Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

recedite wrote: »

Are we in general agreement then, that it is OK for EOTR to occasionally use the word "murder" in this thread, so long as it is part of a coherent argument or discussion?
ie. he does not just show up every now and again and post... ...and then leave.
Because that would obviously be soapboxing.

You make the assumption above that EOTR is capable of engaging in any kind of a coherent argument or discussion on the subject of abortion.

I have not yet seen evidence of this on any thread, site wide. Once abortion is mentioned then coherency goes out the window.

amcalester

robarmstrong wrote: »

Technically at the time, under their laws they did not commit murder.

However, they were in fact charged with murder in Nuremberg.

Intentionally killing non-combatants/civilians did fall under the above terms which have been bolded.

So whilst I stated they did not technically murder the Jews, I was referring to their laws dictating the status of Jews in their legal aspects, they were found guilty of this.

Might also be worth checking (if anyone can be bothered) how many charges related to crimes committed within German borders versus crimes committed in occupied territories.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Are we in general agreement then, that it is OK for EOTR to occasionally use the word "murder" in this thread, so long as it is part of a coherent argument or discussion?

Was there ever disagreement with that?
The issue was that never happened.

recedite wrote: »

First, you may withdraw those allegations, or else cite instances where I made such statements.

DubInMeath didn't say you made these statements, they specifically said you disagree with them, but then question why you argue for something you specifically say you disagree agree with.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

DubInMeath didn't say you made these statements, they specifically said you disagree with them, but then question why you argue for something you specifically say you disagree agree with.

Yes, you're right, I fell for the sneaky sophistry there. But the implication is still clear.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Was there ever disagreement with that?
The issue was that never happened.

What do you think the issue is?
That EOTR uses the word murder, or that EOTR denies using the word murder, or that EOTR uses the word murder inappropriately?
All these semantics.
Lets be honest, the general thrust by the complainants is to remove EOTR.
They apparently think that by removing or silencing what they call the shítstirrers (or dissenters) a nice cosy consensus can be arrived at.

recedite wrote: »

What do you think the issue is?
That EOTR uses the word murder, or that EOTR denies using the word murder, or that EOTR uses the word murder inappropriately?
All these semantics.
Lets be honest, the general thrust by the complainants is to remove EOTR.
They apparently think that by removing or silencing what they call the shítstirrers (or dissenters) a nice cosy consensus can be arrived at.

That is not what anyone wants at all, what is wanted is fair moderation applied to a user who is breaching the charter, constantly soap-boxing, making claims and never backing them up, helicopter posting etc, to up their standard of discussion.

Also, to further make a point, it speaks volumes that a particular user is not posting either in this thread or the feedback thread whatsoever, but are reading it with a fine comb.

This belongs in the feedback thread, not here.

SusieBlue

recedite wrote: »

What do you think the issue is?
That EOTR uses the word murder, or that EOTR denies using the word murder, or that EOTR uses the word murder inappropriately?
All these semantics.
Lets be honest, the general thrust by the complainants is to remove EOTR.
They apparently think that by removing or silencing what they call the shítstirrers (or dissenters) a nice cosy consensus can be arrived at.

He denied ever using the word despite about 15 posts worth of evidence to say otherwise.
Rather than acknowledge this, he then ran away from the thread and refused to address the fact that he had BLATANTLY misrepresented his position and wasn't posting in good faith.
He then returned when he thought it had blown over and been forgotten about, still without acknowledging what he had done.
It was bad manners & poor forum etiquette, and thats just one of many examples of his conduct.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

What do you think the issue is?
That EOTR uses the word murder, or that EOTR denies using the word murder, or that EOTR uses the word murder inappropriately?
All these semantics.
Lets be honest, the general thrust by the complainants is to remove EOTR.
They apparently think that by removing or silencing what they call the shítstirrers (or dissenters) a nice cosy consensus can be arrived at.

It's not semantics to call out someone who says one thing quite explicitly (many times) but then denies ever saying it so they don't have to justify it. There can be no discussion, at all, if one side cannot even accept they said what they said.

The thrust of complainants is to moderate eotr so that discussion can continue. Consensus does not have to be arrived at, even at all. We don't all have to agree with each other for a forum to work, but we all do need to engage in discussions.

recedite wrote: »

What do you think the issue is?
That EOTR uses the word murder, or that EOTR denies using the word murder, or that EOTR uses the word murder inappropriately?
All these semantics.
Lets be honest, the general thrust by the complainants is to remove EOTR.
They apparently think that by removing or silencing what they call the shítstirrers (or dissenters) a nice cosy consensus can be arrived at.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!

EOTR is known all over the site for using sneaky tactics in any debate! On one he/she said protestors should be baton charged for protesting against a concert, on another he/she said anyone who passes a picket line deserves to be punched (or words to that effect) yet then comes into the abortion thread and says all protestors have the right to peaceful protest.

This is one example of EOTR's mind changing depending on whice side of the debate he/she has chosen to side with.

He/she consistently soap boxes, refuses to answer questions, and even blatantly lies which in turn throws threads off topic.

Not one poster has asked for EOTR to be banned, all anyone is askingbis that EOTR stops dancing around the rule book and debates fairly.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

This all goes back to some contributers here wishing to ban EOTR for his occasional use of the word "murder" in the context of abortion.

It seems that the word "murder" in the context of abortion is simply too controversial since it causes posters on both sides of the discussion to become inflamed, to the detriment of discussion itself.

recedite wrote: »

Basically, its Free Speech v No-platforming.

Nope. As above, it's banned because people can't seem to discuss the term without the discussion itself becoming too heated. As soon as posters are able to discuss the term peaceably, it'll be off the list of banned words pronto. I look forward to this time, though experience suggests it's going to be some time coming.

recedite wrote: »

And now we have two posters (ohnonotgmail and king mob) threatening to leave because they can't get their own way.

It's a matter for posters alone if they decide to no-platform themselves.

SusieBlue wrote: »

He denied ever using the word despite about 15 posts worth of evidence to say otherwise.

You seem a lot more upset about the 15 posts, than about the denial.
BTW has anyone got a link to the denial?

robindch wrote: »

It seems that the word "murder" in the context of abortion is simply too controversial since it causes posters on both sides of the discussion to become inflamed, to the detriment of discussion itself. As above, it's banned because people can't seem to discuss the term without the discussion itself becoming too heated. As soon as posters are able to discuss the term peaceably, it'll be off the list of banned words pronto. I look forward to this time, though experience suggests it's going to be some time coming.It's a matter for posters alone if they decide to no-platform themselves.

So is the word actually banned now?
Its been used a lot over the last few pages.

recedite wrote: »

You seem a lot more upset about the 15 posts, than about the denial.
BTW has anyone got a link to the denial?

There's a link in this post

amcalester wrote: »

Hopefully the arguments will be more coherent that here

recedite wrote: »

So is the word actually banned now?
Its been used a lot over the last few pages.

I think talking about the word murder is fine

Using it in a post "abortion is/isn't murder" is now frowned upon.

SusieBlue

recedite wrote: »

You seem a lot more upset about the 15 posts, than about the denial.
BTW has anyone got a link to the denial?

No, the flat out denial and refusal to acknowledge same is what I take issue with.

I see another poster has already provided you with a link of the denial, along with the subsequent proof that he did in fact refer to abortion as murder on many, many occasions.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There's a link in this post

That's a link to the after hours forum, which has a completely different forum charter to here in A&A.
But regardless of that, where is EOTR's actual denial?

recedite wrote: »

That's a link to the after hours forum, which has a completely different forum charter to here in A&A.
But regardless of that, where is EOTR's actual denial?

Its the very first quote in the linked post. The forum is irrelevant to the point being made - this is a typical way that the poster behaves. He says something then denies he ever said it. Worse (IMO) he says he said something that he never said. He spent months claiming he had provided evidence for various claims when he never had - he knows its too difficult to prove he is lying outright on that one.

However in the linked post:
He claimed he never said abortion was murder - its the first quote.

The next 15 or so quotes are all him saying abortion is murder.

Im curious as to why you are like a dog with a bone about this - does the feedback thread not clearly state, over and over in fact, the issues with that particular posters posting style?

recedite wrote: »

That's a link to the after hours forum, which has a completely different forum charter to here in A&A.
But regardless of that, where is EOTR's actual denial?

EOTR's denial

. i know i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder

Its in that link, the first post in it. Do you not find it strange that EOTR was forced to stop posting in every other abortion thread due to his/her tactics?

Not banned mind you, EOTR was told not to post again until he/she could back up claims made with evidence. Not surprisingly EOTR then avoided posting in those threads. Why do you think that is?

recedite wrote: »

That's a link to the after hours forum, which has a completely different forum charter to here in A&A.
But regardless of that, where is EOTR's actual denial?

What difference does it make where the claim was made? The user in particular made the claim that he or most of the no side never claimed abortion was murder.

That is where he denied he said abortion was murder. I then provided his original post, along with at least 15 examples (there were well over 30) of times when he did in fact generalize that abortion was murder (did not differentiate the scenario, or mention anything specific).

Then EOTR posted this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108319889&postcount=8228

it was claimed i was talking generally when i had used the term murder which wasn't true, and which i denied, as i hadn't stated that it was murder in general at the time.

Tell me recedite, how many times did you see the phrase "abortion is murder" or anything similar in my 15 quoted posts of EOTR?

....... wrote: »

Its the very first quote in the linked post.

i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder

So that's it?

Talk about a storm in a teacup

It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Even if it was relevant to this forum, which it isn't.

recedite wrote: »

So that's it?

Talk about a storm in a teacup
It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Even if it was relevant to this forum, which it isn't.

Lying is perfectly reasonable to you?

Why isn't it relevant to this forum?

recedite wrote: »

Even if it was relevant to this forum, which it isn't.

Well as pointed out - its just one specific example.

I dont have the time or inclination to go over every instance of this behaviour from this poster, but is has been ongoing for more than 18 months at this stage.

Once - sure, storm in a teacup.

Every abortion thread the posters posts in - it becomes tedious and frustrating. And worst of all - it ends up shutting down debate because the debate becomes about the poster and not the discussion.

Id say he is delighted with himself now to have you posting so many times about him. This poster likes to generate heat, not light.

robarmstrong wrote: »

What difference does it make where the claim was made? The user in particular made the claim that he or most of the no side never claimed abortion was murder.

That is where he denied he said abortion was murder. I then provided his original post, along with at least 15 examples (there were well over 30) of times when he did in fact generalize that abortion was murder (did not differentiate the scenario, or mention anything specific).

Then EOTR posted this - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108319889&postcount=8228

Tell me recedite, how many times did you see the phrase "abortion is murder" or anything similar in my 15 quoted posts of EOTR?

Like I said, its not the (non-existent) denial that vexes you, its the 15 instances of EOTR using the word "murder".

I'm done here. This is a ridiculous witch hunt, and it reflects very badly on those pursuing it.

SusieBlue

recedite wrote: »

Like I said, its not the (non-existent) denial that vexes you, its the 15 instances of EOTR using the word "murder".

I'm done here. This is a ridiculous witch hunt, and it reflects very badly on those pursuing it.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you not see the first quote, where he denies ever referring to abortion as murder and then the subsequent 15 or so posts, where he actually DID in fact refer to abortion as murder?

recedite wrote: »

Like I said, its not the (non-existent) denial that vexes you, its the 15 instances of EOTR using the word "murder".

I'm done here. This is a ridiculous witch hunt, and it reflects very badly on those pursuing it.

Wrong.

The usage of the term murder isn't the issue, it's the constant repetition of saying "abortion is murder" (** or similar **) then to state you (obviously not you) never said abortion is murder in general, only to be shown 15 examples where you (again, obviously not you) did in fact make the statement in general that abortion was murder.

Recedite, you asked for a denial, you got the denial, you dismissed it as being irrelevant, now you're telling us you're "done here" and that this "witch hunt" is reflecting "very badly" on those pursuing it.

You pursued evidence of a posters denial, you got the denial and you deemed it irrelevant, I would say that is just as bad a reflection, no?

recedite wrote: »

Like I said, its not the (non-existent) denial that vexes you, its the 15 instances of EOTR using the word "murder".

I'm done here. This is a ridiculous witch hunt, and it reflects very badly on those pursuing it.

There is no witch hunt and I believe you are simply trying to flame people with this continued line of denial.

You have been shown evidence, you dismissed it as "storm in a teacup". You then denied there WAS evidence.

These tactics are familiar.

Just to be clear, the statements

i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder

and here...

i stated that abortion on demand was similar to murder in that it was premeditated and caried out for no justifiable reason, however i also stated that abortion caried out due to a threat to the mother's life most certainly was not murder.

.. DO NOT add up to a denial that EOTR ever used the word murder.

They are perfectly reasonable statements, and I would expect nothing less from anyone posting from a pro-life perspective.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Lying is perfectly reasonable to you?

Why isn't it relevant to this forum?

As pointed out, after hours has a completely different forum charter. That's the whole point of it.
Not only that, but it is considered very poor form to hound a poster on one forum with quotes taken from another forum.

However, on this forum, calling someone a liar is a very clear breach of the forum charter.