How to Get Banned From UD: Be a Troll

_{Barry Arrington

September 22, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Lately the materialists have been whining more than usual about UD’s moderation policy. They are saying that anyone who disagrees with the UD position gets banned. Fortunately for us, that accusation is demonstrably untrue. No one gets banned from UD unless they repeatedly violate the moderation policy. Civil disagreement is not only allowed; it is encouraged.

Anyone who wants to disagree with us can do so as long as they like, and so long as they avoid trollish behavior, they will never be banned.

Mark Frank is a good example. Mark is one of our most vociferous critics. He posted his first comment nearly nine years ago on February 21, 2006, and he has been politely hammering away at us ever since. No one gets banned from this site merely for disagreeing with us. As Mark has demonstrated, you can pound away at us for nearly a decade and remain in good standing so long as you pound politely.

To our materialist opponents I would say, emulate Mark’s example of good manners, and you never have to worry about being banned from UD.

It is true that a few commenters have been barred from posting. In the nearly 10 years since Bill Dembski started the site, a total of 47,034 persons have posted comments. Of that total, 187 have been banned for trollish behavior. An average of 18.7 bannings per year does not seem especially heavy handed to me.

Finally, it is also true that most of those banned have been of the atheist/materialists type. We admit there is a correlation between disagreeing with the UD position and an increased likelihood of being banned. There is also a correlation between being an atheist/materialist and an increased proclivity towards trollish behavior. Anyone who doubts that can verify it with a quick visit to Panda’s Thumb. If you can control your gag reflex long enough to review the comments even for a short while, you will agree that observation is undoubtedly true.

I will leave it up to the readers to judge for themselves which of the correlated variables is also causative vis-à-vis being banned from this site.

Comments

A_B - you give your name and reveal your identity and whilst I respect that, this is in no way comparable to say an ID supporter here giving their name, if they are involved in particular in the biological sciences. I don't trust evolutionists quite frankly with that sort of information. When have IDers tried to remove evolutionists from their tenured positions or lectureships or jobs due to their views on origins? Even you yourself (I think it was you, apologies if I am wrong) said to me not long ago that I should give up science seeing as I believe in fairy tales. Yet science is my whole career: my undergrad, my PhD, my post-doctoral work, my publications and now my industrial role - by worldy standards I have been quite "successful" yet I admit if I were to reveal my name I truly wonder if someone would try to destroy my career because I reject naturalistic evolution and believe in "fairy tales" as you put it. You however, would be revealed by the evolutionary masses as a hero if someone from the ID movement tried to do something like this to you. Yet even with well established researchers who have lended support at times to ID (think of at the Smithsonian when an evolutionary biologist allowed Stephen Meyers to publish questioning aspects of evolution/common descent/Cambrian, and suggested ID as an alternative - he got the axe for that), there is great risk in public support. But that is they way evolutionsits work, they stifle, they try to block objection and they are outraged when their attempts fail. They play dirty tricks and do not act in the true manner that their profession as scientists apparently called them to act. So how in the world can you expect someone from ID to say that revealing their name publically is equal to you revealing yours? Personally, I don't know what you did to be banned, I know there are always 2 sides to the story but I am always happy to have people who will present an opposing view to mine, even if you do sometime use personal attacks. That doesn't bother me in particular. Dr JDD

phoodoo:
William, From what I see , I don’t think you should be banned. I also condemn some of Mapou’s comments towards you. He seems to adhere to the Westboro Baptist Church type of religion. If that is religion, why would someone be proud of that.
This is pretty low, dude. LOL. This is like calling a Jewish person a Nazi. I resemble that. :-) The last I heard, the folks at Westboro Baptist Church don't hang out with prostitutes, homosexuals and drug addicts. I do. Mapou

William, From what I see , I don't think you should be banned. I also condemn some of Mapou's comments towards you. He seems to adhere to the Westboro Baptist Church type of religion. If that is religion, why would someone be proud of that. phoodoo

