A&A Feedback

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't criticise it except the translated bits I have read, and mostly any mad claims made by muslims. I HAVE sat down and read through leviticus which is why I can criticise that too. There are plenty of crazy things people do and claim without any basis for it in their religious texts for us to criticise already

Plenty of crazy things libertarians and any other group have done too. My point wasn't specifically related to your reading on anything. You're a cheat in that regard anyway.
The point was that in this forum posters can state whatever stupid or smart thing within reason. Libertarian is just an ideology and gets no special protection or prerequisites. Just like in abortion posters have to often put up with scientifically ignorant tripe. And debunk it on several occasions over and over. Creationism too. The same goes for some people's attitudes expressed towards atheists. Which is very often what sparks talks of biscuits.

coffee_cake

Turtwig wrote: »

The point was that in this forum posters can state whatever stupid or smart thing within reason. Libertarian is just an ideology and gets no special protection or prerequisites. Just like in abortion posters have to often put up with scientifically ignorant tripe. And debunk it on several occasions over and over. Creationism too. The same goes for some people's attitudes expressed towards atheists. Which is very often what sparks talks of biscuits.

I think it would be much more entertaining if he read the book and we discussed it. Don't you like book clubs? :pac:
And he is now, apparently. So it's all good :cool:

Turtwig wrote: »

Plenty of crazy things libertarians and any other group have done too.

What are you even on about. We're talking about books!

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope. You've nothing but scurrilous allegations which you're refusing to substantiate in the forum where these allegations have been made. You've had the rules explained to you, politely, and you've refused to stick to them.

As I'm one of the subjects of these scurrilous allegations, I'll of course be recusing myself from any moderator action concerning them, but if you repeat these allegations (which are now considered false as you refuse to provide any evidence to support them) then I -- or, no doubt, the other mods -- will be passing a request upstairs to more senior site mods to figure out what moderator action to apply to trolling.

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

I think it would be much more entertaining if he read the book and we discussed it.

Discussed? Nah, disgust!

Anyhow, the Ayn Rand thread is here.

coffee_cake

robindch wrote: »

Discussed? Nah, disgust!

Anyhow, the Ayn Rand thread is here.

It's locked you big tease

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

It's locked you big tease

*cough* looks open to me *cough*

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

I think it would be much more entertaining if he read the book and we discussed it. Don't you like book clubs? :pac:
And he is now, apparently. So it's all good :cool:


What are you even on about. We're talking about books!

Oh yeah it would be best if everyone had read their stuff. Better yet, they all had oldrnwsr levels of knowledge. But we can't have that a contingent on any post.
BOOK CLUB! Yeah, uh, that promise I made in January, then February, March.. .May? That one. Still not, keeping it.

I thought this meant you could criticise people based on their actions "do".

There are plenty of crazy things people do

Full quote
There are plenty of crazy things people do and claim without any basis for it in their religious texts for us to criticise already

Which I felt was a very valid and thoughtful point by you.

coffee_cake

can only think of one or two Libertarian posters (not present), who actually read any Post-Keynesian alternatives to austerity that have been presented to them

I used to be a lefty. I did read all these things as a habit. Then I studied some economics and realised they made little sense. Combined with my social views -> lib
I read your "printing infinite money will solve all debts" ideas, and I read some of the other stuff you were on about. Not agreeing doesn't mean not reading.
If I post long articles or books from mises or elsewhere, it's because I think they're interesting and people should give them a read, not for point scoring.

In any case I think we'd better leave our interaction there

Turtwig wrote:

I thought this meant you could criticise people based on their actions "do".

You card read good :D

Yeah I just meant the basis for posting in this forum is as often as not "this person said x" or "no, your religion doesnt make it ok for you to do y" etc rather than criticising a book we haven't read


Cup of tea, anyone... or something else for banna...

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

*cough* looks open to me *cough*

:eek:

Heavens.. is that the time?

I really must pack the car with dogs and head off to rural dongleland.

