How do you stop a skeptics board being flooded by fanatics

Turley

Obni wrote:

After a few weeks it becomes apparent they also use the old and effective tactic of pounding away at the same points again and again, but despite that they are interesting examples of how it is virtually impossible to convince someone with a deep belief (however fallacious) to change their stance (and I'm sure they believe the same about most of us).

"Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day."
-Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays (1928), "Dreams and Facts"

Naturally, you and the rest of the mob here would never actually hold a fallacious deep belief. Government prosecutors would not accuse someone of a crime if they were not guilty. There are no innocent men in prison, because they have all been found guilty.

landser

to tell you the truth, you are pretty much all the same in this thread when it comes to discussing the Holocaust. Neither side is ever willing to concede an inch. One side says that the holocaust may not have happened at all or at least not to the extent that is commonly accepted, while the others states that it did and that 6,183,242 people (or whatever the current revised figure is)were killed and if you deny this then you are a Nazi and an anti-semite. The threads remind me of the big-enders and little-enders from Robinson Crusoe. In the end, neither side will be satisfied with the others "evidence" and the whole argument descends into name calling and running off to the moderators to complain that the other boys won't play fair.

I have been looking at these threads for a while, and would rather argue with an ape than get involved in one of these "it did happen/didn't happen" fracas.

However, more worringly, this thread seeks to stop somebody questioning anything re the generally accepted matters concerning the holocaust, and this is a serious matter. Holocaust denial should never be illegal. To stifle debate and interpretation of history is dangerous. to say that one interpretation of history is legal and another illegal can lead to a slippery slope. I can say that WW1 did not happen, but i would clearly be wrong. I can say that german concentration camps did not exist, similarly i would be wrong. But to make it a crime for me to say the latter and not the former is abhorrent.
No one can say for certain how many died in the german camps, no more than they can say how many died in the gulags or in china under Japanese control, and herein lies the basis for both arguments, both for and against the extent of, or even the existence of, the holocaust. I do not say that the arguments put forward by those who question the extent of the holocaust have a strong or even defnsible argument, but i certainly believe in their right to argue the point, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to others.

KCF

landser wrote:

to tell you the truth, you are pretty much all the same in this thread when it comes to discussing the Holocaust. Neither side is ever willing to concede an inch. One side says that the holocaust may not have happened at all or at least not to the extent that is commonly accepted, while the others states that it did and that 6,183,242 people (or whatever the current revised figure is)were killed and if you deny this then you are a Nazi and an anti-semite.

I think that this is an extremely inaccurate description of the discussion. If you'd like to present an example of _anybody_ standing over a particular number of people killed, you're free to do so. Otherwise, this is simply just a scattergun 'insult everybody' comment which hardly helps your bid for the moral high ground.

landser wrote:

However, more worringly, this thread seeks to stop somebody questioning anything re the generally accepted matters concerning the holocaust, and this is a serious matter. Holocaust denial should never be illegal. To stifle debate and interpretation of history is dangerous. to say that one interpretation of history is legal and another illegal can lead to a slippery slope. I can say that WW1 did not happen, but i would clearly be wrong. I can say that german concentration camps did not exist, similarly i would be wrong. But to make it a crime for me to say the latter and not the former is abhorrent.

Once again, it would be useful if you were to anchor your arguments in reality. I do not recall anybody suggesting that we arrest Eriugenia or anybody else. The point of this thread is about people dominating discussion and directing everything towards a particular favoured topic of theirs which is essentially outside the interests of this board. If you were to repeatedly start threads denying the existance of WW1, I believe the reaction would be similar. Similarly, if I was to post umpteen comments expressing 'skepticism' over whether it _really_ was a penalty in the 1992 Cup Final, I would expect people's patience to run out eventually.

landser wrote:

No one can say for certain how many died in the german camps, no more than they can say how many died in the gulags or in china under Japanese control, and herein lies the basis for both arguments, both for and against the extent of, or even the existence of, the holocaust. I do not say that the arguments put forward by those who question the extent of the holocaust have a strong or even defnsible argument, but i certainly believe in their right to argue the point, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to others.

Your commitment to freedom of speech is all very noble and all very irrelevant. I have no problem with holocaust deniers discussing their ludicrous theories in suitable places, I simply think that they are abusing this board by doing so here to such an extent.

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

The point of this thread is about people dominating discussion and directing everything towards a particular favoured topic of theirs which is essentially outside the interests of this board.

The thread on holocaust revisionism was not started by me. Take it up with the person who started it.

