Why are we not ostracizing free riders on this board?

[shirgall]

The problem with free riders is that they do not reciprocate value.

 

Not all value is monetary. Like, share, and subscribe is not money, but it is appreciated. Pose interesting questions. Post thoughtful answers. Stop child abuse when you see it. These are all things that the community values.

 

I have not yet seen it demonstrated that there's a free rider problem, or I somehow missed it in the exchanges.

[Guest Gee]

Moving the goalposts? I thought your issue was with free riders. Now you're talking about religiosity. What gives?

 

For anyone wondering, that would be how someone says yes without saying yes.

 

-1 for avoiding the question, that wasn't very alpha of you.

 

Not all value is monetary. Like, share, and subscribe is not money, but it is appreciated. Pose interesting questions. Post thoughtful answers. Stop child abuse when you see it. These are all things that the community values.

 

I have not yet seen it demonstrated that there's a free rider problem, or I somehow missed it in the exchanges.

 

Not all value, true. Like, share and subscribe, agreed! Pose and post, agreed! Stop child abuse, don't believe it, would be akin to a man not climbing a flight of stairs yet climbing mountains, I would love to be wrong.

 

I have not yet seen it, understandable, if anyone saw it they would presumably done something. Response 4+5 in previous post would be my argument.

[shirgall]

Not all value, true. Like, share and subscribe, agreed! Pose and post, agreed! Stop child abuse, don't believe it, would be akin to a man not climbing a flight of stairs yet climbing mountains, I would love to be wrong.

 

I have not yet seen it, understandable, if anyone saw it they would presumably done something. Response 4+5 in previous post would be my argument.

 

There are certainly stories of brave individuals from this forum confronting public child abusers. They are some of the most touching things I've read here.

 

I looked at your #4 and #5 items and I trimmed your response down to what I posted because they seemed like side dishes to the entree I quoted. There is no consistency in how people do upvotes/downvotes, so I wouldn't put any credence into that system. It's a forum option that was enabled and that's it.

 

The truly abusive stuff gets caught by moderation either by prior restraint based on keywords that flags for moderation or by complaint. Most things are left alone.

 

You are free to make your own forum and there are certainly other freethinker places out there.

[dsayers]

-1 for avoiding the question

The implication being that if you ask a question of somebody, they MUST answer. Your proposition is unethical. And you've deflected from your moving of the goalposts by not addressing it, the very thing you accused me of doing.

 

Knock yourself out with the downvotes. It won't alter the truth value of any objective claim I make.

[Guest Gee]

The implication being that if you ask a question of somebody, they MUST answer. Your proposition is unethical. And you've deflected from your moving of the goalposts by not addressing it, the very thing you accused me of doing.

 

Knock yourself out with the downvotes. It won't alter the truth value of any objective claim I make.

Yeah I've seen this moving the goalposts meme a few times, it's boring. If the expectation is I only put up arguments instead of working through ideas then I would be expected to work through the proof then I would prove my arguments then I would know there veracity then why would I bother writing anything in the first place unless it's to check my proof which means I can't tell if my own proof is right or wrong which would be pretty pathetic.

 

I don't understand your goal post stuff though, if your not expected to answer a question then why do you care if I don't? Is this some sort of alpha male tier philosophy I'm unaware of?

[NoGreenerMan]

In that case my propose is we ostracize those who do not donate after some arbitrary post count number.

 

How would you know if someone with a high post count and a non-donator status isn't going through a financially difficult time in their life?

 

Excluding people if they haven't given money would mean freedomainradio is no longer free domain and operating according to voluntaryist principles.

 

Down-voting a post because of a characteristic of the poster (non-donator) is not compatible with a community that values philosophy.

 

How would you propose to ostracise 'the free riders' consuming podcasts costing more resources to host and stream compared to text on a virtual board?

[shirgall]

"It's boring" isn't just a non-argument, it's also emotionally manipulative. We aren't trying to woo you, so it is reasonable to expect that when you are making claims you support them with reasonable arguments that relate to the claim. Changing what is being argued about to some other scope is "moving the goalposts" akin to declaring victory when none has been achieved. We were talking about free riders and suddenly you were talking about aversion to religion and claiming the question was relevant.

 

Meanwhile, back at square one, we were trying to ascertain what value of significance was being enjoyed without contribution of value in return... the free rider problem. That question has not been answered.

[Frosty]

Once broadcast! Oy Vey! And before broadcast? Well?

