Banned from Christianity Forum

nesf

Jakkass wrote:

Thats all well and good, but surely if this kind of scenario occurred on other non-religious forums, surely it would be acceptable to ban? In fairness he created another thread when it was locked for going off topic, and he continued in asking a sarcastic question that was intended to insult the moderator for his moderating.

Debatable, it would depend on the forum and the moderator in question to be honest. It also depends on the reasons why the original thread was locked, and whether it was locked for good reasons and whether further discussion was forbidden.

Really it's just another storm in a teacup and while I think the ban was a tad harsh, I also think it was fair and that Tim can't really complain too much about it. He must have known that he was going to get a warning or a ban for what he did and it was up to the moderator's discretion which one would apply.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

If you read the thread which started the fuss we were talking about the reformation and one poster PDN, said that it helped progress Science. He was adamant about this saying that the Steam Engine would never have been invented in India. I was challenging this opinion and he just told me I need to read my books more attentively. It's just ridiculous that someone can say that to me and I can't call it "pathetic". It would interesting to see what would have happened if we were in the history forum and it was been moderated by people without religious bias.
A lot of people read and use boards.ie as an educational website, I can't believe someone can rant on slagging off the eastern world as effectively being inferior and the reformed churchs as a source of scientific enlightment and be effectively immune from being challenged from an opposing view. It's a very insular, protective way of discussing things.

It's a serious issue for boards.ie how serious does it consider debate and does it have a responsibility for impartiality.

Actually, Tim, that is a gross misrepresentation of the thread in question. I shared my opinion (familiar to anyone who has read Max Weber) that scientific method, as we know it, developed because the Reformation opened the door to a society where people could question and experiment rather than simply accepting what a monolithic Church/State structure told them to think. I also shared my opinion, which you are entitled to disagree with, that India, left to itself, would have developed along different paths and would never have invented either the steam engine or Auschwitz.

It is incorrect to say

he just told me I need to read my books more attentively.

You challenged my thesis (as is your right). I actually responded to your challenge by citing an eminent historian (not a Christian) who specialises in applying evolutionary theory to the history of historical development. You failed to address this at all, but instead advised me to read a certain book (by Jared Diamond) and included a link to Amazon. I responded that I had already read the book, but advised you to read it more carefully since you appeared to have misunderstood a major strand of the book's thesis. I'm sorry you find that patronising, but I fail to see anything there that is not part and parcel of any polite intellectual debate.

I found his remark a bit patronizing (and his insinuations about Eastern culture a tad arrogant) so I told him his last argument was pathetic.

Sorry, that is untrue. After the exchange about Eastern culture you posted four more times without calling my argument pathetic. Although you did accuse me of having "a ranting style".

Then, seeing that you were getting a bit steamed up, I posted this:

I think one of our failures to understand each other, Tim, is that you seem to be determined to invest a lot of time and effort to prove that my opinion is wrong and your's is right. I, on the other hand, am simply defending my hypothesis as a reasonable explanation, albeit one which has considerable support among historians.

Your calm and logical response to this "rant" of mine was:

Oh I see now, it's all my fault. What a pathetic argument. I am one of the few people who frequents these forums and will admit to being wrong. Your analysis is ferociously biased. I admit I don't know much about Eastern history or Culture. I don't speak any of their languages for example, so I would be slow to judge them. You seem not to have this reluctance. I think you are judging them to make yourself feel better about yourself and your own culture. That's the impression I get.

Then a mod stepped in, objected to the word 'pathetic' and, as they say, the rest is all history.

Rather a squalid little storm in a tea cup, in my opinion, but I do so dislike being misrepresented. Just accept that the mods don't like that particular word and move on. It's the same rules for us all.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Actually, Tim, that is a gross misrepresentation of the thread in question. I shared my opinion (familiar to anyone who has read Max Weber) that scientific method, as we know it, developed because the Reformation opened the door to a society where people could question and experiment rather than simply accepting what a monolithic Church/State structure told them to think. I also shared my opinion, which you are entitled to disagree with, that India, left to itself, would have developed along different paths and would never have invented either the steam engine or Auschwitz.

