Marley, Tom, a word...

[magellan01]

From this thread tomndebb admonished me in Post 102:

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Nah. How about this: I’ll stick to defending positions I actually hold.

*I trust you’ll find this an invaluable aid in understanding my position.
[/QUOTE]
If you think that there is a logical flaw in his assertions, then post that. Playing this sort of insulting game is not conducive to a legitimate discussion and you are out of line.

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t think I was. I viewed my comment as a creative way of telling the poster he was not being logical when he insisted that I held positions I did not hold. Even if I told him flat out that he was using badly flawed logic, I don’t think that runs afoul of the board rules at all. But I didn’t make any issue of it.

In Post 104 Tom then admonished another poster, marshmallow, for calling a poster a racist:

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

[QUOTE=marshmallow]
. . . like the OP or other board racists . . . .

[/QUOTE]
Do not accuse a poster of being a racist in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

I’m a fan of doing this, so I pinged Tom and drew his attention to this post by Ibn Warraq, (Post 96) as one he missed that also, I thought, was referring to posters in the thread as racists:

[QUOTE=Ibn Warraq]

[QUOTE=Marley23]

Why is baseball being neglected in this discussion?
[/QUOTE]
Or the UFC?

Hmm… could it be that this would destroy the arguments of racists.

I think it’s hysterical that the people on the other side think they’re the forces of logic and we’re the ones who don’t want to recognize the truth.
[/QUOTE]

While he does not single out a poster. It is clear form the context (note Marley’s “in this discussion”) that Ibn Warraq is referring to posters in the very thread. Tom replied in an email (which he already shared part of):

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The poster who was admonished [referring to marshmallow] had specifically identified the OP as a racist; in the post you reported, Ibn Warraq simply refers to "racists,"making no reference to any poster or even anyone on the SDMB.
[/QUOTE]

I thought that was, at a minimum, overly generous to Ibn Warraq. But that was the ruling, and that was the end of it. Then, in response to Blake, who made the same mistakes Ibn Warraq did and continued to ascribe positions to me that I do not hold, which he divined through faulty logic and the building of straw men, my Post 122 included a general statement of frustration with the what happens often in these discussions, here and elsewhere. Truth be told, I almost included a smilie at the end of the first line. I mean, we’re in a thread talking about intelligence and two posters were using grossly faulty logic in ascribing beliefs to me, one of them doing so repeatedly. (bolding added)

What’s with you guys ascribing beliefs to me that I don’t have and then asking me to defend them. I guess some people have some low IQs.

I never said, nor do I hold, that "It must be genetic. ". I do think that when it comes to cases like the NFL speed positions and world class sprinters, the evidence suggests genetics is probably playing a role. The disproportionate representation and lack of cultural explanation (unlike boxing, for instance) strongly suggest it. BUt I do not hold that it MUST be the reason. Why don’t you provide me with the cultural explanation. Perhaps you think that Blacks with the gift of speed, as a group, work so much harder than whites to hone the equal genetic skill they have that it results in such a grossly disproportionate representation.

If you actually read my posts, you’d have seen that the point of them is that I’m greatly entertained by people like you who refuse to put race on the table as an explanation. You puff your chest out as men of science, but bring so much ideological baggage that you can’t—won’t—consider what a look at the numbers suggests.

It makes me chuckle.

So, a few questions for tomndebb an Marley23:

1. given the context of Ibn Warraq’s original statement referring to racists, how ican you possibly comclude that he was NOT referring to posters in the discussion? I ask you to look to Marley’s statement which he quoted and was replying to.

2. how is it that Ibn Warraq’s comment is viewed as being not directed toward posters and mine is, necessarily so?

3. concerning my creative way of pointing out that Ibn Warraq was repeatedly using faulty logic in ascribing positions to me that I did not state and do not hold, what is the violation? As I mentioned, even if I had directly stated that his logic in ascribing positions to me was for shit, how is that even a violation. And what I did was gentler than that.

And, Yom, what was the point of your Post 149:

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I didn’t. It’s not about another poster, it’s a general observation about “the population at large”. tomndebb and I discussed this. Please consult him. Then you can undo this “last” admonishment.

Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
Your comment was in direct response to another poster. Your claim (in another venue) that you were going to be “playing that game” is duly noted and you are duly informed that you will be Warned if you continue this attempt to violate the rules.

