Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The war against online trolls ...

neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 11:49:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Seems like the Times has an oddly prescient article about this section of the forum:

http://www.nytimes.com...

The Internet may be losing the war against trolls, a broad term for destructive agitators who torment and heckle others online.

Robin William"s daughter, attacked by Twitter followers, quit the service, and the writers and editors of the feminist website Jezebel published an open letter, pleading for a technical solution to graphic images that were anonymously posted in droves in the comments section.

Does anonymity on the web give people too much license to heckle and torment others?
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:22:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 11:49:50 AM, neutral wrote:
Seems like the Times has an oddly prescient article about this section of the forum:

http://www.nytimes.com...

The Internet may be losing the war against trolls, a broad term for destructive agitators who torment and heckle others online.

Robin William"s daughter, attacked by Twitter followers, quit the service, and the writers and editors of the feminist website Jezebel published an open letter, pleading for a technical solution to graphic images that were anonymously posted in droves in the comments section.

Does anonymity on the web give people too much license to heckle and torment others?

You should know.
Lol, just kidding. Yeah, anonymity eliminates accountability and responsibility, making it a recipe for stupidity.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 4:45:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 11:49:50 AM, neutral wrote:
Seems like the Times has an oddly prescient article about this section of the forum:

The Internet may be losing the war against trolls, a broad term for destructive agitators who torment and heckle others online.

Then I suppose congratulations are in order. Congratulations Neutral, you made the news! We all knew you could.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:33:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 4:45:46 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 11:49:50 AM, neutral wrote:
Seems like the Times has an oddly prescient article about this section of the forum:

The Internet may be losing the war against trolls, a broad term for destructive agitators who torment and heckle others online.

Then I suppose congratulations are in order. Congratulations Neutral, you made the news! We all knew you could.

Right, the atheists engaged in this wanton and continuous display of utter tomfoolery are ... still acting like trolls!

Any examination of their constant refrain of "YOU SLAVING BASTARDS!" is ... of course ... not acknowledged by the trolls who have been kicked off of Christianfourms.com for such antics ... which is of course 'bad moderation' - I mean what moderator would find it displeasing that a discussion about science was continuously interrupted with personal smears about slave ownership? The gish gallops! - and not the result of ... trolling.

That a troll is proud of this? Uses it as a bragging point? Unable to self examine? Shocking!
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:25:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 6:22:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
So how is the battle going newt?

Clearly it's a failure, considering that you're still here.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 8:39:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 11:49:50 AM, neutral wrote:
Seems like the Times has an oddly prescient article about this section of the forum:

http://www.nytimes.com...

The Internet may be losing the war against trolls, a broad term for destructive agitators who torment and heckle others online.

Robin William"s daughter, attacked by Twitter followers, quit the service, and the writers and editors of the feminist website Jezebel published an open letter, pleading for a technical solution to graphic images that were anonymously posted in droves in the comments section.

Does anonymity on the web give people too much license to heckle and torment others?

People are much braver to address their thoughts to someone else in anonymity. They are called "cowards".
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:52:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 8:39:17 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/20/2014 11:49:50 AM, neutral wrote:
Seems like the Times has an oddly prescient article about this section of the forum:

http://www.nytimes.com...

The Internet may be losing the war against trolls, a broad term for destructive agitators who torment and heckle others online.

Robin William"s daughter, attacked by Twitter followers, quit the service, and the writers and editors of the feminist website Jezebel published an open letter, pleading for a technical solution to graphic images that were anonymously posted in droves in the comments section.

Does anonymity on the web give people too much license to heckle and torment others?

People are much braver to address their thoughts to someone else in anonymity. They are called "cowards".

Thank you for your thoughts which you have provided in anonymity. Was that a bad thing?
(People offering their thoughts aren't "trolling".)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:59:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 11:49:50 AM, neutral wrote:
Seems like the Times has an oddly prescient article about this section of the forum:

http://www.nytimes.com...

The Internet may be losing the war against trolls, a broad term for destructive agitators who torment and heckle others online.

Robin William"s daughter, attacked by Twitter followers, quit the service, and the writers and editors of the feminist website Jezebel published an open letter, pleading for a technical solution to graphic images that were anonymously posted in droves in the comments section.

Does anonymity on the web give people too much license to heckle and torment others?

Do you know what prescient means?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 4:24:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:52:43 AM, Beastt wrote:

Thank you for your thoughts which you have provided in anonymity. Was that a bad thing?
(People offering their thoughts aren't "trolling".)