If you were to repeatedly start threads denying the existance of WW1, I believe the reaction would be similar.

No it wouldn't because denying the historicity of WWI would be insane. Holocaust revisionism addresses a small set of very specific claims.

Similarly, if I was to post umpteen comments expressing 'skepticism' over whether it _really_ was a penalty in the 1992 Cup Final, I would expect people's patience to run out eventually.

Not if the thread was specifically about the 1992 Cup Final.

Your commitment to freedom of speech is all very noble and all very irrelevant. I have no problem with holocaust deniers discussing their ludicrous theories in suitable places, I simply think that they are abusing this board by doing so here to such an extent.

Again, the discussion has been confined to the relevant threads.

landser

KCF, the number suggested by me supra, is clearly not an "actual" figure, merely represntative of the many pointless arguments prusued in the Holocaust/9-11/man on the moon/whatever threads.

I know you never said that E & T shoukd be arrested, but your attempt to stifle them comes from the same stable. They might dominate a thread... so what? get off the thread if you don't like what they say or how often they say it. You say that they don't listen to what you say... Mr. Pot, may i introduce...

ISAW

psi wrote:

If you do a search for my posts on skeptics, then you'll most likely hit paydirt on the examples you seek. I gave up arguing with Davros about the likes of Turley and williamgrogan and I really don't wanna drag it all back up.



Well the person I made the claim to knows what I'm referring to, we've been through it often enough. What you're asking is for me to support YOU with examples for YOUR benefit. Seeing as I'm not making a case for you, nor do you have an ability to do anything beyong agree or disagree with me, I don't really see the point in entering into a debate with you on the matter.

You are entirely wrong here! I have no idea WHO you meant. If you meant an exchange on holocaust denial I had no idea whether you meant whether I Eriugenia or somebody else was behaving in the way you suggested. If you are accusing me then please post where I did as you suggest.

If you wish to see what we're talking about. Do the search as I suggest. If not, then its your choice, I shan't be trawling through old threads for your benefit.

You made the claim. You provide the evidence. I only arrived here last week and have no idea what you are talking about.

I arrived here long long before you were posting on boards, this is just a cameo
[/QOUTE]

So what? I am older than you or I am bigger than you or I am smarter than you is not a basis for claiming anyone is right.

Really? I'm pretty sure the personal attacks only stopped after I had a lengthy discussion with Davros about it via PM. Even then I see them slip through the odd time.

Well I wouldnt know about that. I admit I only arrived. But am involved in skeptical debate for years. I meant that argument ad hominem is fallacious.

Well I moderate the board, so I took it that when you followed up your post with an off topic post on a thread to slag off the board, just after I had posted, it was hardly a respectful gesture. If you can show me otherwise, then I apologise.
[/QOUTE]

It is not up to me to show you that. You cant shift the burden of proof onto me. However if you apologise I accept that you assumed in the wrong and I accept your apology. I dont even know you, but at least you have shown some degree of honesty and respect for rational discussion in doing that.

For my part I have no extensive knowledge of the history of debates here lest I be accused of being a necromancer. I only learned how to Quote yesterday:)

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

I think that this is an extremely inaccurate description of the discussion. If you'd like to present an example of _anybody_ standing over a particular number of people killed, you're free to do so. Otherwise, this is simply just a scattergun 'insult everybody' comment which hardly helps your bid for the moral high ground.

"Insult everybody"? Funny that, I don't feel insulted by that comment.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

I only arrived here last week . . .

That's right, and already you are trying to lay down the law and stir up trouble.

KCF

landser wrote:

KCF, the number suggested by me supra, is clearly not an "actual" figure, merely represntative of the many pointless arguments prusued in the Holocaust/9-11/man on the moon/whatever threads.

I think it is merely representative of your own prejudices and is not an accurate reflection of anything that has been written here.

landser wrote:

I know you never said that E & T shoukd be arrested, but your attempt to stifle them comes from the same stable. They might dominate a thread... so what? get off the thread if you don't like what they say or how often they say it. You say that they don't listen to what you say... Mr. Pot, may i introduce...

I have gone to some lengths to answer the 'so what' question on this thread. I believe that you have made no attempt to understand my point and are merely being wantonly insulting. You have a very poor understanding of the concept of freedom of speech. If I opine that a particular person's presence is destructive to the aims of a particular forum, that does not translate into an attack on their freedom of speech. No more than opining that a person deciding to play rugby in the middle of a soccer match is destructive is an attack on their freedom to play sport.