 

Almost all of this tremendously valuable content exists because Stef, Mike, Stoyen et. al. can use their valuable time and prodigious skills to create the content. Why are they able to do so? Because people donate. 

 

Maybe there is an IQ thing going on here? Economics is the art of the unseen and the unseen here is the growth and quality and quantity of content. Plus, for the guys without $5 dollars to chip in (young-lings excluded), well, IQ goes with earnings.

 

But that's not true, because there was production of content prior to there being donations, and there's many other examples of people who make content on places such as youtube and do not take donations or payments.

 

IQ does tend to go with earnings, so what? Is this an attempt at some kind of insult? I'm an IT Director who earns very well thank you, I choose not to donate because I don't feel like there's an obligation to, this content is put online for free, it's not gated behind a paywall, donations are entirely optional and while that remains the case I probably won't pay for content.

 

If they require money to continue working they have many options to place adverts on youtube, paywall content, etc.

[dsayers]

I choose not to donate because I don't feel like there's an obligation to, this content is put online for free, it's not gated behind a paywall, donations are entirely optional and while that remains the case I probably won't pay for content.

 

If they require money to continue working they have many options to place adverts on youtube, paywall content, etc.

You are free to pay for whatever you choose for whatever reason you choose. As such, there's no reason to be dishonest about it. Here, you've put forth obligation as a standard, but you pay for things every day you are not obligated to. So clearly this is not actually a standard that you hold (nor should).

 

IF you receive value, then the just thing to do is exchange value. This doesn't HAVE to be by way of donation, which I think has been the central pushback to Graham's call. However, given you manner of approach, I don't think you find it just to exchange value for value in any form. And you couldn't even be honest about it. So this is me ostracizing you for being parasitic. Please do the right thing and exchange value for value. You do this in 99% of your interactions every day and the work FDR does is too important to be that exception in my opinion.

[Guest Gee]

"It's boring" isn't just a non-argument, it's also emotionally manipulative. We aren't trying to woo you, so it is reasonable to expect that when you are making claims you support them with reasonable arguments that relate to the claim. Changing what is being argued about to some other scope is "moving the goalposts" akin to declaring victory when none has been achieved. We were talking about free riders and suddenly you were talking about aversion to religion and claiming the question was relevant.

 

Meanwhile, back at square one, we were trying to ascertain what value of significance was being enjoyed without contribution of value in return... the free rider problem. That question has not been answered.

 

I know, that is why I did it.

 

Is the question of religion relevant?

 

Well this thread is about rejecting those who do not hold your values.

There is a migrants crisis because there is an issue with people rejecting those who do not hold your values.

The role of atheists in not rejecting those who hold your values is talked about alot by FDR.

And FDR is moving towards Christianity because (in part) of the failures of the atheists.

There are threads on the board where atheists in this community post things such as N.A.A.A.L.T. (that was you), Dsayers has posted a few in those threads too, but I don't recall what he wrote.

BUT

Here is a thread where some atheists have trouble with the idea rejecting those who don't hold same values.

So maybe all atheists are like that.

 

Relevant? I don't know, judge for yourself, but it was something that made me go "hhhmmmmmmmmmm.......".

 

That said, as Frosty has been kind enough to validate what I explained was a reasonable assertion, perhaps you should reread what I wrote, you may of missed something.

 

Either way, I'm off.

[shirgall]

My argument wasn't NAAALT, it was merely my first reaction. Later in the thread I talked about how atheism was a red herring and the danger was actually cultural marxism which gave rise to atheism *and* cessation of good values. I'm not sure what you have against atheists, but it's clearly not an attribute that carries a lot of weight. I'm a skeptic about a lot of things, not just religion.

[vahleeb]

Don't you people find it a bit disturbing the amount of down-votes that AFK has gotten throughout this conversation? All the while he was just trying to support his position.

 

I come down on the opposite side from AFK on this topic of "free riders" - there is no such problem in the forums, but I can't help but wonder, haven't we stumbled onto another form of ostracism here? Where more people gang up on someone and if they refuse to yield then they down-vote them into oblivion? Since upvotes and downvotes are counted against "reputation", I always viewed them as a tool to indicate helpfulness and maliciousness respectively. As a result I'd understand a plethora of down-votes on one of AFK-s post, either the original or the first clarification he offers, but hounding all of his posts like this makes me wonder wether or not people would rather end up disengaging from debate rather than have their "reputations" ruined.

