Um, DavidB, we're in here...

The BBQ Pit
21

Hey, Phil… don’t be a prick. This isn’t a CvE Debate… it’s a (surprisingly polite) Pit Thread about DavidB, the Poster.

And, while I’m at it, you said three things:

They are, respectively:
[list=1]
[li]A dismissive, unwarranted and rude display of the same sort of ignorance you profess to disdain,[/li][li]an attack ad hominem, always popular with the ladies :rolleyes:, and[/li][li]a re-statement of opinion.[/li][/list=1]

Now, I won’t touch the first two; I hope that my pointing them out has made you reconsider them. 'Nuff said. As far as the third, it sums up the crux of the issue - you and Daniel will not agree. Whoop-de-doo.

Can you climb down off your high horse now and discuss the point of the OP?
   <><><><><>
DDG, my first Pit Thread ever dealt with what I thought was an unwarranted display of bile from DavidB. I ended up posting:
**

I should add that Wallyzt"l followed up with this gem:
**

As usual, I agree with him.

And, I don’t want to be a meanie or anything, but there are some posts in that thread worth reading, by a “Guest” poster named NottheMama. :wink:

22

pldennison:

Actually you are both wrong. As everybody knows, “Toto” isn’t latin. It’s Dorothy’s dog in the Wizard of Oz, who was from Kansas. Toto, being a terrier had no Latin American stock in him. If he’d been a chihuahua(sp?) or some such you might have had a point.

Confusion over this results from the phrase “In Toto,” which refers to the wicked which wishing to kill Dorothy “and your little dog too!”

This sweeping statement has of course evolved through the ages to become a metaphor for completeness.

Hope this helps.

(slow morning)

23

You idiots. Toto is a Rock Band that had its peak in the mid to late 80’s. Duh.

[sub]Not quite a year, since you went away… Rosanna… [/sub]

24

How do requests to answer questions directed toward you or requests to back up your assertion, e.g., make a logical argument, constitute “yelling at you?” It’s awfully difficult to have a debate when one completely ignores inquiries or won’t provide evidence. Perhaps it’s because the individual in question does not have the answers or support. Perhaps they realize there is a huge whole in their argument, which was just exposed by the individual making the request, therefore, they believe ignoring it will just go away. I used to post in GD a lot. I came upon this type of “debating style” all too often. Maybe that’s why I don’t post in GD very often any more, eh?

25

Is it really? Wow, thanks for pointing that out–I forgot how to read this morning. :rolleyes:

Let’s recap:

  1. In her OP, DuckDuck Goose said: " . . . this

[quote snipped]
would seem to imply that [David B.] believe[s] 'promoting Christianity’or ‘promoting creationism’ to be the equivalent of ‘promoting ignorance’. "

  1. In support of David, I reply to that statement with my own opinion that promoting creationism is in fact promoting ignorance. I have little doubt that David feels the same way. Nor, I should say, is there anything wrong with him feeling that way, and wording his posts in such a way. If he is sometimes overzealous in his refusal to suffer fools, whether gladly or otherwise, I have no problem with him.

  2. DITWD decides to take it a step further by debating the merits of creationism, rather than anything to do with David.

**

Nope, sorry. DITWD has a long, well-known history of making baseless assertions, being unable to provide cites, misusing cites, misunderstanding cites, misrepresenting other posters’ positions, misrepresenting the positions of the authorities behind the cites he does use, and dodging questions. Hell, there was a three-page thread from Gaudere not a month ago devoted to that very topic. If DITWD told me that the sky was blue, I’d stick my head out the window to check. If he’s making a supposedly fact-based assertion, I want cites.

Well, good to see you’re capable of refraining from them, then.

And? Are we not allowed to restate opinions in later posts now, or something?

Er, pot-kettle, FWIW.

Anyway, in case it isn’t clear, when it comes to dealing with fundamentalists of any religion, as well as creationists of all kinds, I support David 100%. To work, as he does outside the boards, in a capacity devoted to combatting foolishness of all sorts, and to be confronted again and again and again with the same faulty reasoning, factless assertions, rhetorical horeshit and other silliness one sees from creationists, frankly I think he exhibits more patience than could reasonably be expected.

26

DavidB (the poster) can be brusque. That should make him easy meat for someone with fair rhetorical skills if he posted unreasonable demands or made false claims. A person with that style could be exposed pretty quickly on this board. You Duck Duck Goose have more than fair rhetorical skills. Pick your topic and choose your ground with care, exclude the remarks of those along the way who are not capable of following a clean line (so he can’t tar you with their brush), ignore any distractions and take him on. He’s asking for it.

