Jump to content
Enterprise

Hey, admins!

Recommended Posts

I don't understand what the second infraction was for. It makes no sense to me.

 

The first however was probably from "its not like they are on the same epistemic level" which could be interpreted as "they are stupid and wont get our more advanced concepts" whether or not it was meant that way (which I belleive it probably wasn't considering the context of the post). Misunderstanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand what the second infraction was for. It makes no sense to me.

 

The first however was probably from "its not like they are on the same epistemic level" which could be interpreted as "they are stupid and wont get our more advanced concepts" whether or not it was meant that way (which I belleive it probably wasn't considering the context of the post). Misunderstanding?

The second paragraph is actually a well-respected way of dealing with theistic debates-- the xtians in this case don't view it that way....

 

(See my avatar for more on this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you like us to do? Make infraxions actually do something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specifically: Enterprise, as stated belove, you have a trend of insulting other users (see your signature and your second infracted post,) groups of people (once gain see your signature and your second infracted post)

That you belong to. I'd have no problem if an atheist gave me an infraction for insulting an xtian, but what this comes down to is you giving out infractions to a) those who don't need/deserve it, and B) that you are opposed to. There's no good way to have "unbiased" moderation if you act in this way.

 

Do you get this?

 

as well as one-sentence nonconstructive remarks which pervade almost every post you make on the site. Your first post insulted the religious, infraction. Your second post insulted me specifically, infraction.

Everything I said there was constructive, and the 1st post was a true thing-- xtians and atheists aren't on the same epistemic level, as evidenced by our tendency to not agree on anything.

 

And this,

Please, O Glorious Retired, enlighten us on why a mechanical engineer needs to know evolution to make a more fuel-efficient car. Please O Glorious Retired, enlighten us on why an Energy Engineer needs to know evolution to better our clean energy sources. Please, O Glorious Retired, enlighten us on why a Electrical Engineer needs to know evolution to advance information tech.

wasn't insulting/condescending? I called you out on it for being an arrogant douche. I'm pretty sure everybody here would agree with me that what you said was douchy.

 

Seriously, quit being an overreacting hypocrite. In the infraction on Screech, you made a specific point of decrying the action because 1) the user oftentimes doesn't understand the point of the infraction, can't see the discussion of the infraction, and doesn't know the administrative consensus on the infraction, and 2) because it acts as a semi-official post repudiation by the site and so should be used with caution, then say here that "If you don't know how to be funny when abusing mod powers, don't do it at all." Well, what is it? If it's so serious, how can any use of them be seen as appropriate, especially when done as a joke? The answer is there can't be a humorous way to hand them out, and you admit a double-standard about you "old hats" when they, oh, say, hand them out three times in four posts. Yeah, real funny.

I like it how Screech is being used as a perfect example of a bad poster.

 

Great example.

 

Separately, in this case, forum category lines don't matter. It isn't my job to enforce your rules, it's my job to enforce site rules. That includes stopping users such as Enterprise, of whom make a regular habit of 1) contributing nothing to what would be otherwise constructive discussions except one-sentence ignorant, smartass remarks,

So that's all I do? Considering the short, smartass and ignant nature of your posts, can you really be saying any of this without hypocrisy?

 

Secondly, I'd contest that all of my posts are like that. Either 1) They are, in which case I'll change to having paragraphs, or 2) they aren't, and you just like opposing atheists.

 

and 2) gladly insulting any number of users, groups of people, or otherwise. This is seen in both posts. They aren't just nonconstructive, the first of the two is nothing but a categorical insult to the religious.

Wait, so representing theists as being illogical is bad, but when it comes to representing atheists as bad, that's clearly not wrong, correct?

 

I'm not about to dig up others, but I'm beyond certain you've said condescending and insulting things to atheists before(see the retired-addressed post for one example)

His second is 99% insults to me, 1% typical Enterprise one-sentence responses to an argument.

I insulted you(justifiably) 4 times in that post, and that's if calling you an arrogant douche counts(which is arguable when you did some jerky things to retired in your post).

 

The rest was constructive. Go read it. If you're going to say my posts are vacuous, at least get the %s right.