The problem with troll Beasty is that they behave online in anonymity in ways that they would never behave in real life. Offering thoughts and viciously attacking people, disrupting the flow of communication, deliberately picking fights, smearing an bullying people ... these are not 'just sharing thoughts'. Its trolling. Its malicious. Its a problem.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 4:29:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:59:18 AM, bulproof wrote:


Do you know what prescient means?

And if anyone needs an example of a troll, we have one here. Do you know what it means troll boy?

Definition: having or showing knowledge of events before they take place.

Have you stopped trolling bully boy? Is your trolling making this forum better or worse? and will that trend continue?

Wait, you are smart because you trollishly called someone out for correctly using a word, a word that you have now exposed yourself as not understanding instead. Great job troll. Its obviously very difficult to see the pattern of your behavior and predict that it will continue and get worse. The most simple pattern analysis is so shocking to atheist trolls, so caught up in their antagonistic arrogance, that they deny even the simplest of human recognition to everyone but themselves - remaining utterly shocked when intelligence of even limited capacity is displayed because ... human value in human beings remains ... shocking to trolls.
bulproof
Posts: 25,260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 4:45:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 4:29:38 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:59:18 AM, bulproof wrote:


Do you know what prescient means?

And if anyone needs an example of a troll, we have one here. Do you know what it means troll boy?

Definition: having or showing knowledge of events before they take place.

Have you stopped trolling bully boy? Is your trolling making this forum better or worse? and will that trend continue?

Wait, you are smart because you trollishly called someone out for correctly using a word, a word that you have now exposed yourself as not understanding instead. Great job troll. Its obviously very difficult to see the pattern of your behavior and predict that it will continue and get worse. The most simple pattern analysis is so shocking to atheist trolls, so caught up in their antagonistic arrogance, that they deny even the simplest of human recognition to everyone but themselves - remaining utterly shocked when intelligence of even limited capacity is displayed because ... human value in human beings remains ... shocking to trolls.

Hey numb nuts you've been bitching like a troll about trolling for 2yrs. An article written 2 days ago bitching about trolls is not prescient.

But hey continue in your fantasy world of fake PhD's and incredibly low IQ's. It suits you.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Diviance
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 6:14:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 4:29:38 AM, neutral wrote:
Definition: having or showing knowledge of events before they take place.

Technically speaking, talking about trolls while trolling is common in most places on the internet is not really prescient. I mean, you don't need knowledge of the future to know people are trolling... while people are trolling.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 6:15:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 6:14:10 AM, Diviance wrote:
At 8/24/2014 4:29:38 AM, neutral wrote:
Definition: having or showing knowledge of events before they take place.

Technically speaking, talking about trolls while trolling is common in most places on the internet is not really prescient. I mean, you don't need knowledge of the future to know people are trolling... while people are trolling.

The point is solution. That requires ... forward thinking. Policies effect the further, not the present. Given the level of RISING trolling, it makes sense to look at policies with the intent to REDUCE it. That requires implementing policies NOW, to effect, the future.
Diviance
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 6:19:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 6:15:39 AM, neutral wrote:
The point is solution. That requires ... forward thinking. Policies effect the further, not the present. Given the level of RISING trolling, it makes sense to look at policies with the intent to REDUCE it. That requires implementing policies NOW, to effect, the future.

I do not disagree but that is still not really prescience. That is planning for the future based on past events.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 6:22:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 6:19:39 AM, Diviance wrote:

I do not disagree but that is still not really prescience. That is planning for the future based on past events.

Which is thinking about the future.

Is there any actual disagreement here or is this, at best a quibble? And having explained my position, do you at least understand WHY I chose that word?

Do you really think that the use of the word is so outlandish that it exposes someone as utterly brainless? Or would such an observation simply be an unwarranted personal attack?

I disagree with your use of the word, therefore YOU are an idiot? And I hate you?

You tell me which is more unreasonable?
Diviance
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 6:41:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 6:22:12 AM, neutral wrote:
Which is thinking about the future.

Is there any actual disagreement here or is this, at best a quibble? And having explained my position, do you at least understand WHY I chose that word?

Do you really think that the use of the word is so outlandish that it exposes someone as utterly brainless? Or would such an observation simply be an unwarranted personal attack?

I disagree with your use of the word, therefore YOU are an idiot? And I hate you?

You tell me which is more unreasonable?

These are all things you should be saying to the one doing those things to you, not me. I was merely mentioning that your word choice was, perhaps, less than optimal. I understand why you chose it, sure, but at the same time I feel you chose incorrectly.

I do not judge you nor your intelligence based on that choice as we all make mistakes.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 6:45:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 6:41:35 AM, Diviance wrote:
At 8/24/2014 6:22:12 AM, neutral wrote:
Which is thinking about the future.