But this familiar line of complaint reminds me of the Head of the Australian Medical Association’s reluctance to meet with a particular politician: “I don’t want to meet with him, I’m afraid he’ll convince me”.

27

Okay, Sdimbert, point taken. :slight_smile: However, those were the words of a month-old newbie, and that was 9 months and 2,000 posts and a name change ago, and the Rottweiler act just gets a little old after a while, you know?

28

“More than fair” rhetorical skills? [snort] Sir, you flatter me… :smiley:

I’m the first to admit that logical thinking is not my strong suit, that my debate skills are basically non-existent, and that I tend to hum loudly and look around for the remote when somebody like Polycarp shows up and starts talking about inferential logic, analogy, and probability analysis…

29

  1. So you admit that its a bet?

  2. And which is the safe one?

Your admitted ignorance in respect to the “old creation” theory astounds me, in light of the fact that you make such broad sweeping generalizations about who you consider to be ignorant, and who you respect. A simple SDMB search will cure you of this, at which point you can form an educated opinion. But that’s just a suggestion.

30

I agree that this thread is quite civil for the Pit, and that the topic is David’s posting style, not his other capacity – and that the distinction he always is sure to make is well taken.

In general, I find David respectful of well-thought-out posts with which he disagrees, acerbic in his criticisms – but that’s a case of “if you cannot stand the heat…” – and as demanding of evidence from all posters as he is of any one poster. Too, I find very well-intentioned his willingness to allow that one may post views based on one’s faith, flat-out admit that is what one is doing, and have David call for that view’s being honored. (I.e., if I suggest that I believe something, my beliefs are not subject to debate, since only I know what I believe. The content of my beliefs may very well be subject. If I’m convinced that Noah and his wife, sons and daughters-in-law were the sole survivors of a worldwide flood about 2,300 BC, I’d better be producing evidence to support that belief. But that I might believe that the world is the product of creative action by a divine being is not subject to debate, until and unless cosmology can go beyond the Big Bang to determine what (or Who) caused it.

My comment above, which was perhaps out of place here, is that the dogmatic assertion that there is no god, made by some of the less thoughtful atheist posters (often newbies) is subject to the same burden of proof that some random Christian (or Islamic/Wiccan/whatever) newbie would be expected to produce. In short, you’re welcome to accept the alleged naive-Hindu structure of the world, but you’d better be able to prove that “it’s turtles all the way down.” If you care to assert that the Christian god, or any god, does not exist, you’d better adduce your evidence. On the other hand, if your stipulation is that scientific evidence does not provide any adequate support for the theory that he exists, that’s a quite different assertion, and the basis for a different debate.

I was not claiming that David takes that stance; quite the contrary, he has allowed that he would be glad to give credence to a god which I could prove to exist, but he’s still waiting on that proof. (Got to get to work on that; where’s my Collected Works of St. Anselm? ;))

Phil, clearly Daniel was, in classic Pit style, suggesting that your knowledge was less than the cumulative summation of that of all small dogs in Oz (dingos excepted). (“Sum total” is a solecism which Daniel knows better than to use; what other form of total is there than a sum. There are other appropriate terms (remainer, product, dividend, differential, root, cube) available for other operations than summation.) Though I consider your intelligence to exceed even that of all dogs named Toto taken cumulatively, it’s well within Pit protocol to flame in this manner. :rolleyes:

31

Exactly. As with all other SDMB posters, my posts are completely free of metaphor or idiom. :rolleyes:

I’m sorry, when exactly did I admit this? I’m well aware that there are SDMB posters who believe this very thing. That doesn’t make it any less foolish.

There are posters (and scientists) who believe in the prevailing theories of evolution and cosmology who believe nevertheless that a deity set it all in motion billions of years ago. That is a more-or-less defensible position, insofar as its ultimate conclusions are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. There are posters (and scientists) who believe that the universe and all things in it were created around 6,000 years ago and made to look older, for some reason that only the deity in question knows. IMO, Occam’s Razor requires this belief to be rejected. It is an unproveable and useless theory.

Gee, thanks. Tell you what–when Nature publishes an article whose abstract reads, “Based on observations and data obtained from COBE, several neutrino-observing stations, and Antarctic cosmic-ray experiments, we conclude that the true age of the universe is approximately 6,000 years, and only appears older due to planning and execution by a heretofore undetected and undetectable deity,” you give me a call.

