That’s clear. Doesn’t make you right. Or rational. Or even a good person.
So, a contradiction, in other words.
A real debate isn’t limited to your own narrow terms, including “banning” or “ignoring” at YOUR discretion and being the ultimate arbiter of what is acceptable or not.
That’s not being interested in debate.
You want a soapbox, not a debate.
If you want a soapbox from which you can proclaim the rightness of your ideas without contradiction, stick with your blog. Debate involves actually dealing with other people instead of being a douche when people call you on your douchery.
Aside from that one time I briefly tested the function just to see how it worked, I never have. Nobody’s on my list now, nor do I contemplate any additions in future.
Actually, if you want a solid example, I have one. In that thread where you accused the murdered children of being antisemitic, I went through your argument and showed why the conclusion did not follow from the premises. You then continued to argue for the premises without in any way trying to fill the gap between your premises and conclusion. Of course, the dishonesty here comes not just in what you say, but what you don’t say; by ignoring arguments that discredit your position and starting enormous, stupid hijacks, you can avoid ever having to make a valid argument.
A solid example of what? Me being incoherent? Me violating the sacred “principles of reasoned debate”? (From the rest of your post, I gather that your accusation is that I ignore arguments which discredit my position and engage in diversionary hijacks, is that it?)
Ok, can you summarize and link to the argument I ignored?
Can you summarize and link to my diversionary hijack?
You then continue the argument that some/most anti-Israeli sentiment is anti-Semitic —a belief which, by the way, you support only with the argument that anti-Israeli sentiment is unfair (another pretty vast gap that I never saw you attempt to fill.)
If you want executive summaries of or links to your later posts in question, I charge a very affordable rate of$15/hr. As I said previously, this shit isn’t worth reading twice.
Don’t strawman me!
Just kidding - of course it isn’t meaningfully “yes” because the term “real” debater was not meaningfully defined. But if I do happen to qualify as a “real” debater (whatever that is) my own personal example only demonstrates a related claim - that there exists at least one “real” debater who does not put people on his ignore list, i.e. not all “real” debaters put people on their ignore lists.
Looking back, I agree you made a good point which deserved a specific response. I’m not sure why I did not respond, most likely I got distracted by the exchanges with other posters. My apologies.
I’ll use your own tactic: show me where I said that it is “never” acceptable to ignore somebody.
My position is that an honest debater does not do this as a matter of policy. Your policy is a contrast. You seem to believe it is acceptable to ignore people with contrary viewpoints on a regular basis and often for reasons that seem arbitrary to third parties.
I will allow that it may be sometimes necessary or desirable to ignore somebody.
But I cannot see how making it a general policy or doing it regularly is at all conducive to good debate.
I freely admit I have no good single definition for it. I get to a definition by figuring out what is NOT a principle of reasoned debate. If you remove what is NOT a principle, you can get to what IS by elimination.
Making a general policy of ignoring posters for arbitrary reasons is NOT a principle of reasoned debate.
Oh, and I will note that I also don’t have anybody in my ignore list. I may choose not to engage certain posters, but I will still deliberately expose myself to their views. Being deliberately blind to people who disagree with you is no way to go about things.
I would add a spammer or advertising bot to my ignore list, but those types of problems tend to be handled pretty well by the board itself.
I’m not claiming that is your position, I am simply asking you a question.
Earlier, you said this:
You seem to be saying that if I as a debater choose to ignore people at my sole discretion, then I am not participating in a “real” debate. So it would seem to follow that a “real” debater never exercises that kind of discretion, i.e. he never simply decides to put someone on his ignore list.
So an honest debater can never have a rule, for example he ignores people who curse at him? (This would seem to follow from your statement, but I’m simply asking you.)
It may seem that way to you, but it’s not the case. For example, I haven’t banned you even though you obviously disagree with me.
I ban people only for breaking my rules, which I have disclosed on my blog.
Actually, no you don’t. You haven’t banned anyone; they’re free to post to their heart’s content. Just because you refuse to read their posts or use a message boards ignore function to keep you from even seeing and accidentally reading their scary words doesn’t make them banned from anything.
Unfortunately, words have meanings, which we as regular people don’t get to just change to suit our whims. For instance, to pick a random example out of thin air, if I were to say that “You are a pompous retarded windbag with a hugely overinflated sense of self-importance” means “I think you’re a great guy who should totally continue posting like you have been doing”, that redefinition wouldn’t carry a whole lot of weight.
Meh, as far as I can tell he’s just misusing the word “ban” - he has the same access as anyone to arbitrarily use the ignore function. Of course, it’s location-sensitive - I gather he can “ban” people from posting to his blog (I’ve never run a blog myself) but to use “ban” here when the more accurate and applied term is “ignore” is something he enjoys because it riles people up, something I’ve observed he enjoys doing.
Just define “ban” as something unpleasant, and ban brazil84. That’ll show him.
I LOVE this ban list! It reminds me of the crazy little guy on the Kids in the Hall show who would go around “crushing” random people’s heads by lining them up visually between his forefinger and thumb and then pinching his fingers together.
While he’s muttering to himself “I’m crushing your skull!!” they are, of course, blissfully ignorant that anything at all is “happening” to them.
I’m not claiming that is your position, I am simply asking you a question.