SA: "I’m happy to agree with you WS. I was also disappointed when you were banned (not saying it was right or wrong, I have no idea of the circumstances) because you always seemed to add a lot to the discussions. Glad you’re back." Thank you. Nobody has any idea of the circumstances for my banning other than Barry. because my comment(s) were deleted. But I am only back because I snuck in the back door. I would much rather use my A_B monicker. I don't like being here under false pretences. But I guess the final arbiter is Barry. Do you think I can get Louis (Mapou), Mung and Querius to vouch for me? william spearshake

bogart:
And you honestly think that being Christian has nothing to do with good behaviour?
Yes, I absolutely do. But then again, I'm a rebel. Bad behavior is not a problem in my religion. Yahweh paid for that. All one needs to do is truly believe and you're in. Nobody can change their immoral nature. That's just the way we are as a species. There was a thief on the cross with Jesus. He was such a pain in the ass, the authorities crucified him. Guess what, he will have eternal life. Why? Because he believed. Mapou

WS
And you honestly think that being Christian has nothing to do with good behaviour? In my mind, that is the best thing about true Christians. Without that, what are you?
I'm happy to agree with you WS. I was also disappointed when you were banned (not saying it was right or wrong, I have no idea of the circumstances) because you always seemed to add a lot to the discussions. Glad you're back. Silver Asiatic

Louis: "Apology accepted. In my opinion, being a Christian has absolutely nothing to do with good behavior" Do you really think that he was apologizing? And you honestly think that being Christian has nothing to do with good behaviour? In my mind, that is the best thing about true Christians. Without that, what are you? william spearshake

CalvinsBulldog:
I take Christianity very seriously. There is no greater honour than being a follower of Christ, and so my comment was intended to be a call to a higher level of behaviour more fitting to the calling of Jesus. I had assumed you were a Christian as well based on your comments. I apologise for the error.
Apology accepted. In my opinion, being a Christian has absolutely nothing to do with good behavior. David was a murderer and an adulterer. Yet, he's going to live for eternity. Why? He believed Yahweh and Yahweh likes that. So Yahweh paid for his sins. Personally, I hang around prostitutes, sodomites and drug addicts. I think they have a better chance of making it into the kingdom than many church goers. But to each his own. Mapou

Louis: "Hold on a second. Wow! Are you both spearshake and bulldoggie? If so, that’s pretty lame, man." Damn, that is lame. I doubt if CB would agree with me on much. But at least we can be civil about it. As I can be with BA77, HeKs, Phoodoo and many others. What is your excuse? Oh. I forgot. You think that we are at war. The reality is, I would enjoy a sit down with many people on UD (the jury is still out on Barry) but there are some (you, Querius and Mung) who I would not waste a breath on. william spearshake

bogart @49, By the way, you did attack me personally but you did not see me whine like a wussy now, did you? And stepping over the line is what I do. I don't have to admit to anything that I do openly and shamelessly. Here's what you wrote earlier.
My full name is Kevin Middlebrook. Is Mapou your first name? Last name? The sound you make when you pass gas?
I actually thought it was funny and I made a note to use it in my own comments. :-D Mapou

I just love it when someone attacks me personally while accusing me of engaging in personal attacks. “Lord of Glory”? Is that some form of religious mockery? The Force of hypocrisy and self-righteousness is strong with this one.
I take Christianity very seriously. There is no greater honour than being a follower of Christ, and so my comment was intended to be a call to a higher level of behaviour more fitting to the calling of Jesus. I had assumed you were a Christian as well based on your comments. I apologise for the error. The term "Lord of Glory" is a phrase used in the scriptures for Jesus Christ. CalvinsBulldog

bogart @49,
Really? When did I attack you personally? Everyone here is free to see your behaviour.
Hold on a second. Wow! Are you both spearshake and bulldoggie? If so, that's pretty lame, man. Mapou

Louis: "I just love it when someone attacks me personally while accusing me of engaging in personal attacks. “Lord of Glory”? Is that some form of religious mockery? The Force of hypocrisy and self-righteousness is strong with this one." Really? When did I attack you personally? Everyone here is free to see your behaviour. I am big enough to admit that I have stepped over the line a couple of times. Are you? william spearshake