It is incorrect to say You challenged my thesis (as is your right). I actually responded to your challenge by citing an eminent historian (not a Christian) who specialises in applying evolutionary theory to the history of historical development. You failed to address this at all, but instead advised me to read a certain book (by Jared Diamond) and included a link to Amazon. I responded that I had already read the book, but advised you to read it more carefully since you appeared to have misunderstood a major strand of the book's thesis. I'm sorry you find that patronising, but I fail to see anything there that is not part and parcel of any polite intellectual debate.


Sorry, that is untrue. After the exchange about Eastern culture you posted four more times without calling my argument pathetic. Although you did accuse me of having "a ranting style".

Then, seeing that you were getting a bit steamed up, I posted this:


Your calm and logical response to this "rant" of mine was:


Then a mod stepped in, objected to the word 'pathetic' and, as they say, the rest is all history.

Rather a squalid little storm in a tea cup, in my opinion, but I do so dislike being misrepresented. Just accept that the mods don't like that particular word and move on. It's the same rules for us all.

I don't see any misrepresentation. You made a serious of personal attacks:
1. I should a book more carefully
2. You made this derogatory remark:
"It appears as if Tim and I are equally bad when it comes to rules of formal logic."
3. this one: ". I can appreciate that, to a layperson unfamiliar with Diamond and the ongoing debate on his work,"
and
4. then the one you just quoted.

It was cumulation of your derogatory remarks, the final was the straw the camels back, but suggesting I read a book more carefully was the most pathetic. It was like a school teach talking to a teenage - just pathetic.
Nothing I couldn't deal with, but it was unfair of a mod not allow me freely defend myself.
Thankfully this is 2007 and it's only an internet forum and I am not getting burnt at the stake!

Boston

Your think thats a serious personal attack. Why don't you go read this It's only 9.95 at amazon.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

He posted a childish thread criticising BrianCalgary for locking the original one for going off topic. That is the reason why he was banned, not because of the debate.

Incorrect, I didn't even mention Brian's name in that thread: Read it again!

Hi,
I was just wondering in Christianity, does the concept of a pathetic argument exist?
If it does exist, and you are asked what you think of such an argument, should you be truthful and say it's pathetic or should you lie?

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

2. You made this derogatory remark:
"It appears as if Tim and I are equally bad when it comes to rules of formal logic."

Honestly, I cannot see how you could consider that derogatory.

Hagar

And yea verily I say unto thee "get down from thine Cross" and give unto us a fúcking break.

Tim Robbins

Boston wrote:

Your think thats a serious personal attack. Why don't you go read this It's only 9.95 at amazon.

Ah come one away with the sarcasm!
I don't deny PDN his right to say what he said, what I am absolutely livid about is my lack of right to refer to one his negative personal arguments about me as pathetic.
It's completly unfair for the Mod's to overlook any provactive remark by PDN (presumably because he is Christian with a bias to the reformation) and then to have a go at me for using a descriptive adjective that would perfectly acceptable in any debate or leaving cert paper. It's has been sued over 300 times on boards.ie for flips sake, and guess who gets warned for using it.
Ridiculous! Boston the irony is it is they who should be reading that book.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

Honestly, I cannot see how you could consider that derogatory.

It's not something to get upset about, it's not something I would care about but there's context here: his innocuous implication that I am quite bad at logic is ignored but my usage of the word "pathetic" ends up getting me banned.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's not something to get upset about, it's not something I would care about but there's context here: his innocuous implication that I am quite bad at logic is ignored but my usage of the word "pathetic" ends up getting me banned.

Honestly, you're not that good at logic. Your very first post in that thread was completely incorrect and showed that you didn't understand the fundamental difference between someone arguing from analogy and making an analogy. You also seem to think that it's correct to apply a mix of inductive and deductive logical principles to non-argument statements which is also fallacious.

