Suggested new rule for this forum and sub-forums

[notto]

One involves deliberate intent to deceive. The other one is typically without knowledge or intention. One is against morals. The other is against opinions. Huge difference.

But all are still name calling and speculative judgment.

That is what you are saying should not be allowed. Why does your behavior get a pass?

I see no difference in the accusation.

 

[laptoppop]

I do, and I think most people would as well. Everyone has biases, some recognized, some unrecognized. Not everyone lies.

 

[notto]

I do, and I think most people would as well. Everyone has biases, some recognized, some unrecognized. Not everyone lies.

With your suggested rule in place, claims of bias shouldn't even enter into the discussion yet you brought it up as a clear case of calling names and providing a speculative judgment of other people and groups.

Because we desire to have good respectful discussions, we agree to avoid all name-calling, both of each other, and of outside people and organizations. Describing outside groups as con-men, frauds, liars, etc., is not allowed, even if believed to be true. Discussions should concentrate on the data and the issues, and not speculative judgments of other people and groups.

Why are claims of bias not considered name calling speculative judgments that are not concentrated on the data and the issues?

You still haven't answered that.

 

[laptoppop]

No, you are saying "bias" would be name calling. I don't see it that way. In any case, it looks like its wide open to call folks and organizations liars, con-men, biased, anything you want -- as long as they aren't here to defend themselves. Enjoy the "freedom".

 

[Dannager]

No, you are saying "bias" would be name calling. I don't see it that way. In any case, it looks like its wide open to call folks and organizations liars, con-men, biased, anything you want -- as long as they aren't here to defend themselves. Enjoy the "freedom".

Or you could see it as having the ability to duly challenge disreputable sources and expose their falsehoods in order to further debate.

But that would be the reasonable way of looking at things.

I wonder if you even realize what would be prohibited by your own rule proposal.

Never again would you be allowed to bring up supposed evolutionary frauds. Never again would you be able to link to an AIG or ICR page that attempts to show that such frauds exist. After all, the scientists who made the discoveries aren't here to defend themselves.

 

[notto]

No, you are saying "bias" would be name calling. I don't see it that way.

So saying unnamed academics are bias is not speculative judgement and name calling.

Got it. Thank you for demonstrating the subjectiveness behind your request.

 

[laptoppop]

So saying unnamed academics are bias is not speculative judgement and name calling.

Got it. Thank you for demonstrating the subjectiveness behind your request.

No, I don't see saying folks are biased (grammar: please note the ed) is even close to calling them liars, frauds and con-men. But again - its all moot. Feel free to slander at will as long as they aren't here to defend themselves.

 

[laptoppop]

Or you could see it as having the ability to duly challenge disreputable sources and expose their falsehoods in order to further debate.

But that would be the reasonable way of looking at things.

I wonder if you even realize what would be prohibited by your own rule proposal.

Never again would you be allowed to bring up supposed evolutionary frauds. Never again would you be able to link to an AIG or ICR page that attempts to show that such frauds exist. After all, the scientists who made the discoveries aren't here to defend themselves.

There is a difference between pointing out where someone is wrong and calling them a fraud or liar. Yes, I was suggesting that this board, in a desire to conduct respectful discussions, would avoid inflammatory language on both sides. Looks like I am outvoted. Slander away!

 

[laptoppop]

At this point, I suggest we let this thread die. I give up.

 

[busterdog]

How is claiming that academics and those on this forum who use an objective methodology for research are bias not inflammatory?

How is that any different than calling ICR or AIG liars?

You've define the words. Not tell my why one is more inflammatory than the other?

Show me why claims of bias against unnamed academics and those on this forum are not any different than the other behaviors you want to rule out?

Because we desire to have good respectful discussions, we agree to avoid all name-calling, both of each other, and of outside people and organizations. Describing outside groups as con-men, frauds, liars, etc., is not allowed, even if believed to be true. Discussions should concentrate on the data and the issues, and not speculative judgments of other people and groups.Why are claims of bias not considered name calling speculative judgments that are not concentrated on the data and the issues?

What a bunch of useless sophistry.

 

[notto]

What a bunch of useless sophistry.

Glad we can agree.

The ecommended rule was subjective and even the proponent of it couldn't clearly identify what behaviors were disallowed (or refrain from them).

 

[laptoppop]

ummmm suuuuuuuuure. The thread speaks for itself.

 

[USincognito]

No, I don't see saying folks are biased (grammar: please note the ed) is even close to calling them liars, frauds and con-men. But again - its all moot. Feel free to slander at will as long as they aren't here to defend themselves.

When they are liars, frauds and con men, it's not slander.

Feel free to keep using emotionally charged words to defend your position though, that's what this is based on - emotion, not any sense of decorum.

 

[busterdog]

ummmm suuuuuuuuure. The thread speaks for itself.

Except where the ignore list applies (and it does apply) and we just assume more of the same.

How many YECs even care that much about CF?

 

[shernren]

No, you are saying "bias" would be name calling. I don't see it that way. In any case, it looks like its wide open to call folks and organizations liars, con-men, biased, anything you want -- as long as they aren't here to defend themselves. Enjoy the "freedom".

What makes you think things would be any different if they were here to defend themselves? Would our charges against them somehow dissipate if they were present?

Furthermore, why should they have to be here? After all, in the particular example of the peer review thread, we were criticizing publicly available (indeed, publicized) procedures. We weren't saying that, say, they dug their noses in public or were actually serial rapists who have changed their identity or wear women's underwear or anything equally private. If there were accusations about private behavior, it would indeed be helpful if they were here in person, because there is no good reason to expect information about private behavior to be available publicly. But since we are criticizing publicized procedures, why isn't the information that would overturn our criticism publicly available as well?

Furthermore, if you are concerned that our actions tarnish their image (seriously. Will AiG collapse because a few scientific aficionados think its peer review system is a farce?), all you have to do is to email them our exact accusations. Creationist organizations have wonderful PR systems for all their failings, and I'm sure they will get back to you in no time with all the evidence you need to overturn our accusations. Given how "evolutionists love to attack creationists", they must have heard similar insults countless times before, and it should be no problem for them to prepare a defense against such trivial opponents as us - if they are indeed in the right.

And as an aside. I think "bias" would be name-calling. I think "can't overcome their theoretical preconceptions" would be name-calling; no matter how polite the wording you are essentially saying a scientist can't do science. Even if we do outlaw name-calling, who gets to decide what name-calling actually is?