Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

[scott3x]

This thread was simply made because I wanted some clarification on the rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack. I have now received clarification regarding the f word. He also made it clear that 'prick' wasn't a good word either, which I agree with. I'm now looking for clarification concerning a few other terms I specified over in a 9/11 discussion:
moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.)...

As I also mentioned in that thread, I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.

Thinking of what he's said, I think that 'stupid argument' would get a pass, since it's attacking the argument, not the poster.

Right. And that is because you want to just say whatever you feel in a specific thread and not be challenged

I would like an honest, civilized response. If someone disagrees with me, I have no problem with them doing so in a civilized manner. As a matter of fact, I would much prefer a civilized disagreement then no response at all. At times, I have even settled for somewhat civilized disagreement.

or when people do challenge it you ignore it.

This is getting off topic, but by all means, PM me listing what you think I have ignored.

In a sense you want to editorialize and dictate the responses in a thread. This is a very possessive characteristic.

I want civility, something which a great many members would like to see.

I wont lie and say that people should NEVER get frustrated by ignorance.

I get frequently get frustrated with people. But when this happens, I don't go on an insult laden tirade. Instead, I take a break and come back when I am able to form civil arguments.

Going back to my previous response, you will see those words throughout the forum but because they are, in this case, used against you you want to tighten up the rules to accommodate your being able to tell people that 2+2=5.

John, have you ever seen -me- use those words? I really do practice what I preach. If you think that I have figuratively said 2+2+5 somewhere, by all means, point it out in the relevant thread or by PM if the thread is closed. I ask only that you do so in a civil manner.

 

[Sciencelovah]

you're a pervert scott, that's about as honest and civil as i can make it.
even james has commented on how disturbing your posts are in regards to sex with 4 year olds.

so get off the "holier that thou" crap.

With 4 y.o.? uke:

With all respect, Scott, please consider to visit psychiatrist, maybe there is some issues....

 

[leopold]

With 4 y.o.? uke:

didn't you know?
and he has the frikken balls to ask for civility.

With all respect, Scott, please consider to visit psychiatrist, maybe there is some issues....

frankly i can't understand why he's still here, he should have been banned along with ancient regime.

 

[Sciencelovah]

didn't you know?
and he has the frikken balls to ask for civility.


frankly i can't understand why he's still here, he should have been banned along with ancient regime.

No, I didn't know, Leo (Thanx God!). Maybe it was around two-three weeks ago, when there was the "delete the delete the pedophile thread"? At that time I didn't follow the forum much.

 

[draqon]

Because unlike ancient_regime, scott uses logical and law standings on the issue and defends it so.

 

[leopold]

Because unlike ancient_regime, scott uses logical and law standings on the issue and defends it so.

what "law" defends sex with a four year old draqon?
what "logic" says it's okay?

 

[draqon]

what "law" defends sex with a four year old draqon?
what "logic" says its okay?

no idea. thats why I dont participate in the whole ordeal. ignorance is a bliss.

 

[leopold]

no idea. thats why I dont participate in the whole ordeal. ignorance is a bliss.

then don't say he backs up his arguements with law and logic.

 

[draqon]

then don't say he backs up his arguements with law and logic.

...thats not exactly correct. Look I dont want to be beaten up like scott is.

 

[scott3x]

you're a pervert scott, that's about as honest and civil as i can make it.
even james has commented on how disturbing your posts are in regards to sex with 4 year olds.

so get off the "holier that thou" crap.

We're getting off topic, but I'll let it go for now. First of all, James is the person who brought up the idea of a child of 4 years of age and sex. As I made clear to him, I would have preferred to have kept the age range of the discussion to adolescence and to use more specific terms then 'sex' which can mean quite a few things in this day and age.

It's interesting that you use the term pervert; from wikipedia's entry on the term:

Perversion is a concept describing those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal. Although it can refer to varying forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are seen as abnormal or excessive. Perversion differs from deviant behavior, since the latter refers to a recognized violation of social rules or norms (although the two terms can apply to the same thing). It is often considered derogatory and in psychological literature the term paraphilia is now used instead[1], though this term is controversial.

The concept of perversion is subjective[1], and its application varies depending on culture. As a psychological term it was originally applied especially frequently to homosexual behavior.[2] However, homosexuality is no longer treated as a disorder in mainstream psychiatry (see Homosexuality and psychology).​

The term pervert is frequently only meant to demean a person; I would prefer a term like unusual or eccentric. The definition of the term also makes it clear that society's views of what is considered to be unorthodox change with time.

I am certainly willing to admit that my behaviour is unorthodox at times, but I think you can measure a person's wish to remain in society's good graces by how much effort they put into attempting to persuade others that their views are good ones. Surely have have seen the amount of time I've put into just such endeavours.