Is there any actual disagreement here or is this, at best a quibble? And having explained my position, do you at least understand WHY I chose that word?

Do you really think that the use of the word is so outlandish that it exposes someone as utterly brainless? Or would such an observation simply be an unwarranted personal attack?

I disagree with your use of the word, therefore YOU are an idiot? And I hate you?

You tell me which is more unreasonable?

These are all things you should be saying to the one doing those things to you, not me. I was merely mentioning that your word choice was, perhaps, less than optimal. I understand why you chose it, sure, but at the same time I feel you chose incorrectly.

I do not judge you nor your intelligence based on that choice as we all make mistakes.

I did.

And its not a mistake. My intent was future oriented, as explained. As its my idea being conveyed, it accurate. You disagree, more about the idea rather than the word proper use in future oriented tense. It accurately conveys MY idea. Do you think my idea about policy now to effect the future and reign in a growing troll problem is inaccurate? Or simply required clarification?

Do you think troll boy was looming for clarification?
Diviance
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 7:02:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 6:45:59 AM, neutral wrote:
And its not a mistake. My intent was future oriented, as explained. As its my idea being conveyed, it accurate. You disagree, more about the idea rather than the word proper use in future oriented tense. It accurately conveys MY idea. Do you think my idea about policy now to effect the future and reign in a growing troll problem is inaccurate? Or simply required clarification?

Do you think troll boy was looming for clarification?

Being future oriented is not prescient. The article, nor you, were displaying knowledge of future events. The article was talking about past events. You were talking about planning for the future based on past and current events.

No future knowledge here, so no prescience.

Either way, I do not think there is any real method of stifling online, anonymous trolling without, at the same time, destroying one part of what makes the internet such an amazing place. Trading privacy to potentially prevent people from mocking you is not really a good idea, I would think.

Trolls will troll. A blacklist option, or block option, to prevent their posts from showing up would be a good start, though. Not much point in trolling if all it takes to stop it is a simple button click.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 8:22:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 1:52:43 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 8:39:17 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 8/20/2014 11:49:50 AM, neutral wrote:
Seems like the Times has an oddly prescient article about this section of the forum:

http://www.nytimes.com...

The Internet may be losing the war against trolls, a broad term for destructive agitators who torment and heckle others online.

Robin William"s daughter, attacked by Twitter followers, quit the service, and the writers and editors of the feminist website Jezebel published an open letter, pleading for a technical solution to graphic images that were anonymously posted in droves in the comments section.

Does anonymity on the web give people too much license to heckle and torment others?

People are much braver to address their thoughts to someone else in anonymity. They are called "cowards".

Thank you for your thoughts which you have provided in anonymity. Was that a bad thing?
(People offering their thoughts aren't "trolling".)

Most people in this forum would not be able to say the things they say to me in person. Cowards don't know they're cowards until the battle starts.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 8:59:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 7:02:47 AM, Diviance wrote:
At 8/24/2014 6:45:59 AM, neutral wrote:
And its not a mistake. My intent was future oriented, as explained. As its my idea being conveyed, it accurate. You disagree, more about the idea rather than the word proper use in future oriented tense. It accurately conveys MY idea. Do you think my idea about policy now to effect the future and reign in a growing troll problem is inaccurate? Or simply required clarification?

Do you think troll boy was looming for clarification?

Being future oriented is not prescient. The article, nor you, were displaying knowledge of future events. The article was talking about past events. You were talking about planning for the future based on past and current events.

No future knowledge here, so no prescience.

Either way, I do not think there is any real method of stifling online, anonymous trolling without, at the same time, destroying one part of what makes the internet such an amazing place. Trading privacy to potentially prevent people from mocking you is not really a good idea, I would think.

Trolls will troll. A blacklist option, or block option, to prevent their posts from showing up would be a good start, though. Not much point in trolling if all it takes to stop it is a simple button click.

#1 - looking to the future, making the prediction that the failure to reign in trolls will have increasingly dire effects, is just that - a prediction. Can we ACTUALLY predict the future? Of course not. Bully boy may get hit by a bus tomorrow, thereby solving the forum's worse troll problem.

The idea that referring to the further with that word requires ACTUAL knowledge of the further is the demand of a prophet, and not something I was claiming or ever would claim. Why would you use that as a basis for disagreement about the use of the word? Even after the intent has been clarified several times? Is it that famous inability of atheists to simply concede a point?

