The age of horrorism

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
PokerBob only comes here to stalker troll me.

[/ QUOTE ]In adding words to our English vocabulary, OOT and Politics stand supreme. That's a composite verb, I understand.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't be surprised or give me any blame if things turn ugly and Mason doesn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]Why is it that when you get your clock cleaned in an argument your first impulse is to ask for the superintendent to punish someone or close down the schoolyard?

And what verb are we to use for that action?

Please, let's stay on the subject of nuking the Muslims for Manzikert.

Mickey Brausch

[BluffTHIS!]

Cyrus/Mickey,

The owner of this site has given evidence in the past with your banning and the closing down of this forum temporarily that he thinks you are a dishonest debater/troll, so I think your qualifications for judging what is or is not trolling aren't very good.

[Mickey Brausch]

Glad you got that off your chest, I'm sure, you mus'be.

Now, care to elaborate on your proposal to nuke the Muslims on account of Manzikert?

Or are you still pretending you were (and I quote) "mildly flippant" ?

Mickey Brausch

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
iron,

PokerBob isn't really a regular politics forum poster. He only comes here to stalker troll me and nothing else. So you could just do your mod job and exile him from here. If you don't want to then fine, but don't be surprised or give me any blame if things turn ugly and Mason doesn't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Extortion?

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Please, let's stay on the subject of nuking the Muslims for Manzikert.


[/ QUOTE ]


there was much i was going to write, but i agree we should keep the thread focused on the above, and thus i shall refrain. Bluff's response (assuming he produces one), should be high comedy, and i and i am sure many others are looking forward to reading it.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please, let's stay on the subject of nuking the Muslims for Manzikert.


[/ QUOTE ]


there was much i was going to write, but i agree we should keep the thread focused on the above, and thus i shall refrain. Bluff's response (assuming he produces one), should be high comedy, and i and i am sure many others are looking forward to reading it.

[/ QUOTE ]

....my "Christians vs. the Lions" comment earlier was my attempt at pointing out what you spelled out above.

I'll leave it to the readers to sort out just exactly who is the Christian and who is the Lion in this case.

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]

....are your ancestors Roman?

They must have liked the Christians vs. the Lions, eh?

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

lol no, just tired of hearing them bicker like an old couple and troll each other after each of their posts. To bluff's credit I haven't seen him do the same recently, but that's because I don't read the forums pokerBob posts in often.

That and I need someone to feed my need for internet drama [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

BluffTHIS,

You can stop with the cyrus/mickey issue any time, I think you're the only one that still cares.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that when you get your clock cleaned in an argument your first impulse is to ask for the superintendent to punish someone or close down the schoolyard?

[/ QUOTE ]


Cyrus/Mickey's quote there and some others' reaction to Chris' post exemplifies something important about this forum. Which is why I didn't respond to it earlier. Namely what it exemplifies is that many here, including 1 mod, just aren't too swift in the logic department, can't analyze argumentation of others well as to how one piece fits or doesn't and its relative importance, and as well can't identify dishonest debating including false claims of total refutation like above.

Let's look at what Chris' reply did:

-Called into the question the veracity of a source I used. Very proper to do that.

Well believe it or not I usually check my sources and those of others and knew that the World NetDaily article was the only major news source that contained the quotes from that Moslem leader. I don't even count blogs as they just endlessly report inaccurate and onesided news if it is news often without citing their sources. I might quote a blog's opinion, but not its supposed news reporting unless the blogger is a well-known person who personally interviewed someone or covered an event.

But Chris also did something else, which was to imply without explicitly saying so, that the story was made up just because he finds the source in that story to be an extremist who differs from him. But in fact Chris offered no evidence that was the case. Again it is proper to call into question the veracity of a news story when other major media don't vet it and repeat it. But that is all. And in fact there could be a good reason major media didn't do that. Which is that such reporting of extremist Islamic positions isn't politically correct and goes against liberal bias that tries to portray "moderate Islam" as the predominant variety, and because it would involve sending reporters to track that guy down and ask him to repeat his views.

Now lets look at what Chris' reply and calling into question that source didn't do:

-It didn't establish that my previous argumentation relied totally on same and thus was upended (that quote was neither necessary nor sufficient to make point - it is only an example which I believe to be widespreadly held in the Moslem world);

-It didn't even try to say such views aren't held by many Moslem clerics and Moslems, or that even if they are a minority view that they aren't the effective overall view of non-Western Moslems by virtue of the failure of so-called "moderate Moslems" to oppose such extremist views.


Somewhat similar to these things at least in my mind, are the recent attacks on pvn. I don't agree with a lot of pvn's views, but it certainly isn't because of any flaws in his logic, because there aren't any. It is because I find some of his axioms flawed. But many here don't see the difference, even if they could find logical flaws which they mostly can't. And as to pvn's habitual use of analogical questions, many who disagree with him call that trolling when it is nothing of the sort. It is merely taking another poster's view to its logical extreme in a different context to show a flaw in reasoning or the applicability of a rule of evaluation. This is a standard method of refutation.

So the bottom line is that many here, including 1 mod, just don't have a good grasp of logic or standards of evidence evaluation, and instead fall prey to the myriad traps of the rhetoric of others, rhetoric which is sometimes used by persons in fact possessing a good education and grounding in logic, but who instead purposely use logical flaws and rhetorical tricks to mislead because they know so many won't catch it, usually because they are blinded by the blizzard of BS around such dishonest methods.

Now maybe with some posters who don't see such things it really isn't the lack of intelligence or grounding in logical argumentation that is the problem for others that is the reason they don't see these things. Maybe it's just because they are too intellectually lazy to apply the intelligence and knowledge they do have. But in a way that's even worse.

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
BluffTHIS,

You can stop with the cyrus/mickey issue any time, I think you're the only one that still cares.

[/ QUOTE ]

[iron81]

1. I went through the posts in this thread and I didn't see anything wrong except for the fact that the thread got off track (which is partly my fault).

2. While it's possible the reason I didn't see any logical fallicies is because I'm not too swift, my response is: so what? Engaging in an occiasional logical fallicy is not against the forum rule and that would be a ridiculous rule. Most of the posters here do not want me banning for intellectual dishonesty because it is too nebulous a concept to moderate.

3. Based on a search I just did, Mason did not shut the Politics forum down because of intellectual dishonesty, he threatened to shut it down because he perceived it was a refuge of anti-semitism. It appears that Mason never used the words dishonest debating or anything similar. The first person to use the term in this context appears to be Copernicus and was popularized by BluffTHIS! and due to the confusion was attributed to Mason. Mason made references to not being happy with posts that twist the truth, but only to the extent that formented hatred. General intellectual dishonesty wasn't even on his radar.

4. I don't think anything needs to be done about anyone here. However, if that is because of my liberal bias, that's why Vulturesrow is also a mod here. I will alert him to this thread and he can do whatever he wants with Bluff, Chris and Mickey.

5. Now that this thread is completely off the rails, I'm locking it. Bluff, if you want to continue the intellectual dishonesty debate bump the "Mod Suggestions" thread.

6.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BluffTHIS,

You can stop with the cyrus/mickey issue any time, I think you're the only one that still cares.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]