A&A Feedback

looksee

Mod: Mr Pudding, that topic is now closed and JC is no longer posting in this thread. See post 1197.

Hotblack Desiato

What's going on here? At first I thought the thread must have been moved to Christianity, or something...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104667400&postcount=103

Circumcision is not a myth and it is entirely reasonable to describe it as butchery of infants, as it is often done without anaesthetic.

looksee

Oops, that was me, I thought it was about blood libel but you are of course right. I will sort it.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Circumcision is not a myth and it is entirely reasonable to describe it as butchery of infants, as it is often done without anaesthetic.

Without anaesthetic, and sometimes in a fashion which really does sometimes defy belief - see here. Would have been useful to point out that circumcision is common in islam as well, not to mention female genital mutilation which is common elsewhere.

As regards the jewish blood libel, well, I'm not entirely sure that's something which should be edited out of posts - since a subsequent poster is likely to rebut it. The blood libel, incidentally, has been mentioned/passed-around by a number of hardline catholic conservatives in Ireland recently. Not sure whether that could count as an upsurge, but the rumour is certainly still doing the rounds and still needs to be shredded.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

Good point smacl - I'd be in favour of changing the name to Atheism, Agnosticism and Secularism, if only to keep building on the word count in my 'mod description'. The abbreviation would also distinguish us from Aviation and Aircraft

I reckon we should change the name of this forum to better reflect the content therein. Thinking the 'Secularism and Miscellaneous religious rants' forum has a bit of a ring to it, or the S&M forum for those that like to abbreviate (among other things )

smacl

Putting this here in response to this post as it is off topic the the thread in question.

Swanner wrote: »

As is customary on discussion fora, I gave an opinion to which you responded.

Ok, lets have a quick look at that opinion;

Swanner wrote: »

I believe this statement reveals far more about the true nature of this forum then was actually intended.

Perhaps Pherekydes should inform the Cambridge, Oxford and Webster dictionaries that their definitions of atheism are incorrect..

According to A&A doctrine of course

So an opinion on the form, fair enough. A snide dig at another poster, not so good. Then a broader dig at the forum in general.

You decided to follow that up however by labeling me as a troll which kind of backed up my point.

Yep, that was and remains my reading of your post above.

And not for the first time on this thread, the irony of that appears to be lost on you.

And yet another sideswipe, most definitely directed at me in this case.

I didn't set out to patronise or insult any individual directly and don't believe I did. You appear to be taking my comments about the forum personally. They are directed at the forum in general. They are not a personal attack on you, nor are they about you..

Really? So how would you describe this exactly if not patronising and insulting?

Only the good people of A&A believe they know better

This has to be the least tolerant and inclusive forum on boards.

Maybe it should be renamed the Militant Atheist forum.

Seems intentionally incendiary, patronising and insulting to me.

I find the Christianity forum a lot more tolerant

If you honestly believe this to be true and want to test it, maybe go over there and post some negative generalisation about Christians and see how far it gets you so.

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

You don't set the rules for what I do or don't say.. I do.

I would say the derailment of which smacl speaks, and the subsequent ranting on the same thread by the referenced user is rooted in this fallacious attitude. The simple fact is that on a MODERATED forum, it very much is the moderators that set the rules for what people do or do not say. I fear swanner, seeing themselves above such rules and moderation, is one of those people who deeply misunderstand the concept of "free speech" and what is actually means and entails in a hosted public forum such as this one. And when one users sees themselves above the rules that everyone else signs up to.... then that user is the problem no matter how much they screech at the actions and performance of others.

I certainly find it laughable to have the tolerance of this forum compared to the one "over the wall". From 2008 through 2016 inclusive I have a total of 4 infractions on my account and zero thread bans. 2 of those 4 from Christianity and 1 from Islam for rather mundane stuff. The 4th and final was from a thread where the Mod basically handed out infractions to 15 people in a row on something of a spree so I do not really count it as relevant.

And the two from Christianity have no explanation attached that I can read, nor was one offered when I sought it from the (ex) Mod in question. In one of them all my post said was that it was pretty disgusting that women, hearing there was a vision of mary to be found, ran off and left their babies alone in prams in order to see it (as reported in a story from the Irish Times).

That is tolerance? Whereas the Atheism forum entertains discussion from ALL users who want to question atheism, it's roots and basis, the actions of those who claim to be atheist, or speak for atheism and much more. The mods only appear to step in when someone is soap boxing a point and refusing to offer, when asked, any substantiation for it that might move a stuck conversation forward.