Now, back on topic; the point is that I -don't- use a lot of the more toxic insults and I think you know this full well.

 

[scott3x]

then don't say he backs up his arguements with law and logic.

...thats not exactly correct. Look I dont want to be beaten up like scott is.

Who does? Reminds me of an event that occured when I was a young boy. The coolest kid in school had essentially decreed (in an informal manner, ofcourse) that cherry cola was no longer cool. I didn't care though; I still liked cherry cola and I wasn't going to stop drinking it just because he didn't like it. Even if he was standing right next to the pop machine when I bought it.

Now this could not stand. Societal norms must be enforced, even if they are absurd, you see. So, the cool kid (and he really was cool, even I respected him, he beat up the school bully with his best friend and the whole school cheered him on) decided that I needed an object lesson. Nothing serious, you understand, just to essentially get me to cry uncle and make it clear who was boss, even if I did drink cherry cola. So he began a 'play fight' with me. Now if I'd just let it all go, you know, not resisted per se, things would have probably ended in a more peaceable manner. But I've always had a rather stubborn streak when it comes to my pride and so I didn't. He finally had to rather forcefully bring me down; the bringing down part didn't hurt but the smooth rocks my head landed on did; my head started bleeding, and play time was over.

Now Michael was a nice guy in his way and he was also wise; a bleeding head couldn't be covered up easily. So he and his best friend accompanied me to the principal's office; they coached me and told me to tell the principal it was an accident. Now, I -could- have told the principal that we'd been in a fight, but that wasn't really the case. Heck, to be in a fight with the coolest kid in school and then to have him walk you up to the principal's office may possibly have been considered an honor by some. I wasn't so impressed, but the idea of saying that we'd been in a fight when all he'd really wanted to do was to show who was top dog didn't seem entirely truthful to me. And the -last- thing I wanted to do was to alienate the coolest kid in school. So I played along; I told the principal it was an accident.

From then on, I could drink my cherry cola undisturbed. I'm sure most people felt that drinking cherry cola wasn't worth getting a bleeding head, so it worked out that way. Ofcourse, -other- kids now saw me as the guy to beat. I wasn't cowardly, so they'd 'play' in packs. My mother realized things weren't going so well and she found a private school that looked good; I transferred schools before the year was out.

 

[scott3x]

Because unlike ancient_regime, scott uses logical and law standings on the issue and defends it so.

Thanks draqon, although I would argue that ancientregime used a fair amount of logic as well. We did disagree on some things, however; he seemed to be a little too in favour of people accused of sexual crimes, whereas I favoured a more middle of the line approach.

what "law" defends sex with a four year old draqon? what "logic" says it's okay?

I have never said that any law defends such sex. leopold, if you're going to criticize someone on such sensitive issues, the least you could do is get your facts straight.

 

[leopold]

It's interesting that you use the term pervert; from wikipedia's entry on the term:

who cares what you or wiki thinks or says?
i know what i meant and you do too.

I would prefer a term like unusual or eccentric.

yeah, and you would most likely like unilateral consent for rapists too.

I am certainly willing to admit that my behaviour is unorthodox at times, but I think you can measure a person's wish to remain in society's good graces by how much effort they put into attempting to persuade others that their views are good ones.

actually scott people judge you for what you have accomplished.
call it whatever you will.

 

[draqon]

who cares what you or wiki thinks or says?
i know what i meant and you do too.

but you see I do and many others. Because we do care.

And yes that is what makes scott unique from ancientregime. Citings for his methodology.

 

[leopold]

but you see I do and many others.

that's the thing draqon, scott doesn't have the authority to interpret the law in this area nor do i, but he knows what i meant.

Because we do care.

you and everyone else should be concerned.
as a matter of fact it might not hurt to zap off a couple of letters to your congressmen.

And yes that is what makes scott unique from ancientregime. Citings for his methodology.

i would say pedophiles are methodical, yes.

scott,
i don't know man, you sure have a knack for starting raging infernos.

 

[Liebling]

scott,
i don't know man, you sure have a knack for starting raging infernos.

And repeatedly obsessing over them, seemingly unable to let things go.

Don't you already have two or three threads on flaming?

You are the king of beating a dead horse, Equus... I mean Scott. Srsly, you just need to learn when to stop and not push until everyone stops listening.

 

[Bells]

We're getting off topic, but I'll let it go for now. First of all, James is the person who brought up the idea of a child of 4 years of age and sex. As I made clear to him, I would have preferred to have kept the age range of the discussion to adolescence and to use more specific terms then 'sex' which can mean quite a few things in this day and age.

You didn't exactly balk at the idea either, did you?

If the 4 year old is a -male- (you know my objections towards an adult male/4 year old female now, I hope), then the male may find it to be fairly enjoyable.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2199491&postcount=24

Moving on..