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

Cup of tea, anyone... or something else for banna...

I'm ggggood. Been on the double essssppressos all mmmmorning.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My name seems to come to you and others minds rather a lot. It's flattering, in a way.


The others posters bans were subject to third party scrutiny as part of the DRP. I'm afraid you haven't a leg to stand on there

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A practice only believed to occur by a tiny minority of posters.

Valmont wrote:

And if you posted your pet political polemics in an appropriate forum where you don't retain control over the content and direction of the discussion you wouldn't look like a scaredy cat with an axe to grind. Additionally, the A&A forum might appear slightly more welcoming to non-leftists. I wouldn't visit the Psychology forum so frequently if the moderator threw in a thread every few weeks about how they hate football. ..

Ahh Valmont, I thought we'd lost you. If you'd be as good -
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90953006&postcount=466

permabear wrote:

You can draw whatever conclusions you wish. I have hard evidence of systemic political bias -- note that I didn't say "in this forum" -- but evidence nonetheless. ..

There are teams in the current football tournament that could have done with that goal post shifting attempt.

Where's the examples to back up your original allegation?

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I believe there's a thread on the general subject already...........
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055929894

KahBoom

bluewolf wrote: »

I read your "printing infinite money will solve all debts" ideas...

That exact straw-man, shows that you have not read even one of them, because neither I or any of the proposals I put forward, have ever argued that - that's exactly the kind of offhand dismissal of views, that Libertarian posters try to claim happens to them - showing extreme hypocrisy.

Libertarian posters here complain about a perceived 'bias' and poor standard of argument against them (with zero evidence), yet many of the same posters (not yourself) will doggedly attack opposing views all over Boards, using the exact same straw-man you just used there (actual evidence of a very poor standard of argument), to try and eliminate discussion of those views - or to mire those views in such huge amounts of sneering/condescending replies, that the views are lost in the trolling/flaming.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's a form of censorship argument. Prerequisite knowledge requirements is a way of limiting opinion. A poster can post about it based on whatever understanding they wish. They just can't soapbox, spam, personal abuse etc.

Suggesting people read something is fine, but we can never require people to have read something other than the charter. In short, if you can't express any argument in your own words then you're not really discussing anything.

On a related note, posting links that make the argument for you is acceptable but not ideal. It would be best if posters worded everything themselves. Keeping to as much of their own opinions as possible and provided the relevant references where required. Not just posted links and expecting others to read them in their entirety.
Again, we don't prohibit this but it is preferred that people don't exchange ideas this way.

KahBoom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's a form appeal to authority: You don't have to have read a book, or study a topic to get a degree in it, in order to seek valid second-hand information for guiding your opinion - and it doesn't recuse anyone else of the need to counter the argument you put forward (yet such an appeal to authority is almost always used for sidestepping an argument, to try and create a monopoly on who is 'qualified' to participate in a debate).

None of this double standard, seems to stop Libertarian posters holding opinions, about topics they have never read about nor understand, where they repeatedly using the same debunked straw-men again and again.

Turtwig

KahBoom wrote: »

None of this double standard, seems to stop Libertarian posters holding opinions, about topics they have never read about nor understand, where they repeatedly using the same debunked straw-men again and again.

Mod: This is a feedback thread for Atheist and Agnosticism. Not apparent libertarian debating etiquette on boards. Please take that discussion elsewhere.

Dades

If I may try and diffuse this before it gets out of hand.

Permabear has contended there's a political bias in this forum - and you know what - there may be. That may be the climate in this forum and a majority of posters here. There's a bias toward green energy in the Vegan forum too, I'm sure.

However he's also contended that this is encouraged by a mod to the point that the mod has abused his powers. This is a different thing altogether, but one not supported by any evidence that hasn't been refuted. Politically charged threads here are This post had been deleted.[/QUOTE]This suggestion that you have evidence of a greater bias on Boards is of no relevance here. We're a microcosm, oblivious to any greater agenda. I've genuinely no idea what you're talking about and I have access to every forum on this site.