If anything, given the posts of absolam and JC over the years, the mods are TOO tolerant on this area of the forum on some occasions. To compare that to the other side is laugable. Though recently one mod was TOO tolerant over there too, and 3 users (christians all) basically ran away with it and seriously took the piss out of the leniency. Not only repeating numerous times the very thing the mod warned, rather than infracted, them for.... but openly questioning the mods credentials, competency, intentions and agendas on the thread for numerous posts..... before then opening multiple threads on the matter in the feedback forum.

I think the mod in question (alas) felt they had to double down and be less tolerant going forward. Which was a true shame and I think the actions of 2 or 3 users ruined it for many others. So far I think the mods of THIS forum, when people have taken the piss out of their leniancy, have nipped it in the bud without letting it influence their general mandate going forward. And well done them.

Hotblack Desiato

Should OPs be required to actually participate in the threads they start?

More than once, recently, we have posters starting (rather trollish tbh) threads, then just running away rather than engaging with the questions other posters put to them. It's more like lobbing in a grenade rather than anything resembling an honest attempt to start a discussion.

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Should OPs be required to actually participate in the threads they start?

More than once, recently, we have posters starting (rather trollish tbh) threads, then just running away rather than engaging with the questions other posters put to them. It's more like lobbing in a grenade rather than anything resembling an honest attempt to start a discussion.

I do agree with this, but I think it would be tricky to deal with. They often result in interesting threads, so deleting them would, I think, be damaging. Can a poster be forced to engage?

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo

^ Yea it is hard to police or implement such a policy. By the time it is obvious the OP will not be engaging, the thread tends to have progressed without them so far that it can not easily just be closed or deleted.

After Hours seems to have a policy against an OP starting a thread on a subject without engaging with that subject a bit in the OP itself. Which I guess goes SOME way to dealing with the problem.

As for forcing users to engage. The mods in A&A do take a dim view of people posting on threads JUST to tell you they will not be engaging with you. They come down on that kind of "I could not be bothered engaging with you" post every so often which has resulted in some occasional whinging by some of the users.

pauldla

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Should OPs be required to actually participate in the threads they start?

More than once, recently, we have posters starting (rather trollish tbh) threads, then just running away rather than engaging with the questions other posters put to them. It's more like lobbing in a grenade rather than anything resembling an honest attempt to start a discussion.

‘‘Twas ever thus, surely?

mikhail

I expect it can be tough to be the pigeon among the cats, even for the most well-intentioned poster.

robindch

Folks -

Just on a legalistic, moderatorly note, accusations of lying can only be sustained when one can know with certainty that there was an intention to deceive - this is clearly not possible without the co-operation of the poster against whom the accusation has been made. "Misrepresentation" conveys the same meaning as "lying", but without implying an unknowable intention, while also keeping the temperature of the discussion a little lower.

thanking youze.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

Folks -

Just on a legalistic, moderatorly note, accusations of lying can only be sustained when one can know with certainty that there was an intention to deceive - this is clearly not possible without the co-operation of the poster against whom the accusation has been made. "Misrepresentation" conveys the same meaning as "lying", but without implying an unknowable intention, while also keeping the temperature of the discussion a little lower.

thanking youze.

with respect if one party claims that they have never used a particular phrase and another party posts multiple examples of them doing so and then the first party claims they were quoted of context and then the other shows this to be false i dont think a weak word like misrepresentation quite covers it. Either the first party is lying or they are detached from reality.

Timberrrrrrrr

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

with respect if one party claims that they have never used a particular phrase and another party posts multiple examples of them doing so and then the first party claims they were quoted of context and then the other shows this to be false i dont think a weak word like misrepresentation quite covers it. Either the first party is lying or they are detached from reality.

And you could also add in that the said poster has previous form over many fora and many years for "misrepresenting"

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Either the first party is lying or they are detached from reality.

There may be a few other choices in there, but you have the broad thrust. In either case, asserting that something is a "lie" or that somebody is a "liar" implies complete knowledge of the proposer's wishes and that can never be the case.

As above - it's a Jesuitical point, but one worth bearing in mind all the same.

Please also bear in mind that many on the far right - and I'm not necessarily including "end of the road" in this - will hold liberals to liberal standards, but will only hold themselves to the provocative/insulting/inflammatory standards of the far-right.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

There may be a few other choices in there, but you have the broad thrust. In either case, asserting that something is a "lie" or that somebody is a "liar" implies complete knowledge of the proposer's wishes and that can never be the case.

As above - it's a Jesuitical point, but one worth bearing in mind all the same.
.

He denied posting them even after the posts were quoted back to him. Frankly he makes the argument sketch from Monty Python look like constructive dialogue.

robindch wrote: »

Please also bear in mind that many on the far right - and I'm not necessarily including "end of the road" in this - will hold liberals to liberal standards, but will only hold themselves to the provocative/insulting/inflammatory standards of the far-right.