#2 - I have asked the mods several times for a ignore feature as is common on several other forums. No luck. In the meantime, as is easily observed, bully boy continues his trolling way

The larger problem? As you aptly demonstrate, is that atheists would rather argue ad infinities about a point of minutia, MY use - and apparently MY intent which atheists know better than I do, regarding a single word choice then they would acknowledge a troll with 7,500 pieces of evidence in existence.

Again, it raises that curious question that no atheist will answer: Why do atheists come to a religion forum to ... argue with someone about their intended use of a single word? Is there a point? Is THAT what atheism has to offer the wider community? "I don't like the way you used the word and intransigently refuse to accept your explanation for the correct usage of the word - while pointedly failing to address the basis of this disagreement arising from a troll's attempt to harass and insult a religious poster."

Well, thanks?
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 9:33:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In sites like this one, is seems it can be the monitoring or the lack of it, I"ve been on sites where you couldn"t prove it but, the admin themselves are the ones who behave as you say. If some one a site continues, and the site admin doesn"t do anything, then it could be the attitude or belief or view of the site itself.

But on a site called "debate.com" I would suspect all is fair in a discussion, senseless, harassing or not. Warm and fussy isn"t something to be expected here. And no matter what, no one is stopping you from having discussions or debates on the subject at hand.

I have notice that many of the religious here are easily distracted by anything said. And in which case you loss the debate. You are no more required to respond to idiotacy, then the idiot is to stop posting. Dogs are distracted easily by what they desire like "there"s a rabbit", but if you really care about the subject, then stay focused.

Also there is a habit amongst theists, which is to constantly try to create their own god, which many religious seem to assume is their god. Hence another easy win for the opposition.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 9:40:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 4:24:42 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/24/2014 1:52:43 AM, Beastt wrote:

Thank you for your thoughts which you have provided in anonymity. Was that a bad thing?
(People offering their thoughts aren't "trolling".)

The problem with troll Beasty is that they behave online in anonymity in ways that they would never behave in real life. Offering thoughts and viciously attacking people, disrupting the flow of communication, deliberately picking fights, smearing an bullying people ... these are not 'just sharing thoughts'. Its trolling. Its malicious. Its a problem.

Are your thoughts better than other people's thoughts?
Diviance
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 5:13:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 8:59:32 AM, neutral wrote:
#1 - looking to the future, making the prediction that the failure to reign in trolls will have increasingly dire effects, is just that - a prediction. Can we ACTUALLY predict the future? Of course not. Bully boy may get hit by a bus tomorrow, thereby solving the forum's worse troll problem.

The idea that referring to the further with that word requires ACTUAL knowledge of the further is the demand of a prophet, and not something I was claiming or ever would claim. Why would you use that as a basis for disagreement about the use of the word? Even after the intent has been clarified several times? Is it that famous inability of atheists to simply concede a point?

Prescience
noun
1.
knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight.

It does require actual knowledge of the future. I do not have to concede the point here, I am correct. You are not. You are the one being stubborn and refusing to admit you used the wrong word. I fail to understand why it is that the one that is correct is the one who should be conceding the point here, that makes no logical sense.

You defending yourself so heavily does give off the feeling that you know you chose incorrect, but you are invested in defending your choice. Kind of a sunk cost fallacy decision.

#2 - I have asked the mods several times for a ignore feature as is common on several other forums. No luck. In the meantime, as is easily observed, bully boy continues his trolling way

Then just ignore his posts.

The larger problem? As you aptly demonstrate, is that atheists would rather argue ad infinities about a point of minutia, MY use - and apparently MY intent which atheists know better than I do, regarding a single word choice then they would acknowledge a troll with 7,500 pieces of evidence in existence.

I am not engaging anyone else. So I am not ignoring them. It is not my job, or business, to engage people trolling others. Regardless of your intent, you used the incorrect word. That is all there is to it.

Again, it raises that curious question that no atheist will answer: Why do atheists come to a religion forum to ... argue with someone about their intended use of a single word? Is there a point? Is THAT what atheism has to offer the wider community? "I don't like the way you used the word and intransigently refuse to accept your explanation for the correct usage of the word - while pointedly failing to address the basis of this disagreement arising from a troll's attempt to harass and insult a religious poster."

Your religiosity has absolutely nothing to do with this. I would have commented no matter which side you were on, since you were trying to argue your point and failing.

I am sorry you cannot accept that you were wrong. You seem deeply invested in your incorrect choice. Perhaps you should go out and learn how to accept when you are incorrect? Just a suggestion.

