A&A Feedback

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I didn't call anyone a troll, but the thread in question is clearly a low-quality low level trolling thread. Amazing it's lasted a year... is the policy to allow shyte to draw in the flies?

The Charter states it is against the rules to indirectly call someone a troll - so saying the OP started a troll thread is to indirectly call them a troll.

There have been some interesting posts in that thread, and regardless of the intentions of the OP, it is a question I am sure many religious people have pondered - who better to ask than the unconvinced?


It is the policy to let discussion develop and not to interfere unless the charter is being broken.

I, personally, see no reason to close this particular thread. You do have the option of simply ignoring it. But going in there just to complain it's a troll thread could, in a certain light, be considered trolling.
Just saying like.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Fairy nuff. We should make more use of the "rate thread" button (never used it - is there a "zero stars" option?)

No idea. Never used it either. :P

antiskeptic wrote: »

I assume those who display evidence of being empircists are empiricists on the looks like a duck basis.

If you prefer I wait until they declare which philosophy to believe in I'll wait.

You are, I suggest, engaging in protectionism when its not exactly a secret that posters display their adherence to empiricism.




Whether it is better or worse lies in the eye of the beholder. That it is better than a theistic approach to interrogating reality is assumed by those who congregate here.

But until such time as that can be demonstrated (without arguing in a circle) a belief about the superiority of empiricism over theism it remains.

Isn't that the position here? That you show your work. Otherwise the empiricists claim is just a claim as any other.





The belief is in the superiority of the method as a way of interogating reality. Indeed, the circular reasoning is that all reality is to be interrogated by the senses because thats all the reality being detected.






I suggest stalemate is the end we will arrive at. That nobody will be able to demonstrate the superiority of their empiricism method over alternatives.

That conclusion is not shutting down the discussion. If that conclusion then the discussion might move to the need for members of this forum to step down from their high horse. For instance.





Summary. Empiricism is a methodology. Supposing empiricism a superior way to approach and interogate reality is a belief.

Your assumptions are just that. Assumptions. They do not form the basis of an argument. Not even when all you have are assumptions.
If you wish to proceed to frame your 'discussion' as an attack on empiricism the onus is on you to ascertain if your assumptions are correct, not to proceed as if they are fact.

And no - believing a methodology is superior to other methodologies does not mean that the methodology in question is a belief system.

Let's be blunt here - you have been officially warned often enough that telling other people what they believe (particularly when they have on several occasions corrected you) is soapboxing, and using that tactic to drag discussions in a circle in order to cause a stalemate is essentially trolling. You know that continuing to do so will attract further sanctions. And such sanctions will increase in severity.

As I see it you have three choices:
i) carry on as you are until such time as you are permanently banned from the forum.
ii) change your debate (I use the term loosely) style in such a way that it is not based on your assumptions about what other people believe (which would require you to take to board what people are saying to you) and/or stalemate.
iii) convince the mods that telling other people what they believe is not soapboxing, and posting with the aim to stalemate discussions is not trolling.


You can waffle on about empiricism being a belief - and a belief that is shared by the majority of posters in this forum - that is your choice. My job is to tell you that you will be sanctioned if you do so.
I have also outlined ways to get past this impasse - the choice is yours.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Quite easily determined. I simply ask the question before proceeding along the lines already taken.

How long do you think it will take before I'm dealing with a bunch of self declared empiricists?

A can kicked not very far down the road.



The problem isn't my convincing anyone. The problem is the self declared empiricist demonstrating the superiority of their method. Since they won't, I suggest, be able to do that without:

- sidestepping with appeals to arguments from incredulity (pink unicorns)

- asking me do I not value empirical method (I do)

- pointing to squillions of theistic belief systems

...and all the rest of the deflecting tricks used to avoid the problem: you claim superiority, you show superiority else yours is just a belief claim.





Let's get past first base: non theists showing themselves other than mere believers. That would be progress indeed.


But they won't be able to do it. And you already know it.

Judging by the amount of quacking contained therein I am going to assume you have chosen option i) and we shall proceed accordingly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to realise that I am not the only one making a claim. Very easy to sit there and throw rocks from the comfort of your assumptions. Nozz encapsulated that well: "the accumulated knowledge of mankind"* or some such. Time now for 'your side' to cough up regarding their claim.

I'm supposing them as unable as me to demonstrate their claim.



*where 'mankind' are people who globally share Nozz's worldview.

antiskeptic.
You have been warned, you have been sanctioned time and time again for the same breaches of the charter. What other posters may or may not have done is besides the point. This is about your posts and yours alone.

You have been told why you are attracting mod attention.
The mod position vis a vis the forum charter has been explained - you are considered to be soapboxing and trolling.
Your options going forwards were outlined.

And here you are = persisting with the same old same old soapboxing utterly failing to take on board what is being said to you.

Mod warning bit:
This thread is for feedback - not to rehash your single argument or deploy your circular tactics. If you persist in rehashing here in this thread you will be sanctioned. If you attempt to stalemate this thread you will be sanctioned.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I suppose your being even handed. The modding over at Christianity seeks to protect the believers there so that they can discuss their beliefs without constant interruption from those with contrary beliefs.

The level of 'argument' here, that still stretches unto invoking the Pink Unicorn, needs all the protection that can be mustered. I suppose your only doing your job. No hard feelings.

I'll get my coat..

A number of post from here relating to Is/Isn't Empiricism a belief have been moved to a new thread dedicated to that very topic.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058124841

Everyone is more than welcome to discuss it there.

Let's keep here for feedback.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps Peregrinus is more Jesus-like than me. Perhaps Peregrinus steers clear of posters who pour out scorn. Perhaps Peregrinus would take a spurious ban from a mod, who patently dislikes him, lying down. Maybe good for Peregrinus, maybe not. At risk of drawing a false comparison: they don't tend to crucify the non-adversarial.

