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
Comments
-
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »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?
Well, I wouldn't call them liars, just in denial
Different entirely from someone stating they never said X when posts where they said X are easily found.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.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Well, I wouldn't call them liars, just in denial
Different entirely from someone stating they never said X when posts where they said X are easily found.
My point there wasn't that a-la-carte catholics are liars, just that in this forum many have made the point that people should use the appropriate label for their actions and beliefs. If it goes for a-la-carte catholics, who should self-label as christian/deist/atheist or whatever is accurate regardless of that makes them happy, then it should equally go for someone who is lying, regardless of wether that makes them happy.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Isn't trolling also against the rules of the forums? Yet isn't.... like lying..... trolling also a presumption to know the mind and intention of the person being infracted for it? After all trolling is defined as things like DELIBERATELY posting emotional or inflammatory messages in order to incite an emotional (usually angry) response from the targets. How can we infract anyone for trolling when to do so ALSO means we have to know their mind and intentions?
It would seem to me that what is being proposed here would not only remove many words like "liar" and "honest" from the lexicon of words we can meaningfully use, but it would make quite a lot of moderator action untenable under many of the rules.
What certainly does make constructive discussion impossible is not just the lying however. A user who ignores openly (and later claims to have replied to posts that were demonstrably not replied to) posts and points and comments directed at them........ waits some days........ and then jumps in to reply to posts and comments directed at someone else.......... is precluding constructive discussion from the outset by not actually engaging in any.
Rather than constructive discussion, what the user is creating is a form of guerrilla warfare discourse where they refuse to engage upfront, but occasionally pop up out of the swamp to take pot shots before disappearing again and running away. And to compound this the "pot shots" appear to mainly consist of claims to having had rebutted arguments before that they do not appear to have actually rebutted. And then running away when asked to either A) link to where they actually did that or
present the arguments anew.
I am all ears to have it explained to me how constructive discussion is to be attained therefore with someone who A) Claims to have said things no one can find them having said Claims NOT to have said things people can post multiple examples of them having said C) runs away from any attempt to discuss anything with them D) Jumps in to take, and then retreat from, pot shots at discussions others people are having. 0 -
-
-
-
-
A good point and the same rule generally applies. Historically, the line I've stuck to is that regular posters should avoid making accusations of trollery against other posters, but a moderator can say that certain posts are tantamount to trolling, or declare some post equivalent to trolling for the purposes of admin action, and take whatever action is deemed necessary to deal with it (eg, see here, here and here).nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Isn't trolling also against the rules of the forums? Yet isn't.... like lying..... trolling also a presumption to know the mind and intention of the person being infracted for it?
The original note is here and does not instruct anybody to do anything. On the contrary, it points out that use of the word "lie" implies a knowledge of a poster's intentions which no other poster could have and cannot therefore be sustained. The post also provides a different word which can be used in much the same situations while keeping the temperature down. FWIW, history suggests that once people start introducing accusations of dishonesty to a discussion, the discussion usually goes off the rails quite quickly.You gave an instruction that people were not to call out lying, rather than address the issues the poster is causing.
Typically here in A+A, the mods don't micromanage debates - that means that if somebody makes some evidential claim which they then fail to backup, it's up to the person actively engaged in the discussion to point that out and to hold them to it.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am all ears to have it explained to me how constructive discussion is to be attained therefore with someone who A) Claims to have said things no one can find them having said Claims NOT to have said things people can post multiple examples of them having said C) runs away from any attempt to discuss anything with them D) Jumps in to take, and then retreat from, pot shots at discussions others people are having.
The mods have on rare occasions - and in response to a carefully reported post (involving a link to a claim by poster A, a link to a subsequent request for evidence by poster B, a link to some subsequent avoiding tactics by poster A) - taken to task posters who are reluctant or unable to provide evidence for some claim they've made. Mods don't do this with every post and every poster without a report as the mod would be left micromanaging discussions and that's not what this forum is for, nor what the mods want to do. However, if somebody can make a proper report in the suggested format, then yes, it'll be actioned within the terms of the forum charter. There are other reasons why moderators avoid micromanaging discussions which relate to the use and the abuse of the dispute resolution procedure.
As an aside, it might be useful to add something to the charter in relation to this kind of behaviour as troll-like behaviour certainly has taken place over the years from a number of posters and, IMHO, it's not covered adequately in the existing charter.0 -
-
Well you can "say" it but according to you you can not SAY it. As in you have no way, without knowing the mind of any user, to indict them of trolling for the same reasons you declare no one here can call someone out for lying.
I however do not think language works that way in demanding 100% accuracy and knowledge. If it walks, looks and quacks like a duck then I will call it a duck.
This 100% knowledge requirement before using a label is as unworkable as it is ridiculous. I can not call anyone or anything by any label as I do not have 100% knowledge, and never can, that the label fits. I can not call a liar a liar, a man a man, a dog a dog, a car a car, a lake a lake or anything else as I have not 100% knowledge that the label is accurate at any time. And I am certainly not likely to ask a person for a peek into their underwear, or their blood work, to ascertain if they are genetically or genitalia-ly one sex or the other before I point at someone and say "him/her over there".
Hell the "liar" in question can not even be called by his username really as we have no idea it is even the same person every time. It could in fact be 30 different people that are logging in in shift work under the one user name. A situation which would certainly be congruent with the user never seeming to remember what they said, did not say, or is in the process of talking to at any given time.
