 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Just the facts
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Stilly River Sage Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:28 AM Steve Shaw, you present so many straw men and other logical fallacies in your protestations and complaints there is no point - I'm not defending myself against your obtuse view of how moderators or members in general should behave. You're just trying to change the subject back to you. This thread has gone into the toilet, like every other one that had potential to actually discuss an interesting topic. Some of you called on others to come trot out their favorite soap box issues so you could have another slug fest about it. We know how all of you feel about these topics, you talk about them all of the time in any thread you can hijack to your favorite fighting venue. You don't need to keep arguing about how others feel. Leave those festering scabs alone and talk about other stuff, that you do agree about. My moderator's "Close Thread" button looms - it's time to end this before it becomes worse. Thanks for trying, Ed_T. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: akenaton Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:17 AM Team Musket is a complete joke. I have never had the police at my door, I know several of them very well and I can assure Team Musket that I, unlike them, have never posted anything here which is in any way actionable in the legal sense. Mr Bridge should be able to confirm that, AND that libel IS actionable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: The Sandman Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:12 AM my point is that debate, discussion, should be able to occur wthout insults, you are quite right i have given up looking at the tedious drivel ,so its possible he may have LATER resorted to insults, however GREG YOU CALLED ME AN ASSHOLE IN TRAINING, [the irony is that I do not agree with Keith] and you then referred to him as an asshole at that point he had not insulted anyone. calling people names weakens arguments[ that applies to both camps], and brings the forum into disrepute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland Date: 23 Dec 14 - 10:05 AM yeah, I noticed that. Two Ls. I think he should have put "century" after "twenty first" too. An interesting article recently in Pink News, making the link between hatred towards gay people being brushed aside and ignored because it didn't concern others with the Kristallnacht, which happened because blaming Jews became the norm. If you think that is paranoid comparison, then recall that in the 1920s, comments similar to the UKIP idea that last years floods were due to gay marriage got a similar response with regard to Jews. By the 1930s, it was accepted as fact that anything bad was their fault. We also have a problem with Muslims, immigrants and "lefty liberals" being the scape goat with some more odious members here on Mudcat. The more people challenge, the less afraid Max's mudelves will feel in finally doing the right thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Dec 14 - 09:38 AM Greg is right but does not go far enough. Not all opinions are created equal. Some should not be tolerated. But in the interests of factual accuracy surely Mither should have referred to a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht Terribilis should also be named as a user of fact to promulgate unacceptable views. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Greg F. Date: 23 Dec 14 - 09:12 AM to Keiths credit he has not resorted to name calling Suggest you re-read his postings. You've evidently missed quite a lot. however he is entitled to an opinion without being continually insulted A common misconception, but not so. He - or anyone else - may be "entitled" to an INFORMED opinion, but certainly NOT "entitled" to spew bullshit without being called on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Musket Date: 23 Dec 14 - 08:15 AM I thought bottom feeder referred to Akenaton. After all, he's the one who keeps referring to anal sex. Sadly, moderation within Mudcat doesn't include nipping hatred in the bud. It allows the the oxygen of publicity to discrimination on the basis of free speech but deletes those pointing it out. It has become a joke on the BS section. A joke that detracts from the excellent music resource. Sadly, it is a joke that in the case of using irrelevant health statistics wrongly to demonise people, including those on Mudcat, is also an offence where the criminal lives. I have repeatedly informed both my ISPs and my friend has also passed on details to the police where he and Akenaton live. It is one thing to laugh at clowns. It is another to look the other way whilst twenty first Kristlenacht takes place by homophobic criminals. People should not have to stumble upon this evil hatred. Laws in this case are to protect the innocent, not limit free speech. Akenaton is the first to scream when "free speech" questions him, but seems to think it should be ok to post hatred. Either moderate or remove BS. It would be a pity to remove it, so sort it before UK ISPs remove it from their customers. Because that could happen. You can ask, which I have, and BT have received 63 complaints about unmoderated incitement to hatred on Mudcat. I only sent the form twice.