Honestly, I do not care that someone is trolling you, that is your problem and not mine. I am under no obligation to join in on either side. If you cannot just ignore the trolls and stop engaging them, then it is only your own fault you continue to get trolled.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 4:50:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 5:13:58 PM, Diviance wrote:
At 8/24/2014 8:59:32 AM, neutral wrote:
#1 - looking to the future, making the prediction that the failure to reign in trolls will have increasingly dire effects, is just that - a prediction. Can we ACTUALLY predict the future? Of course not. Bully boy may get hit by a bus tomorrow, thereby solving the forum's worse troll problem.

The idea that referring to the further with that word requires ACTUAL knowledge of the further is the demand of a prophet, and not something I was claiming or ever would claim. Why would you use that as a basis for disagreement about the use of the word? Even after the intent has been clarified several times? Is it that famous inability of atheists to simply concede a point?

Prescience
noun
1.
knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight.

It does require actual knowledge of the future. I do not have to concede the point here, I am correct. You are not. You are the one being stubborn and refusing to admit you used the wrong word. I fail to understand why it is that the one that is correct is the one who should be conceding the point here, that makes no logical sense.

You defending yourself so heavily does give off the feeling that you know you chose incorrect, but you are invested in defending your choice. Kind of a sunk cost fallacy decision.

So, now we are talking about 'feelings' - yours and not mine - to describe MY intent, even after the clarification that no actual knowledge of the further is ACTUALLY possible?

So the very act of explaining myself is what makes me wrong now, no actual substance to the actual disagreement anymore? No ACTUAL requirement for me to be able to ACTUALLY read the further, eh?


#2 - I have asked the mods several times for a ignore feature as is common on several other forums. No luck. In the meantime, as is easily observed, bully boy continues his trolling way

Then just ignore his posts.


Its kin of hard to ignore a stalker, especially when no protective order will be issued. EVERY religious poster has to deal with him. Every last one.


I am not engaging anyone else. So I am not ignoring them. It is not my job, or business, to engage people trolling others. Regardless of your intent, you used the incorrect word. That is all there is to it.

Agh, the flip - you will call a religious person out of a minor issue, but its not YOUR job to call out one of your own on a MAJOR issue?

And no, the word is correct. You simply disagree, and that disagreement now is based on 'feelings' rather than any kind of standard. We can 'predict' the future, which is what I have done, but there is no actual knowledge of the future and there cannot be.

If you case rests on the ACTUAL ability to see the future? Well, than it would be you who are in error.

Additionally, the more you argue, the more it becomes clear that I feel you simply are in error. Your very disagreement proves you wrong. Your standard correct?




Your religiosity has absolutely nothing to do with this. I would have commented no matter which side you were on, since you were trying to argue your point and failing.

Then why engage in minutia to the death with a religious person, but fail to call out egregious error on an atheist?

Again, I don't have to prove anything to your satisfaction, I simply have to prove the position correct to A standard. Which is done. The continued rejection of the explanation so you can stand there and wag your finger in your face and tell me I am wrong is simply the inability to agree to disagree. It my intent that matters, not yours.

You've stated your opinion, I reject it. It's correct. In an academic institution, the argument would be finished. You keep going, as if I will somehow be convinced that you standing there telling me I must be able to ACTUALLY predict the further, rather than just use inductive reasoning to 'predict' the further using probability?

That is just silly brother. And it is ALL about religion, as IMO, atheists in general have a great deal of difficulty conceding point where anything religious is involved. Hence the battle over a point of minutia and the utter inability to say, "I see what your intent was."


I am sorry you cannot accept that you were wrong. You seem deeply invested in your incorrect choice. Perhaps you should go out and learn how to accept when you are incorrect? Just a suggestion.

Look in the mirror kiddo. The use is correct.


Honestly, I do not care that someone is trolling you, that is your problem and not mine. I am under no obligation to join in on either side. If you cannot just ignore the trolls and stop engaging them, then it is only your own fault you continue to get trolled.

The discussion is about policy, and yes, troll boy effects you. His constant antics directly feed a negative opinion of atheists in general - especially when the community cannot even acknowledge it writ large and actively encourages the behavior in other instances.

Do you see the reputation that atheists have in the general public?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Every religious poster who has viewed this forum and attempted to engage has been subjected to troll boy's antics. Many have been driven away not just by the trollish antics, but the brazen excuses of atheists who will do nothing to reign him in and actively excuse his behavior when the mods do try to something about it.

How many people has troll boy been allowed to push off? Their opinion of atheism negatively effected as brutal trolls without a bit of sense of intelligence, who use religion as nothing but a brutal twist of torture to inflict pain?

Not your problem?