[ /Moderating ]

[/QUOTE]

The time stamp says 8:43PM. My last posts in the thread were to Marley (which you were responding to) over 8 hours earlier. What was the point of your post? I had already followed Marley’s direction and dropped it. What do you think it would accomplish, other than making sure I posted here?

[tomndebb]

Regarding your “creative way” of attacking another poster’s statements, it was little more than an insult that failed to actually address the actual exchange.

Regarding your claim of some equivalence between Ibn Warraq’s reference to racists, generically, and your reference to low IQs, I believe the disingenuous nature of your post is self-evident.

The point of my last quoted post was to emphasize that I found your game playing to be out of line and to let you know that I was not going to let you off the hook if you continued to engage in that behavior. Since you directly invoked my name in an attempt to rationalize your behavior, I responded directly.

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

Regarding your “creative way” of attacking another poster’s statements, it was little more than an insult that failed to actually address the actual exchange.

His logic was flawed. He was attributing positions to me that I did not put forth and do not hold. He continued to do so and creating straw men, thinking that I must hold those positions. I pointed out that his logic was bad. I could have told him that directly, and there would have been no violation, right. But I did so by pointing to a book on logic. How is that a violation?

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

His logic was flawed. He was attributing positions to me that I did not put forth and do not hold. He continued to do so and creating straw men, thinking that I must hold those positions. I pointed out that his logic was bad. I could have told him that directly, and there would have been no violation, right. But I did so by pointing to a book on logic. How is that a violation?

It was pure insult. There is nothing to even indicate what you claim his flaw in logic was, (given that he was making an analogy that you might have misunderstood), simply a snide link to a book on logic.

[Steophan]

@tomndebb

It was pure insult. There is nothing to even indicate what you claim his flaw in logic was, (given that he was making an analogy that you might have misunderstood), simply a snide link to a book on logic.

Claiming that “you don’t understand logic” is a personal insult is setting the bar for insult absurdly low. Not every negative observation of a person is an insult, and one should not have to show reasoning for that observation to avoid the false claim of insult.

[VinylTurnip]

@magellan01

His logic was flawed. He was attributing positions to me that I did not put forth and do not hold. He continued to do so and creating straw men, thinking that I must hold those positions.

Straw is more substantial than the actual makeup of your argument in that, and other race-themed threads. You’re comfortable affirming the possibility that genetics plays a role, but don’t have any evidence to back it up. Instead, you just hang around so you can be “amused” and “chuckle” at the other posters who are more skeptical than you are, and actually require some credible evidence before presuming a racialist explanation.

When someone attempts to nail down your purposely amorphous “argument” into a refutable claim, you scream that you’re being misrepresented.

It’s difficult to see the value in your contribution.

[CandidGamera]

Oh, Jesus. The mods are outlawing snark now? :rolleyes:

[VinylTurnip]

Let’s hope it doesn’t go as far as complete disarmament.

[magellan01]

@VinylTurnip

Straw is more substantial than the actual makeup of your argument in that, and other race-themed threads. You’re comfortable affirming the possibility that genetics plays a role, but don’t have any evidence to back it up. Instead, you just hang around so you can be “amused” and “chuckle” at the other posters who are more skeptical than you are, and actually require some credible evidence before presuming a racialist explanation.

When someone attempts to nail down your purposely amorphous “argument” into a refutable claim, you scream that you’re being misrepresented.

Yeah, I balk at being misrepresented when I’m being misrepresented. Imagine that. :rolleyes:

As far as the rest, the level of evidence necessary is commensurate with one’s claim. My claim requires little evidence. It is not my position that their is a genetic component to race. Nor is it even that there is a genetic component to physical performance. My position is that it is foolish and unscientific to dismiss it out of hand. There is a correlation between some physical endeavors and skin color. In many, most, instances that correlation can be easily explained by cultural factors. But in some sports that explanation seems to not make sense. As evidence I offer up the grossly disproportionate representation in the NFL speed positions. The actual numbers have been supplied in other threads. This is simply a fact. I asked for explanations as to why this may be, if it is not genetic, and I got no answer.

Further evidence is that we see a correlation between skin color and other physical characteristics. So genetics does manifest itself with characteristics being “bundled”, like skin color and kinky hair. It would not be shocking in the least if some of these physical manifestations would lead to superior performance in a particular area.

A separate question is, even if different “races” demonstrate superior physical performance, might genetics also express itself in ways that effect intelligence. I do not know. Given that it appears that athletic performance might very well have a genetic component, it would not surprise me that intelligence does as well. Even if you attribute the vast majority of intelligence to nurture and cultural factors.