BullDoggie:
As others have noted, some of Mapou’s comments above directed toward William Spearshake have been contemptible – including direct personal attacks – and unworthy of this site, much less anyone claiming to be a follower of the Lord of Glory.
I just love it when someone attacks me personally while accusing me of engaging in personal attacks. "Lord of Glory"? Is that some form of religious mockery? The Force of hypocrisy and self-righteousness is strong with this one. Mapou

CalvinsBulldog, I do appreciate your comments. Although I doubt if you and I would agree, I appreciate the fact that you support our ability to disagree. william spearshake

This thread does rather prove that atheists believe in notions of justice and fairness despite also believing in a universe that formed chaotically and randomly via processes that are heartless, blind, and indifferent. I generally disapprove of banning people for any reason apart from obvious discourtesies like profanity, and personal attacks. I am really disinclined toward a policy that bans people for points of logic which are often contestable and subject to a measure of interpretation. I tend to think that the best rebuttal of atheist materialism is to place it side-by-side with those who hold to the ID position, or (in my case), YEC and simply observe to see which has the stronger points. I am shocked that William Spearshake (former Acacia_Bogart) was banned since - from what I saw - his posting behaviour was good. He has certainly demonstrated patience and courtesy in this thread even under some pretty unpleasant provocation from a couple of people. As others have noted, some of Mapou's comments above directed toward William Spearshake have been contemptible - including direct personal attacks - and unworthy of this site, much less anyone claiming to be a follower of the Lord of Glory. CalvinsBulldog

AB, why are you, as an atheist, complaining as to what people say about other people?,, whether it be good or bad? You should, as a person who holds morality to be subjective, be chastising us for us for holding onto ancient ludicous notions that what a person says to other people has any true meaning or lasting moral importance in the grand scheme of things. ,, Ignoring the fact you have no mind or free will in your worldview in the first place, AB you simply have no moral standard within your worldview that would allow you to say the following,,,
'you should not say, or do, such mean and nasty things to other people because of this moral standard,,,'
Given atheism, God forbid, if it were true, why should I care what you think, there is no eternal accountability??? There is no objective moral 'ought'! Whereas, in Theism, especially Christianity, there is a reason why we should be kind, instead of hateful, towards people.
Matthew 12:36-37 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
At the 17:45 minute mark of the following Near Death Experience documentary, the Life Review portion of the Near Death Experience is highlighted, with several testimonies relating how every word, deed, and action, of a person's life (all the 'information' of a person's life) is gone over in the presence of God:
Near Death Experience Documentary - commonalities of the experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTuMYaEB35U
A few related Notes:
Study finds Christians tweet more cheerfully than atheists - 27 June 2013 Excerpt: The research found that overall, tweets by Christians had more positive and less negative content than tweets by atheists.,,, (Previous studies were done) However, most of the (previous) studies had relied on individuals to tell researchers about how satisfied they are with their lives or their emotional state at a given time. Professor Preston said: "What's great about Twitter is that people are reporting their experiences – good or bad – as they occur.' 'As researchers, we do not need to ask them how they feel because they are already telling us.' While the authors have drawn their conclusions that Christians appear to be happier than atheists on Twitter, they are careful to say that their results are based on observing correlations. -Per Daily Mail The Healing Power of Positive Words By Linda Wasmer Andrews - Jun 08, 2012 Excerpt: When researchers analyzed the autobiographies of famous deceased psychologists, they found that those who used lots of active positive words (such as lively, enthusiastic, happy) tended to outlive their other colleagues. Within this category of words, the biggest boost came from humor-related terms (such as laugh, funny, giggle), which were associated with living six years longer, on average. In contrast, passive positive words (such as peaceful, calm, relaxed) and negative words (such as worried, angry, lonely) didn’t affect longevity. http://health.yahoo.net/experts/allinyourmind/health-power-positive-words ABC News - The Science Behind the Healing Power of Love - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t1p-PwGgE4 Social isolation and its health implications January 2012 Excerpt: Studies show that social isolation and/or loneliness predict morbidity and mortality from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and a host of other diseases. In fact, the body perceives loneliness as a threat. Research from the University of California suggests that loneliness or lack of social support could triple the odds of being diagnosed with a heart condition. Redford Williams and his colleagues at Duke University directed a study in 1992 on heart patients and their relationships. They discovered that 50% of patients with heart disease who did not have a spouse or someone to confide in died within five years, while only 17% of those who did have a confidante died in the same time period.12 http://www.how-to-be-healthy.org/social-isolation-and-its-health-implications/ Moreover the positive effect of a caring attitude is found to work both ways, in that not only does the person receiving loving care from another person heal more quickly, but it is also found that people of a happy, charitable, loving, nature also receive the tangible benefits of a longer and healthier life in return: Study finds it actually is better (and healthier) to give than to receive – February 4, 2013 Excerpt: A five-year study by researchers at three universities has established that providing tangible assistance to others protects our health and lengthens our lives. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-02-healthier.html Perhaps this tangible effect of love on health goes a long way towards explaining why women, who, IMHO, are generally more loving and caring than men are, live on average five to 10 years longer than men do. How those marital rows can be bad for your health by JENNY HOPE – December 2005 Excerpt: Married couples who constantly argue risk damaging their health, according to a study. It found that marital rows can prolong the time it takes the body to heal itself after an injury. One argument alone can slow this process by a day. And the study claims that when married couples feel consistently hostile towards one another, the delay in the healing process can be doubled. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-370708/How-marital-rows-bad-health.html Negative Thoughts Linked to Physical Health Issues - Dr. Caroline Leaf - (Part 1 of 3) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYgr1rTEf_w Whereas conversely, it is found that the positive mental state of happiness, love, caring, and nurturing, have a pronounced positive effect on health,, The health benefits of happiness - Mark Easton - 2006 Excerpt: "It's not just that if you're physically well you're likely to be happy but actually the opposite way round," said Dr Cox. (Extensive studies show that) "If you are happy you are (much more) likely in the future to have less in the way of physical illness than those who are unhappy". - Per BBC news Proverbs 17:22 A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. Are Religious People Happier Than Atheists? - 2000 Excerpt: there does indeed appear to be a link between religion and happiness. Several studies have been done, but to give an example, one study found that the more frequently people attended religious events, the happier they were; 47% of people who attended several types a week reported that they were ‘very happy’, as opposed to 28% who attended less than monthly. http://generallythinking.com/are-religious-people-happier-than-atheists/ Atheism and health Excerpt: A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] -Per conservapedia
Verse and music:
1 Corinthians 13:1-8 If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.,,, For King & Country "The Proof Of Your Love" - Live Music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr9YVD05x8M
bornagain77

