I want to revisit something I’ve posted before, and never got a satisfactory answer to.
What makes GD different from IMHO? In the real world, debates are scored and judged, by an electorate for political debates, and by a panel of judges in cases of formal academic events. Neither of those occur in GD. So what GD threads amount to are IMHO threads that invite arguments. And what are the arguments? Well, they amount to opinions, because almost no GD questions are subject to factual answers, and if they are they’re probably in the wrong forum anyway. If folks have noticed, threads in IMHO get just as much argument as those in GD.
IMO, the only difference between the two forums is in the mind of the OP, as to whether the subject is ‘important’ enough for GD. And this importance seems to be measured, in many cases, by a degree of emotional attachment to the beliefs being discussed. This of course leads to inflamed emotions as folks’ dearest held beliefs are being attacked or challenged.
IOW, the very existence of a GD forum, without any mechanism of judging the quality and truth of the arguments, is designed for unresolvable train wrecks. And of course, the very idea of having a panel of SDMB debate judges would be the train wreck to end all train wrecks.
IMO, the forum should be eliminated altogether unless it can be organized in a way that parallels RW debates. Honestly, I think the work involved in doing that is too much to ask of unpaid volunteer moderators.
So, given that eliminating the forum won’t happen either – too many people think their opinions are too important to be mere opinions – I say making rule changes is not worth doing, as I can’t see any way that minor changes will result in any significant improvement.
Ok, I just looked through a thread that gave me one more idea – take “witnessing” threads out of GD and put them into IMHO. People who want to witness their truths do not want to debate them, and it’s 99% certain there’s no point to such a debate anyway. Witnessing is, from the POV of everyone by the witness, pretty much certainly an opinion. Why include such threads on a forum that encourages challenges?
I really have no idea how much if at all this will improve GD (and I suspect it may fuck up IMHO to an equal degree), but IMHO is a more logical place for witness threads.
I see no value in belittling a person, when it comes to an actual argument. The only purpose I see is the one the Pit was set up for: to get out frustrations.
At least, I can’t see how belittling the person is any more effective than belittling an argument or point of view. The purpose of both is to persuade using ignorance.
Hon, how can you read a post and get the interpretation that wrong? Yes, the Pit is for that purpose, NOT GD. That’s the whole point.
You often make fun of me for my posts, and yet you are posting something that makes no sense whatsoever with anything that has been said before.
And I’m getting tired of you following me around. If you have a problem with me, why don’t you use the pit for its intended purpose, instead of talking behind my back all the time?
First, I thought you WERE referring to the Pit. If not, I appologize.
Second, I haven’t seen too much too much belittling in GD, as not as you think. IF you feel that way, you should start a Pitting.
As for the rest, I’m not hijacking this thread. (There’s already one in the Pit – you’re free to join)
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have the Pens game to attend to. Lousy Habs. (I HATE those bastards!)
Because you run and hide every time someone directly confronts you. There’s a pit thread currently begging for you to come participate in. But you won’t - and we both know why.
There is a difference between saying, “N****rs are s**t,” and explaining why one agrees with The Bell Curve. I think that difference should be acknowledged by the moderators.
We already acknowledge that difference: We ban posters for the first claim because they are obviously trolling while we tolerate the errors of posters who post the second claim, even though the dishonesty and lack of science in The Bell Curve has been well documented (and posted on this board) over the last fifteen years.
The difference is also acknowledged in that you’re allowed to post your views in the proper venue. What you’re not allowed to do - and this is not the first time you’ve received this instruction - is post about it in every thread where you can think of a way to work in a reference to your favorite book.
If The Bell Curve is dishonest and wrong, why has the gap between white and black SAT scores grown form 1990 to 2009?
In 1990 white scores averaged 1031. Black scores averaged 846. The race gap was 185. In 2009 white scores averaged 1064. Black scores averaged 855. The race gap grew to 209.
This is an example of why you continue to receive Mod notes in Great Debates. You persistently try to change every thread into a discussion of black inferiority.
Whatever the reasons for discrepancies in test scores–even if they resulted from lower intelligence among blacks–The Bell Curve, itself, remains a flawed work that has had numerous serious errors pointed out by several universities and others, yet we continue to let you make these posts citing it when it is appropriate to the discussion, not, as in this thread, when it is actually off topic and you are simply pushing your agenda to denigrate blacks in every thread you enter.
New Deal Democrat, we are not going to do this here. This is a forum for discussion of the rules, not Great Debates. In any case this was explained to you at great length in a recent thread. If you’re interested, read that again. Now, do you have any questions or comments about the moderation of your posts?