I think you can measure a person's wish to remain in society's good graces by how much effort they put into attempting to persuade others that their views are good ones. Surely have have seen the amount of time I've put into just such endeavours.

And how is that working for you so far?

Trying to persuade someone is one thing. But beating a dead horse will never achieve anything except for the release of possible toxic gases from the corpse of said horse and the possible release of maggots.

The term pervert is frequently only meant to demean a person; I would prefer a term like unusual or eccentric. The definition of the term also makes it clear that society's views of what is considered to be unorthodox change with time.

You might prefer the term "unusual or eccentric", but when you begin to condone behaviour or actions that have been proven again and again to cause irreparable harm to others (in this instance children), by questioning what constitute harm in sexual abuse cases involving children, by trying to find ways around said harm but still allowing sexual acts with children to continue, then I really don't think people will prefer to use the terms "unusual or eccentric". And people will want to lash out at people who hold such views and sometimes, it is hard for them to hold back. Especially for people who not only have children, but have been victims of child sex abuse themselves or know children who have suffered such abuse in their lifetime.

 

[scott3x]

Great, even the moderators are getting off topic these days. Look, all of you know threads concerning a certain subject were closed. Liebling, you say that I 'obsess' but -I- didn't bring up a certain subject again in this thread; that was leopold. I decided I'd actually respond to his off topic post, which I'm not sure I should have done. But what's done is done. Bells, for shame; you're a -moderator- and you're off topic, on a subject who's threads have been closed numerous times.

I could certainly discuss the subject in a civilized manner, but both James -and- Stryder have closed numerous threads on this subject. If you want to talk about it with me, PM me. It's not a subject that the admin who's usually here and the super moderator want up for discussion in forums.

Perhaps there's no way of saving the -actual- subject here, which was solidifying what was and wasn't a personal attack. I think it's safe to say that many of you here are guilty of the personal attack against me, but I think we all know that if you don't conform to the norm, you're bound to get that type of thing more often. Anyway...

 

[Bells]

Great, even the moderators are getting off topic these days. Look, all of you know threads concerning a certain subject were closed. Liebling, you say that I 'obsess' but -I- didn't bring up a certain subject again in this thread; that was leopold. I decided I'd actually respond to his off topic post, which I'm not sure I should have done. But what's done is done.

You don't obsess?

You didn't obsess when you dragged this particular issue through the ringer in E,M & J, even after being asked to, warned about, had posts deleted, etc, about how to go about this.. you are saying you don't obsess?

Was Leo's comment off topic? Maybe, maybe not. He was pointing out that your posting history on this forum, that in his opinion, you really should not be asking for civility. Is he right? I disagree but can understand where he is coming from. We all have a right to some form of civil response. But you are asking the moderators of this forum to set down arbitrary rules as to what words can and cannot be used so that they fall into a "civil" box.

He has a right to his opinion, just as you have a right to yours. So in a way, no, he was not really that far off topic.

Bells, for shame; you're a -moderator- and you're off topic, on a subject who's threads have been closed numerous times.

Yes. Shame on me.

I could certainly discuss the subject in a civilized manner, but both James -and- Stryder have closed numerous threads on this subject. If you want to talk about it with me, PM me.

I don't think you quite understand. The subject matter is one that is prone to raising a lot of hairs on the back of people's necks. I guess when someone tries to defend the act of an adult fucking a child, it tends to set off a lot of emotions in people. Do I want to talk about this subject with you via PM? For your sake, that would not be a very good idea. Nor would it be for my sake. I left my work behind and I have no wish to go back to it or relive it.

Perhaps there's no way of saving the -actual- subject here, which was solidifying what was and wasn't a personal attack. I think it's safe to say that many of you here are guilty of the personal attack against me, but I think we all know that if you don't conform to the norm, you're bound to get that type of thing more often. Anyway...

You've had some threads closed, posts deleted and received some warnings about your complaints in a thread. It has happened to just about all of us. You learn from it and move on. Dragging it out for longer and longer will not endear you to the masses. People will just look to see if there is going to be a scandal and if there is, they will join you. If they see that there isn't going to be one, they move on. I have posts deleted all the time, I don't go on and on about it as though it is a personal insult. Move on. Let it go.

Tiassa advised you to speak to him directly about any issues you may have with his moderation. You have done so? From your posts in that thread, I had the impression that you had.

As a moderator, it would be impossible for me to set down specific words or sentences that should be banned from use due to their being a personal attack. I expect that those who do post in Human Science have some idea of what constitutes a personal attack and what does not. It would be virtually impossible to expect people to not use any swear words, to not write down certain words or sentences. The posters on this forum are for the most part, adults, who do know what constitutes a personal attack and what does not. If they do post personal attacks, their posts are deleted. They usually know why and leave it at that and, yes, you guessed it, move on.

If something offends you, hit the report button and a moderator and the administration will review it. If it is deleted, then you'll know they agreed with you. If no action is taken, then they will view it as being acceptable or consider it to be, for example, innocent banter.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Great, even the moderators are getting off topic these days. Look, all of you know threads concerning a certain subject were closed. Liebling, you say that I 'obsess' but -I- didn't bring up a certain subject again in this thread; that was leopold. I decided I'd actually respond to his off topic post, which I'm not sure I should have done. But what's done is done.

You don't obsess?

No, I don't. A lot of others have, however...

You didn't obsess when you dragged this particular issue through the ringer in E,M & J, even after being asked to, warned about, had posts deleted, etc, about how to go about this.. you are saying you don't obsess?

Bells, it takes 2 to tango. And right now -I'm- the one who's saying I don't want to dance. So who's obsessing?

Was Leo's comment off topic? Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, it was.

He was pointing out that your posting history on this forum, that in his opinion, you really should not be asking for civility.

Why not? Because you disagree with me on an issue that can't even be discussed because people start foaming at the mouth? That's not -my- fault. It speaks of a lack of civility on the part of my opponents. So yes, I definitely think I should be entitled to ask for civility.

Is he right? I disagree but can understand where he is coming from. We all have a right to some form of civil response. But you are asking the moderators of this forum to set down arbitrary rules as to what words can and cannot be used so that they fall into a "civil" box.

Yeah, that's right. What's wrong with that?

He has a right to his opinion, just as you have a right to yours. So in a way, no, he was not really that far off topic.

Bells, think. The topic here is supposed to be defining what is civil. You may disagree with x or y view of mine, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a post where I'm uncivil.

Bells, for shame; you're a -moderator- and you're off topic, on a subject who's threads have been closed numerous times.

Yes. Shame on me.

Yes, shame on you.


<snip Bells getting off topic again and misrepresenting me>

Perhaps there's no way of saving the -actual- subject here, which was solidifying what was and wasn't a personal attack. I think it's safe to say that many of you here are guilty of the personal attack against me, but I think we all know that if you don't conform to the norm, you're bound to get that type of thing more often. Anyway...

You've had some threads closed, posts deleted and received some warnings about your complaints in a thread. It has happened to just about all of us. You learn from it and move on. Dragging it out for longer and longer will not endear you to the masses.

Look, I'm talking about insults here, not about thread closures for other reasons. I have never received a warning for using insulting language.

People will just look to see if there is going to be a scandal and if there is, they will join you. If they see that there isn't going to be one, they move on. I have posts deleted all the time, I don't go on and on about it as though it is a personal insult. Move on. Let it go.

This is -not- about my deleted posts. It's about what constitutes insults. In part, so that I know what I should and shouldn't report, but also so that others can know. I'm certainly not the only person who has asked for clarification on this issue; Ophiolite did the same in the Ethics forum. I believe that Tiassa has clarifed regarding the f word. As to other terms I asked him to clarify, he hasn't gotten back to me yet on those. However, this thread isn't only to report on what Tiassa has clarified for his forum, but also to clarify what insults are taboo in sci forums in general.

Tiassa advised you to speak to him directly about any issues you may have with his moderation. You have done so? From your posts in that thread, I had the impression that you had.

Yes, I have.

As a moderator, it would be impossible for me to set down specific words or sentences that should be banned from use due to their being a personal attack.

There are many permutations of phrases that can be used, but I believe that Tiassa has resolved the basic formula. I think it still needs some work, but atleast he has a formula and it's something that can be worked -with-.

I expect that those who do post in Human Science have some idea of what constitutes a personal attack and what does not.

Some idea is not the same thing as knowing fairly well. But if everyone finds that you're fair and equitable then perhaps there's no problem over there.

It would be virtually impossible to expect people to not use any swear words, to not write down certain words or sentences. The posters on this forum are for the most part, adults, who do know what constitutes a personal attack and what does not. If they do post personal attacks, their posts are deleted. They usually know why and leave it at that and, yes, you guessed it, move on.

If something offends you, hit the report button and a moderator and the administration will review it.

As I mentioned to Tiassa, I wanted to be clear as to -what- I should report. So far, about the only thing I'm clear on is when to report the f word and when not to, and that 'prick' can also be considered a reportable insult. There is a small list of other terms, however, that he hasn't gotten back to me on.

If it is deleted, then you'll know they agreed with you. If no action is taken, then they will view it as being acceptable or consider it to be, for example, innocent banter.

Or maybe they went out to lunch. Perhaps they don't get along with you. Who knows? It's precisely this vagueness that is the problem, which is why I wanted more clarification. I got some anyway. Here's to hoping I can get more.