explaining what it is you are talking about without resorting to vague rhetoric that completely mischaracterises the opposing argument is not too much to ask.
If you think that a baby inside the womb has the same value as a baby outside of the womb (again putting it in your terms) then you can think that and then go on to explain why killing a baby inside of the womb is wrong. At no point is it necessary, relevant or helpful to bring babies outside of the womb (which the use of the word baby implies) into the argument because nobody anywhere is aborting them.
|
United States42957 Posts
Also JD is always insisting we have a collective policy on tl of repressing his views on gays, women, transgenders, Islam and the like. So yes, calling us godless liberals pretty much sums that up. He is, of course, literally delusional as evidenced by the complete lack of any basis for his paranoia. I actually gave him credit when he first suggested we were out to get him but after checking his mod history and realising that nobody has actually done anything to him it became apparent that the guy is just detached from reality. I'm still unsure which mod it is he thinks is persecuting him, he never clarified and as nobody is actually doing anything to him it is quite hard to tell.
|
You are very good at deflecting the issue, you've done it several times. In any case, I never said anyone was "out to get me." All I said is that personal bias sometimes comes into play with moderation, which I think is an undeniable fact. At least, I hope you wouldn't go so far as to deny that, especially in the context of this discussion, where you are so convinced that the word baby only implies one thing and it's mischaracterization to say otherwise.
|
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!"
|
I'm curious why all the anti-KwarK people have utterly ignored my suggestion of clarifying with prenatal and postnatal. It allows them to hold onto the term baby since fetus has become a politically charged term. It removes potential for misunderstanding.
Really, given that it's being ignored as a feasible way of clarifying without using the term they hate so much, I can only draw the conclusion that KwarK is actually correct about the reasoning for using "baby" being a deliberate blurring of the line of childbirth.
That in and of itself suggests that this is less about the claimed feedback, and more about people being irritated at being asked to clarify when their argument requires ambiguity.
For the sake of transparency, I'm a firm believer in pro-choice, prior to when it could reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb, with later term exceptions allowed to save the life of the mother. However, with that, I'd like to see better regulation, at least in America, since it's an elective procedure and the women should be making a fully informed decision. (Note, my definition of an informed decision here does NOT include attempts to shame the woman into changing her mind like some states attempt to do. I'm referring to documented possible physiological and mental side effects.)
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!"
Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"?
|
How about this as a solution: Let people argue using the words they want to use, and if you disagree with them, you make an argument yourself instead of threatening them into submission.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You are very good at deflecting the issue, you've done it several times. In any case, I never said anyone was "out to get me." All I said is that personal bias sometimes comes into play with moderation, which I think is an undeniable fact. At least, I hope you wouldn't go so far as to deny that, especially in the context of this discussion, where you are so convinced that the word baby only implies one thing and it's mischaracterization to say otherwise.
it's about being harsher on people they don't like
Either you think a specific person doesn't like you (which, by the way, I don't but I haven't been banning you) or you think we collectively get together and come up with a list of people which we don't like. I can assure you that no such list exists, nor have you been persecuted by any specific mod. We (the moderation staff) do not have a group of people who we collectively are more harsh to for whatever reason.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:
How about this as a solution: Let people argue using the words they want to use, and if you disagree with them, you make an argument yourself instead of threatening them into submission.
No.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
Important discussions should always avoid vague terminology. 'Baby' is vague, some people understand it to include a human fetus, whereas others (including me, from a medical background) do not. No one will get confused when 'foetus' is used, everyone will understand they mean the thing inside the womb, and that is why 'foetus' is a better term.
To clarify, I'm not even arguing about pro-life/pro-choice, I'm simply stating that avoiding the 'baby' term is much better for a clearer discussion.
|
On November 16 2012 03:34 Firebolt145 wrote:
Important discussions should always avoid vague terminology. 'Baby' is vague, some people understand it to include a human fetus, whereas others (including me, from a medical background) do not. No one will get confused when 'foetus' is used, everyone will understand they mean the thing inside the womb, and that is why 'foetus' is a better term.
To clarify, I'm not even arguing about pro-life/pro-choice, I'm simply stating that avoiding the 'baby' term is much better for a clearer discussion.
You are right, it's so vague. Just the other day some pregnant lady was saying "ooh, the baby is kicking," and I was looking around for like 5 minutes trying to find the baby. I just couldn't figure out what she was referring to.
I later explained to her that she should use the phrase "the fetus in my womb is kicking" to avoid confusion in the future.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:
because I'm an idiot
confirming
|
Context is everything in language.
The word "baby" may be ambiguous, but would one be really banned in the thread if using the word "baby", when it's clear due to context what exactly is meant?
I honestly doubt that KwarK would ban someone for using "unborn baby".
And while I havent read the thread, I hope "foetus" users, when using "foetus", especially want to exclude the embryo state.
|
Are you saying, through the course of your presumed argument, you would rather the person you are talking to infer the meaning of your words through context clues over simply being specific enough as to make inference unnecessary in an effort to make your argument clearer?
|
On November 16 2012 03:41 KwarK wrote: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.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:42 Zocat wrote:
Context is everything in language.
The word "baby" may be ambiguous, but would one be really banned in the thread if using the word "baby", when it's clear due to context what exactly is meant?
I honestly doubt that KwarK would ban someone for using "unborn baby".
And while I havent read the thread, I hope "foetus" users, when using "foetus", especially want to exclude the embryo state.
Unborn baby would have been fine.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:34 Firebolt145 wrote:
Important discussions should always avoid vague terminology. 'Baby' is vague, some people understand it to include a human fetus, whereas others (including me, from a medical background) do not. No one will get confused when 'foetus' is used, everyone will understand they mean the thing inside the womb, and that is why 'foetus' is a better term.
To clarify, I'm not even arguing about pro-life/pro-choice, I'm simply stating that avoiding the 'baby' term is much better for a clearer discussion. You are right, it's so vague. Just the other day some pregnant lady was saying "ooh, the baby is kicking," and I was looking around for like 5 minutes trying to find the baby. I just couldn't figure out what she was referring to.
As long as different people interpret it differently, it's a vague term.
In medical terms, foetus pre birth, baby post birth. No alternatives. Sure, when I'm talking to my friends and so on, I'll fully understand what they mean when they say 'the baby is kicking', but when you're having an incredibly controversial discussion, it is always best to use the most precise terms possible avoiding all ambiguity possible.
|
On November 16 2012 03:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"?
if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses?
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You're a delusional, paranoid moron. You are on a site when we are literally empowered to kick you out for whatever reason and despite all of your bitching about how we're all out to get you there is nobody doing anything to you. If tl was half as bad as you think it is I could just ban you cause you called me immature and it upset me. The reason you're still around is because we try to let you spout your idiocy despite your immense personal flaws.
I treat you with no respect in website feedback because you don't merit any. But I don't ban you because you don't deserve it. That's the crux of the matter which you, for all your whining, have failed to realise.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses?
Because medical people (probably the people that come into contact with this stuff the most) don't use it to refer to foetuses.
|
Why not skip all the bullshit of calling people retarded in regards to picking up context and simply be specific? This discussion has come full circle and only gotten more ridiculous.
|
On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses?
I believe he's already explained that he doesn't like the ambiguity being used as, essentially, an emotional blunt object, with the intent of using emotional undertones as an alternative to real debate.
It's actually not really different from an ad hominem attack. Avoiding the real debate to score points on an emotional level.
For the record, the real reason it matters aside from that is simple. If you are debating whether abortion is equivalent to infanticide, your starting argument can not be that abortion is equivalent to infanticide. But that's exactly the reason people use things like "killing babies" in abortion debates.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses?
The point of the rhetoric in saying baby and murderer is the implicit assumption that what they are doing is wrong because it is the same as killing a post birth baby and therefore is murder. This is a false implication, the pro-choice side distinguishes between the two (as does the law for that matter, it isn't murder). It is no more useful or relevant to the debate than going up to an atheist and saying "you're wrong because God said so", the assumptions on which the rhetoric is based simply do not translate because there is no common language.
For any debate to take place a common terminology must be established. If you don't feel comfortable using the language of the enemy then feel free to use any other term which refers specifically to the issue at hand but using vague words in place of actually framing an argument does not suffice. If you think a prebirth baby should be treated in the same way as a postbirth baby then the way to make that argument is not to simply call them both the same thing and hope nobody notices because the other side will always notice and you are wasting everyone's time.
|
On November 16 2012 03:49 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses? Because medical people (probably the people that come into contact with this stuff the most) don't use it to refer to foetuses.
if people with medical degrees cant figure out the context, they also are stupid. the point stands that the term isnt vague when used in certain contexts. i would expect people who can get through medical school could figure it out if they put their minds to it.
|
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague.
|
On November 16 2012 03:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses? The point of the rhetoric in saying baby and murderer is the implicit assumption that what they are doing is wrong because it is the same as killing a post birth baby and therefore is murder. This is a false implication, the pro-choice side distinguishes between the two (as does the law for that matter, it isn't murder). It is no more useful or relevant to the debate than going up to an atheist and saying "you're wrong because God said so", the assumptions on which the rhetoric is based simply do not translate because there is no common language. For any debate to take place a common terminology must be established. If you don't feel comfortable using the language of the enemy then feel free to use any other term which refers specifically to the issue at hand but using vague words in place of actually framing an argument does not suffice. If you think a prebirth baby should be treated in the same way as a postbirth baby then the way to make that argument is not to simply call them both the same thing and hope nobody notices because the other side will always notice and you are wasting everyone's time.
you have conveniently avoided the point i made: when they use baby in an abortion debate, its not vague, everyone knows they are referring to pre-birth. also, can you even point to a single post in the abortion threads where you were legitimately confused as to the use of the term baby?
with respect to your other points, i know why you want them to use your terminology, but is it necessary to take the draconian step of censoring them when there is no actual confusion.
|
On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague.
nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague. nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making.
Arguably. Certain dictionaries, not all.
Do I really need to continue explaining why it is vague?
edit - misread your post. Fair enough, we seem to have come to an agreement.
So why are we still using it in such a controversial discussion?
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:54 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses? The point of the rhetoric in saying baby and murderer is the implicit assumption that what they are doing is wrong because it is the same as killing a post birth baby and therefore is murder. This is a false implication, the pro-choice side distinguishes between the two (as does the law for that matter, it isn't murder). It is no more useful or relevant to the debate than going up to an atheist and saying "you're wrong because God said so", the assumptions on which the rhetoric is based simply do not translate because there is no common language. For any debate to take place a common terminology must be established. If you don't feel comfortable using the language of the enemy then feel free to use any other term which refers specifically to the issue at hand but using vague words in place of actually framing an argument does not suffice. If you think a prebirth baby should be treated in the same way as a postbirth baby then the way to make that argument is not to simply call them both the same thing and hope nobody notices because the other side will always notice and you are wasting everyone's time. you have conveniently avoided the point i made: when they use baby in an abortion debate, its not vague, everyone knows they are referring to pre-birth. also, can you even point to a single post in the abortion threads where you were legitimately confused as to the use of the term baby? with respect to your other points, i know why you want them to use your terminology, but is it necessary to take the draconian step of censoring them when there is no actual confusion.
It's not that the point they're trying to make is vague. The point they're trying to make is "you're in favour of aborting foetuses under certain conditions". It's that instead of making an argument they are exploiting the inherent vagueness of the word to avoid actually having to demonstrate that killing a foetus is comparable to killing an infant. By simply referring to the two using the same word they skip the bit where the actual argument happens and leap straight to their conclusion, instead relying upon the fact that they use the word baby to mean something different to what the other side does.
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.
|
We are all in agreement that it is vague. Why I don't understand is why we are arguing that it is acceptable to use in an abortion debate after we've clearly all agreed about its vagueness.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:22 Gene wrote:
We are all in agreement that it is vague. Why I don't understand is why we are arguing that it is acceptable to use in an abortion debate after we've clearly all agreed about its vagueness.
Because a few people seem to think it's either not vague, or still acceptable to use vague terms in a controversial debate. I have no idea why.
|
On November 16 2012 04:18 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague. nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making. Arguably. Certain dictionaries, not all. Do I really need to continue explaining why it is vague?
i will stand on this point: if you go into an abortion debate thread, see the term "baby murderer," etc and think it refers to infanticide, you are an idiot.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:18 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague. nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making. Arguably. Certain dictionaries, not all. Do I really need to continue explaining why it is vague? i will stand on this point: if you go into an abortion debate thread, see the term "baby murderer," etc and think it refers to infanticide, you are an idiot.
Just because I can extrapolate and understand what you actually mean doesn't mean you should use the term. In such a charged controversial discussion, everyone should stick to precise terms so there is no misunderstanding. Not to mention the entire emotional charged nature of it all, saying 'you feel it's okay to kill babies' is definitely much heavier than saying 'you feel it's okay to kill foetuses'.
|
So you are arguing a case for being intentionally indirect on the grounds that your audience can figure it out if they are not idiots.
|
On November 16 2012 04:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 03:54 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 03:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 03:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
everyone should just refer to abortion as "killing human life." or will you mod that out too?
so, instead of "you are okay with killing babies; you are a murderer!" everyone can say "you are okay with killing human life; you are a murderer!" Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"? if someone goes into an abortion thread, sees a statement like "you kill babies, you are a murderer" and thinks they are referring to infants then they are stupid. it is as simple as that. the term "baby" is only vague when you ignore the context. now, is there any reason other than vagueness for why you think that the term "baby" shouldn't be used to refer to fetuses? The point of the rhetoric in saying baby and murderer is the implicit assumption that what they are doing is wrong because it is the same as killing a post birth baby and therefore is murder. This is a false implication, the pro-choice side distinguishes between the two (as does the law for that matter, it isn't murder). It is no more useful or relevant to the debate than going up to an atheist and saying "you're wrong because God said so", the assumptions on which the rhetoric is based simply do not translate because there is no common language. For any debate to take place a common terminology must be established. If you don't feel comfortable using the language of the enemy then feel free to use any other term which refers specifically to the issue at hand but using vague words in place of actually framing an argument does not suffice. If you think a prebirth baby should be treated in the same way as a postbirth baby then the way to make that argument is not to simply call them both the same thing and hope nobody notices because the other side will always notice and you are wasting everyone's time. you have conveniently avoided the point i made: when they use baby in an abortion debate, its not vague, everyone knows they are referring to pre-birth. also, can you even point to a single post in the abortion threads where you were legitimately confused as to the use of the term baby? with respect to your other points, i know why you want them to use your terminology, but is it necessary to take the draconian step of censoring them when there is no actual confusion. It's not that the point they're trying to make is vague. The point they're trying to make is "you're in favour of aborting foetuses under certain conditions". It's that instead of making an argument they are exploiting the inherent vagueness of the word to avoid actually having to demonstrate that killing a foetus is comparable to killing an infant. By simply referring to the two using the same word they skip the bit where the actual argument happens and leap straight to their conclusion, instead relying upon the fact that they use the word baby to mean something different to what the other side does. 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.
so what? why do you feel you need to moderate a word when you understand exactly how they are using it? i have yet to see any real confusion.
|
On November 16 2012 04:27 Gene wrote:
So you are arguing a case for being intentionally indirect on the grounds that your audience can figure it out if they are not idiots.
censoring language is ridiculous when there is no real confusion. so, yes, in simple terms: the pro-choice people aren't confused (unless they are idiots), and thus, there is no reason to censor language, which is a draconian step.
|
On November 16 2012 04:26 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:18 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague. nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making. Arguably. Certain dictionaries, not all. Do I really need to continue explaining why it is vague? i will stand on this point: if you go into an abortion debate thread, see the term "baby murderer," etc and think it refers to infanticide, you are an idiot. Just because I can extrapolate and understand what you actually mean doesn't mean you should use the term. In such a charged controversial discussion, everyone should stick to precise terms so there is no misunderstanding. Not to mention the entire emotional charged nature of it all, saying 'you feel it's okay to kill babies' is definitely much heavier than saying 'you feel it's okay to kill foetuses'.
it would be nice if i could go through the forums and ban everyone who misuses legal terms even though i understand they are misusing them. but they dont because such draconian measures are ridiculous as is banning the term "baby" when nobody is confused. you guys are all arguing what we call "pretext." there is a possibility of confusion, thus, we should ban the word. in reality, however, nobody is confused.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:27 Gene wrote:
So you are arguing a case for being intentionally indirect on the grounds that your audience can figure it out if they are not idiots. censoring language is ridiculous when there is no real confusion. so, yes, in simple terms: the pro-choice people aren't confused (unless they are idiots), and thus, there is no reason to censor language, which is a draconian step.
Are you saying that we should not strive for perfect clarity?
There is a reason that they are extremely careful with how laws are written and stated, clarifying every single possible angle to prevent people from misunderstanding, misinterpreting the law, or abusing any loophole. This is no different.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:26 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:18 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:14 Gene wrote:
The fact that you need to qualify that sentence with "in contexts" directly implies it is vague. nobody disputes that "baby" is vague as it can arguably refer to pre and post birth according to certain dictionaries. that is not the point i was making. Arguably. Certain dictionaries, not all. Do I really need to continue explaining why it is vague? i will stand on this point: if you go into an abortion debate thread, see the term "baby murderer," etc and think it refers to infanticide, you are an idiot. Just because I can extrapolate and understand what you actually mean doesn't mean you should use the term. In such a charged controversial discussion, everyone should stick to precise terms so there is no misunderstanding. Not to mention the entire emotional charged nature of it all, saying 'you feel it's okay to kill babies' is definitely much heavier than saying 'you feel it's okay to kill foetuses'. it would be nice if i could go through the forums and ban everyone who misuses legal terms even though i understand they are misusing them. but they dont because such draconian measures are ridiculous as is banning the term "baby" when nobody is confused. you guys are all arguing what we call "pretext." there is a possibility of confusion, thus, we should ban the word. in reality, however, nobody is confused.