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 23 Dec 14 - 07:46 AM I challenged Stilly River Sage on her use of " bottom feeders" to characterise certain people here who she, however, seems reluctant to name. My post was deleted but hers, with the bottom feeder reference, is, to date, still there. Now here's the thing, SRS. You are very good at deleting posts that take you on (and I wasn't particularly uncivil about it, if I recall accurately). You are not very good at deleting posts that contain bigotry. Then you blame us for fomenting the bigotry when we take these nasty people on. You can stop the bigotry yourself far more effectively and, at a stroke, stop us from needing to attack the bigots. Don't delete my posts or Musket's posts. Delete the bigots' posts whenever they contain bigotry. You're good at judging my posts all right, so show us that you can judge theirs as well. We rage here all the time about personal attacks. I get attacked here as much as anyone, usually by the very people who moan about the personal attacks, including you. Bottom feeder, eh? I'll just nominate Bill as the single honourable exception. What you may be missing is that bigotry is a form of attack far more serious and wide-ranging. Bigotry attacks whole groups of people at once. Just because a bigot doesn't name names doesn't mean they are not indulging in vicious attacks. Pete attacks scientists. Akenaton attacks gay people. Keith attacks Palestinians. In each case the starting points of their attacks are some or all of delusion, faulty logic, dishonesty, inhumanity, ignorance and intemperate talk. Don't blame us if the world out there can see all that on Mudcat. It's far more likely that some kind of misguided and pusillanimous attitude to "free speech" is to blame. You want us to shut up. Not as much as we want them to shut up. You can help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST Date: 23 Dec 14 - 07:15 AM Bill, let's get the hell out of this place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: akenaton Date: 23 Dec 14 - 07:03 AM Guest.....I have never made these allegations against you, had I done so you would be perfectly within your rights to go to the police or complain to admin. Now, about the cruelty allegations ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:24 AM Certain pond life. Bring forward any proof of the allegations you made concerning me being a health risk, cheating on my husband or my choice of spouse making me more prone to paedophilia. If you cannot etc etc etc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:23 AM Don't worry, Mither, it has the same effect on me... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: The Sandman Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:22 AM Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Stilly River Sage - PM Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:11 PM I'm saying you should stop the same stupid running personal battles that go from one thread to another to another and close them down as people lob verbal shit and point fingers. Discuss the topic, stop the bickering. SRS Thanks, I am so fed up with some of the offensive name calling on this site, the i am not a historian thread is an example, for god sake is it not possible to disagree with someone without calling them an asshole or an asshole in training. I happen to disagree with Keith A [and his view of world war one], however he is entitled to an opinion without being continually insulted],but what I see are two camps in entrenched positions, it is ironic because it is a sort of verbal world war one, two sides grinding away and no one gaining any mileage of very little, a sort of mental war of attrition, to Keiths credit he has not resorted to name calling,IN MY OPINION THE THREAD IS GOING NOWHERE, and would benefit from GOOD manners from two particIpants Jim and GregF, IF NOT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT SHUT DOWN. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: akenaton Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:17 AM Certainly guest, bring forward any proof of the allegations you made concerning me being investigated by GBGB on grounds of animal cruelty. If you cannot do so, I would hope admin ban you from the forum. However, if they do not I will accept their decision as the forum is not mine and I CHOOSE to post here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:07 AM Was your marriage a nice one Akenaton? Did you love her like I love my husband? Did it worry you that women can be carriers of chlamydia? Have you looked at the links between health and "marriage" of Scottish men and women? More Scottish men beat their wives and mentally abuse them than in any other region of The UK. Are you comfortable to be associated with that? Because your logic regarding normal gay people infers that. I am married to my husband. We are gay. I am on Mudcat. Akenaton tells lies and smokescreens regarding health in order to call me sub human. If only Mudcat were moderated eh? Your subjects are banned Akenaton. By laws relating to incitement to hatred. You post in The UK and they are read in The UK. Now I know your name and address, I have on three occasions reported you to the police and to the political party you claim to be a member of. To quote Alex Salmond; "There is no place in The SNP for those who cast aspersions on gay people who choose to marry, or gay people generally." If any subject goes, lets start with greyhound cruelty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:56 AM It's fact that in counting separate items, 2 and 2 equal four. That is only a fact dependent on which numbering system you use. Using base 3 (trinary?) it would equal 11. Some facts are not always as they seem and can only be seen in light of current information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: akenaton Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:52 AM Bill, you do not really debate with me. "there is a book called how to lie with statistics"...that is simply a devious way of calling me a liar. To my knowledge, you have never disputed the facts on MSM STD figures, never debated why they are so bad; do you really think all who oppose homosexual "marriage" are bigots and "homophobes"?