Well, its YOUR reputation. And when you demand respect, please not how troll boy in particular treats people of religion, what that breeds, and why YOU personally now have a problem when you walk in and announce your atheist only to find intense distrust and few who will even listen to your opinion.

Its what happens when your community allows extremists unfettered control of your communities narrative.

But heh, you think that people speaking of the future must have ABSOLUTE knowledge of the future to be alb ego use words referring to the future. We disagree - you don;t seem able to accept that or the effect that troll boy has ON YOUR COMMUNITY - not your problem. Remember that when YOU are mistreated.
Rosessence
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 5:27:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have seen forums where trolls are managed effectively by the mods or by the users but then again some boards where they could get to the point of throwing around insults and declairing the place their own. I think it is a forum policy of some forums to keep them while others do everything to keep them balanced. Managing trolls is a harder thing for places like twitter and i think some cases are really serious as in the situation of daughter of R. Williams, that they should be brought to court attention not only to protect the daughter but also the insulter. Perhaps he is an internet and drug addict teenager that needs the attention of parents who are not aware of the situation or who do not care.
Identifying an insult is easy, identifying a troll is harder. So i give some of their medicine back to them for a while, untill they get to the point they suppose to wake up and keep off. If they dont and go on with their route, i use ignore lists. Eventually, they are the forum's problem not my own. If the administration or people are happy with troll existence and the adrenaline they provide, i can keep ignoring them too without getting involved. Adrenaline addiction is a filthy road in forums but there is no reason why some forum's admins should be immune to it.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 5:29:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 5:13:58 PM, Diviance wrote:
At 8/24/2014 8:59:32 AM, neutral wrote:
#1 - looking to the future, making the prediction that the failure to reign in trolls will have increasingly dire effects, is just that - a prediction. Can we ACTUALLY predict the future? Of course not. Bully boy may get hit by a bus tomorrow, thereby solving the forum's worse troll problem.

The idea that referring to the further with that word requires ACTUAL knowledge of the further is the demand of a prophet, and not something I was claiming or ever would claim. Why would you use that as a basis for disagreement about the use of the word? Even after the intent has been clarified several times? Is it that famous inability of atheists to simply concede a point?

Prescience
noun
1.
knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight.

It does require actual knowledge of the future. I do not have to concede the point here, I am correct. You are not. You are the one being stubborn and refusing to admit you used the wrong word. I fail to understand why it is that the one that is correct is the one who should be conceding the point here, that makes no logical sense.

You defending yourself so heavily does give off the feeling that you know you chose incorrect, but you are invested in defending your choice. Kind of a sunk cost fallacy decision.

#2 - I have asked the mods several times for a ignore feature as is common on several other forums. No luck. In the meantime, as is easily observed, bully boy continues his trolling way

Then just ignore his posts.

The larger problem? As you aptly demonstrate, is that atheists would rather argue ad infinities about a point of minutia, MY use - and apparently MY intent which atheists know better than I do, regarding a single word choice then they would acknowledge a troll with 7,500 pieces of evidence in existence.

I am not engaging anyone else. So I am not ignoring them. It is not my job, or business, to engage people trolling others. Regardless of your intent, you used the incorrect word. That is all there is to it.

Again, it raises that curious question that no atheist will answer: Why do atheists come to a religion forum to ... argue with someone about their intended use of a single word? Is there a point? Is THAT what atheism has to offer the wider community? "I don't like the way you used the word and intransigently refuse to accept your explanation for the correct usage of the word - while pointedly failing to address the basis of this disagreement arising from a troll's attempt to harass and insult a religious poster."

Your religiosity has absolutely nothing to do with this. I would have commented no matter which side you were on, since you were trying to argue your point and failing.

I am sorry you cannot accept that you were wrong. You seem deeply invested in your incorrect choice. Perhaps you should go out and learn how to accept when you are incorrect? Just a suggestion.

Honestly, I do not care that someone is trolling you, that is your problem and not mine. I am under no obligation to join in on either side. If you cannot just ignore the trolls and stop engaging them, then it is only your own fault you continue to get trolled.

BTW - there are two types of argumentation - inductive and deductive. There is no way to deductively prove the further, which leaves ...

Here is a little primer on it for you:

http://departments.bloomu.edu...

I would certainly hope that we would not abandon the standards of logic itself to demand PROPHECY when speaking of the further, rather than a logical,probability based assessment. As in, "Heh, if this isn't handled, its ONLY going to get worse!"

Well, given that this problem is cropping up all over, and getting WORSE, that would be prescient wouldn't it?