Because people don't generally misuse these legal terms in situations that are highly charged or controversial. If they are, then you should definitely point them out.
|
You're very wrong. The simple point remains that if you think foeticide (killing a baby in the womb in your terms) is wrong then you should be able to argue that specific point without accusing the other side of infanticide (killing a baby outside of the womb). Explaining what it is you are talking about without resorting to vague rhetoric that completely mischaracterises the opposing argument is not too much to ask.
If you think that a baby inside the womb has the same value as a baby outside of the womb (again putting it in your terms) then you can think that and then go on to explain why killing a baby inside of the womb is wrong. At no point is it necessary, relevant or helpful to bring babies outside of the womb (which the use of the word baby implies) into the argument because nobody anywhere is aborting them.
So first the problem was simply that the term was inaccurate. Except it isn't, except in the mind of KwarK.
Then the problem was that it was vague. Except it isn't, except in the mind of KwarK.
Then the problem was that people were using the term to make ad hominem attacks on people that in addition to being ad hominem also made no sense. Except that not all people do that, and it is not a problem rising to the level where we have to circumscribe what people say to avoid it.
Can KwarK stop shifting the goalposts?
Surely that's even more vague. Now we're suggesting pro-choicers not only want to kill your infant children but maybe grandma too? Would it be so much to ask that you say "human life currently in a womb"?
You're really hung up on this "vague" thing, aren't you?
You, KwarK, are intellectually incapable of honestly engaging people who disagree with you. You have a constitutional inability to reply to what people actually say: instead, you prefer to construct strawmen and blaze them down with righteous fury.
The point of the rhetoric in saying baby and murderer is the implicit assumption that what they are doing is wrong because it is the same as killing a post birth baby and therefore is murder. This is a false implication, the pro-choice side distinguishes between the two (as does the law for that matter, it isn't murder). It is no more useful or relevant to the debate than going up to an atheist and saying "you're wrong because God said so", the assumptions on which the rhetoric is based simply do not translate because there is no common language.
For any debate to take place a common terminology must be established. If you don't feel comfortable using the language of the enemy then feel free to use any other term which refers specifically to the issue at hand but using vague words in place of actually framing an argument does not suffice. If you think a prebirth baby should be treated in the same way as a postbirth baby then the way to make that argument is not to simply call them both the same thing and hope nobody notices because the other side will always notice and you are wasting everyone's time.
But I thought the goalposts weren't supposed to move... oh wait KwarK is doing the moving so it must be okay. The problem at first was just using the word baby, now it's calling people baby murderers.
The word is not vague, everyone knows what is meant, and if they don't, they are retarded. Are you retarded, KwarK? Does people using the word "baby" confuse you? Are you incapable of understanding what they mean?
Your terminology assertion is equally as laughable as the rest of the garbage you've been spewing. People understand perfectly what is meant by a pro-choice person saying "fetus" and a pro-life person saying "baby." You simply have ants crawling up your ass because you're an egotistical asshole and you cannot stand people not bowing down to your self-evident superiority. You don't like people saying "baby" in this context so it is not allowed. That's it. There's no reasoning behind it; every argument you've advanced has been stupid to an incredible degree.
It's not that the point they're trying to make is vague. The point they're trying to make is "you're in favour of aborting foetuses under certain conditions". It's that instead of making an argument they are exploiting the inherent vagueness of the word to avoid actually having to demonstrate that killing a foetus is comparable to killing an infant. By simply referring to the two using the same word they skip the bit where the actual argument happens and leap straight to their conclusion, instead relying upon the fact that they use the word baby to mean something different to what the other side does.
It is not vague. Keep saying that it is, it's really making you look like you're confident and doing well.
Also, really? People say "baby" in order to "avoid actually having to demonstrate that killing a foetus is comparable to killing an infant"? People say "baby" because they believe that it is comparable. They advance arguments for that belief. No one, no one, says "baby" to avoid demonstrating their belief. It is a demonstration of their belief.
How do you know people say "baby" for that reason? Can you read minds? Can you really be this stupidly arrogant?
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!
Your arguments would be more pathetic if they weren't so damn funny. You can't maintain a single one consistently save for your idiotic assertion of vagueness over and over again, like a broken record player with no one to shut off the incredibly bad line that keeps being played.
|
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible.
|
On November 16 2012 04:35 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:27 Gene wrote:
So you are arguing a case for being intentionally indirect on the grounds that your audience can figure it out if they are not idiots. censoring language is ridiculous when there is no real confusion. so, yes, in simple terms: the pro-choice people aren't confused (unless they are idiots), and thus, there is no reason to censor language, which is a draconian step. Are you saying that we should not strive for perfect clarity? There is a reason that they are extremely careful with how laws are written and stated, clarifying every single possible angle to prevent people from misunderstanding, misinterpreting the law, or abusing any loophole. This is no different.
i am against censoring certain words when there is no confusion. i also find your idea of "perfect clarity" in an abortion debate laughable at best.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
The term is vague. Even dAPhREAk admits it. Jesus christ.
|
On November 16 2012 04:41 Gene wrote:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible.
using "baby" to refer to fetuses is not invalid. its supported by dictionary definitions and common parlance. so, censoring a word's legitimate use when nobody is confused by its inherent vagueness is incomprehensible. censorship is not the norm, its the extreme. why would anyone support it except in extraordinary circumstances? seriously, wtf?
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
I personally don't give a shit about getting involved in an abortion debate. What I am saying here is that there is no reason to use vague terms, and I'm showing why the term 'baby' is vague in this situation.
Gene says it perfectly. Quoting once again:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:41 Gene wrote:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible. using "baby" to refer to fetuses is not invalid. its supported by dictionary definitions and common parlance. so, censoring a word's legitimate use when nobody is confused by its inherent vagueness is incomprehensible. censorship is not the norm, its the extreme. why would anyone support it except in extraordinary circumstances? seriously, wtf?
No one is censoring the word 'baby'. We are explaining why it shouldn't be used. That has nothing to do with censorship. How did it even come to this?
|
Anyone who thinks that the term "baby" is vague is either dumb as a stump or being dishonest. You cannot seriously claim that any reasonable, intelligent person would misunderstand the use of the word "baby" in an abortion debate. It boggles the mind to think that anyone would be confused.
The word "baby" as used in an abortion debate is not vague, and you cannot credibly claim that it is.
No one is censoring the word 'baby'. We are explaining why it shouldn't be used. That has nothing to do with censorship. How did it even come to this?
Because KwarK does censor it?
Do you read what you write before you hit post?
Your explanation as to why it shouldn't be used makes absolutely no sense as the word is not vague and cannot honestly be construed as vague as everyone knows exactly what is meant when it is used.
|
On November 16 2012 04:44 Firebolt145 wrote:I personally don't give a shit about getting involved in an abortion debate. What I am saying here is that there is no reason to use vague terms, and I'm showing why the term 'baby' is vague in this situation. Gene says it perfectly. Quoting once again: Show nested quote +Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible.
sigh.
the term "baby" is vague.
the term "baby" when used in an abortion debate is not vague. abortion necessarily refers to pre-birth.
|
dont get dragged into this fb, its a complete waste of your time.
|
On November 16 2012 04:45 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:41 Gene wrote:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible. using "baby" to refer to fetuses is not invalid. its supported by dictionary definitions and common parlance. so, censoring a word's legitimate use when nobody is confused by its inherent vagueness is incomprehensible. censorship is not the norm, its the extreme. why would anyone support it except in extraordinary circumstances? seriously, wtf? No one is censoring the word 'baby'. We are explaining why it shouldn't be used. That has nothing to do with censorship. How did it even come to this?
kwark said people cant use the term "baby" in the abortion thread to refer to pre-birth; they are required to use "fetus." so, he is censoring the use of the word.
personally, i would use fetus because its more accurate, but i dont feel kwark should tell people that they cant use baby.
|
On November 16 2012 04:47 PassiveAce wrote:
dont get dragged into this fb, its a complete waste of your time.
as long as its interesting, its not a waste of time. if you are referring to actually changing tl.net modding activities, then yes, its a waste of time.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 16 2012 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:45 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:41 Gene wrote:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible. using "baby" to refer to fetuses is not invalid. its supported by dictionary definitions and common parlance. so, censoring a word's legitimate use when nobody is confused by its inherent vagueness is incomprehensible. censorship is not the norm, its the extreme. why would anyone support it except in extraordinary circumstances? seriously, wtf? No one is censoring the word 'baby'. We are explaining why it shouldn't be used. That has nothing to do with censorship. How did it even come to this? kwark said people cant use the term "baby" in the abortion thread to refer to pre-birth; they are required to use "fetus." so, he is censoring the use of the word. personally, i would use fetus because its more accurate, but i dont feel kwark should tell people that they cant use baby.
He's ARGUING that they should use baby instead of foetus. He never censored it and no one was ever banned about it.
The person that was banned was banned because he was ignorant about the spelling of fetus/foetus and was calling a moderator out on it. Regarding the actual ban, I also felt that 2 weeks was far too long and even mentioned it to Kwark on teamspeak. But that's not what this discussion is about any more.
|
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.
|
On November 16 2012 04:51 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:45 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 16 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 04:41 Gene wrote:
Regardless of the subject matter, that you can say you are arguing for being intentionally indirect in a legitimate debate is incomprehensible. using "baby" to refer to fetuses is not invalid. its supported by dictionary definitions and common parlance. so, censoring a word's legitimate use when nobody is confused by its inherent vagueness is incomprehensible. censorship is not the norm, its the extreme. why would anyone support it except in extraordinary circumstances? seriously, wtf? No one is censoring the word 'baby'. We are explaining why it shouldn't be used. That has nothing to do with censorship. How did it even come to this? kwark said people cant use the term "baby" in the abortion thread to refer to pre-birth; they are required to use "fetus." so, he is censoring the use of the word. personally, i would use fetus because its more accurate, but i dont feel kwark should tell people that they cant use baby. He's ARGUING that they should use baby instead of foetus. He never censored it and no one was ever banned about it. The person that was banned was banned because he was ignorant about the spelling of fetus/foetus and was calling a moderator out on it. Regarding the actual ban, I also felt that 2 weeks was far too long and even mentioned it to Kwark on teamspeak. But that's not what this discussion is about any more.
this is the modnote, which i read as requiring use of fetus for pre-birth and not baby.
Usual abortion topic rule of using baby to mean baby and foetus to mean foetus applies. These words have meaning. - KwarK
if Kwark is saying that you can still use baby for pre-birth then i have no problems because the modnote is meaningless as it requires nothing. but i highly doubt that kwark would allow people to use baby for pre-birth as he is abundantly made clear in this thread. nobody was banned because the thread was closed.
|
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.
|
Give an example of a single instance where someone actually thought that "baby" in an abortion debate referred to a child already born, and that this confusion was long-lasting and detrimental to the discussion. I'd love to see that.
being used intentionally to conjure subconscious thoughts of a toddler.
Of course it is, as pro-lifers believe that morally there is no difference between the two. There is nothing wrong with advancing that belief or trying to provoke that thought in another. That's the point. Morally, the two are the same, the argument goes.
|
On November 16 2012 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
Lalalaland34493 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.
|
Lalalaland34493 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)?
|
Lalalaland34493 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 States42957 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 States42957 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")
|
On November 16 2012 05:56 419 wrote:
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?
(if you're really going to go down the road of blacklisting terms like that, I'll start by suggesting "fair")
He made no argument for his own use of the word; he simply repeatedly used it as though that sort of strategy trumps the necessity of clarifying terminology. That is the essence of the problem; there was no argumentation on his part, only repeated declaration.
|
United States42957 Posts
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.
If someone attempted to make the "you're baby killers" 'argument' while actually using precise terms, such as "you kill babies in the womb" then the response from a pro-choice advocate would simply be "yes, I do". That's what is wrong with the argument, it is utterly meaningless once you subtract the rhetoric that what they are doing is bad because they murder babies. There's no argument there without the vagueness of the word. There is simply no substance. They haven't proven the worth of the prebirth baby nor challenged the circumstances under which the freedom of the mother comes first or anything. All they have done is stated what abortion entails and then defined bad into existence through their own definitions of the words they chose to use.
It is literally the ontological argument.
|
And forgive me JD, but all I read from your posts is exactly that. Which brings us back to arguing a case for intentionally being imprecise. Which has no place in a debate, and I think we've all agreed on that. Except for elem.
I apologize if I'm missing your point.
|
On November 16 2012 06:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:'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. If someone attempted to make the "you're baby killers" 'argument' while actually using precise terms, such as "you kill babies in the womb" then the response from a pro-choice advocate would simply be "yes, I do". That's what is wrong with the argument, it is utterly meaningless once you subtract the rhetoric that what they are doing is bad because they murder babies. There's no argument there without the vagueness of the word. There is simply no substance. They haven't proven the worth of the prebirth baby nor challenged the circumstances under which the freedom of the mother comes first or anything. All they have done is stated what abortion entails and then defined bad into existence through their own definitions of the words they chose to use. It is literally the ontological argument.
wait, are you banning the word to prevent them from giving that opinion/argument?
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 05:56 419 wrote:
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")
When they resort to an ontological argument, yes. It has no place in debate because the conclusion is built into the subjective definitions of the word used and the failure to establish a common language prevents any meaningful communication. That's why the ontological argument fails. If everybody everywhere agreed that the word God referred to a being that existed then the question of whether God existed would become a nonsense because it'd be no different to asking whether a triangle has three sides. It is not a valid argument and has no logical underpinning.
|
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.
No one is saying that, for Pete's sake.
Of course the other side doesn't agree with that premise; that is the debate! You're just declaring one side the winner because you personally agree with their arguments.
Let's try this for the 400th time: pro-life people believe that the unborn child and the born child are morally indistinguishable, and express this by calling it a baby. Their arguments as to why morally they are indistinguishable are not based upon "we call it a baby so it is." It is, "we believe it is a baby in a moral sense because of [X, Y, Z] so we call it a baby because that's what we believe and as a way to differentiate our stance form those who believe it is not a baby in a moral sense and demonstrate doing so by calling it a 'fetus.'"
Why is this so hard to understand?
When they resort to an ontological argument, yes. It has no place in debate because the conclusion is built into the subjective definitions of the word used and the failure to establish a common language prevents any meaningful communication. That's why the ontological argument fails. If everybody everywhere agreed that the word God referred to a being that existed then the question of whether God existed would become a nonsense because it'd be no different to asking whether a triangle has three sides. It is not a valid argument and has no logical underpinning.
They are not resorting to an ontological argument, but you don't have the honesty to acknowledge that.
And your repeated references to common terminology and meaningful communication are as wrong now as they were the first time you blathered them. Your example here is so mind-numbingly stupid that it is hard to believe that you actually believe in it. God is a word embodying a concept. In the abortion debate, so does baby. No one tries to say "God exists because he's called God;" and no one has tried to say that "it's a baby because I call it a baby."
Instead, the key point that you have failed to grasp - at this point and long beforehand, obviously because of an unwillingness to do so - it is "I call it a baby because I believe it is," hopefully followed by "here's why."
Keep on shooting down arguments no one has made KwarK, it makes you look really convincing.
|
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:02 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:00 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 05:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:'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. If someone attempted to make the "you're baby killers" 'argument' while actually using precise terms, such as "you kill babies in the womb" then the response from a pro-choice advocate would simply be "yes, I do". That's what is wrong with the argument, it is utterly meaningless once you subtract the rhetoric that what they are doing is bad because they murder babies. There's no argument there without the vagueness of the word. There is simply no substance. They haven't proven the worth of the prebirth baby nor challenged the circumstances under which the freedom of the mother comes first or anything. All they have done is stated what abortion entails and then defined bad into existence through their own definitions of the words they chose to use. It is literally the ontological argument. wait, are you banning the word to prevent them from giving that opinion/argument?
You are more than welcome to say "I believe that a prebirth baby has the same value as a postbirth baby" or any variant upon that. You are not allowed to say "they are the same thing purely because I subjectively linguistically define them as the same thing". That's the issue we're running into here. You can explain why they're the same thing but you can't just call them the same thing and be done with it.
|
On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument.
I agree with this; the problem is that the poster in question made no attempt to "argue" anything. Wegandi simply repeatedly continued using the word "baby" without any acknowledgement of its problematic status in meaning as it pertains to the abortion debate. I guarantee that if he had acknowledged the possible confusion of his use of the word "baby" and taken the time to couch his use within his personal viewpoint, using the sorts of arguments that help a discussion along, we would not be having this discussion.
Edit: I love how people continue to make long, extended arguments on behalf of Wegandi in order to defend his word use. Had he done the same, like I said above, we would not be having this discussion.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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. No one is saying that, for Pete's sake.Of course the other side doesn't agree with that premise; that is the debate! You're just declaring one side the winner because you personally agree with their arguments. Let's try this for the 400th time: pro-life people believe that the unborn child and the born child are morally indistinguishable, and express this by calling it a baby. Their arguments as to why morally they are indistinguishable are not based upon "we call it a baby so it is." It is, "we believe it is a baby in a moral sense because of [X, Y, Z] so we call it a baby because that's what we believe and as a way to differentiate our stance form those who believe it is not a baby in a moral sense and demonstrate doing so by calling it a 'fetus.'" Why is this so hard to understand? Show nested quote +When they resort to an ontological argument, yes. It has no place in debate because the conclusion is built into the subjective definitions of the word used and the failure to establish a common language prevents any meaningful communication. That's why the ontological argument fails. If everybody everywhere agreed that the word God referred to a being that existed then the question of whether God existed would become a nonsense because it'd be no different to asking whether a triangle has three sides. It is not a valid argument and has no logical underpinning. They are not resorting to an ontological argument, but you don't have the honesty to acknowledge that.
Nobody is stopping anybody from making the argument over why they personally feel that the two are morally indistinguishable. However I am stopping people from making that argument by using the word baby and not adding the rest of it because it is an ontological argument, the other side disagree with the underlying premise. Simply saying "they're both babies" does not make the argument for why they are morally indistinguishable, it simply makes the argument for why we need more specific language that both sides can agree upon. You are more than welcome to make the morally indistinguishable argument.
|
On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument.