 

 

And that's to ignore his signature which deliberately twists two different posts to insult a specific user, and to once again make a categorical insult.

A few points:

1) Their words not mine(yes, they're out of context, but isn't that what policy debate is about?(Also, no offense to you red spy, but use red spy's sig as an example. If you can't have funny/ironic sigs, then why bother?)

2) They understand its funny. You don't. It seems the problem is on your end. While I disagree with Nathan, and have told him to just leave cross-x before, he knows it is done out of love.

3)This is best handled by PMs, not in front of the community. I think everybody can agree on this last point.

 

 

 

Enterprise and many, many other users have been unfettered in their behavior up until this point, and no one's stopped them.

Unfettered? Forgive me for saying so, but I have seen, and been involved with, many, many worse forum conflicts than anything I have created. You grossly overstate your case.

 

So as long as posts like this one stay up, I will put infractions on them.

The funny part is that you still expect to get reelected, I bet.

 

Enterprise deserved the infractions, and they also serve to marker the need for the posts to be deleted.

 

Then PM the mod of the forums. This is silly. If I've done nothing else with this post, I hope I've convinced the readers of it to not reelect Ninja.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would you like us to do? Make infraxions actually do something?

No, because it seems nobody else(if I'm wrong on this, please please please correct me) is using them as tools of intimidation.

 

I am bringing this to the community's attention because I believe Ninja isn't a good mod, and would very much like him to be unseated next election cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my two cents

 

1) I honestly don't think this is about the specific infraction Enter. I see what you're saying and it's common for people to have a tendency to take these sort of situations personal. I honestly don't think it is. Sure Ninja is giving the infractions (although debatable within Mods Only, or if the need be in Feedback or Complain) but it extends further from that now. Ninja has given others out based on the premise of "unconstructive" commentary and what not. It's obviously base more on what he sees the website becoming, and the double standards he sees within the older members and moderators. You're a victim of reactionary reasoning. Goes for you too Screech. I think his actions and feelings about mod powers makes it clear he's not too thrilled about the site in general.

 

2) I think instead of debating about the infractions themselves, and Ninja's obvious quarrel with the rules of the website regulations and rule set, we need to talk about what constitutes infractions and discipline, what significance an infraction and other moderator devices have, and what and where the boundaries are within the infraction and warning system. Issues are present that with the new ownership can hopefully be settled for the betterment of the site. A lot of people are becoming deterred from site for it's streak of "unseriousness" for lack of a better word. I mean, McNinja may not be using the issue effectively, but there is a sufficient double standard within the hierarchy of the site that isn't too healthy, and sometimes, Misc just needs to stay in Misc

 

3) What should we do about it then? Although banning should stay within the limits of power to the reigning super mod and the Admins, i think new quality control tests and regulations are in order. Maybe a revamp or custom reputation and title system that not necessarily "shit lists bad users" but maybe makes regulation easier (no images, forum restriction, post number restriction, etc.(and maybe that means an end to happy-fun-time, so be it)) Maybe that system can be implemented more effectively as part of a new infraction/warning system. It's there, it just needs a bit more work is all.

 

But most importantly, there are a whole lot of actions that are not smart on both sides, but instead of triggering this infighting and bickering, we can get to issues at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^We want to be careful with cracking down on trolls, as we don't want to end up like forensics-online.net

 

Issue is that forums end up having multiple mods with multiple inconsistent standards. There should be a clear set of guidelines that are adhered to on a forum by forum basis, ie I can post more trash in current events than misc.

 

Ofc the status quo is nice too. I and others certainly like this site as to how casual/lax it is compared to forensics online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^We want to be careful with cracking down on trolls, as we don't want to end up like forensics-online.net

 

Issue is that forums end up having multiple mods with multiple inconsistent standards. There should be a clear set of guidelines that are adhered to on a forum by forum basis, ie I can post more trash in current events than misc.

 

Ofc the status quo is nice too. I and others certainly like this site as to how casual/lax it is compared to forensics online.

