General election coming and I don't know why I was banned form politics

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

As I see it Tristrame did do so.

As you see it.
You see a lot of things that aren't there at all.

And he implied that the mods were discussing me. That isn't a lie.

Thats all in your head.Let me clarify so as there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

Tristrame wrote:

You were being discussed on the politics mod forum thread that Gandalf linked to.

As Oscar pointed out you were being discussed alright in the thread created about your banning.
Go ask the admins or keep insinuating that we are lying,keep expecting special treatment, whichever you prefer.I couldnt care less.
This case has been closed.
There will be no further clarification from me or participation in this thread.

Admins when you have the time could you lock this thank you.

Blowfish

ISAW wrote:

Of course one think you mention which is partly on topic is the issue of people acting on how they feel about a PERSON rather than WHAT ARGUMENT that person states.

But you see thats the whole point of this. Its not about how factually correct you are, its about your attitude. You constantly picking on small parts of someones posts and demanding 'proof'. You then manage to claim various things yourself without providing 'proof'. This doesn't in any way promote reasonable discussion.

The mods are there to ensure the politics fora run smoothly. If your posting causes the forum to not run smoothly, then you should be denied the ability to post there.

OTK

After reading this long thread I stil don't see why ISAW was banned or why his ban is indefinite. The first piece of evidence presented against him was only visible on the private mod forum. How can anyone defend himself against allegations he cannot even see?

Can anyone see that it makes no sense to have a system of punishment where appeals must be made directly to the person who came up with the verdict and sentence in the first place? And what kind of crime befits an eternal punishment other than thought crime?

From what I can see, ISAW has been convicted of having an annoying posting style or of having different opinions from the mods.

I mean no offence to ISAW by these comments but I believe that his brain is wired somewhat differently from the average person and that his unusual perspective is a benefit to the forum, certainly more interesting than the views of the brainless, barking arselickers on this thread.

ISAW

nesf wrote:

I agree, however, experience does actually matter for something and arguments informed by experience in an area are useful things.

First would you mind posting that politics thread and stating this discusion about it is here in feedback?

Indeed but in this instance we dealt with that already and you clearly agree that it was "argument from authority"

The problem is that online especially on an issue like this where relatively few people actually know what post graduate research in the sciences is like, some weight has to be given to arguments of authority when they deal with the nitty gritty daily details of the debate.

Now you are changing it! You clearly admitted it is arguemnt from authority. Now you are trying to justify argument form authoriey. I perfer to go back to my argument based on evidence and weigh the evidence I presented against the "I know more about this because I work in the field". such arguemnt are not good enough for me to convince others outside the field. In fact i made this point i.e. that politicians planners and the public etc. have to be convinced and it isn't good enough for billions of other people money to be spent on a "daddy knows best" basis.

It doesn't mean that they are automatically correct but I wouldn't dismiss their arguments simply because they are arguments from authority.

Nor did I! I pointed out they were and hadn't any additional support and provided counter evidence!

It is a formal fallacy but this isn't a formal debate it is a debate on policy which is necessarily fuzzy around the edges. There is no excluded middle so to speak.

Ironic. You arguing that we can forget about logical fallacy in debate. Especially when that is where you came into it?

Sure in a formal debate but as I said above this isn't one. One of the key problems of formal logic is that when debating a real life issue such as third level policy it isn't very useful. Secondly you will not get purely formal debates in a Politics forum. It's almost an oxymoron.

I dion't suggest it should be constructed in formal logic. I point out when there is a logical contradiction in the other persons position and you somehow think this is to be watered down in the politics forum. I refer you to their charter which delineates between fact and opinion even opinion form those who work in a field.

I'd give both of them weight in issues such as these. Plus, the goal of such debates on policy is not necessarily truth but the best possible compromise between the competing needs. When speaking of compromises the debate changes.

first of all I didn't claim anything about "truth". I can discuss that in philosophy. So if I can produce someone who sat on national science bodies, third level bodies government ministries dail committees etc. who basically state "actually I agree with ISAW what evidence is there about PhD funding be given to post docs" then I will have both the opinion and the evidence so my position would have overwhelming debate? Oddly though I can do that it isn't the way I debate. I prefer to back up opinion with fact. You might sacknowledge this is also the way in academic circles? They CITE references to back up their opinion.

I am not easily persuaded by references.

Oh so you perfer opinion rather than citation. Well I prefer things whic logically follow and opinion being backed up with evidence. If you go by other peoplkes say so then that is up to you. I don't think it is a sound basis for an open debate however.