You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well?
Your argument is essentially that unborn babies and infants are the same thing. Which is a legitimate argument. I fail to see why saying tacking on unborn undermines your argument.
|
On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well?
Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking.
|
You are more than welcome to say "I believe that a prebirth baby has the same value as a postbirth baby" or any variant upon that. You are not allowed to say "they are the same thing purely because I subjectively linguistically define them as the same thing". That's the issue we're running into here. You can explain why they're the same thing but you can't just call them the same thing and be done with it.
The only reason we're running into it is that you have created a fantasy world where this issue actually exists to be run into.
Wegandi simply repeatedly continued using the word "baby" without any acknowledgement of its problematic status in meaning as it pertains to the abortion debate.
Sorry, but why should pro-life people be bothered that pro-choice people find the use of that term "problematic"? Why should pro-choice people be bothered that pro-life people find their use of the term "fetus" to deny the humanity of the unborn child as problematic?
That is what I've been trying to pound through KwarK's incredibly thick skull, that terms that are "problematic" to one side are always used by the other side in a debate, and that is at least partially why the debate exists in the first place, regardless of what the debate is!
Nobody is stopping anybody from making the argument over why they personally feel that the two are morally indistinguishable. However I am stopping people from making that argument by using the word baby and not adding the rest of it because it is an ontological argument, the other side disagree with the underlying premise. Simply saying "they're both babies" does not make the argument for why they are morally indistinguishable, it simply makes the argument for why we need more specific language that both sides can agree upon. You are more than welcome to make the morally indistinguishable argument.
Oh bullshit. It is not an ontological argument, no matter how many times you say it is.
You are adding an unreasonable burden to one side of the debate because you disagree with and for no other reason and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
It is a ridiculous and unreasonable burden that someone should have to explain every time they say "baby" why they are saying so. That is just ludicrous. They are already making that argument when outlining why they are pro-life.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking.
Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this.
|
The baby is unborn. That is a fact. It's not me morally twisting anything. You've argued that they are the same. We'll say effectively as I'm sure was done in the thread. This conversation literally leaves me confused. I don't know why we're back here again.
It sounds like your argument for the debate is that it's wrong because I think it is. That's not an effective argument.
|
On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this.
But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't.
If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You are more than welcome to say "I believe that a prebirth baby has the same value as a postbirth baby" or any variant upon that. You are not allowed to say "they are the same thing purely because I subjectively linguistically define them as the same thing". That's the issue we're running into here. You can explain why they're the same thing but you can't just call them the same thing and be done with it. The only reason we're running into it is that you have created a fantasy world where this issue actually exists to be run into. Show nested quote +Wegandi simply repeatedly continued using the word "baby" without any acknowledgement of its problematic status in meaning as it pertains to the abortion debate. Sorry, but why should pro-life people be bothered that pro-choice people find the use of that term "problematic"? Why should pro-choice people be bothered that pro-life people find their use of the term "fetus" to deny the humanity of the unborn child as problematic? That is what I've been trying to pound through KwarK's incredibly thick skull, that terms that are "problematic" to one side are always used by the other side in a debate, and that is at least partially why the debate exists in the first place, regardless of what the debate is!
No. Terms that are defined differently by one side than the other are never used in debates because they always render the debate meaningless. That's why you don't allow personal revelation in "does God exist" arguments. That's why the ontological argument fails. A common terminology is essential for the communication to avoid one side defining themselves to the finish while skipping the argument.
Referring to both using the same term while skipping the bit where you explain why you think they have the same value is not a valid argument unless your opponent accepts the starting premise that they're both the same.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people.
No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him.
|
No. Terms that are defined differently by one side than the other are never used in debates because they always render the debate meaningless. That's why you don't allow personal revelation in "does God exist" arguments. That's why the ontological argument fails. A common terminology is essential for the communication to avoid one side defining themselves to the finish while skipping the argument.
Keep saying this dumb shit all you want, it doesn't get any less dumber or shitty. I've explained half a dozen times why this is not an accurate assessment of the situation of the abortion debate, and I'll keep doing it as many times as necessary.
Also, terms that are defined differently are used all the time and defining the terms and whether they are being rightly used make up a great part of many debates, you should know this. Different definition of terms is the cause, all on its own, of many debates.
Referring to both using the same term while skipping the bit where you explain why you think they have the same value is not a valid argument unless your opponent accepts the starting premise that they're both the same.
Point out where people are doing this please. Explain how articulating the pro-life position that the baby inside the womb is morally indistinguishable from the baby outside the womb is an ontological argument. Point to people saying "I call it a baby so it is a baby" as opposed to "I think it is a baby so I call it that."
No one has "skipped the bit."
That is the foundation of your entire argument, people are "skipp[ing] the bit." Okay, give us some examples. Because that is not what people are doing.
You just put an undue burden on one side because you disagree with it, not because of totally unbelievable assertions that you are concerned about meaningful discussion. This entire discussion has been mostly meaningless and you are the cause of that.
If your beef is that people are saying "baby" without explaining why, that does not jive at all with the mod note. Not one bit. The mod note said that saying "baby" is just wrong because it's a fetus and it's not acceptable to call it a baby because that isn't right. That is vastly different from what you're saying now.
You can't keep anything consistent, every post there is some new twist, the goalpost gets shifted another few inches, it never ends.
|
On November 16 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people. No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him.
So what you're saying is we are forced to first accept the premises of one side and then argue against them, instead of starting with premises of our own?
Why is the burden of proof on one party over the other? Why doesn't the person who favors killing men have to prove to us first that men and women are different in some moral sense?
|
On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking.
How does this hinder the argument?
Think of it like your math homework in school. It's not enough to have a problem and an answer, you need to show your work.
If you can't demonstrate what process you use to determine that X=Y, then people are forced to accept your conclusion or not. It removes the ability to debate the process if your process has zero transparency. Using a catch-all term to describe something is deliberate obfuscation.
It's a blanket statement that skips the process and dictates the conclusion, without demonstrating the basis for doing so.
If you believe abortion should be illegal for religious reasons, sorry, I'm going to point to freedom of religion, which is also freedom from religion. You're free to carry to term any and all times you personally get impregnated. I won't judge you. But you're not free to force your religion on me, especially if you can't justify a reason outside of your religion.
|
United States42957 Posts
Again, this is literally the ontological argument. I have no idea how this is so difficult to understand. You cannot define a word as your conclusion and then use the word in place of actually arguing that conclusion unless that definition is unequivocally agreed upon by all parties in the debate. If we all agree that a square has four sides and then we got into an argument about how many sides a square has then I would be within my rights to say "it has four sides because it's a square". However if we disagree about whether or not a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are the same thing and we disagree about whether the word baby refers to both or just one then you are not able to go "they are the same thing, they are both babies". You have to demonstrate why they are alike.
|
On November 16 2012 06:23 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. How does this hinder the argument? Think of it like your math homework in school. It's not enough to have a problem and an answer, you need to show your work. If you can't demonstrate what process you use to determine that X=Y, then people are forced to accept your conclusion or not. It removes the ability to debate the process if your process has zero transparency. Using a catch-all term to describe something is deliberate obfuscation. It's a blanket statement that skips the process and dictates the conclusion, without demonstrating the basis for doing so. If you believe abortion should be illegal for religious reasons, sorry, I'm going to point to freedom of religion, which is also freedom from religion. You're free to carry to term any and all times you personally get impregnated. I won't judge you. But you're not free to force your religion on me, especially if you can't justify a reason outside of your religion.
So then why isn't there an implicit burden of proof on pro-choice people to first show that there is some moral distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby? We are only placing this burden on one side and implicitly accepting the premise of the other.
|
Again, this is literally the ontological argument. I have no idea how this is so difficult to understand. You cannot define a word as your conclusion and then use the word in place of actually arguing that conclusion unless that definition is unequivocally agreed upon by all parties in the debate. If we all agree that a square has four sides and then we got into an argument about how many sides a square has then I would be within my rights to say "it has four sides because it's a square". However if we disagree about whether or not a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are the same thing and we disagree about whether the word baby refers to both or just one then you are not able to go "they are the same thing, they are both babies". You have to demonstrate why they are alike.
I have no idea why it is so difficult to understand that that is not what people are doing.
You can keep bullshitting about ontology all you want, it's just more strawmen from the master.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people. No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him. So what you're saying is we are forced to first accept the premises of one side and then argue against them, instead of starting with premises of our own?
No, you are more than welcome to think a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are morally indistinguishable. You don't have to think that either has less moral value than the other. What you do have to accept is that it is a way of categorising what you are talking about. I'm not saying you must value one more than the other or view one as having a soul and the other as not or any other part of the abortion debate, I'm saying you must categorise one as still in the womb and one as not in the womb for the purpose of meaningful communication. Even the most fervent pro-lifer will accept that infants typically do spend time in the womb.
|
|
|
On November 16 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people. No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him. So what you're saying is we are forced to first accept the premises of one side and then argue against them, instead of starting with premises of our own? No, you are more than welcome to think a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are morally indistinguishable. You don't have to think that either has less moral value than the other. What you do have to accept is that it is a way of categorising what you are talking about. I'm not saying you must value one more than the other or view one as having a soul and the other as not or any other part of the abortion debate, I'm saying you must categorise one as still in the womb and one as not in the womb for the purpose of meaningful communication. Even the most fervent pro-lifer will accept that infants typically do spend time in the womb.
The argument is that no distinction should be made and you are mandating a distinction be made. I don't know how you don't see this.
|
the irony of this whole debate is one of the biggest proponents of abortion (the ACLU) would absolutely abhor what kwark is doing.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:23 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. How does this hinder the argument? Think of it like your math homework in school. It's not enough to have a problem and an answer, you need to show your work. If you can't demonstrate what process you use to determine that X=Y, then people are forced to accept your conclusion or not. It removes the ability to debate the process if your process has zero transparency. Using a catch-all term to describe something is deliberate obfuscation. It's a blanket statement that skips the process and dictates the conclusion, without demonstrating the basis for doing so. If you believe abortion should be illegal for religious reasons, sorry, I'm going to point to freedom of religion, which is also freedom from religion. You're free to carry to term any and all times you personally get impregnated. I won't judge you. But you're not free to force your religion on me, especially if you can't justify a reason outside of your religion. So then why isn't there an implicit burden of proof on pro-choice people to first show that there is some moral distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby? We are only placing this burden on one side and implicitly accepting the premise of the other.
The words in the womb and in the cradle are neutral categories which both sides can agree are ways of geographically describing the baby (to use your term) in question. Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value and therefore has no bearing on the argument of the pro-life side. However categorising a prebirth baby as the same thing as a postbirth baby does implicitly change it's value to the pro-choice side (who aren't in favour of infanticide) and is therefore a poor definition as it is not accepted by one side.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people. No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him. So what you're saying is we are forced to first accept the premises of one side and then argue against them, instead of starting with premises of our own? No, you are more than welcome to think a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are morally indistinguishable. You don't have to think that either has less moral value than the other. What you do have to accept is that it is a way of categorising what you are talking about. I'm not saying you must value one more than the other or view one as having a soul and the other as not or any other part of the abortion debate, I'm saying you must categorise one as still in the womb and one as not in the womb for the purpose of meaningful communication. Even the most fervent pro-lifer will accept that infants typically do spend time in the womb. The argument is that no distinction should be made and you are mandating a distinction be made. I don't know how you don't see this.
The categorising being used here is one of geography and is unequivocally a correct one. Babies do spend time in the womb. All of them. Always. It has no bearing on whether or not they are morally equivalent.
|
On November 16 2012 06:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:23 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. How does this hinder the argument? Think of it like your math homework in school. It's not enough to have a problem and an answer, you need to show your work. If you can't demonstrate what process you use to determine that X=Y, then people are forced to accept your conclusion or not. It removes the ability to debate the process if your process has zero transparency. Using a catch-all term to describe something is deliberate obfuscation. It's a blanket statement that skips the process and dictates the conclusion, without demonstrating the basis for doing so. If you believe abortion should be illegal for religious reasons, sorry, I'm going to point to freedom of religion, which is also freedom from religion. You're free to carry to term any and all times you personally get impregnated. I won't judge you. But you're not free to force your religion on me, especially if you can't justify a reason outside of your religion. So then why isn't there an implicit burden of proof on pro-choice people to first show that there is some moral distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby? We are only placing this burden on one side and implicitly accepting the premise of the other.
No, we're implicitly accepting the premise that if you try to create a foregone conclusion with your terminology, you aren't actually debating anymore.
There can be no validity in debate if you create a foregone conclusion. "Fetus" isn't a foregone conclusion. Yes, it's politically charged, but you can easily say "I believe that once a fetus has developed to the point it could reasonably be expected to survive independent of the mother with modern medical care, abortion should be illegal". Hell, I'm pro-choice and believe that, when the mother's life isn't endangered.
It's not hard from there to say that "I believe a fetus should be protected under the law as an individual human because of X, Y, and Z. Sources"
Presto, you're not caving on your actual position, you're just not suggesting that a fetus at one month is chilling inside momma with a diaper, a bottle, and a rattle, in a little playpen in the womb.
|
Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value
LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here...
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:29 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:18 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:13 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 06:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:10 Gene wrote:On November 16 2012 06:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Let me break this down into the simplest way I can muster.
Part of the pro-life argument is that the being inside the womb is the same as the being outside the womb. For this reason, they seek to use the same word to describe each.
When you mandate that they refer to it with different terms, you are mandating they make a distinction between the two, which is detrimental to the argument that they should be viewed in the same way, and therefore according to the same term.
The excuse of precision is not sufficient to deny their right to make this part of their argument. You can argue that an unborn baby and a born baby, most call them infants, are the same. You cannot say "I believe killing babies is immoral". You can say "killing unborn babies is immoral". Are you telling me using this language hinders your argument as well? Forcing someone to make a distinction between a pre-birth and post-birth baby is indeed hindering the argument that no distinction should be made morally speaking. Not really. I think men and women have the same moral value and killing both is murder, I don't think distinguishing between them gets in the way of this. But that's not how the debate is framed, people are already suggesting in this analogy that killing one is ok and killing the other isn't. If one side was arguing that it's ok to kill men and not to kill women, then you would certainly refer to them with a general term such as "human beings" or "people" to show that no distinction should be made when it comes to killing people. No because that would be a nonsense argument. I would explain how both sexes have value and contribute equally and why putting one above the other would be absurd. I'd explain how there was no good biological or social reason to lead to a moral code that judged them differently. I wouldn't just go "they're both people, clearly they're the same" because if I'm having a discussion with a guy who thinks it's okay to kill men then that isn't going to mean anything to him. So what you're saying is we are forced to first accept the premises of one side and then argue against them, instead of starting with premises of our own? No, you are more than welcome to think a prebirth baby and a postbirth baby are morally indistinguishable. You don't have to think that either has less moral value than the other. What you do have to accept is that it is a way of categorising what you are talking about. I'm not saying you must value one more than the other or view one as having a soul and the other as not or any other part of the abortion debate, I'm saying you must categorise one as still in the womb and one as not in the womb for the purpose of meaningful communication. Even the most fervent pro-lifer will accept that infants typically do spend time in the womb. The argument is that no distinction should be made and you are mandating a distinction be made. I don't know how you don't see this.
There are two arguments here. Whether the 'human being' pre birth and post birth should be distinguished from each other from a moral perspective, and whether they should be distinguished from each other from a language perspective.
To facilitate the moral perspective discussion, the language argument should be finalised as 'use terms which are least ambiguous'. Not hard to follow. The moral discussion is another one entirely, one that is generally avoided on TL for other reasons.
|
On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here...
Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context.
|
On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context.
context is apparently irrelevant if words can be considered vague on their own. lol
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here...
I'm not actually having an abortion debate here, I'm trying to explain why the ontological argument is always objectively meaningless and why it applies to this situation. And if a pro-choice guy defined "in womb" as "automatically less valuable than out of womb" then they would be making the exact same logical error that you are making. They do not however, the common definition of "in womb" that I am hoping we can agree upon here is "inside a womb".
|
On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context.
I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography.
|
On November 16 2012 06:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. context is apparently irrelevant if words can be considered vague on their own. lol
Oh, but according to you, context is 100% relevant, and only an idiot wouldn't understand things in context. In fact, I think I'm putting it more politely than you did.
Also, you're misrepresenting things, because it's ONLY in that context where the terminology is being deliberately obfuscated that it's considered vague.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography.
Is it the pro-life stance that babies don't spend time in wombs? If it is not then you accept the category but still believe that they are morally indistinguishable. That is the argument that I am inviting you to make, why you feel they are morally indistinguishable. Denying reference to the womb is madness.
The entire argument is not about geography. Pro life and pro choice people both agree about whether babies can be found pre birth. There is literally no disagreement there. The disagreement is in the worth of the baby pre birth and the value of the freedom of the mother. The geographic categorising is not in any way loaded towards one or the other.
|
On November 16 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography.
No, he said that categorization by geography doesn't implicitly affect the value. Which is true. You have to explicitly state why you find geography to be relevant or irrelevant.
Pro-choice or pro-life, both can say "that woman is pregnant". That's referring to geography, but not stating whether they think it's ok to terminate the pregnancy.
|
On November 16 2012 06:44 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. context is apparently irrelevant if words can be considered vague on their own. lol Oh, but according to you, context is 100% relevant, and only an idiot wouldn't understand things in context. In fact, I think I'm putting it more politely than you did. Also, you're misrepresenting things, because it's ONLY in that context where the terminology is being deliberately obfuscated that it's considered vague.
it is relevant, but people dont agree with me, and i was just adding a lighthearted comment. i dont understand your second point--"baby" is by definition ambiguous if you agree with definitions that allow it to be used for pre- and post-birth.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
so I was thinking about putting my hand in a beartrap and then hurting esports
however there are no beartraps in my lab and esports is already dead so time for the third option--quality postings!