Nah, atheists can't concede a point.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 5:39:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 5:27:26 AM, Rosessence wrote:
I have seen forums where trolls are managed effectively by the mods or by the users but then again some boards where they could get to the point of throwing around insults and declairing the place their own. I think it is a forum policy of some forums to keep them while others do everything to keep them balanced. Managing trolls is a harder thing for places like twitter and i think some cases are really serious as in the situation of daughter of R. Williams, that they should be brought to court attention not only to protect the daughter but also the insulter. Perhaps he is an internet and drug addict teenager that needs the attention of parents who are not aware of the situation or who do not care.
Identifying an insult is easy, identifying a troll is harder. So i give some of their medicine back to them for a while, untill they get to the point they suppose to wake up and keep off. If they dont and go on with their route, i use ignore lists. Eventually, they are the forum's problem not my own. If the administration or people are happy with troll existence and the adrenaline they provide, i can keep ignoring them too without getting involved. Adrenaline addiction is a filthy road in forums but there is no reason why some forum's admins should be immune to it.

Trolls are bad ... there is wide spread talk across the internet to help reign these guys in. As you said, there are forums that do this better than others. Somethings that would help.

#1 - ignore or block users. We have the ability to block users from challenging us, but, on the forum side, we do not. That would be OK, but ...

#2 - active moderation. If you cannot ignore users, then the behavior MUST be reigned in through moderation. If not? Well, then trolls have free reign to practice as they see fit.

#3 - Filters. We screen for swearing and not much else. And there is no consequence to bypassing it at all. Posts that contain inflammatory words like - idiot! - etc. could be screened and blocked - forcing heated discussions to be cooled. Bypassing the filter an automatic three day suspension. Repeatedly violations - automatic banning.

Another problem is polemics, as we see right here. One man's troll is another man's hero. People get into discussion with a blood feud mentality and that attracts trolls like sugar does flies. A case in point? Deviance above is in a thread criticizing BornofGod as a troll, and not without good reasoning, but at the same time he is defending/ignoring bully boy whose antics are as bad or worse.

That is a problem of bias. It makes the STANDARDS based moderation difficult when the mods come in and remove someone only to find that a dozen atheists are incensed that they took 'sides' in their blood feud. Its not easy, but it must be done. Otherwise, as we see here, there isn'y even the pretext of discussion in most cases.
Diviance
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 6:16:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 4:50:11 AM, neutral wrote:

So, now we are talking about 'feelings' - yours and not mine - to describe MY intent, even after the clarification that no actual knowledge of the further is ACTUALLY possible?

...you cannot possibly be seriously continuing to defend your incorrect word usage? Are you a child?

So the very act of explaining myself is what makes me wrong now, no actual substance to the actual disagreement anymore? No ACTUAL requirement for me to be able to ACTUALLY read the further, eh?

Did I say that? Or did I simply say that your excessive defense looks bad?

Its kin of hard to ignore a stalker, especially when no protective order will be issued. EVERY religious poster has to deal with him. Every last one.

Not that hard to just not read what someone writes.

Agh, the flip - you will call a religious person out of a minor issue, but its not YOUR job to call out one of your own on a MAJOR issue?

I don't see it as an issue. I have read some of your posts and you do many of the same things as him. Should I go and call you out as a troll? Is it now my job to be the guy who goes around and calls out trolls or something?

There was no flip. I don't call out trolls because that does jack. I ignore them. Like I have advised you to do. I felt like responding to your defense because you were wrong and I felt like correcting you. Have I gone around and done the same on all of your posts? No.

I have no idea why you are harping on this so much.

And no, the word is correct. You simply disagree, and that disagreement now is based on 'feelings' rather than any kind of standard. We can 'predict' the future, which is what I have done, but there is no actual knowledge of the future and there cannot be.

No, it is not correct. I never disagreed based on feelings. I disagreed based on you using a word for something that did not fit the definition of the word. Do I need to post the definition again? Did you somehow miss it? Did you somehow misread it? Did you miss the part where it says you need to have knowledge of the future?

Predicting the future based on existing events? Not prescience. So you still used the wrong word. When will you grow up and admit it?

Here, let me help you see where you went wrong. You said the following...

Seems like the Times has an oddly prescient article about this section of the forum:
http://www.nytimes.com......

Notice how you said the article was prescient... which it was not. You never said you were prescient. You messed up and used the wrong word.

If you case rests on the ACTUAL ability to see the future? Well, than it would be you who are in error.

I am fairly certain you know what my case is and you keep on with this in the hopes that I will leave.

Additionally, the more you argue, the more it becomes clear that I feel you simply are in error. Your very disagreement proves you wrong. Your standard correct?