[shirgall]

Don't you people find it a bit disturbing the amount of down-votes that AFK has gotten throughout this conversation? All the while he was just trying to support his position.

 

I come down on the opposite side from AFK on this topic of "free riders" - there is no such problem in the forums, but I can't help but wonder, haven't we stumbled onto another form of ostracism here? Where more people gang up on someone and if they refuse to yield then they down-vote them into oblivion? Since upvotes and downvotes are counted against "reputation", I always viewed them as a tool to indicate helpfulness and maliciousness respectively. As a result I'd understand a plethora of down-votes on one of AFK-s post, either the original or the first clarification he offers, but hounding all of his posts like this makes me wonder wether or not people would rather end up disengaging from debate rather than have their "reputations" ruined.

 

I've long maintained that the voting system here is not really a good gauge of anything. There is no objective criteria how anyone chooses to vote (and most who can do not vote).

[dsayers]

he was just trying to support his position.

 

if they refuse to yield then they down-vote them

It's ironic that while you conceal his actions and claim to know WHY people have down-voted him, you gloss over the fact that HE down-voted somebody for a similarly hollow reason.

 

He was not "just" trying to support his position. He revealed his position was unfounded (as you have observed for yourself), trivialized the most important question of "how do you know," has deflected, etc. I cannot speak for others, but I usually use the down-vote to address this particular lack of integrity.

 

You can vote. You can elect to use your votes to offset votes you disagree with. As shirgall pointed out, it doesn't really mean much unless an individual amasses a net negative beyond a certain threshold. At that point, member who have the option turned on will have their posts collapsed by default.

[vahleeb]

It's ironic that while you conceal his actions and claim to know WHY people have down-voted him, you gloss over the fact that HE down-voted somebody for a similarly hollow reason.

 

I don't "conceal" his actions. I saw evidence that he and at least two more people down-voted one free user once on one post in this thread. The rest of the free-user comments appear not to have been down-voted which is why I said that I can understand a retaliation in kind on one of his posts, not the "hounding" that went on to the point where he was forced to stop the conversation. And I'd like to thank whoever down-voted the previous post and send an anticipatory thank you for your down-voting of this one.

[dsayers]

I can understand a retaliation in kind on one of his posts, not the "hounding" that went on to the point where he was forced to stop the conversation. And I'd like to thank whoever down-voted the previous post and send an anticipatory thank you for your down-voting of this one.

This is the kind of lack of integrity I was referring to. First, you made no effort to address the challenge to your claim that he was JUST trying to support his position. Secondly, you poison the well and beg the question by referring to what you've observed as "hounding." Third, you poison the well by saying that people here, who are in no position to force him to do anything, had FORCED him to do something. Finally, you engage in the manipulative behavior of telling people what they're GOING to do.

 

Where were you when the most established members of the community were "hounding" me to the point of "forcing" me to leave because they took issue with my controversial (/sarcasm) claim that the word gender encompasses both male and female?

[vahleeb]

This is the kind of lack of integrity I was referring to. First, you made no effort to address the challenge to your claim that he was JUST trying to support his position. Secondly, you poison the well and beg the question by referring to what you've observed as "hounding." Third, you poison the well by saying that people here, who are in no position to force him to do anything, had FORCED him to do something. Finally, you engage in the manipulative behavior of telling people what they're GOING to do.

 

Where were you when the most established members of the community were "hounding" me to the point of "forcing" me to leave because they took issue with my controversial (/sarcasm) claim that the word gender encompasses both male and female?

 

You're a very quick to judge person aren't you, dsayer? Ever wonder if in that quickness you might lose track of certain issues that, when taken into consideration, might not make judgement that quick and easy?

 

You have accused me, as of your last post, of lack of integrity? How exactly would I be more integer? I can't argue his point, because I happen to think he doesn't have a point. Would you like me to quote his "arguments" back to you? You have already read them. What use would that be? He is advocating for something in his original post, he is pushed to action by a "manipulating" comment ("why don't you start?") but the rest of his comments are debate. They are not insulting, they are opinions which he tries to argue. If he were speaking in a vacuum and quoting the scripture of Baal as his reasons, I might have agreed that he makes no effort to argue, but at this point I have no clue what you are asking me to do, in order to prove to you that he's just trying to argue his position.

