moderation open thread
#25
Oh! My God! Lije,

It's purely the knowledge of English. Thanks for giving me the lesson in English. I regret my lack of knowledge of English and will remember it.

But what about the matter of 'Banning'?

Was she justified while saying that 'Vedanta has nothing to do with mass, time, space or the origine of universe etc' whereupon I told the actual fact and insisted upon to let me know 'Scientific evidence' so that I can present my case further on behalf of Vedanta? And immediately banned me from group! Is it accordance with the rules of 'Atheists? How?


Reply
#26
(12-Dec-2011, 08:33 PM)ramesh Wrote: But what about the matter of 'Banning'?

Was she justified while saying that 'Vedanta has nothing to do with mass, time, space or the origine of universe etc' whereupon I told the actual fact and insisted upon to let me know 'Scientific evidence' so that I can present my case further on behalf of Vedanta? And immediately banned me from group! Is it accordance with the rules of 'Atheists? How?

I am not a moderator in that facebook group, so I cannot comment on it.

Reply
#27
Lije,

But it is stated on that group that complaints/queries may be posted here. If not this then which blog?
Reply
#28
Yes but you still have to follow Forum rules
Regardning , your original query ,you were warned by the admins prithvi and gayathri for trolling several times, before you got banned.
Quote: Is it accordance with the rules of 'Atheists? How?
yes and almost every forum on the internet.
Some reasons that caused it
1)Even after several patient and informative responsive , you posted
Quote:Thus there is no satisfactory response from you about the exact nature of 'scientific evidence' you people expect us to put our case through.
2)You flamed members with statements like
Quote:Thanks for the first time you tried to the point!
3)You repeatedly misrepresented other's positions, your strawman arguments were addressed by prithvi
Quote:Prithvi Shiv Plenty of strawman arguments in this. Let's get down to addressing all of them.

"Truth has been there since the time immemorial and it would be so."

Really? Very interesting, but how exactly do you know this?

"Science is yet to find the way or define/devise the sufficient machinery/means to know the same."

If it were, we would living in a cave naked, afraid of apex predators hunting and killing us. Every single thing around that is real, is a product of the efficiency and accuracy of the scientific method. See, we cannot launch rockets into space if the machinery is not sufficient.

"When such a reality is there"

You need to prove that it is there, in the first place.

"how is that 'Burden of proof of truth (whether it is God or something else would be decided after due debate/discussion) lies on the religion'?"

Looks like you haven't grasped the meaning of the concept of burden of proof. The burden of proof falls on the person making the fantastic positive assertion. If I claim that you are a rapist, I need to prove the claim, you don't need to disprove it. That's how it works, it's intellectually honest.

"When th...e science itself is yet know 'what the scientific method is"

If it didn't, you wouldn't be typing anything on a computer and posting it onto a community in Facebook.

"how is that it can assume or take for granted the trustfulness of the 'scientific method' and accord legality or meaningfulness to its own way of approach?"

You don't need to. It's independent of your need to confirm its efficacy. That it works is evident by seeing how far technology has progressed today. If it didn't work we would be back to cave analogy.

"I mean when the basic entities like mass, time, space etc are only defined"

They are defined and tested. They are quantified and measured. This knowledge is then put to use in making things work in this world. Scientific axioms are tested empirically, religious axioms are not.

"and nothing truth about the same is known"

Because there is nothing like the "truth" that can be discerned by the human mind. The scientific method knows this limitation and works around it. The religious method however thinks that humans are capable of objective observation and thought, which is the reason why it has not made a single contribution to better our understandind of the reality we live in.

"how is that 'scientific method' which assumes (and do not prove these as absolute truth)"

The scientific method vigorously tests its assumption by requiring empirical proof and peer reviews from subject matter experts. There is no comparison between it and religion in this regard.

"the truthfulness of these entities"

Entities? Where did they enter the debate from?

"can make a meaningful and justified debate/argument with those who claim to have known the truth (say religions)? Is there anybody to listen?"

If religion is going to make claims about the nature of this reality from a tangible perspective, then it has to stand up to the same scrutiny that the scientific method endures. The scientific method strives to reduce subjectivity in our observations and acknowledges the fact that humans are handicapped when it comes to objectivity. It thus is the best method available to us to understand the universe we live. Religion does no such thing, and that it fails is evident in the fact that it has not made a single technological contribution since it was first invented by people thousands of years ago.
Yesterday at 12:28pm · LikeUnlike · 9

The following some 100 comments involved, you proselytising, and evading simple questions ,It was your repeated attempts to dodge questions and refuting comments, that convinced the admins that you were not there to debate,You are banned so won't be able to view this, but for others, for their curiosity this is the link to the discussion.

