< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Forum Guidelines 2018

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
06 April 2018 15:05
 
hannahtoo - 06 April 2018 06:11 AM

  I am saying that evoking the Butt Fairy seems like a form of ridicule.  I’m willing to read your explanation, if you see it differently.

Yes.
I have a different explanation
It was not a form of ridicule


Here is the explanation of how it started.  This is the opening post of the thread entitled

“Using the notion that “one can’t be 100 percent certain of anything” to complicate the argument that supernatural beings do not exist”.

jdrnd - 26 July 2014 01:58 AM

The phrase “one can’t be 100 percent certain of anything” is related to the optimistic statement that “Anything is possible”.  I mean if anything is possible then why not the existence of something like God.  I mean we can never be 100% certain that anything isn’t true, Right?

En is looking for me (us) to accept his ever so tenuous wish that his magical being might exist.  I picture him saying :”Aw come on guys, just imperceptibly nod your head that there is an extremely small possibility that my invisible friend exists.  It won’t hurt you to give in to me, just a little”.

But he doesn’t just phrase it that way, he uses percentages.  Why?  Why is that necessary?  Isn’t the term “extremely small possibility” enough?  Well “percentage” is a technical and scientific term.  Using scientific jargon legitimizes the argument.  We present data using language like “the possibility that these results could occur due to chance is less than 5 in 100”.  And in almost all experiments we never see results reaching 100% of expected.  In fact we expect to see deviation.

So why is it inappropriate for En to denigrate me (us) non-believers by calling us “100-percenters”. The reason is that “God” is not falsifiable, it is not science. 

In one of the threads that started this year, Gad, invented the “Butt fairy” as an example of a fictional character that couldn’t exist.  En tried to be even handed but ended up looking foolish when he agreed that there is an extremely small possibility that the Butt fairy might exist.  En’s explanation was that maybe such a creature existed and Gad inadvertently described the creature during his post.  En later backed down and agreed that there was no way such a creature could exist. Although he never said it, I bet he was “100% certain”. 

Why was En so certain that the Butt fairy doesn’t exist? 

Because there was no way that a fairy that big could live up in your rectum and do the things Gad said it could do. 
En KNOWS the Butt fairy doesn’t exist.  No percentages are necessary.  Science is not a belief system or a political stand it is a method or a set of methods.  One cannot apply scientific measurements to something that can’t be studied by science.

Lastly, let me address En’s subtly implied message that, “:you’re not fully agreeing with me if you admit that there is an extremely small possibility (a small percentage) that God might exist”. 

Using believers terminology; since God is infinite, even 1 trillionth percent of infinity is still infinity.  By that logic it appears to me that acquiescing even to the remotest possibility of the existence of God is agreeing with En that such an entity exists.
And it does not.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
06 April 2018 15:15
 

The Butt fairy is used as an example of a made up creature that has the same chance of existing as the made up creature often referred to as “god”.
Interchanging the names of these 2 fictional beasts within so called religous writing highlights the absurdity of belief.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3424
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
06 April 2018 15:15
 

I can’t be sure when it was exactly the Butt Fairy burst onto the scene, as another metaphorical example, like the spaghetti monster or any other personal revelatory experience.  And as juvenile as it seemed at first, you have to admit, it has proven quite useful in the course of these discussions.  That is to say, it is often referenced by many different patrons.

There’s no way of pleasing all the people all the time so we must be willing to compromise and pick are battles accordingly.  Some people don’t care for poetry, for example.  Should we not make it available for those who do?  I think it’s important to remember that when we are irked by someone, or something, we can be sure there are patrons equally irked by us.  And when feeling offended we have the option of countering the argument or walking away.  That way everyone gets to play.  And the more the merrier.

Maybe a list of suggestions, for the guidelines, may reap more benefits than a list of complaints.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3864
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
06 April 2018 15:21
 

Going very well so far, Nhoj.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
06 April 2018 16:05
 

Yes, let’s make suggestions:

1.  Patrons are strongly encouraged to use poetry, music links, Star Trek references, and humour to emphasize, elaborate on, or illustrate their positions or points of view.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17887
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
06 April 2018 16:11
 
Jan_CAN - 06 April 2018 10:51 AM
nonverbal - 06 April 2018 08:48 AM
hannahtoo - 06 April 2018 07:22 AM
LadyJane - 06 April 2018 06:25 AM
hannahtoo - 06 April 2018 06:11 AM
GAD - 05 April 2018 08:19 PM
hannahtoo - 05 April 2018 06:53 PM

The Butt Fairy is not a dis.