bogart, I don't know why you're still whining since you are obviously not banned. You're still commenting, no? Barry is either feeling sorry for you or he's just giving you an opportunity to redeem yourself. Personally, I think you're beyond redemption. You got religion, amigo. :-D Mapou

Louis Savain, all sites have rules of conduct for comments, and comments get deleted, and people get blocked, if they violate these rules. I don't have a problem with this, even if I think that the rules are silly as long as they are clearly spelled out and evenly applied. But I must admit that I did not read the comment policy before starting to comment, simply relying on accepting Barry at his word that he does not block people for disagreeing. Obviously I did not follow due diligence and I now see that I was in clear violation of the comment policy, as stated below:
"Finally, there is one cardinal rule at this blog, namely, I make up the rules as I go along."
This greatly clarifies the official UD comment policy. william spearshake

Look. I was banned once for a long time for saying something stupid and I had an ugly run-in with DaveScot a few years ago. But so what? You don't see me whine about it. I don't make policy here. I, too, have a blog and a discussion forum. I have banned a few people because they violated the only rule I use: you can say anything you want but, if I don't like you, you're out. I just think it's funny that an obviously hostile poster with a superiority complex (one who looks down on ID proponents) starts whining for being banned. I think it's hilarious and I don't feel sorry for his suffering. Mapou

Amusingly and ironically, I was “banned” from UD for several months a couple of years ago. I never did track down what had occurred. I think it was a glitch — or maybe I said something wrong!
I was banned twice, once by Dembski for disagreeing with his approach at college presentations and once by DaveScot for disagreeing with him. UD attracts all sorts of people and one of the funny complaints is that this is an official site for ID. The heavy hitters rarely every post here so to get an official ID position go to other websites. And even at these web sites there will be disagreements on the science and its implications. I said several times, if ID becomes the accepted world view, watch the real food fights begin. It might be just like Europe after 1500. jerry