PS: Gayathri iyer is a person, she does not need to be addressed as "the gayathri" again and again
[+] 3 users Like LMC's post
Reply
#29
Dear Moderators,

Just now I received 80% warning after posting comment in my thread. Reasons could not be ascertained. Neither received private message. May I know the reasons?
Reply
#30
(30-Dec-2011, 10:05 PM)ramesh Wrote: Dear Moderators,

Just now I received 80% warning after posting comment in my thread. Reasons could not be ascertained. Neither received private message. May I know the reasons?

The reason is here. If that isn't still clear, nobody here stopped you from expressing your views and yet you were implying that you would be here.
Reply
#31
Dear Moderators,

I understand your last comment as that I made a mistake of whining about moderation in my thread and acknowledge the same accordingly. Was my understanding correct? If not please help me understand it properly.

But today again I received 80% warning after posting a comment. I am totally astonished as to the reasons! May I know it so that I can rectify myself at the earliest please. Let me have opportunities to adjust to your forum rules. Omissions are inadvertent.
Reply
#32
Is it alright if overly idealistic and trigger happy people are on our side, or is it right to call them out?

I came across this on face book where I did not seem to get a chance to enter

Quote:Suraj : I am just catching up on all that turned into another shitstorm today. I was going through the twitter conversations. It was interesting to note how much of hate mongering was involved on both sides. I usually stay out of these topics now-a-days; not because I think its unimportant but because the argument/debate that surrounds it is simply inane.

http://blog.thatfatatheist.com/post/1729...e-victim-i

Curious case of confirmation biases raging on either side of that argument?

Sajith Unni ‎Suraj : what do you mean hate on both sides? And whose side are you on?
: The amount of hatred spewed by this asshole is nothing compared to what 'the other side' has said occasionally in rage. That is not a justification by any means for the hatred and asshattery shown by this scum , who , BTW, masquerades as patriarchy denying 'progressive' but in reality is a Men's Rights Activist (What the hell is that for ? ) . The other side is simply reacting to the venom spit by this monster. How can you compare even these two ? On what ground 'threats of rape' to a 'rape victim' and cracking 'rape jokes' is equivalent to what the other side is saying ? Care to explain that . Your statement is highly insensitive.

Suraj : When one says "I will rape you with my fist" and other side goes "you and your family should die"/"You should be castrated"/"I am opening a castration fund for TJ" - I find both sides to be equally silly/irrational and behaving child like.

So you ask me which side I am on? Neither.

Nullius In-Verba Skeptic ‎Suraj : Well then you'd like the shiny boot on your backside, because, in case you haven't figured it as yet, we at Nirmukta do take sides.

Parikshit Samant
: I as a matter of policy ignore @$$holes like this amazingatheist. If atheism is a culmination of rationalism (which I expect) then the best we can do to amazingatheist is deny him the free publicity an argument on a popular forum such as twitter or fb brings him.

On a side note though, @Suraj AB: In your quoted sentences, amazing atheist is promising the action of rape, while the others are wishing him dead. The difference in their stances therefore, is huge.

And just to clarify, even if I am a proponent of silent treatment to amazingatheist, I am indeed on the side of Sunil , Priyabrata and Nullius

Sunil D'Monte
: Just want to clarify one more thing, since people tend to say things like "both sides made mistakes" and "let's agree to disagree" in incidents like this. As freethinkers and humanists we're expected to be able to reason ethically. This is not opinion, it's not subjective... it's "inter-subjective", as we've said time and again (e.g. see http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Morality-Neit...subjective). In this instance, it should be clear to that what AA did was wrong - ethically wrong

Abhay Kashyap :how cute.. you guys didn disappoint me.. reacted just like the otters in the video
so to lay down the fact, he did not take a stand.. he said i refuse to take sides which he is entitled to..i dono how someone can expect to agree with them or leave well i guess the kinda person who starts off with "Although speaking up against authority is what we do" and ends on an authoritative note "If you think freethinking is something that you do by putting up your feet on the table and think whatever the fuck you want, then this group is not your place."
Also its funny to see an automatic air of intellectual superiority among some people who call themselves freethinkers.. which decays into a sense of intellectual authority over people
long way to go in this freethinking movement.. a long long way
Someone can have a false belief but its harmless as long as they can separate it from their actions or if those actions affect none but that person

Abhay Kashyap :lol didn know people could become freethinkers by reading wiki articles maybe you're speaking from experience thanks ill keep that in mind..
i kno its near impossible to get through ppl who have the notion of how awesome and how right they are about everything (self-deception) but ill break down what he said hopefully to a bite sized analogy for you guys to swallow
He didn say the guy was right about his comments.. he said the other side werent right either.. he said BOTH ARE WRONG.. so I refuse to take sides.. i dono how someone can infer misogyny from tat.. Your assumption is that because he didn pick the side which u did, he automatically goes to the other side O_O He said neither and said both are wrong.. u said the guy is wrong, SO DID HE!!! in addition he said even the other side is wrong which does not mean he automatically supports misogyny..

