No, there’s a complaint here and we’re sorting out what’s going on. Your comments are legitimate and what I understand is the heart of this discussion: when is it really debate and when is is just saying stuff over and over again?
I just don’t want people to refight their differences in this thread/this forum, that’s not the point.
I think that’s a great idea. Shall we codify that into a rule? Can we expect moderators to mod any post reported that fits the bill?
Really? On what grounds?
Modding this (or rather trying to) is a VERY bad idea.
And, even it weren’t a bad idea, I myself would not wish to place trust in the SDMB mods to police this adequately or fairly, i.e. without bias or partisanship.
Will you marry me?
Typo?
Maybe even a Freudian typo. He did incorporate the word “again” into the name of the poster who made the same discredited analogy twice. 
Steve MB did, here.
[QUOTE=TubaDiva]
No, there’s a complaint here and we’re sorting out what’s going on. Your comments are legitimate and what I understand is the heart of this discussion: when is it really debate and when is is just saying stuff over and over again?
I just don’t want people to refight their differences in this thread/this forum, that’s not the point.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it is unclear what is going on.
Jonathan Chance has implemented a new policy, in which a wrong argument may not be used after it has been refuted.
[ul][li]Is it now the job of the mods to decide what arguments are wrong, and may therefore not be repeated?[/li][li]What are the standards under which it will be decided what arguments are right and what are wrong? [/li][li]If the moderation staff cannot or prefers not to clarify the standards, should Dopers who see an incorrect and repeated argument simply report it, as we are asked to do for other violations of standards?[/li][/ul]
Regards,
Shodan
Like saying you enjoy the music of John List?
Ooops. Is it OK to use analogies in ATMB?
Mmm, sort of, I guess. Not exactly the most direct comparison, but I see where you’re coming from, and yeah, the general rule against using Nazis in analogies applies here–don’t use Nazis, however indirectly, unless you’re including Ultimate Evil as part of your analogy, because you can’t really divorce Nazism from Ultimate Evil.
Give a man a break!
There have been many of those threads where I point out that opposition to SSM is not bigotry, yet those terms are repeated and continue to be used. Was my rebuttal to the bigotry argument not convincing enough for a ban on the word?
As I said, I did make arguments to refute the responses to my argument. You might think that they were unconvincing and poor responses, but I do not.
I think that this standard is unworkable. It puts the mods in the position of deciding “good” arguments versus “bad” arguments.
Further, my last statement in this thread was in response to a poster who was continuing the argument in this thread, yet I am modded for attempting to open a “second front” in this forum. To some extent, to understand my complaint about this moderation, the argument does need hashed out-it is my very argument that was modded and accused of being repetitious and the claim was that it had been debunked: so thoroughly debunked that the mere mention of it is off limits…in GD no less.
May I suggest that you open a new thread in GD where it’ll be appropriate for us to hash out the argument? As I’ve said previously, it appears the problem was that you weren’t actually addressing the flaws with your argument, and I think that’s still true, but you’re correct that discussing that here is very difficult to do.
It’s not even the silly analogy that was the worst, in my opinion. For me it was we can’t have gay marriage because it’s not right since then, “some marriages between consenting adults would be recognized, but not others.” Ergo, we should ban SSM. Y’know, wherein some marriages between consenting adults are recognized, but not others! Maintaining the status quo IS enforcing the very thing the OP claims is the reason we shouldn’t have SSM.
How is this anything but circular reasoning?
As this thread more and more returns to the original argument, I’m going to send you all the Great Debates, which is the more appropriate place for this discussion to take place.
Don’t argue this here – go there. Start a new thread and take your positions.
That ship has sailed. Once it becomes clear that people are just parroting arguments they read on NRO, any debate goes out the window because you can’t tell them anything. It’s tedious.
Would say that calls for closer moderating. Like in this case, it’s because rhetoric was moderated that this discussion got started.
Y’all go hash this out in Great Debates.