I suggest that you properly read the preceding text and comment upon it rather than whatever pet straw-man you are currently arguing with.

landser

KCF wrote:

I think it is merely representative of your own prejudices and is not an accurate reflection of anything that has been written here.


I have gone to some lengths to answer the 'so what' question on this thread. I believe that you have made no attempt to understand my point and are merely being wantonly insulting. You have a very poor understanding of the concept of freedom of speech. If I opine that a particular person's presence is destructive to the aims of a particular forum, that does not translate into an attack on their freedom of speech. No more than opining that a person deciding to play rugby in the middle of a soccer match is destructive is an attack on their freedom to play sport.

I suggest that you properly read the preceding text and comment upon it rather than whatever pet straw-man you are currently arguing with.

Entertaining sporting analogies aside, I was not aware that i was arguing with anyone in particular, and certainly, did not intend to insult anyone, unlike your goodself in your most recent emission.

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

You are entirely wrong here! I have no idea WHO you meant. If you meant an exchange on holocaust denial I had no idea whether you meant whether I Eriugenia or somebody else was behaving in the way you suggested. If you are accusing me then please post where I did as you suggest.

I addressed my post to Davros, not you. Don't worry your pretty little head about who I'm referring to, its not your concern.

You made the claim. You provide the evidence. I only arrived here last week and have no idea what you are talking about.

No, because, quite frankly, its none of your business and you're not answerable. If you want to know, do the work, if you don't, then stop wasting my time.

Well I wouldnt know about that. I admit I only arrived. But am involved in skeptical debate for years. I meant that argument ad hominem is fallacious.

Well you did start to tell me how people behave around here, so if you only just arrived, I find that presumptious in its own right. Even still, there is no arguement.

You just expect to be involved in a point I made to Davros that has nothing to do with you.

It is not up to me to show you that. You cant shift the burden of proof onto me.

Then I stand by my original comment.

For my part I have no extensive knowledge of the history of debates here lest I be accused of being a necromancer. I only learned how to Quote yesterday:)

Well then don't get involved in matters you know nothing about.

ISAW

landser wrote:

to tell you the truth, you are pretty much all the same in this thread when it comes to discussing the Holocaust. Neither side is ever willing to concede an inch. One side says that the holocaust may not have happened at all or at least not to the extent that is commonly accepted, while the others states that it did and that 6,183,242 people (or whatever the current revised figure is)were killed and if you deny this then you are a Nazi and an anti-semite.

[/QOUTE]

This is patently not true. I am willing to revise my poiition when evidence is presented. I didnt suggest ANY figures. Nor did I call anyone a Nazi or an Anti semite. But in addition to this you posit a false dichotomy.

[QOUTE]
The threads remind me of the big-enders and little-enders from Robinson Crusoe. In the end, neither side will be satisfied with the others "evidence" and the whole argument descends into name calling and running off to the moderators to complain that the other boys won't play fair.

I think you mean BIG and LITTLE -endians and the book was Gullivers Travels.
Robinson Crusoe lived ALONE on his Island until he discovered Friday.
You metaphor is about a relevant as your understanding of the topics as they were discussed.

[QOUTE]
I have been looking at these threads for a while, and would rather argue with an ape than get involved in one of these "it did happen/didn't happen" fracas.
[/QUOTE]

First you just have got involved in a meta discussion. Second, the dichotomy is false. If someone started a thread on the famine didnt happen or The Stardust fire didnt happen it is not a simple question of two equally acceptable positions. One is a historic FACT with masses of evidence the other is gainsaying what is known and using fradualent and concocted evidence to support nitpicking arguments in specific sub topics.

[/QOUTE]

[QOUTE]
However, more worringly, this thread seeks to stop somebody questioning anything re the generally accepted matters concerning the holocaust, and this is a serious matter. Holocaust denial should never be illegal.
[/QUOTE]

I never claimed it should be!
As it happens I actually spoke to the Minister of Justice about this.
You are creating an argument I never made. Indeed I made the opposite of that.

No one can say for certain how many died in the german camps, no more than they can say how many died in the gulags or in china under Japanese control, and herein lies the basis for both arguments, both for and against the extent of, or even the existence of, the holocaust. I do not say that the arguments put forward by those who question the extent of the holocaust have a strong or even defnsible argument, but i certainly believe in their right to argue the point, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to others.

Rubbish. the point isnt how many died. the point being made is it never happened! The deniers get into sthe habit aying that they are not deniers but cant see any evidence because that is illegal in other countries. But to a skeptic ther is no difference between nbo evidence of a Dragon and No Dragon.

