New rule proposal

[EduChris]

All of us have a basic, metaphysical framework that we operate within. None of us can "prove" or "confirm" that our metaphysical frame is "true and factual."

We have allowed on this forum one individual, with apparently more time on his hands than anyone else, to bully and cajole and inflame many good people for years now, with the result that discussion and debate on this forum is debased and degraded.

With some people, learning and reason and civility begin to prevail--but others seem impervious to such appeals. Many good people have left this forum because of senseless antics such as described, coming from one individual in particular.

See this post for an example.

I propose we ban demands for "confirmation" of metaphysical frameworks for anyone who has been on the forum long enough to have learned better. Newbies ought to be able to ask questions and learn, but after a certain amount of time or a certain amount of posts, if an individual still hasn't learned that metaphysical frameworks cannot be proven, then such persons should be told to stop the incessant bullying and cajoling.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 30:

...
We are only having this discussion at all because one individual keeps attempting to dictate the terms of debate for everyone else...

I will, yet again, protest this terminology.

WHAT PART OF "I DON'T PREVENT FOLKS FROM POSTING ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE" ARE YOU STRUGGLING WITH THE COMPREHENDING?

You have called me, in this thread alone a "dictator", "obnoxious", "hypocritical" and various other insults, and I have tried my best to remain civil with you.

Yet here you are trying to -ahem- dictate how folks should debate according to your methodology.

Let's look at just one small segment of my methodology...

I will sometimes use questions or challenges as a means to understand the mindset of the claimant, so that we can all of us get a better understanding of how that person thinks. I, if only me...

AND I AM MOST CERTAINLY NOT DICTATING THAT ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SITE IS BOUND TO THIS

...consider a claimant's non/response indicative of their entire thought process and their entire worldview.

Where they go to crying because they simply don't like how a question or challenge is phrased, it is my sincere conviction that those of us who understand simple, fundamental basics of human psychology have just then gleaned one more mote, one more speck, one more tiny piece of data...

That we will then use to inform our own worldviews, and our own measures of a claimant's credibility, and that claimant's credibility in drawing the conclusions he's drawn - and in their accepting an ontological, metaphysical, or any other position.

I DO NOT DICTATE HOW OTHERS SHOULD RESPOND. I DO NOT STOP DEBATES - EXCEPT WHERE MY CHALLENGES GET FOLKS' PANTIES IN SUCH A BUNCH THAT THEY STOP DEBATING.

You call me "obnoxious", as it drips off you like so many icicles after a winter storm!

You call me a "dictator", though you hadda look in a mirror to find the definition!

Your own hypocrisy is what gives you the courage to accuse others of it!


That "ignores the uncivil" group of yours is the blanket you use to cover your cold, shivering shell of self-important, pseudo-intellectual pretensiousness! You lie, in a cower, under that blanket, trembling as those who you don't understand run naked through the woods, happy, content, free!

And once you've pulled that blanket over your head, you then scream, loudly, in a shrill voice desperate with fear, "Make 'em stop! Make 'em stop!"


Let's say it again, because it is so important to how I operate...

How a claimant responds, I contend, gives us much insight into the inner workings of that claimant's mind, and helps us build a profile regarding that claimant. Their responses help us to better measure their credibility in their presentation of claims, as well as their credibility in drawing their conclusions.

But only if only we ain't so hung up with folks not using the methodology of our own preference.


I have repeatedly said I don't care what evidence a claimant has at hand, all I ask is that he be willing to clarify, support or retract.

"That's based on my whole ontological deal there," seems a perfectly legitimate response to me - even if I were to reject that whole ontological deal.


The bit of irony I do find in this thread though, is that it reveals EduChris' attempt to dictate to others how they should debate while being blissfully ignorant of his own obnoxiousness in thinking folks should kowtow to his preferred methods, simply because he doesn't like the implications of my challenges.

If that doesn't speak to the mindset of the individual involved, the projection of the individual involved, there ain't corn in sofkee.

Have your "high-falootin'", "sophisticated" debates! Enjoy 'em! Delve deep into the mysteries of your metaphysical, ontological notions - AND HAVE YOURSELF A BALL!

Me, I'm gon' strike at the heart of the matter in an effort to reduce my time and energy expenses, because, contrary to your SLURS AGAINST ALL WITH WHOM YOU DISAGREE, I ain't got time to waste on those who tear up at the mere presentation of a challenge to their claims.

And yeah, I spelled "pretentiousness" wrong back there, 'cause I don't care. I did it for those who rail in their smug, self-important, "brother-better'n-youness".

[otseng]

The ontological truth of the matter would logically be addressed after the question(s) of internal coherence have been attended to, not before. If internal coherence fails, then there is no need to consider ontological truth; but if internal coherence can be demonstrated, then there may be good motivation for comparing and contrasting the competing worldviews.

I agree with this. But, now you're talking about more than simply not debating assumptions, but how debates should be carried out.

We are only having this discussion at all because one individual keeps attempting to dictate the terms of debate for everyone else by insisting that ontological truth must be "confirmed" before any other discussion can be had (but of course he cannot demonstrate the ontological truth of his worldview either).