 

Second, I poison the well and beg the question because I use the word "hounding"? It was my opinion that not all of his posts in this thread deserved thumbs down. I tried to highlight that all of his posts in this thread GOT thumbs down regardless of the point he was making in them. I further asserted that this type of behaviour, if it's true, will have the effect of encouraging disengagement, if someone were to care about the amount of down-votes they received. As such, the behaviour that I have observed would be described by what better word so as to not "poison the well"?

 

Third, "forced" is another poison the well argument? How would you call then encouragement to disengage?

 

Finally, your argument about manipulation would have had so much more weight had I been proven wrong with my prediction.

 

Lastly, I'm genuinely sorry that you fell prey to this kind of behaviour (that I have described in my "poisoning the well posts) in another thread, just as I feel sorry for AFK. All I can say in reply to your question is that perhaps I wasn't an active member of the board back then, but had I noticed you encountering the same type of behaviour I would have probably spoken out then.

[dsayers]

You're a very quick to judge person aren't you, dsayer?

I was referencing behaviors, not a person. Yes, I am very efficient at cutting through bullshit, obfuscation, and logical fallacies. Comes from pursuing self-knowledge and developing rational thought after decades of being forged in some of the most sophisticated manipulation I've ever heard of. I am not sorry for when this makes maneuvering in my presence that much more challenging for people who are prone to such underhanded tactics. Instead of resorting to personalization, ad hominem, and lashing out, why not up your own self-knowledge and/or rational thinking? Something you actually have control over. Or hang out where people of such insight don't congregate.

 

-1 for responding to a lack of integrity being pointed out by doubling down.

[vahleeb]

I was referencing behaviors, not a person. Yes, I am very efficient at cutting through bullshit, obfuscation, and logical fallacies. Comes from pursuing self-knowledge and developing rational thought after decades of being forged in some of the most sophisticated manipulation I've ever heard of. I am not sorry for when this makes maneuvering in my presence that much more challenging for people who are prone to such underhanded tactics. Instead of resorting to personalization, ad hominem, and lashing out, why not up your own self-knowledge and/or rational thinking? Something you actually have control over. Or hang out where people of such insight don't congregate.

 

-1 for responding to a lack of integrity being pointed out by doubling down.

 

So, you don't have the time to show someone the error of their ways and show me where my integrity faltered where I genuinely asked for your help? I find it illuminating that you shine the spotlight immediately back on your qualities and away from whatever comments I was making. If you can point out a single logical fallacy in my previous comment, I will certainly appreciate it.

 

On the question of integrity itself, if you look up the Miriam-Webster dictionary, it is a more common sense of the word that it is a characteristic of a person, rather than a characteristic of a behaviour. That makes my misunderstanding of your original reply excusable. Furthermore, you admit yourself that I have misunderstood your comment ("I was referencing behaviors, not a person"), but instead of addressing the misunderstanding and the good will of not calling out an ad hominem (based on that misunderstanding), you just tax me with another thumbs down for "doubling down".

 

Next you are calling me out that I have resorted to "personalisation, ad hominem, and lashing out". Where have I done any of that? 

[shirgall]

So, you don't have the time to show someone the error of their ways and show me where my integrity faltered where I genuinely asked for your help? 

 

Are you going to pay him, or are you a free rider?

 

*runs away fast*

[vahleeb]

Are you going to pay him, or are you a free rider?

 

*runs away fast*

 

 

Debating people assumes the existence of a standard, the capacity for error and the capacity for correction. I would assume that once he engaged in debate with me (I certainly didn't single him out with my first comment) he invested himself for his own benefit.

 

I wasn't aware I needed a life coach. I was under the impression this was a free exchange of ideas between equals.

[dsayers]

So, you don't have the time to show someone the error of their ways

I will invest my every moment for those who are curious, accept their capacity for error, challenge and are receptive to challenge, and are honest. This strawman is just MORE of the same lack of integrity.

 

I genuinely asked for your help?

Telling a person they have judged YOU because they accurately described some of your BEHAVIORS is not asking for help. In fact, it demonstrates a lack of receptivity. A person asking for help would say, "Ugh, I feel frustrated. You are right, to say... is poisoning the well. The reason I feel frustrated is because I try really hard to stay as objective as possible and not let my biases creep in, but sometimes I fail. It is something I am working on so I really appreciate you pointing it out because I honestly didn't even notice I did it." That's an actual response to a similar claim from somebody who was genuinely asking for help. If you'll notice, they were direct with their feelings, admitted their capacity for error, assimilated the correction, and was thankful to receive it.