The argument is that no distinction should be made and you are mandating a distinction be made. I don't know how you don't see this.
Can you agree that in a hypothetical land (lets call it TLwebsitefeedback), an unborn 'betus' (neutrality special) is different from a postbirth 'betus', in that one will have different characteristics from another*?
and that, as such, it is possible that some people might think that the moral value of them is different (the fact that you may think that such a view is repellent does not change whether or not this possibility exists**)?
*similarly, you could say that a postbirth American 'betus' is different than a postbirth English 'betus' but no one is arguing that one should receive different protections from the other with respect to murder laws
**there's a godwin's law invocation in here somewhere
|
On November 16 2012 06:52 419 wrote:so I was thinking about putting my hand in a beartrap and then hurting esports however there are no beartraps in my lab and esports is already dead so time for the third option--quality postings! Show nested quote +The argument is that no distinction should be made and you are mandating a distinction be made. I don't know how you don't see this.
Can you agree that in a hypothetical land (lets call it TLwebsitefeedback), an unborn 'betus' (neutrality special) is different from a postbirth 'betus', in that one will have different characteristics from another*? and that, as such, it is possible that some people might think that the moral value of them is different (the fact that you may think that such a view is repellent does not change whether or not this possibility exists**)? *similarly, you could say that a postbirth American 'betus' is different than a postbirth English 'betus' but no one is arguing that one should receive different protections from the other with respect to murder laws **there's a godwin's law invocation in here somewhere
Hitler was a real son of a betus?
|
On November 16 2012 06:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. context is apparently irrelevant if words can be considered vague on their own. lol Oh, but according to you, context is 100% relevant, and only an idiot wouldn't understand things in context. In fact, I think I'm putting it more politely than you did. Also, you're misrepresenting things, because it's ONLY in that context where the terminology is being deliberately obfuscated that it's considered vague. it is relevant, but people dont agree with me, and i was just adding a lighthearted comment. i dont understand your second point--"baby" is by definition ambiguous if you agree with definitions that allow it to be used for pre- and post-birth.
If you say "We're going to have a baby", and you're a guy, it's not vague, you mean your wife/girlfriend/etc is pregnant. If you say "My baby needed changing three times last night", you're talking about one that's been born. If you say "killing babies is immoral", you either mean you're pro-life, or anti-infanticide, which actually means you're trying to associate infanticide with abortion by force, rather than explaining why you think abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide.
I'm guessing you're still going to ignore the difference.
Basically, it becomes less vague due to the language used with it. In abortion debates, it's used to intentionally blur the some distinctions that are otherwise made with the language used.
If I say "Religion is evil" but I'm actually thinking specifically of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, and I'm using it to attack Mormons or Catholics, it's the same thing. I'm using a non-specific argument to attack something specific, without showing how it's applicable.
|
Someone get Dr. Chomsky in here, stat!
|
On November 16 2012 06:47 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography. No, he said that categorization by geography doesn't implicitly affect the value. Which is true. You have to explicitly state why you find geography to be relevant or irrelevant. Pro-choice or pro-life, both can say "that woman is pregnant". That's referring to geography, but not stating whether they think it's ok to terminate the pregnancy.
Value doesn't exist objectively. Only subjective emotional value exists. And the categorizations we choose to use have an affect on such subjective assessments.
|
United States42957 Posts
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used.
|
On November 16 2012 06:56 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 06:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. context is apparently irrelevant if words can be considered vague on their own. lol Oh, but according to you, context is 100% relevant, and only an idiot wouldn't understand things in context. In fact, I think I'm putting it more politely than you did. Also, you're misrepresenting things, because it's ONLY in that context where the terminology is being deliberately obfuscated that it's considered vague. it is relevant, but people dont agree with me, and i was just adding a lighthearted comment. i dont understand your second point--"baby" is by definition ambiguous if you agree with definitions that allow it to be used for pre- and post-birth. If you say "We're going to have a baby", and you're a guy, it's not vague, you mean your wife/girlfriend/etc is pregnant. If you say "My baby needed changing three times last night", you're talking about one that's been born. If you say "killing babies is immoral", you either mean you're pro-life, or anti-infanticide, which actually means you're trying to associate infanticide with abortion by force, rather than explaining why you think abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. I'm guessing you're still going to ignore the difference. Basically, it becomes less vague due to the language used with it. In abortion debates, it's used to intentionally blur the some distinctions that are otherwise made with the language used. If I say "Religion is evil" but I'm actually thinking specifically of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, and I'm using it to attack Mormons or Catholics, it's the same thing. I'm using a non-specific argument to attack something specific, without showing how it's applicable.
i have no idea what you are talking about if you are referring to points i have made in this thread.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On November 16 2012 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:47 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography. No, he said that categorization by geography doesn't implicitly affect the value. Which is true. You have to explicitly state why you find geography to be relevant or irrelevant. Pro-choice or pro-life, both can say "that woman is pregnant". That's referring to geography, but not stating whether they think it's ok to terminate the pregnancy. Value doesn't exist objectively. Only subjective emotional value exists. And the categorizations we choose to use have an affect on such subjective assessments.
m8...
even assuming everything you say is true -- are you saying that should I make any distinction between two people, than I must necessarily have a difference in opinion on their moral 'worth'?
I suppose, yes, it does open the possibility that they can possibly be treated differently. But the possibility itself is not an argument.
|
On November 16 2012 07:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:47 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 06:40 JingleHell wrote:On November 16 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Categorising a baby by geography does not implicitly alter it's moral value LOL! Careful Kwark, you almost sound pro-life here... Geee, and you wonder why there's a whole huge argument about bad debate going on right now... try reading the whole post in context. I did read it in context. He said that categorizing by geography doesn't change the argument for either side, when clearly the entire argument is about geography. It is ironic that he says it doesn't matter and then immediately calls for distinctions based on geography. No, he said that categorization by geography doesn't implicitly affect the value. Which is true. You have to explicitly state why you find geography to be relevant or irrelevant. Pro-choice or pro-life, both can say "that woman is pregnant". That's referring to geography, but not stating whether they think it's ok to terminate the pregnancy. Implicit value doesn't exist objectively. Only subjective emotional value exists. And the categorizations we choose to use have an affect on such subjective assessments.
All moral value is implicit. If you try to make it explicit, forcible eugenics is a moral imperative, because we're protecting the human race.
We agree that morality can be subjective, but our perception of the value can't be explicit because it's not objective. You're slightly backwards here on your semantics. The only things that can be objective and explicit are societal values as a whole, as written in the law. On the personal level, they must be subjective and implicit.
The categorizations we use DO have an effect on subjective determinations, which is EXACTLY why, if you desire a rational debate, you must avoid ambiguous terms, and, as much as possible, emotionally charged ones. Which is why I suggested prenatal. Since one side screams bloody murder about the term "fetus" they can just use a different term instead, which is equally clinical but still allows them to refer to it as a baby.
|
Can't someone just make this a thread in General about abortion?
It's not even about KwarK anymore.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
of course it does. the teamliquid race must eternally have a champion against the ontological argument
|
On November 16 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used.
The argument implicitly being made is "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value. Therefore, I will choose to refer to both as baby." There is a common language and common understanding already here. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this argument between the lines should not be attempting a debate in the first place.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 07:10 Praetorial wrote:
Can't someone just make this a thread in General about abortion?
It's not even about KwarK anymore.
This is in no way about abortion for me.
|
On November 16 2012 07:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used. The argument implicitly being made is "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value. Therefore, I will choose to refer to both as baby." There is a common language and common understanding already here. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this argument between the lines should not be attempting a debate in the first place.
Exactly, and via the rhetorical content of Wegandi's posts, he was guilty of just that.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On November 16 2012 07:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used. The argument implicitly being made is "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value. Therefore, I will choose to refer to both as baby." There is a common language and common understanding already here. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this argument between the lines should not be attempting a debate in the first place.
that's not actually an argument though
what evidence are you using to justify second clause? "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value"? That is precisely what the argument is about.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 07:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used. The argument implicitly being made is "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value. Therefore, I will choose to refer to both as baby." There is a common language and common understanding already here. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this argument between the lines should not be attempting a debate in the first place.
Unfortunately it is not. There is no argument about value being made, simply a statement that, in the eyes of the speaker, the definition of the word baby covers both. He has not addressed why and until he recognises that there is a both he cannot. While the other party does not accept his definition of the word he has simply achieved an ontological conclusion in which his conclusion and starting premise are one and the same. You can use neutral language for pre and post birth if you wish but you cannot refuse to accept the categories any more than you could deny the existence of odd and even.
|
On November 16 2012 07:15 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 07:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 07:01 KwarK wrote:
jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used. The argument implicitly being made is "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value. Therefore, I will choose to refer to both as baby." There is a common language and common understanding already here. Anyone who is incapable of recognizing this argument between the lines should not be attempting a debate in the first place. that's not actually an argument though what evidence are you using to justify second clause? "whether or not a baby is in the womb or outside it, it has the same value"? That is precisely what the argument is about.
The mod note restricted the use of the terms whether the poster provided a justification for his beliefs or not. The lack of content or justification is unrelated to whether or not people can use terminology which agrees with their premises.
|
United States42957 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [categories] +jdseemoreglass I'll try to explain this again from the top because this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, this is purely philosophy and the validity of the ontological argument here.
Take something which can be categorised into two groups without any bias, such as numbers into odd and even. Everyone can agree upon the categories and understand why they have been chosen and which each number is. They are rigid categories and a number fits into one based upon its objective nature rather than any subjective value.
Person A) says "I value 3 as much as 4 (not in terms of mathematical which is higher, just how much he likes them) because they are both numbers".
Person B) responds "I think even numbers are better than odd numbers because they are divisible by 2, therefore I think 4 is more valuable than 3"
In order to have a meaningful exchange at this point person A must address the categories of even and odd numbers but doing so does not in any way alter his stance that all numbers, even and odd, have the same value. If he instead asserts that because all are numbers they are all the same then he has failed to address the question of how important being divisible by 2 is. However if he replies and says "whether or not a number is divisible by 2 or not it has the same value" then a debate can take place. A common language is necessary and with it a common understanding of the meaning of the words being used.
I'll try again with a different example.
Person A) I think chocolate pudding is better than strawberry jelly (jello for an American audience).
Person B) I think they are both desserts and therefore have the same value.
Person A) Why do you think they have the same value, I think jelly is worse because it's all wobbly.
Person B) I refuse to acknowledge jelly as a concept. They're both desserts, desserts are nice.
Person A) While I accept that desserts are nice and I am in favour of desserts I would like to discuss the merits of chocolate pudding as opposed to jelly.
Person B) They are both desserts.
Person A) While I accept that they are both desserts they can still be categorised differently, for example in terms of the texture.
Person B) They are both desserts.
What I would ideally like to happen here is the following
Person B) The issue of whether or not jelly is wobbly has no bearing upon which is better. Many people like different desserts and all desserts have nutritional value, the texture is irrelevant.
The concession that jelly exists has not hindered Person B from arguing his ideological stance that neither is better. He has attempted to explain the irrelevance of the differences to the question of their comparative value without denying that a distinction can be made.
You cannot simply use the word dessert to make an argument that both have the same value, even if you define dessert as "food after dinner, has the same absolute value" because if you're in a discussion with a guy who is trying to compare chocolate pudding with strawberry jelly then he does not accept that that is what dessert means. By your definition your statement reads "foods which have the same absolute value (or desserts for short) have the same absolute value". This is not an argument, it is a self justifying statement and to him it will read "foods which have different absolute values (or desserts for short) have the same absolute value" which is obviously meaningless. While you have defined the word to mean your conclusion and then stated it as your conclusion the reasoning behind your conclusion fails to translate because the definition of the word is not agreed upon.
You must accept the categorisations of the different types of desserts being compared, in this case chocolate pudding and strawberry jelly, before you begin to create an argument about why they have the same absolute value. At this point you can bring up the reasons why you feel that they are the same and then can challenge the arguments of the other person while making your own.
|
United States42957 Posts
I am desperately hoping that by explaining this in non abortion terms (because for me this is very much not an abortion argument anymore) the reason why mutually acceptable definitions are needed and why you cannot use the ontological argument will become apparent.
|
Canada11363 Posts
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.)
|
United States42957 Posts
Yes. The issue is simply with the ontological nature of defining the contested issue as the conclusion and then simply stating the definition as a self justifying loop which has no meaning beyond the subjective definition of the person who said it. By enforcing rigid use of universally defined concepts (and we ought to all be able to agree that there is a pre birth phase and then a post birth phase following it) we can avoid the inevitable problems arising when the language one side uses becomes gibberish when heard by the other.
|
seems reasonable to me you pre-birth baby killers.... rawr~!
|
Canada11363 Posts
Well then, (one) problem solved 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.
|
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.
|
No one should use the term "pre-birth baby" in discussion. It sounds awkward and idiotic, and represents an attempt at compromise that is ridiculous.
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.
|
Canada11363 Posts
But doesn't it help? Baby can be used. Just a little more work to specify. I think that's worth it, if it generally keeps the thread somewhat flame free. It's not restricted terminology. Just an additional word required.
|
Lalalaland34493 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.
|
United States42957 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.
|
On November 16 2012 09:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You've missed my insightful analysis-via-hypothetical. Reread my hilarious story.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:49 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 09:44 KwarK wrote: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. You've missed my insightful analysis-via-hypothetical. Reread my hilarious story.
You are an intellectually dishonest retard.
|
Canada11363 Posts
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.)
|
On November 16 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 09:49 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 16 2012 09:44 KwarK wrote: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. You've missed my insightful analysis-via-hypothetical. Reread my hilarious story. 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.
|
United States42957 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.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 09:53 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 09:49 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 16 2012 09:44 KwarK wrote: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. You've missed my insightful analysis-via-hypothetical. Reread my hilarious story. 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.
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.
|
Canada11363 Posts
I read through the entire thing which is why I thought requiring a qualifier pretty much addressed both sides' concerns.
|
On November 16 2012 09:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
United States42957 Posts
No sane man could possibly agree with it. The ontological argument has never and will never work.
|
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.
|
On November 16 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 09:55 KwarK wrote: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. 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.
|
man. Is that what you've gleaned from the last fifteen pages or are you simply rehashing your own moronic opinions without having considered any of it
|
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!
|
thanks for pointing out the crux of the problem.
|
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!
|
United States42957 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.
|
On November 16 2012 10:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
fine with me.
|
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!
|
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!
|
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)
|
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.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 16 2012 10:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On November 16 2012 10:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 10:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: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. 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.
|
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!
|
On November 16 2012 10:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 10:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: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. 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.
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.
|
On November 16 2012 11:15 Gene wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 10:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 10:56 KwarK wrote:On November 16 2012 10:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: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. 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. 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.
|
sorry. That was indeed snippy.
|
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.
|
Canada11363 Posts
A semi-disfunctional family...
I kid, I kid.
|
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.
|
Are you saying that the idea of not tolerating homophobia is a bad policy?
God I wish I could say that was a typo. Idk what that was.
|
On November 17 2012 00:41 Gene wrote:
Are you saying that the idea of not tolerating homophobia is a bad policy?
God I wish I could say that was a typo. Idk what that was.
Yes I am. First of all, I don't think that there is not even an unbiased or universal definition on what "homofobia" is.
Second, I just don't agree with pursuing an agenda by banning the oposition. If homosexuality cannot become universaly accepted based on convincing argumentation, than the anti-homophobes are obviously doing something wrong.
Again, I have nothing against homosexuality and I have been actively supporting gay marriage and adoption for gay couples in many discussions. Luckily, I was able to have these discussions, because the oposing side was not forbidden to state their opinions and arguments!
|
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.
Actually it was your repeated dumbshit assertions that an ontological argument was being made when it never was. You just wished really hard it was because it was convenient for you to write horribly cluttered sentences "proving" this. If clarity and precision is such a virtue, learn to write please.
You're still on your strawman hobby horse. You're too stupid to do anything else. If you can't figure out why 'I call it a baby because I believe it is a baby for these (or this) reason(s)' is not an ontological argument (the opposite would be, unfortunately despite you repeating it over and over this is not the case), you're beyond hope. In literally three quarters of your posts in this thread you have included at least one strawman and it has been the centerpiece of the argument you were attempting to make in that post.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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.
There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment.
Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are.
|
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue?
|
On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic.
Lol what an assumption!
|
On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue?
I'm sure if you could come up with an argument against gay marriage equal rights that A: didn't involve forcing religion on people, B: actually made sense, and C: actually involved current information (no references to decades old lists of mental health issues calling homosexuality a mental disorder), the mods would at least allow it as long as the debate stayed sane.
I've got $5 that says you don't have an argument that fits those criteria.
|
On November 17 2012 01:32 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. Lol what an assumption!
I'm asking Kwark this. I don't think it's a far-fetched assumption.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue?
I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one.
You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated.
|
It suddenly strikes me as ironic that the proponents of assigning rights to unborn children has a decent correlation to those hoping to keep rights away from homosexuals.
Edit : I don't mean to speak of any of you. Honest. Just an observation of the country at large.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 00:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Actually it was your repeated dumbshit assertions that an ontological argument was being made when it never was
On November 16 2012 04:22 KwarK wrote:
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.
On November 16 2012 04:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
That is the actual argument!
On November 16 2012 05:47 KwarK wrote:
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.
The ongoing issue here is that you still don't seem to get what the ontological argument is which is why you can't seem to notice that you're using it.
|
On November 17 2012 01:43 Gene wrote:
It suddenly strikes me as ironic that the proponents of assigning rights to unborn children has a decent correlation to those hoping to keep rights away from homosexuals.
Yeah, there's further amusement value in that they want to keep government aid and affordable healthcare away from the people more likely to be in the position of wanting an abortion. As a general rule, not every specific individual.
KwarK threads never fail to entertain, though.
|
On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are.
This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar?
Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service.
For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does.
Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion.
|
On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated.
The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality.
