Dishonesty should be against the rules... Angel vs. Baz or

[Angel]

I opened this thread to have a discussion with Otseng and/or Baz (preferably Otseng since he's the rulemaker here).

On another thread that I requested to be locked that's called, Dishonesty should be against the rules, Baz made the following response to me:

Post 57: Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:08 pm (Baz) Post subject:

[Replying to Angel]

I could easily disagree with your view of dishonesty.
A good deal of individual’s beliefs can be argued as valid and logical also in so far as describing belief factual. Is it not fact that the majority of people believe murder is a bad thing?

However the point I am trying to make is that what one person sees as inconsistency (lies if you like) can easily just be the result of insufficient data, honest mistakes, and different viewpoints. (And out and out devious lying)

To legislate against lies would need somebody who knows the truth to pass judgement and impose penalties.

In my opinion this would not be a job for an honest person.



Perhaps we just get everybody to promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help … No that wouldn’t go down well with everybody either.

I truly do sympathise but my vote (if there was such a thing) would be to keep the rules to a minimum or they will just be used to beat people with.

I'll respond to this point and if it turns into a debate then we can move this discussion into the one-on-one section. I will respond to Baz's post below here..


Post 57: Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:08 pm (Baz)

I could easily disagree with your view of dishonesty.
A good deal of individual’s beliefs can be argued as valid and logical also in so far as describing belief factual. Is it not fact that the majority of people believe murder is a bad thing?

According to the forum rules, beliefs and opinions don't have to be supported with evidence. Where is the inconsistency or contradiction element in your question which was what the main point of my post that you responded to? How can you argue that an inconsistent belief is logical, factual, or true? Keep in mind, I'm not referring to arguing that someone holds such a belief but rather I'm requesting that you show that inconsistent or contradictory beliefs are logical or true in reality (e.g. that murder is objectively immoral and moral).

However the point I am trying to make is that what one person sees as inconsistency (lies if you like) can easily just be the result of insufficient data, honest mistakes, and different viewpoints. (And out and out devious lying)

My view is that we can only prove dishonesty SOMEtimes. The times that we can prove it is when the moderators should intervene. You mention a person may be inconsistent because of a lack of data. How much data does it take for a weak atheist who claims to have NO views on God to realize that saying God doesn't exist or that God is a pink unicorn is a view on God? If someone can't understand something as simple as that then how did they manage to understand the Forum RULES when they joined the forum?

If a weak atheist claims to not have any views on God, and then you find them expressing some view on God in another thread and BRING IT TO THEIR ATTENTION, how is it an 'honest mistake' for them to deny or not accept the inconsistency (and to deny it REPEATEDLY) AFTER it has been brought to their attention?

If a weak atheist claims to have no view on God, how is it a "different viewpoint" (did you mean to say different set of rules for logic and COMMON SENSE?) to have that same type of atheist claiming that God doesn't exist or is a pink unicorn? I can agree with you here if we can say that a "different viewpoint" can equate to a lie or CHANGING to a new position but the latter should be stated that it's a CHANGE in position rather than denying that the previously stated position was never made.

If the word or concept of "dishonesty" is the problem or hard to prove then I did suggest we just focus on the behavior that stems from it:
-REPEATED inconsistency AFTER it has been brought up that there's an inconsistency
-DISTORTING someone's position AFTER it has already been brought up to you
-IGNORING evidence and continuing to argue as if the evidence (evidence relevant to the point being debated) was not offered.

These 3 points are just examples I came up with off the top of my head but my point is that they can be proven without having to label or worry about someone's honesty. I consider that the best way to prove it since we are going by the person's ACTION(s).

[Angel]

edit

[Angel]

The key to adding something to the rules is that it has to be easily enforceable and does not require extensive moderator energy.

Agreed. Perhaps included in this rule would be something making it clear that the onus is on the person reporting the inconsistency to be very specific.

I just don't think you can moderate logical inconsistency.

While my suggestion involves inconsistency but my primary reason for bringing this suggestion is dishonesty or to help ENSURE honest debates. My rule would only come into place depending on the person's reactions AFTER it has been brought to their attention that they're being inconsistent. If the person reacts by dodging the point, lying about it, or making up more excuses and inconsistencies, then how would I know which position to argue against or which position they hold or why should I expect that they won't switch up their position on me again? I'm tired of running across people on here who have a problem accepting the truth even when you pile up the evidence a mile high and bring it real close to their face. Otseng wants to protect and baby these people but I want to expose them so we can actually put a stop these people.

[otseng]

Otseng wants to protect and baby these people but I want to expose them so we can actually put a stop these people.

Could you stop assuming what I think please?

[Angel]

Otseng wants to protect and baby these people but I want to expose them so we can actually put a stop these people.

Could you stop assuming what I think please?

The problem here is not my assumptions but rather it's your lack of action. I'm just letting you know the implications of your lack of action.

What my statement means is that you're being too soft on dishonest people. Your trend of moderator actions has been to reprimand people who expose them rather than addressing the dishonest behavior. So yes, in a sense that protects dishonest people since they don't get in trouble and CONTINUE and you prevent people from exposing them for what they are.

[otseng]

What my statement means is that you're being too soft on dishonest people.

Then how about I simply ban you for being dishonest and stating things about me that is false?

[Angel]

What my statement means is that you're being too soft on dishonest people.

Then how about I simply ban you for being dishonest and stating things about me that is false?

If nothing is going to be done about the issues I raised here, besides threatening or asking me about being banned, then please delete my account on Dec. 31, 2013.