I have done enough debating and public speaking to know...

argument form authority again? My sort of debate is based on logical consistency and backing up any claims with evidence. It isnt based on "i know about this". One hads to show how they know about it and what they know and allow others to convince themselves. In my opinion justsaying "I know" without showing what or how you know isnt good enough.

But you are now into whether the particular debate about science was a valid or reasonable or reliable which is secondary to whether a permanent ban was warrented.
Maybe the charter should say that anyone sticking to formal debating and argument based on evidence rather than personal insult and opinion will be banned?

I, as a person, am as much swayed by good argument as good references. i.e. the references don't count for anything if the accompanying argument is a fallacy.

Aboive you acknowledge my opponents argued from authority. argument form authority is a fallacy isnt it?
Now what argument did I make which was a fallacy?

And again whether I am right or wrong about science isnt the point. whater I shoul be permanently banned because I say others cant back up their position IS!

The word fact is quite ambiguous but when speaking in the context of argument and references I think it has a very specific meaning attached to it implicitly.

And that meaning is? Reference please? And in what way do you claim I departed from that meaning?

My honest advice is this:

This is only for policy/moral/etc debates and not for scientific or philosophical ones necessarily. Treating debates on here as formal debates is just a waste of your time.

thank you for that honest opinion. Surely if I chose to waste my time pointing out logical flaws in other peoples positions then that is my own business and I should not be banned for it? In fact I think you do it quite a lot don't you?

It is neither necessary nor in keeping with the general feel of debate on this site.

So why do you do it then? Do you not care to abide by your own advice? Bit of a logiocal contradiction there isn't there?

You are aggressive in your replies,

that isnt true.
To be formally true ( an Im sure you know the difference between "apples" "some apples" and "any apples" as Bertrand Russels tutor found out on their first meeting.

I may be "aggressive" in some of my replies.
It depends on what you mean by "agressive". I certainly am not insulting and withdraw any personal remark even if unintended. And other people are just as "aggressive". Indeed some personally attacked and insulted me and are not banned!

this will not win you arguments and only serve to create an antagonistic and combative atmosphere in which to debate.

This may be true. But it isn't all about winning for me. It is about playing on a level field where everyone obeys the same rules and people don't make up rules as they gop along and visit the consequence of made up rules on other people just because they don't personally like those other people.

If you are serious about debating you should know that this isn't a good thing, when things get heated people stop listening properly to each other and everyone is the worst for it. The purpose of debating with someone shouldn't be to win but to get them to give serious consideration to your arguments.

thank you for this lesson in deportment. Im sure you are a reasonable person and are tryng to be fair. You do however exhibit logical contradiction in your position. Nevertheless as I have explained I am not set on winning so much as having a fair and open debate. If insulted I usually don't respond in kind and stick with the issue (which I suggest is usually why the other person attacked me).

There is little reason for moderators to allow people who repeatedly cause arguments to get heated and descend into petty point scoring to remain in the forum.

Oh sorry. I don't cause arguemnts. If you look you will see that I usually arrive AFTER someone makes a claim they cant support. for example they claim FG will run hospitals better than FF and I arrive and point out the whole basis is wrong and hospitals are not run by governments and tryiong to makew it into a FG vs FF issue isnt solving the horriblke problem of people in casualty!

Mind you you are NOW claiming that I was banned not for something I actually did but for my attitude to debating in general. i.e. because of personal attitudes towards me. About which there are no rules. Which is a wholly different point to the claim the mod gave for banning me! but if you want to change the rules do so and i will follow them. change the name of the forum to "tame restricted political discussion" as well while you are at it.
I haven't been banned from other fora for what you claim!

It is in the interests of the forum that argument and debate remain calm, polite and informative.

When have I not been calm polite and informative? This by the way is meant to be justification for a permanent ban?

I can produce reams on people not appearing calm and others who were not polite (especiually to me) and others who diodn't provide information. When are they going to be banned? Or ios it perhaps I challenge the comfortable to support their cherished views and sew doubt in the minds of others about whether they should trust the views for those who claim authority but don't supply factual basis as to why they should have it?

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

As you see it.
...
As Oscar pointed out you were being discussed alright in the thread created about your banning.

Admins when you have the time could you lock this thank you.

No. You dont get my point. I am saying you didcussed me before that mods thread you mentioned.

You did so last September as far as I believe.

didn't you?

Blowfish

The problem is ISAW that you argue like a politician.