If someone arrived claiming that there is no physical evidence that Fr Smith abused children and mayby nobody ever abused children and on that basis we should consider revising child pornography laws I suppose you would be claiming they deserve equal treatment and respect for being a true skeptic?

KCF

landser wrote:

Entertaining sporting analogies aside, I was not aware that i was arguing with anyone in particular, and certainly, did not intend to insult anyone, unlike your goodself in your most recent emission.

A helpful tip: when you express a particular position in an argument, which is opposed to the positions of other participants, you are "arguing with" them.
Another: when you express inaccurate summaries of particular points of view that you disagree with and claim that those who disagree with you are doing things like attempting to 'stifle debate', those people who feel that their views are misrepresented might feel insulted or some similar emotion.

Eriugena

psi wrote:

The ones who make the wishes are gonna grant them?

Unless they want to be seen as cowards then they must demonstrate their allegations.

That makes no sense.

It does if you understand simple fair play.

Poisonwood

How the heck did i miss 45 posts? ... I've only been gone for a few hours?!?!

(PS I agree generally with KCF)

robindch

> How the heck did i miss 45 posts? ... I've only been gone for a few hours?!?!

Wonderful -- in less than a day, 47 messages posted to a thread concerning board flooding!

Good heavens, doesn't anyone have a fulltime job?(*)

- robin.

(*) I'm replying in between lengthy compiles...

landser

KCF wrote:

A helpful tip: when you express a particular position in an argument, which is opposed to the positions of other participants, you are "arguing with" them.
Another: when you express inaccurate summaries of particular points of view that you disagree with and claim that those who disagree with you are doing things like attempting to 'stifle debate', those people who feel that their views are misrepresented might feel insulted or some similar emotion.

I said "in particluar" in that post... keep up old boy.

secondly, I never summarised anything at any time. I made a comment as to the nature of the debates in general in this thread and others on these general subjects.



ISAW, i wasn't talking to or about you, when i originally posted, so relax. Most of your "reply" is a bit of a rant tbh, and not relevant to the point i made initially.

your point re Gulliver's travels is well founded however, and i admit that i mis-quoted... have alexander selkirk on my mind of late, hence the slip up.

The Corinthian

KCF wrote:

Your commitment to freedom of speech is all very noble and all very irrelevant. I have no problem with holocaust deniers discussing their ludicrous theories in suitable places, I simply think that they are abusing this board by doing so here to such an extent.

That’s an opinion, to which you’re entitled. Don’t confuse that with fact.

Landser brought up a good point. You can go to racialist sites, such as Stormfront, and find people there dismissing the Holocaust on the basis that it’s apparently been proved not to have occurred and it is irresponsible to discuss it further. And oddly people are suggesting the same thing here.

Of course, I could take their word for it, but I’m not. And oddly the same goes for you.

KCF

landser wrote:

I said "in particluar" in that post... keep up old boy.

You were arguing with those people who were disagreeing with you _in particular_.

landser wrote:

secondly, I never summarised anything at any time. I made a comment as to the nature of the debates in general in this thread and others on these general subjects.

How is it possible to make "a comment as to the nature of the debates in general" without "summarising" them in some way? (okay it's a rhetorical question - it's not possible)

No more semantic pedantry please, please, please.

KCF

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s an opinion, to which you’re entitled. Don’t confuse that with fact.

And that's an opinion too, so don't confuse it with fact. * starts infinite recursion of pointless statement *

The fact that I have accompanied my opinion with a long list of arguments might have led you to believe that I was aware of the fact that it was an opinion that would not necessarily be agreed with by everybody. If you disagree with the opinion, argue your point. But please spare me the platitudes.

The Corinthian wrote:

Landser brought up a good point. You can go to racialist sites, such as Stormfront, and find people there dismissing the Holocaust on the basis that it’s apparently been proved not to have occurred and it is irresponsible to discuss it further. And oddly people are suggesting the same thing here.

Again, why not try accuracy when repeating what has been said? Nobody has suggested that it is irresponsible to discuss the holocaust and I think the notion is ridiculous.

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course, I could take their word for it, but I’m not. And oddly the same goes for you.

Rats, I was hoping that you'd autmatically recognise my authority as an anonymous idiot on the internet. I somehow failed to factor in your obviously elevated intellectual integrity.