If this is how you act in real life when one of your friends corrects one of your mistakes, I can't help but think you probably don't have many friends.

Also, no, that is not my standard. Please don't be ignorant.

Your religiosity has absolutely nothing to do with this. I would have commented no matter which side you were on, since you were trying to argue your point and failing.

Then why engage in minutia to the death with a religious person, but fail to call out egregious error on an atheist?

Because I did not read anything but yours? Because I did not feel like it? Because the reason is entirely irrelevant whether I had one or not?

Again, I don't have to prove anything to your satisfaction, I simply have to prove the position correct to A standard. Which is done. The continued rejection of the explanation so you can stand there and wag your finger in your face and tell me I am wrong is simply the inability to agree to disagree. It my intent that matters, not yours.

You are wrong. Your intent is irrelevant.

You are retarded. Sorry, my intent was to say you were mistaken.

Don't worry, you only have to listen to my intent, right? The original word doesn't matter, right?

You've stated your opinion, I reject it. It's correct. In an academic institution, the argument would be finished. You keep going, as if I will somehow be convinced that you standing there telling me I must be able to ACTUALLY predict the further, rather than just use inductive reasoning to 'predict' the further using probability?

Not an opinion, it is the definition of the word. Yes, you do have to _actually know_ the future to be prescient. That is the entire point of the word.

That is just silly brother. And it is ALL about religion, as IMO, atheists in general have a great deal of difficulty conceding point where anything religious is involved. Hence the battle over a point of minutia and the utter inability to say, "I see what your intent was."

I saw your intent. I don't care about it. That was never in question. I am merely correcting your incorrect usage of a word, and you for some reason have made it into this huge deal instead of, you know, being something other than a child and accepting your mistake.

I am sorry you cannot accept that you were wrong. You seem deeply invested in your incorrect choice. Perhaps you should go out and learn how to accept when you are incorrect? Just a suggestion.

Look in the mirror kiddo. The use is correct.

No. No it is not.

The discussion is about policy, and yes, troll boy effects you. His constant antics directly feed a negative opinion of atheists in general - especially when the community cannot even acknowledge it writ large and actively encourages the behavior in other instances.

No, it has no effect on me. I don't have the slightest care about what random internet people think about other atheists or antitheists.

Do you see the reputation that atheists have in the general public?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Do I care? That is only in the US, anyway. Less backwards and more educated countries don't have those prejudices.

Every religious poster who has viewed this forum and attempted to engage has been subjected to troll boy's antics. Many have been driven away not just by the trollish antics, but the brazen excuses of atheists who will do nothing to reign him in and actively excuse his behavior when the mods do try to something about it.

Trolls are not my problem. I am not responsible for other people, sorry.

How many people has troll boy been allowed to push off? Their opinion of atheism negatively effected as brutal trolls without a bit of sense of intelligence, who use religion as nothing but a brutal twist of torture to inflict pain?

Not your problem?

Nope, not my problem. Their opinion of atheism is similar to racism, a few trolls are not the cause of it. Religious people in the US hated atheists long before trolls became the current fad. You have really gone off the deep end with this, my friend.

Well, its YOUR reputation. And when you demand respect, please not how troll boy in particular treats people of religion, what that breeds, and why YOU personally now have a problem when you walk in and announce your atheist only to find intense distrust and few who will even listen to your opinion.

I am an atheist. It is not my identity. I do not care what other people think about atheism.

Its what happens when your community allows extremists unfettered control of your communities narrative.

But heh, you think that people speaking of the future must have ABSOLUTE knowledge of the future to be alb ego use words referring to the future. We disagree - you don;t seem able to accept that or the effect that troll boy has ON YOUR COMMUNITY - not your problem. Remember that when YOU are mistreated.

To be prescient? Yeah they
Diviance
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 6:30:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 5:29:00 AM, neutral wrote:
BTW - there are two types of argumentation - inductive and deductive. There is no way to deductively prove the further, which leaves ...

Here is a little primer on it for you:

http://departments.bloomu.edu...

I would certainly hope that we would not abandon the standards of logic itself to demand PROPHECY when speaking of the further, rather than a logical,probability based assessment. As in, "Heh, if this isn't handled, its ONLY going to get worse!"

Again, you said the article was prescient. It was not.

Matter of fact, the actual article never says a word about the future.

You. Are. Wrong.

Well, given that this problem is cropping up all over, and getting WORSE, that would be prescient wouldn't it?

No. That would be an educated prediction based on existing information.

Prescience is knowledge of events before they happen. It requires you to actually know the events before the happen. Not guess they will based on trends.