 

As opposed to tripling down because they are so maried to their own conclusion, they refuse to diverge from it.

[vahleeb]

I will invest my every moment for those who are curious, accept their capacity for error, challenge and are receptive to challenge, and are honest. This strawman is just MORE of the same lack of integrity.

 

Telling a person they have judged YOU because they accurately described some of your BEHAVIORS is not asking for help. In fact, it demonstrates a lack of receptivity. A person asking for help would say, "Ugh, I feel frustrated. You are right, to say... is poisoning the well. The reason I feel frustrated is because I try really hard to stay as objective as possible and not let my biases creep in, but sometimes I fail. It is something I am working on so I really appreciate you pointing it out because I honestly didn't even notice I did it." That's an actual response to a similar claim from somebody who was genuinely asking for help. If you'll notice, they were direct with their feelings, admitted their capacity for error, assimilated the correction, and was thankful to receive it.

 

As opposed to tripling down because they are so maried to their own conclusion, they refuse to diverge from it.

 

What is your null hypothesis, dsayers? How are you not married to your own conclusions? 

 

Why would I, by your own example, first have to prostrate myself to you ("you are right to say"/"i feel frustrated") in order to elicit from you an example of an alternate behaviour than the one I have employed and that you have judged as lacking in integrity?

 

Let me reiterate the "conflict" here just so there is no doubt what I am talking about (and also to illustrate the flow of ideas that I have received from this conversation, in bold are my open ended questions that you have not responded to, in underline are your characterisations of my actions that I do not agree with):

Vahleeb: Don't you people find it a bit disturbing the amount of down-votes that AFK has gotten throughout this conversation? All the while he was just trying to support his position. I come down on the opposite side from AFK on this topic of "free riders" - there is no such problem in the forums, but I can't help but wonder, haven't we stumbled onto another form of ostracism here? Where more people gang up on someone and if they refuse to yield then they down-vote them into oblivion? Since upvotes and downvotes are counted against "reputation", I always viewed them as a tool to indicate helpfulness and maliciousness respectively. As a result I'd understand a plethora of down-votes on one of AFK-s post, either the original or the first clarification he offers, but hounding all of his posts like this makes me wonder wether or not people would rather end up disengaging from debate rather than have their "reputations" ruined.

 

Dsayers: It's ironic that while you conceal his actions and claim to know WHY people have down-voted him, you gloss over the fact that HE down-voted somebody for a similarly hollow reason.

 

Vahleeb: I don't "conceal" his actions. I saw evidence that he and at least two more people down-voted one free user once on one post in this thread. The rest of the free-user comments appear not to have been down-voted which is why I said that I can understand a retaliation in kind on one of his posts, not the "hounding" that went on to the point where he was forced to stop the conversation.

 

Dsayers: This is the kind of lack of integrity I was referring to. First, you made no effort to address the challenge to your claim that he was JUST trying to support his position. Secondly, you poison the well and beg the question by referring to what you've observed as "hounding." Third, you poison the well by saying that people here, who are in no position to force him to do anything, had FORCED him to do something.

 

Vahleeb: You're a very quick to judge person aren't you, dsayer? Ever wonder if in that quickness you might lose track of certain issues that, when taken into consideration, might not make judgement that quick and easy?

You have accused me, as of your last post, of lack of integrity? How exactly would I be more integer? I can't argue his point, because I happen to think he doesn't have a point. [...] He is advocating for something in his original post, he is pushed to action by a "manipulating" comment ("why don't you start?") but the rest of his comments are debate. They are not insulting, they are opinions which he tries to argue. If he were speaking in a vacuum and quoting the scripture of Baal as his reasons, I might have agreed that he makes no effort to argue, but at this point I have no clue what you are asking me to do, in order to prove to you that he's just trying to argue his position.

Second, I poison the well and beg the question because I use the word "hounding"? [...]   As such, the behaviour that I have observed would be described by what better word so as to not "poison the well"?

Third, "forced" is another poison the well argument? How would you call then encouragement to disengage?

[...]

 

Dsayers: I was referencing behaviors, not a person. [...] I am not sorry for when this makes maneuvering in my presence that much more challenging for people who are prone to [...] underhanded tactics. Instead of resorting to personalization, ad hominem, and lashing out, why not up your own self-knowledge and/or rational thinking? [...] Or hang out where people of such insight don't congregate.

-1 for responding to a lack of integrity being pointed out by doubling down.

