Obviously. I speculate that this is because you don't know me and you are peeved that I don't adopt your reading of my words as my own. Thus you deny me my human dignity and replace me with a shadow.The second part, however, I sincerely doubt.
This hypothetical is hard for me to relate to the claims of posts #1, #16, #55 and #60. What really happened, if it did happen, happened a month ago in the UK. The question of the factualness of the claims made is not relevant to the advice given or rebuttals of the shoddy rationalizations given for inaction. The question of the reporter's history is relevant to how we should tailor our advice and how we should feel should the reporter not claim to take action on the very advice he solicited.The way it works, then, is to run with the idea that something happened. And if that something turns out to be, "The alleged victim made it up out of thin air," so be it. But if the victim says Yog-Sothoth attacked him in the kitchen for overcooking the mac and cheese so that the pasta was too soft, what do we do with that? Do we say, "Well, there's no such thing as Yog-Sothoth, so that means nobody ever laid a hand on him"?
My models are going to differ from your models. But since posts #55 and #60 are all about how the attack in post #1 was all provoked by t-c, I don't accept the principle advanced that violence is an acceptable response to non-violent provocation, therefore I find much in posts #55 and #60 to argue against.Meanwhile, having set aside my own focus in order to look at the report before me, I admit I don't see how your complaint about posts #16, 55, and 60 actually works; that is to say, our reporting neighbor's behavior does not strike me as unusual in this aspect.
To advance the advocacy of the call to action and to reject shoddy arguments based on untruth and poisonous principles.To wit: Why participate in the discussion?
The discussion moved on past the report in post #1. The report in post #60 is that t-c was a "drunken idiot" which I have no basis to take issue with and he "got what [he] deserved" which I reject on the grounds of humanity and civilized standards of justice.And this is relevant to the report ... how?
That doesn't connect with any of the sentences you quoted. It's obviously about you and me because I'm answering your criticism of my post #61 referring to the bulk of t-c's 2000+ posts as nonsense.But this isn't about you. It isn't about me. It's about this person who put this report in front of us.
No, my problem is with your mischaracterization of my words, which apparently results from a rather myopic focus that deprives them of their natural context and your parochial viewpoint which leaves you unable to ascribe good intentions to people who attempt to teach differently than you. Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.And that is your own focus, which in turn is your own problem.
To what end? t-c was perma-banned on the tenth of March. By t-c's reports #55 and #60, he provokes both hostility and violence. By James R's post of #40, he rejects rushing to endorse t-c's uncorroborated claims. How can I further advance the cause of action on t-c's part without confronting his principles and untrue facts that he used to rationalize inaction. When we see our less competent brothers sitting in a house that is on fire, we do not listen to their excuses for inaction, because we do not treat our fellow human beings that way.The descent into idiotic hostility is what compelled my involvement.
You and I can read the same bits on this thread and come to wildly different conclusions about what parts of it disgust us, but please don't diminish my humanity and deny my viewpoint on my own words.
Because you are chiming in two weeks after a user has been banned that he should have been treated nicer three weeks ago based on criteria which has not been provided us and without benefit of example of the right way to do it.In truth, I'm uncertain how your fallacy helps.
I reject your naked assertions, just like I rejected t-c's assertions that men can't report abuse by female partners and that in a credible system of justice he provoked getting lumps on the face. This is a discussion forum, so it isn't my "problem," but rather my "position."And that is your own focus. It is your own priority. It is your own problem.
I see no spectacle in posts #19 or #20.It's hard to know how people expected him to respond to the spectacle that started at the end of page one.
As I am not site staff, unlike several who chimed in on this thread already, none of that is relevant to my posts because I did not and could not know about those speculations. Thus those factors could not have influenced my thinking and writing.And the thing is that for all that other stuff you mention, it's not like the staff isn't aware of him. I'm pretty sure I've seen suggestions floated for who he actually is, at least in terms of site history. And if those aspects turned out to be true, and if this turned out to be a halfassed attempt at trolling the forum for revenge, it still doesn't matter.
In what system of justice, logic or civilized dialog does truth not matter? How do you even have a discussion if you only have unquestionable, indivisible and irrevocable "reports?"This is the report we have before us. Everything else is a matter of our own priorities.