First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#1 Aug 20, 2012
I just got a Topix warning that I'll be banned for calling people child molesters. When people use the "it's true until someone proves it false" argument, I tell them that's not how things work, and follow it up by saying that if that's the case, then if I ask if the police should arrest them and put them in prison because I say they're child molesters. I can be banned for...creating an effective analogy? Ridiculous. Topix mods, get your heads out of your asses. I'm not actually saying people are child molesters. I'm showing them why their argument is faulty. I use it because it's sure to get them to realize that a claim should be proven before it's accepted, rather than accepted until it's debunked. Nobody would EVER say a molestation claim should be accepted until debunked, especially about themselves. Nobody in their right minds reads what I've written and thinks anything otherwise.

Good times.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2 Aug 20, 2012
Yes, Jimbo is sensitive about that particular accusation. Perhaps you hit a little too close to home with it.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#3 Aug 20, 2012
Who's jimbo?
i recall one instance (okay let's stay vague) where the poster was a self-admitted child-molester.
Often when people read that they add a sexual connotation, though in this case it simply cropped up in a dicussion on the bible verse:'use the rod if you love your kids.'
(how does that square with being like a kid when wanting a place in heaven, i leave up to ones imagination. Apart from it maybe being the wrong translation of the original and ignoring the mitzvot on doing no harm!)
So i think having a vehement discussion about it and using the term frequently in this discussion is allowed.
But addressing the person thereafter with the name 'childmolester', even though it ended with said person stating that he was proud to do so for it proved him a good christian that educated kids in the proper biblical fashion, is considered wrong.

So if said person protested then maybe the coin dropped.
Which can only be seen as improvement.
But i do not think anyone should get banned over the persons protest -pride hurt, or politically correct sensitivity- to a public humiliation when no personal retraction has followed of his point of view on beating even very young kids.
---

As far as using an effective analogue is concerned i do not see how anyone could be banned for that.
But keep in mind that a lot of people are not used to metaphorical reasoning.(The main problem plaguing any and all discussion with ardent believers of literalist ilk.)
But then again you can not be banned bacause people lack education, reasoning-skill and reading abilities.
They might as well close Topix if it came to that.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#4 Aug 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
I just got a Topix warning that I'll be banned for calling people child molesters. When people use the "it's true until someone proves it false" argument, I tell them that's not how things work, and follow it up by saying that if that's the case, then if I ask if the police should arrest them and put them in prison because I say they're child molesters. I can be banned for...creating an effective analogy? Ridiculous. Topix mods, get your heads out of your asses. I'm not actually saying people are child molesters. I'm showing them why their argument is faulty. I use it because it's sure to get them to realize that a claim should be proven before it's accepted, rather than accepted until it's debunked. Nobody would EVER say a molestation claim should be accepted until debunked, especially about themselves. Nobody in their right minds reads what I've written and thinks anything otherwise.
Good times.
Occam's razor: However improbable etc. the simple solution stands...untill proof to the contrary is forwarded. Or proof for a more complex solution is forwarded.
On the other hand the scientific method works in the same way.
This is what we found sofar so as long as someone does not come with a better explanation or a negation leading to new insights or a redo.
Usually in both cases it means that disproof also leads to a more constructed complex answer.
I think it would thus depend on what is compared...when you use the analogy.
Two examples of things said the stand till proven otherwise:
1. ALDH2 is attenuating the effects of diabetis and alcohol.
2. Because the bible said so.
People might construe it as a cop-out if you used it in the first case. As if the scientific approach is compared to childmolestation.
The second i would judge as being on a par.

But usually we would approach childmolestation with guilty as charged unless proven innocent.
And not innocent unless proven guilty.

And that is where the confusion with this analogy arises.
Not the use as analogy itself.
Though most people would have some trouble with it given what it implies all by itselve.

