On Hal Bidlack's Comment

[Upchurch]

he successfully derailed the thread and took you down with him.

That he did. My appologies.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

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.

From what I could tell, most of his arguments were gross misunderstandings of schools of thought that have been generally discredited. Most of the rest relied heavily on idiosyncratic definitions that he refused to clarify.

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?

Poor reasoning. Legal systems generally are invalid; that does not show that valid rule systems cannot be made. What makes you think I consider those legal systems as valid, thus leading to a contradiction?

Do you do any computer programming, Upchurch? I ask merely because people who do are aware that people must learn how to make their meaning clear and unambiguous. Computers do exactly what we tell them to do with essentially no errors - any errors are in our instructions.

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?

No, I haven't met any of the standards. You presume to know what my positions are on certain matters, then point out contradictions between my stated positions and your assumptions and think you've demonstrated an error.

Being "abusive and insulting" is associated with trolling only when it's not deserved. When you make stupid arguments, and I point out your stupidity, there's no violation of intellectual standards involved.

 

[Christian]

That he did. My appologies.

You know I think you're the man.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I think central to a human being well being is limits and authority.

Among those atheists who rejected religious belief on logical grounds, there is an awareness that authorities are only authoratitive on certain subjects. No one can ever be an authority on truth or the nature of the world.

 

[hgc]

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

I've never contended that, and I'd like you to point to an "atheist" here who has. What you seem to have misinterpreted is the refrain from many atheists that those who believe morals are established and punishments meted out by a divinity are mistaken when they discount the need to live together in a civilized way as reason enough to behave morally and ethically. Simply put, you don't need God to be moral. That's not the same as holding yourself to a higher standard.

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?

It's not because it's atheists, it's because it's a place where practically unedited content is continually added by people with too much time on their hands.

 

[Christian]

Re: Re: On Hal Bidlack's Comment

Among those atheists who rejected religious belief on logical grounds, there is an awareness that authorities are only authoratitive on certain subjects. No one can ever be an authority on truth or the nature of the world.

I agree.


By the way, I'm not using authority with knowledge as a cognotative, I'm using authority in the sense someone who is invested with power and control.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

All right; I accept your more specific definition.

I would agree that authority is important, but what matters is that the authority is transparent and consistent (that is, its workings are easy to perceive and its actions are easy to anticipate).

I do not see these traits being manifested by the current authorities in charge of these boards.

 

[Christian]

All right; I accept your more specific definition.

I would agree that authority is important, but what matters is that the authority is transparent and consistent (that is, its workings are easy to perceive and its actions are easy to anticipate).

I do not see these traits being manifested by the current authorities in charge of these boards.

The thing is this. When authority is human, it won't always be perceived that way. No human is perfect, seldom are excellent. The norm is to have authority who is average in the qualities you mention.

If computers ran things, maybe it would be different, but humans is all we have.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

But we don't even have that. We're in immediate danger of having rules like "don't be a jerk".

Well, what is a jerk? "Everyone knows what a jerk is, I don't have to explain it." And then the moderators begin applying their own interpretations of the word to the posts, and no one can tell what will or will not be considered acceptable.

 

[Christian]

But we don't even have that. We're in immediate danger of having rules like "don't be a jerk".

Well, what is a jerk? "Everyone knows what a jerk is, I don't have to explain it." And then the moderators begin applying their own interpretations of the word to the posts, and no one can tell what will or will not be considered acceptable.

I can appreciate where you're coming from.

Can you buy this idea?

They are trying to use general guidelines that they believe most everyone will understand (like I can't explain what obcenity is but I know it when I see it)

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Abomination!

That's not a standard. That's an attempt to leave loopholes in the rules so that the people who are supposed to enforce them can apply their personal standards instead.

If you can recogize that a stimulus falls into a category, then it is theoretically possible to specify the mechanism that allows you to do so and define it objectively. If you want to prohibit something, that's precisely what needs to be done. The mods just don't want to have to think about what shouldn't be permitted and how to define it.