 

Vahleeb: So, you don't have the time to show someone the error of their ways and show me where my integrity faltered where I genuinely asked for your help? [...] If you can point out a single logical fallacy in my previous comment, I will certainly appreciate it.

On the question of integrity itself, if you look up the Miriam-Webster dictionary, it is a more common sense of the word that it is a characteristic of a person, rather than a characteristic of a behaviour. That makes my misunderstanding of your original reply excusable. Furthermore, you admit yourself that I have misunderstood your comment [...] but instead of addressing the misunderstanding and the good will of not calling out an ad hominem (based on that misunderstanding), you just tax me with another thumbs down for "doubling down".

Next you are calling me out that I have resorted to "personalisation, ad hominem, and lashing out". Where have I done any of that?

 

Dsayers: I will invest my every moment for those who are curious, accept their capacity for error, challenge and are receptive to challenge, and are honest. This strawman is just MORE of the same lack of integrity.

Telling a person they have judged YOU because they accurately described some of your BEHAVIORS is not asking for help. In fact, it demonstrates a lack of receptivity. A person asking for help would say [prescriptive prostrating behaviour removed] if you'll notice, they were direct with their feelings, admitted their capacity for error, assimilated the correction, and was thankful to receive it.

As opposed to tripling down because they are so maried to their own conclusion, they refuse to diverge from it.

 

 

 

Just to sum it up from the top: What is your null hypothesis for "poisoning the well", for "begging the question" and for "accurately described"? How am I not displaying the acceptance for capacity for error when I am literally asking you to correct my behaviour time and time again where it fails to meet your standards? And judging by your last comment, you are bypassing all of these questions because "I am not asking you properly" ?? Do you have any idea what a discussion between equals entails? I cannot agree with you without first knowing what you would expect of me. I don't think that's unreasonable in any way.

[dsayers]

How are you not married to your own conclusions? 

It starts with accepting that truth is preferable to falsehood. Then my acceptance of my own capacity for error. Then as I am exposed to ideas (which I generally seek out) that more accurately describe the real world than my previously held conclusions, I adjust or replace my conclusion accordingly.

 

Why would I, by your own example, first have to prostrate myself to you

Quadrupling down... I will say that your commitment to this transparent lack of integrity is impressive were it not shameful.

 

Your responsibility is to yourself. YOU entered a discussion that was pretty much over with and leveled the provocative and provably false claims that "he was just trying to support his position" and "if they refuse to yield then they down-vote them." You have yet to substantiate these claims and have instead been deflecting; YOU claimed that you were asking for help when in fact you were demonstrating a lack of receptivity. Pointing at me is just a way of trying to weasel out of your own responsibility for the words YOU put forth. Which carries added irony given your accusation of rushed judgement

 

I even went so far as to point out that the example I gave was just that: an example. Yet you regarded it as some form I'd make you fill out just to listen to you *facepalm*. Here's a challenge for you: See if you can post a reply that doesn't speak of ME at all. See if you can just deal with what's on the table without any personalization. If you're half as interested in help as you claim, you will find this to be a valuable exercise in terms of your own self-knowledge work.

[vahleeb]

YOU entered a discussion that was pretty much over with [...]

 

Yes I did. Because the discussion was over because AFK chose to retreat from the thread entirely, not because anyone had actually convinced anyone of anything. His last post ends on

 

Either way, I'm off.

 

Which translates into I don't have any desire to carry the conversation forward. I made an observation as to what may have been the reason behind his desire to retreat, while stating that on the base arguments, I don't agree with AFKs point of view, but somehow that was perceived as attack?

 

 

 

Here's a challenge for you: See if you can post a reply that doesn't speak of ME at all.

 

I'd love to take you up on that challenge, dsayer, but for now it is your behaviour that is driving our conflict forward. So I'll counter-issue a challenge for you:

 

Try and answer at least three of the following questions:

 

1. what are you asking me to do, in order to prove to you that he's just trying to argue his position?

2. the behaviour that I have observed would be described by what better word so as to not "poison the well"?

3. How would you call then encouragement to disengage?

4. Can you point out a single logical fallacy in any of my previous comments?

5. Where have I done any of the following: personalisation, ad hominem, and/or lashing out.

6. What is your null hypothesis for "poisoning the well", for "begging the question" and for the accuracy of your description of my behaviour?

 

And the reward I will give is that the following post I make on this thread will not be about you.