You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed?
|
On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. It is impossible that it is that difficult to understand. Your last paragraph entirely is read as moronic. Every codification of rules or agreements has an elastic clause as it is not possible to touch upon every single thing a person should or shouldn't do. The existence of this clause does not make the rest of the rules useless.
keeping up with you guys via my phone is tough work
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed?
It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion.
Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained
- Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely!
The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like.
|
It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume.
10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go.
|
On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic.
JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting.
|
On November 17 2012 02:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic. JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting.
Any argument I've seen either involves religion (this was used to justify enslaving blacks), involves outdated information calling homosexuality a mental disorder (medical shit gets reevaluated regularly with new information, so use it), or involves a sexual deviance "slippery slope" argument to equate gays to pedophiles. (Oh, by the way, any sexual conduct that doesn't have the express intention of impregnating a woman is 'deviant' in the same manner, so I guess if you like head, stay away from the kiddos, freak.)
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 02:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic. JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting.
Fortunately it's actually quite difficult to get banned on tl for a borderline post and if mods do disagree on it then you can request that it gets discussed in the mod forum. Getting permabanned is even harder, there are people with much longer histories than you still collecting warnings and short tempbans.
|
On November 17 2012 02:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic. JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting. Fortunately it's actually quite difficult to get banned on tl for a borderline post and if mods do disagree on it then you can request that it gets discussed in the mod forum. Getting permabanned is even harder, there are people with much longer histories than you still collecting warnings and short tempbans.
Obviously our view of "borderline" is pretty wide apart. I already provided several examples which appeared borderline to me and were all banned, and you thought they were all open and shut cases.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 02:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:11 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 02:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic. JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting. Fortunately it's actually quite difficult to get banned on tl for a borderline post and if mods do disagree on it then you can request that it gets discussed in the mod forum. Getting permabanned is even harder, there are people with much longer histories than you still collecting warnings and short tempbans. Obviously our view of "borderline" is pretty wide apart. I already provided several examples which appeared borderline to me and were all banned, and you thought they were all open and shut cases.
Although in fairness we largely disagreed on the interpretation of some of them rather than where the line is.
I read "rape is when a woman lies about consensual sex" as a denial that rape ever happens and the dismissal of all rape victims everywhere as liars who really wanted it which is a pretty disgraceful thing to say, even if you believe it. I'm assuming you interpreted the post differently rather than believing that that's a perfectly acceptable thing to say.
|
opisska, JD, yea.
It's dumb. It's dumb since homophobia is unquestionably bad.
And like Jingle pointed out, the same people who are homophobic that always refer to a fetus as "baby".
|
On November 17 2012 02:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 02:11 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 02:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic. JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting. Fortunately it's actually quite difficult to get banned on tl for a borderline post and if mods do disagree on it then you can request that it gets discussed in the mod forum. Getting permabanned is even harder, there are people with much longer histories than you still collecting warnings and short tempbans. Obviously our view of "borderline" is pretty wide apart. I already provided several examples which appeared borderline to me and were all banned, and you thought they were all open and shut cases. Although in fairness we largely disagreed on the interpretation of some of them rather than where the line is. I read "rape is when a woman lies about consensual sex" as a denial that rape ever happens and the dismissal of all rape victims everywhere as liars who really wanted it which is a pretty disgraceful thing to say, even if you believe it. I'm assuming you interpreted the post differently rather than believing that that's a perfectly acceptable thing to say.
The only reason those posts began with the words "rape is" is because the title of the thread itself was "what is rape?" With all the harping you were doing on the idea of rape culture, I think you would have been partial to banning them even if the language was clarified.
|
On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained Show nested quote +- Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like.
OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding.
But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do.
On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. Show nested quote +10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go.
This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 02:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:20 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 02:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 02:11 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 02:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic. JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting. Fortunately it's actually quite difficult to get banned on tl for a borderline post and if mods do disagree on it then you can request that it gets discussed in the mod forum. Getting permabanned is even harder, there are people with much longer histories than you still collecting warnings and short tempbans. Obviously our view of "borderline" is pretty wide apart. I already provided several examples which appeared borderline to me and were all banned, and you thought they were all open and shut cases. Although in fairness we largely disagreed on the interpretation of some of them rather than where the line is. I read "rape is when a woman lies about consensual sex" as a denial that rape ever happens and the dismissal of all rape victims everywhere as liars who really wanted it which is a pretty disgraceful thing to say, even if you believe it. I'm assuming you interpreted the post differently rather than believing that that's a perfectly acceptable thing to say. The only reason those posts began with the words "rape is" is because the title of the thread itself was "what is rape?" With all the harping you were doing on the idea of rape culture, I think you would have been partial to banning them even if the language was clarified.
If I was having a discussion on my sofa with some guys I know about what is racism in today's world and one of them went "racism is what niggers whine about when they're mad because they're too dumb to get the same jobs white guys get" then I'd ask him to leave. The fact that the question invited an opinion does not mean all opinions become acceptable.
|
On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing.
The way to have fun in serious discussions is to not take them too seriously, and to not take any arguments personally. Some people enjoy competing with words.
|
On November 17 2012 02:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 02:20 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 02:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 02:11 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 02:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol, all that talk about not arguing from definition, and now this... Obviously if you predefine something as homophobic then it is easy to justify eliminating it. His point is that the term is subjective.
For example, I'm assuming you think that opposing gay marriage is inherently homophobic. So does that mean no one on the site should even be allowed to debate the issue? I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one. You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic. JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting. Fortunately it's actually quite difficult to get banned on tl for a borderline post and if mods do disagree on it then you can request that it gets discussed in the mod forum. Getting permabanned is even harder, there are people with much longer histories than you still collecting warnings and short tempbans. Obviously our view of "borderline" is pretty wide apart. I already provided several examples which appeared borderline to me and were all banned, and you thought they were all open and shut cases. Although in fairness we largely disagreed on the interpretation of some of them rather than where the line is. I read "rape is when a woman lies about consensual sex" as a denial that rape ever happens and the dismissal of all rape victims everywhere as liars who really wanted it which is a pretty disgraceful thing to say, even if you believe it. I'm assuming you interpreted the post differently rather than believing that that's a perfectly acceptable thing to say. The only reason those posts began with the words "rape is" is because the title of the thread itself was "what is rape?" With all the harping you were doing on the idea of rape culture, I think you would have been partial to banning them even if the language was clarified. If I was having a discussion on my sofa with some guys I know about what is racism in today's world and one of them went "racism is what niggers whine about when they're mad because they're too dumb to get the same jobs white guys get" then I'd ask him to leave. The fact that the question invited an opinion does not mean all opinions become acceptable.
Personally, I don't view this site as somebody's couch. I view this site as an open public forum. I think that's how it should be viewed. This site isn't only the home of the staff members, it's the home of thousands of people, amateur players, professional players, politic junkies, debate junkies, people looking for news or health information, etc. The rules should be tailored to protect both groups in certain ways.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:
But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do.
We don't allow atheist only religion topics where we all bash on religion. If you see people taking advantage of the fact that we suppress religion arguments to take shots and then hide behind that rule then report it and explain it in those terms. I have banned people for that before.
Gay marriage can be discussed but if your opposition to it is purely that you don't want gays to have the same rights that straight people do then when you explain your reasoning you may fall victim to our rules against homophobia. Part of the problem here is that the gay marriage debate is a debate about denying gay people something that straight people have, there is a lot of homophobia in the opposition to it. That said, as long as it's expressed reasonably enough it will generally get a pass. I think my last homophobia ban in a debate topic was for a guy saying that gays couldn't be trusted around children which is a fairly blatant "gays molest children" post.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 02:33 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:28 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 02:20 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 02:15 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 02:11 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 02:03 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:58 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 01:41 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I make a subjective judgement that something is homophobic and am empowered to act, I do not require an objective truth nor do I claim that I have found one.
You still haven't worked out why your argument was a logical fallacy. I'll run it by you again. You said that because you call both a pre birth and post birth baby a baby then they are the same thing because you use the same word. It is meaningless because the definition you use for that word does not translate and therefore your conclusion, which is contained entirely within your starting premise of the definition of the word you use, is not communicated. The meaning of the word can be translated with context, obviously a debate about abortion should be a large indication of the meaning. And it's not the definition that is important here, it's an emotional argument being made. People should be allowed to make emotional arguments in a discussion about morality. You dodged my assumption about gay marriage. Safe to say it's confirmed? It would depend on the argument used. If amounted to just "they should have less rights then regular people" then sure, it'd be homophobic. JingleHell seems to think no such argument is possible. In either case, my point is made. Subjective assessments can and often are used to stifle opinions on this site. I realize the rules support that, I think the rules are wrong. What's even worse is that the subjective assessments are not even consistent from day to day or from mod to mod, which has a chilling effect on posting because people have no clue the criteria for acceptable or unacceptable posting. Fortunately it's actually quite difficult to get banned on tl for a borderline post and if mods do disagree on it then you can request that it gets discussed in the mod forum. Getting permabanned is even harder, there are people with much longer histories than you still collecting warnings and short tempbans. Obviously our view of "borderline" is pretty wide apart. I already provided several examples which appeared borderline to me and were all banned, and you thought they were all open and shut cases. Although in fairness we largely disagreed on the interpretation of some of them rather than where the line is. I read "rape is when a woman lies about consensual sex" as a denial that rape ever happens and the dismissal of all rape victims everywhere as liars who really wanted it which is a pretty disgraceful thing to say, even if you believe it. I'm assuming you interpreted the post differently rather than believing that that's a perfectly acceptable thing to say. The only reason those posts began with the words "rape is" is because the title of the thread itself was "what is rape?" With all the harping you were doing on the idea of rape culture, I think you would have been partial to banning them even if the language was clarified. If I was having a discussion on my sofa with some guys I know about what is racism in today's world and one of them went "racism is what niggers whine about when they're mad because they're too dumb to get the same jobs white guys get" then I'd ask him to leave. The fact that the question invited an opinion does not mean all opinions become acceptable. Personally, I don't view this site as somebody's couch. I view this site as an open public forum. I think that's how it should be viewed. This site isn't only the home of the staff members, it's the home of thousands of people, amateur players, professional players, politic junkies, debate junkies, people looking for news or health information, etc. The rules should be tailored to protect both groups in certain ways.
You can view it however you like but it doesn't make it so. I believe Naz and Meat still own this site and they empower the moderators to enforce the rules as they see fit.
|
On November 17 2012 02:24 Praetorial wrote:
opisska, JD, yea.
It's dumb. It's dumb since homophobia is unquestionably bad.
And like Jingle pointed out, the same people who are homophobic that always refer to a fetus as "baby".
thats an incredibly stupid thing to say. if you actually think that people who refer to a fetus as a "baby" are homophobic, you are a moron.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 02:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:24 Praetorial wrote:
opisska, JD, yea.
It's dumb. It's dumb since homophobia is unquestionably bad.
And like Jingle pointed out, the same people who are homophobic that always refer to a fetus as "baby". thats an incredibly stupid thing to say. if you actually think that people who refer to a fetus as a "baby" are homophobic, you are a moron.
I think he was suggesting they correlate rather than one means the other.
|
Actually gene pointed that part of it out, I pointed to a different connection. Both of us made it clear we were talking about a general rule overall, not referring to individuals.
And yes, a huge portion of the pro-life crowd is also anti-gay.
Trust me, as an ex-Army, gun owning, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage type myself, I'm more than aware that not everyone follows a party line 100%.
|
On November 17 2012 03:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 Praetorial wrote:
opisska, JD, yea.
It's dumb. It's dumb since homophobia is unquestionably bad.
And like Jingle pointed out, the same people who are homophobic that always refer to a fetus as "baby". thats an incredibly stupid thing to say. if you actually think that people who refer to a fetus as a "baby" are homophobic, you are a moron. I think he was suggesting they correlate rather than one means the other.
not even sure its a correlation since (outside of medical, legal, philosophical, etc. discussion), people refer to unborn children as babies routinely, including pro-choicers. fetus is the exception, not the norm in common parlance. if you want to correlate homophobia with pro-lifers, i'll give you that. making absurd, broad generalizations is stupid.
|
On November 17 2012 01:43 Gene wrote:
It suddenly strikes me as ironic that the proponents of assigning rights to unborn children has a decent correlation to those hoping to keep rights away from homosexuals.
Edit : I don't mean to speak of any of you. Honest. Just an observation of the country at large.
There's the original wording. Prae paraphrased a bit, but retained the original concept, and misplaced the original source.
I'd say if you try to turn that into an insult towards me or gene, you have no room to talk. Or Prae, really, because he was paraphrasing and didn't sacrifice intent.
|
On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing.
kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed.
if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it.
edit: actually kwark said it above. i missed it. nm
|
On November 17 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing. kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it.
Assuming that your A, B, and C aren't inherently homophobic or linked to hate speech, that's generally the trend, yes.
Obvious example being the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality argument.
|
On November 17 2012 03:19 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing. kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it. Assuming that your A, B, and C aren't inherently homophobic or linked to hate speech, that's generally the trend, yes. Obvious example being the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality argument.
why do you jump to the extremes so much? its hard to take you seriously. i dont know a single anti-gay marriage individual who thinks homosexuality is linked to pedophilia or beastiality. indeed, this is the first time i have even heard of beastiality in the same sentence as homoesexuality. wtf man.
|
if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed.
Sometimes they will be allowed, sometimes they won't be allowed. Kwark has already argued it doesn't matter how reasonable people try to be if they are wrong in his eyes.
On November 17 2012 03:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:19 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing. kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it. Assuming that your A, B, and C aren't inherently homophobic or linked to hate speech, that's generally the trend, yes. Obvious example being the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality argument. why do you jump to the extremes so much? its hard to take you seriously. i dont know a single anti-gay marriage individual who thinks homosexuality is linked to pedophilia or beastiality. indeed, this is the first time i have even heard of beastiality in the same sentence as homoesexuality. wtf man.
Nobody links the two. People simply ask where the marriage line should be drawn, and the standard straw man response is that this is claiming homosexuality and pedophilia or beastiality are somehow correlated.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 03:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. Sometimes they will be allowed, sometimes they won't be allowed. Kwark has already argued it doesn't matter how reasonable people try to be if they are wrong in his eyes. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:19 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing. kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it. Assuming that your A, B, and C aren't inherently homophobic or linked to hate speech, that's generally the trend, yes. Obvious example being the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality argument. why do you jump to the extremes so much? its hard to take you seriously. i dont know a single anti-gay marriage individual who thinks homosexuality is linked to pedophilia or beastiality. indeed, this is the first time i have even heard of beastiality in the same sentence as homoesexuality. wtf man. Nobody links the two. People simply ask where the marriage line should be drawn, and the standard straw man response is that this is claiming homosexuality and pedophilia or beastiality are somehow correlated.
I'm afraid that is not the case. People have been linking homosexuality with pederasty for generations. It's pretty much the oldest negative stereotype applied to homosexuals, that they're deviants looking to rape your kids. It's still used and it's still believed by some homophobes.
Regarding when it is allowed and when it isn't, you are correct that it is a subjective judgement by the moderator. Politeness doesn't hurt but it won't shield you if the crux of your argument is "gays should be treated as second class citizens because they're gay".
|
On November 17 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. Sometimes they will be allowed, sometimes they won't be allowed. Kwark has already argued it doesn't matter how reasonable people try to be if they are wrong in his eyes. On November 17 2012 03:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:19 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing. kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it. Assuming that your A, B, and C aren't inherently homophobic or linked to hate speech, that's generally the trend, yes. Obvious example being the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality argument. why do you jump to the extremes so much? its hard to take you seriously. i dont know a single anti-gay marriage individual who thinks homosexuality is linked to pedophilia or beastiality. indeed, this is the first time i have even heard of beastiality in the same sentence as homoesexuality. wtf man. Nobody links the two. People simply ask where the marriage line should be drawn, and the standard straw man response is that this is claiming homosexuality and pedophilia or beastiality are somehow correlated. I'm afraid that is not the case. People have been linking homosexuality with pederasty for generations. It's pretty much the oldest negative stereotype applied to homosexuals, that they're deviants looking to rape your kids. It's still used and it's still believed by some homophobes.
I realize there are people in the world who think or have thought this. I'm saying this isn't an argument you hear often on these forums. When people ask where to draw the line with regard to marriage, they are quite frequently accused of correlating homosexuality with pedophilia or beastiality.
If a mod were to make this extrapolation they could even feel justified in banning someone, which is another example to tie this together.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 03:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 03:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. Sometimes they will be allowed, sometimes they won't be allowed. Kwark has already argued it doesn't matter how reasonable people try to be if they are wrong in his eyes. On November 17 2012 03:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:19 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment.
Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing. kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it. Assuming that your A, B, and C aren't inherently homophobic or linked to hate speech, that's generally the trend, yes. Obvious example being the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality argument. why do you jump to the extremes so much? its hard to take you seriously. i dont know a single anti-gay marriage individual who thinks homosexuality is linked to pedophilia or beastiality. indeed, this is the first time i have even heard of beastiality in the same sentence as homoesexuality. wtf man. Nobody links the two. People simply ask where the marriage line should be drawn, and the standard straw man response is that this is claiming homosexuality and pedophilia or beastiality are somehow correlated. I'm afraid that is not the case. People have been linking homosexuality with pederasty for generations. It's pretty much the oldest negative stereotype applied to homosexuals, that they're deviants looking to rape your kids. It's still used and it's still believed by some homophobes. I realize there are people in the world who think or have thought this. I'm saying this isn't an argument you hear often on these forums. When people ask where to draw the line with regard to marriage, they are quite frequently accused of correlating homosexuality with pedophilia or beastiality. If a mod were to make this extrapolation they could even feel justified in banning someone, which is another example to tie this together.