I hold all posters to the same standard.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes i have to say i am quite disappointed in robdinchs response.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

what posts were deleted??

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I did notice at one stage that the last post on the thread was by EOTR but when i went to the thread there was no post by him. i assumed he had deleted it himself

.......

This post has been deleted.

Loafing Oaf

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

said poster has previous form over many fora and many years for "misrepresenting"

Like a rapper gone bad:P

robarmstrong

With respect, if someone lies on boards they should fully expect to be called out on said lie, that's pretty much a given on all internet forums.

If person A states that abortion is murder, then goes on to deny ever saying that despite there being written proof of them actually stating that - they are lying. Calling it "misrepresenting" is just being ridiculously and unnecessarily political. Call it what it is, a lie.

An individual in particular told a lie, I spotted the lie and then provided all the required evidence which negated and refuted the lie which that individual told. If I go around boards telling everyone the sky is green and go on to state I never said the sky is green, I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm telling a lie.

It really is that simple, someone told a lie, got called out, got the evidence put out publicly and then proceeded to ignore everything and continue on in their delusion by trawling across other similarly themed threads like nothing happened.

robindch

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You can call it what you like - I'm simply pointing out that calling statements "lies" and directly, or by implication, calling people "liars" requires knowledge about the decision-making process within another poster's head, and even if one had 100% knowledge of this, using these terms rarely leads to the kind of meaningful discussion which A+A generally tries to have.

Most readers are smart enough to spot when somebody's misrepresenting themselves especially if the statement and the denial of the statement are quoted together - as has been done here.

There's no real need to call people liars since the juxtaposed quotes stand for themselves and the misrepresenting poster then stands condemned - much more effectively - by his/her own words, not by the words of others.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

You can call it what you like - I'm simply pointing out that calling statements "lies" and directly, or by implication, calling people "liars" requires knowledge about the decision-making process within another poster's head, and even if one had 100% knowledge of this, using these terms rarely leads to the kind of meaningful discussion which A+A generally tries to have.

Most readers are smart enough to spot when somebody's misrepresenting themselves especially if the statement and the denial of the statement are quoted together - as has been done here.

There's no real need to call people liars since the juxtaposed quotes stand for themselves and the misrepresenting poster then stands condemned - much more effectively - by his/her own words, not by the words of others.

So you are happy as a mod to let them continue to do this?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

You can call it what you like - I'm simply pointing out that calling statements "lies" and directly, or by implication, calling people "liars" requires knowledge about the decision-making process within another poster's head, and even if one had 100% knowledge of this, using these terms rarely leads to the kind of meaningful discussion which A+A generally tries to have.

More to the point, are the posts of the poster in question contributing in any way to meaningful discussion? Or are they going to continue to be allowed to soapbox and post nonsense endlessly?

There were a couple of posters here a couple of years ago who delighted in tying threads here up in knots by making it all about them and their posting style, etc. etc. the effect of which was to prevent any useful discussion on those threads in this forum. Trolling for Jebus I used to call it... doing the lord's work by effectively silencing the good posters here.

I don't know if they got permanently banned or got fed up after a few slaps on the wrist, but moderator action was taken and they don't post on here now.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

calling statements "lies" and directly, or by implication, calling people "liars" requires knowledge about the decision-making process within another poster's head,

Does it require knowledge though? If it requires knowledge, to the point that you need co-operation of the accused to be sure, then you can't ever be sure of that knowledge as the accused could be a liar and you can't even trust their co-operation. You seem to have created a logical paradox, thereby making "liar" some kind of hypothetical label that can't ever be applied to anyone.

robindch wrote: »

and even if one had 100% knowledge of this, using these terms rarely leads to the kind of meaningful discussion which A+A generally tries to have.

If the person is a liar, then what meaningful discussion can you have with them?

robindch wrote: »

There's no real need to call people liars since the juxtaposed quotes stand for themselves and the misrepresenting poster then stands condemned - much more effectively - by his/her own words, not by the words of others.

Isn't there as much need as any other label? If we are required to review everyones entire history when interacting with them then how will we get anything done? If someone says "I follow Man Utd", do you accept that is true until some contrary evidence comes along, or do you reject the idea of labelling someone as a football fan as you can't be sure of what is in their head?
How many threads have there been about a-la-carte Catholics? People who reject their accurate label (be it atheist, agnostic, deist etc.) for a cosy one. If they are wrong then why is it ok for someone to reject their accurate label of liar because it might offend them?