Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A&A Feedback

Options
1…1011131516…62

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    So long as a poster isn't breaking the forum charter, they're pretty much free to post whatever they like.

    Is soapboxing against the charter? There's a number of posters who essentially do just that - they'll keep responding in a thread, but drag everything out by subtly (or not so subtly) off topic at any opportunities or by ignoring large chunks of individual posts to avoid discussing most or all dissenting points. It wasn't too long ago that one particular theist was specifically asked by a specific atheist, must have been well over a dozen times, to respond to a specific point and yet he wouldn't. I think it got to the point where the theist just started poking fun at the atheist for repeatedly asking the question. That sort of thing kills all enjoyment in a discussion.

    I understand the idea behind giving someone enough rope to hang themselves (in the eyes of an onlooker), but I think that assumes that the onlooker has been following the thread from the beginning. A lot of the longer threads on this forum don't have that many people posting on them after long, as certain theistic posters just discourage regulars away as they just know what the thread will descend into. I worry that an uninformed onlooker, dropping in and out of such a thread, might therefore think that the theistic poster must be making good points, seeing as they are still posting the same things while their critics keep changing.
    robindch wrote: »
    Long-winded posts, though, tend to elicit long-winded replies, probably to the frustration of both ends of the discussion.

    I am so guilty of this :o. I try to fight it, but the urge to destroy some arguments on as many levels as possible is so hard to resist :pac:.


  • Options
    #363
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Sarky wrote: »
    It's hard to give a short reply to anything J C says. There's just so much wrong in every damn post. :(

    Yez have the patience I lack.


  • Options
    #364
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    This is from another thread, but I didn't want to derail that thread -

    robindch wrote: »
    The next update to the forum charter is likely to prohibit whataboutery. It's a unique irritating debating tactic, at least in places where honest debate is promoted.


    I just think in order to avoid any posters making up their own definitions of whataboutery it would be a good idea to define in the charter what constitutes whataboutery so that there would be no confusion such as phrases like, erm, "liberal secularism" being thrown about.


  • Options
    #365
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    [...] avoid any posters making up their own definitions of whataboutery [...]
    Any changes will, hopefully, be clear and straightforward. No point in having a whataboutery argument about whataboutery.


  • Options
    #366
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Will that be applied equally e.g one of most common "whatabouteries" is "pro-lifers only care about children before they are born" will that be actioned equally to the cliche "what about polygamy" ones.that always pop up in marriage threads


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Will that be applied equally e.g one of most common "whatabouteries" is "pro-lifers only care about children before they are born" will that be actioned equally to the cliche "what about polygamy" ones.that always pop up in marriage threads

    Neither of those are really whataboutery as they're arguments, albeit weak ones, related to the core subject matter. Whataboutery is more like "there are more important things for society than to be discusison rights for gay marriage, what about the economy or people starving?

    Personally, I'm not for defining stuff and the more precise you make things the more you leave it open to errors of judgement. There should just be a spirit to the charter. So it's not open to pedantry of rule lawyers.


  • Options
    #368
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Jernal wrote: »
    Neither of those are really whataboutery as they're arguments, albeit weak ones, related to the core subject matter. Whataboutery is more like "there are more important things for society than to be discusison rights for gay marriage, what about the economy or people starving?

    Personally, I'm not for defining stuff and the more precise you make things the more you leave it open to errors of judgement. There should just be a spirit to the charter. So it's not open to pedantry of rule lawyers.

    Hmmm i've heard similar described as such on other forums here, and the first one is definitely whataboutery even by your definition as it doesn't relate to the argument at all (well it might in a 3rd world context but not a discussion based in the 1st world )


  • Options
    #369
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Hmmm i've heard similar described as such on other forums here, and the first one is definitely whataboutery even by your definition as it doesn't relate to the argument at all (well it might in a 3rd world context but not a discussion based in the 1st world )

    I disagree and your post helps make my point about nailing down a definition. I would never infract either of those arguments in initial post if they were only made once. Only if the person was persistent in making them to monotonous proportions would I bother. Otherwise the whataboutery would have to incorporate a massive gap from the core sujbect matter to the 'what about ..." material.

    Here's why I disagree. Pro-life/pro-choice people are heavily involved in abortion so anything they do in real-life that is prima facie hypocritical or contradictory to their respective stances is relevant. Fallacious argument of poisoning the well though they may be. But we can't moderate arguments based on their technical construction. We will always lean on the side of innocently made poorly constructed arguments.


  • Options
    #370
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Jernal wrote: »
    I disagree and your post helps make my point about nailing down a definition. I would never infract either of those arguments in initial post if they were only made once. Only if the person was persistent in making them to monotonous proportions would I bother. Otherwise the whataboutery would have to incorporate a massive gap from the core sujbect matter to the 'what about ..." material.

    Here's why I disagree. Pro-life/pro-choice people are heavily involved in abortion so anything they do in real-life that is prima facie hypocritical or contradictory to their respective stances is relevant. Fallacious argument of poisoning the well though they may be. But we can't moderate arguments based on their technical construction. We will always lean on the side of innocently made poorly constructed arguments.