What does surprise me is the knee-jerk response to be horrified at even having the discussion. Especially with many on this board that hold science up to be unassailable.

The upside, as you point out, is that I do get to chuckle. So, thanks for that.

[magellan01]

This just in…

From this recently closed ATMB thread. An Gadai opened the thread proposing that all threads looking at race and intelligence be automatically locked. I thought this an exceedingly thing for a debate board to do, so I responded to him:

[QUOTE=magellan01]

[QUOTE=An Gadai]
It’s not that subjective a thing really. OPs that talk about scientific proof that one “race” is stupider than another shouldn’t be tolerated.
[/QUOTE]
Why? I’m sure that if you took measurement of the races as far as height and weight, head size, etc, they wouldn’t all be precisely equal. Therefore they could be ranked. Why is it so hard to accept that genetic differences might manifest themselves in physical performance? Or intelligence?

It’s quite something that a members of a clearly left-leaning debate board would want to quash views that they are uncomfortable with. Why can’t this stuff be discussed? What are you so afraid of? Seriously.

[/QUOTE]

Here is his repsonse: (bolding mine)

[QUOTE=An Gadai]
OMG I’m afraid of your equation that proves dem niggers are stupid. Except you don’t have any such proof of anything, **because your concept of race, and that of every other board racist, **is simplistic and flawed. And it doesn’t seem any amount of cited evidence that highlights your misconceptions (of which there’s a truckload) will persuade you, or your ilk, that your ideas are ill-founded, small-minded, bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

And mine to him:

[QUOTE=magellan01]
How surprising! You ignored the content of my post and instead of trying to explain your position you use sarcasm in some transparent and lame attempt to seize some moral high ground. Results: massive fail.

I’m still wondering what you’re so afraid of. Or do you only like science when you think you’ll like what it reveals?
[/QUOTE]

I then added…

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Oh, almost forgot. Are you aware that it is against board rules to call other posters racists? Or do you and your ilk not care that such ad hominems are not only out of bounds, but do nothing to actually argue your point? Please, share how you and your ilk think. I find it fascinating.
[/QUOTE]

I also reported his post late last night. Then this morning I see that:

1. the thread is closed
2. no warning or admonishment was issued to An Gadai
3. a comment by TubaDiva tells AG and I to take it to the pit

Questions for TubaDiva:

• why wasn’t an Gadia warned or admonished?
• what posts of mine in that thread were pit worthy? Or near pit worthy? You can see the totality of my posts within this post.

[Zoe]

magellan: It is not my position that their is a genetic component to race.

Current thinking in the field of genetics on the concept of “race” is different from what I grew up with and from the examples you give. You can find it discussed many places on the internet (and on SDMB), but here is a brief excerpt on usage of “race” from Free Dictionary:

race

The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another, many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

This is not thinking that developed just last week. If you don’t like the idea that “race” is mostly a social or mental construct and not something that can easily be determined by physical features, ask yourself why you don’t like it.

[John_Mace]

Are you guys trying to get this thread locked, too?

[Marley23]

@Steophan

Claiming that “you don’t understand logic” is a personal insult is setting the bar for insult absurdly low. Not every negative observation of a person is an insult, and one should not have to show reasoning for that observation to avoid the false claim of insult.

And magellan01 was only given a mod note for it - and then a second note for saying the people disagreeing with him “have low IQs.” I think he got off pretty easy. And in any case, magellan01, both of us already explained our reasoning on this. You suffered no penalty in any case, and starting a thread and repeating yourself is not going to make us change our minds.

[magellan01]

@Marley23

And magellan01 was only given a mod note for it - and then a second note for saying the people disagreeing with him “have low IQs.” I think he got off pretty easy. And in any case, magellan01, both of us already explained our reasoning on this. You suffered no penalty in any case, and starting a thread and repeating yourself is not going to make us change our minds.

Although the mods in general (but not all), and tomndebb in particular, take some odd pride in not changing their minds or (SHUDDER) apologizing when wrong, hope springs eternal. And just to remind you of why and when I started this thread, it was after Mr. Fair & Helpful (:rolleyes:) posted this unnecessary nonsense:

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Your comment was in direct response to another poster. Your claim (in another venue) that you were going to be “playing that game” is duly noted and you are duly informed that you will be Warned if you continue this attempt to violate the rules.