 

Surprisingly i find myself agreeing with Red Spy here. I think the only standard that should be set is forum mods have sovereignty within THEIR forums but probably shouldn't be allowed to exercise those powers in places they weren't elected (obvious exceptions to super-mods and owners etc.). If people don't like what they can/can't get away with in a certain forum they can raise those issues at election time.

 

To take care of the "un-seriousness" issue i remember a few years back when the whole /b/ trend started infecting crawsex Mat made it his policy that if any 4chan crap was posted anywhere but Misc. that poster got subjected to whatever Matt decided (normally a temp bad). I'm in support of that sort of crackdown, but everything else works fine. My only qualm is that there are many inactive mods and elections should probably happen soon.

Edited by Lemur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That you belong to. I'd have no problem if an atheist gave me an infraction for insulting an xtian, but what this comes down to is you giving out infractions to a) those who don't need/deserve it, and B) that you are opposed to. There's no good way to have "unbiased" moderation if you act in this way.

 

The infractions were not given on grounds of your signature, but of two of your posts in the Apologetics thread. In the first post, you first state the thread as "worthless," and then follow it with an insult to the religious. You then respond that you have an issue with my application of an infraction on grounds I am a member of the insulted group, and would have no issue were an atheist to have handed you the infraction. You predicate your contention on no possible way to avoid "biased" moderation. This provides several argumentative issues.

 

First: The argument that only someone not of the group insulted could identify whether or not an insult occurred. This is problematic, for it is of the same basis as a bully saying that they would only believe they were insulting you if another bully said so.

 

Second: The categorical exclusion of the religious. Your post didn't insult Christians, it insulted the religious. By the above post you categorically exclude their ability to say what you did was insulting.

 

Third: Presumption that it requires preexisting bias or deliberate intention to twist your language to present it as insulting. This is simply not so. You have a trend of the type of content you post on this site. You have frequently exhibited contempt on the religious, making such assertions as calling them illogical, irrational, and in that post, collectively inferior.

 

See:

4 pages of worthless discussion-- why do atheists bother to convince theists otherwise?

 

There's no advantage to it, and its not like they're on our epistemic level anyways...

 

With consideration to your trend of vitriol on these matters, there's no reason to not see these as another post in a line of exhibitions of contempt by you. Twisting the language is unnecessary- you have demonstrated your feelings repeatedly, and taking this as your placement of "categorical inferiority" on the religious is immediately apparent, even without experience with your posting habits, as all the language to see it as insulting is already present.

 

 

 

Everything I said there was constructive, and the 1st post was a true thing-- xtians and atheists aren't on the same epistemic level, as evidenced by our tendency to not agree on anything.

 

The exact phrasing of the statement indicates priority. "Different systems of epistemology," but there are no indicators in the language of the remark to think that's what you meant. Had you said "Why do atheists and theists try to convince each other, anyway? They aren't even in the same systems of epistemology." It is easily seen as a neutral statement. However, your post emphasized atheists "atheists try to convince theists..." and that they are on a superior epistemic level "and it's not like they're (by the syntax of your sentences, they're is grammatically "theists") on our (again, by the syntax, our is grammatically "atheists") epistemic level anyways..."

 

Nothing subjective, just the rules of the construct of language. This post was deliberately insulting.

 

 

 

And this,

wasn't insulting/condescending? I called you out on it for being an arrogant douche. I'm pretty sure everybody here would agree with me that what you said was douchy.

 

That segment of the post was certainly done in a facetious nature, as per the clear employment of sarcastic honorifics, however, the sarcasm was intended directly counter-point to the arrogance exhibited by retired.

 

Your last point is a contradiction. The contentious portions of your response (to the post in question, not this post) is often spent defending retired when he made no attempt to do so of his own accord. Using your own basis for denying the legitimacy of your infractions, how do you act as a legitimate, unbiased observer, making judgments of what qualifies as arrogant or douchy? If you respond that you are a third party, then how am I not a third party to different religious group you insulted as part of your categorical insulting of them?

 

 

 

So that's all I do? Considering the short, smartass and ignant nature of your posts, can you really be saying any of this without hypocrisy?

 

Secondly, I'd contest that all of my posts are like that. Either 1) They are, in which case I'll change to having paragraphs, or 2) they aren't, and you just like opposing atheists.