ISAW

Blowfish wrote:

But you see thats the whole point of this. Its not about how factually correct you are, its about your attitude. You constantly picking on small parts of someones posts and demanding 'proof'. You then manage to claim various things yourself without providing 'proof'. This doesn't in any way promote reasonable discussion.

This is a handwaving opinion and not supported by evidence.

the thread was bout Irish science and where the knowldege base should go in future.

For example,
PSI and others claimed that PhD funding should be decanted to post docs. That isnt a minor point. It is germane to the issue!
I asked "how many" and for them to shopw how this is good for the knowledge society. I provided data showing present policy and present numbers of post docs and PhD's and targets. I asked how these targets shoulfd be changed and how it should be funded.

In short. They made an unsupported claim and I made a supported counter argument. If you dont see it this way then please provide evidence from the thread to show so and not just your opinion about it.

The mods are there to ensure the politics fora run smoothly. If your posting causes the forum to not run smoothly, then you should be denied the ability to post there.

This is a cop out! If I disagree with people's opinion (particularly with a pending election) I am accused of being a government plant. In fact I would like to see some reasearch on the opinions expressed by posters and mods and whether these are pro or anti the present government and how many times mods disagree with each others political opinions expressed in a thread. But leave that for another day.

"runnig smoothly" means what? apparently it means people like me cant ask for the factual basis for a political opinion. Syy for example I attack the IRA or ask for a factual basis for supporting them then this is okay. So why for example should any FG supporter or marxist or person opposing FF or state policy not be asked for the basis of their position? Isn't that double standards?

ISAW

OTK wrote:

After reading this long thread I stil don't see why ISAW was banned or why his ban is indefinite. The first piece of evidence presented against him was only visible on the private mod forum. How can anyone defend himself against allegations he cannot even see?

Thank you for that! I have made this point several times. I am glad someone agrees with it.

Can anyone see that it makes no sense to have a system of punishment where appeals must be made directly to the person who came up with the verdict and sentence in the first place? And what kind of crime befits an eternal punishment other than thought crime?

Thank you for that too! I have also made that point but maybe in a long winded way. In fact I brought a complaint to Oscar Bravo about being called a liar and he banned me after I did so! Even after he admitted the other person had got "a wee bit personal". The other person PSI, who is also a moderator, then comes on this thread and says "this is not a democracy" and "tough".

Actually if someone stated in a PM "your are not helping this discussion" I would go on in PM asking "how am I not helping it and how am I as you claim off topic".

In fact I invited Oscar Bravo to take the issue to PM and stated to him from the outset I had no intention in further posting the thread. I wanted any problems he saw resolved first. I then removed a one line message which stated "if you are calling me a liar please state where" or words to that extent. Oscar Bravo then banned me! When I asked the specific reason and the duration I got no clear reply and a refusal to discuss it any more. He also refused to do anything about the personal attacks on me. Three weeks later I contacted him and asked the ban be removed and he again refused!

From what I can see, ISAW has been convicted of having an annoying posting style or of having different opinions from the mods.

Thats the way it seems to me too! Thank you.

I mean no offence to ISAW by these comments but I believe that his brain is wired somewhat differently from the average person and that his unusual perspective is a benefit to the forum, certainly more interesting than the views of the brainless, barking arselickers on this thread.

I don't take any offence. In fact some people who know about it have suggested I may be austistic. I am not offended by that suggestion. But I am certainly not intent on personally attacking or insulting anyone.

It is refreshing that someone agrees with me! I suspect you will now get accusations of croneyism when I hevent ever discussed this matter (or any matter) with you or dont even know you.

Maybe I am wrong but I think the whole issue reflects badly on the perception boards.ie in general. And now there is a mod who is asking for this discussion to be locked. I would certainly like Tristrame to reply if he discussed me last September or not.

ISAW

Blowfish wrote:

The problem is ISAW that you argue like a politician.

lol
Quite the funniest and most perceptive comment you have made to date on the issue.

Now how about supporting your prior claims?

r3nu4l

/Totally off-topic but I thought I'd raise it anyway, there is a difference between autism and Aspergers syndrome, they are definitely related but they are different.

ISAW wrote:

I don't take any offence. In fact some people who know about it have suggested I may be austistic.

Well as someone who has a relative with Aspergers syndrome I admit that although it is difficult to judge from an online forum, I was wondering if you had Aspergers or similar. Not trying to be insulting, it was a genuine wonder.

