[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by devonin

So now failing to forbid is the same as promoting? The rules that apply here are clearly stated, and those who step too far out of line are dealt with. I'm not sure from whence comes your authority to supercede the moderators in deciding what is or isn't "valid" for this forum.

Is it invalid because the moderators don't like it, or do the moderators not like it because it is invalid?

Also, I don't feel I claim any authority. Do you feel that you claim authority in what you say? I think you say what you say and do not claim authority. Just because I disagree with authority does not mean I claim authority, and just because you agree with authority does not mean that you are authority.

Further, how are these stringent standards to be enforced? Should moderators cover the CT subfora every minute of every day to close off "unacceptable" threads? Should there just be surprise thread closing and locking when a mod comes by and decides? What are your standards? Can you express them in a way that makes it easily and readily clear to all moderators -exactly- where the line between valid and invalid is?

I don't think what I said implies that moderators need to be any more or less active than they are now, just more "stringent" in their decisions. I don't want a radical change, just a stronger application of the rules. I liked the idea of locking a thread and telling someone to try again but to keep ideas A, B, and C, in mind when reforming it if they choose to reform it. (A, B, and C denoting the things that would make it worth arguing.) It sends the message that the forum expects more. That is essentially what this is about, petitio principii just being a particular example.

Well, since that isn't what apologetics is(are?), I rather think that you've misapplied the term.

I have misapplied the term.

If you'd read the thread in which you are posting, you'd know that I make the distinction between ad hominem attacks and the ad hominem fallacy. However, I disagree with your assertion that it doesn't impact the soundness of your claims. You say being this way disposes people to argue with you, well I'd say it disposes people to think that you're an arrogant jerk, and just ignore you, or wish that you would go away, which disinclines them to grant the rest of your argument the attention it would otherwise deserve. "Point A, Point B, and also, you're a moron" and "Point A, Point B" send very different messages.

I did read it, but while you said that you made the distinction, you rather made the claim that one is implying and the other is being blunt, but both are essentially the same thing. I disagree.

At this point I think if we continue to keep arguing this point it will go further off on a tangent than we already, but I think that there is a personal disagreement here, and not necessarily a logical one. Yes, I know it disposes people against me, but sometimes a dry insult makes a rhetorical effect, sometimes an insult invokes humor. Sometimes it may do exactly what you're saying, but that's a case by case thing, not a blanket rule. Just like my choice of inflammatory words and pretension are not always used and applied the same way. In this instance, it worked for my intended purposes. If I were to do this in the exact same manner repeatedly it would not work.

Antagonistic argument style is all well and good in formal debate, but as you've taken great pains to try and show, the CT section of this website forum is a far cry from formal debate.

No pains at all were involved in this process. Arguing is not a tedious task but an avocation. I'm a little out of practice, though, so it may have seemed that there were pains. There weren't.

I think I've done a fairly adequate job of pointing out where the ambiguities are in your logic, and the faults I personally find with your attitude towards this forum. I'm sorry if this forum as it is, is something that you don't like, but demanding, even strongly suggesting that it change to suit you is a pretty silly course of action, especially coupled with your self-stated attitude towards things.

It does not necessarily change to suit just myself. This was based on conversations with upstanding, regular forum members (of FFR in general) and what we felt to be the problem with Critical Thinking. I believe one of the such things stated by them was that "...despite numerous attempts to revive it, Critical Thinking has always reverted to that same old stagnancy..." The stagnancy being lack of consistent highbrow topics and the fact that many of the most discussed topics always fall in the lines of what I've outlined, not all but most. This argument is incomplete, and moot, I just intend to show that I was making a claim not only of my own beliefs, but of multiple.

I don't think I've said anything that illuminates that the forum itself is something that I don't like. I think it was clear that a specific type of topic was what I don't like. I, for instance, love this topic, and am doing exactly what I came here to do. Argue something with someone who can and will argue back, and with a lot of good points.

I think that we may be able to agree that what I have done is taken something particular and applied it to the general, and as you've illuminated, that it is realistically impossible to apply that general rule with any sort of efficacy, and even if we were to, there are unforeseen (on my part) ramifications of that general rule. Do not assume, though, that this means I think that this is a completely inapplicable thing or that there is nothing of merit in it, it just has some shortcomings.