Here's a thought: what if I were given absolute control over these forums? What if I assured everyone that I would act impartially and objectively; I wouldn't censor anything except examples of grishnalek, which were to be forbidden.

And then I refused to explain what grishnalek was, but said that I reserved the right to ban anyone who posted it.

What would you think about my moderation?

 

[Christian]

Abomination!

That's not a standard. That's an attempt to leave loopholes in the rules so that the people who are supposed to enforce them can apply their personal standards instead.

If you can recogize that a stimulus falls into a category, then it is theoretically possible to specify the mechanism that allows you to do so and define it objectively. If you want to prohibit something, that's precisely what needs to be done. The mods just don't want to have to think about what shouldn't be permitted and how to define it.

Here's a thought: what if I were given absolute control over these forums? What if I assured everyone that I would act impartially and objectively; I wouldn't censor anything except examples of grishnalek, which were to be forbidden.

And then I refused to explain what grishnalek was, but said that I reserved the right to ban anyone who posted it.

What would you think about my moderation?

Ok, but try to talk to me, let's try to have a conversation.

What if someone said, try to be nice and polite with my family. Would you understand what that meant? Of course you would.

That's all I'm saying about that.

Now, from the phylosophical standpoint, I believe atheist have an excellent opportunity to self-regulate.

I believe this is what was thought initially. Atheists will come here and will act accordingly with no need of rules. The outcome of that was to get banned from schools.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

What if someone said, try to be nice and polite with my family. Would you understand what that meant? Of course you would.

No, I would understand what *I* meant by that, and would try to act accordingly.

Now what if this person had a completely different set of standards in mind? Let's say that, during the dinner, I stated that I disagreed with a political opinion expressed by, say, the father. And let's further say that this person was absolutely incensed by what he considered my rudeness while I considered it a polite conversation.

Which of us is right?

 

[Loki]

Wrath,

Even if you're right, and you CAN create an fully working set of objective rules that govern any and all moderation issues, it doesn't escape from the fact that the forum has to interact with the real world. There are legal (as in USA - legal) standards that must be met, even if they are in violation of your theoretical objective standards. What would you suggest if your 'objective standard' made behaviour 'X' okay, but the law disagrees?

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Throught my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority
...
I picked it up right here, from personal experience, at the JREF.

You found what you were looking for. My memory of your earliest days here is that you've had this "atheist/rebellion" theme right from the start. Remember your attempt to prove the bible was true using biblical prophecy and statistics? You stuck with that for a month or so until Stimpy handed you a lesson in statistics and you slunk away with a promise to 'get back to this once the details were worked out' (still waiting, by the way). You told me during that first debate that you KNEW atheists were simply in rebellion.

Of course, I also recall that you said at that time that you KNEW atheists were rebelling against what they knew to be the truth - that we know god exists, but we refuse to accept his dominion. It was clear to me that you (at that time) saw atheism as a refusal to face reality. You now deny this, and claim to have never said any such thing. Oh how I wish I'd kept those posts! (perhaps I should talk to Claus and see if his vast archive of the forum contains those old posts - but what's the point - you saw you dont think that now, so that's where it's at).

But IMO you have ALWAYS believed that atheism's central defining feature is rebellion. You came here looking for evidence to back that belief, and you think you've found it. You simply ignore any contrary evidence.

 

[Yahzi]

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.

From the beginning I agitated for a heavier-handed moderation. I constantly pointed out that communities are defined ultimately by exclusion, and thus some exclusionary principle must be applied to this community. I am a constant voice for rules and limits: and I'm as atheist as they come.

Atheists do have higher ethical standards (in the sense that they do things because they are right, not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward): the problems on this board are not from the atheists.

The fact that Hal & Co. were perhaps a bit naive about the behaviour of random strangers on the internet says nothing at all about atheism.