(what a stupid word). All I have read on the subject, suggests that the lifestyle is dangerous and unhealthy, on the other side of the argument, all I have heard is that it is "just not fair" to oppose promotion of said lifestyle. When you say that I am "ill informed" you are wrong, those who blindly call for equality in all things are the ones who are ill informed, especially taking into account the nature of our economic and social system. Today on BBC Radio I heard a case being made for Great Ape "rights".....get that Chongo??? and they are now to be called "Non Human Persons".....Chongo no doubt will be the first activist and many from this forum like Greg, "The Muskets", Steve, and a dozen nameless guests will rally behind his banner. I await the first person/person "marriage with a mixture of awe and despair... :0) Regarding this forum, we should be able to discus our views freely and without resort to name calling, abuse, cursing, libelling, stalking, or the use of multiple personas to further our case. This section is for free discussion of any subject of interest to the membership, if any subject were to be banned for political or ideological reasons, I would be the first to leave...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Musket Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:42 AM You realise how bloody annoying it is to sit nodding in agreement with you, Bridge? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:22 AM PDQ's link seems not to work. I don't expect it to illuminate much, in that the real point about the Reagan anecdote is that Reagan used a sarcastic coinage (whether his or another's) and a single story to imply untruth. What he implied was that the story of the "Welfare Queen" in some way typified welfare claimants. In a similar-ish way Wannabee Pharoah uses selected statistics (whether accurate or not) to imply a wider thought - that wider thought being that homosexuals are unworthy, or lesser beings, and deserve to be discriminated against. Keith also uses selected facts (or alleged facts) to imply a wider societal view - principally that historic British militarism and colonialism was in some way "right" and that religions other than Xtianity (in his preferred form) and people other than white anglo-saxon protestants are somehow inferior. Pete from Beyond the Stars takes a general defect amongst the religious (NB, I said "general" rather than "universal") of believing that faith is more important than fact and chooses for faith-based reasons to deny the applicability of the scientific method. In all of these, and many other cases, it is the purpose for which facts are selected and used that is more important than the facts themselves (although of course the facts should be accurately stated) and betray bigotry and assumption. I assert that it is proper to vilify bigots and the irrational. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Musket Date: 23 Dec 14 - 03:37 AM So put a warning page that asks people to acknowledge that you allow homophobia on Mudcat. Let it be known that gay people will be allowed to be vilified on these pages so if you are gay, tough. Don't come below the line. Alternatively, moderate. Bill, read the bile above. I don't want to shout at it. I want it removing. Now. Don't you? Really? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Stilly River Sage Date: 23 Dec 14 - 12:19 AM It is very important to the ethos of a place like this that bigotry of the Keith/Ake/pete variety is directly confronted so that, to outsiders, the place itself doesn't look bigoted. Akenaton and pete will never change their attitudes whatever you say. I am pretty sure that Pete and Ake and Keith wouldn't participate in nearly the number of threads they do if people weren't continually PREDICTING that they would and predicting that while participating would behave in a certain fashion. Talk about borrowing trouble. Instead of ignoring those who you totally disagree with and letting them slip away because of lack of interest in their claims, or pointing out particularly bigotted posts to be removed by a moderator, you have to go hammer and tongs into the SAME STUPID ARGUMENTS YOU'VE BEEN WAGING FOR YEARS. You are no better than those you argue with, because you feed that fire and keep the argument going. The article Ed T linked to is interesting. It's long, I haven't had a chance to finish reading the entire thing. As I started it I predicted to myself that regulars at mudcat would argue about the examples instead of looking at the larger picture - how we process Argument (capital A, as in debate or rhetoric) but instead you're arguing about how you have to defend your intellectual territory about things that AREN'T EVEN IN THIS ARTICLE. Steve, you're not protecting mudcat from anything when you keep up the same old arguments. You're subjecting it to ridicule and abandonment by the serious musicians who used to inhabit the place. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Bill D Date: 22 Dec 14 - 10:13 PM ??" It is very important to the ethos of a place like this that bigotry of the Keith/Ake/pete variety is directly confronted so that, to outsiders, the place itself doesn't look bigoted." How is invective better than clear, concise reason to show that 'the site in general' disapproves of certain attitudes & bias? I have argued for 10-12 years here against guns, politicians, astrology, climate deniers, conspiracy theories, gay-bashers, holocaust deniers, unreasonable religious claims.... and misuse of "folk"... but *I* think that a moderate **tone** in style says more about the site itself than ripping them with invective.... but some in... ....and by the way.. I put Keith, Ake and Pete in 3 very different categories as I dispute them... and I don't consider any of them to be 'stupid'. Obstinate...sure... Bigoted? Maybe... but it is not clear to me that simple bigotry in involved. I just see them as wrong, mistaken, misguided, careless in logic and ill-informed on some things. THAT I can deal with. I simply do-not-argue with those I think are stupid or filled with hate... that sort are beyond reason. (I sometimes leave comments in 'neutral voice' condemning a point, but without naming names... as you may have noticed.. ☺) I don't expect everyone to parrot MY style, but, boy, it would be nice to see some less rancorous debate