On Hal Bidlack's Comment

[Upchurch]

That tool should have been banned ten times over by now.

For what, exactly?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Well I just don't know, Upchurch - how are you interepreting the rules today?

His constant irrational, incoherent rantings certainly didn't forward the goals of JREF - isn't that the "moderation motivation of the day" at present?

 

[Upchurch]

Well I just don't know, Upchurch - how are you interepreting the rules today?

I'm asking you. What would you have banned him for ten times over by now? Yes, Ian rants from time to time, as do we all. Also, you are correct that Ian's point of view is not consistant with a skeptical world view. Are those the reasons you would have banned him ten times over by now?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Well, let's see.

He constantly insults everyone who attempts to have a discussion with him.

He never acknowledges that his arguments are refuted, or that any arguments that contradict his own are even potentially valid.

He swears constantly, and is generally abusive without provocation or good cause.

In short, he's what is generally referred to as a 'troll', which was previously against the rules (until it was admitted that you jokers couldn't even establish a definition for trolling properly and removed the rule).

 

[Upchurch]

He constantly insults everyone who attempts to have a discussion with him.

As do you.

He never acknowledges that his arguments are refuted,

Neither do you, at least in our discussions.

He swears constantly, and is generally abusive without provocation or good cause.

For which he was suspended. You, yourself, are quite abusive at times.

In short, he's what is generally referred to as a 'troll', which was previously against the rules (until it was admitted that you jokers couldn't even establish a definition for trolling properly and removed the rule).

Are you, then, also a troll?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is primarily due to Interesting Ian that I've learned a little philosophy over the past year or so. I thank him for that. Nothing forces me to read his threads.

~~ Paul

 

[Christian]

Not based on Christian's assertion...

If belief in God/s gave one a source of authority, and that authority were followed, then it follows that very few of such people would run afoul of the law..


If they choose not to follow that authority, what makes them any different from an Atheist who has no such authority?

Think about what you are saying. If they really believed there was Someone watching (and not just anybody, but the main Man), would they run afoul of the law?

I submit to you, they do it because they believe there is no such authority.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

As do you.

Nonsense. I rarely attack people; the vast majority of my posts are queries and general assertions.

Neither do you, at least in our discussions.

I don't believe we've ever had a 'discussion'. Except, of course, about the forum rules, in which case your arguments never extend further than "those behaviors are not forbidden by the moderators' interpretations of the rules, and those interpretations are not valid topics of debate".

You, yourself, are quite abusive at times.

I don't tolerate fools... which is why I find the moderators' attempts to make excuses for and even encourage such people quite distressing.

 

[Upchurch]

It is primarily due to Interesting Ian that I've learned a little philosophy over the past year or so. I thank him for that. Nothing forces me to read his threads.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Upchurch]

Nonsense. I rarely attack people; the vast majority of my posts are queries and general assertions.

I don't believe we've ever had a 'discussion'. Except, of course, about the forum rules, in which case your arguments never extend further than "those behaviors are not forbidden by the moderators' interpretations of the rules, and those interpretations are not valid topics of debate".
I don't tolerate fools... which is why I find the moderators' attempts to make excuses for and even encourage such people quite distressing.

Funny. Ian has said pretty much the same thing. I fail to see an appriciable differnece.


edited for stupid formating

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It is primarily due to Interesting Ian that I've learned a little philosophy over the past year or so. I thank him for that. Nothing forces me to read his threads.

Nothing forces you to listen to the people who make claims of psychic phenomena or alien abductions or absurd physics, either.

Why does the JREF spend so much time and energy attempting to refute such people and their positions? They don't have to pay attention to them, after all.

Just what *is* the point of these forums?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Funny. Ian has said pretty much the same thing. I fail to see an appriciable differnece.

Yes. We've discussed your inability to distinguish between valid and invalid claims before, Upchurch.

 

[frisian]

It is primarily due to Interesting Ian that I've learned a little philosophy over the past year or so. I thank him for that. Nothing forces me to read his threads.

~~ Paul

Agreed!

 

[Upchurch]

Yes. We've discussed your inability to distinguish between valid and invalid claims before, Upchurch.

So, your claims are "valid" and those that you don't like are "invalid"? Gotcha.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Swarm said:
Nothing forces you to listen to the people who make claims of psychic phenomena or alien abductions or absurd physics, either.

Why does the JREF spend so much time and energy attempting to refute such people and their positions? They don't have to pay attention to them, after all.

I think the JREF spends some time on these matters on behalf of the people who do pay attention, in an effort to present the other side of the coin.

The reason I said that I'm not forced to read Ian's threads is to point out why he shouldn't be banned (at least as far as his ideas go). The claim that he wastes anyone's time is specious, because people can simply ignore his threads.

~~ Paul

 

[Christian]

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack

I, as a member of the JREF Board of Directors, now publically state that I feel the forum is a net loss for the JREF in terms of reputation and character.

I thought his words would be a clear evidence of my point.

Why is it that a place where athiests (by far more than any other place I've seen) hang out where the rules are very very light, at the end give this net loss in terms of reputation and character?

The contention has always been that atheists hold themselves (and have more merit therefore) to a higher ethical and moral standard.

This is evidence of the contrary. Here is where facts and actions clash head on with rhetoric.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

So, your claims are "valid" and those that you don't like are "invalid"? Gotcha.

No - logic determines whether claims are valid or invalid. Claims that are inconsistent are invalid; the act of claiming without adequate support is also invalid.

It's really not that hard to distinguish the two. Perhaps you might consider learning how some day.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The reason I said that I'm not forced to read Ian's threads is to point out why he shouldn't be banned (at least as far as his ideas go). The claim that he wastes anyone's time is specious, because people can simply ignore his threads.

And how do we determine whether a post is worth spending time on otherwise?

Yes, once it's clear that someone has no intention of debating honestly, we can ignore that person. But they'll keep spamming, and they'll be read by the lurkers.

If we want to establish reason and sanity so that people who lurk but don't post can be swayed by them, why should we permit irrational ranting?

 

[Upchurch]

No - logic determines whether claims are valid or invalid. Claims that are inconsistent are invalid; the act of claiming without adequate support is also invalid.

Despite what you may feel for Ian and his views personally, most of his arguments were well thought out and from legitimate schools of philosophical thought. Some of them were not.

Your own ideas about the possibile formation of totally objective rules to govern human behavior, on the other hand, are inconsistant, as evidenced by the fact that no legal system in the world ever has been able to come with a set and often require interpreters (in the sake of the US, "judges"). Are they not, then, invalid?

So far, you've met your own criteria for being a troll in this one thread alone: abusive, insulting, unable to admit being incorrect, and invalid arguments. Do you consider yourself to be a troll? And if not, why not?

 

[Christian]

Despite what you may feel for Ian and his views personally, most of his arguments were well thought out and from legitimate schools of philosophical thought. Some of them were not.

Your own ideas about the possibile formation of totally objective rules to govern human behavior, on the other hand, are inconsistant, as evidenced by the fact that no legal system in the world ever has been able to come with a set and often require interpreters (in the sake of the US, "judges"). Are they not, then, invalid?

So far, you've met your own criteria for being a troll in this one thread alone: abusive, insulting, unable to admit being incorrect, and invalid arguments. Do you consider yourself to be a troll? And if not, why not?

Upchurch, you are correct, and he successfully derailed the thread and took you down with him.