#35 kairosfocus
Our civilisation is yet again treading a very old road to ruin. Driven by very old fallacies and manipulations. Those who refuse to learn and heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its worst chapters. But of course, Santayana went on to say, by and large that folly is exactly what we insist on. Back to the future . . . Let us do better than this, the lessons of history were bought at the price of blood. Rivers of blood. And 100+ million ghosts just tapped me on the shoulder to remind me that a lot of that has been within living memory.
Excellent alert call. Thank you, KF. We all need to keep reminding ourselves that the 'goodies' we have shouldn't be taken for granted. Things can change in the blink of an eye. I read WWII stories in school, watched movies about that event, but it all seemed so far away in time and space. But that doesn't compare to personal stories told directly to me by my mother-in-law, who was 11 when the Nazi forces invaded her country (Poland). Some of her memories, which she described so vividly to me, were so incredibly horrifying, that I had to ask her to pause, so I could breath in some air to refresh myself, before continuing to listen. As a young girl she witnessed events that a mature civilized man can't even imagine, without feeling shortness of breadth and an overwhelming sense of depressing worthlessness, which is hard to recover from. Sometimes she paused, perhaps after noticing that I was struggling to keep my eyes dry. She had never seen me in such condition before. I didn't know how to tell her about the deep feeling of human misery I was experiencing while trying to imagine her as a young girl going through all that horror. Yes, KF, we can't afford to forget history. Its lessons are too important for us to ignore. Thank you, Sir. PS. "Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly." Proverbs 26:11 (ESV) Fools will not learn from their mistakes but rather return, like a dog to its vomit, to repeat them. "Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him." Proverbs 26:12 (ESV) There are degrees of folly, and the highest is found in fools who think they are wise. An extreme example is seen in the worldly wisdom that regards God’s wisdom as folly (1 Cor. 1:18–2:5). [Commentaries copied from Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries] Dionisio

bystander @38: Yes, unfortunate. However, Mapou does not represent UD itself, nor is Mapou in control of the banning protocols (thankfully). Personally, I wish fewer people had been banned from UD over the years, but I don't have any say over that either. Amusingly and ironically, I was "banned" from UD for several months a couple of years ago. I never did track down what had occurred. I think it was a glitch -- or maybe I said something wrong! :) Eric Anderson

I can see that william spearshake was attacked immediately ! So I can conclude that there does exist some UD bias :-) the bystander

Materialists shouldn't throw stones in glass houses... I was banned from "Top Documentary Films" when I quoted a reply from a hardcore materialist I was dialoging with that included "his profanity," not mine. He also just happened to be a moderator on this site. Lol, I was then told that I violated their policy of, "no profanity" and banned. I guess their own rules don't apply to them! lol. KRock

Ha! Ha! They are so contemptuous of the scientific standard of the leading lights on Uncommon Descent (not including myself, I hasten to add!) that it always seems to have meant an awful lot to them to be able to continue to post here! And banishment viewed almost as if being banished by a New Guinea tribe to go away alone and die in the jungle. And they're like elephants about it, remembering and maundering about such banishments of their confreres decreed at some date, now lost in the mists of antiquity. Otherwise, why whine about it so much? As a matter of fact, I've noticed that it is a feature of atheist blogs that they seem to bore the pants each other, and are always posting to Christian forums. Barry and leading lights, you must be doing an awful lot that's right. Axel

