Moderating The Forums: a suggestion

[BluffTHIS!]

Cyrus,

Here is an excerpt from a wiki article on the verbal logical fallacy called "proof by verbosity", that is very relevant to your posting style:

[ QUOTE ]
Proof by verbosity is a term used to describe an excessively verbose mathematical proof that may or may not actually prove the result. Such proofs are most often presented by students who don't fully grasp the concepts they are writing about. Students presenting such proofs often either hope to hide their lack of understanding or are uncertain how extensive their proof is expected to be.

The term is commonly used jokingly amongst colleagues reviewing their work when one proof discussed is much longer than others presented for the same problem.

It is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called "argumentum verbosium") that tries to persuade by overwelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by the familiar quote: "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your [censored]. "

Proof by verbosity should not be confused with proof by exhaustion, the latter being a valid form of proof. The difference lies in that a proof by exhaustion is used when a number of dissimilar cases must be independently proven, whereas a proof by verbosity tends to be repetitive, with many overlapping proofs for specific cases of a more general problem. Nor should this be confused with argument from repetition in which the same (unproven) argument is repeated many times, possibly in different ways or by different people, as a mechanism of reinforcement of the (still unproven) point in the listener's or reader's mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tuq]

Myrtle,

You're right I guess - political discussion isn't something that can be edited to "LOL" or other short responses. But man some of you must get X-mas cards from OfficeMax, given the number of keyboards you probably exhaust on an annual basis.

But mostly I keep bumping this in hopes that RL will show up and disprove me by writing a two-line response.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears you're probably correct in that Cyrus's posts may not be allowed in the future. But I'd be curious to see a particular post, or sentence, that was seen as anti-semitic, or shows his "true colors." I was very sensitive to anti-semitism on the forum when I was moderating and I didn't see that from Cyrus.

[/ QUOTE ]

As one who has agreed with Cyrus on just about nothing, I'd like to echo what Andy said here about the allegation that Cyrus is anti-Semitic.

Edit -- did not read the whole thread before posting this, so now it looks like a mutual ass-kissing exchange. Oh well. Pucker up, Cyrus.

[BluffTHIS!]

niss,

Let's say we have a provably accurate mind-reader and determine Cyrus is not actually anti-semitic. But if he makes the same arguments and references the same sources, as are made by and referenced by persons with provably anti-semitc views, then the effect is the same. Which then would probably be proof that he doesn't actually believe all that he posts and is doing so only for perverse inflammatory amusement.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
niss,

Let's say we have a provably accurate mind-reader and determine Cyrus is not actually anti-semitic. But if he makes the same arguments and references the same sources, as are made by and referenced by persons with provably anti-semitc views, then the effect is the same. Which then would probably be proof that he doesn't actually believe all that he posts and is doing so only for perverse inflammatory amusement.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh??!!

I feel like the AFLAC duck walking out of the barber shop after listening to Yogi Berra.

Are you saying that if I happen to agree with anything said by a poster who is admittedly anti-semetic, it then follows that my POV is therefore invalidated because I agree with an anti-semite?

I'd sure like to think that the message is more important than the messenger?

Did I misunderstand something here?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Antisemittism is a strong tradition in Europe based on having somebody to blame when societies fail to achieve what they expect (during disasters, financial crisis etc.). It has led to harassment, persecution and at some points massacres. In the Middle East it contributes to innocent Jews being blown up on buses etc. so the danger is still present and real.

The racist part of the American right (of which there are quite a few posters on this forum) use the Moslems/Arabs the same way today. Their foreign policy is a complete failure and instead of examining what leads to this failure they nominate a "race" or a religion (differs from person to person) as they then can just praise themselves and eachothers and don't have to confront their own failure in functioning in the modern global landscape. It has not led to persecution or massacres, so it can't be compared to what the Jews have been victim of but they are contributing to building an ideological platform for it to potentially take part in the future (dehumanizing Arabs etc.).

Any sensible person with some basic morals and a perspective that each individual human actually has a value should try to contribute to combat both those forms of extremism as they both pose real dangers. Here I am still left with the feeling that the current actions are a result of just realizing one of those dangers since the latter has been allowed to flourish.

As to whether both forms of extremism are best combated by not allowing it to be expressed or not, I am not certain. I think it may be best to bring it up in daylight as open debate easily shows how senseless and non-constructive both antisemittism and right wing racism is and thus may contribute to the society building a knowledge buffer against it. I understand though if Mason does not want his private poker discussion site to be the arena for that.

[niss]

I fail to see how you can claim moral high-ground when you make posts like this:

[ QUOTE ]
The math is simple. There are approximately 2.4 million Arab Moslem Palestinians in the West Bank. Round up 10,000 a week and shove them across the Jordanian border. In about 5 years the job is done and there is peace and harmony in the now Jewish and Christian West Bank.

Although I am a supporter of Israel, the failure to do the above long ago is what I mainly find fault with them over.

[/ QUOTE ]

or this excerpt

[ QUOTE ]
And fortunately, although arab moslems of today are poor in culture, religion (they follow a self-confessed pedophile after all), science and other things, they are sitting on top of some resources that we want and which was the only thing that elevated their grandfathers out of the obscurity which they had merited.

[/ QUOTE ]

or this one, in response to a question as to whether radical Islam=Arab

[ QUOTE ]
The question has been debated in this forum repeatedly over what proportion of moslems are either radical extremists or support same. My standard is that if a moslem doesn't denounce terrorism, then they are an extremist supporter. By that definition I personally think a majority of Palestinians are supporters of terrorism, especially as seen by their election of Hamas, and that a much greater percent of other Arab Moslems are such supporters as well.

I think the key to differentiating oneself from being merely a hater of a certain class of persons when you oppose their actions and values is to have a rational basis for same as I have given above, even though many would not agree with the basis for evaluation I have just given.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, following your rationale that Cyrus's posts indicate that he is an anti-Semite, one would be completely reasonable to say that you espouse an "anti-Arab" position, of the type that 2+2 apparently wants to eliminate. The only difference between your posts and the ones you criticize is that the ones you criticize have attributions. You don't even back up your inflammatory comments with citation.

So, with all due respect, you're no better than those who you criticize.

[BluffTHIS!]

niss,

Regarding the quotes above and your comments on each:

1) My position is that aggressor nations who lose wars deserve to lose territory as a punishment for same, thus making it correct for Israel to have taken the territory it did following the 1967 war. However I don't believe that the inhabitants should either be slaughtered nor ruled by the winning country for an unlimited period of time without being given rights as citizens. However I do believe it to be right to exile those inhabitants subsequent to their territory being taken as spoils of war to avoid precisely the types of continuing resistance we have seen in the West Bank.

2) That was granted an unkind way of putting things, but it was a factual statement. Worse statements are made about the US and its citizens every week in the politics forum.

3) Note that I distinguished between:

-hating the people as a race
-hating their actions or values

My comments in the 2nd quote only addressed the 2nd. And while my most extreme comment might have been the one about pedophilia, it is provably true by the plain reading of the Koran and by the fact that the age of marriage is less than puberty for girls in many moslem countries, even if apologists try to spin it by saying "of course" their husbands aren't having sex with them until after puberty (which itself is too low an age).


Also a very important factor when judging either the comments of myself, Cyrus or any other poster, and which might indeed to overly derogatory, is the frequency with whcih they are made in discussing the same topic, and whether they are based on facts regarding the behaviour that springs from the values of a given group, or just gratuitous comments, and ones that mischaracterize the views and behaviour of group. With the pedophilia comment about Mohammed again, while there might be an alternate interpretation that has been plausibly advanced, my interpretation is even more plausible.

[Red Lion]

[ QUOTE ]
Myrtle,

You're right I guess - political discussion isn't something that can be edited to "LOL" or other short responses. But man some of you must get X-mas cards from OfficeMax, given the number of keyboards you probably exhaust on an annual basis.

But mostly I keep bumping this in hopes that RL will show up and disprove me by writing a two-line response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh... here I am. I must admit, you made an interesting comment about me earlier in the thread. I am a very quiet person at first, but I do love to talk. Two lines, no more.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]


3) Note that I distinguished between:

-hating the people as a race
-hating their actions or values



[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff,

Have you ever considered the possibility that it might be more constructive to not focus on the 'hate' aspects of above?

Why would anyone place hatred before understanding?

Why would anyone attempt to apply such an illogical thought process as judging a whole 'race'?

What, in God's name, does it accomplish?