 

[Christian]

Christian,


You found what you were looking for. My memory of your earliest days here is that you've had this "atheist/rebellion" theme right from the start. Remember your attempt to prove the bible was true using biblical prophecy and statistics? You stuck with that for a month or so until Stimpy handed you a lesson in statistics and you slunk away with a promise to 'get back to this once the details were worked out' (still waiting, by the way). You told me during that first debate that you KNEW atheists were simply in rebellion.

Of course, I also recall that you said at that time that you KNEW atheists were rebelling against what they knew to be the truth - that we know god exists, but we refuse to accept his dominion. It was clear to me that you (at that time) saw atheism as a refusal to face reality. You now deny this, and claim to have never said any such thing. Oh how I wish I'd kept those posts! (perhaps I should talk to Claus and see if his vast archive of the forum contains those old posts - but what's the point - you saw you dont think that now, so that's where it's at).

But IMO you have ALWAYS believed that atheism's central defining feature is rebellion. You came here looking for evidence to back that belief, and you think you've found it. You simply ignore any contrary evidence.

Loki:

I have repeatedly asked you to not do what you are doing. You are a Jeckyl and Hide to me.

I really don't know how else to tell you to stop.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Now, from the phylosophical standpoint, I believe atheist have an excellent opportunity to self-regulate.

If you want to try and make any serious point at all, you need to stop conflating 'atheist' and 'skeptic' for a start.

I believe this is what was thought initially. Atheists will come here and will act accordingly with no need of rules.

The outcome of that was to get banned from schools.

IMO the way forward for the JREF is to restrict access to the forum to registered AND PAID members only.

Every public/free forum I've been to (sport, music, religion ) has had issues with (a) trolling/spamming; (b) legal rights; and (c) language. Most are heavily moderated. The only unmoderated one I can recall is simply a sea of abuse. I was recently reading through a very ligthly moderated christian forum (don't ask - long story) that was free to read but required registration (no cost) to post. A nice little debate between some Pentecostals and some Catholics about "salvation". The langauge was unrestrained. The accusations ranged from "heretic" (not much of an insult in my book!) through to "child molester" - and all over interpretation of scripture.

As far as I'm concerned, I learn a lot here, and I have a lot of fun reading the posts of some pretty smart and pretty humourous people. And yes, Ian has someredeeming qualities that go someway towards offsetting his relentless buffoonery. And there are a small number of posters (self styled skeptics and believers is about equal measure) that seem to have no sense of order at all, and use the cost free and anonymous nature of the internet to behave in a manner they'd never dream of in the 'real world'. This element hurts this, and every, forum. The simplest way forward is to make forum membership a privilege extended to JREF members only( "Hey you! Are you a member? JOIN NOW!").

 

[Christian]

From the beginning I agitated for a heavier-handed moderation. I constantly pointed out that communities are defined ultimately by exclusion, and thus some exclusionary principle must be applied to this community. I am a constant voice for rules and limits: and I'm as atheist as they come.

Ok.

Atheists do have higher ethical standards (in the sense that they do things because they are right, not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward): the problems on this board are not from the atheists.

A poster needed evidence, here it is.

The fact that Hal & Co. were perhaps a bit naive about the behaviour of random strangers on the internet says nothing at all about atheism.

I disagree, it is not random strangers. I have been here quite a while, it is not random strangers.

Just read the comments generated from where Mr. Bidlack's originally posted. Man, there are people in there who simply don't have a heart.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Even if you're right, and you CAN create an fully working set of objective rules that govern any and all moderation issues, it doesn't escape from the fact that the forum has to interact with the real world. There are legal (as in USA - legal) standards that must be met, even if they are in violation of your theoretical objective standards. What would you suggest if your 'objective standard' made behaviour 'X' okay, but the law disagrees?

I wouldn't hold it against any moderators if they were forced to permit external legal influences on the boards. But even that needs to be specified.