Folks, I'd suggest that someone who has problems with the principle that if we see a bright red ball on a table, A and can identify it as distinct from the rest of the world with consequence: W = { A | NOT_A } which leads straight to the triple cluster, (i) A is A, (LOI) (ii) Not {A AND NOT_A} . . . LNC and (iii) A X-OR NOT-A . . . LEM, has a problem with rationality and/or reasoning in good faith. Just to rub salt into the wound, let me uncork this from bogeyman no 4 for rabid secularists -- after God, Jesus and Moshe -- Paul of Tarsus:
1 Cor 14:7 If even inanimate musical instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone [listening] know or understand what is played? 8 And if the war bugle gives an uncertain (indistinct) call, who will prepare for battle? 9 Just so it is with you; if you in the [unknown] tongue speak words that are not intelligible, how will anyone understand what you are saying? For you will be talking into empty space! 10 There are, I suppose, all these many [to us unknown] tongues in the world [somewhere], and none is destitute of [its own power of] expression and meaning. 11 But if I do not know the force and significance of the speech (language), I shall seem to be a foreigner to the one who speaks [to me], and the speaker who addresses [me] will seem a foreigner to me. [AMP]
Of course, that is a biblical citation. That fact is probably giving some the vapours and the cruel mockery fever swamp objector sites that G2 et al too often pretend are not there are doubtless limbering up their swamp vapour rhetoric. (And FYI, TSZ is in large part a somewhat more genteel front operation for some of the most rabid fever swamps. I won't give the alphabet soup abbreviations.) It is high time that there was a serious, reasonable, good faith, on the merits general and public discussion about the design inference. Slanderous myths about IDiots being creationists in cheap tuxedos hoping to poison minds of "our" children and spoil their ability to think logically and understand science need to be admitted as such, repudiated and apologised for. Likewise, the pretence that first principles of right reason are irrelevant or unimportant or outdated Platonic or Aristotelian notions defeated by quantum theory etc. Likewise, the refusal to engage the 2350 years old on the record concern that a priori evolutionary materialism is radically relativist, undermining of reason and grounding of knowledge, is inherently amoral, and often energises destructive nihilist factions. And if you need an explanation for the strong correlation of trollishness with such ideologies, you need go no further than Plato's objection in The Laws Bk X:
Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.
Our civilisation is yet again treading a very old road to ruin. Driven by very old fallacies and manipulations. Those who refuse to learn and heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its worst chapters. But of course, Santayana went on to say, by and large that folly is exactly what we insist on. Back to the future . . . Let us do better than this, the lessons of history were bought at the price of blood. Rivers of blood. And 100+ million ghosts just tapped me on the shoulder to remind me that a lot of that has been within living memory. KF kairosfocus

#32 Querius Yes, that's better. Thanks. Dionisio

Isn't it better to focus in on the discussed issues instead of attacking the persons? I think we all gain when we treat others the same way we would like others to treat us, not the way others treat us. The winner can be magnanimous. Aren't some of us on the ultimate winner's side? Now, here are examples of posts focused on issues, not persons: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/on-worshiping-the-right-god-jerry-coyne-asks-a-sensible-question/#comment-515582 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/on-worshiping-the-right-god-jerry-coyne-asks-a-sensible-question/#comment-515635 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/on-worshiping-the-right-god-jerry-coyne-asks-a-sensible-question/#comment-515638 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/on-worshiping-the-right-god-jerry-coyne-asks-a-sensible-question/#comment-515657 Perhaps sometimes I have violated this principle and treated others incorrectly. My apologies for that. Dionisio

Dionisio, Look, I'm trying. Sincere, adult conversation without mockery, puffery, or deprecation . . . Spearshake said he was intrigued by the ecology, biology, and reproductive behavior of tintinnids, and he did his research on them. I'm interested in learning what intrigued him specifically and specifically what his research was about. I'd be delighted to learn something that I didn't know before. -Q Querius

#21 william spearshake
Querius, I will make you a deal. Simply answer the question that I have been repeatedly asking you, and I will answer yours. I think that I am being more than fair. I have asked several of your questions honestly. I am only asking you to answer one honestly. How com I get the feeling that I will never have to answer yours?
I have asked several of your questions honestly? asked? answered? Dionisio

phoodoo @29, there has always been a war between the religions. The materialist religionists have managed to conquer the scientific world and pass themselves as non-religious, objective thinkers and thus get free money from the government. Yet the dirt worshippers are the most superstitious voodooists of them all. Their time in the limelight will soon come to an end, IMO. And then they will be forgotten. Mapou

