tigerlily78 wrote:What
I see is someone who comes on board and questions every statement,
doesn't take the time to follow up on the source materials provided,
and continues to argue using expressions like "fallacy" "ad hominem"
and "straw man" because that makes them sound better educated.
Let's look at these one by one:
1. Questions every statement. Every statement? Really? And how is questioning bad?
2.
Doesn't take the time to follow up on the source materials provided.
Every time? And aren't you assuming those source materials are valid?
3.
Continues to argue using expressions like fallacy, ad hominem and straw
man. These are legitimate expressions in a debate, or do you disagree?
4. Because that makes them sound better educated. Are you sure you're not guessing at motivation here?
..
when in fact they are merely holding back from making any statement of
their own to avoid being put under the same magnifying glass and held
to providing their own evidence.
Again, how do you know? Are you sure you're not projecting?
I'll
make my position clear: if someone presents to me bad evidence, I'm
going to bypass it. I am not interested in wasting my time debating bad
sources or biased sources. However, I will also avoid a source attack,
because that's perceived as aggression. Do you agree?
It becomes a waste of other people's time to spoon feed the few who will never rethink their perspective anyway.
That's a pretty nasty thing to say. Do you have evidence that I have never rethought my perspective?
I think the bulk of the community would prefer that I "abuse" my power
and maintain the level of openness, flow of discussion, and civility of
the forum.
You have yet to show that any of the above are threatening those.
You
may recall I defended your right to free speech when you first arrived
here, but we are not going to tolerate your negativity if it makes the
forum a miserable experience for everyone else.
We do have a
handful of other dissidents here on TH who manage to defend their point
of view without talking down to everyone else and offending people, it
isn't impossible. They probably make an effort though instead of making
excuses for their own poor judgement.
What is the crime here?
"Talking
down to everyone else and offending people" -- please provide proof
that I've talked down to everyone, and also define talk down.
If someone presents to me an innaccurate or badly sourced idea and I don't immediately take it as fact, is that talking down?
If
you can't define those, it seems to me the crime is offending
assumptions of the group, and that you're threatening to use moderator
power to crush certain dissent and not others.
Why would you do that?