Shall I go on or do you just want me to recommend a few good logical primers for you to read?

Boston

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ah come one away with the sarcasm!
I don't deny PDN his right to say what he said, what I am absolutely livid about is my lack of right to refer to one his negative personal arguments about me as pathetic.
It's completly unfair for the Mod's to overlook any provactive remark by PDN (presumably because he is Christian with a bias to the reformation) and then to have a go at me for using a descriptive adjective that would perfectly acceptable in any debate or leaving cert paper. It's has been sued over 300 times on boards.ie for flips sake, and guess who gets warned for using it.
Ridiculous! Boston the irony is it is they who should be reading that book.

There's a certain level of "provaction" you have to swallow to be able to use the internet to discuss things. In fact there's a certain amount you have to take in real life as well. You can't go around calling people pathetic, it's an escalation. And that is what you did. I think the comment would have earned you a ban from politics or humanities just as quickly.

Boston

nesf wrote:

Honestly, you're not that good at logic. Your very first post in that thread was completely incorrect and showed that you didn't understand the fundamental difference between someone arguing from analogy and making an analogy. You also seem to think that it's correct to apply a mix of inductive and deductive logical principles to non-argument statements which is also fallacious.

I always smile when someone uses knowledge to own someone else.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

Honestly, you're not that good at logic. Your very first post in that thread was completely incorrect and showed that you didn't understand the fundamental difference between someone arguing from analogy and making an analogy.

The Fine Gael / don't analogy was part of his argument and was fallacious as far as I was concerned. Elaborate why you think it was not.

You also seem to think that it's correct to apply a mix of inductive and deductive logical principles to non-argument statements which is also fallacious.

?

Shall I go on or do you just want me to recommend a few good logical primers for you to read?

I have read bits and pieces already, let's hear your recommendations.

DublinWriter

Tim,

I think what this all really hinges on is the reason for the Christianity Forum - is it a forum to discuss Christianity or promote Christianity.

If the latter is the case then I would have said you were banned rightly, but now I'm back-seat modding, so I'll fetch me coat...

Seriously, personal beliefs are a deeply-cherished thing. Going in like a Exocet missile never gets anyone anywhere, but I have to say that Asiaprod did give you some sage-like advice originally.

DW.

Tim Robbins

DublinWriter wrote:

Tim,

I think what this all really hinges on is the reason for the Christianity Forum - is it a forum to discuss Christianity or promote Christianity.

If the latter is the case then I would have said you were banned rightly, but now I'm back-seat modding, so I'll fetch me coat...

Seriously, personal beliefs are a deeply-cherished thing. Going in like a Exocet missile never gets anyone anywhere, but I have to say that Asiaprod did give you some sage-like advice originally.

DW.

I think they should update their charter at the very least.

Boston

DublinWriter wrote:

Tim,

I think what this all really hinges on is the reason for the Christianity Forum - is it a forum to discuss Christianity or promote Christianity.

If the latter is the case then I would have said you were banned rightly, but now I'm back-seat modding, so I'll fetch me coat...

Seriously, personal beliefs are a deeply-cherished thing. Going in like a Exocet missile never gets anyone anywhere, but I have to say that Asiaprod did give you some sage-like advice originally.

DW.

Fundamental thing about all the forums on boards, is that the people that use them don't have to justify themselves to those that feel they are a waste of space. Thats the same right accross the board from mustard to islam.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

The Fine Gael / don't analogy was part of his argument and was fallacious as far as I was concerned. Elaborate why you think it was not.

It wasn't part of his argument. It was a throwaway observation with no bearing on his argument and he didn't argue anything from it. You can call it a good analogy or a bad analogy or whatever but he didn't conclude anything strictly from it. It wasn't a premise for any conclusion of his.

Just because someone makes an analogy doesn't mean they are arguing from it.

This is what I meant by non-argument statements. Logic is only useful when applied to arguments. There's little point applying it to things that aren't arguments for or against something.

