Are you content with the way this site is run?

[glaucon]

umm
about splitting hairs.........one or two is ok but interminably? why that is just downright disingenuous and trollish

No, actually, it's a simple matter of enforcing the rules.

Not very smart of you Gustav.
Enjoy your holiday.

 

[Gustav]

sorry to have offended thee, glaucon
i still think you come across as an egomaniac
a practically insufferable one at that

pardon

 

[glaucon]

sorry to have offended thee, glaucon
i still think you come across as an egomaniac
a practically insufferable one at that

pardon

Too late alas.

Regardless, it's not a matter of how you think of me, but rather what the rules are. Take your day off and re-read the Rules and Regulations.

 

[Doreen]

Nope.
The two terms are very different.

Not according to the dictionaries I checked. Further without qualification they are both absolute terms. No one is completely impartial.

As far as their difference bias can certain interfere with impartiality. I assume this was the kind of bias SAM was referring to.

 

[Doreen]

A valid criticism of the use of bias would be when facts show something different.

And given that the topic is referring to interpretations of complicated online social situations 'facts' may be hard to come by.

Science deals with the objective, so why not make an attempt to keep things as objective as possible?

Or as unbiased, as the term tends to be used in these contexts.

 

[Doreen]

This thread is a testament to our ability to create something out of nothing. Let alone mountains out of mole hills.

We should all take a moment to notice and appreciate just how homo sapian like we have all been.

 

[glaucon]

Not according to the dictionaries I checked. Further without qualification they are both absolute terms. No one is completely impartial.

Interesting.
The ones I checked tended to agree with the distinction I had in mind: "bias" has a passive sense, whereas "impartial" tends to operate predominantly as an adjective, indicating a measure of active control over one's behaviour,..

 

[Doreen]

Interesting.
The ones I checked tended to agree with the distinction I had in mind: "bias" has a passive sense, whereas "impartial" tends to operate predominantly as an adjective, indicating a measure of active control over one's behaviour,..

Bias would be the noun. Unbiased the equivalent adjective to impartial. I can see there being a difference in the way you describe, the impartial not referring to what you are but how you deal with it - though that distinction gets very tricky, I would say, philosophically. My point is not so much that they are synonyms but a biased person, in the ways relevent to the OP and I assume how SAM meant, will likely have their impartiality affected. It is a rather absolute claim to think that one has this one portion of the self that can impartially evaluate if one is being impartial. My main reaction is that impartiality is simply another absolute, ideal state we can only strive for when acting in certain roles. If you simply meant that people must have biases, well, I took SAM to mean the kinds of biases that are relevent here, seems like a charitible reading should.

 

[glaucon]

If you simply meant that people must have biases, well, I took SAM to mean the kinds of biases that are relevent here, seems like a charitible reading should.

I did.
Alas, as has been noted, I rarely read anything 'charitably'.
Fair enough.

 

[Doreen]

I did.
Alas, as has been noted, I rarely read anything 'charitably'.
Fair enough.

And I am biased and partial. Why I would never accept a modship that would never get offered to me.

 

[Neverfly]

Incorrect.

Correct.
I quote you:

Thus, my pointing out that what SAM calls for is not only impossible, but also wishful thinking, if not just stupid.

I'm thinking you meant to say semantics.
Apparently, English is not your first language...

Apparently it is my first language but I do make typoes.
Please refrain from attacking me instead of the argument.(Ad Hom)

Totally incorrect.
I suggest you re-learn how to read.

Please refrain from attacking my ability to read instead of the argument. (ad Hom)
Totally correct. Allow me to provide references.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?"

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

The other type of ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_abusive

No, actually, it's a simple matter of enforcing the rules.

Not very smart of you Gustav.
Enjoy your holiday.

This demonstrates not only a strong bias on your part, as you have been slinging ad homs (As I clarified above with links and quotes) and general disruptive attacks, but also abuse of authority.

Your Post Reported for other Moderator review.

 

[glaucon]

Correct.
I quote you:

Then you cannot read.

Apparently it is my first language but I do make typoes.
Please refrain from attacking me instead of the argument.(Ad Hom)

Please refrain from attacking my ability to read instead of the argument. (ad Hom)


Totally correct. Allow me to provide references.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_abusive

Again, in all cases, you still do not understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.
You'll note, if you elect to re-read the references, that simple insults are not ad hominem. To be such, they must take place within the context of an argument. So, if someone simply calls you an idiot for thinking X, that is not ad hominem.