What is the war Mapou? phoodoo

phoodoo, What behavior? My posts are available . . . go for it. -Q Querius

phoodoo @25, To each his own, phoodoo. There is a war going on, IMO. I am not one of those Christians who believe in turning the other cheek. bogart is getting the same treatment that the enemy uses against their opponents. He has it coming. Mapou

william spearshake, Along with most others here, I'm under no obligation to reveal who I am and have no intention of doing so. But I'd like to see whether you're willing to engage in adult conversation---whether you would be willing to go into any detail regarding your interests and research in marine biology. I'd be happy to reciprocate at that level. -Q Querius

I for one am opposed to the comments made here by Mapou towards Bogart (Spearshake). People should absolutely expect fair treatment on a site like this. I think Mapou's and Querius' statements promoting that kind of behavior is appalling. phoodoo

Graham2:
Banned for not agreeing.
I would ban you too, and as unceremoniously as possible. LOL. I would go into a joyful frenzy, banning the enemy wherever they may be. :-D Mapou

Graham2, The only people that I've seen get banned are those who (a) persistently and viciously attack someone or some idea with a modicum of supporting evidence or logic. (b) exhibit deliberately deceptive or false claims. (c ) refuse to acknowledge a simple statement of logic, so as to demonstrate an unwillingness to reason in good faith. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary, so I'd like to challenge you to back up your accusation with a couple of examples taken from past postings. I assume that they're still there and you have some specifics in mind, right? -Q Querius

Barry. many people were banned from this site for the sin of not agreeing with some philosophical law or other (excluded middle ? something like that). Banned for not agreeing. This says all we need to know about the ethical standards of UD. Banned for not agreeing. Graham2

Querius, I will make you a deal. Simply answer the question that I have been repeatedly asking you, and I will answer yours. I think that I am being more than fair. I have asked several of your questions honestly. I am only asking you to answer one honestly. How com I get the feeling that I will never have to answer yours? william spearshake

william spearshake wrote,
Their ecology, their biology and their reproductive behaviour. What’s your point?
My point? How about adult conversation? So what is intriguing about tintinnid ecology? Was that the focus of your research? -Q Querius

Mapou, I do apologize about demanding your name. My beef with respect to that is Querius, not you. You have never repeatedly questioned my stated background as the person who refuses to state his has. But, equating UD (or ID) to Newton is as stupid as me trying to equate myself to Newton. The fact that he was religious has nothing to do with the validity (or not) of ID. I am not the one who is saying that UD is not a religious site. Barry and Dembski are. I am claiming that it is. Which is fine. But it can't be both. william spearshake

bogart:
Again, thank you for confirming that UD is fundamentally a religious site and not one in support of ID science. BTW, I am still waiting for you to provide your real name, not that I think that you have the guts. Any more facts about UD that you would like to inform Barry about?
bogart, everybody knows who I am. I'm a crackpot and a kook and I like it that way. Just click on 'Mapou' above. And so what if UD is a religious site? Is that against the law? Newton, too, was a religious man and his small left toe had more brains than you do. Unlike dirt worshippers like you, they have the guts to admit that they are religious. But I'll tell you what. If I had to choose between a religion of dirt worshippers (life arose from dirt all by its little old self and organized itself to become complex elephants and crocodiles, LOL) and a religion that preaches the existence of super advanced intelligent designers, guess where my allegiance would be. Mapou

Their ecology, their biology and their reproductive behaviour. What's your point? william spearshake

What did you find so intriguing about the tintinnids that caused you to change your emphasis? What did you research about them? -Q Querius

Querius: "To make a fresh start, why don’t you recount how you first became interested in tintinnids and why?" Not that I think it will make any difference to you, my undergrad was in marine biology. My masters was in marine plankton, which included tintinnids. Even though it wasn't initially the emphasis of my research, I found them so intriguing that my research changed to an emphasis on these little loricate eukaryotes. Anything else you would like to hear about my personal life? My favourite drink? my favourite sexual position? Meanwhile, you have not answered a single question about yourself. william spearshake

Of course, Barry is being creative, or perhaps "precise" in his language here. Very few have been 'banned' from UD. Permanent and unrelenting moderation--what are the numbers for that? REC