If it is a misunderstanding then you can PM the mod involved and attempt to explain. Several weeks ago I was PMed by the "gays shouldn't be in the boy scouts because gays shouldn't be allowed near children" guy I banned to attempt to explain exactly that, that I had misunderstood and that it was not homophobic. In that case, as his point was that gays specifically are a risk to children, I upheld the tempban as homophobic but he was free to PM another mod (which he did do) and to make a website feedback topic after his ban expired. There are processes in place and people do get bans shortened or undone quite regularly.
|
On November 17 2012 03:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. Sometimes they will be allowed, sometimes they won't be allowed. Kwark has already argued it doesn't matter how reasonable people try to be if they are wrong in his eyes. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:19 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing. kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it. Assuming that your A, B, and C aren't inherently homophobic or linked to hate speech, that's generally the trend, yes. Obvious example being the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality argument. why do you jump to the extremes so much? its hard to take you seriously. i dont know a single anti-gay marriage individual who thinks homosexuality is linked to pedophilia or beastiality. indeed, this is the first time i have even heard of beastiality in the same sentence as homoesexuality. wtf man. Nobody links the two. People simply ask where the marriage line should be drawn, and the standard straw man response is that this is claiming homosexuality and pedophilia or beastiality are somehow correlated.
I'm pretty sure I've seen KwarK ban people for that exact argument, so I know it happens on TL, and I've seen it other places too.
As to the question why I jump to the extremes? Well, the extreme examples make the point rather effectively. Why use a mild example that people might be more prone to debate when I've got an example that's so profoundly absurd and insulting to go with?
|
On November 17 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 03:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. Sometimes they will be allowed, sometimes they won't be allowed. Kwark has already argued it doesn't matter how reasonable people try to be if they are wrong in his eyes. On November 17 2012 03:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:19 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:
[quote]
This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar?
Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service.
For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does.
Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing. kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it. Assuming that your A, B, and C aren't inherently homophobic or linked to hate speech, that's generally the trend, yes. Obvious example being the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality argument. why do you jump to the extremes so much? its hard to take you seriously. i dont know a single anti-gay marriage individual who thinks homosexuality is linked to pedophilia or beastiality. indeed, this is the first time i have even heard of beastiality in the same sentence as homoesexuality. wtf man. Nobody links the two. People simply ask where the marriage line should be drawn, and the standard straw man response is that this is claiming homosexuality and pedophilia or beastiality are somehow correlated. I'm afraid that is not the case. People have been linking homosexuality with pederasty for generations. It's pretty much the oldest negative stereotype applied to homosexuals, that they're deviants looking to rape your kids. It's still used and it's still believed by some homophobes. I realize there are people in the world who think or have thought this. I'm saying this isn't an argument you hear often on these forums. When people ask where to draw the line with regard to marriage, they are quite frequently accused of correlating homosexuality with pedophilia or beastiality. If a mod were to make this extrapolation they could even feel justified in banning someone, which is another example to tie this together. If it is a misunderstanding then you can PM the mod involved and attempt to explain. Several weeks ago I was PMed by the "gays shouldn't be in the boy scouts because gays shouldn't be allowed near children" guy I banned to attempt to explain exactly that, that I had misunderstood and that it was not homophobic. In that case, as his point was that gays specifically are a risk to children, I upheld the tempban as homophobic but he was free to PM another mod (which he did do) and to make a website feedback topic after his ban expired. There are processes in place and people do get bans shortened or undone quite regularly.
An excellent example of the idea that homophobia means different things to different people. It just so happens that some people are wrong.
|
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation.
|
On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation.
Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips?
Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario.
|
On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation.
we got into this issue in the other thread. he didnt present himself well and was subsequently perm-banned. i think he was indeed homophobic and his post was ambiguous, but certainly implied awful.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation.
Maybe although I doubt that, it's not like men who are attracted to people who are both female and of the age of consent take a look at a 4 year old girl and go "close enough", by the same token I sincerely doubt men who are attracted to people who are male and of the age of consent find boys any more appealing than girls. I am a heterosexual male but I feel no more inclined to molest young girls than young boys.
Given the context of the gays molesting children stereotype and the absurdity of the "well there are less things wrong about it to them so they're more likely to do it" argument I think it's clear that he meant exactly what he said, that gays rape kids.
|
On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario.
i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it.
|
On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario.
Unless we can show that males are more likely to molest or rape than females regardless of orientation. If that could not be shown, then a person can be consistent by stating they also don't think straight women should be allowed.
I don't want to debate homosexuality or abortion here. I'm actually pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, people who know my politics should know this. My point is the issues are anything but settled and nobody has the right to insist they are settled and to enforce that view with authority.
|
On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it.
Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive.
Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults.
|
On November 17 2012 03:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. Unless we can show that males are more likely to molest or rape than females regardless of orientation. If that could not be shown, then a person can be consistent by stating they also don't think straight women should be allowed. I don't want to debate homosexuality or abortion here. I'm actually pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, people who know my politics should know this. My point is the issues are anything but settled and nobody has the right to insist they are settled and to enforce that view with authority.
But it's a higher risk, theoretically, which is all that could even vaguely be said regarding a gay man going along, as a blanket statement. Or are we now ok with treating the general rule as empirical, when we weren't before?
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 03:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. Unless we can show that males are more likely to molest or rape than females regardless of orientation. If that could not be shown, then a person can be consistent by stating they also don't think straight women should be allowed. I don't want to debate homosexuality or abortion here. I'm actually pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, people who know my politics should know this. My point is the issues are anything but settled and nobody has the right to insist they are settled and to enforce that view with authority.
Firstly, I do have the right and the authority. What you mean is that I shouldn't have the right, hence why you're complaining about it in feedback. Secondly, I am open to arguments against gay marriage that aren't homophobic. The problem is that an awful lot of them are homophobic and a lot of the people who argue against gay marriage are homophobes.
Claiming that marriage is a religious institution, not a social one, and that homophobic religions shouldn't be forced to let people they disagree with have their thing is a non homophobic argument for example. It is centred in allowing people to practice their religion freely, I don't agree with the argument but it doesn't require the assumption that gays are second class citizens for it to be valid. I would allow that argument.
|
On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults.
of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it.
In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children (because everyone knows gays rape kids).
|
On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it.
I'm fairly sure if the implication had been .001%, rather than an implication of a strong likelihood, it would have gone differently. I can't speak for KwarK, but he's usually pretty reasonable.
Hell, I said I own a gun and he hasn't banned me yet.
Ninjad.
|
On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids.
actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed.
with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case.
|
If it's made as an argument, with data, rather than a relatively blanket insult, it has much better odds of being allowed.
If we make it about religious people and child molestation, because of a few outliers, would that be offensive to religious people?
Specifically, if I imply that all members of Christian religions or sub-religions are pedophiles because of those outliers, is it insulting? As opposed to say, commenting on specific cases?
|
On November 17 2012 04:15 JingleHell wrote:
If it's made as an argument, with data, rather than a relatively blanket insult, it has much better odds of being allowed.
If we make it about religious people and child molestation, because of a few outliers, would that be offensive to religious people?
Specifically, if I imply that all members of Christian religions or sub-religions are pedophiles because of those outliers, is it insulting? As opposed to say, commenting on specific cases?
i dont care if you make the argument that you wouldnt trust your child with a christian because there are christian pedophiles. go for it if you truly believe that. thats not hate speech, and it should be allowed as well.
if you want to make the argument that all christians are pedophiles because a few are then you are just being stupid. i wouldnt ban that personally, but i wouldnt question kwark's banning of it.
to be clear, if someone says they dont trust homosexuals with their children because all homosexuals are pedophiles, i have no problem moderating that. i never made that argument, nor would i make such a ridiculous assertion.
|
On November 17 2012 03:02 JingleHell wrote:
Actually gene pointed that part of it out, I pointed to a different connection. Both of us made it clear we were talking about a general rule overall, not referring to individuals.
And yes, a huge portion of the pro-life crowd is also anti-gay.
Trust me, as an ex-Army, gun owning, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage type myself, I'm more than aware that not everyone follows a party line 100%.
We have to discuss gun control some time, but not here.
I want to go back to the fact that he wants leniency for Holocaust deniers. The mere fact that he thinks we should allow people to deny the Holocaust, despite massive amounts of evidence, casts a large shadow over all of his other points.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case.
If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations.
But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory.
|
On November 15 2012 07:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:wegandi was banned for questioning kwark's use of "foetus" instead of "fetus." kwark is from the UK. interesting that he got a 1 week ban for being a dick and saying "Can we spell fetus correctly?" Can we spell fetus correctly? In any event, I all ready addressed the question. If you care to dwell on semantics instead of take the point of my posts, I see no point in continuing to wade in the muck. No one has the right to murder another human being. A fetus has all the genetic characteristics of a human being - ergo it is a human being, just not fully developed - yet. The same is said of any other period in our development. A newborn is not developed as an adult and must grow over its lifetime. Just because a fetus does not share all the developments yet of a newborn, does not make it less a human being - it just needs time, and as a human being it has all the equal rights and liberties of any other.
If you can't understand that, well...what's the point.
PS: One of the risks of sex is pregnancy. If you do not want to take that risk then do not engage in the act. Just the same as in banking - a loan is a risk. If you don't want to happen to lose the money you loaned, perhaps you shouldn't make the loans in the first place. It is a voluntary choice, just because ex-ante you dislike your choice, doesn't mean you have the right to murder.
User was temp banned for this post. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=382015¤tpage=5#93Wegandi was just temp banned for 1 week by KwarK.
That account was created on 2011-03-12 14:09:12 and had 877 posts.
Reason: My language is called English too and tl is not an exclusively American forum. Next time you feel like being a dick over correct spelling of words you should remember this moment. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=1442#28829 Complaining about spelling in lieu of actually making a point is pretty fucking retarded. Complaining about it and being wrong is even more retarded. But the biggest prize goes to the guy who does both of the above to a moderator. It would have been banworthy shitposting either way, whoever he did it to could have reported it and he'd have been moderated but skipping the middle steps and just going right up to the guy empowered to act is pretty fucking dumb.
Actually fetus is the correctly spelling if you're talking medically, even though queens english still uses feotus their medical journals use fetus, feotus can be considered laymen's term to some extent. An argument on spelling is frivolous though, the contention point is understanding and everybody knows what everyone else is talking about, so yes kawk is right about him just posting that, sorta like a grammer nazi, if you want to ban grammer nazi's i have no problems with that.
As far as going banning really offensive speech that isn't limited to kwark, that's sorta tl habbit for hatespeech and denying horrible events.
Now if you combed over kawk's post history you can probably find something that would have gotten even a veteran user banned but that's probably common among any user who posts opinionated and frequently, but then you have to find the role of banling. Do banlings have to be exemplar archons? That is up to the top brass of TL to sort out not exactly regular users. TL ban policy has less set in stone instructions and more of general guidelines and guttural responses based on TL history.
|
On November 17 2012 03:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:19 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 02:24 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:59 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 01:52 opisska wrote:On November 17 2012 01:23 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 00:26 opisska wrote:
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. There appears to be a misunderstanding here. You are not a citizen in a society, you are a guest in our house. If a guest came into my house and started spouting offensive homophobic bullshit on my sofa I'd ask him to leave. The same applies. You are owed no freedoms or privileges although we do attempt to create a friendly environment. Homophobia is against the rules as stated in the 10 commandments and the moderating staff are empowered to judge what falls under that category at their discretion. It is a breach of the rules, no matter how sincerely homophobic you are. This is your answer to anything. Whereas it is a logically sound answer, it serves no purpose. What is the point of "Website feedback" when you don't want to hear it? To have a waste bin to dump annoying complainers out of the sidebar? Hey, I am not telling you "you can't impose the rules you bloody censor". Becuase THAT whould really be silly. Instead, I am telling you "look, your rules are neither clear nor reasonable. why don't you think about it for moment. you are a discussion forum, wouldn't the discussion be better if it was actually allowed to discuss these matters or at least the rules were clear about what is allowed"? Because THAT is called feedback. You are doing something - running a discussion forum - and I as a user of your service, I telling you, what issues I see with the service. For the record, the 10 commandements post shows no results on search strings "gay", "homo", "LGBT" or "minor" so I would assume that I really did not miss it and there actually is nothing about homophobia. You just see it implied in a general sentence, but what I have been trying to tell you for a pretty long time is that not everyone does. Yes, "this is our house" covers everything. But why do you even have any other rules then? Why is the forum even publicly accessible? I don't see any point in having such a forum other than fostering an enviroment for open discussion. Apologies, there used to be a rule that explained - Racist remarks will be shot down and you will be lynched.
- Homophobic comments will get shoved way up your ass.
- Sexist remarks of any kind whatsoever will be dealt with especially harshly. Yeah, we have female members – and we sure as hell would like to keep them!
- DO NOT POST ANYTHING IN ALL CAPS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE SCREAMING LIKE A RAVING LUNATIC AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO TREAT YOU LIKE ONE AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
- Post your topics in the appropriate forum. We have separate forums for a reason. Use your head and post under the forum that’s most relevant.
- Don't be an attention whore and give away the results of games, sporting events, movie endings, etc. in the title of the thread/post. Also, if you're going to reveal stuff in the body of your post, then be decent enough to put a "spoiler" warning in advance.
- Be very careful about resuscitating old threads. Sometimes it's ok, but sometimes it's not.
- Don’t know? Use the search function. It’s better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we’ve already discussed it before ad nauseum. Did a search already and you still don’t know? Ask politely! The explicit ban from homophobic, sexist and racist comments has been removed but there has been, to my knowledge, no change in policy. I can look into it if you'd like. OK, that solves one part of the misunderstanding. But you are still consciously eluding the others' questions whether subjects like gay marriage can be discussed - and you are doing it right, because, if you accept "no homophobia" as a rule, there is no answer. Other than to ban discussion of these things altogether - because otherwise it will be just a group of people congratulating each other that they have the same good opinion. You already did that with religion (very sadly, in my opinion - TL could be one of the few places on the internet with actually reasonable religious discussion), so it is not something you wouldn't do. On November 17 2012 02:01 JingleHell wrote:It also falls under the blanket rule in #10 involving having fun without detracting from other's fun, I'd assume. 10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
It's a fun site with fun people. Have fun with it. Enjoy it. Make others happy. Be happy. Avoid being negative. We don't expect you to be Pollyanna, but users who are consistently negative will draw the ire of their peers and site staff alike. No one likes people who have nothing but bad things to say all the time. Heed the admonition of Oscar Wilde: some people bring happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go. This is actually another absurd rule. How actually can you have "fun" in discussing serious issues? Probably depends on the definition of "fun". I have a nice time reading (only occasionaly entering, also because of the situation that we are right now discussing) these discussions, because they are interestiong and enriching. But I definitely do not have "fun" as in rolling on the floor laughing. kwark can correct me if im wrong, but they are going to ban you for hate speech. they are not going to ban you because you're a homophobe. if you go into a thread and say "fuck gays, i hope you all burn in hell" then you're going to get banned. if you go into a proper thread and say "i dont believe in gay marriage because A,B,C" then you're not going to get banned because if you present yourself in a reasonable manner (despite potentially being homophobic) the posts will be allowed. if you are arguing, you should be allowed to spread hate speech throughout tl.net, go fuck yourself you piece of shit! (see how unproductive that is). however, if you are arguing that homophobic views should be allowed in a reasonable manner (and reasonable place, dont go into the gay starcraft players thread), then i think they will allow it. Assuming that your A, B, and C aren't inherently homophobic or linked to hate speech, that's generally the trend, yes. Obvious example being the "slippery slope" from gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality argument. why do you jump to the extremes so much? its hard to take you seriously. i dont know a single anti-gay marriage individual who thinks homosexuality is linked to pedophilia or beastiality. indeed, this is the first time i have even heard of bestiality in the same sentence as homoesexuality. wtf man.
Most of them don't but the lunatic fringe, who makes the most noise, like santorum, do in fact compare homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, and go read one of the boy scout threads for fast proof people who thunk being gay makes you want to rape little boys.
|
On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory.
seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. if its purely hate, then ban their asses.
|
On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid.
If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception.
The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes.
|
On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post.
This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me.
|
On November 17 2012 04:31 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips? Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception. The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes.
with respect to your first point, kwark doesnt have to post anything. so, if he chooses to post and does so in a manner that someone considers "passive-aggressive" then he has to deal with the consequences. there are other mods who post in the general forums and dont get multiple website feedback threads brought against them.
with respect to your second "point," . . . .
|
On November 17 2012 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:31 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:44 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Did you know that Boy Scouts allow straight women to be involved with the troop, even to the point of coming to camping trips?
Obviously, since they're straight women and interested sexually in males, they're a greater risk to male children than straight male adults are, and shouldn't be allowed. But wait, they're allowed. Thus, the argument fails a simple logical comparison to an existing scenario. i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception. The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes. with respect to your first point, kwark doesnt have to post anything. so, if he chooses to post and does so in a manner that someone considers "passive-aggressive" then he has to deal with the consequences. there are other mods who post in the general forums and dont get multiple website feedback threads brought against them. with respect to your second "point," . . . .
My first point is that people complain about KwarK no matter how he goes about getting involved in a thread, and he's rather got me impressed at how he can be too aggressive and dictatorial while being so horribly passive aggressive.
My second point is that people love to complain about KwarK, when he's the primary reason the General forum stays down to mild levels of cesspool.
|
On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me.
Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you.
|
On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you.
There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited.
|
On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited.
And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were "out to get me."
|
On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me.
Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on.
|
On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on.
Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there.
|
On November 17 2012 04:46 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:31 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 03:49 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
i've never been on an overnight trip with females in boy scouts. you must have been from a very progressive branch. the argument that adults who are attracted to the sex of the child they are going on overnight trips with should be barred is a legitimate argument. that goes for both hetero- and homo-sexuals. if you dont agree with it, argue against it. it will lead to nice discourse--hopefully. dont be closed minded and immediately ban it. Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive. Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults. of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception. The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes. with respect to your first point, kwark doesnt have to post anything. so, if he chooses to post and does so in a manner that someone considers "passive-aggressive" then he has to deal with the consequences. there are other mods who post in the general forums and dont get multiple website feedback threads brought against them. with respect to your second "point," . . . . My first point is that people complain about KwarK no matter how he goes about getting involved in a thread, and he's rather got me impressed at how he can be too aggressive and dictatorial while being so horribly passive aggressive. My second point is that people love to complain about KwarK, when he's the primary reason the General forum stays down to mild levels of cesspool.
i fail to see how either of those points relate to the issue kwark and i were discussing. i want to tell half the tl.net population that they are retards, and i get warnings saying "just dont post." well, kwark, "just dont post."
|
On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there.
You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans.
|
On November 17 2012 04:58 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there. You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans.
How am I wrong? Do you honestly interpret that post to be "stereotypical euro-bashing"? Do you honestly not see the point I am trying to make with that post?
|
On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you.
On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation.
Uhm, no, reading it in context the most obvious implication is that people wrongly worship the ground Europe walks on.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231206#5
There's the thread.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231975#1
Your feedback thread, where you basically admit you were at least being rude, because you felt moderation was being handled poorly, which leaves you with violations even if your defense is taken as 100% true.
And if you don't remember saying the mods were trying to get you personally, check your own posts in this thread. I've felt that way before, but I don't go retracting it when there's inconvenient evidence the other way.
On November 17 2012 04:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:46 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:31 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 03:52 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Must be an individual troop decision, but I doubt one in the middle of Shitsplat, Texas, qualifies as progressive.
Certainly, though, it's food for thought within the discourse. If you ignore what KwarK just pointed to, which I wholeheartedly concur with. Being sexually interested in children doesn't automatically follow when they're the same gender as the people you're sexually interested in as adults.
of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception. The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes. with respect to your first point, kwark doesnt have to post anything. so, if he chooses to post and does so in a manner that someone considers "passive-aggressive" then he has to deal with the consequences. there are other mods who post in the general forums and dont get multiple website feedback threads brought against them. with respect to your second "point," . . . . My first point is that people complain about KwarK no matter how he goes about getting involved in a thread, and he's rather got me impressed at how he can be too aggressive and dictatorial while being so horribly passive aggressive. My second point is that people love to complain about KwarK, when he's the primary reason the General forum stays down to mild levels of cesspool. i fail to see how either of those points relate to the issue kwark and i were discussing. i want to tell half the tl.net population that they are retards, and i get warnings saying "just dont post." well, kwark, "just dont post."
If he doesn't post, and just uses mod notes and mod powers, we get complaints about him stifling discussion with his mod powers.
|
On November 17 2012 05:02 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Uhm, no, reading it in context the most obvious implication is that people wrongly worship the ground Europe walks on. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231206#5There's the thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231975#1Your feedback thread, where you basically admit you were at least being rude, because you felt moderation was being handled poorly, which leaves you with violations even if your defense is taken as 100% true. And if you don't remember saying the mods were trying to get you personally, check your own posts in this thread. I've felt that way before, but I don't go retracting it when there's inconvenient evidence the other way.
Dangit ninja'd
|
On November 17 2012 04:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:58 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there. You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans. How am I wrong? Do you honestly interpret that post to be "stereotypical euro-bashing"? Do you honestly not see the point I am trying to make with that post?
I reckon that's jasper's assertion, and not entirely mine. I happen to think that ban was justified, but we have some twenty pages of posts by now, all attesting to the fact that arguing with jdseemoreglass is a task best reserved for walls and other inanimate objects. I wouldn't let a slug suffer having to listen to you.
|
1) The implication is that they are unfairly critical of the US and hypocritical because of it.
2) Kwark has stated already that people are given more leeway in website feedback, so my "tone" should not be a violation of anything.
3) The part they considered most rude, that website feedback is largely pointless, is I think a pretty accurate description. There are exceptions, but not many.
4) I don't know why so many here resort to personal insults again and again. I've been nothing but respectful to the people on this forum and I'd appreciate some basic courtesy if you don't want me to treat you like shit in return.
|
If people are insulting you seemingly without due cause, it is most likely because you provoke people simply in the way you post and argue. If you have not grasped why, by now, then I dispense with all hope that I can make you understand.
|
On November 17 2012 05:19 marttorn wrote:
If people are insulting you seemingly without due cause, it is most likely because you provoke people simply in the way you post and argue. If you have not grasped why, by now, then I dispense with all hope that I can make you understand.
People just need to handle hearing opinions they don't agree with without spouting insults like a child. I spend most of my time in politics threads, believe me when I say I see some very "provoking" people or arguments. And yet I don't respond by calling people retards or insulting them personally. Learn some self-control maybe.
On November 17 2012 05:06 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:58 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there. You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans. How am I wrong? Do you honestly interpret that post to be "stereotypical euro-bashing"? Do you honestly not see the point I am trying to make with that post? I happen to think that ban was justified
How about these posts?
+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2011 04:32 SaviorSelf wrote:
On April 23 2011 08:20 frontline wrote:
Typical BS United States :/
fixed, for accuracy On April 23 2011 08:43 Hypemeup wrote:
USA #1!
USA #1!
USA #1!
This is just sad On April 23 2011 09:12 Project Psycho wrote:
well theres nothing like the land of the free, eh? On April 23 2011 09:30 Roggay wrote:
Wow, the law is pretty fucked up in the US. Well, not that I didnt knew that but still.
It seems that the school system is a shame to begin with in the US. Poor people > bad schools, rich people > good schools, caught wanting your son a better school and you are not rich > 20years jail. Way to go america. On April 23 2011 10:37 HansMoleman wrote:
The land of the free.... On April 23 2011 12:05 chaosfreak11 wrote:
Even china has better laws On April 23 2011 21:41 Roeder wrote:
On April 23 2011 21:24 BlackFlag wrote:
Europe isn't that much better.
Yes. Yes it is.
Actually it's much better. On April 24 2011 02:14 Coraz wrote:
only a wicked society goes after homeless people and widows and kicks them while they are down On April 24 2011 05:53 ZessiM wrote:
The lack of empathy for the poor in the United States is staggering. On April 24 2011 04:34 Kukaracha wrote:
Rosa Parks should've played by the rules, don't you think? That nigger ain't have the rite' to sit dow' on mah bus! On June 06 2011 18:44 DavidMcF wrote:
At least Obama is trying to drag America into civilisation Rushingwolf June 08 2011 05:43. Posts 47 PM Profile Quote #
people and especially police in the united states are quite trigger happy
The point wasn't whether the ban can be justified, the point is whether its consistent with the rest of moderation.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
When did this thread become General forums
edit: Oh nvm still discussing moderation, carry on.
|
Report bannable posts.
Also you are a retard.
|
On November 17 2012 05:26 corumjhaelen wrote:
Report bannable posts.
Also you are a retard.
Is this a test?
|
On November 17 2012 05:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:19 marttorn wrote:
If people are insulting you seemingly without due cause, it is most likely because you provoke people simply in the way you post and argue. If you have not grasped why, by now, then I dispense with all hope that I can make you understand. People just need to handle hearing opinions they don't agree with without spouting insults like a child. I spend most of my time in politics threads, believe me when I say I see some very "provoking" people or arguments. And yet I don't respond by calling people retards or insulting them personally. Learn some self-control maybe. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:06 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:58 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
[quote]
This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there. You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans. How am I wrong? Do you honestly interpret that post to be "stereotypical euro-bashing"? Do you honestly not see the point I am trying to make with that post? I happen to think that ban was justified How about these posts? + Show Spoiler +On April 24 2011 04:32 SaviorSelf wrote:
On April 23 2011 08:20 frontline wrote:
Typical BS United States :/
fixed, for accuracy On April 23 2011 08:43 Hypemeup wrote:
USA #1!
USA #1!
USA #1!
This is just sad On April 23 2011 09:12 Project Psycho wrote:
well theres nothing like the land of the free, eh? On April 23 2011 09:30 Roggay wrote:
Wow, the law is pretty fucked up in the US. Well, not that I didnt knew that but still.
It seems that the school system is a shame to begin with in the US. Poor people > bad schools, rich people > good schools, caught wanting your son a better school and you are not rich > 20years jail. Way to go america. On April 23 2011 10:37 HansMoleman wrote:
The land of the free.... On April 23 2011 12:05 chaosfreak11 wrote:
Even china has better laws On April 23 2011 21:41 Roeder wrote:
On April 23 2011 21:24 BlackFlag wrote:
Europe isn't that much better.
Yes. Yes it is.
Actually it's much better. On April 24 2011 02:14 Coraz wrote:
only a wicked society goes after homeless people and widows and kicks them while they are down On April 24 2011 05:53 ZessiM wrote:
The lack of empathy for the poor in the United States is staggering. On April 24 2011 04:34 Kukaracha wrote:
Rosa Parks should've played by the rules, don't you think? That nigger ain't have the rite' to sit dow' on mah bus! On June 06 2011 18:44 DavidMcF wrote:
At least Obama is trying to drag America into civilisation Rushingwolf June 08 2011 05:43. Posts 47 PM Profile Quote #
people and especially police in the united states are quite trigger happy The point wasn't whether the ban can be justified, the point is whether its consistent with the rest of moderation.
The thing is, i could get away with that because of a fairly clean mod history, and i would assume the same for those posters. You have a history of making such posts, and like all moderation history challenged posters, you are held to a different standard due to previous bad posts. You have cleaned up your posting for the most part, so you get more leniency, but at that time your posting as really freaking bad.
|
On November 17 2012 05:26 corumjhaelen wrote:
Report bannable posts.
Also you are a retard.
I took your advice. Now we wait.
On November 17 2012 05:28 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:19 marttorn wrote:
If people are insulting you seemingly without due cause, it is most likely because you provoke people simply in the way you post and argue. If you have not grasped why, by now, then I dispense with all hope that I can make you understand. People just need to handle hearing opinions they don't agree with without spouting insults like a child. I spend most of my time in politics threads, believe me when I say I see some very "provoking" people or arguments. And yet I don't respond by calling people retards or insulting them personally. Learn some self-control maybe. On November 17 2012 05:06 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:58 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there. You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans. How am I wrong? Do you honestly interpret that post to be "stereotypical euro-bashing"? Do you honestly not see the point I am trying to make with that post? I happen to think that ban was justified How about these posts? + Show Spoiler +On April 24 2011 04:32 SaviorSelf wrote:
On April 23 2011 08:20 frontline wrote:
Typical BS United States :/
fixed, for accuracy On April 23 2011 08:43 Hypemeup wrote:
USA #1!
USA #1!
USA #1!
This is just sad On April 23 2011 09:12 Project Psycho wrote:
well theres nothing like the land of the free, eh? On April 23 2011 09:30 Roggay wrote:
Wow, the law is pretty fucked up in the US. Well, not that I didnt knew that but still.
It seems that the school system is a shame to begin with in the US. Poor people > bad schools, rich people > good schools, caught wanting your son a better school and you are not rich > 20years jail. Way to go america. On April 23 2011 10:37 HansMoleman wrote:
The land of the free.... On April 23 2011 12:05 chaosfreak11 wrote:
Even china has better laws On April 23 2011 21:41 Roeder wrote:
On April 23 2011 21:24 BlackFlag wrote:
Europe isn't that much better.
Yes. Yes it is.
Actually it's much better. On April 24 2011 02:14 Coraz wrote:
only a wicked society goes after homeless people and widows and kicks them while they are down On April 24 2011 05:53 ZessiM wrote:
The lack of empathy for the poor in the United States is staggering. On April 24 2011 04:34 Kukaracha wrote:
Rosa Parks should've played by the rules, don't you think? That nigger ain't have the rite' to sit dow' on mah bus! On June 06 2011 18:44 DavidMcF wrote:
At least Obama is trying to drag America into civilisation Rushingwolf June 08 2011 05:43. Posts 47 PM Profile Quote #
people and especially police in the united states are quite trigger happy The point wasn't whether the ban can be justified, the point is whether its consistent with the rest of moderation. The thing is, i could get away with that because of a fairly clean mod history, and i would assume the same for those posters. You have a history of making such posts, and like all moderation history challenged posters, you are held to a different standard due to previous bad posts. You have cleaned up your posting for the most part, so you get more leniency, but at that time your posting as really freaking bad.
I believe that was the very first ban I got, maybe the second. So your argument holds no weight.
|
United States42957 Posts
I do typically moderate for the "only in America" comments but if you would like to PM them to me whenever you see them from now on I'd be happy to take care of them (except for things that really do only happen in America).
|
On November 17 2012 05:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:26 corumjhaelen wrote:
Report bannable posts.
Also you are a retard. I took your advice. Now we wait. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:28 Jaaaaasper wrote:On November 17 2012 05:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:19 marttorn wrote:
If people are insulting you seemingly without due cause, it is most likely because you provoke people simply in the way you post and argue. If you have not grasped why, by now, then I dispense with all hope that I can make you understand. People just need to handle hearing opinions they don't agree with without spouting insults like a child. I spend most of my time in politics threads, believe me when I say I see some very "provoking" people or arguments. And yet I don't respond by calling people retards or insulting them personally. Learn some self-control maybe. On November 17 2012 05:06 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:58 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:
[quote]
There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there. You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans. How am I wrong? Do you honestly interpret that post to be "stereotypical euro-bashing"? Do you honestly not see the point I am trying to make with that post? I happen to think that ban was justified How about these posts? + Show Spoiler +On April 24 2011 04:32 SaviorSelf wrote:
On April 23 2011 08:20 frontline wrote:
Typical BS United States :/
fixed, for accuracy On April 23 2011 08:43 Hypemeup wrote:
USA #1!
USA #1!
USA #1!
This is just sad On April 23 2011 09:12 Project Psycho wrote:
well theres nothing like the land of the free, eh? On April 23 2011 09:30 Roggay wrote:
Wow, the law is pretty fucked up in the US. Well, not that I didnt knew that but still.
It seems that the school system is a shame to begin with in the US. Poor people > bad schools, rich people > good schools, caught wanting your son a better school and you are not rich > 20years jail. Way to go america. On April 23 2011 10:37 HansMoleman wrote:
The land of the free.... On April 23 2011 12:05 chaosfreak11 wrote:
Even china has better laws On April 23 2011 21:41 Roeder wrote:
On April 23 2011 21:24 BlackFlag wrote:
Europe isn't that much better.
Yes. Yes it is.
Actually it's much better. On April 24 2011 02:14 Coraz wrote:
only a wicked society goes after homeless people and widows and kicks them while they are down On April 24 2011 05:53 ZessiM wrote:
The lack of empathy for the poor in the United States is staggering. On April 24 2011 04:34 Kukaracha wrote:
Rosa Parks should've played by the rules, don't you think? That nigger ain't have the rite' to sit dow' on mah bus! On June 06 2011 18:44 DavidMcF wrote:
At least Obama is trying to drag America into civilisation Rushingwolf June 08 2011 05:43. Posts 47 PM Profile Quote #
people and especially police in the united states are quite trigger happy The point wasn't whether the ban can be justified, the point is whether its consistent with the rest of moderation. The thing is, i could get away with that because of a fairly clean mod history, and i would assume the same for those posters. You have a history of making such posts, and like all moderation history challenged posters, you are held to a different standard due to previous bad posts. You have cleaned up your posting for the most part, so you get more leniency, but at that time your posting as really freaking bad. I believe that was the very first ban I got, maybe the second. So your argument holds no weight.
My second was a 2-week. You'll understand if I feel somewhat less than zero sympathy for you.
|
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard.
|
On November 17 2012 05:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:19 marttorn wrote:
If people are insulting you seemingly without due cause, it is most likely because you provoke people simply in the way you post and argue. If you have not grasped why, by now, then I dispense with all hope that I can make you understand. People just need to handle hearing opinions they don't agree with without spouting insults like a child. I spend most of my time in politics threads, believe me when I say I see some very "provoking" people or arguments. And yet I don't respond by calling people retards or insulting them personally. Learn some self-control maybe. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:06 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:58 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:53 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:50 marttorn wrote:On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
[quote]
This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. There is no context for that that we're not getting. It's in a thread about the UK banning Human Centipede II. You were not misunderstood. Your post was also not edited. And it is clearly not euro-bashing, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Clearly. And I never said the mods were out to get me. Then how were you misrepresented? The post was/is right there, for everyone to see and make their own judgement on. Because I never said the mods were out to get me, and I never used this ban as an example of mods being out to get me. That's 2 misrepresentations there. You did do your fair share of quibbling about some unnamed mod bearing a grudge against you. And I think what jasper meant to do was simply to point out how wrong you were about one of your own bans. How am I wrong? Do you honestly interpret that post to be "stereotypical euro-bashing"? Do you honestly not see the point I am trying to make with that post? I happen to think that ban was justified How about these posts? + Show Spoiler +On April 24 2011 04:32 SaviorSelf wrote:
On April 23 2011 08:20 frontline wrote:
Typical BS United States :/
fixed, for accuracy On April 23 2011 08:43 Hypemeup wrote:
USA #1!
USA #1!
USA #1!
This is just sad On April 23 2011 09:12 Project Psycho wrote:
well theres nothing like the land of the free, eh? On April 23 2011 09:30 Roggay wrote:
Wow, the law is pretty fucked up in the US. Well, not that I didnt knew that but still.
It seems that the school system is a shame to begin with in the US. Poor people > bad schools, rich people > good schools, caught wanting your son a better school and you are not rich > 20years jail. Way to go america. On April 23 2011 10:37 HansMoleman wrote:
The land of the free.... On April 23 2011 12:05 chaosfreak11 wrote:
Even china has better laws On April 23 2011 21:41 Roeder wrote:
On April 23 2011 21:24 BlackFlag wrote:
Europe isn't that much better.
Yes. Yes it is.