around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:25 PM Trouble is, Bill, is that "debating" Akenaton and pete is actually no such thing. Yes there is invective here. At times. Could be guilty of said tactic meself at times, but, Bill, do note the "at times" qualification. I'm fully capable of taking people on and screwing them to the ground using perfectly civil tactics, as with Keith in that silly history thread. But you only do that with people who are utterly undeserving of respect. It is very important to the ethos of a place like this that bigotry of the Keith/Ake/pete variety is directly confronted so that, to outsiders, the place itself doesn't look bigoted. Akenaton and pete will never change their attitudes whatever you say. Trying to debate them is no more than inviting them to take the piss, big time. I've accused you before of indulging them and according these nasty people a degree of respectability that they do not deserve. By now, it should be clear enough to any fair-minded person that pete, Akenaton and Keith have long since relinquished, by their obstinacy, bigotry and stupidity, their right to be debated with. Au contraire, they must be challenged, called out and dismissed. We simply have to accept that some people are beyond rescue and beyond rational discourse and we need to treat them accordingly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Ed T Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:20 PM ""The article is nothing but a hit piece by a Democrat house organ, the NY Times."" I expected someone would eventually provide a reinforcement of the main points in the article. While focusing on the examples, versus the overall article, (which, it seems were inserted merely to bring those points home), I suspect possibly a few did not "get it". ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Bill D Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:59 PM Ake.. there was a famous book called "How to Lie With Statistics" You cherry-pick statistics and then interpret them in ways that are NOT necessarily facts.... which leads to *YOU* often being interpreted in similar ways by those who don't like YOUR interpretations. Kinda of an interesting escalation by folks who all say they are concerned with facts & truth, hmm? I view the term "bottom feeder" in this context as referring to style, not analytic position. It means hurling insults and degrading referents instead of just pointedly refuting positions they dispute.,,(umm ...thus, I would not personally use the term.. but SRS is tasked ..by Max... with overseeing the general tone of the place. Lots of stuff gets left up that maybe should be deleted, but I can't imagine having enough time to parse all the nuances (he said.. inventing a term) I would rather debate Ake & Pete than nod wisely in agreement with those who consider invective the height of their ability to combat flawed ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Greg F. Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:58 PM The article is nothing but a hit piece by a Democrat house organ, the NY Times. As usual, PeeDee, you are completely full of shit. And what's more, youre PROUD of being completely full of shit. ===== Almost invariably, the posts of the bigots stay put for all to read, Watch it Steve- you're also likely "on borrowed time" - as opposed to the homophobes, racists and other scum who are free to post to spew their vomit without fear of contradiction, or "moderation". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: akenaton Date: 22 Dec 14 - 06:54 PM A Musket......"Are you saying that if someone encourages people to hate whole sections of society by spreading awful lies about their health, habits and lifestyle, that's OK?" Bill.... "Oh, c'mon! you know no one is saying that! Their beliefs and/or attitudes are foolish and flawed... and *I* say so often." You C'mon Bill! If that was aimed at me by one of the "muskets", none of it is correct, "'nfact", it is a heap of lies and misrepresentation. You simply don't like my stance on "homosexual marriage", a stance held by millions of folk. You have never disputed the health figures presented by CDC or PHE. you are being very unfair, and sorry, very devious. That is all I wish to say on the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: pdq Date: 22 Dec 14 - 06:53 PM In the link from the initial post, the author claims: "In 1976, when Ronald Reagan was running for president of the United States, he often told a story about a Chicago woman who was scamming the welfare system to earn her income. Reagan said the woman had 80 names, 30 addresses and 12 Social Security cards which she used to get food stamps along with more than her share of money from Medicaid and other welfare entitlements. He said she drove a Cadillac, didn't work and didn't pay taxes. He talked about this woman, who he never named, in just about every small town he visited, and it tended to infuriate his audiences. The story solidified the term "Welfare Queen" in American political discourse and influenced not only the national conversation for the next 30 years, but public policy as well. It also wasn't true. Sure, there have always been people who scam the government, but no one who fit Reagan's description ever existed. The woman most historians believe Reagan's anecdote was based on was a con artist with four aliases who moved from place to place wearing disguises, not some stay-at-home mom surrounded by mewling children." The author then goes on to accuse all of the last few Republican presidents and Bob Dole of lying or being uninformed. The article is nothing but a hit piece by a Democrat house organ, the NY Times. Read about The Wefare Queen here in Slate. This article shows a haeadline dated 1974 in the Chicago Tribune using that term, yet the author in the OP link accuses Reagan of coining it as a form of hate speach in 1976. What Reagan said (as researched by his staff) is mild compared to factual case: Read aout the real Welfare Queen from Chicago,Linda Taylor (article is long but |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Ed T Date: 22 Dec 14 - 06:44 PM ""You can spin as much as you want; your butt's still in the back."" Source unknown |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Ed T Date: 22 Dec 14 - 06:23 PM 10 Facts About You: 1. You're reading this. 2. You're realizing this is a stupid fact. 4. You didn't notice I skipped three. 