    Ok for the first example I can understand your point as in Gay marriage is primarily about marriage equality and while I agree its a poor argument the rights of polygamists to marry could be encompassed in this argument particularly if the thread is titled "marriage equality" or something similar.

    I still disagree and think the second point is valid.
    Take this definition posted by one of the other mods.

    [...] an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent's argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world - despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion

    In the case of a debate about abortion. Whats the relevant subject, life and what its definition is (and the right to bodily ingrity/choice but thats irrelevant to this point).
    Rightly or wrongly "pro-lifers" place a different priority on fetal 'life' and argue that in preventing abortion they are protecting a human life or a 'potential' life.

    To engage with the "they don't care about the children" argument, even though I would consider it irrelevant since the threads are about abortion.
    In a 1st world country even if taken into state care childhood death is very very unlikely 3.8/10,000 (before 18) among the general population I can't find a figure for those in state care but AFAIK most of those deaths 'in care' that recent scandal in our shambolic health system related to older teenagers.
    Therefore for some one with (a particular set of) pro-life views what is the most dangerous time for a childs "life" in a 1st world situation its when its in the womb.
    If you feel I am mis-representing pro-lifers views or what these abortions debates are actually about apologies but thats the way I have always interpreted their views and I have never seen an abortion thread with child welfare as a sub-title.


  • Options
    #371
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Ok for the first example I can understand your point as in Gay marriage is primarily about marriage equality and while I agree its a poor argument the rights of polygamists to marry could be encompassed in this argument particularly if the thread is titled "marriage equality" or something similar.

    I still disagree and think the second point is valid.
    Take this definition posted by one of the other mods.

    [...] an informal fallacy which attempts to suggest that the opponent's argument should be ignored because there are more important problems in the world - despite the fact that these issues are often completely unrelated to the subject under discussion

    In the case of a debate about abortion. Whats the relevant subject, life and what its definition is (and the right to bodily ingrity/choice but thats irrelevant to this point).
    Rightly or wrongly "pro-lifers" place a different priority on fetal 'life' and argue that in preventing abortion they are protecting a human life or a 'potential' life.

    To engage with the "they don't care about the children" argument, even though I would consider it irrelevant since the threads are about abortion.
    In a 1st world country even if taken into state care childhood death is very very unlikely 3.8/10,000 (before 18) among the general population I can't find a figure for those in state care but AFAIK most of those deaths 'in care' that recent scandal in our shambolic health system related to older teenagers.
    Therefore for some one with (a particular set of) pro-life views what is the most dangerous time for a childs "life" in a 1st world situation its when its in the womb.
    If you feel I am mis-representing pro-lifers views or what these abortions debates are actually about apologies but thats the way I have always interpreted their views and I have never seen an abortion thread with child welfare as a sub-title.

    That required a fairly detailed explanation though. If I made a similar one for polygamy would that make polygamy part of whataboutery. Quite simply, on the surface, both arguments appear relevant to the discussions subject matter. Otherwise the territory is veering close to what the mod would consider a good argument and that is very susceptible to subjective blunders.

    The abortion thread does not solely cover the ethics of abortion. It also covers the legal discussion. The sociological impacts and lastly the politics of both sides.oh wait, biscuits too.

    Thread topics incorporates a spectrum. Often time as the thread grows this topic spectrum may mutate. Sitting in that spectrum is the moderators happy medium. Anything outside it will steered to it. Whataboutery will probably be determined by the number of logical leaps required to get from thread spectrum to the what about matter. But there will probably never be a concrete definition. Maybe one that incorporates a spirit of one. But with unnecessary precision comes rule lawyering.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jernal wrote: »
    But with unnecessary precision comes rule lawyering.
    Yes indeed, and that's as unwelcome as the "Awww-why-me?" which frequently precedes it.

    Basically, the forum rules are not a legally-derived, courtroom-tested set of hard and fast rules. Instead, they're written to provide an easily-understood guide to what's appropriate and what's not, so there's a fair amount of leeway built-in. While almost everybody respects that, there are a small number of posters who've gone to jesuitical lengths to nit-pick definitions, posts, attitudes and the rest in order to play their victim card, or something similar. And it's for these unhappy souls that the language in the forum charter has to be as tight as it can reasonably be, but no tighter.


  • Options
    #373
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    This would be "whataboutery" I'd say.....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89053580&postcount=1312


  • Options
    #374
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,723 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    there are a small number of posters who've gone to jesuitical lengths to nit-pick definitions, posts, attitudes and the rest in order to play their victim card, or something similar.

    I probably fall into that category to some extent, though not so much to play the victim card as to tease out what people actually mean when they use certain terms. Where people base an argument or line of debate on the incorrect or specious use of a common word or term it seems reasonable to pick them up on it, pedantic as it may seem.


  • Options
    #375
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    smacl wrote: »
    I probably fall into that category to some extent, though not so much to play the victim card as to tease out what people actually mean when they use certain terms. Where people base an argument or line of debate on the incorrect or specious use of a common word or term it seems reasonable to pick them up on it, pedantic as it may seem.
    He's referring to the rules. Not the details of an argument. By all means deconstruct those with pedantry.


