Unbiased Poll for Proud_Muslim

Is he banned yet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you find entertainment in watching and debating with the loonies who stand on soap boxes in Hyde Park, for example - then you should find no reason to ban PM.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He's not our enemy.

He's a nuisance.



The pro side is winning.
Can one of the admins just go ahead with it now?

 

Its best to remove a nuisance. Do you let a fly live or do you swat them?

 

No.

For as the Profit Cheesus (PB+J B UH) said:

"Let he who is without shit ban the first troll."

 

I'm glad he said that.


Porfiry, will you do the honors?

 

What the FUCK IS THIS NONSENSE??????????????????

Why the hell ar people actually voting yes on ban? Are you lot that fucking ignorant and non accepting of deferring beliefs? What if he constantly posts about the greatness of ISalm? It is his belief and fucking right! It is not up to you to decide on his importance in this forum. This is ridiculous. Give an argument as to why he should be banned! Why must people always abuse the privileges they are given?

 

Its that he is a troll
- He will hijack threads about totally different subjects and turn it into Muslims vers the rest of the world, Israel is evil, jews are evil and controlling the world, ect
- He has responded rude and vulgar to people who have disagreed with him.

 

I vote no.
I believe in freedom of speech. Even objectionable speech.

 

Sheesh, it's a tie now.

Come on, folks. He's a barbarian incapable of posting anything that even approaches "rational".

 

This is not about freedom of speech this forum is about discussing issues scientifically, about following basic laws of logic and argument structure and a certain degree of formality, all of which Proud_Muslim is lacking.

 

What's funny is that if I compare that with Dr. Lou's paranoid spew, which topic preceded and may well have had something to do with this topic, is that if PM's lack what you consider this forum to be about is grounds for banning, there are so many people who would go out the door with him.

Look, nobody around here really wants to agree to any basic ground rules because most people realize that we all violate them sometimes. Yet at the same time people wish to appeal to some common standard in order to ban someone.

Let's face it: If this site is to be restricted to specific laws of logic and argumentative structure, as well as a subjective degree of formality, the best thing to do would be to close the most popular and used fora on this board. Those fora are not about science or logic, and formality is generally ridiculed.

 

Let us have a list then who should be banned and we will do a case by case analysis and make new polls if necessary.

 

tiassa,

We are not agreeing to any ground rules here, there already posted! http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34522
As for your slippery slopes on how this would require many more to be banned bring it on: Not everyone should be ban for the smallest infraction, but at least those that do it way to often.

 

Then set the precedence by scientifically and logically illustrating how PM violates the forum rules that warrant his ban; also show how you are exempt from a like punishment. In this demonstration, it seems to me that you are the one who is lacking an argument structure and science in your support and perhaps start, under a different moniker, of this thread. From your previous thread about PM, one can see that you dislike his parading of his beliefs, you dislike his beliefs...even if you thought he could present his arguments logically, that is no grounds for a ban. A user must not be able to think or even present their arguments in a logical manner to belong in this forum. You dislike him; that is quite not enough!

 

And who should set the bar in terms of the frequency of said violations? You? I dislike the notion of members starting threads to ban other members! I have seen two or three abuses of this privilege. What should happen, if Porfiry wants member involvement, is to have the mods present to the members who they want to ban, and have the members vote.

 

It takes time and energy to find and to sort out references, but sense you demand I will deliver.
Here is a law proclaimed by Porfiry:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34522
Here is PM violation of this rule:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=498257#post498257

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=501462#post501462

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=498011#post498011
and it can continue, but it would take hours if not days to compile all the times he has violated a rule or policy, and I have a life, so if other wish to grab more please do.

When did I say I was?

Not at all my argument was that PM has place to many illogical arguments and violated forum rules.
- Arguing hatful beliefs is a violation of forum rules and polices
- Disrespecting others is a violation of forum rules and polices, its also a Ad Hominem (illogical argument)
- Using Emotional and bias language is a appeal to emotion fallacy (illogical argument)

Well in this pseudo-democratic dictatorship
1. The Administrator can ban anyone at his own discursion for what ever reason he wants.
2. Moderators can demand the banning of anyone for violating rules or insulting them.
3. The common member can make a poll and vote for the banning of someone for what ever reason they claim.
In this case it falls under #3.

I totally agree:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32359

 

Rule supposedly violated:
Avoid posts which promote hatred among different religions, ethnic groups or nations.

Instances you presented as violatation of the above rule:

In what manner does a statement which is an opinion about how the state of Israel came to being promoting hatred amongst ethnic groups or nations? He is voicing what he deems to be how Isreal came to being

Again, he is voicing an opinion and not inciting hatred. He feels like this constant witch hunting of the one of the most vocal proponents of Islam is being self-righteous, as you also voice your beliefs.

Now this is an insulting statement when viewed out of context, however, he is replying to this statement:

want to act foolish too, on this redicolous symbol?. suck my Jewish penis, you cock sucker

Now if that is not an onscene and insulting use of the English language, then I don't what is. The poster, otheap, claims Jewish ancestry. PM is replying in kind to a member who abused him. If the moderators are not protecting him, then he should protect himself.

So you are not exempt from the very "misbehaviour" you accuse PM? This is silly.

YOu have not shown how he is arguing hateful rules and policies. In what way is he disrespecting anyone? Show how you were disrespected. You showed an instance in which he responded in kind to an ignorant statement. It was directed at an individual. He can use "illogical or bias langauge", that is no grounds for a ban.

This is no answer to my question. I will repost: "And who should set the bar in terms of the frequency of said violations? "
If anyone can set the bar, then there is no bar!


Get better arguments! At this point I should propose to ban you for presenting illogical arguments.

 

He could have voice his opinions in a more neutral matter, phrases like "athiest jewish racist movement called Zionism" is very emotionally charged and induces hate. This is called an appeal to emotion, logic fallacy or illogical argument. He could have said "Zionism is a major political movement in Israel and the Jewish community specifically (state reference), it causes racist beliefs (state reference) it also induce atheism (state reference)." This would have been a proper and neutral way of expressing this opinion.

No one can state gross generalizations like: "This is how the Jews behave..." its impossible to group such a large populace under any one aspect as a exception is guaranteed to exist; this is called a generalization fallacy. If he said "This is how this one jew behaves..." that would have been more correct but still this is implying that Judaism is at fault, best would have been "This is how he behaves..."

Any one of the three I mentioned. If the Adminstrater thinks someone has done enough to get banish, if a moderator thinks someone has done enough to get banish and the adm agrees, or if a member thinks someone has done enough to get banish and ½ of 100 or more other members agree and the adm vetos.

This is called an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, just because I could also be punishment does not mean I can't proclaim others wrong as well. A criminal can still testify against another accused. Please learn proper argument structure, you can start with this fine sites:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
http://www.austhink.org/critical/