 

 

I acknowledge that I have made posts which are only a sentence or two. The difference in these habits and yours is that the remaining and overwhelming majority of my posts possess actual content. Even still, those times they are short, they are most often found in threads where there isn't a serious discussion at hand.

 

The same may not be said for yours. Contest this if you so desire, but as an example in immediacy, prior to your response to my post, every one of your posts in the Apologetics thread were, at a maximum, two sentences long. Out of interest for specificity, I checked your previous 100 posts. This short-response behavior may be observed in 93.

 

 

 

Wait, so representing theists as being illogical is bad, but when it comes to representing atheists as bad, that's clearly not wrong, correct?

 

I'm not about to dig up others, but I'm beyond certain you've said condescending and insulting things to atheists before(see the retired-addressed post for one example)

 

The point raised in that particular bit of the post is my observation that Atheists will oftentimes have a demonstrable lack of knowledge on history. There is no assertions of a lack of reasoning ability, tendencies of irrational or illogical behavior, or discrepancies in epistemic levels. Similarly, were you to make similar observations on the religious regarding their lack of knowledge on any number or type of subjects, you wouldn't be insulting. But therein lies the issue: your rarity in giving credence to your claims. You will make your assertion and offer no further elaboration upon it.

 

I also acknowledge that I have made critical, offensive, and mean posts. I have no illusions in my own contributions to the general deterioration of post quality on this site. This goes for every user and twice over for moderators. I, however, have seen the problem, am finished with letting it go any further, and have the ability to raise issues immediately to the eye of other site moderators.

 

 

 

I insulted you(justifiably) 4 times in that post, and that's if calling you an arrogant douche counts(which is arguable when you did some jerky things to retired in your post).

 

The rest was constructive. Go read it. If you're going to say my posts are vacuous, at least get the %s right.

 

The percentage was done so in hyperbole. That hyperbole, however, was to highlight the underlying impetus for your post. This is taking reference to your tendency of avoiding serious contributions to a discussion in favor of one- and two-sentence responses, which are often accompanied in your frequency of insulting the religious. There is a repeated lack of any attempt on your part to respond to arguments laid out within a post. This is particularly noteworthy as no other user on the site exhibits such disregard (except while very obviously trolling.) These users put in the effort to write lengthy responses, either to others' posts, or even to your small remarks, and yet your behavior persists. I thus lose reason to take your posts serious, and not see them as anything other than a vehicle for insults.

 

 

 

3)This is best handled by PMs, not in front of the community. I think everybody can agree on this last point.

 

The decision to raise these issue to the general site was mine. The factors that led to this were the recent infractions assigned by myself, Fox On Socks specifically criticizing loose infraction assignment as an issue owing to their non-visibility of the moderator discussion on said infractions, and lastly, as I said in my first post in this thread, I have nothing to hide.

 

 

 

Unfettered? Forgive me for saying so, but I have seen, and been involved with, many, many worse forum conflicts than anything I have created. You grossly overstate your case.

 

This is not in dispute; none of the recently infracted posts are seen as particularly egregious. Yes, there have been events of much worse posting activity. My recent actions have been done with an exhaustion on the poor state of affairs on the site, and my explicit and public goal to stop them. This site has experienced a large decline in user activity coinciding a large increase in irrelevant posting habits, "trollish" behavior, and the open acceptance of users like Hadoken, even after repeated banning from the site.

 

 

 

The funny part is that you still expect to get reelected, I bet.

 

Then PM the mod of the forums. This is silly. If I've done nothing else with this post, I hope I've convinced the readers of it to not reelect Ninja.

 

The thought of losing this position is of no threat to me. Should it come to pass that no heed is taken to my words, posts quality will experience increasing deterioration, and the perception as a reputable source will conclude degradation, and the site will meet its unfortunate and swift demise.

 

 

 

Surprisingly i find myself agreeing with Red Spy here. I think the only standard that should be set is forum mods have sovereignty within THEIR forums but probably shouldn't be allowed to exercise those powers in places they weren't elected (obvious exceptions to super-mods and owners etc.). If people don't like what they can/can't get away with in a certain forum they can raise those issues at election time.