Actually it's much better. On April 24 2011 02:14 Coraz wrote:
only a wicked society goes after homeless people and widows and kicks them while they are down On April 24 2011 05:53 ZessiM wrote:
The lack of empathy for the poor in the United States is staggering. On April 24 2011 04:34 Kukaracha wrote:
Rosa Parks should've played by the rules, don't you think? That nigger ain't have the rite' to sit dow' on mah bus! On June 06 2011 18:44 DavidMcF wrote:
At least Obama is trying to drag America into civilisation Rushingwolf June 08 2011 05:43. Posts 47 PM Profile Quote #
people and especially police in the united states are quite trigger happy The point wasn't whether the ban can be justified, the point is whether its consistent with the rest of moderation.
I urge you to trust me when I say that self-control is the least problem. There is nothing in my body which voices the tiniest amount of concern when I insult you, it comes as naturally as breathing.
As for all those US bashing posts, I've already said that arguing with you isn't something worth doing. I realize that leaves us at a dead end, and I am more than happy with this resolution.
|
On November 17 2012 05:27 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:26 corumjhaelen wrote:
Report bannable posts.
Also you are a retard. Is this a test?
thought the same thing, lol
edit: someone reported it, so we will see.
|
On November 17 2012 05:02 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 04:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?
lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....
Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.
User was temp banned for this post. This is what jd was banned for that he claims is not euro bashing, I think that ends this round of the mods are out to get me. Please stop misrepresenting my statements. Thank you. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 03:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Maybe his argument wasn't that gays are specifically a risk to children. Maybe his argument is that gay males are a greater risk to male children than straight males to male children. Is that homophobic?
I was banned once for "euro-bashing" when it was clear to any objective observer that was not what I was doing. My courteous PM to the mod was completely ignored, and the thread I made in website feedback didn't help because they didn't like my "tone" in criticizing moderation. Uhm, no, reading it in context the most obvious implication is that people wrongly worship the ground Europe walks on. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231206#5There's the thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=231975#1Your feedback thread, where you basically admit you were at least being rude, because you felt moderation was being handled poorly, which leaves you with violations even if your defense is taken as 100% true. And if you don't remember saying the mods were trying to get you personally, check your own posts in this thread. I've felt that way before, but I don't go retracting it when there's inconvenient evidence the other way. Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 04:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:46 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:31 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 04:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:21 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 17 2012 04:06 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 04:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
of course it doesnt follow, but adult heterosexual females have sex with underage males, adult heterosexual males have sex with underage females. this includes children put in the trust of the adults (e.g., students). thus, people dont want them around their children (just in case, because that .001% likelihood is just too much for some people). if you dont agree, then tell them how lame their argument is, dont ban it. In the context of it being a popular homophobic slur I don't think the "maybe he just meant that the 0.001% more chance was too much for him to handle" argument holds any water. He meant exactly what he said, that gays can't be trusted near children because everyone knows gays rape kids. actually, i wasnt referring to the guy's specific post. i was stating that the argument should be allowed. with respect to the guy who used "prancing," i have already said it appeared he was being homophobic. his subsequent PMs and posts did not help his case. If you made that argument in a logically consistent way that didn't start by singling out gays as child molesters but instead attempted to protect children by identifying the groups more likely to molest children and then backed it up with evidence rather than just "I reckon gays think the right gender is pretty much close enough" then sure, you can argue that it gets a clear. Of course including any "surely they're more likely to rape children of the gender they're attracted to" assumptions leaves you open to "but everyone knows Catholic priests molest boys so we should only bar religious ones, atheist gays are in the clear" and the entire thing becomes nonsense. You'd need to actually demonstrate your conclusions. Furthermore the orientation of those singled out couldn't be the only category, for example old gay people may (hypothetically) be less likely to molest children than straight younger people, if the purpose was really to identify which specific groups were a higher risk then starting by only looking at gays would build it on homophobic foundations. But that argument could be done in an acceptable manner in theory. seems fine with me. not sure why everyone is so ban happy. if the person's opinion is stupid then point it out as stupid. If he does that, you get what this thread was originally about, we come full circle, and KwarK cries into his beer at the Whineyception. The only way to satisfy the rabid mob would be for KwarK to suffer the same punishment as Prometheus, and allow anyone to post anything they wanted. Maybe. Except then they'd find something else. Probably a conspiracy by the US Government to use the TL.net Bot to implement gun control via CIA mind probes. with respect to your first point, kwark doesnt have to post anything. so, if he chooses to post and does so in a manner that someone considers "passive-aggressive" then he has to deal with the consequences. there are other mods who post in the general forums and dont get multiple website feedback threads brought against them. with respect to your second "point," . . . . My first point is that people complain about KwarK no matter how he goes about getting involved in a thread, and he's rather got me impressed at how he can be too aggressive and dictatorial while being so horribly passive aggressive. My second point is that people love to complain about KwarK, when he's the primary reason the General forum stays down to mild levels of cesspool. i fail to see how either of those points relate to the issue kwark and i were discussing. i want to tell half the tl.net population that they are retards, and i get warnings saying "just dont post." well, kwark, "just dont post." If he doesn't post, and just uses mod notes and mod powers, we get complaints about him stifling discussion with his mod powers.
on a somewhat unrelated note, i actually think kwark likes these threads. it allows him the opportunity to call everyone retards and insult them. =) he seems to be enjoying himself.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 05:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:26 corumjhaelen wrote:
Report bannable posts.
Also you are a retard. I took your advice. Now we wait. :p
I dismissed the report for this post as this entire topic is a moderation writeoff in my opinion. If you would like a second opinion though then feel free to contact any other mod (Falling was active in this topic earlier).
On an unrelated note I also saw a report for this while I was there
On November 16 2012 12:00 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
it's a shame, that house was the bomb
and actually gave it a pass because if I moderated him for that then I'd have to hand you one for this
On November 17 2012 02:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 12:00 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
it's a shame, that house was the bomb Oh boy, here come the puns! This will be a blast.
and then there would be no end to your complaining in this topic.
Consider yourself warned regarding that, just thought I'd give you some mod transparency there.
|
On November 17 2012 05:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard.
This is the absolute last time I'm going to respond to this claim. I never once said that the mods were out to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. That is precisely what you yourself are admitting, that your view of me in your mind is painting your response to my posts or arguments in an unreasonably negative fashion. I have never said there is a conspiracy or mods out to get me.
|
On November 17 2012 05:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:26 corumjhaelen wrote:
Report bannable posts.
Also you are a retard. I took your advice. Now we wait. :p I dismissed the report for this post as this entire topic is a moderation writeoff in my opinion. If you would like a second opinion though then feel free to contact any other mod (Falling was active in this topic earlier). On an unrelated note I also saw a report for this while I was there Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 12:00 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
it's a shame, that house was the bomb and actually gave it a pass because if I moderated him for that then I'd have to hand you one for this Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 02:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 12:00 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
it's a shame, that house was the bomb Oh boy, here come the puns! This will be a blast. and then there would be no end to your complaining in this topic. Consider yourself warned regarding that, just thought I'd give you some mod transparency there.
Why would you moderate him for that in the first place? I've seen dozens of times a string of pun jokes in a thread without warnings.
|
On November 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard. This is the absolute last time I'm going to respond to this claim. I never once said that the mods were out to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. That is precisely what you yourself are admitting, that your view of me in your mind is painting your response to my posts or arguments in an unreasonably negative fashion. I have never said there is a conspiracy or mods out to get me.
On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least.
What do you call this?
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard. This is the absolute last time I'm going to respond to this claim. I never once said that the mods were ought to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. That is precisely what you yourself are admitting, that your view of me in your mind is painting your response to my posts or arguments in an unreasonably negative fashion. I have never said there is a conspiracy or mods out to get me.
In this post
On November 15 2012 16:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I've seen that sort of "discussion" myself. I've received ridiculous bans before, and when someone questioned them in ABL they received the stock answer "he's got history you don't know" and they are forced to be content with that. It's not a matter of calling out the mods in particular, it's about being harsher on people they don't like, for whatever reason. In my own case it started with criticism of moderation, I noticed an immediate change after that.
you claim that the mods have gotten you with unreasonable bans and that they do it because they are harsher on people they don't like and that you are someone that the mods don't like which all started when you criticised moderation.
My reading of this is that you believe that the mods collectively do not like you because you criticised moderation and have subsequently been harsher on you (and anyone else they don't like). You also think some of the bans given to you were ridiculous (presumably examples of this persecution).
|
On November 17 2012 05:43 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard. This is the absolute last time I'm going to respond to this claim. I never once said that the mods were out to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. That is precisely what you yourself are admitting, that your view of me in your mind is painting your response to my posts or arguments in an unreasonably negative fashion. I have never said there is a conspiracy or mods out to get me. Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. What do you call this?
What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
Game, set, match.
on a somewhat unrelated note, i actually think kwark likes these threads. it allows him the opportunity to call everyone retards and insult them. =) he seems to be enjoying himself.
You have no idea.
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 05:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:36 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2012 05:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:26 corumjhaelen wrote:
Report bannable posts.
Also you are a retard. I took your advice. Now we wait. :p I dismissed the report for this post as this entire topic is a moderation writeoff in my opinion. If you would like a second opinion though then feel free to contact any other mod (Falling was active in this topic earlier). On an unrelated note I also saw a report for this while I was there On November 16 2012 12:00 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
it's a shame, that house was the bomb and actually gave it a pass because if I moderated him for that then I'd have to hand you one for this On November 17 2012 02:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 16 2012 12:00 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
it's a shame, that house was the bomb Oh boy, here come the puns! This will be a blast. and then there would be no end to your complaining in this topic. Consider yourself warned regarding that, just thought I'd give you some mod transparency there. Why would you moderate him for that in the first place? I've seen dozens of times a string of pun jokes in a thread without warnings.
Report it next time. I just gave him a "we don't do that on tl anymore" warning because it's shitposting that used to be fun in 2006 when we were a small niche community but now the general forum is as full as it is it's nothing but noise.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
On November 17 2012 05:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard. This is the absolute last time I'm going to respond to this claim. I never once said that the mods were out to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. That is precisely what you yourself are admitting, that your view of me in your mind is painting your response to my posts or arguments in an unreasonably negative fashion. I have never said there is a conspiracy or mods out to get me. On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. What do you call this? Show nested quote +What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable.
Here is the part where Kwark will tell you that mods tend to avoid moderating people/persons they are directly involved with to avoid bias.
And isn't that contradicting the part where you claim you never said people are out to get you?
|
On November 17 2012 05:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard. This is the absolute last time I'm going to respond to this claim. I never once said that the mods were out to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. That is precisely what you yourself are admitting, that your view of me in your mind is painting your response to my posts or arguments in an unreasonably negative fashion. I have never said there is a conspiracy or mods out to get me. On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. What do you call this? Show nested quote +What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable.
No, see, that's actually not what you said. You accused mods of holding a grudge, which generally implies they're out to get you. You provided absolutely no basis for the implication. The implication was refuted with fairly solid circumstantial evidence, which you had no answer for, save to try and re-make your argument to mean something entirely different than what you initially said.
Claiming to be misunderstood won't convince anyone of anything when the exact wording is pretty explicit.
|
On November 17 2012 05:46 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard. This is the absolute last time I'm going to respond to this claim. I never once said that the mods were out to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. That is precisely what you yourself are admitting, that your view of me in your mind is painting your response to my posts or arguments in an unreasonably negative fashion. I have never said there is a conspiracy or mods out to get me. On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. What do you call this? What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. No, see, that's actually not what you said. You accused mods of holding a grudge, which generally implies they're out to get you. You provided absolutely no basis for the implication. The implication was refuted with fairly solid circumstantial evidence, which you had no answer for, save to try and re-make your argument to mean something entirely different than what you initially said. Claiming to be misunderstood won't convince anyone of anything when the exact wording is pretty explicit.
Can you really see no distinction between saying "some people hold a grudge" and saying "the mods are collectively out to get me"?
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 17 2012 05:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:46 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 05:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard. This is the absolute last time I'm going to respond to this claim. I never once said that the mods were out to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. That is precisely what you yourself are admitting, that your view of me in your mind is painting your response to my posts or arguments in an unreasonably negative fashion. I have never said there is a conspiracy or mods out to get me. On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. What do you call this? What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. No, see, that's actually not what you said. You accused mods of holding a grudge, which generally implies they're out to get you. You provided absolutely no basis for the implication. The implication was refuted with fairly solid circumstantial evidence, which you had no answer for, save to try and re-make your argument to mean something entirely different than what you initially said. Claiming to be misunderstood won't convince anyone of anything when the exact wording is pretty explicit. Can you really see no distinction between saying "some people hold a grudge" and saying "the mods are collectively out to get me"?
I believe when you first raised this theory that someone was out to get you I took a look at your mod history and could not work out who it was because there was no pattern in the mods dealing with you (or indeed any recent significant action on you at all).
It was you who then clarified that it wasn't a specific mod but mods generally before dismissing the subject.
|
On November 17 2012 05:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:46 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 05:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard. This is the absolute last time I'm going to respond to this claim. I never once said that the mods were out to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. That is precisely what you yourself are admitting, that your view of me in your mind is painting your response to my posts or arguments in an unreasonably negative fashion. I have never said there is a conspiracy or mods out to get me. On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. What do you call this? What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. No, see, that's actually not what you said. You accused mods of holding a grudge, which generally implies they're out to get you. You provided absolutely no basis for the implication. The implication was refuted with fairly solid circumstantial evidence, which you had no answer for, save to try and re-make your argument to mean something entirely different than what you initially said. Claiming to be misunderstood won't convince anyone of anything when the exact wording is pretty explicit. Can you really see no distinction between saying "some people hold a grudge" and saying "the mods are collectively out to get me"?
When you also said... I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least.
That strongly suggests a trend, and an active, or tacitly approved policy of suppressing dissent towards moderation through further moderation.
So yeah, long story short, I don't see a relevant difference between what you said and how it was characterized by others as persecution.
|
Lalalaland34493 Posts
some people have a grudge
is fine
I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards
is the same as 'people are out to get me'
|
On November 17 2012 05:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2012 05:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:46 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 05:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On November 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 17 2012 05:32 Jaaaaasper wrote:
jd, due to your abl posting i am biased in your favor, but you have driven off every single person inclined ideologically to defend you, due to your insistence that mods are out to get you. You have a bad moderation history, and your reap what you sow. I would much rather side with you than some of the people attacking you, but you make it really hard. This is the absolute last time I'm going to respond to this claim. I never once said that the mods were out to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. That is precisely what you yourself are admitting, that your view of me in your mind is painting your response to my posts or arguments in an unreasonably negative fashion. I have never said there is a conspiracy or mods out to get me. On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. What do you call this? What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable. No, see, that's actually not what you said. You accused mods of holding a grudge, which generally implies they're out to get you. You provided absolutely no basis for the implication. The implication was refuted with fairly solid circumstantial evidence, which you had no answer for, save to try and re-make your argument to mean something entirely different than what you initially said. Claiming to be misunderstood won't convince anyone of anything when the exact wording is pretty explicit. Can you really see no distinction between saying "some people hold a grudge" and saying "the mods are collectively out to get me"? I believe when you first raised this theory that someone was out to get you I took a look at your mod history and could not work out who it was because there was no pattern in the mods dealing with you (or indeed any recent significant action on you at all). It was you who then clarified that it wasn't a specific mod but mods generally before dismissing the subject.
I don't remember saying anything like that. If I did imply that in some way, I will clarify now that is certainly not the way I feel, I know that the vast majority of mods on this site are perfectly reasonable and fair.
I haven't presented any evidence, because I'm not trying to make this case here. I don't even want to discuss the issue, it is other people bringing it up again and again because they think it's fun to criticize me and call me paranoid.
|
dissociative identity disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. calling it.
|
|
|
I have fifteen Prussian thalers on rabies
|
United States42957 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least.
In this post you state unambiguously that one or more moderators has a grudge against you and that they have been moderating you more harshly because of it. You add that you believe that the cause of this grudge is that you challenged moderation.
My initial response to this claim was to ask who it is you feel is doing this as I couldn't work it out from a list of mod actions against you
On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:
I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out?
but rather than name the moderator or moderators who are holding this grudge you instead dismissed the entire subject. I am still entirely unsure who you think is persecuting you because I am unable to find any harsh moderation against you to try and draw a pattern from (no long bans for 10 months) and no one moderator appearing disproportionately in the warnings. It is my conclusion at this point that you are just paranoid and this grudge is in your head but you have dismissed the subject so whatever.
Then you felt the need to bring back your same grudge theory without addressing any of the issues like "why is there no harsh moderation being done to you?" and "why is there no pattern in the moderators interacting with you?" here.
On November 15 2012 16:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I've seen that sort of "discussion" myself. I've received ridiculous bans before, and when someone questioned them in ABL they received the stock answer "he's got history you don't know" and they are forced to be content with that. It's not a matter of calling out the mods in particular, it's about being harsher on people they don't like, for whatever reason. In my own case it started with criticism of moderation, I noticed an immediate change after that.
You reassert that the moderation done to you is ridiculous, that it is disproportionately harsh because you are not liked. This time, rather than insist it is a specific grudge held by a mod or mods, you suggest that there's a policy of being harsher on people "they don't like", a group you feel you are part of ever since you criticised moderation.
Although you assert here that you only ever made a general point about moderation and how no individual can ever be truly subjective
On November 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I never once said that the mods were out to get me. What I said is that personal bias and emotion can come into moderation, which is undeniable.
in both of the above quotes you specifically refer to harsher moderation being done to you, and indeed explain that it is being done to you as a direct result of you criticising moderation. I therefore find this defence that you were simply talking about how humans in general are subjective creatures to be entirely unfounded within your prior statements.
It is therefore my conclusion, as evidenced by the above, that you did claim that you were being victimised, either by one or more mods holding a grudge or by the collective after you were flagged as "someone they don't like" and that you believe you have been and still are the victim on ongoing harsh moderation on account of this personal/collective grudge.
|
See, now that's how you formulate an argument. None of this A = B because I say so, and now I'm going to refer to both A and B as B.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
After reading the past few pages I don't see anything useful being accomplished here. Hence, I am locking it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