  • Options
    #376
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    Can we stick some in the charter and tar/feather anyone who posts in ignorance of it.

    Gets slightly vexing having to read (or write for that matter, though I gave up) the same tired objections, notably that atheism is a belief, or requires faith etc. :o


  • Options
    #377
    Doctor Strange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭Doctor Strange


    I don't think it'd make much difference. There's a type of poster that comes here to play wind-up merchant, and I don't think they'd bother with the charter.


  • Options
    #378
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    If we put it in a charter people will be more inclined to disregard it and see it as an authoritarian dogma. Some people genuinely think atheists have faith. Others genuinely think depression isn't an illness. Now, I consider such viewpoints to be somewhat ignorant but by editing the charter we just exclude such people and their viewpoints. Thus driving a serious blow to the hope of ever getting them to either understand our position or better yet come to accept it.

    Just my two cents...
    Rob's and Dades' may differ.


  • Options
    #379
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,102 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Religionists complaining in here about authoritarian dogma would at least have strong irony value.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #380
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Thus driving a serious blow to the hope of ever getting them to either understand our position or better yet come to accept it.

    The people who come here complaining that "atheism is as much a religion as christianity" neither have the intelligence, the self awareness nor the honesty to be able to either understand our position nor come to accept it.


  • Options
    #381
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    The people who come here complaining that "atheism is as much a religion as christianity" neither have the intelligence, the self awareness nor the honesty to be able to either understand our position nor come to accept it.

    But this is the same as the creationist threads. It is not about educating or changing the minds of those that can't be changed, it is about educating those that have not yet decided or are open to change.

    The benefit of having these discussions is indirect, but still worthy of the effort.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,469 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Doctor Strange wrote: »
    I don't think it'd make much difference. There's a type of poster that comes here to play wind-up merchant, and I don't think they'd bother with the charter.

    This is true but sticking stuff in the charter allows people to refer them to the charter and kill their trolling/winding up straight away


  • Options
    #383
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    But...but...trolls make this forum hilarious at times. Some of the best threads and posts on this forum have been in response to trolling. If they overdo their welcome the banhammers will step in but until then trolls offer utility.


  • Options
    #384
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Turtwig wrote: »
    But...but...trolls make this forum hilarious at times. Some of the best threads and posts on this forum have been in response to trolling. If they overdo their welcome the banhammers will step in but until then trolls offer utility.

    Hilarious to a point, yes. It's also incredibly hard going when the same people come back and back to send entire threads into a "language eats itself" situation. Everyone else's arguments look totally lame because it is pointless (and unflattering) to try and drag out a decent response when the trolls won't (can't) give evidence or any semblance of proof for their arguments.

    I find it really disheartening, tbh. Not sure it'd be allowed in t'other forum.


  • Options
    #385
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Obliq wrote: »
    Hilarious to a point, yes. It's also incredibly hard going when the same people come back and back to send entire threads into a "language eats itself" situation. Everyone else's arguments look totally lame because it is pointless (and unflattering) to try and drag out a decent response when the trolls won't (can't) give evidence or any semblance of proof for their arguments.

    I find it really disheartening, tbh. Not sure it'd be allowed in t'other forum.

    While it is incredibly irritating and I have argued against it before, I do not think we should justify any rule in this forum by pointing out it's application in the other religious fora. It would be a bit to close to those type of arguments which say that because we can't do something in some holy place, that the corresponding theist shouldn't be allowed do something equivalent in this country. If a rule or guideline is ever brought in, it should be justified on it's own merits without reference to any other forum.


  • Options
    #386
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,102 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Turtwig wrote: »
    But...but...trolls make this forum hilarious at times. Some of the best threads and posts on this forum have been in response to trolling. If they overdo their welcome the banhammers will step in but until then trolls offer utility.

    There are also the persistent low-level trolls though, who never make any one post objectionable enough to get banned but never make a single constructive post in the forum either. Hard to know what if anything can or should be done about them, but it's a tad annoying to see again and again the same predictable names making the same predictable passive-aggressive posts and getting thanked by the other predictable names.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #387
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I call them the chewing barbed wired encased glass posters. They're a perennial pain. It's not a simple case of common sense or intuition telling a mod "Hey this guy's being a plank ban them" things simply can't work that way and with good reason. Everyone has to be given the benefit of the doubt. Remember, even the trolls will express opinions that genuine people share. So, as Mr P said, it's pretty much an indirect thing for the lurkers.

    Rules lawyers types are worst and an absolute time sink :(


  • Options
    #388
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,846 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Are you possibly referring to a certain someone...who likes to use bold font on random words. . .and likes ellipses too much?


  • Options
    #389
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Are you possibly referring to a certain someone...who likes to use bold font on random words. . .and likes ellipses too much?

    Nope.
    Speculating about active posters is not cool by the way. :(


  • Options
    #390
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,469 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Are you possibly referring to a certain someone...who likes to use bold font on random words. . .and likes ellipses too much?

    What do you have against me?
    :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Cabaal wrote: »
    What do you have against me?
    :(

    .......


Advertisement