Also, arguing from analogy isn't necessarily illogical. But that's a different debate.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have read bits and pieces already, let's hear your recommendations.

Two good starting places:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Critical-Thinking-Merrilee-Salmon/dp/0534626637/ref=sr_1_6/203-9991841-3601505?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177619627&sr=1-6
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Languages-Logic-Introduction-Formal/dp/155786988X/ref=sr_1_1/203-9991841-3601505?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177619655&sr=1-1

Tim Robbins

Boston wrote:

Fundamental thing about all the forums on boards, is that the people that use them don't have to justify themselves to those that feel they are a waste of space. Thats the same right accross the board from mustard to islam.

Well that's a good point and I suppose the crux of the issue.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

Just because someone makes an analogy doesn't mean they are arguing from it.

Agree, I thought it was part of the argument. I don't see the point in him making it otherwise, although it would be interesting for his view on this.

This is what I meant by non-argument statements. Logic is only useful when applied to arguments. There's little point applying it to things that aren't arguments for or against something.

Also, arguing from analogy isn't necessarily illogical. But that's a different debate.

It usually is and I sure you know why.
When an the analogy is valid, or when something seems like a valid analogy it's usually (but not always) an example rather an analogy.

Two good starting places:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Critical-Thinking-Merrilee-Salmon/dp/0534626637/ref=sr_1_6/203-9991841-3601505?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177619627&sr=1-6
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Languages-Logic-Introduction-Formal/dp/155786988X/ref=sr_1_1/203-9991841-3601505?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177619655&sr=1-1

[/QUOTE]
Thanks.
I've read this, quite good:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192893203/ref=sr_1_1/203-9689463-4487929?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177620448&sr=1-1

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

Agree, I thought it was part of the argument. I don't see the point in him making it otherwise, although it would be interesting for his view on this.

I read it as a bit of tongue in cheek humour tbh.

Tim Robbins wrote:

It usually is and I sure you know why.
When an the analogy is valid, or when something seems like a valid analogy it's usually (but not always) an example rather an analogy.

That doesn't necessarily apply to inductive logic where arguing from analogy is valid, it is only the strength of the analogy that is important in evaluating the strength of the argument. In deductive logic it isn't valid unless it compares two things that are the same thing essentially. There's more to logic than deductive logic though and most practical logic isn't deductive in nature.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Thanks.
I've read this, quite good:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192893203/ref=sr_1_1/203-9689463-4487929?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177620448&sr=1-1

That series of books is good but it won't really help you apply logic. It's one thing to know the principles and quite another to actually apply them successfully in arguments with people. Also, you need to learn the limitations of logic if you are ever going to get anywhere (i.e. recognise when it can't be applied).

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

I read it as a bit of tongue in cheek humour tbh.
That doesn't necessarily apply to inductive logic where arguing from analogy is valid, it is only the strength of the analogy that is important in evaluating the strength of the argument. In deductive logic it isn't valid unless it compares two things that are the same thing essentially. There's more to logic than deductive logic though and most practical logic isn't deductive in nature.

well we read it differently.

That series of books is good but it won't really help you apply logic. It's one thing to know the principles and quite another to actually apply them successfully in arguments with people.

Some of the series is good some not so good. That's the best one I've read.
Anyway your initial claim

"Honestly, you're not that good at logic. Your very first post in that thread was completely incorrect and showed that you didn't understand the fundamental difference between someone arguing from analogy and making an analogy. You also seem to think that it's correct to apply a mix of inductive and deductive logical principles to non-argument statements which is also fallacious."

doesn't exactly seem watertight, so perhaps you need to learn how "apply" logic yourself. Or perhaps that was just a "throw away" remark.

GuanYin

Honestly I think the Christianity form is best suited to discussing beliefs and christianity.

Arguements and debates are pointless - you can't debate a "faith based belief" because faith doesn't lend itself to logic.

Go to ISS or somewhere for logical scientific discussions.

Tim Robbins

psi wrote:

Honestly I think the Christianity form is best suited to discussing beliefs and christianity.

