Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Politics: Mod Misrepresents my opinion
Options
-
10-03-2011 10:30am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I've taken a look at this before the weekend kicks in... for my sins.
So, here we are again.
ISAW, I don't really believe you are a troll, because, imo, to be a troll you have to know what you are.
Instead it seems to me you are simply stuck in a pocket of warped logic, which, combined with a seemingly unlimited amount of time and a high WPM count make you - when you get the bit between your teeth - an anathema to rational debate.
You repeatedly hid behind the fallacy that the burden of proof lies on those advocating the removal of the cannabis prohibition (rather than the concept that you should have to justify maintaining any prohibition) - and deflected countless posts with this burden of proof tell it to the hand response.
You also made a multitude of disingenuous comparisons to double parking, child abuse, prostitution... or this gem:
How is that part of any useful debate?ordinarywoman wrote:Cannabis is cannabis.
its not rape, incest,heroine,child abuse,prostitution,illogical falacys.
A gun is a gun but it could be used for self protection or for murder.
Look, we all know that none of your posts alone are actionable - unlike, I might add - several posts directed towards you. However there is such a thing as death by a thousand cuts, where a thread has the life sapped out of it by posters moving goalposts, deflections, tangents, insistence upon some form of internet logic or due process... etc. Whether you can see it or not, you killed that thread.
That said, you are right in that you were subject to limited abuse from frustrated posters, so there's collective responsibility, afaic.
I guess to conclude I should comment on the action that prompted this DRT. While I can see where Scofflaw might be coming from, his action would not have been the one I'd have taken. There would have been no obvious grounds for a ban, but the thread needed something. Asking you not to post whilst others could still post is a big ask of anyone (even more so a keyboard warrior...) so having seen the thread flatlining - I think I would have just pulled the plug.
Where that leaves us I don't know. There's no cards or bans to rescind, we're left with an opinion, and an open thread that personally I would have closed.
Oh, and for the record - I would probably be against legalising recreational cannabis use.0 -
I've taken a look at this before the weekend kicks in... for my sins.
Welcome to Lent.
for your penance you have to deal with a complaint about me for the next 40 days.ISAW, I don't really believe you are a troll, because, imo, to be a troll you have to know what you are.
Mens rea does not exist in my case - ok.Instead it seems to me you are simply stuck in a pocket of warped logic, which, combined with a seemingly unlimited amount of time and a high WPM count make you - when you get the bit between your teeth - an anathema to rational debate.
Your evidence I am unreasonable or illogical is?You repeatedly hid behind the fallacy that the burden of proof lies on those advocating the removal of the cannabis prohibition
I didn't hide behind it! if someone makes a claim it is for them to provide the supporting evidence! I can if I chose provide counter evidence. As a matter of fact I did so . Look up my comments on the "reefer madness" era and the anachronism of applying the argument to today's world. But as I stated it isn't for me to justify why cannabis was made illegal in the first place.
Do you really think that if I start a thread on "child abuse should be legalised " or "smacking kids in school should be legal" that in campaigning for legalisation for such issues I can demand people justify the law that exists in the first place and say "well the greeks had child abuse" or "in the eighties we had corporal punishment" and begin by asking them to revisit the change in the law and justify it?
If I want to change the law it is for ME to make the case and not for me to ask others to justify the status quo. Whatever next? I say the change in government is because of lizard people extra terrestrials and ask others to prove it isn't? It is not for me to prove recreational cannabis is not harmful. It is for those claiming it should be legal to support THEIR case.(rather than the concept that you should have to justify maintaining any prohibition) - and deflected countless posts with this burden of proof tell it to the hand response.
Why should anyone have to justify maintaining the law against cannabis, prostitution , child abuse, carrying guns in public, driving on the wrong side of the road etc. If they want the law removed or changed it is NOT for those who accept the law to re prove a validly passed law as passed.You also made a multitude of disingenuous comparisons to double parking, child abuse, prostitution... or this gem:Originally Posted by ordinarywoman
Cannabis is cannabis.
its not rape, incest,heroine,child abuse,prostitution,illogical falacys.
ISAW: A gun is a gun but it could be used for self protection or for murder.
How is that part of any useful debate?
The form of argument and underlying reasoning is comparable.
One can use cannabis for cloth, sail-making, paper etc. I referred to this in the "reefer madness" comments. One can also use it for medicine. The argument pursued by my detractors is one of free recreational use. The other arguments are made but they always admit to supporting free recreational use and this is their central issue. The fact that it can be used for something else is beside the point. If owning gun metal is illegal, we can always legislate to have gun metal used for plough shards. There is nothing illogical in saying cannabis guns or whatever may be used for different things even if the exact same physical thing is used! You yourself say similar above in reference to mens rea i.e. that I could post exactly the same words and not be trolling. In the thread I also referred to people having sex but the same act may be illegal (soliciting) or entirely legal.Look, we all know that none of your posts alone are actionable - unlike, I might add - several posts directed towards you.
On which I have yet to hear about any action.
But you do realise you are saying "the is nothing in any of your posts which breaks the rules but taken together when you add up all the non rule breaks you are breaking the rules or at least the "spirit of the rules" . I find this ironic considering all the people on boards who have argued against natural law and the "spirit of the law" in favour of positive law i.e. the written rule.
