reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

doxaws
Site Admin
Posts:64
Joined:Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:07 am
reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Post by doxaws » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:29 pm

After serveral warning repeated continued to say "no one takes you serious." this is a personal attack.

He didn't participate in discussion but insisted upon ridiculing all counter arguments including printed evdience that disproved his position. So he was not participating in a manner that contributed to the community discussion.

User avatar
tinythinker
Posts:1331
Joined:Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Post by tinythinker » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:45 pm

I think people would have eventually just ignored him for the very reasons you gave. I am not sure he realized that he gave the impression that he wasn't that serious about a dialogue. His interactions seemed at times a little feigned and intentionally tenuous, as if he were daring people to challenge him so he could suggest they were flawed for not understanding him. That is, to bait people into arguments where people would assume he was supporting a particular view then switch and claim that isn't what he meant and therefore it must be their biases or weakness of thought or character which are to blame. It's an old tactic. This isn't an accusation nor an attack, but rather a post-mortem of what might have gone wrong. Potential examples include:

This response
  • "How unfortunate for you. However, that isn't really my position. To say that beliefs are for chumps or that chumps are the only ones who believe is a sort of ad hominem. Most people I know have beliefs, I don't think believers are idiots. I realize that since you probably can't come up with a good reason for maintaining beliefs that its easier to sort of shift the issue but its incorrect and a bit dishonest of you."


Or this response
  • "I understand why you would want to let it go. Its as if you aren't really responding to what I'm saying but rather to what you want to believe that I'm saying. I can see why that would be frustrating for you.

    "I'm not sure how you missed my address of you claiming to know your name as I'm pretty sure I gave it a good deal of attention. I make an effort to be precise with my wording and so its difficult for me to understand how it is that you've misinterpreted so many things... Often we tend to hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest. That certainly seems to be the case here."
To be sure, he like anyone is free to argue that his position is being misunderstood, yet even if that is the case there is a hint of smugness and condescension present couched in terms of genuine concern and disappointment. Whether or not that was his intention, the perception of such intent, even if it isn't fully recognized or articulated in the minds of the perceivers, can produce antagonistic results. Such a tone to one's posts may simply be an unconscious symptom of CARM Toxicity Syndrome. It has that smell. It doesn't have to be intentional. Most people sense that kind of approach and want to either charge in to defend themselves and accuse the person using it of being disingenuous (i.e. Metacrock's response), or, giving him or her the benefit of the doubt, attempt to re-state the issue in the hopes of mutual understanding if not mutual agreement ( KR's response). I seriously believe if such a tone had been absent he would have got on much better and contributed some interesting ideas to the forum. The same is true for Metacrock's attitude as well. If his ban is ever lifted and if he decides to return hopefully everyone, including Metacrock (ahem!), can contribute to a friendlier and more respectful tone.
Adrift in the endless river

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Post by mdsimpson92 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:44 pm

Perhaps, but I probably have my doubts. If he is willing to be disrespectful to professional philosophers that deal with science, then I doubt that he would retain much respect for us who do not. The impression that I was getting is that he was not interested in discussion but with starting arguments. I noticed that he would go back to quotes entire days old and generally forgotten just to start another debate. While I hope he learns to gain a sense of humility I personally found his presence here to be generally distracting and a mood killer.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Post by Metacrock » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:45 pm

several times he said "no one takes you seriously." to me after I told him to stop. others contacted me and said they wanted him banned.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
tinythinker
Posts:1331
Joined:Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Re: reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Post by tinythinker » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:02 pm

Metacrock wrote:several times he said "no one takes you seriously." to me after I told him to stop. others contacted me and said they wanted him banned.
I'm not disputing or endorsing the decision, just looking at what led up to it.
Adrift in the endless river

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts:1410
Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Post by KR Wordgazer » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:14 pm