 

To take care of the "un-seriousness" issue i remember a few years back when the whole /b/ trend started infecting crawsex Matt made it his policy that if any 4chan crap was posted anywhere but Misc. that poster got subjected to whatever Matt decided (normally a temp bad). I'm in support of that sort of crackdown, but everything else works fine. My only qualm is that there are many inactive mods and elections should probably happen soon.

 

 

Were my powers limited to Missouri, I would have no problem with that so long as stricter policies begin to go in place. Moderators have done nothing and the site suffers for it. More active moderation can solve the problem, and then there won't be a need for such actions or discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the infractions were not given on grounds of your signature, but of two of your posts in the apologetics thread. In the first post, you first state the thread as "worthless," and then follow it with an insult to the religious. You then respond that you have an issue with my application of an infraction on grounds i am a member of the insulted group, and would have no issue were an atheist to have handed you the infraction. You predicate your contention on no possible way to avoid "biased" moderation. This provides several argumentative issues.

 

First: The argument that only someone not of the group insulted could identify whether or not an insult occurred. This is problematic, for it is of the same basis as a bully saying that they would only believe they were insulting you if another bully said so.

 

Second: The categorical exclusion of the religious. Your post didn't insult christians, it insulted the religious. By the above post you categorically exclude their ability to say what you did was insulting.

 

Third: Presumption that it requires preexisting bias or deliberate intention to twist your language to present it as insulting. This is simply not so. You have a trend of the type of content you post on this site. You have frequently exhibited contempt on the religious, making such assertions as calling them illogical, irrational, and in that post, collectively inferior.

 

See:

 

 

With consideration to your trend of vitriol on these matters, there's no reason to not see these as another post in a line of exhibitions of contempt by you. Twisting the language is unnecessary- you have demonstrated your feelings repeatedly, and taking this as your placement of "categorical inferiority" on the religious is immediately apparent, even without experience with your posting habits, as all the language to see it as insulting is already present.

 

 

 

 

 

The exact phrasing of the statement indicates priority. "different systems of epistemology," but there are no indicators in the language of the remark to think that's what you meant. Had you said "why do atheists and theists try to convince each other, anyway? They aren't even in the same systems of epistemology." it is easily seen as a neutral statement. However, your post emphasized atheists "atheists try to convince theists..." and that they are on a superior epistemic level "and it's not like they're (by the syntax of your sentences, they're is grammatically "theists") on our (again, by the syntax, our is grammatically "atheists") epistemic level anyways..."

 

nothing subjective, just the rules of the construct of language. This post was deliberately insulting.

 

 

 

 

 

That segment of the post was certainly done in a facetious nature, as per the clear employment of sarcastic honorifics, however, the sarcasm was intended directly counter-point to the arrogance exhibited by retired.

 

Your last point is a contradiction. The contentious portions of your response (to the post in question, not this post) is often spent defending retired when he made no attempt to do so of his own accord. Using your own basis for denying the legitimacy of your infractions, how do you act as a legitimate, unbiased observer, making judgments of what qualifies as arrogant or douchy? If you respond that you are a third party, then how am i not a third party to different religious group you insulted as part of your categorical insulting of them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I acknowledge that i have made posts which are only a sentence or two. The difference in these habits and yours is that the remaining and overwhelming majority of my posts possess actual content. Even still, those times they are short, they are most often found in threads where there isn't a serious discussion at hand.

 

The same may not be said for yours. Contest this if you so desire, but as an example in immediacy, prior to your response to my post, every one of your posts in the apologetics thread were, at a maximum, two sentences long. Out of interest for specificity, i checked your previous 100 posts. This short-response behavior may be observed in 93.

 

 

 

 

 

The point raised in that particular bit of the post is my observation that atheists will oftentimes have a demonstrable lack of knowledge on history. There is no assertions of a lack of reasoning ability, tendencies of irrational or illogical behavior, or discrepancies in epistemic levels. Similarly, were you to make similar observations on the religious regarding their lack of knowledge on any number or type of subjects, you wouldn't be insulting. But therein lies the issue: Your rarity in giving credence to your claims. You will make your assertion and offer no further elaboration upon it.

 

I also acknowledge that i have made critical, offensive, and mean posts. I have no illusions in my own contributions to the general deterioration of post quality on this site. This goes for every user and twice over for moderators. I, however, have seen the problem, am finished with letting it go any further, and have the ability to raise issues immediately to the eye of other site moderators.

 

 

 

 

 

The percentage was done so in hyperbole. That hyperbole, however, was to highlight the underlying impetus for your post. This is taking reference to your tendency of avoiding serious contributions to a discussion in favor of one- and two-sentence responses, which are often accompanied in your frequency of insulting the religious. There is a repeated lack of any attempt on your part to respond to arguments laid out within a post. This is particularly noteworthy as no other user on the site exhibits such disregard (except while very obviously trolling.) these users put in the effort to write lengthy responses, either to others' posts, or even to your small remarks, and yet your behavior persists. I thus lose reason to take your posts serious, and not see them as anything other than a vehicle for insults.

 

 

 

 

 

The decision to raise these issue to the general site was mine. The factors that led to this were the recent infractions assigned by myself, fox on socks specifically criticizing loose infraction assignment as an issue owing to their non-visibility of the moderator discussion on said infractions, and lastly, as i said in my first post in this thread, i have nothing to hide.

 

 

 

 

 

This is not in dispute; none of the recently infracted posts are seen as particularly egregious. Yes, there have been events of much worse posting activity. My recent actions have been done with an exhaustion on the poor state of affairs on the site, and my explicit and public goal to stop them. This site has experienced a large decline in user activity coinciding a large increase in irrelevant posting habits, "trollish" behavior, and the open acceptance of users like hadoken, even after repeated banning from the site.

 

 

 

 

 

The thought of losing this position is of no threat to me. Should it come to pass that no heed is taken to my words, posts quality will experience increasing deterioration, and the perception as a reputable source will conclude degradation, and the site will meet its unfortunate and swift demise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Were my powers limited to missouri, i would have no problem with that so long as stricter policies begin to go in place. Moderators have done nothing and the site suffers for it. More active moderation can solve the problem, and then there won't be a need for such actions or discussions.

 

too long;didn't read

Edited by X Spike
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The infractions were not given on grounds of your signature, but of two of your posts in the Apologetics thread. In the first post, you first state the thread as "worthless," and then follow it with an insult to the religious. You then respond that you have an issue with my application of an infraction on grounds I am a member of the insulted group, and would have no issue were an atheist to have handed you the infraction. You predicate your contention on no possible way to avoid "biased" moderation. This provides several argumentative issues.

I'll defend the thread is still worthless, as there is nothing useful that came of it. And no, there's a way to avoid biased moderation. Don't bring your opinions into a thread that you give infractions out in.

 

Secondarily, the fact of the matter is that there are different epistemic systems that atheists and theists operate under. I never specified that one is above the other. Indeed, they're merely different. Its your christian, hierarchical reading that read it as "better" or "worse"

 

 

First: The argument that only someone not of the group insulted could identify whether or not an insult occurred. This is problematic, for it is of the same basis as a bully saying that they would only believe they were insulting you if another bully said so.

Lol, wut? My point is one the level of representations. Nobody now thinks you're unbiased.

 

Second: The categorical exclusion of the religious. Your post didn't insult Christians, it insulted the religious. By the above post you categorically exclude their ability to say what you did was insulting.

Read what I already posted. Its your trouble with reading, not with what I said.

 

 

 

Third: Presumption that it requires preexisting bias or deliberate intention to twist your language to present it as insulting. This is simply not so. You have a trend of the type of content you post on this site. You have frequently exhibited contempt on the religious, making such assertions as calling them illogical, irrational, and in that post, collectively inferior.

You are illogical, irrational, but perhaps not collectively inferior. Once again, its your fetishization of logic and rationality that makes you read it this way.

 

With consideration to your trend of vitriol on these matters, there's no reason to not see these as another post in a line of exhibitions of contempt by you. Twisting the language is unnecessary- you have demonstrated your feelings repeatedly, and taking this as your placement of "categorical inferiority" on the religious is immediately apparent, even without experience with your posting habits, as all the language to see it as insulting is already present.

It isn't, blah blah blah, Past speech doesn't indicate my current feelings/ actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The exact phrasing of the statement indicates priority. "Different systems of epistemology," but there are no indicators in the language of the remark to think that's what you meant. Had you said "Why do atheists and theists try to convince each other, anyway? They aren't even in the same systems of epistemology." It is easily seen as a neutral statement. However, your post emphasized atheists "atheists try to convince theists..." and that they are on a superior epistemic level "and it's not like they're (by the syntax of your sentences, they're is grammatically "theists") on our (again, by the syntax, our is grammatically "atheists") epistemic level anyways..."

And herp derp, theists don't try and convince atheists otherwise at all, correct? That was implicit, once again, its your reading that makes it into something insulting.

 

Nothing subjective, just the rules of the construct of language. This post was deliberately insulting.

Rules of language bro? I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Literal reading means I'm right. Putting my intention into the post might make it lean your way, but you'll be completely unable to prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

That segment of the post was certainly done in a facetious nature, as per the clear employment of sarcastic honorifics, however, the sarcasm was intended directly counter-point to the arrogance exhibited by retired.

Actually, it was meant to be insulting, as given by the implication within it that those who work with electronics are inferior to others.

 

Your last point is a contradiction. The contentious portions of your response (to the post in question, not this post) is often spent defending retired when he made no attempt to do so of his own accord. Using your own basis for denying the legitimacy of your infractions, how do you act as a legitimate, unbiased observer, making judgments of what qualifies as arrogant or douchy? If you respond that you are a third party, then how am I not a third party to different religious group you insulted as part of your categorical insulting of them?

Hypocrisy != contradiction. A contradiction is saying that 1+1=2 and that 1+1=3. Hypocrisy is just saying that you are wrong for the same reasons I am wrong. And I don't care about being a hypocrite-- I have no power on this site, and am not up for reelection.

 

 

 

 

 

I acknowledge that I have made posts which are only a sentence or two. The difference in these habits and yours is that the remaining and overwhelming majority of my posts possess actual content. Even still, those times they are short, they are most often found in threads where there isn't a serious discussion at hand.

There's no brightline for actual content. Get off your high horse. And also, my posts appear all over the place too.

 

The same may not be said for yours. Contest this if you so desire, but as an example in immediacy, prior to your response to my post, every one of your posts in the Apologetics thread were, at a maximum, two sentences long. Out of interest for specificity, I checked your previous 100 posts. This short-response behavior may be observed in 93.

Maybe that's how I like to respond? That and not everything requires a paragraph.

 

 

 

The point raised in that particular bit of the post is my observation that Atheists will oftentimes have a demonstrable lack of knowledge on history.

OK.. I got that...

There is no assertions of a lack of reasoning ability, tendencies of irrational or illogical behavior, or discrepancies in epistemic levels.

You're kidding, right? I urge people who are still reading this to read his original post. You draw your own conclusions.

Similarly, were you to make similar observations on the religious regarding their lack of knowledge on any number or type of subjects, you wouldn't be insulting. But therein lies the issue: your rarity in giving credence to your claims. You will make your assertion and offer no further elaboration upon it.

Sometimes assertion is all you need-- absurdity is enough sometimes...

I also acknowledge that I have made critical, offensive, and mean posts. I have no illusions in my own contributions to the general deterioration of post quality on this site. This goes for every user and twice over for moderators. I, however, have seen the problem, am finished with letting it go any further, and have the ability to raise issues immediately to the eye of other site moderators.

lawl. The lone ranger...

 

Well, then, will the lone ranger be able to win reelection?

 

I will be surprised if so.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*Russian Troll Voice*

Trololololololol Trolololololololol.....

 

too long;didn't read

 

For a Nietzschean you sure bitch about the way other people act a lot.

 

For a christian you sure bitch about others a lot.

 

Thread turned exactly into the unproductive mess i warned about. Awesome.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really really want to give everyone in this thread an infraction.

 

Can mods give mods infractions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...