So ask the moderator how he approaches this issue.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#5 Aug 21, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Occam's razor: However improbable etc. the simple solution stands...untill proof to the contrary is forwarded. Or proof for a more complex solution is forwarded.
On the other hand the scientific method works in the same way.
This is what we found sofar so as long as someone does not come with a better explanation or a negation leading to new insights or a redo.
Usually in both cases it means that disproof also leads to a more constructed complex answer.
I think it would thus depend on what is compared...when you use the analogy.
Two examples of things said the stand till proven otherwise:
1. ALDH2 is attenuating the effects of diabetis and alcohol.
2. Because the bible said so.
People might construe it as a cop-out if you used it in the first case. As if the scientific approach is compared to childmolestation.
The second i would judge as being on a par.
But usually we would approach childmolestation with guilty as charged unless proven innocent.
And not innocent unless proven guilty.
And that is where the confusion with this analogy arises.
Not the use as analogy itself.
Though most people would have some trouble with it given what it implies all by itselve.
So ask the moderator how he approaches this issue.
But, we're not talking Occam's razor. We're talking "I claim X. Until you can prove X is false, X is true." That's not the scientific method, nor Occam. It's just people making shit up and believing it, and saying everybody else should believe it, too. Well, fine. The analogue is child molesting. Would they have everyone simply believe the claim because it's made until someone proves it false? The trouble such a system would create is self-evident once the more extreme example is used. Without an extreme example, they will equivocate and have wiggle room. No sane person would say that it's a good system when an extreme is used as an example of their system at work.

And, for the record, that is the only way I've EVER used accusations of child molestation: as an analogue for someone else's claim to be believed until proven false. If analogies are banned, or if understanding how analogies work is banned, or being an uneducated retard is the only way to maintain membership, it does draw a curious circle around the members who are allowed to stay.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#6 Aug 21, 2012
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,(1) true,(2) false,(3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ig...

I guess exposing arguments from ignorance in the most direct and effective manner possible is banworthy. Kind of eliminates the ability to debate, doesn't it? I mean, debunking arguments is what debate IS. Ban people for doing exactly what the forum exists to allow, and you end up with an echo chamber of dimwits preaching to each other. I mean, if that's their grand vision of "debate," that's fine. They should put that in the terms of service.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#7 Aug 21, 2012
Maybe you could just tell 'm to shut up because they made a failed assertion?
Since they will ramble on regardless.
In the thread creation v. evolution by ted ohio, we established that 'they' babble 5 minutes of nonsense that would take us 5 hours to refute.
Nowadays we get 5 hours of nonsense and we can't get a word in edgewise.
Arguement from sheer bloody stupid contraryness.
No need to be right on any facts, just hanging in there.
Like with shubee people just refrain from posting.
So the analogue might be considered to be an ad hominem attack or veering really close to it.

But i reached just about the same conclusion.
Being banned is rather radical.
So worth finding out what is going on.
The right to be heard should be applied, or at least insight in what would be considered the obnoxious post.
I suppose that came with the warning?
Or are you stabbing in the dark?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#8 Aug 21, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,(1) true,(2) false,(3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ig...
I guess exposing arguments from ignorance in the most direct and effective manner possible is banworthy. Kind of eliminates the ability to debate, doesn't it? I mean, debunking arguments is what debate IS. Ban people for doing exactly what the forum exists to allow, and you end up with an echo chamber of dimwits preaching to each other. I mean, if that's their grand vision of "debate," that's fine. They should put that in the terms of service.
KAB came to mind immediately.
But knowing he is an elderly man, that has a hard time keeping up with the unrelenting pace, not willing to show weakness. So he admitted that to me in the line, and than got cross. qed
But what we got was a very weird discussion indeed.
And still.
I quess you also got the brunt of that because it annoys you the most. As in a greater percentage exchange of ad hominem.
I usually focus on research and questions of my own i want to answer.
I am perfectly capable of having an amusing debate with myselve.

;) Can you give me the example post for scrutiny?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#9 Aug 21, 2012
MAAT wrote:
Maybe you could just tell 'm to shut up because they made a failed assertion?
Since they will ramble on regardless.
In the thread creation v. evolution by ted ohio, we established that 'they' babble 5 minutes of nonsense that would take us 5 hours to refute.
Nowadays we get 5 hours of nonsense and we can't get a word in edgewise.
Arguement from sheer bloody stupid contraryness.
No need to be right on any facts, just hanging in there.
Like with shubee people just refrain from posting.
So the analogue might be considered to be an ad hominem attack or veering really close to it.
But i reached just about the same conclusion.
Being banned is rather radical.
So worth finding out what is going on.
The right to be heard should be applied, or at least insight in what would be considered the obnoxious post.
I suppose that came with the warning?
Or are you stabbing in the dark?
No specific posts mentioned. It just said "Please stop calling people child molesters." And the standard "click here to acknowledge warning" thing.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#10 Aug 21, 2012
Perhaps we could accomplish the same goal(s) by "accusing" them of something less severe.

Failing to wash their hands after going to the bathroom?

Getting aroused by watching "My Little Pony" cartoons?