But as far as this forum is concerned, Permabear, you produced arguments that don't hold water.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope, you're not not banned from claiming it. You will be subject to senior mod judgement if you continue to claim that mods are biased here if you refuse to provide any supporting evidence.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A bit like evidence that you won't present?

/sheesh

KahBoom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can we have admin/mod permission, for PB to post up this alleged 'evidence'/screenshot? Save a whole lot of further prevaricating.

Cabaal

Permabear, give it a rest will you.

Either backup your claims regarding this forum or apologise for your false claims, its as simple as that

Dades

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is such a lame comeback I'm actually amazed.

The point of pointing out jank's bans in other forum is to refute your assertion that he has been shown negative bias in this forum. If this were the only forum that has had issue with janks posting you'd have some grounds.

Permabear wrote: »

Note that I am now banned, however, from claiming that I have any evidence that upholds that view. Ironically, in this same bastion of tolerance, posters can legitimately have opinions on books that they haven't read....

But you don't have any evidence in relation to this forum. Regarding the site in general, if someone asked you to believe something and said "I have evidence but I can't show you", how much credence would you give them?

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Replace atlas shrugged with theology, or homeopathy, or anything for that matter. I don't need to have read a homeopathy book to argue homeopathy is shyte/brilliant. Likewise for objectivism.

It would be preferable that I knew homeopathy inside out. But as a forum we can never make knowledge prerequisites other than the charter.

With regard to the style of argument it's not constructive.
If an atheist thinks the Qur'an is full of sht. It's not really legitimate in this forum, or anywhere for that matter, to dismiss criticism solely on the basis of not having read it. Any rebuttal of a criticism would need to explain why it is a strawman.

Saying something is a strawman or a poster hasn't read something isn't conducive to a discussion.
Nobody has to read atlas shrugged to criticise it. Their criticism might be invalid, but merely stating they did not read the book does not suffice as an effective rebuttal. There needs to be an explanation as to why this is the case.

Dades

KahBoom wrote: »

Can we have admin/mod permission, for PB to post up this alleged 'evidence'/screenshot? Save a whole lot of further prevaricating.

If Permabear has evidence in relation to something he shouldn't have access to, or PMs from someone who hasn't given permission, then no, he can't.

Cabaal wrote: »

Either backup your claims regarding this forum or apologise for your false claims, its as simple as that

It's only a false claim in my book if the poster knows it to be incorrect. Permabear believes there's a bias. It appears not to be backed up by any real evidence and that seems unlikely to change.

Probably best we all move on and leave the site-wide political agenda and it's secret evidence agenda out of the A&A feedback thread.

robindch

KahBoom wrote: »

Can we have admin/mod permission, for PB to post up this alleged 'evidence'/screenshot?

I gather that this screenshot compromises some uninvolved third-party, so the answer's "no" on multiple counts.

KahBoom

Dades wrote: »

If Permabear has evidence in relation to something he shouldn't have access to, or PMs from someone who hasn't given permission, then no, he can't.

He can PM you though, perhaps? (especially since, you have access to it all anyway)

robindch wrote: »

I gather that this screenshot compromises some uninvolved third-party, so the answer's "no" on multiple counts.

True, but if an admin is PM'ed, any info identifying/compromising the third party (I'm guessing you mean the person leaking the info) is easily removed from a screenshot, or even just the thread/post URL and post numbers can be given.

Dades

KahBoom wrote: »

He can PM you though, perhaps? (especially since, you have access to it all anyway)

We don't have access to PMs, save for those that are reported by the recipient. I have no idea what form this evidence takes.

At any rate - this is not relevant to the A&A Feedback thread.

Cabaal

Dades wrote: »

Probably best we all move on and leave the site-wide political agenda and it's secret evidence agenda out of the A&A feedback thread.

am more then happy to move on,
however, it still leaves the claim of bias in the A&A forum, there's been no evidence to support this provided so surely any such claims should be retracted?