Moderating Mapleafweb's Moderation

[Michael Hardner]

I would have no objection if moderators created alter-egos to engage in political discussion, as long as they're mature enough not to then go back to their other ID to punish those they're losing arguments with. A better idea is for moderators to take part in discussion as they choose, as happens on other sites.

It doesn't matter. We don't do sock puppetry it and we wouldn't do it. There are enough posters on here.

[Big Guy]

How do the mods define "spam"?

[Guest]

How do the mods define "spam"?

You just want me to post the Monty Python video, don't you?

[Big Guy]

You just want me to post the Monty Python video, don't you?

If you are talking about the Black Knight then you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Guest]

If you are talking about the Black Knight then you don't have a leg to stand on.

Ah, still funny after all these years...

[Charles Anthony]

How do the mods define "spam"?

advertizing

[Argus]

Okay, so why was the problem with progressives topic locked? We were having a reasonably cordial conversation without a lot of screaming and yelling.

[The_Squid]

Your entire premise in that thread was so thoroughly debunked that the thread should just stay locked and pinned to the top of the forum as an example of how NOT to back up one's claims.

Next time you and Hal should provide some actual cites for your assertions. "Everyone knows that" is not a proper response to someone asking for an actual cite for your assertions.

[Argus]

Your entire premise in that thread was so thoroughly debunked that the thread should just stay locked and pinned to the top of the forum as an example of how NOT to back up one's claims.

I've noticed, over the course of many years here, that a certain kind of person feels that once he's made his position on something clear, there really is no room for argument or disagreement, and all should bow to his or her superior wisdom. And if you try to disagree then they'll get huffy and tell you that they've completely debunked, destroyed, annihilated and otherwise proved anyone who disagrees with them wrong - all on the evidence of their own opinion.

I have never been either convinced or impressed by such statements. Kudos to you, however, for making it in such a patently cliche'd fashion.

[eyeball]

I've noticed, over the course of many years here, that a certain kind of person feels that once he's made his position on something clear, there really is no room for argument or disagreement, and all should bow to his or her superior wisdom. And if you try to disagree then they'll get huffy and tell you that they've completely debunked, destroyed, annihilated and otherwise proved anyone who disagrees with them wrong - all on the evidence of their own opinion.

/facepalm

You've convinced nor impressed anyone with such statements either. Kudos to you, however, for making clear why in such a patently cliche'd fashion.

[The_Squid]

I've noticed, over the course of many years here, that a certain kind of person feels that once he's made his position on something clear, there really is no room for argument or disagreement, and all should bow to his or her superior wisdom. And if you try to disagree then they'll get huffy and tell you that they've completely debunked, destroyed, annihilated and otherwise proved anyone who disagrees with them wrong - all on the evidence of their own opinion.

I have never been either convinced or impressed by such statements. Kudos to you, however, for making it in such a patently cliche'd fashion.

I guess that's one way to look at the difference between us... here's another:

When I make the claim X = 5 (X can be anything... single moms... welfare recipients... elephants in Africa...) and someone comes along and says X = 127 with proper citations, whatever those may be.... and I can't back up my claim that X = 5, I don't go on pretending that X = 5 as if nothing ever happened.

X = 5 is not merely an opinion... so I don't get to carry on as if X = 5. My claim was debunked and I'm not afraid to admit it.

Edited April 19, 2016 by The_Squid

[Argus]

I guess that's one way to look at the difference between us... here's another:

When I make the claim X = 5 (X can be anything... single moms... welfare recipients... elephants in Africa...) and someone comes along and says X = 127 with proper citations, whatever those may be.

Of course, YOU get to decide if you're using 'proper citations' even when what you're talking about is not what the other party is talking about, right?

Just as, say, a hypothetical example, if person A says something like "social policy has caused there to be more single parent families, which is bad for society" and you respond by saying "look, poverty among single parent families has diminished!" you might consider that a response but it actually isn't. It's on the same road but in a different lane. It's like saying "Well, yes, we've got more single parent families, but after spending billions on income support they're not as poor as they used to be!" and then thinking that is a rebuttal to someone saying it was wrong for social policy to encourage so many single parent families.

[eyeball]

X = 5 is not merely an opinion... so I don't get to carry on as if X = 5. My claim was debunked and I'm not afraid to admit it.

In a formally moderated debate someone has to call foul when a foul has been committed so the point that's scored actually means something and moves the debate forward. Without that extra dimension how does a circle resolve into a sphere?

[The_Squid]

Of course, YOU get to decide if you're using 'proper citations' even when what you're talking about is not what the other party is talking about, right?