Nah I never require 100% knowledge before using a label in any other situation. I do not think therefore I am likely to require it of myself in one random situation. Language, as I said, simply does not work that way. Nor, thankfully, should it.
FWIW though, history suggests that once people start introducing dishonesty to a discussion, the discussion usually goes off the rails quite quickly.
But if the current situation and conversation is highlighting to you possible reforms and improvements to the charter, then I can certainly feel that the point of my original post above has been achieved.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I am replying to this separately as I think there is potentially some utility in separating the off thread topic part of my reply from the on topic part. But it is relevant to what you just said which I will make clear WHILE pushing the thread back on topic. Hopefully this is helpful in a few ways therefore! As you say in the post just above this one..... some actual links might help. I will work on that. But as you say yourself.... it will not be quick. But my approach will be to scroll back through all the posts from myself on this thread where I replied to that user. As it will anchor the search area quite well.The mods have on rare occasions - and in response to a carefully reported post (involving a link to a claim by poster A, a link to a subsequent request for evidence by poster B, a link to some subsequent avoiding tactics by poster A) - taken to task posters who are reluctant or unable to provide evidence for some claim they've made.
The crux of my pro choice position comes down to my sentience based approach to ethics and morality. There are pro choice people who adamantly voted "yes" in the referendum who agree with my pro-choice position but massively disagree with my basis for it.
Wanting a "yes" vote however they did not want to argue against me at the time. Maybe now we have the win in the referendum, they might be more inclined to.
However few people offered a rebuttal to my position and EOTR is an example of one who asserted one, but ran away when asked to back it up. EOTR then on multiple occasions later dodged that position again. Then started to later claim to have actually addressed it. Refusing however to A) Explain what was in the content of that or link to where it actually happened. So I think this fits perfectly with what you wrote above about the three steps calling attention to such dodging should take in that A) Claims were made MULTIPLE requests in MULTIPLE posts were made to support that claim and C) by either ignoring it, or claiming without evidence or citation to have already addressed it, the user has engaged in ongoing "subsequent avoiding tactics".
The crux of the users rebuttal to my sentience based position is simple (simplistic actually). It is the assertion that a non-sentient entity, that has in no way developed sentience, but has the potential to has the right to become sentient. And due to that we have no right to intentionally prevent it, such as through abortion, from occurring.
The user is 100% right. If a non sentient entity has the right to become sentient, then my position on abortion is 100% wrong and needs to be reversed immediately. Which I would do without apology, embarrassment, hesitation or reservation.
The problem is the user in question has not defended or supported the claim. Merely asserted it. And I have requested MULTIPLE times that the user do so. Either by directly asking them to OR by building analogies and thought experiments which I have asked them direct questions about.
The users response to this has been one of the following:
1) Entirely ignore the posts with the direct or indirect questions about the assertion.
2) Claim to have already answered it / to already have supported the assertion with reason and argument
3) Screech "irrelevant" at any thought experiment or analogy used to attempt to glean further discourse on the matter.
The users response to this has NOT been one of the following:
1) Actually provide an answer to requests for clarification or clarity.
2) Provide a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support the outright and unfounded assertion that an entity with the potential to become a sentient agent, despite not in ANY way currently being one, has the right to become one.
As such my conclusion at this time is:
1) My position is sound that there is no reason at this time to afford a 10 week old fetus such a right
2) That the user fits PERFECTLY with your algorithm above of having made a claim, been requested to support that claim, engaged in multiple and ongoing avoidance tactics of that claim.
My entire conclusion on the abortion debate, which people on the no side and some on the yes side take issue with but currently without any foundation I am aware of, is that there is no basis to afford rights, or moral and ethical concern, to an entity that is not sentient, has never been sentient, and is a significant period of time away from ever potentially being sentient. And there is even LESS reason to afford it such things to the detriment of the rights, freedoms, well being and choices of the only actual sentient agent in the equation. The pregnant woman.
And "oooo look its tongue flaps when you play it music and that makes me and a couple of people think it looks like it is trying to speak" is certainly not such a reason.0 -
-
-
Except the ones that have, including me just above. And including the people who quoted the user claiming not to have called abortion murder, and then quoting multiple places where the user in fact did. To which the user then REPEATED the claim never to have done so and AVOIDED multiple and many posts asking for clarification on whether the user CURRENTLY thinks it is or not.
I mean if that is not pointing out the duck and its quacking and waddling, I honestly do not know what is.
But sure I guess we do not know 100% if they did it, it might be all in our mind. Or your mind. In fact we do not k now 100% that any mind except yours exists at all. Everything outside your consciousness, including the users of this forum could be a product solely of your mind. Or in fact, a contrived show populated by AI because the rest of society wanted to give you a job to do so in a kind of Truman Style Fashion they constructed an AI forum of nobodies and asked you to moderate it.
And sure as the theists around here tell us all the time, we can not prove 100% god does not exist. Guess the burden of proof is on us to prove it doesn't exist, and we should all be theists now
EDIT: There are multiple precedents from other areas of the forum with the user in question however. Moderators on other areas of the forum noticed that many users were demanding an answer to a particular question and the user in question was refusing to do so. So in each case the moderator (I can find the post where the mod did it if you want me to, might take some time) realised the only way to allow meaningful conversation to continue, and the thread not to descend into the very mess we have here........... he had to give the user in question a simple choice. Either address the question or do not post on the thread again.
The user, acknowledging I guess that they could not back up their position, chose of their own volition to simply not post on the thread again.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement