Horrible Moderation In Politics Forum

[BluffTHIS!]

Your assertion was false, thus a lie. There is no doubt about that. The only quesiton is whether the lie was intentional or not, and if not, then whether it was merely careless, or a malicious carelessness motivated by a desire to use any means necessary to attack an opponent in a debate, including dishonest ones. Since that blog was demonstrably pro-Jewish, that elminates mere careless that acted out of good will when you asserted I linked to an anti-semetic blog.

Hey keep on piling lies on logical fallacies on top of more lies. It is obvious you are able to snow some posters with them, including iron.

[Mickey Brausch]

By the way, Bluffy, you have not responded to the more relevant point about insulting other religions on 2+2.

You claimed that muslims should not be insulted when you claim that "Muhammed was a paedophile" since, you claimed, this is something borne out of historical facts and common decency, i.e. Muhammed sanctioned marrying 9-year old girls, etc.

So I suggested that, since Mary, the Blessed Mother, was unfaithful to Joseph, her legally wedded husband, (which is a historical fact [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]), common decency and morality labels her a whore. I mean whether she was unfaithful to the cuckolded hubbie by bedding a servant, an angel, or a God, doesn't matter. She was getting pregnant by someone other than her man.

What say you to this, man? Shall we kick it up in your favorite domain, SMP?..

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Your assertion was false, thus a lie.

[/ QUOTE ] I hate to break this to you but when something is false, it is not necessarily also a lie.

Thus, your use of the word "thus" is wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

If you don't believe me (and in your agitated state of mind, I'd fully understand if you wouldn't), look up the definitions of those two words in your dictionary. You will see that they are not the same.

[ QUOTE ]
The only quesiton is whether the lie was intentional or not, and if not, then whether it was merely careless, or a malicious carelessness motivated by a desire to use any means necessary to attack an opponent in a debate, including dishonest ones. Since that blog was demonstrably pro-Jewish, that elminates mere careless that acted out of good will when you asserted I linked to an anti-semetic blog.

[/ QUOTE ]Why do you write all these badly put together, convoluted phrases? They have nothing to do with the simple task you have been asked to undertake : To prove that your assertion is true, i.e. that an intentional lie is the same thing as an unintentional lie. (Here's your hint: an unintentional lie is actually a mistake. So, when a person makes a mistake, and you claim "well, he meant to do harm, anyway", you act like the worst sort of bigot.)

Mickey "The Blessed Whore" Brausch

[BluffTHIS!]

an intentional lie = to unintentional lie with bad motivation in making it

[Mike Haven]

This seems like a good time to lock this thread.

No doubt bT and MB can take their private debate to PM if they wish.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shake, et al,

Those of us who were around back then, all know why the Politics forum was briefly closed... Mason came in here and told us... whether you agreed with Mason or not... you heard the reasons...

Nothing is gained by rehashing "those" old arguments... and nothing is gained by saying that the politics forum should be moderated in a way that does not address the specific concerns Mason had (including erring on the more cautious side).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sniper,

I'm sorry, but I most heartily disagree with your above statement of "nothing is gained....".

If what you meant to say is that "Things will not change because that's the way Mason wants it, and it's his site", then I would say that you are most likely correct.

But......"Nothing is gained by discussing...."?

Plenty is to be gained, if the discussion can remain on track.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think "Plenty is to be gained"... then, please detail what can be gained by rehashing "old arguments", in a situation where a "final decision" based on those "old arguments" has already been reached?