Re: The problem with all these "Debates".

On Nov 5, 5:46 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:50 pm, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 3, 5:25 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 2, 7:44 pm, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Where did I say that would get it done???

The point of the sarcasm was that you have no way to "get it done."

So there is no way, _ever_ to get it done?

If you have one trot it out.  You can never say never, but no one has
figured out a way at this time.


Well, then I guess I don't have one yet. Furthermore, I'm not sure if
it is all
that pressing a thing to develop.





SNIP:

Except for Sean they don't seem to post here, and Sean is some small
fish with his own agenda.  Allwe usually get here are the victims of
the political scam artists.  Theproblemis that once they find out
how they have been had, a lot of them accept the dishonesty and go
with it rather than back off and wait for an honest effort.

And that's when the "victim" starts to become "blameworthy", right --
because
now it becomes deliberate?

"Blameworthy?"   That is just what they do.  How people respond to
that varies.

So then some might "blame" and others might not?

A lot of us just feel sorry for most of them.


Ah.



<snip>

Because _I_ am not trying to become a moderator here. And what
proposition?
(I might have forgot, this discussion is getting long) I was _asking_
about _what
happens_ _in those cases_.

I basically give up on them.  Others keep ragging on them.  That
doesn't make them any less incompetent or dishonest.

I didn't say it made them less incompetent, only they can remedy
that. I just don't like it seen treated the same way as _deliberate_
refusals.

Well, if you have a way to figure out if they are not deliberate
refusals you probably could decrease the frequency of what you don't
like.


See -- and that's the rub. There is no way to actually know the
intention,
especially over the Internet. That is one of my reasons why I take the
viewpoint I do.

The plain and simple fact is that the anti-science creationists hold
the short end of the stick.  They have such a short piece that they
might as well not even think of it as a stick.  It isn't that all the
people that think like them are incompetent and/or dishonest, but that
is the only type that is willing to carry the stick once they no
longer have ignorance as an excuse.  You can probably find about the
same frequency of such types among any group, atheists would be an
example.  I am certain that there are a lot of athiests just as basket
case as the anti-science creationists, but there is little selection
for them in this group.  We just do not notice them as much because
they are far from a majority.  You have to realize that there has been
a severe selection for the anti-science creationist posters.  The only
ones that you have left that post for a long period of time are the
guys willing to lie about reality or the ones too incompetent to
understand that they are lying.





<snip>

So then, like it or not, the forum can really only be kept open.

Just go to some place like uncommon descent and read it for a while to
see what happens if you letthesetypes have their way.  As bad as you
think it is around here, it could be much worse.  You don't see the
primary ID scam artists posting here for the simple reason thatthese
guys knew that they didn't have jack around a decade ago.  The
antiscience creationists can heap abuse on me.  Guys like NashT even
throw in some racial slurs, but it doesn't keep me from posting for
the simple reason that I usually know what I am talking about and I
can defend my position.  There was even some degenerate that tried
intimidation tactics bringing up my bosses name and where I worked.
It turned out that I wasn't the only one that he tried that junk on.
You can't make this junk up.  It is like a bad movie.  The ID perps
know that they have nothing that they can defend.  If they had a valid
argument you would see hordes of them here beating us over the heads
with it.  Insteadallyou get is what you see.

The point is _not_ whose argument is right, the point is that
_neither_ should
resort to the type of ill tactics that I see resorted to. Heck, if I
could "moderate"
a forum, I would go and stamp out the **creationist**'s bringing up of
the boss's name
and workplace stuff! I'd just clip -- censor it right out! But of
course my plan here
is not to become a moderator, I'm just saying, as an example to
illustrate where I'm
coming from.

You have faulty reasoning.  There are not two equal sides to this
issue.  There hasn't been for several hundred years.  All you have on
one side (that continue to post) are the incompetent and dishonest.
You are not going to change that by forcing people to be nice to them,
and you will just lend credence to their arguments, most of which are
just bogus and dishonest.


That's why I'd _rebut_ the arguments. To me, it's logic and reason
that
ultimately determine the credibility of an argument. A rebutted
argument
is discredited, period. (Unless of course there was a problem with the
rebuttal.) It has ZERO credibility.

And throwing insults because of someone's incompetence, which they
may not be able to help, I'm even more against. I'm most against
insulting
people for things that are NOT willful: it should NEVER be done.

Also, "Insults" = stuff like "you're a stupid worthless little ass".
Or "go
suck a *** you worthless moron". These are the type of things I avoid
the
most of all.





At uncommon descent, you will probably have to keep on the ball to see
the posts that get deleted for no apparent reason except that they
don't tout the party line.  That might be more uncommon than it used
to be simply because so many posters have been banned throughout the
years.  Just try to participate for a while.  Be as polite as you can
and tell it like it is and see how long you last.  Good luck.

Then I'll probably just toss in the towel when they refuse to concede
or they give out
an insult to me. When the first person gives out an insult or other
form of morally
problematic attack (like some of the other tactics you've mentioned),
it's usually a sign
they've run out of arguments (case has been defeated) and so have
"lost" the debate.
So if the horrible creationist guy finally throws one, I know it's
over. He's been defeated.

You haven't read this group for any length of time.  A lot ofthese
guys started by throwing out insults.  They come in thinking that you
are stupid, evil and satan spawned before you even post a single word
in response to them.


Oh, so if they didn't throw insults at you, you wouldn't start
throwing them?

.

Loading