32

Well, I have to admit that I have certainly reacted poorly and posted more rudely than necessary, though I try not to. Sometimes it just comes out, and I certainly don’t mean to imply when commenting on another poster that my posting personality is bright, shiny, and unblemished.

Nevertheless, while I am philosophically aligned with David B on every issue I can think of, even I have winced on occasion at the tone of some of his posts. He certainly doesn’t suffer fools gladly, and he comes off heavy-handed and snide IMHO. There are plenty of times when a poster justly deserves both of David’s barrels, but I find him a bit quick on the trigger sometimes. I think he’s right in his arguments, mind you, but he definitely lacks in the area of diplomacy.

Gaudere, OTOH, I think is among the most level-headed and unflappable posters in GD. I do not recall her ever being insulting or needlessly snide until the other poster was way past deserving it. If by “rottweiler” you mean she is tenacious, and she locks her jaws onto a thread and won’t let go until it cries “uncle,” then I agree with you. If you mean “malicious attack dog,” then I am frankly astounded that we have such different impressions of her posts.

All of the above is, of course, merely my opinion. I just figured that I would mention it as someone from David’s side of the table, lest someone decide that DDG and others were suffering from persecution complexes.

33

Tell the truth – this is all about DAVID B.'s competition with MANNY to see who has the most Pit threads, isn’t it?

34

Phil,

I think you missed my point.

When I said

I was referring to the way you belittled individuals of intellectual merit simply because you disagree with them. Remember? Daniel made referrence to scientists who believe in the Old Earth Theory (as well as other Creationist ideas), and you said:

Note the underlined section.

You call people ignorant for disagreeing with a body of scientific knowledge with which you agree. When Daniel calls your attention to men of learning who are familiar with that knowledge yet dispute it, you announce your lack of respect for them.

Without reading their work.
Without considering their arguments.
Without hearing their positions.
Without assessing their education.

Nope. None of that is neccesary; You simply denounce them beacause of their alleged opinions on a single issue.
To quote a poster whose opinion I respect (despite the fact that he is fallible):
**

Moving on, I am not sure how to read your ad hominem remark. Are you implying that my post was in that vein? If so, I don’t understand how.

Regarding your last statement - your support of DavidB, let me second; I feel the same way. (Except, I fail to see the productivity in calling someone else’s beliefs “horeshit” or “silliness.”)

35

Let’s just leave it at this, sdimbert, so we can dispense with the hijack: Yes, I do dismiss creationism, of either the young- or old-Earth variety, out of hand, being contingent as it is upon the unproveable proposition of the existence of a deity.

A theory which proposes a 6,000-year-old universe designed by a creator to appear older than it is makes no useful predictions or conclusions that aren’t made equally as well by a theory which assumes that the universe is in fact the age it appears to be; and in fact, such a theory introduces an unexplainable and unnecessary entity.

If that makes me prejudiced, or ignorant, well, then, I guess I’m ignorant.

36

[POINT BELABORATION]

Nooo… neither, probably. Just fallible. And different. Both good, human traits.

[/POINT BELABORATION]

37

I still can’t believe Polycarp said that toto refers to the sum total of dogs in Oz. What a maroon.

Clearly the reference applies only to a single specific canine entity regardless of geographic location.

Coldfire:

Where do you think the band, Toto got its name from?
Oh, while I’m here:

  1. There can be no rational scientifically based belief in the existence of God.

  2. A faith based belief in God cannot be rebutted scientifically.

  3. A faith based belief in God doesn’t preclude one from rational, scientific thought, just as rational scientific thought does not preclude one from faith.

What’s the problem?

38

The problem is that people tend to become irritated when they think others are being derisive, sarcastic, hostile, and disrepectful in addressing them. And people tend to really get their shorts in a knot when they think others are being derisive, sarcastic, hostile, and disrepectful regarding their religious beliefs. So maybe people who tend to be derisive, sarcastic, hostile, and disrespectful (intentionally or not) should give some thought to dialing their presentation down a notch or two. That’s all.

39

Jodi:

At the risk of being whooshed:
Was that directed at me?

40

The problem is when someone who believes in the existence of God asserts that that belief is rational and scientific, or an atheist attempts to use scientific principles to deny the existence of God. While both have happened on this board, the former is, to my experience, far more common. I note that in witnessing threads, most rationalists are denying the validity of the witnessers’ allegedly rational and scientific arguments, rather than the witnesser’s belief.

Sua

Sua