People with Asperger syndrome may speak fluently but they may not take much notice of the reaction of the people listening to them; they may talk on and on regardless of the listener's interest or they may appear insensitive to their feelings.

Despite having good language skills, people with Asperger syndrome may sound over-precise or over-literal - jokes can cause problems as can exaggerated language, turns of phrase and metaphors.

Blowfish

ISAW wrote:

Now how about supporting your prior claims?

No thanks, there no point tbh. You just seem to ignore and befuddle the issue when any important points are made. (and no i'm not going to back that up with 'evidence').

Gandalf put it most succinctly:

Gandalf wrote:

You know why you were banned, you were told what you had to do to get unbanned (and we have handed out open ended bans before that people have acknowledged and have subsequently been readmitted to the forum from) but you fail to acknowledge that you may be wrong or that you may need to look at your posting style with regard to flow of discussions as highlighted.

OTK wrote:

Can anyone see that it makes no sense to have a system of punishment where appeals must be made directly to the person who came up with the verdict and sentence in the first place?

In regards to that, ISAW was banned by only one of the politics mods.

There have been two other politics mods and an smod on this thread who agree with the banning. The rest of the politics mods have probably read the thread on the politics mods forum. Thats a total of 6 mods/smods who weren't involved in the banning decision.

ISAW

r3nu4l wrote:

/Totally off-topic but I thought I'd raise it anyway, there is a difference between autism and Aspergers syndrome, they are definitely related but they are different.

I stand corrected and I should know. In fact it was aspergers that the person suggested. his PhD isnt in psychology but in geology but he has aspergers. I do know another person with a PhD in education/philosophy who practices in psychology and he woudl put all these uner an autistic unbreala including ADHD and dyslexia. I didn't wan;'t to refer to aspergets dircetly and appear to court sympathy as I believe I argued that all should be treated equally. I don't want special treatment, just fair play.

[/URL] ... if you had Aspergers or similar. Not trying to be insulting, it was a genuine wonder.[/QUOTE]

If I do it isn't relevant to the ban. I must try harder on the spelling too!

ISAW

Blowfish wrote:

No thanks, there no point tbh. You just seem to ignore and befuddle the issue when any important points are made. (and no i'm not going to back that up with 'evidence').

i.e. this is all your unsupported opinion! J'accuse!

Gandalf put it most succinctly:

that isnt supporting you claim! that is just quoting someone else's opinion! Argument from authority again! If I did something wrong then show me an example of it. show how it was wrong and I have no problem at all in putting it right. Just saying other people don't like the way I post isn't really a strong case is it?

In regards to that, ISAW was banned by only one of the politics mods.

the one I brought a complaint to! In fact this also is against the charter since a moderator shouldn't be involved in their own case. But as you can see ALL the moderators apparently got in a conclave and discussed me and all decided to ban me permanently. In fact I pointed out I also believe that I had been discussed at least as far back as last September.

There have been two other politics mods and an smod on this thread who agree with the banning.

In fact this is incorrect. One moderator, Tristrame claimed, to speak for all the moderators. The Smod seamus actually made it clear he was giving his own opinion and not speaking for them or for the admins. He basically stated he would not reverse any ban even if he didn't agree with it. So that does not mean he agreed with it. He asscented to it. But he was willing to outline a course of appeal. Something none of the original moderators did in spite of me requesting that as I understand it.

The rest of the politics mods have probably read the thread on the politics mods forum. Thats a total of 6 mods/smods who weren't involved in the banning decision.

Above is posted emphasis added by me

tristrame wrote:

The politics mods have came to a decision now.May I be the first to relay it to you.
As far as we are concerned your ban is permanent.

I assume "politics mods" means all of them. If not I would like to know which ones don't agree with the decision and the reasons for their descent.[edit] lol "dissent" sorry but ironic maybe[/edit]

You were being discussed on the politics mod forum thread that Gandalf linked to.

No doubt I was buit that isn't my point. The point is I believe Tristrame discussed me last September. I asked him if he did. He replied by saying he wasn't answering any more and asked for this thread to be locked.

Please tell us Tristrame. Did you discuss me BEFORE the particular thread gandalf referred to? Did you suggest last September you were keeping an eye on me?

Vexorg

This thread has run its course and in fact seems to be on the second or third lap.

As the OP is clearly not satisfied with the decision made, explanations given and continues to twist answers to suit his argument The ban has been extended to a permanent ban.

Having read this thread, I can understand how this decision was made.

Thread closed and ban is permanent.

DeVore

Wow. You hurt my brain.





DeV.