5. You're checking now. 6. You're smiling. 7. You're still reading this even though it's stupid. 9. You didn't realize I skipped eight. 10. You're checking again and smiling about how you fell for it again. 11. You're enjoying this. 12. You didn't realize there's only supposed to be ten facts.-Unknown source |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:55 PM Just think of moderators participating in discussions as superusers. Able to do several things at once. Bill D, good points well said. The name calling, the accusing people of rhetorical crimes, people who aren't even participating in a given thread - is bad form and doesn't win points. From the first link: The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. People change their minds all of the time, despite the few entrenched positions we think many people hold, as represented in their public discourse. Persuasive writing, sound facts, can eventually get through. Snopes has gradually proved this over the years. Discourse, yes. Finger pointing and name calling, no. I suspect all of us could point to public issues that over time we have come to understand more completely through experience or research and now view differently than before. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Greg F. Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:39 PM Are you planning to see how far you can push that envelope? No, SRS, I am not. Are you? Greg F, you'll just have to figure it [moderator personna vs. someone engaging in the general discussion]out. Thanks for your assistance! Much appreciated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Bill D Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:27 PM "Are you saying that if someone encourages people to hate whole sections of society by spreading awful lies about their health, habits and lifestyle, that's ok?" Oh, c'mon! you know no one is saying that! Their beliefs and/or attitudes are foolish and flawed... and *I* say so often. You really don't see how useless it is to yell at them and call them names, do you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:24 PM Clearly there are a number of you who know how to do nothing but shoot for the lowest common denominator when it comes to public discourse. Greg F, you'll just have to figure it out. Sometimes we look at the shit piling up and have just had enough, and it's time to hit the delete button. Are you planning to see how far you can push that envelope? There are numerous threads that have been left up, allowing some of you bottom-feeders to wallow in the vitriol you love to spew - go duke it out over there. This actually has the possibility of being an interesting thread. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Bill D Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:23 PM I want to be just one more voice to agree with SRS about certain folks attitudes when confronting posts they really disagree with. (Yes, I have made this point before, and No, I don't need to name names..) You win NO extra points by calling someone gross and/or hateful names. You certainly don't change their minds, and I can't see what satisfaction it gives you to wallow in the gutter with them. I don't really think it IS 'satisfaction', but merely some basic desire to confront.... (no, I'm not a psychologist, but this thread is about facts, and it is not too hard to document dozens to hundreds of posts that read as though name-calling and labeling is some form of 'special calling'.) *I* have some strong opinions, and so do many others... but it is also easy to document how many people have stated clearly that they have left Mudcat or reduced their posting because of nasty bickering. Now.. I'll hit enter and wait for the sarcastic and righteous dismissal of MY weak and useless style... Oh,,, and a very Happy Holiday season to all |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:17 PM in cumbria, attitudes to BNFL (as was) have long been entrenched - many believe the supposed economic benefits out weigh the dangers to the environment and public health etc - we do not change our minds and have argued for decades. we recently had a campaign to stop sellafield drilling across the lakes to find a suitable area for a massive underground nuclear waste dump. a deciding vote was cast by the chair of cumbria c c - eddie martin. he had previously been in favour of sellafield's proposals but said he had looked at the evidence and changed his mind. well done eddie - a conservative councillor. now i have to confront my own long entrenched belief that ALL conservatives are a bunch of £$£$!s - insert expletives of your choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:17 PM In this case, "beliefs" means "ethical opinions." No ethical opinion seems liable to either objective proof or disproof. So the dilemma is unlikely to arise. For the present purpose, a "fact" is something that is demonstrably true or has or has had verified actual existence. It's fact that in counting separate items, 2 and 2 equal four. Vampire bats are a fact. Beyond that, we're on our own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Musket Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:08 PM Are you saying hatred is just a view, same as liking celery or not? Are you saying that if someone encourages people to hate whole sections of society by spreading awful lies about their health, habits and lifestyle, that's ok? Was it right in 1920s and 30s Germany, or pre 1960 USA? What about all the Mudcat members who are gay, Irish traveller or Asian? Nobody wants to change their view