Huh?

Exactly!

I’m not saying I don’t comprehend what you’re writing.  I apologize for being unclear.  I am saying that evoking the Butt Fairy seems like a form of ridicule.  I’m willing to read your explanation, if you see it differently.

The Butt Fairy is a metaphor.

But a metaphor of ridicule; at least it seems to me.  I’m not opposed to ridicule per se, in an online disagreement.  I do feel that elaboration of reasons does more to enlighten a discussion, however, while ridicule tends to cut it off.  As do character insults.  But whatever, just my opinion.  Carry on.

Is ridiculing a philosophy as serious as ridiculing a person? Are we so personally attached to our philosophies that they actually are sacred?

I think this is key – ridiculing an idea versus ridiculing a person.

I am speaking here of my opinion in regards to preferred behaviour (basic civility, good manners), NOT a recommendation for a rule.

Perhaps ridicule has its place, but there should be some consideration of how it is used.  It may be useful in response to ‘bad ideas’, but does it have a place when one simply disagrees?  When a newcomer is ridiculed before they are even given a chance to properly explain their position, is that fair?  When conversing with a more senior patron one ‘knows’, there is more leeway if known positions and mutual understanding are taken into account.  Ridiculing a person should be reserved for those who truly deserve it.

I wonder how many newcomers have been scared off, and how many valuable former patrons are no longer posting, because of a lack of civility.

This is another common projection from many poster here, the belief that they are so interesting and nice that millions of people would swarm here if it wasn’t for the “bad” posters. Do you know why 99% people only post 2 or less times? How do you know it is because of the “bad” posters and not because they were bored to death by uninteresting, unoriginal, PC, “good” posters circling jerking while singing kumbaya all day?

 
 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
06 April 2018 16:24
 
Jan_CAN - 06 April 2018 04:05 PM

Yes, let’s make suggestions:

1.  Patrons are strongly encouraged to use poetry, music links, Star Trek references, and humour to emphasize, elaborate on, or illustrate their positions or points of view.

QI’yaH Poetry
Your words are Qovpatlh

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
06 April 2018 16:33
 
jdrnd - 06 April 2018 04:24 PM
Jan_CAN - 06 April 2018 04:05 PM

Yes, let’s make suggestions:

1.  Patrons are strongly encouraged to use poetry, music links, Star Trek references, and humour to emphasize, elaborate on, or illustrate their positions or points of view.

QI’yaH Poetry
Your words are Qovpatlh

Well, that’s two out of four anyway.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6453
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
06 April 2018 17:07
 

No spam.

Of course there will be no spam. There is no need to build from the ground up. The site is less vulnerable these days. Keeping it in check takes not much effort. A spam rule now needs to address the clever efforts of slow-spam. That means there will be some restrictions on how newbies can use their signature or profile because spammer are exploiting them. The wording of the spam rules need to be specific to minimize inconvenience for non-spammers.

While succunct, short and punchy, “NO SPAM” is not what we’re after. Don’t worry about the technical stuff. We’ll cover it.

Likewise, “Say yes to civility” won’t cut it. Civility has so many available exemptions that it is nearly useless. “So and so said this first” or “I’m crabby today” or “I got cut off in traffic this morning so the gloves are off”… the list of exemptions is endless.


There is a primacy of criticism here that is stifling. Criticism is held to less of a standard than the arguments being criticized.

We value ridicule highly and it is very easy to earn here. Ridiculing bad ideas is something this site should be all about. Ridiculing posters is not the same pursuit. Exploring a poster’s motivations to be wrong should never be uncivil if even attempted.

How do we divvy up the blame when one poster misrepresents another? How are observers of such supposed to sort out each poster’s blind spots? While hobbled with their own?

Is being a myopic dufus or a prolific airhead or an unfathomable poet or a hasty dart-thrower a crime? Or is it simply what we do? If it bothers anybody, do we want it sorted out by rules or by more and perhaps better efforts foruming? Could we presume that efforts demanded of post writing be even-steven with those demanded of reading them? We all know they aren’t on the whole but I don’t know how to codify that.


This ain’t my forum and it ain’t gonne be what I want (don’t ask). Unless The Boss expresses an opinion on the matter, it ain’t gonna be what he wants either. To some extent, it will be what I imagine The Boss wants and informed by the ghostly guidance from upstairs. I’m sure they want to believe that they have (with great technical effort) preserved something worthwhile. I would like to maintain that impression with them.