Driving a PT Cruiser?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#11 Aug 21, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
No specific posts mentioned. It just said "Please stop calling people child molesters." And the standard "click here to acknowledge warning" thing.
grin.
i never got one.
But went in debate when please refrain from post profanities etc. appeared. Usually when writing a word in a foreign language.

Untill i got the advise to just tell them to shut up.
Apperently that works fine to. Next time i simply try random characters.
As if one pro-forma protest is inculcated.
I've seen the most foul intended ad hominems pass including pornography.

Another approach that get's people tired soon, is when you start to debated something that is absolutely indisputable and not exactly off-topic.
It throws people's complacent attitude.
Not so much debating from ignorance but simply taking umbrage at what is usually taken for granted.

e.g.- People are not tired soon! I know lot's of people that do not.
Let's say i explain the point again.
- There are no absolutes!
a.s.o.

It's a strategy you can keep up almost interminably.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#12 Aug 21, 2012
The other day i was reading up on the very first church-fathers and inconsistent church-history.
Several are claimed to be the originator of statements on the 'crestos' or 'crestas'( Only 3 are reported, all the same.) not being cannibals and prone to orgies.
Argument from ignorance in mind.
I stated that the likely originator was the man that tortured two women, for that gave more veracity to his statements.
Things you thought you would never say!

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#13 Aug 21, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
Perhaps we could accomplish the same goal(s) by "accusing" them of something less severe.
Failing to wash their hands after going to the bathroom?
Getting aroused by watching "My Little Pony" cartoons?
Driving a PT Cruiser?
Don't Ch*ld M*l*st*rs do ALL those things?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#14 Aug 21, 2012
MAAT wrote:
The other day i was reading up on the very first church-fathers and inconsistent church-history.
Several are claimed to be the originator of statements on the 'crestos' or 'crestas'( Only 3 are reported, all the same.) not being cannibals and prone to orgies.
Argument from ignorance in mind.
I stated that the likely originator was the man that tortured two women, for that gave more veracity to his statements.
Things you thought you would never say!
In the same weird way that romans became beloved believers and good christians because the killed hundredthousands and burned books and up untill today still endorse partial genocide and disproof of humanitarian work.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#15 Aug 21, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't Ch*ld M*l*st*rs do ALL those things?
Sssst, you want us to be banned for complicity!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#16 Aug 22, 2012
MAAT wrote:
Who's jimbo?
Jim Ryan. AKA Carpet Whisperer. AKA Psycho.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#17 Aug 25, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
I just got a Topix warning that I'll be banned for calling people child molesters. When people use the "it's true until someone proves it false" argument, I tell them that's not how things work, and follow it up by saying that if that's the case, then if I ask if the police should arrest them and put them in prison because I say they're child molesters. I can be banned for...creating an effective analogy? Ridiculous. Topix mods, get your heads out of your asses. I'm not actually saying people are child molesters. I'm showing them why their argument is faulty. I use it because it's sure to get them to realize that a claim should be proven before it's accepted, rather than accepted until it's debunked. Nobody would EVER say a molestation claim should be accepted until debunked, especially about themselves. Nobody in their right minds reads what I've written and thinks anything otherwise.
Good times.
Man up, ya big baby! You've been begging for a smack down forever. I'm surprised it took them so long to say anything to you about it. The wusses.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#18 Aug 25, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes, Jimbo is sensitive about that particular accusation. Perhaps you hit a little too close to home with it.
Like that type of accusation has a place here?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#19 Aug 26, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Like that type of accusation has a place here?
Now you are doing the same as i presume the sofar anonymous poster that complained.
An analogy thrown in, get's to be generalized and then made out to be an ad hominem specific.
To state the superflous: it was never in the first place.

Everyone else understands it is too stupid to even read offence in the analogy. Let alone take personal umbrage.

So it is the warning, bypassing what i would call normal logical processing, that get's LG in a state.

On a day to day basis we can read non-analogues statements such as sin and disobedience causing hurricanes. Or that beating babies is good xian behaviour. So we are not exactly dealing with compos mentis individuals.

Carrie Scoggins

United States

#20 Sep 1, 2012
I had my name ruined being accused of being the victim, violated victims rights legislation, yet since perp was in law enforcement they ruined my name discrediting me the victim for him!
facebook Carrie Scoggins, I believe perp had the delete Carrie Scoggins Ruined name cite as it exposed them!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Regolith Based Li... 67,287
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 15 min King Carrot 925
What does the theory of evolution state? 33 min pshun2404 173
Curious dilemma about DNA 59 min pshun2404 374
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 28,677
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Dogen 221,264
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 3,537
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr wondering 160,962
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 19 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web