One might disagree with my argument, or even think it is stupid, but it wouldn’t be the first stupid GD argument and my point is valid. We don’t currently recognize contracts with inanimate objects but we likewise didn’t recognize marriage contracts between same sex couples. Both could change in the future and why one but not the other?
In many cases hyperbole is used to illustrate a point. That is less disturbing than the fact that GD arguments which the mods simply disagree with or find “stupid” are banned from further discussion. That is astounding.
I ask the mod to reconsider or provide a list of “stupid” arguments which are off-limits.
You were informed in that thread that your argument was invalid. A person may not enter into a contract with an inanimate object. A person may enter into a contract with another person.
The fact that - following your having that pointed out to you - you returned to the same argument that you knew was invalid shows either an astonishing level of obtuseness or a deliberate attempt to continue debate over an invalid argument. I’d hate to think it was the latter.
In short, if you’re going to disagree with same-sex marriage, that’s fine. I won’t stop you nor intervene. However, to do so you need to honestly debate instead of returning to invalid analogies.
I’m not sure the analogy should have been barred. It does an excellent job of revealing much about its offeror and the arguments used to support the anti-SSM side.
So once other posters say that an argument is “invalid” then it is off the table? What are the mod standards for this? If I say that support for SSM is invalid can I make the whole thread collapse unto itself?
If you had done anything to address the problems that were pointed out with your bizarre analogy, maybe things would have gone differently. But all you did is keep posting the analogy without addressing its flaws. At that point you may as well be blogging.
I was surprised to see the mod note, but such notes can only improve the quality of GD.
Like some chaotic whirlpool? Conversation needs a warm environment, not frigid air. You may tag me as naive, but gee, each of us has an opinion, right? If that’s beyond your ken, more’s the pity.
It’s not the mods job to decide which arguments are the best arguments. In my opinion this is a completely incorrect moderation action.
The argument itself is perfectly reasonable in that it raises an implied question: why are some types of unions ok and others not? How do we arrive at these decisions?
So the problem with this post is that responding to it continues the argument from the other thread, which is a bad idea, especially since it continues the argument from the point BEFORE the point where people critiqued the analogy.
If jtgain had been squelched immediately after the critiques, I would have thought it bad form. If jtgain had been squelched immediately after a substantive response to the critiques, I’d agree it was poor moderation. But jtgain ignored the critiques, just repeating the dumb analogy over and over. That way doesn’t lie clarity. A mod declaring, “enough!” is in that case appropriate, not because it was a bad analogy, but because jtgain was a broken record.
Am I right in thinking that if jtgain wants to start his own thread on this bizarre analogy, where he’ll put forth a proposition and substantively defend it (including explaining what a marriage looks like when only one party is capable of consent), that’d be okay?
I would certainly have no issues with that. But to continually bring it into a discussion where it has been proven to be moot smacks less of debating than of an intentional attempt to derail it. That’s simply not allowed.
jtgain’s argument is unconvincing to say the least, and irresponsive to rebuttal, but in my opinion it should never be the moderator’s job to interfere on that level.
That’s the weird part. The mod is trying to stop a debating own-goal? If someone is willing to shoot themselves in the foot, why does a mod intervene? Is there some assumption of bad faith in the use of the argument? This ain’t a court of law; bizarre theories and inexplicable arguments (sincerely held and presented) should be welcome here, because ignorance is easier to fight when it makes itself prominent and loud.
NB: I have taken no part in the root thread of this discussion, so I make no judgments on the points made by any of its participants. I only point out that an inept argument doesn’t rise to the level that demands mod action, unless there’s fairly convincing evidence of bad faith behind it. IMHO.
Jonathan Chance, this was horribly egregious modding. It is entirely, and absolutely inappropriate, beyond all reasonable concepts of moderation, fairness, and logic to mod jtgain in a response to DrFidelius. You should have quoted one of jtgain’s posts when you told him to knock it off.
It is supposed to be debating, no? Which presupposes it’s not just repeating something over and over again as some sort of support or defense of a held position.
I agree that it’s not the moderator’s job to rule on the fitness of the argument but if the situation is nothing more than throwing up the same anology with no supporting cites, that’s hardly debating in good faith, it’s just parroting. I don’t think you want that in Great Debates or anywhere else.
I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of what jtgain was doing. He was embarrassing himself with his analogy, but he was not just repeating himself. He should be allowed to use an analogy that is laughably, humiliatingly bad.
