Unbiased Poll for Proud_Muslim

Bad villains make the movie folks. PM is the required ingredient for a good fist i cuff argument. It's the unusual character that adds spice to any discusssion and not monotonous logical diatribe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

but Greco we have enough drivel on this forum lets try to make arguments as valid, formal and calm as possible. If you want a bitch fighting or peeing contest got to Free Thoughts, Subcultures or About the Members subforums.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So essentially noone can talk of religion anymore? It is his belief that Zionism is a racist movement; this should not cause anyone to be upset. Also, he replied to an individual, and the response was directed at that individual. Let me see you calling for the many people here who use the word nigger with or without quotation marks. I see that you are a hypocrite.

And yet you deliberately ignore that the insult was instigated and that pothead repeatedly excites PM on purpose?

I'm glad you know the definitions of the fallacies, trust me I need no references. If you would realize, I did not use it as an argument to debunk your presentation, it was a comment to illustrate the hypocrisy of this whole bullshit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not at all, all can talk about religion. The issue is the use of neutral wording, if you disagree wit a religion you cannot say "That religion is evil and wrong and its followers are idiots" you have to say something like "That religion has policies which I find offensive and immoral and I believe its followers are ignorant of the qualities of other religions of better moral character"

Again being a hypocrite means nothing (ad hominem tu quoque) and the judgment of others is a different subject (for other banning polls) from the judgment of PM.

This is again a ad hominem tu quoque (your on a roll here.) It does not matter if others were being bad (there punishment will come if demanded). If someone attacks you illogically and you attack back illogically then you have just lowered your self to their level, there is no allowed illogical self-defense in arguments. If someone calls you a ass-hole all you can do is tell them that is inappropriate, ignore that comment or report them, calling them a ass-hole back has no validity.

Well then why mention it as that statement would then have no value to your argument. If you wish to complain about public banning polls then go here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33147
Though even then saying that banning is wrong because it’s hypocritical is still not a logical argument.

 

(Insert Title Here)

Right now, as it stands, there is only one way to ban: through Porfiry.

All roads lead there.

Ban war topic? Even if the vote is clear, Porfiry can still veto the ban.

Moderator recommendation? Porfiry can still say "No."

Public outcry? Porfiry can still say, "Deal with it on your own."

So if Poster A violates Rules B, C, or D "E" number of times, we can ask for a big F.U.?

I'm actually tempted to put up a list of people I would have had banned at one point or another. But short of open and direct threats, cyberstalking, and outright spam--all of which come in direct relation to our ability to post here at all--I'm not about to ban anyone. Okay, I admit I enjoyed the process leading up to a ban of a neo-Nazi who had some beef with our man Porf, but it's like that Jim Croce song, you know?

And I'm glad, in the end, that these folks aren't banned. A couple of them have gone on to make serious spectacles of themselves; I've had a couple decent discussions with others.

I might turn to another of your points for a moment:

Exactly correct, however, what of a case like this when the question is so interpretive? Again I chuckle at Dr. Lou's topic, which sets this principle on its ear: Nobody else can be banned unless PM is banned first.

I'll tell you this much: those who would seek to exploit what they present as a bad situation in order to further their own desire to conduct themselves poorly ought to be the first out the door.

In the meantime, a certain amount of tu quoque can be expected until one of two things happens:

• We all decide to adhere strictly to the posting rules.
• We gather together and set some agreement about what we expect for sanction in response to what we call offense.

No matter how we look at it, there is here the consent of the governed. As it stands, we've all agreed to Sciforums' standards by joining in the first place, and now that we choose to find these standards somewhat nebulous, Porfiry has offered us, through SFOG, the opportunity to advise and consent to a certain degree hitherto unavailable to us.

That we do not take advantage of this opportunity and set some conventional boundaries that eliminate the popularity-contest aspect of the Ban Wars is our own choice.

And it's our own problem, too.

If we choose to not decide . . . .

In the meantime, here's the problem without any sense of conventional standard; I shall examine the examples you set in response, as I read it, to Thefountainhed:

• Avoid posts which promote hatred among different religions, ethnic groups or nations. The standard listed.
• Well first, Israel is Not religious state, it was illegaly established by the biggest armed robbery in this century by an athiest jewish racist movement called zionism. This assertion is acceptable across the board. Zionism is more about a race issue that Israelis seem to foster; atheist is a classic rhetorical denunciation of what is perceived to be false faith--e.g. the "faith" of Zionists specifically; I'm no more a fan of the internationally-sponsored land grab for Israel than I am of Manifest Destiny in American history, though I'm even more at a loss to figure the contemporary propriety. To me, if this statement, part of a running dialogue between two posters, promotes hatred, it is merely inflaming the hatred that is in the eye of the beholder. It's got a particular political slant to it, but one that can be justified in history at least as well as the pretentious "nobility" of Western civilization.
• It disgusts me this WESTERN SELF-RIGHTOUS ATTITUDE, you guys are sick with this self-rightous attitude disease, your societies are SICK and you want to preach on us . . . . Honestly? I'm going to have to ask for some clarification. What's wrong with this, or even the tangential point it leads to? I mean ... I could at least see the argument with the prior example, but this one ...?
• This is how the Jews behave, by insulting and using obscene language....this is their behaviour in this forum, imagine their behaviour in Palestine ! Perhaps a little pointed, but acceptable in no small part because of the comments responded to and the person who offered them. While I, personally, am inclined against such generalizations of Jews, I have recently been advised by one who represents himself to be Jewish that yes, the Israeli issue is about all Jews; it's especially entertaining to watch him try to ignore his fellow Jews who happen to disagree with his politics.

There are plenty of lists we can all write up about one another that ought to do the trick. I think I'm about the only person here that would derive any pleasure whatsoever--no matter how perverse--from answering those charges.

Sometimes the offense is the plank in the eye of the offended.

However, I'm not entirely sure that people know entirely what they're saying insofar as the only reason PM sticks out is because he argues the Muslim side across language and cultural-reference barriers. We have seen thousands of calls for violence around the world in posts at Sciforums and why is it that only the fiery rhetoric of the most visible Muslim advocate is so reviled?

Calls for genocide haven't been enough to incite bans before, so ... well, while we're not exactly fans of it ... and hey, that shows, too ....

But while we're not exactly fans of it, well, we must consider for instance that the United States' invasion of Iraq, while given a necessary stamp of acknowledgment by the UN, violated many standing international agreements and does appear to be part of a larger global agenda (e.g. PNAC). I'm not about to say, however, that voicing your support for the war in Iraq (as illegal and falsely-founded as it is) is intended to promote hatred. I mean, if voicing your support for ongoing human rights and international convention violations against a people isn't hateful ...?

Which is why we might, instead of writing up lists of whom we wish to ban and why, consider making lists of the form of argumentation and presentation that really pisses us off, and when we discover the common trends, we can discuss the whys and wherefores, and perhaps somewhere in there we'll come up with a reasonable idea of what we expect as posters of Sciforums.

I know that as a Moderator, that would be helpful. And hey ... I don't have the more venomous fora to deal with, so ....

In the meantime, all the posters have to go by is the posted rules and playing connect-the-dots according to past administrative and moderator action in order to see how to interpret them.

 

aaaa tiassa read up on some of my later post there I did specify that Porfiry is at the center of everything in detail (fine print)
"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."
also as statement I made on another thread that I think wraps up what you said in the first several paragraphs (not that I don't disrespect your writing style) into one sentance!:
"I think porfiry should make it a law that only mods or him can make ban polls, at this rate everyone is going to try to ban everyone!"

Ok tiassa are you saying you don't think he could have used more neutral language in any of those phrases? lets take this one:
"It disgusts me this WESTERN SELF-RIGHTOUS ATTITUDE, you guys are sick with this self-rightous attitude disease, your societies are SICK and you want to preach on us"
This statement is not just a appeal to emotion but it to is a "you also to" ad hominem, no matter how messed up we are that does not mean we can't criticize others. Second let me rephrase it and if you can prove to me that this rephrase is not less offesive then I will leave sciforums forever!:

"It bothers me that many in the west have a attitude of self-rightousness that dispite their own social problems they spend time criticizing us."

----

Really my mothers a Jew and she does not give a dam, since I have found just one Jew that does not find her self connected to Israel's fate in anyway I have made your generalization invalid. Beware generalizations

I'm not focused on hated I'm focus on neutral language, those that repeatedly use harsh and bias language should be removed.

Sadily tiassa your argument structure though very detailed has eluded total meaning to me, could you explain how the last part is connected to this thread, I mean If you want to start a poll for the removal of a poll banning and constructive improvement of sciforum's community through individual empowerment and understanding be may guest, but I just don’t see how its relevant to the issue of wanting to ban PM or not.

 

No, this is not the issue at all-- not with reference to this specific case. He voiced his opinion about Zionism. The wording is irrelevant.

Incorrect. The decision or argument to ban PM must depend on the behavior of other members on the forum. If like bechaviour is being unpunished, then cleary, the "standards" if they are being broken, are not being upheld by administering the proper punishment. There are many many others who have made religious and racial quips. You have presented only ONE example from PM that could warrant a punishment: an insult to a different member who "disrespected him". This is no grounds for a ban. First, establish a deorum, a standard. Show how PM violates it. One instance or even two or three is not enough-- especially when the punishment versed in the "Rules" is an editing of the post.
WEP Rules. Check #5

You are so focused on logical "fallacies" that you miss the important issue. This is a community governed by rules that are supposed to protect its members. One member is being catigated for the very same offenses that many, including you, are guilty of. To quouque is not a fallacy within this context! You have deliberately misrepresented evidence by taking quotes out of context; you are continuing with a seemingly popular game of "tranish PM's image".

"Lowered" yourself? Mr. let me reference my fallacies, What is that?

Pothead has REPEATEDLY insulted PM as have many many members who disagree with him. It is the responsibility of the populace and mostly moderators to ensure that such abuse gets punished or is stopped. I have watched as notHing has been done. In such an environment, if the person being insulted feels the need to respond i kind, it is fine. Why? The precedence allows it.

Realize that the argument to ban a member or even the process to ban a member is not based on logical rules; this is the mistake you are making. By logic progression, if we allow for the ban of PM, then every member who violates that same rules should be banned. The process to ban a member currently relies on votes-- as one of its methods. This is not logic. A logical argument is not needed to defend the proposal to ban a member. Hypocrisy in an argument presented to ban a member implies unfairness. In such a community, that is unbecoming. Regardless, the argument is not illogical.

Again: "YOu have not shown how he is arguing hateful rules and policies". Thus far, you have presented one dodgy evidence that breaks this rule:
Avoid posts which promote hatred among different religions, ethnic groups or nations.. In the guidelines, it says that any posts fitting such descriptions will be EDITED. Fact: the post still REMAINS. The moderator of that subforum, by their inaction, implictly suggests that the posts does not warrant such action. Therefore, that argument itself is invalid as are the rest you have presented.

 

I have no intention of arguing that the rephrase is better.

Rather, send PM your email so he can run all his posts by you before they are allowed to be viewed by the public.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I did notice. But that doesn't necessarily change the aspect I'm discussing. Running through Porfiry is one thing, but the lack of a standard according to the advice and consent of the posters as offered through the opportunity of SFOG leaves it entirely with Porfiry, so while you might well be talking about the rules, the running pattern is that it's still a judgment call based on criteria which are the moderators' and administrator's alone, and we're not actually obliged to share those criteria. It's helpful, but nobody would be happy with uniform, consistent enforcement, and the ban lists would grow quickly as people argued with us because, frankly, we don't want to put up with it from everyone who would be upset by strict enforcement, and we don't really want to put the time into it.

Ignore them altogether? Especially when someone else is relying on them to make an argument?

It's not that I disagree with you on that count, but I don't know if we've really addressed the point. How can one be upset with the generalization against the Jews when generalizations in their favor are acceptable? And right there we run into a problem of how to moderate the situation. The objectionable phrase you noted as an example--

--how is it offensive?

I don't have to agree with the generalization to acknowledge that it exists. And in exploring someone else's ideological assertions, I should at least keep within context. If I ask questions that have nothing to do with how another person views reality, how can I expect that person to answer appropriately?

Interesting proposition. But how to determine the line? (Seriously, I'm willing to hear ideas.)

It's another way of looking at the situation of people we consider problematic posters.

Of course, if we just want to keep focused on PM and pretend that issues don't exist elsewhere at Sciforums, that's fine. It only reinforces the argument against banning PM or anyone else at this time.

Seriously ... look at all these ban proposals. None of them have passed. Just to review though, from this topic:

• . . . I think we all know that pretty much all of us have our days, and we're not going to ban someone for a line we might cross, or want to cross someday. (Tiassa)

• "Let he who is without shit ban the first troll." (Hypewaders)

• 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. (Tiassa)

• 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. (Spuriousmonkey)

• 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. (Thefountainhed)

• 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. (Thefountainhed)

• At this point I should propose to ban you for presenting illogical arguments. (Thefountainhed)

• I'm actually tempted to put up a list of people I would have had banned at one point or another. But short of open and direct threats, cyberstalking, and outright spam . . . I'm not about to ban anyone . . . . And I'm glad, in the end, that these folks aren't banned. A couple of them have gone on to make serious spectacles of themselves; I've had a couple decent discussions with others. (Tiassa)

• Which is why we might, instead of writing up lists of whom we wish to ban and why, consider making lists of the form of argumentation and presentation that really pisses us off, and when we discover the common trends, we can discuss the whys and wherefores, and perhaps somewhere in there we'll come up with a reasonable idea of what we expect as posters of Sciforums. (Tiassa)

So ... just to be clear ... you don't see what the idea of how the end of my post relates to the ongoing discussions in this topic?

I'll be happy to clarify, but I'm unsure where to start.

 

I'll skip the first as it basically what I said (or thought) only more convoluted.

I don't think I have been talking about how things should be moderated anymore, now my argument is focus on what is and isn't a valid argument, a generalization is always wrong no matter if its for or against something. YOu can easily make a argument without making a generalizations by simply using the words "most" "some" "many" "few",ect for example "most Jews are Semitic" is not a generalization, it may be untrue (most Jews might not be Semitic) but the premise is still logical.

First I'll repeat my self its not about offensiveness as it is about neutrality, though the "atheist Jewish racist" is rather unnerving (I can't really imagine a atheist Jew).
Second generalization virtually do not exist, they are erroneous by nature and not the whole truth.
thrid after this I don't really follow your argument anymore.

Easy: the more people it arouses emotionally the more its a appeal to emotion, Its very hard not to piss people off but its pretty easy being neutral enough in your arguments that people won’t demand your banishment.

As for the end no I still do not understand how it has context here, the poll asks if you want to ban PM, yes/no your answer should not vary just because we don’t believe in public banning, or if you think the poll will ever make it or not, just answer the question and state your reasons which should be in context to PM and what PM does or had done only.

Oh god thefountainhed posted to, ok thats it I'm going off for a few days I can't spend hours of my days arguing with people. If possible try to make arguments shorter please.

 

Bye Fetus. Any of the 21 fools who voted for the ban can respond.

 

Lost in the messy archives of wire stories flying around the globe in the immediate wake of 9/11 were two capsule stories about arrests on that day. One man praised Allah publicly when he heard the towers had been hit. The other started sermonizing, and this one in New York City that this was the result of American foreign policy. Both men were arrested "for their safety." In other words, a mob was about to kill them.

To the other, it was Ozzy Osbourne--an Englishman at the height of his 1980s infamy--who reminded us that the great thing about America is that "you have the right to be offended."

I would point to the recently-closed topic, "Twenty-first century hijab," in which PM wrote--

--only to be asked, in a roundabout manner, what he was so upset about, be accused of plagiarism (the phrase isn't found by Google), and as a last resort is accused of sarcasm.

The discussion degenerated from there. Guess who's absent from that degeneration?

Let that serve as an example of how PM is not the problem here.

 

Your inflammatory line:

rules:

you are not allowed to call us fools you idiot.

See now what you have done. Your actions provoked an ad hominim attack.

 

Shit guys, we're all supposed to give opinions... he just does it moreso then you. And anyway, I'd just come back with a different account so banning is irrelevant.

 

Until porf bans your IP address.

 

Or contacts your ISP.

 

you are not allowed to call us fools you idiot.

See now what you have done. Your actions provoked an ad hominim attack.
Mother of GOD! How dare you insult me? And the cycle continues, you name calling fucking bitch, you need to be banned.

By the way, I think the author of this: " All Jews want to rid the world of the Palestinian people. Muslims (like you) are mindless fools who don't believe in the real God. " , although he presented quoted text as an example of what not to do, exercised some sick joy in the impunity of his words. Ban him.

 

Arghh.
Stop acting like a bunch of panzies. PM says a lot of shit, but it's within his right to do so. Deal with it and stop whining about how it affects you, or how he hijacks topics.
People need something to hate.

 

There is no "rights" here, this is not a country or state or anything, its a internet forum and no laws apply here except the law of the administrator, and (at present) the law allows us to call of the banishment of anyone we want for what ever reasons.

 

DONT BAN THE GUY! I see something good in him. Although he loves calling his opponents "liars" Ive never seen him go lower than than. He's pretty ok. LEAVE HIM ALONE!

 

I'm of the opinion, having observed the evolution of the Administrative Rule, that Porfiry follows certain Rules of Integrity. While I can certainly be wrong, I can say that I have observed and interpreted the following:

• Porfiry never wanted to have to babysit us. He hoped we could get along on our own.
• Porfiry doesn't ban or administrate arbitrarily. He seeks a certain consistency in his actions.
• The "spirit" of Sciforums bears a certain, undetermined importance to our man Porfiry that extends beyond merely being the creator and owner and administrator of this site.
• Moderation and administrative intervention has been slow in coming specifically for these reasons.

I could easily be wrong about any and all of those. But what it creates for me is the appearance of "rights" granted: PM does have a right to participate in the fullest extent of discussion allowed here. His posts only stick out because his values lead him to conclusions that are not nearly as familiar to most of us.

And, as a specific editorial comment, the unusual amount of negative focus given those differences only reinforces notions of the superficiality of the Western perspective; it hints--at the very least, if not downright proclaims--much about our priorities of classification.