Querius, I have provided my real name and credentials, all of which are verifiable. I have requested your education/background/experience. And what do I get? Chirp, chirp, chirp. I have never asked for your real name, but now is as good a time as any. Chirp, chirp, chirp. So, Barry, please tell me again why I am a troll and Querius isn't? He has called me a liar (repeatedly), yet he has never been banned. If you can find a single comment where I have called someone a liar, a moron, an idiot, a baby, an ass (that was yours), then I will apologize and back away. But if you can't, you can always simply block my comments, calling me a troll, and continue to allow comments from people who are abusive of anyone with a dissenting view. william spearshake

william spearshake, To make a fresh start, why don't you recount how you first became interested in tintinnids and why? -Q Querius

Mapou, Wow, well said! Acartia_bogart claimed to have "creditials" in biology and statistics in one post, later denying it in another. After posting disparaging comments about Michael Behe as employing "voodoo" math, a_b failed a simple probability question in another, claiming a "typo" in defense. Then in another post a_b admitted having only "smattering" of statistics. All this is verifiable. Draw your own conclusions as I have mine. If "william spearshake" turns over a new leaf, then that's perfectly fine with me. The crying and moaning is not a great start, though. lol -Q Querius

Mapou: "You want to desecrate their holy places. It’s who you are. I understand." Again, thank you for confirming that UD is fundamentally a religious site and not one in support of ID science. BTW, I am still waiting for you to provide your real name, not that I think that you have the guts. Any more facts about UD that you would like to inform Barry about? Barry, the problems with the commenters at UD are not those that oppose ID. Most of them are, generally, polite. It is a very small number of pro IDists that drag the conversation into the gutter (eg, Mung, Mapou and Quest). Most (eg, BA77, Heks, etc.), Even though we disagree, always treat others with respect. If you don't believe me, I welcome you to review past comment streams. Please pay special attention to derogatory statements, and who uses them. The math is quite simple. william spearshake

bogart, stop whining, man. You people are getting a taste of your own medicine. You deserve every drop. You're lucky Barry has been tolerant of your nonsense. I would have kicked you out ages ago. Along with a few others. Mapou

I was strolling through the Sandwalk at Larry's place the other day and a small crowd was bragging about being banned. The motive is quite transparent, if you get kicked out of the game you can't make the losing play. beau

Barry, I am not trying to be intentionally confrontational. I have been to some web sites that clearly state that the comments section is not intended for debate or discussion, only to provide information in support of the web Site's views. I never try to offer any contradictory comments on these sites because they own the site and they are being honest about what you can comment about. But You repeatedly claim that you encourage dissenting views, but then remove and block those who dissent. Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't remove and block comments (commenters) who are abussive and/or repeatedly rude. But when the deleted and blocked are almost always from one side (Robert Beyer excepted), even though the abuse comes predominantly from the other side, your moderating criteria become a farce. william spearshake

bogart, you will always be bogart to me. I have offended you, I see. But your real problem is very personal. You're on a religious crusade. You want to hurt someone. You want to desecrate their holy places. It's who you are. I understand. Mapou

"Besides, who are you anyway? Too coward to tell?"</I My full name is Kevin Middlebrook. Is Mapou your first name? Last name? The sound you make when you pass gas? But I commend you for being honest in that UD has no intention of providing fair treatment. I guess that you should inform Barry of this decision. william spearshake

LOL. bogart, nobody should expect fair treatment in enemy territory. Nobody owes you anything, man. This is not a government supported website. Besides, who are you anyway? Too coward to tell? Mapou

"bogart, you crybaby." Argument for the defence rests. william spearshake

bogart, you crybaby. Mapou

Barry, now who is being disingenuous? In my previous incarnation (acartia_bogart) I criticized Mung, Quereus and others. In none of these did I call people morons, idiots, liars, or worse. Yet I have been called this and worse by the very same people. Yet they are still honoured citizens of UD. But I make a few comments critical of you (none as abusive as the ones directed at me) and I am banned. And rather than leave up the comments that resulted in my bannisment, so that others can judge your decision, they are removed. So, please tell us again how your rules for excile are not personally and ideologically based. Not that I expect this comment to remain, or my comment status to be retained. But at least this will be confirmation to me, and the few that read this before you take it down, that I am correct. william spearshake

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply