davidm

Demented Doug

Jews are a giant Borg from Mars. They're like a beehive; that's why they all think and act alike. I know this from reading the Bible. You can't see this in the Bible, unless you interpret it through the filter of the Holy Spirit.

Polite Participant

Thanks so much for your input, Demented Doug. We here at the Secular Web strive to role-model tolerance. We seek to foster community and to build bridges. We interpret arguments charitably, and disdain insults and ad hominems. If you don't mind, I'd like to carefully analyize your argument. Please don't take this crossly, but [incisive analysis follows, including links to scholarly journals, peer-reviewed papers, and scientific and historical documents.] Thanks for posting at the Secular Web, Demented Doug. I'll look forward to your rebuttal of my counterargument.

Demented Doug

I don't care what you say, but the Holocaust never happened. Also, Noah's ark was lighted by fireflies. You can't prove otherwise. Scientists don't have a freakin clue.

Polite Participant

Hello again, Demented Doug. Thanks for your response. Here at the Secular Web, we like to think of arguments as a big bouquet of fragrant flowers. Some are white, some are red, some are purple, some are blue; and each carries its own distinctive odor. I hope you don't mind my saying this, but I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't respond specifically to the counterargument I put forward in response to your OP. However, I'm going to interpret your motives charitably; perhaps you haven't had time to read all the scholarly journals I provided links to. Let me just say that with respect to the Holocaust and fireflies [incisive analysis follows, with links, etc.] Thanks again for posting, Demented Doug. I'll look forward to your response.

Demented Doug

Black people are a subspecies of humans interbred with mud. God made the world in six days last week. Relativity is a Jewish conspiracy. Jesus loves us, which is why homosexuals will burn in hell.

Polite Participant

Thanks for another valuable contribution to the boards, Demented Doug. I must say, though, that in sifting through your arguments, I find myself a bit puzzled. You see -- and I mean this will no disrespect -- I can't figure out what clucking bell you are talking about, you <long string of ad hominems and insults deleted by moderator. Please try to keep this conversation on a higher level, Polite Participant. Ad hominems and insults are against the rules of this board, and won't be tolerated. What's more, we are trying to enforce higher levels of civility. Please keep that in mind for future reference. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Monty Moderator>

Doctor X

Obviously I waste time at the wrong boards!

--J.D.

arcangle

Lurker

Excuse me Mr. PP, but it is not polite to encourage the spewage of coffee. Especially as it was IMPORTED coffee. Very expensive doncha know. Please refrain from further instances of inciting substance abuse in regards to such ill-equiped to defend myself from such horrid actions newbies such as myself.

The Other Michael

I see no reason for this to have been posted in the ICR when it appears to be ~~E~~ material.

If you've got something relevant to the ICR please make a clear statement of your concern.

Michael

Jackalope

On the other hand, I'd like to congratulate DavidM on a fine, fine illustration of the use of reducto ad absurdum. The whole point is that you make your opponent's arguments look...absurd. And a good refutation of the claim that satire cannot be an effective argument.

Godot

Yes, davidm generally does do an admirable job of demonstrating the effectiveness of the reducto. However, as this particular attempt is little more than a shadow of a strawman, it fails.

Corona688

I disagree that it is a shadow of a strawman. It is actually quite conceivable. Trolls do their damndest to get away with everything they can inside the rules; they work by provoking people into disobeying the rules for them. Excessive moderation doesn't HURT trolls, it HELPS them.

Godot

We will have to agree to disagree on this one then.

Quote:

It is actually quite conceivable.

I don't deny this, but as the entire endeavour was based upon a horribly over the top caricature of Hugo's guidelines, it is unwarranted and unnecessary. We actually see some similar responses when somebody bites the bullet to address a drive-by seriously. Outright dismissal and ridicule is counterproductive even if it is the nth time we have seen that particular line of "reasoning."

Quote:

Trolls do their damndest to get away with everything they can inside the rules; they work by provoking people into disobeying the rules for them.

I don't disagree with this either, but as a non-sequitur it has little to do with my criticism.

Quote:

Excessive moderation doesn't HURT trolls, it HELPS them.

As I never said anything to the contrary, this is something of a strawman of yours. One I tend to agree with by the way.

Jackalope

No, the whole point of reductio arguments is to take a given set of arguments to their most extreme and absurd extent. And unfortunately, with the last exchange full of [deleted by Mr.ModeratorMan] bits davidm's post was all too much like what really was showing up in some of the IICR threads. Though some of what got deleted out of the thread I have in mind was for things much, much milder than name-calling. In fact, it's arguable that they should have been edited at all.

Not to mention that a number of people have since pointed out that the guidelines as posted worked fine in the Philosophy forum, but were completely impractical for fact-based fora like Sci/Skep and E/C. Even BC&H would be seriously hamstrung by a couple of those guidelines.

And then there's back to the idea that in fact-based debates, there shouldn't be anything wrong with calling a stupid idea "stupid." As long as you then give supporting evidence as to why it's a stupid idea. If II were only filled with philosophical issues, the guidelines as stated might have worked. But they'll never work anywhere you have to come down out of the lofty realm of ideas and get your hands dirty. David's little bit of satire touched on that idea as well.

davidm

You think?



I believe my point was clear. I wonder if you realize that your decision to move the thread here, and initially lock it, dramatically reinforced that point?