Arguements and debates are pointless - you can't debate a "faith based belief" because faith doesn't lend itself to logic.

Go to ISS or somewhere for logical scientific discussions.

Good point, I would agree and I think it's time they updated their charter.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

Some of the series is good some not so good. That's the best one I've read.
Anyway your initial claim

"Honestly, you're not that good at logic. Your very first post in that thread was completely incorrect and showed that you didn't understand the fundamental difference between someone arguing from analogy and making an analogy. You also seem to think that it's correct to apply a mix of inductive and deductive logical principles to non-argument statements which is also fallacious."

doesn't exactly seem watertight, so perhaps you need to learn how "apply" logic yourself. Or perhaps that was just a "throw away" remark.

It was an observation rather than an argument though I can reformulate it for you.

1) Someone who makes basic mistakes in logic doesn't have a very good grasp of logic
2) Tim Robbins makes basic mistakes in logic
Ergo
3) Tim Robbins doesn't have a very good grasp of logic

That watertight enough for you? Logically it's valid anyway and it appears to be sound also.

Though, to be fair, the soundness could be questioned.

Boston

Tim Robbins wrote:

Good point, I would agree and I think it's time they updated their charter.

You're forgetting that they allowed you to discuss it up to the point you called a poster/post pathetic. No need for a charter update of any sort.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

It was an observation rather than an argument though I can reformulate it for you.

1) Someone who makes basic mistakes in logic doesn't have a very good grasp of logic
2) Tim Robbins makes basic mistakes in logic
Ergo
3) Tim Robbins doesn't have a very good grasp of logic

That watertight enough for you? Logically it's valid anyway and it appears to be sound also.

Though, to be fair, the soundness could be questioned.

No because a and b are not axioms, there are premises in your
syllogism.
Any ridiculous inference can be valid if any premise is assumed.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

No your syllogism is not valid because premise b is not true. We discussed premise b and it was found that you derived it based it on your own subjective interpretation of a post, not something that was valid. You thought the Fine Gael was a throw away tongue in cheek remark, I thought it was argument by analogy - the evidence is inconclusive.

Actually, you misunderstand the basic logical concept of validity.

A valid argument is one where if the premises are true then the conclusions follows but the premises do not actually have to be true for the argument to be valid.

A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are true.



Do we have enough evidence now?


Edit: There's a good explanation of validity and logical consequences here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/

DeVore

To be honest I've been following the Christianity forum for a few days now and I have hovered over the ban button for you a few times but allowed things to progress to see where they went. Frankly your post (2nd one on PDN's thread about his daughter) deserved a ban in the first place. You go to the Christianity forum not for light but for heat. You are aggressive and provocative in a forum where it is not warranted or desired. I'm not suprised you were eventually banned, it was a matter of time.

I think you will find the Humanities forum a more suitable forum for your posts. They are not without merit but they are in the wrong place.

DeV.

Not a student of logic here but that remark was a result of a definitive action.
This question is exhaustive; it is either right or wrong.

Ask the author, was it an analogy or was it not?

eh Voila!




Cue answers to highlight the inherent stupidity of my post...

Stabshauptmann

r3nu4l wrote:

Tim, you haven't given the full story here. I believe that a thread you were involved in was locked because it had gone way off-topic.

You then proceeded to open a new thread where you said the following:



This new thread has since been deleted so I can't link to it.

That's clear provocation in my view. I would say that you had already received a warning and ignored it, therefore the ban should hold. I wouldn't think something like this should be a perm-ban from the forum though.

There are three types of feed back muppets.

The first is the all mods are Nazis, I have freedom of speech, this isnt my second account honest or Grade A retard or DEATHGIVER2003

Then there is this type. The perfectly reasonable, I shouldnt have been banned, except for this ridiculously obvious reason which I happened to leave out of my post and hopefully nobody remembers.
Seriously, who do you think you are fooling?!

Then there are the reasonable complaints, but really if you want a reasonable reply take it to pm