No... people can compare the sources of the information... see the example below.

Just as, say, a hypothetical example, if person A says something like "social policy has caused there to be more single parent families"...

Person A needs a citation for that.

Person B comes along and shows that, indeed, there aren't more single parent families, there goes that argument. Debunked on the very first premise (claim).

Person A caries on the debate as if their claim was true without ever providing any supporting evidence.

Assuming there are more single parent families, then person A should show how this is "bad for society"... simply stating it doesn't make it fact. Saying that "everyone knows single parent families are bad for society" doesn't cut it either. But we haven't even gotten to that point if it's shown that their very first premise is factually flawed.

Edited April 19, 2016 by The_Squid

[GostHacked]

I am also having a lot of my posts hidden due to thread drift. But I am wondering what is considered thread drift?

[Argus]

Person A needs a citation for that.

Person B comes along and shows that, indeed, there aren't more single parent families, there goes that argument. Debunked on the very first premise (claim).

In what imaginary universe did this happen?

[waldo]

Okay, so why was the problem with progressives topic locked? We were having a reasonably cordial conversation without a lot of screaming and yelling.

oh right! I didn't get a chance to reply to your post that sarcastically challenged me being for evidenced based information... you know, in the thread you started and where you never supplied a single cite/reference link - not one! Apparently, the only 'evidenced based' requirement you have is your unsubstantiated opinion!

.

[Argus]

oh right! I didn't get a chance to reply to your post that sarcastically challenged me being for evidenced based information... you know, in the thread you started and where you never supplied a single cite/reference link - not one! Apparently, the only 'evidenced based' requirement you have is your unsubstantiated opinion!

.

When did it come down from the mount engraved in stone that we must cite someone else's opinion in order to validate our own? An opinion survives based on the logic of the opinion not whether you can pluck some matching opinion from the internet. And as I recall, the only cite you provided was an irrelevent one related to American single mothers being lower in number, which was drawn from sociological factors not existing in Canada.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Argus

[waldo]

When did it come down from the mount engraved in stone that we must cite someone else's opinion in order to validate our own? An opinion survives based on the logic of the opinion not whether you can pluck some matching opinion from the internet. And as I recall, the only cite you provided was an irrelevent one related to American single mothers being lower in number, which was drawn from sociological factors not existing in Canada.

beauty! And no, I had 2 linked references... again, you had nada, zip, zilch! And... there was absolutely nothing in the OP that limited the discussion to Canada only... in the broad 'Political Philosophy' sub-forum.

in separate posts:

you stated: "It's well-documented by Statistics Canada and has been for many years. Aren't you people the party of 'facts and evidence'?"

you stated: "So you're NOT the party of evidence and facts unless they agree with your agenda. Gotcha. Not much of a surprise."

so you call out others over a puffed up challenge on "facts and evidence"... and you simply throw down post after post after post of nothing more than your unsubstantiated opinions.

.

[Argus]

beauty! And no, I had 2 linked references...

Your linked reference were irrelevant, merely part of a tactic you play so often by throwing out reams of nonsense data in hopes of drowning out a conversation you find yourself unable to keep up with. FYI, single parent families have actually risen in Canada, which is why I ignored your American-centric data.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

So Charles said the topic was locked temporarily and he'll get back to us 'tonight' which was two days ago. Can we get an update, please?

[waldo]

Your linked reference were irrelevant, merely part of a tactic you play so often by throwing out reams of nonsense data in hopes of drowning out a conversation you find yourself unable to keep up with. FYI, single parent families have actually risen in Canada, which is why I ignored your American-centric data.

huh! So now you've crafted a new narrative... and choose to re-package as, "single parent families"? Oh my! Let me reinforce exactly what you said and, accordingly, what was replied to - how does your "unwed mothers" reference now shift to "single parent families"?

[Argus]

huh! So now you've crafted a new narrative... and choose to re-package as, "single parent families"? Oh my!

I'm sorry, Waldo, but if you can't grasp the connection between 'single parent families' and 'unwed mothers' I'm just not capable of communicating with you on your uhm, level.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Argus

[waldo]

I'm sorry, Waldo, but if you can't grasp the connection between 'single parent families' and 'unwed mothers' I'm just not capable of communicating with you on your uhm, level.

are all single parents women? Does divorce factor into your concern for... unwed mothers? Are all single parents unwed mothers? You were so on about the plight of "unwed mothers"... don't desert them now!

.

[Charles Anthony]

---SNIP---

Stop drifting this thread.

Can we get an update, please?

Yes.