Mowk wrote:Ucci,
Just you and me regarding your title "Trump Supporter...." thread.
You: your position
Me: mine.
Anytime.
I nominate Carleas, your boss and our admistrator as the sole electorate. He is exceedingly generous.
Oh and be aware your style is in question.
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Why nominate Carleas? An agnostic independent should be nominated.
Uccisore wrote:I have no idea what this debate is even supposed to be about. "Your position" was to claim that I made up the notion that the victim was a Trump supporter, then to demand I lose my mod status, then to ramble incoherently to yourself for a few posts before vanishing for a week. If some amalgamation of that is what you'll be doing in a debate, I don't really have much interest.
What is it that you think 'my position' is, or that 'your position' is, that requires more to be said about it, and if more needs to be said, why didn't you just reply to my last post to you instead of writing random shit like "Querry" and whining about how you 'tire of this'?
Carleas wrote:I'm willing to judge, though it's true that I have a known positions that make it clear I'm not personally neutral, and if I am impartial it will be in spite of my avowed positions. That's not to say that I don't think I could be, but everyone thinks they can be impartial and few actually can.
If I'm to judge, then, we should take steps to encourage impartiality. The question would need to be stated as clearly and explicitly as possible. We should discuss in advance the criteria on which the question should be decided, and how a judgement should be structured. It may also be best to distinguish between different criteria in judging, e.g. one person could win for style/rhetoric, and the other for substance. This would have the effect of both keeping me honest, and making it more obvious if my judging is biased.
Mowk wrote:Ucci,
My reply to you:
"The original headline reads:
"4 in custody after mentally disabled man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live"
Ucci, what information from the article you linked indicated the victim was a "Trump Supporter" as you have claimed in >your< title?
Perhaps you have another source that indicates the victims political affiliation, that you hadn't posted.
When you did not provide a link, it seemed reasonable to question, if you made it up?
So our debate will center on "your claim", and secondarily on your exampled lack of civility, which in this opinion renders you impotent as an effective moderator.
I am ready anytime you are.
Uccisore wrote:Mowk wrote:Ucci,
My reply to you:
"The original headline reads:
"4 in custody after mentally disabled man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live"
Ucci, what information from the article you linked indicated the victim was a "Trump Supporter" as you have claimed in >your< title?
So you want to debate a single question that I already answered? I called the victim a Trump supporter because his attackers clearly thought he was, and because numerous headlines across the internet said he was, that's all. Nobody has given any definitive proof one way or the other since then, so maybe he wasn't a Trump supporter and the kidnappers just thought he was. It's a 'hate crime' against Trump supporters regardless.Perhaps you have another source that indicates the victims political affiliation, that you hadn't posted.
For the third time, my source is a simple Google search- look up the incident, see how many headlines call the victim a "Trump Supporter". That's why I said it.When you did not provide a link, it seemed reasonable to question, if you made it up?
What made it reasonable to *continue* to question it after I explained to you why I said what I said multiple times, and what made it reasonable for you to refuse to acknowledge my statement and trail off into a bunch of incoherent horseshit like a raving fucking derelict in the thread, and what made it reasonable for you to 'challenge me to a debate' on the matter when you hadn't bothered to reply when I already spelled it out for you?So our debate will center on "your claim", and secondarily on your exampled lack of civility, which in this opinion renders you impotent as an effective moderator.
I am ready anytime you are.
So you want to debate two completely different things- one of the already addressed, and one of them just a criticism of my character based completely on your opinion? Sounds wonderful, but...I'm gonna have to pass. You could always try challenging to me on a debate of some matter of interest in philosophy or political science- but I think we both know how that would go- you'd declare yourself bored of the conversation the moment I started to make you look foolish, and start replying with haikus or some shit. Go on, tell me I'm wrong.
So you want to debate a single question that I already answered? I called the victim a Trump supporter because his attackers clearly thought he was, and because numerous headlines across the internet said he was, that's all. Nobody has given any definitive proof one way or the other since then, so maybe he wasn't a Trump supporter and the kidnappers just thought he was. It's a 'hate crime' against Trump supporters regardless.
For the third time, my source is a simple Google search- look up the incident, see how many headlines call the victim a "Trump Supporter". That's why I said it."
...and trail off into a bunch of incoherent horseshit like a raving fucking derelict in the thread,..
...and one of them just a criticism of my character based completely on your opinion?
Careas wrote:However, we are a community first, and as a community we must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness. A community based on the exchange of ideas cannot persist when individuals are attacked as individuals for the ideas they express. Anything that inhibits the community will prevent us from our purposes.
Because ideas are so central to a person's life, they can contain deep significance. Enshrining the critical consideration of all ideas while maintaining a civil discourse can be difficult. Therefore, radical positions must be approached delicately. Certainly, philosophy is a story of radical ideas, and so such ideas are welcome, but the radicalism of an idea must be balanced with a proportionate care in expression. The line between radicalism and antagonism is thin.
ILP is its members, and the ideas they bring with them. This site is a community. When that community falters, ILP falters in its purpose. The actions of its members define its tone, its quality, and its utility as a haven for the ideas it holds dear. Let your actions here reflect that ethos.
You could always try challenging to me on a debate of some matter of interest in philosophy or political science- but I think we both know how that would go- you'd declare yourself bored of the conversation the moment I started to make you look foolish, and start replying with haikus or some shit. Go on, tell me I'm wrong.
Mowk wrote:...and trail off into a bunch of incoherent horseshit like a raving fucking derelict in the thread,..
I see your civility hasn't improved.
Mowk wrote:So the debate has begun.
Mowk wrote:[O]ur debate will center on "your claim", and secondarily on your exampled lack of civility, which in this opinion renders you impotent as an effective moderator.
Carleas wrote:Mowk wrote:So the debate has begun.
Not how this works. This thread should focus on identifying the question and the terms of the debate, at which point a debate thread will be created. If you just want a normal argument, continue the discussion that was already started in SG&E.Mowk wrote:[O]ur debate will center on "your claim", and secondarily on your exampled lack of civility, which in this opinion renders you impotent as an effective moderator.
This doesn't seem like a very good question for a debate. The first part is whether the kidnapped and abused man was a Trump supporter, which is a question of fact and results in a debate consisting of lists of URLs.
The second part is just complaining about a moderator, which goes better in Meta. Debates are meant to be spectator affairs, and two people bickering about which one is the jerk just sounds boring.
Mowk wrote:That forum is a circus of incivility.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Joker you're like the picture of bias. I remember when you used to think for yourself. You're sad now.
Mowk wrote:You have halfway answered it now, thank you.
That is not specific enough, to make the claim.
Mowk wrote:As Carleas has said:
>this isn't the place<
Even I, an emotionally crippled, intellectually retarded, flaming idiot got it. And you Ucci, seek to make fun of it.
You win. I am every bit your intellectual inferior. I don't have the right to add question to anything you claim. I drink from what ever toilet you require.
But damn, I was really moved by that piece Carleas wrote about the community of philosophy. I really bought it. I am a stupid idiot for having bought into such unimplemented rhetoric.
I gotta go now again and recharge my human battery. I really hate myself when I can't understand. You may paint that picture any way that serves you, and you have. Best of luck to you my personal grind stone. Hone an edge against that wheel too harshly and it has surely cracked.
I'll be in my hole, attempting to rebuild any self esteem I have had for myself. You really showed me what life is all about. Gratitude. That's a life lesson that requires a second or third look.
Carelas, In this opinion, there is no where that makes the question of bullying the wrong place. But as you have stated. >this< isn't it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users