And yea why wont I take the suggestion of 2 random ppl asking me to leave who clearly represent the entire freethinking movement in India Big Grin

It might be a bit of derailment on the part of Suraj when he moves a bit from the original intent of the article but what is wrong in him calling out that both the sides where immature. Why is it necessary to pick a side when it obvious that both are equally getting trigger happy and crazy. Why should the devil or the deep see be the only choices to belong to this group. Clearly the people arguing are no way supporting misogyny or being rape apologists, they are also doing right in calling out all kinds of immature behavior. Just because one evil seems more bigger than the other does not mean you have to and must belong to the other. One has to call a spade a spade! Is it torlling only if a theist does it? Because no one is calling out on this crap.
Reply
#33
Your (and Suraj's) "both sides" argument holds no water - as has already been pointed out on that thread. Trying to trigger a rape survivor by making rape threats and jokes is harmful and unethical. Here is a post from FTB on this incident, which talks about PTSD and Triggers that explains just how harmful it is. Trying to make light of such behaviour with "both sides made mistakes" is unacceptable here.

"Overly idealistic" - if you're not able to discern why your "both sides" argument is wrong, then yes our moderation policy will seem overly idealistic to you.

"Trigger happy" - not at all. Ban decisions like this one take place after plenty of discussion in our backchannel, between moderators of the various groups. We've put plenty of thought into our moderation policy; it might seem harsh at times but we believe it's in the best interests of the group in the long run.
Reply
#34
(10-Feb-2012, 11:52 PM)unsorted Wrote: Your (and Suraj's) "both sides" argument holds no water
Why?

Quote: - as has already been pointed out on that thread. Trying to trigger a rape survivor by making rape threats and jokes is harmful and unethical. Here is a post from FTB on this incident, which talks about PTSD and Triggers that explains just how harmful it is.
This I understand quite well thank you. I too think that that person is better of as an inorganic thing.

Quote: Trying to make light of such behaviour with "both sides made mistakes" is unacceptable here.
I apoligize if I sounded that I made light of such behavior. As a woman who once blogged I am quite aware of how different "I will kill you" sounds technically from "I wish you and your children die in a horrible way" But to me both are the same. How this is relevant is that while one threatens graphically and explicitly and pointedly so as to cause a trauma to rape victim, the other talked of wishing death, and castration and was ready to collect funds for it. While the first person was indeed a scumbag...and what ever adjective, (and I mentally rage and erupt at the thought that I even share a binomial nomenclature with him) why should I not call out on a threat even if it is minor?





Reply
#35
Why - well because it attempts to use reciprocal abuse that happened AFTER the amazing atheist made his rape threats as a way of "equalising" the behaviour of "both sides" (this is what I meant by "making light of"). It's a form of apologetics and concern-trolling. It's similar to what Greta Christina talks about in her post Why “Yes, But” Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny.

Suraj showed no indication that he understands this or is willing to learn. There is only so much education we can attempt in a comment trail; if the commenter is going against our humanistic principles and isn't likely to change, we have no option but to ban.
Reply
#36
(11-Feb-2012, 08:23 AM)unsorted Wrote: Why - well because it attempts to use reciprocal abuse that happened AFTER the amazing atheist made his rape threats as a way of "equalising" the behaviour of "both sides" (this is what I meant by "making light of"). It's a form of apologetics and concern-trolling. It's similar to what Greta Christina talks about in her post Why “Yes, But” Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny.

I don't want to sound sarcastic but genuinely want to know when is it right to point out that it is not cool to justify one kind of threat with another kind and have an opinion that I dont stand for threats even as a justification.


Perhaps there is a history with this particular commentator, for this opinion, that I am not aware of- in which case I have no ground to talk about it. But as a casual observer (perhaps bordering of naive) I don't see any "Yes, but". In fact I could not find any form of "support" that would seem as an rape apologist. Perhaps I missed something.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)