I eagerly await what this something is of which I am guilty. Thoughtcrime? Persistently pointing out the lack of evidence for a claim when more unsupported quasi evidence is offered ? Forensic examination of what is presented as evidence? Maybe that is my Lenten burden? In truth I am not such a pure person and do not welcome crucifixion.However there is such a thing as death by a thousand cuts, where a thread has the life sapped out of it by posters moving goalposts, deflections, tangents, insistence upon some form of internet logic or due process... etc. Whether you can see it or not, you killed that thread.
II beg to differ.
Actually until I arrived very little debate was entered into.
People posted some cut and paste from cannabis supporting sites as if this was evidence of scientific and medical support for legalisation. I questioned the cosey consensus of people all of whom were supporting recreational use. I never said I was strongly against recreational use but stated that I saw no problem with medical use. I was treated as a pariah and a plethora of complaints made about me for showing the logical fallacy of those who claim to have scientific peer review journal support for their position. they DONT! They have some evidence that cannabis is beneficial in some limited domains. I agree that further research is necessary and that prescription by a doctor is something which should not be legally opposed.
How is any of that spoiling debate. It is supporting rational and logical analysis!That said, you are right in that you were subject to limited abuse from frustrated posters, so there's collective responsibility, afaic.
By whom? On whose part?I guess to conclude I should comment on the action that prompted this DRT. While I can see where Scofflaw might be coming from, his action would not have been the one I'd have taken.
I bear no personal grudge I just think things should be fair. It seems the best you have to offer is "You are spoiling a thread by asking people to support their case" If a bunch of people said slavery should be reintroduced I would ask them for similar evidence and I would not baulk criticism about me justifying why it was made illegal in the first place.There would have been no obvious grounds for a ban, but the thread needed something. Asking you not to post whilst others could still post is a big ask of anyone (even more so a keyboard warrior...) so having seen the thread flatlining - I think I would have just pulled the plug.
So if a bunch of white supremacists hold such a debate and I disagree with them you will allow there 1000 posts and my 100 replies and lock the thread and that is "balance"?
I the thread I drew attention to the logic and fallacy as opposed to just believing cannabis is right or wrong to use. I brought up an example of not confusing the conclusion with the reasoning process.
from page 76 of Bob altemeyer's book:
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdfIntrigued, I gave the inferences test that Mary Wegmann had used to two large
samples of students at my university. In both studies high RWAs went down in flames
more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or
deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:
All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.
The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the
reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they
would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the
reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is
right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way,they don’t “get it” that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.
Now try "because cannabis is enjoyable".Where that leaves us I don't know. There's no cards or bans to rescind, we're left with an opinion, and an open thread that personally I would have closed.
Oh, and for the record - I would probably be against legalising recreational cannabis use.
For the record I'm not opposed to it and actually arranged ( and this boards.ie discussion had a lot to do with it) to meet a TD Thursday last and discuss it as part of out meeting. I had to postpone the meeting till next week but if anyone wants to legalise it they had better provide evidence otherwise people ten times more dogged than me will go through them for a shortcut.0 -
Hi ISAW,Welcome to Lent.
for your penance you have to deal with a complaint about me for the next 40 days.
Believe me - I'm not getting sucked into a multi-quote debate. I've offered my prognosis on scofflaw's request to you, based on a torturous reading (and re-reading) of the thread in question.
There it is. I haven't advocated anything only the closure of the thread. And that, because the only other option was to ban you.
Perhaps if you would volunteer to not post in it for Lent we could all move along? 0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi ISAW,
Believe me - I'm not getting sucked into a multi-quote debate. I've offered my prognosis on scofflaw's request to you, based on a torturous reading (and re-reading) of the thread in question.
There it is. I haven't advocated anything only the closure of the thread. And that, because the only other option was to ban you.
Perhaps if you would volunteer to not post in it for Lent we could all move along?
I've already stated as much. But people have been sniping at me when I am gone and while I broke no rules it has already been admitted I was personally attacked by others which is breaking rules.
The point isn't about the request it is about my opinion being misrepresented. If someone particularly says I am posting to a thread because i am obviously against Cannabis then that is a lie! It is even worse if they make a decision based on this lie and broadcast that to others who then personally attack me.0 -
I am sorry. I didnt realise i said "no posts for Lent". I didn't post for about ten days.
Im happy to save up all my replies and post them after lent.
By the way no one apologised to me for the insults and personal attacks.
In the mean time I posted some journal references and posted about fallicies such as argument from authority, burden of proof and proving a negative.. Someone then posted the idea that we should do as they do in other countries. I pointed out this principle does not logically apply since we cant generalise it to other issues.
Immediately the personal attacks and back seat modding begins again! I have complained this time hopefully before the bullies did.
It would seem people are mixing up moving from the particular to general case and vice versa with the "Straw man" fallacy.
I'm left with this dilemma Should I stand by and allow people to post fallacy or should I post and be bullied and/or banned? If I am banned what will I be banned for? Pointing out the weakness of "we should do as they do" isn't a straw man?
I'm quite happy to tolerate them by the way. funny how "we should tolerate all opinions" only extends to the ones those people agree with isn't it? A bit like "we should do as they do and copy them" ( but only the things I think we should copy) 0 -
Advertisement