[dsayers]

If you ignored what I said the first time, I'm not going to pretend with you that saying it a second time would achieve a different result. The nice thing about public, written correspondence is that there is a record. Since you have yet to address my initial challenge (which I JUST said JUST before you asked me what you could do), maybe go back, read it, and address it. Your claims have been challenged and you've been filibustering. You don't HAVE to back up your claims. But know that this perpetual deflection will not be indulged.

 

Also, there is no conflict. I gain nothing by you accepting that your initial claims were inaccurate. I press on because many have communicated to me that my ability to stay focused is inspirational and this is easy stuff to cut through. That is the extent of my investment.

 

Your unwillingness to address your own error/stay on topic (personalization) is noted.

[AncapFTW]

Isn't this discussion pretty much a bunch of people screaming "why don't you choose to pay as much as I do for this product and/or service?  It's immoral to not pay as much as I do, so you're a bad person."

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

How do you know if someone has donated? Just because someone doesn't have a badge doesn't mean they don't donate.

[labmath2]

It starts with accepting that truth is preferable to falsehood. Then my acceptance of my own capacity for error. Then as I am exposed to ideas (which I generally seek out) that more accurately describe the real world than my previously held conclusions, I adjust or replace my conclusion accordingly.

 

Quadrupling down... I will say that your commitment to this transparent lack of integrity is impressive were it not shameful.

 

Your responsibility is to yourself. YOU entered a discussion that was pretty much over with and leveled the provocative and provably false claims that "he was just trying to support his position" and "if they refuse to yield then they down-vote them." You have yet to substantiate these claims and have instead been deflecting; YOU claimed that you were asking for help when in fact you were demonstrating a lack of receptivity. Pointing at me is just a way of trying to weasel out of your own responsibility for the words YOU put forth. Which carries added irony given your accusation of rushed judgement

 

I even went so far as to point out that the example I gave was just that: an example. Yet you regarded it as some form I'd make you fill out just to listen to you *facepalm*. Here's a challenge for you: See if you can post a reply that doesn't speak of ME at all. See if you can just deal with what's on the table without any personalization. If you're half as interested in help as you claim, you will find this to be a valuable exercise in terms of your own self-knowledge work.

I am curious, do you care how the other person recieves your comments? When i first joined this community, you were one of the three people that consistently responded to my questions about morality that i could not understand their content. For one mentioning the type of fallacy a person is commiting does not actually explain the problem to them. It would be much easier to show the failure of their arguments (or lack thereof). It would also help to not conclude lack of integrity based on a few back and forth. Even if you dont say it, it comes across to the person which makes them more guarded and less receptive. In general adjust the way you use language to the person. Not everyone has deducated the same amount of time to conversations as you have and not everyone is as smart. Most of the time your listener is interpreting your arguments before they become familiar with your communication style and information (hence the challenge to communicate it to a five year old with little experience in conversation and knowledge of your content).

[shirgall]

How do you know if someone has donated? Just because someone doesn't have a badge doesn't mean they don't donate.

 

There are two different ways to earn badges, monthly donations or one time.

[Thus_Spake_the_Nightspirit]

Yes, I know, but don't you have to write and ask for your status to be updated? I've donated and did not get a badge, but I can't be stuffed to bother someone about doing it manually for me.

[dsayers]

Isn't this discussion pretty much a bunch of people screaming "why don't you choose to pay as much as I do for this product and/or service?  It's immoral to not pay as much as I do, so you're a bad person."

What is the deal with all the strawmen on the forums lately? Not one person here has said anything that could be misinterpreted as it's immoral to not donate (as much).

[shirgall]

Yes, I know, but don't you have to write and ask for your status to be updated? I've donated and did not get a badge, but I can't be stuffed to bother someone about doing it manually for me.

 

There are ranges, I don't know how it works, just that I got popped silver for a single donation once, and changed later when I went to monthly.

[Merrifield]

Yes, I know, but don't you have to write and ask for your status to be updated? I've donated and did not get a badge, but I can't be stuffed to bother someone about doing it manually for me.

 

 

There are ranges, I don't know how it works, just that I got popped silver for a single donation once, and changed later when I went to monthly

It would be helpful to get some clarification on exactly how badges are earned and whether an individual can donate money and it be unknown to the rest of the members. 

[shirgall]

It would be helpful to get some clarification on exactly how badges are earned and whether an individual can donate money and it be unknown to the rest of the members. 

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36511-donator-statuspremium-content-information/#entry335622