This demonstrates not only a strong bias on your part, as you have been slinging ad homs (As I clarified above with links and quotes) and general disruptive attacks, but also abuse of authority.

Post Reported.

Incorrect on all points.
Further, I would suggest again to you that you read the site Rules and Regulations, as you have not followed the proper procedure for complaining about Moderator behaviour.

 

[Neverfly]

Then you cannot read.

Ad Hom.

You are attacking my ability to read and not my argument.

Again, in all cases, you still do not understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.
You'll note, if you elect to re-read the references, that simple insults are not ad hominem. To be such, they must take place within the context of an argument. So, if someone simply calls you an idiot for thinking X, that is not ad hominem.

Insulting someones intelligence or ability to read in the context of the argument IS in the context of the argument.

All of your insults have been in the context of the arguments.

Further, I would suggest again to you that you read the site Rules and Regulations, as you have not followed the proper procedure for complaining about Moderator behaviour.

Reporting a post seems valid.
I do not know who the admins, etc. are to PM them.

If anyone can inform me as to who to discuss your behavior with, I'll gladly follow procedure.

However, I do recall the rules stating that members are to civily discuss and debate, not resort to rude, insulting behavior, regardless of if such insults are ad hominmen or not.

As such, you have been breaking them repeatedly.

I suggest that you, also, re-read the rules and make a stronger effort to abide by them.

 

[glaucon]

Ad Hom.

You are attacking my ability to read and not my argument.

You seriously need to read.

Insulting someones intelligence or ability to read in the context of the argument IS in the context of the argument.

All of your insults have been in the context of the arguments.

ibid

Reporting a post seems valid.
I do not know who the admins, etc. are to PM them.

If anyone can inform me as to who to discuss your behavior with, I'll gladly follow procedure.

However, I do recall the rules stating that members are to civily discuss and debate, not resort to rude, insulting behavior, regardless of if such insults are ad hominmen or not.

See the Site Rules and Regulations, which you are supposed to have read.

 

[Neverfly]

You seriously need to read.

Your ad homs were and are Clear. I will no longer debate or discuss this with you- It is a futile effort.

See the Site Rules and Regulations, which you are supposed to have read.

Thank you.
Can you post a link to where they are found?
All searches show no threads where they are listed (Usually on forums they are a sticky in the About Site subforum...)

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I voated "very well"... an i thank its very well dew to members (such as myself) continual suggestons for the beterment of Scifourms.!!!


A-Man.TTT

 

[Crunchy Cat]

And given that the topic is referring to interpretations of complicated online social situations 'facts' may be hard to come by.

For social situations its a simple matter of comparing rules to behavior. The result is the fact.

Or as unbiased, as the term tends to be used in these contexts.

You can refer to the objective and be very biased at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Trippy]

Here's my problem with this post:

Your ad homs were and are Clear. I will no longer debate or discuss this with you- It is a futile effort.

An argumentum ad hominem is literaly an 'argument against the person' - generally it addresses the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, the most famous example being "Of course he'd say that, he's a politician".

Keeping that in mind, here is the statement in question:

I agree with everything you say here.
Thus, my pointing out that what SAM calls for is not only impossible, but also wishful thinking, if not just stupid.

Clearly he is calling what S.A.M is calling for (S.A.M's idea) stupid, rather than calling S.A.M stupid, so he is, in fact, addressing the post, rather than addressing the poster.

You even explicitly aknowledge this here:

Then you could have said that the first time instead of calling the point stupid.

You specifically state "instead of calling the POINT stupid" (emphasis mine). It's no different to chastising someone for asking a stupid question. The phrase "What a silly question" is not an ad-hominem. It might be mildly insulting, but it's the question that is silly, not the person asking it.

So somewhere we've gotten off track, going from "What a silly idea" to "What a silly person", which leaves me sitting here scratching my head wondering...

 

[glaucon]

An argumentum ad hominem is literaly an 'argument against the person' - generally it addresses the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, the most famous example being "Of course he'd say that, he's a politician".

Absolutely correct.

Keeping that in mind, here is the statement in question:


Clearly he is calling what S.A.M is calling for (S.A.M's idea) stupid, rather than calling S.A.M stupid, so he is, in fact, addressing the post, rather than addressing the poster.

You even explicitly aknowledge this here:

Again, totally correct.
Thanks Trippy.

 

[Neverfly]

Very well, I'll consider that one as refuted.
Care to address all the rest of his hostile and derisive posts?