I'm sick today and can't sit at the computer very long without feeling weak and dizzy, but I will say that I found talking to him very frustrating. He would not make even one concession towards any kind of compromise or meeting of the minds that might have given us a foundation on which to have a real discussion. We couldn't even get as far as to agree on basic meanings of common English words. And yes-- his disagreement was couched in such a way as to put the blame on me, never accepting any responsibility for his own unwillingness to come to any kind of common ground from which we could have moved on to substantive issues.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Post by Metacrock » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:34 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:I'm sick today and can't sit at the computer very long without feeling weak and dizzy, but I will say that I found talking to him very frustrating. He would not make even one concession towards any kind of compromise or meeting of the minds that might have given us a foundation on which to have a real discussion. We couldn't even get as far as to agree on basic meanings of common English words. And yes-- his disagreement was couched in such a way as to put the blame on me, never accepting any responsibility for his own unwillingness to come to any kind of common ground from which we could have moved on to substantive issues.
I am sorry you are sick. he's totally arrogant. I don't think he cares about what's true. He's just asserting his brilliance.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Darth Pringle
Posts:27
Joined:Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:56 pm

Re: reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Post by Darth Pringle » Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:58 am

Metacrock wrote:
KR Wordgazer wrote:I'm sick today and can't sit at the computer very long without feeling weak and dizzy, but I will say that I found talking to him very frustrating. He would not make even one concession towards any kind of compromise or meeting of the minds that might have given us a foundation on which to have a real discussion. We couldn't even get as far as to agree on basic meanings of common English words. And yes-- his disagreement was couched in such a way as to put the blame on me, never accepting any responsibility for his own unwillingness to come to any kind of common ground from which we could have moved on to substantive issues.
I am sorry you are sick. he's totally arrogant. I don't think he cares about what's true. He's just asserting his brilliance.
But how is his response any worse from what you dish out on a regular basis? I'm not saying he is right, only that I see guilt on all sides and it would appear to show extreme partiality.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Post by Metacrock » Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:19 am

Darth Pringle wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
KR Wordgazer wrote:I'm sick today and can't sit at the computer very long without feeling weak and dizzy, but I will say that I found talking to him very frustrating. He would not make even one concession towards any kind of compromise or meeting of the minds that might have given us a foundation on which to have a real discussion. We couldn't even get as far as to agree on basic meanings of common English words. And yes-- his disagreement was couched in such a way as to put the blame on me, never accepting any responsibility for his own unwillingness to come to any kind of common ground from which we could have moved on to substantive issues.
I am sorry you are sick. he's totally arrogant. I don't think he cares about what's true. He's just asserting his brilliance.
But how is his response any worse from what you dish out on a regular basis? I'm not saying he is right, only that I see guilt on all sides and it would appear to show extreme partiality.

I am not saying I'm any better. I'm at least willing to argue ideas. I have never just flat out said "I'm right, there doesn't' need to be any discussion even if you quote a recognize expert I still know more." He did say that.

I never have told anyone "no one likes you, no one takes you seroiusly." There's a big difference in saying "you don't know anything" and no one takes you seriously.

you can change what you know.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Darth Pringle
Posts:27
Joined:Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:56 pm

Re: reasons for ban of so called "bigthinker"

Post by Darth Pringle » Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:34 am

[quote="Metacrock]I am not saying I'm any better. I'm at least willing to argue ideas. I have never just flat out said "I'm right, there doesn't' need to be any discussion even if you quote a recognize expert I still know more." He did say that.[/quote]

It's fair to point out that you present actual arguments that can be defended/refuted. It is also true that people take you seriously. HRG, myself and others have defended this even though there is disagreement in some areas.
I never have told anyone "no one likes you, no one takes you seroiusly." There's a big difference in saying "you don't know anything" and no one takes you seriously.

you can change what you know.
In just about all cases, "No one takes you seriously" is false.

I'm just pointing out that the personal attack alone wouldn't really be sufficient reason (because you admit to doing it yourself) and neither is a failure to present arguments a sufficient reason.

If you have a board where personal negative remarks are off limits for everyone (including yourself) then banning people for doing it becomes so much easier to enforce.

Post Reply