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

A pre-warning Warning! After I agreed to follow your direction. Remember, that post came over 8 hours after I posted in that thread at all. It was also five hours after he came back and retroactively admonished “the one whose logic could use a bit of boning up” (oh, I hope that’s not too harsh!) to cover his ass. Too little, too late. Note to all, if you want to be able to argue even an appearance of unbiased moderation, you’ll have to try much harder.

And I’m still waiting for TubaDiva to answer questions explaining her moderation in this very forum. I usually find her quite level-headed…

Tuba… TUBA…?

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

A pre-warning Warning! After I agreed to follow your direction. Remember, that post came over 8 hours after I posted in that thread at all.

It was also after you claimed, apparently based on some odd reading of our off-line exchange, that you and I had reached some sort of agreement to let you attack other posters as long as you hid your attack behind a curtain of “general” comments.
We had no such agreement. You chose to spin your interpretation of our discussion to your own advantage and I was letting you know, since you were spinning it publicly, that you had drawn an incorrect inference regarding appropriate behavior. (You will note that I actually quoted you in my response, so there really should not be any surprise on your part in this regard–you have even quoted me quoting you.)
THAT was what prompted my returning to the thread.

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

It was also after you claimed, apparently based on some odd reading of our off-line exchange, that you and I had reached some sort of agreement to let you attack other posters as long as you hid your attack behind a curtain of “general” comments.
We had no such agreement. You chose to spin your interpretation of our discussion to your own advantage and I was letting you know, since you were spinning it publicly, that you had drawn an incorrect inference regarding appropriate behavior. (You will note that I actually quoted you in my response, so there really should not be any surprise on your part in this regard–you have even quoted me quoting you.)
THAT was what prompted my returning to the thread.

There was over 8 hours between my letting Marley know about our discussion and your posting your pre-warning Warning. I wasn’t trying to imply we had an “agreement”, but that you had explained to me what was permitted and what was not permitted. I thought I understood you, and that my comment was okay—based on our discussion. But the line gets nudged, I guess, based on what side of it one is on.

But for some strange reason you decided I needed a pre-warning warning after 8 hours of me not posting in the thread, and me following Marley’s instruction to drop the discussion of his moderation in that thread. COMPLETELY unnecessary and bullyish. And don’t even try to say you were unaware of it. You posted in that thread in the meantime, 5 hours earlier, Mod hat and all. Maybe you have too much time on your hands and were bored. May I suggest needlepoint…stamp collecting…maybe reacquainting yourself with the definition of the terms “unbiased” and “moderator”.

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

There was over 8 hours between my letting Marley know about our discussion and your posting your pre-warning Warning. I wasn’t trying to imply we had an “agreement”, but that you had explained to me what was permitted and what was not permitted. I thought I understood you, and that my comment was okay—based on our discussion. But the line gets nudged, I guess, based on what side of it one is on.

But for some strange reason you decided I needed a pre-warning warning after 8 hours of me not posting in the thread, and me following Marley’s instruction to drop the discussion of his moderation in that thread. COMPLETELY unnecessary and bullyish. And don’t even try to say you were unaware of it. You posted in that thread in the meantime, 5 hours earlier, Mod hat and all. Maybe you have too much time on your hands and were bored. May I suggest needlepoint…stamp collecting…maybe reacquainting yourself with the definition of the terms “unbiased” and “moderator”.

You are really hung up on this “8 hour” nonsense.
I was working through the thread after the board had gone down and issued a Mod note based on an earlier post before I logged off to take care of some other business. When I logged back on later and resumed reading the thread, I discovered you trying to tell Marley that I had approved of, (or, at last, consented to), your behavior. That sort of game playing is inappropriate and I pointed it out. There is nothing sinister or mysterious behind my posts or the timing of them.

[VinylTurnip]

As a compromise, could you perhaps institute a form of Gold Medallion program, so that Dopers requiring frequent modding— let’s call them “Bronze Loaf” posters— are given priority status?

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

You are really hung up on this “8 hour” nonsense.
I was working through the thread after the board had gone down and issued a Mod note based on an earlier post before I logged off to take care of some other business. When I logged back on later and resumed reading the thread, I discovered you trying to tell Marley that I had approved of, (or, at last, consented to), your behavior. That sort of game playing is inappropriate and I pointed it out. There is nothing sinister or mysterious behind my posts or the timing of them.

As I explained, I was not playing games. But as far as the timing, that’s a reasonable explanation. Thank you.

The other, more important stuff, is still troubling. ::shrug::