A&A Feedback

smacl wrote: »

The assertion that "grass is green" is a statement that predominantly holds true in the objective sense. That there may be exceptions, such as your species of blue grass, or that the neighbour's cat may have pissed on my lawn causing it to yellow somewhat, do not make this false. If I'm colour blind, or entirely blind for that matter, and I can't personally perceive that the grass is green this does not change the colour of the grass. The grass still reflects white light at a wavelength of 560–520 nm and appears green to those who are not visually impaired.

It doesn’t though, which is my point. There was nothing indicating an attempt to be objective in robarmstrong’s statement. Without knowing what grass he was referring to, or even knowing if what he was referring to is grass (I’ll explain that in a minute, but you probably already know where I’m going ), we simply have no way of being able to determine whether or not he is saying is acceptable as fact. That’s the whole point of scientific inquiry that there are checks and balances in place and an agreement or consensus on a defined set of standards so that when an individual proposes that grass is green, we’re all at least on the same page of an archaic medium of communication.

robarmstrong chose to dismiss my post out of hand as they have every right to do IMO, I thought that was fair enough. But when I read their reasoning was based upon their understanding of science, I thought to myself it’s probably a good thing for both of us that robarmstrong chose not to pursue a line of inquiry in order to seek clarity on the matter, as it would only have led to both of us becoming more frustrated and likely a Moderator having to intervene.

I wanted to make it clear to robarmstrong, without using unparliamentary language, that I wasn’t trying to break their balls (and I hope it’s clear I am speaking metaphorically), I was trying to make the point that what may well be commonly regarded as both a simplistic statement and a fact in their opinion, is in actual fact, a far more complex proposition.

I hadn’t intended to involve myself in this thread because I believe the direction it’s taking is leading to the Moderators fashioning a rod for their own backs due to what will invariably be further attempts by various groups of posters to engage in anything from urination extraction to rules lawyering. However when I read robarmstrong’s post, the fact that I had earlier in the day purchased artificial grass in Lidl or Aldi (I can never determine which, they both use the colours blue and yellow in their logo, and due to other factors which would take too long to explain, I had to call my son to ask him where I was so that I could call a taxi and give them a more accurate approximation of my location than I could when Siri and Google Assistant were about as helpful as a chocolate teapot!) inspired me to suggest that robarmstrong’s statement in and of itself did not even approach a fact without first achieving consensus, and we simply didn’t have enough data to make any sort of a determination either way from the simple statement that grass is green.

My neighbours cats urine is unlikely to have any effect on the chemical composition of my artificial grass which would affect the perception of it’s colour, unless my neighbour were Shrodinger, in which case I would prefer that he would keep his radioactive poisonous cat within the bounds of his own property at least, and I wouldn’t want to be downwind of it either!

I think the moderators of this forum are attempting to construct the charter in a largely rule based manner such that it is free from their own subjective bias, which in my opinion, is commendable. My personal opinion is that in this forum we should able to support our arguments with broadly objective truths from reputable sources, which do not incidentally include the bible or koran. When we talk about laws, standards of decency and basic human rights, they are those of our society and not the dictates of a fading church.

I agree with much of what you’re saying there. I can see where you’re coming from in observing that the Moderators are attempting to construct the Charter in a rules based manner such that it’s free from their own subjective bias. I agree it’s commendable, I’m just not sure it can be achieved with the small number of Moderators sharing the same perspectives that there are, as a broad consensus while it is easily achievable regardless of the number of Moderators there are, the fact that they are all of the same opinion is what I call a subjective collective who perceive themselves to be objective. I don’t think the Moderators should be objective in the form they wish the forum to take, not that I’m suggesting the forum should become regarded as a support group for those experiencing and recovering from the ill effects of religious indoctrination and/or exposure to religion, but rather that they shouldn’t be concerned with allowing a small minority of posters free reign in the interests of light touch moderation and the expectation that posters of polar opposite perspectives should reach a consensus any time soon based upon the presumption that they are adults in possession of the faculty of reason. I think that small minority of posters should be nuked from the forum without prejudice, to be perfectly honest. I have no issue with disruptive influencers as long as they remain respectful and their intent is determined to be coming from a place of inquiry with the intent to further understanding between people. If however their intent is determined to be malignant, then as we’ve discussed in another thread, I would view it as entirely justifiable on the part of the Moderators to suggest that the malignant influence PFO from the forum. On the part of posters, I would simply suggest that they learn to ignore the malignant influence and deprive it of any legitimacy by entertaining it. I understand that at times I myself may be viewed as a malignant influence but I can only assure the Moderators at least that has never and will never be my intention.

On to your point about when we (and I assume you mean we as participants in conversation) talk about laws, standards of decency and basic human rights as they apply to a society, that they are those of our society and not those of a fading Church, I would suggest that the presence of the Vatican and it’s special status as an observer State of the UN is sufficient evidence to suggest that your beliefs may require further examination, as the fading Church in spite of it’s perceived capacity as an impotent observer, has demonstrated it’s capacity to influence the decisions made by political representatives on numerous occasions, and indeed the outcomes. While they undoubtedly had no power in the decision to include references to religion in the UNDHR, they also undoubtedly were very influential in it’s inclusion by the people responsible for the decision to include such references to religion and human rights. The reason I make that point is because I do not regard society as one homogeneous group all sharing the same beliefs, but rather I view society as sects of smaller individual groups sharing common beliefs within their own groups about other people who may or may not also share their perceptions, perspectives, beliefs, ideologies and values with respect to the direction in which they wish to steer the progress of a society. Given that there is broader consensus among the fading Church regarding their vision of the future of society than there is among people who are not within the confines of the fading Church, I would suggest that it would be remiss of anyone to assume that broad consensus is always the correct perspective from which to view anything, and worse again if they claim that they are attempting to demonstrate that they are being objective. One individual on their own is simply incapable of being objective. A group of individuals, with different perspectives, is at least a lot closer to being objective in any decision making process.

I'd sincerely suggest to those* wishing to base their argument on the rule of God, or an anachronistic morality derived from 2,000 year old Middle Eastern textbook, that the grass might appear greener on the other side of the fence. As for the ruling that we cannot use words such as 'bigoted' when referring to a post that claims homosexuality is a sin and all homosexuals will go to hell unless they stop being homosexuals, I'll leave it to the mods. For my part, if I can use robust yet entirely accurate language in response to what I consider to be hateful and intentionally incendiary posts, I, and I guess many others, will simply stop responding entirely. As mods though, you might ask yourself is this the net result that you're hoping to achieve.

(* not directed at you OEJ, more a reference the the peak LGBT nonsense thread)

And for what it’s worth, again I’d completely agree with you. I don’t think this is the appropriate forum for that sort of thing. As someone who enjoyed playing tonsil tennis with the boys during my years of well spent youth, in my naivety I was unaware that this behaviour was frowned upon by wider society as I had never been exposed to anything remotely regarding sex and sexuality in childhood. It just wasn’t talked about, so I had no way of being able to determine whether or not my behaviour was inappropriate or otherwise. Even today I might be tempted to engage if it were Tom Ellis were making the invitation (to coin a phrase from another fictional reality, resistance may well be fruitful, if he was into that sort of thing ). To be perfectly honest, I could make the argument either way in support of homosexuality, regardless of whether the argument were from the perspective of religion, or another perspective. The argument from a religious perspective which objects to homosexuality (as it is only a minority of religions which do, many more religions incorporate homosexuality into their world view) would immediately come a cropper if it were an attempt to appeal to nature for example. But the question I have to ask myself in the situation presented with the existence of the nonsense thread, is the same question robarmstrong was likely asking themselves upon reading my post - do I really want to bother legitimising, let alone entertaining that sort of nonsense? My immediate answer is no, no I do not. I see absolutely no reason why anyone should have to offer legitimacy to such nonsense and I see no reason why they should have to attempt to justify their opinion to anyone who is in my opinion at least, clearly endeavouring to wind people up. Their argument doesn’t even get off the ground as far as I’m concerned because it is predicated upon the assumption that posters here are answerable to the poster first of all, and secondly that any posters here share in the belief that someone should have the right to freedom of expression without limitations. Nobody has that right, so the implication of the “gotchaz all” is rendered impotent as far as I’m concerned. Other people will undoubtedly differ in their perspective and point of view, which is unfortunate to observe IMO, but I would never wish to restrict their freedom to do so unless the conversation was simply going nowhere and there appeared to be no attempt by the people involved to reach a consensus.

Incendiary posts like the thread title and opening post in that thread are a perfect example of what I personally believe should be nuked without prejudice while being entirely justified in informing the poster in as direct and concise a manner as necessary (without regard to the restriction of being unable to use unparliamentary language), that their opinions are not welcome in this forum.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't want a charter that says "we don't talk about X, Y or Z". That would make the forum far more boring, give us the appearance of being close-minded or afraid of those topics and, frankly, would be a win for those who have tried to disrupt this forum.

Sounds good to me, Mark.

IMHO moderators should have a reasonable amount of discretion on the question of "is this reported post contributing positively to discussion, or not." If you post something regarded as somewhat controversial, be prepared to defend that point of view. If you can't be bothered, then fine, but don't pop up again later to post the same thing as if you haven't been dismissed and/or ignored on previous occasions.

Dissenting views are essentilal, the last thing we want is an echo chamber.

The appointment of the two new mods is welcome and appreciated, they are excellent posters and fully deserving of the status they’ve been bestowed with.

There still lies an inconsistency in moderation from a particular moderator which is not pertaining to the above additions to the team that requires addressing.

pro-life is what we are.
if we were anti-choice then we would be across the board on everything. there may be some like that but plenty of us are not.
pro-life is the accurate term.
this is a complaint over nothing tbh.

oscarBravo wrote: »

...apart from all those pro-death penalty "pro-lifers" out there.

That aside, as much as I dislike the "pro-life" label, it is useful to have agreed and non-antagonistic descriptions for the sides of a debate, if that debate is to be a civil one.

well i disagree with the death penalty and believe people are wrong and incorrect to support it. even if they may call themselves pro-life they are wrong.

I suppose you're right smacl.

Still makes me a little bit sick in my mouth typing "pro-life" though.