There're been more than enough reference to "one individual" in this thread. We all understand your point without you making this personal.

[EduChris]

I think if internal coherence is the only thing that needs to be demonstrated, then it should be explicitly stated in the OP. I would assume that most people when they approach an issue would want to go beyond if something is just internally coherent, but if it is also true.

On this forum is most people seem to understand that when a specific question is asked, an answer to that specific question can be given without needing to constantly go back and define what the meaning of "is" is on every single thread. If people want a more general, worldview-level answer, they will ask a general, worldview-level question.

In essence, your approach would require everyone (and you admit that we have very wide range of participants) to explicitly state all their assumptions up front, for the benefit of the tiny minority here who don't understand the concept of staying within the parameters (implicit and explicit) of the OP.

[otseng]

On this forum is most people seem to understand that when a specific question is asked, an answer to that specific question can be given without needing to constantly go back and define what the meaning of "is" is on every single thread. If people want a more general, worldview-level answer, they will ask a general, worldview-level question.

Why do you feel compelled to respond to such questions? Simply ignore questions that you deem to be trivial.

In essence, your approach would require everyone (and you admit that we have very wide range of participants) to explicitly state all their assumptions up front, for the benefit of the tiny minority here who don't understand the concept of staying within the parameters (implicit and explicit) of the OP.

It'd be practically impossible to list all the assumptions. But, it would be best to try to list the major assumptions, that way all the participants knows up front the parameters of the debate.

[EduChris]

On this forum is most people seem to understand that when a specific question is asked, an answer to that specific question can be given without needing to constantly go back and define what the meaning of "is" is on every single thread. If people want a more general, worldview-level answer, they will ask a general, worldview-level question.

Why do you feel compelled to respond to such questions? Simply ignore questions that you deem to be trivial...

Even when I and others have started a thread with the assumptions stated explicitly, and even when I (and others) have responded to an OP by listing the assumptions of the OP, Joey ignores all of this and demands "confirmation" of worldview questions. If he engaged in this behavior occasionally, here and there just to prove whatever point he thinks he's making--then fine. But his ubiquitous presence and numerous posts are as much the problem as his methods. Even the people who have voiced support here on this thread for Joey's behavior do not engage in such behavior themselves--so obviously such behavior is not necessary for debate. Moreover, Joey makes a big deal publicly when he sees that he is on someone's ignore list, and engages in stalking behavior which ends up inflaming good people and causing them to leave the forum altogether.

Why not end the problem? Just post a guideline to the effect that responders should endeavor to stay within the general parameters of the OP, and that numerous, repeated, demands for "confirmation" of things outside the general parameters of the OP will be deemed uncivil--especially when no "confirmation" of any alternative is ever accompanied by the demand.

[otseng]

Even when I and others have started a thread with the assumptions stated explicitly, and even when I (and others) have responded to an OP by listing the assumptions of the OP, Joey ignores all of this and demands "confirmation" of worldview questions.

How many times do I have to say this? Do not refer to Joey either directly or indirectly in this thread anymore.

Why not end the problem? Just post a guideline to the effect that responders should endeavor to stay within the general parameters of the OP, and that numerous, repeated, demands for "confirmation" of things outside the general parameters of the OP will be deemed uncivil--especially when no "confirmation" of any alternative is ever accompanied by the demand.

This is what we're trying to do now - to draft the guideline. So far, the only thing is that assumptions stated in the OP are not open for debate in the thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 35:

...
Moreover, Joey makes a big deal publicly when he sees that he is on someone's ignore list...

Given that YOU make a "big deal" out of declaring you'll "ignore the uncivil", I will point out at any opportunity I deem fit that you prefer to ignore folks.

and engages in stalking behavior which ends up inflaming good people and causing them to leave the forum altogether.
...

Please link to and quote verbatim the site rule that says I can't respond to any post I deem worthy of a response.

Again with the derogatory accusations.

Are you incapable of displaying any civility yourself?

[otseng]

Are you incapable of displaying any civility yourself?

Joey, you too will need to desist from making any more personal comments.

[Jester]

Moreover, Joey makes a big deal publicly when he sees that he is on someone's ignore list...

Given that YOU make a "big deal" out of declaring you'll "ignore the uncivil", I will point out at any opportunity I deem fit that you prefer to ignore folks.

I'd like to point out (with Osteng) that this should not be a personal discussion.
Neither of these comments addresses the topic.

To get to that, I fully agree with the idea that debates should stay on topic, rather than getting derailed onto tangents (whether they are challenges, or side comments about who is on which ignore list).

I'm all for reminding people of this guideline. It does irritate me when the discussion gets off topic.

Thus, if the suggestion is that the moderators should consider repeated off-topic challenges as essentially equivalent to excessive off-topic or unsupported claims, then it strikes me as reasonable. I'd only add that the moderators may not agree with all members regarding which challenge fits into this category.

[EduChris]

...if the suggestion is that the moderators should consider repeated off-topic challenges as essentially equivalent to excessive off-topic or unsupported claims, then it strikes me as reasonable...

Sounds perfect! If enforced at least in the most egregious cases, this should greatly improve the forum experience for everyone!