surely? Just throttling their oxygen of publicity would suffice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST,Conspirator Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:03 PM Every day a Sun disappears in the West. Must be one heck of a heap of them over there, none ever comes back again. Who's stockpiling them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Ed T Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:46 PM A""Therefore, it should be no surprise to me that others holding differing views also will not change their minds."" If all people take nothing in from other perectives, theories and research, beyond their already established views/opinions/beliefs, what would the point be in discussion itself-beyond seeking like-minded reinforcement and argument (for the sake of such)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Ebbie Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:38 PM A thought that humbles me is that if evidence were presented to me that my beliefs regarding civil rights, gender equality, eco-conservation, animal cruelty, violence including war, and a host of other issues were completely- and provably - wrong, would I change my mind regarding these things? No. Therefore, it should be no surprise to me that others holding differing views also will not change their minds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Greg F. Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:40 PM It would be a great help all 'round when you post, SRS, to state whether at the time you're wearing your Moderator hat or your "just another person expressing their opinion" hat. Many thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: GUEST Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:03 PM Mudcat forum allows us to post completely anonymously. If everyone took advantage of that, we could eliminate the running battles that seem to arise mostly from people laying their egos on the line. Each post would have to be evaluated on its own merits, not on the basis of who posted it, and direct person-to-person conflicts and insults would be impossible. But maybe that's like suggesting that football matches could be held without brawling if the fans would abstain from drinking. Maybe without the drinking and brawling they'd have no reason to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Musket Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:09 PM If the topic is lowlife scum saying gay people are sub human and you fail to delete their posts whilst deleting the responses to their hatred, I'll just stick to taking the piss if it's alright with you. 😾 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:40 PM And you're on borrowed time, Greg F, for duking it out way too much. Do you really want to start down this path? SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Greg F. Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:25 PM What one individual sees as a "personal battle" another might well see as an effort to correct rampant BS. No? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:11 PM I'm saying you should stop the same stupid running personal battles that go from one thread to another to another and close them down as people lob verbal shit and point fingers. Discuss the topic, stop the bickering. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:07 PM It is a challenge to get "just the facts" with "watchdog" groups proclaiming their independent thought yet they are in place to hammer home their set of "facts" as their pundits want to see them. Remember the old truism If it's on TV, it must be true? That transferred easily to The Internet, and too few people know how to look into the source of the information they cut and paste or link to. For example, Accuracy In Media, the first result when searching on "accuracy of news on web sites" has SEO activity to place itself at the top, but is in fact a very conservative lunatic fringe organization. I would love to see more schools and libraries teach students, early on, to evaluate the content and intent of sites that give themselves benign names from behind which they lob their stinker stories into the media playing field. I'm not saying they should be there, I'm saying more people should recognize them for what they are. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Greg F. Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:06 PM corrections tended to increase the strength of the participants' misconceptions if those corrections contradicted their ideologies Yup. But they were and are still "misconceptions". Nonsense. Bullshit. So your suggestion is that we shouldn't correct myth & bullshit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just the facts From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:42 PM Why don't some of you who are very quick to leap to comparisons keep your "this looks like so-and-so" thoughts to yourselves and try to carry on a conversation that doesn't involve poking each other in the eye with sharp words. Good threads go bad very quickly with that argumentative mindset. In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler at The University of Michigan and Georgia State University created fake newspaper articles about polarizing political issues. The articles were written in a way which would confirm a widespread misconception about certain ideas in American politics. As soon as a person read a fake article, researchers then handed over a true article which corrected the first. . . . They repeated the experiment with other wedge issues like stem cell research and tax reform, and once again, they found corrections tended to increase the strength of the participants' misconceptions if those corrections contradicted their ideologies. People on opposing sides of the political spectrum read the same articles and then the same corrections, and when new evidence was interpreted as threatening to their beliefs, they doubled down. The corrections backfired. Just a thought. SRS |