Please, please, please address what was said. There is no point in having arguments with the censorious straw men that you would like to imagine that you are arguing with.

meditraitor

Hugely entertaining thread today, well done girls,

The Corinthian

KCF wrote:

And that's an opinion too, so don't confuse it with fact. * starts infinite recursion of pointless statement *

No, that’s actually a fact. When you based your conclusion on something you ‘think’, it was a bit of a giveaway.

The fact that I have accompanied my opinion with a long list of arguments might have led you to believe that I was aware of the fact that it was an opinion that would not necessarily be agreed with by everybody. If you disagree with the opinion, argue your point. But please spare me the platitudes.

Actually your only relevant argument to what I’ve pointed out is that you think these Stormfront chappies are abusing the board and are better excluded based upon your experience on other Internet forua.

I see a pattern, in that all this is based upon your opinion and little else. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Again, why not try accuracy when repeating what has been said? Nobody has suggested that it is irresponsible to discuss the holocaust and I think the notion is ridiculous.

And what is this?

ISAW wrote:

I am a bleiever in free speech. That does not however entitle anyone to an audience. This board is being used to spam Holocaust denial stuff which had been soundly debunked elsewhere.

psi wrote:

Discussion is one thing. Giving people a soapbox to spew untruths with other agendas in mind is irresponsible and another thing entirely.

I suggest you pay better attention yourself.

Rats, I was hoping that you'd autmatically recognise my authority as an anonymous idiot on the internet. I somehow failed to factor in your obviously elevated intellectual integrity.

Obviously it works better on the planet you come from. Here on Earth things are a little different.

landser

KCF wrote:

You were arguing with those people who were disagreeing with you _in particular_.


How is it possible to make "a comment as to the nature of the debates in general" without "summarising" them in some way? (okay it's a rhetorical question - it's not possible)

No more semantic pedantry please, please, please.

what are you on about? You accused me of summarising your posts as well as those of others: i didn't. what i did comment on, inter alia, was the route that such threads invariably take. As for your remarks re pedantry and semantics; i agree, but you just keep on doing it.

BTW stop begging, it's a little disturbing

KCF

robindch wrote:

Good heavens, doesn't anyone have a fulltime job?(*)

Is there any other reason to hang around on bulletin boards?

Obni

Turley wrote:

One might think if people gathered for a discussion they might at least be polite and respectful of others.

These boards are not unlike William Golding's "Lord of the Flies."

Most discussions I have engaged in were accompanied by a little friendly ribbing between participants. If the only part of my post that stuck in your mind was my abysmal attempt at humour, then I shall not waste my unique wit on these boards again.

Obni

Eriugena wrote:

I have confined my postings to the the relevant threads so I don't know how you can say I have dominated the board.

It was meant in a purely quantitative sense. The number of postings by yourself and the direct responses to them make up a large proportion of the postings to the board over the last two months. Just look at the relative number of postings to the various threads. The many contributors to these boards that have engaged in debate with you, may perhaps have become involved in what was, at times, a very heated debate to such an extent that other threads have been neglected and new threads have not been created.
I think the concern is that a lot of energy has been expended on topics such as revisionism/holocaust or 9/11 which though important issues in themselves are not of primary importance to the issues that ISS was formed to address.

GuanYin

The Corinthian wrote:

I suggest you pay better attention yourself.

I wasn't talking about the holocaust threads specifically, I was pointing towards the idiots who don't accept evidence or facts put to them.

ISAW

i am waiting on the 77 bus

ISAW

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s an opinion, to which you’re entitled. Don’t confuse that with fact.

Landser brought up a good point. You can go to racialist sites, such as Stormfront, and find people there dismissing the Holocaust on the basis that it’s apparently been proved not to have occurred and it is irresponsible to discuss it further. And oddly people are suggesting the same thing here.

Of course, I could take their word for it, but I’m not. And oddly the same goes for you.

thats bollix! Stormfront etc. do NOT follow the rules that skeptics do! To argue that they have the same principles and standards of debate is nonsense. In any case holocaust denial is not a balance of two opposing views no more than posting references to child porn and advocating that is worthy of equal respect.

ISAW

The Corinthian wrote:

I suggest you pay better attention yourself.

Obviously it works better on the planet you come from. Here on Earth things are a little different.

Your quote from me does not support the point you made. I did not say we should not discuss the holocaust in a fair debate. I pointed out the spamming of holocaust denial literature which had not been supported.

You quote from PSI does not support it either since if YOU were paying attention you would have noticed I asctually asked Psi to clarify since I didnt know if he was referring to me.