Trump Supporter

[Mowk]

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.

[WendyDarling]

Why nominate Carleas? An agnostic independent should be nominated.

[Mimisbrunnr]

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.

Oh and beware, you'd have to argue with facts and commit to not shift the goalposts. Good luck, you're going to need it.

Carleas? LOL. Challenge fail.

[IrvaLoona]

Is a man who built luxury skyscrapers - https://tranio.es/usa/adt/1511973/ - in the heart of NY supported only by russians? Haha

[Mowk]

Why nominate Carleas? An agnostic independent should be nominated.

Doh! It's Carleas' site.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I offer to be judge.

[Mr Reasonable]

Joker you're like the picture of bias. I remember when you used to think for yourself. You're sad now.

[Carleas]

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.

[Uccisore]

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'?

[Mowk]

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'?

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?
"Although President-elect Donald Trump was mentioned, Chicago Police do not believe the crime was politically motivated."
Perhaps you have another source that indicates the victims political affiliation, that you hadn't posted.

I read the post and even updated my flash player just so I could see if there was something in the video that went along with the story that made mention that the victim was a trump supporter.
When you did not provide a link, it seemed reasonable to question, if you made it up? Given the venom and hate represented in your title and the post.

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.

[Mowk]

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.

Carleas, I've butted heads with you a few times, but you do example a civility sadly lacking on this site. I do remember the forum rules were "boiler plate" but as they have been left to stand as is without modification, they are the only rules we have. I will address them as indicated, they are the rules to with which we must agree to become members, I will anticipate you will enforce them, as they are, "boiler plate" as they may be. You have made them a contract to which I and every member (moderators included) have had to acknowledge with a click of the mouse.

If such criteria in judging need be, and I could be declared a looser twice in this debate, it doesn't matter to me. I've been declared a looser on this site so many times, two more aren't even going to change the percentages by a fraction of a degree.

So, let us move forward in pursuit of truth.

[Ecmandu]

Mowk, we're in a new era now...

The post modern rhetoricians finally feel heard instead of disenfranchised ...

Uccisore will state, " I will say anything I want, all is great because I am great, you will all love me for it, I'm going to do everything, and you will all love me for it. I'm marvelous no matter what I do, and because I do it, you are all marvelous, everything is marvelous... Raping is marvelous, we're all marvelous.... Just a little bit of raping, I Trump, set the standard... Women just need to know their pussies are mine and that it's marvelous..." Etc....

He's definitely a Trump supporter... If trump were a moderator, he'd be Uccisore

[Uccisore]

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.

[Mowk]

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 the debate has begun. Let's get started then.

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.

You have halfway answered it now, thank you.

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."

That is not specific enough, to make the claim. As the claimant you are responsible for the validation. If it is such a simple matter. Then do your google search and pick one and post it. The Headline from the post you did link to, did not describe the incident in th the manner you have, nor was it mentioned in the story or video that followed.

...and trail off into a bunch of incoherent horseshit like a raving fucking derelict in the thread,..

I see your civility hasn't improved.

...and one of them just a criticism of my character based completely on your opinion?

I claim no exclusive ownership of the opinion. My argument with you as moderator has everything to do with you not following the rules of the forum. If a moderator does not follow the rules he won't enforce them either. You continue to respond to all who disagree with you in an intolerant and demeaning manner, and as result the forum you moderate has become much the same.

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.

Ironic

[iambiguous]

...and trail off into a bunch of incoherent horseshit like a raving fucking derelict in the thread,..

I see your civility hasn't improved.

Good catch. I spotted that too.

[Carleas]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

Carleas, I understand, but to continue the discussion in SG&E would simply put myself in a position to be on the butt end of more uncivil responses. That forum is a circus of incivility. I sometimes have to edit myself, because the constant onslaught of demeaning remarks is taxing and my emotions get away from me. Querry? was such a circumstance. I was beginning to act in kind, and deleted my remarks and replaced them with the word querry.

>this< doesn't feel like a community. As I have said before, You are a "square-sort" and I will leave you to your board.

[Carleas]

That forum is a circus of incivility.

This too is not what the Debate forum is for.

[Meno_]

What is SG&E for members of and for the sake of this supposed com-m-unity, pls. Spell it out; even for those whose only intent is to fol-low. Otherwise they may mis-inter-pret a signification of a code.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Joker you're like the picture of bias. I remember when you used to think for yourself. You're sad now.

Everybody is biased including yourself. No such thing as a non biased person.

Sorry Snoop Dog, you've got nothing.

[Uccisore]

You have halfway answered it now, thank you.

Now? I haven't said a single thing in this thread that I didn't say to you twice before already.

That is not specific enough, to make the claim.

You had your chance to discuss this with me in the actual thread about the subject. You elected to subject the thread to a textual seizure of some sort instead. I have nothing new to say, you haven't challenged anything I said in any substantial way, there's nothing to talk about.

[Mowk]

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.

[Meno_]

Except to those who go by the motto: 'If some thing doesn't kill someone, it will make him stronger.'& to them, no place is the wrong place, but then again...

[Uccisore]

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.

I am grateful we were able to skip straight to this part instead of having a 'debate' first.

[Mowk]

So am I.

It feeds you. You live on it. Addicted. If you don't get 'it' you are a crab and a rather toxic guy to be around. You are the ringmaster of a circus of incivility.

Any time I can provide you your fix and we can get about with a more civil discourse; I'm your dealer. I'll peddle you your hearts desire.

I don't think I've said how smart Ucci is. It's really quite amazing. Everyone must agree.