That leaves us. This forum will be a managed aggregate of what we want in a forum. We will defend the Art of the Argument and promote better posting. This should include responses.


This will involve patrons yeilding to some guidelines because no one gets everything they want.

The Butt Fairy is a forum institution long encouraged by management. For example, a comment like, “In reading your post, I hear the trumpeting of vapors from the Butt Fairy” is fine. Hiding behind the Butt Fairy (or a similar metaphor) when one is clearly just not looking hard enough cheapens the value of the fairy.

The purpose here and now is to learn about what patrons want, what bothers them and what if anything they would like forum management to do about it.

[ Edited: 06 April 2018 17:10 by Nhoj Morley]
 
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
06 April 2018 18:42
 
GAD - 06 April 2018 04:11 PM
Jan_CAN - 06 April 2018 10:51 AM
nonverbal - 06 April 2018 08:48 AM
hannahtoo - 06 April 2018 07:22 AM
LadyJane - 06 April 2018 06:25 AM
hannahtoo - 06 April 2018 06:11 AM
GAD - 05 April 2018 08:19 PM
hannahtoo - 05 April 2018 06:53 PM

The Butt Fairy is not a dis.

Huh?

Exactly!

I’m not saying I don’t comprehend what you’re writing.  I apologize for being unclear.  I am saying that evoking the Butt Fairy seems like a form of ridicule.  I’m willing to read your explanation, if you see it differently.

The Butt Fairy is a metaphor.

But a metaphor of ridicule; at least it seems to me.  I’m not opposed to ridicule per se, in an online disagreement.  I do feel that elaboration of reasons does more to enlighten a discussion, however, while ridicule tends to cut it off.  As do character insults.  But whatever, just my opinion.  Carry on.

Is ridiculing a philosophy as serious as ridiculing a person? Are we so personally attached to our philosophies that they actually are sacred?

I think this is key – ridiculing an idea versus ridiculing a person.

I am speaking here of my opinion in regards to preferred behaviour (basic civility, good manners), NOT a recommendation for a rule.

Perhaps ridicule has its place, but there should be some consideration of how it is used.  It may be useful in response to ‘bad ideas’, but does it have a place when one simply disagrees?  When a newcomer is ridiculed before they are even given a chance to properly explain their position, is that fair?  When conversing with a more senior patron one ‘knows’, there is more leeway if known positions and mutual understanding are taken into account.  Ridiculing a person should be reserved for those who truly deserve it.

I wonder how many newcomers have been scared off, and how many valuable former patrons are no longer posting, because of a lack of civility.

This is another common projection from many poster here, the belief that they are so interesting and nice that millions of people would swarm here if it wasn’t for the “bad” posters. Do you know why 99% people only post 2 or less times? How do you know it is because of the “bad” posters and not because they were bored to death by uninteresting, unoriginal, PC, “good” posters circling jerking while singing kumbaya all day?

To be honest, you sometimes come across to me as the grump who writes two sentence replies and shouts, “Butt fairy!” and “Kumbaya!”  I come across to you as the namby pamby poster who backs down when she pisses someone off.  So I’ll be just as you say and declare unilateral truce.  (Cue Marlo Thomas singing “Free to be, you and me.”)

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
07 April 2018 05:56
 
Nhoj Morley - 06 April 2018 05:07 PM

The purpose here and now is to learn about what patrons want, what bothers them and what if anything they would like forum management to do about it.

I would like to suggest the following guideline for all posts


                No let me change that.
              I would like to demand the following rule:


                              Write nothing that you couldn’t read while eating an eggroll.

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
07 April 2018 06:04
 
Nhoj Morley - 06 April 2018 05:07 PM

The purpose here and now is to learn about what patrons want, what bothers them and what if anything they would like forum management to do about it.

My alterego, jdrnd, is inappropriate, and aften writes tasteless posts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
What bothers me most is his insistence on eating eggrolls while reading the posts at the SHF.

I would like the forum management to provide free pork eggrolls from my local chinese restaurant to every poster at this site.
My rational for this is that eventually jdrnd will get tired of the eggrolls.


I’m making a strong case for why I should be on the rule and regulations committee for this forum.


Jeff

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
07 April 2018 06:06
 

On a less serious note, can we get the spell checker back?

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
07 April 2018 06:07
 

Nhoj,

Don’t worry, I’m on call today.  Once the beeper starts, my posts will stop.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3424
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
07 April 2018 06:10
 

Anyone have Jeff’s beeper number?

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›