Or perhaps he simply focuses on the argument in hand, where he gains ground when finding flaw in a counterargument and graciously concedes it where the reverse is true. This makes for entertaining discussion where argument and understanding can be progressed and both sides can take something away from the conversation. Personally, I get satisfaction out of having to question my own assumptions and revise them where I get things wrong, which is as often as not. I want to enjoy the discussion and by times learn from it which is why I post on forums such as this. Experience has shown me this is much more likely to be the case when engaging with reasonable people who have a different world view from my own.

With respect, I think many of your own posts on this forum display an intransigence and repetitiveness that tend to hamstring the debate and make it rather tedious for all concerned.

Excuse the direct question, but what precisely motivates you to post here?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Speaking of adversarial. You said nothing at all about the substance of post you've just modded. I wrote that post due to a miscarding by a mod.

If you believe you have been miscarded you are free to take it to DRP and argue it there.
As the mod who has had cause to card you three times in rapid succession in the same thread you could have PM'd me to discuss the card and your belief you were miscarded to seek an amicable resolution prior to launching a lengthy 'defense' in Feedback - you did neither of those things.

Those facts speak volumes. Currently it appears you are not interested in resolution, you are playing an entirely different game one in which you think the mods are a) fools b)do not communicate c) do not agree d) you can run procedural rings around us.

Let's look at the 3 cards I issued during your latest tilt at the windmills of A&A - which btw is an increase on the number of cards I previously issued to you by 150% and makes you the poster most sanctioned by me since I became a mod.
My so-called heavy hand seems rather light when the evidence is examined empirically and forensically. I shall endeavour to do better in future to live up to my reputation.

So, in a thread created for you to expound a theory where you would not face risk of being sanctioned but the rest of the rules as per Charter & general Boards.ie wide apply (which was made clear) you decided to indulge in a spot of Backseat Moderation and were duly carded, a mod note was posted.

You then compounded the situation by responding to that mod note in-thread to 'apologise' and state you have changed the offending section. This led to another yellow as replying to a mod instruction in-thread is a boards wide no-no and not confined to A&A, you know this. But perhaps you forgot so in the mod post you quoted the very last line was a reminder. My 'heavy hand' gave you a yellow even though the rule of thumb is to escalate so technically I should have given you a red card. I'll let you into a secret. I suspected you would soon be back seeking further sanctions.

Which brings us to your alleged 'miscarding' - given that you apologised for the 1st yellow and really there is no defense for the 2nd I assume this 'miscard' is the red you got for 'playing the man'.

A one line post where you comment that another poster was 'brainwashed'.

Your defense appears to be :

i) Atheist posters in A&A think religious people are brainwashed. They have said so in the past in general terms.


ii) Another mod was waiting for me in the long grass to do a different thing and when I did they sanctioned me.

iii)The man I played is also religious so is like me therefore I cannot insult them as we have shared life experiences.

iv) Atheist posters break the rules sometimes.

v) Atheist posters have said mean things but rather than report them I am doing likewise.

vi)The mods are enforcing the rules against me too stringently, sure we all stray sometimes.


Let's deal with these point by point:

i) Any poster who specifically states another poster has been brainwashed will be sanctioned. Indeed any such personal comments will be sanctioned - please report any such comments to the mods as we may not have seen them.
Stating a 'group' in general terms has been brainwashed is not 'playing the man'.

ii) "A mod was waiting for me to do a thing I had been warned to stop doing and then sanctioned me when I did it again" is not the stunning defense you seem to think it is. If a mod had warned you to stop doing a thing then either stop doing the thing, discuss the thing with the mod via pm, discuss it here and wait for a clarification, take the time for doing the crime.

iii) You can't seriously expect that one to fly. A personal comment is a personal comment. There is no 'nuance' - and even if in your mind there was we are not mind readers so can only go on what you have posted. Next time you are attempting an 'insult as an in-joke' type post may I suggest the use of a visual aid such as one of the emojis to be found on the right - ":pac:" or ";)" or ":D" or even ":cool:" would aid in identifying the presence of contextual nuance.

iv) Indeed they do. And when this is brought to the attention of the mods they are sanctioned. If we only sanctioned theists there would be no need for 3 mods in this forum. I know that I can hardly take the dogs for a walk without getting a notification of dodgy dooings on this forum we are that busy.

v) Billy Bob was bold and I told no one but a month later I was bold too and got given out to and that's not fair. Again, not exactly a stunning defence. What other posters do/sanctioning of other posters is not a mitigating circumstance. You, alone, are responsible for your own actions and increasingly poor record.

vi) Nope. In fact I left you off with a yellow when I should technically have given you a red for a cut and dried infraction of a site wide rule. The mods created a thread where you would get special treatment. If anything it is the atheist posters who should be complaining that we are being more stringent with them - but they aren't.
Most posters here do not get as much mod attention, this is true. But I put it to you that this is because they don't have the same impulse to continually throw themselves in front of the mod train so tend to not attract as much scrutiny.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for robindch? He's been playing me, the man, for a number of years now.

Not in the slightest. I have been playing with your ideas - specifically, applying your own bad logic to your own bad arguments - with predictable results.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And me him.

Not a good idea to admit that you've been playing a moderator - it's not the kind of admission which will win you an extra life in any forum

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you considered I might be adversarial because I have adversaries?

I wouldn't overegg your omlette - Don Quixote also had powerful, lethal enemies who'd stop at nothing to discredit the bravest knight in all La Mancha. Unfortunately, they were windmills.

Antiskeptic banned for three days for continuing to play the man instead of the ball despite repeatedly being reminded not to.