Kafei

Biases and content control

Recommended Posts

A thread I participated was closed due because I essentially shared legitimate science being done in a science forum. This site is ridiculous. 

SmartSelect_20180911-104336_Chrome.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, the thread was closed because you aren't following the rules. These rules have been explained to you more than once.

Do you have a question about our rule concerning relying on links?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What rule was broken? As far as I can discern, I've broken not a single rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kafei said:

As far as I can discern,

This distance you describe as "far" is actually so near it appears obtuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This distance you describe as "far" is actually so near it appears obtuse.

Yet no MOD can specifically point out how I broke any rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kafei said:

Yet no MOD can specifically point out how I broke any rules. 

Really?

See that bit: "Our rules state ..." ?

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Yet no MOD can specifically point out how I broke any rules. 

It is not the responsibility of the Moderators to read rules to you which you already agree to when creating your account. I recommend you review the Guidelines. You will find the your answer there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Yet no MOD can specifically point out how I broke any rules. 

Myopia is definitely biasing the content of many posts lately. 

 

I'll also throw in that any discussion suffers when any of the participants adopts a must-win-the-debate attitude that precludes them from recognizing competing points and good arguments. Kafei, your style suffers from this a lot, and while you think it makes you victorious, it just frustrates others that they continually have to keep pointing to what they said two minutes ago, which you ignored in favor of waving your hands and repeating your same refuted arguments.

It's difficult to know if you choose to do this consciously or not. The results are the same, so what does it matter? You're ignoring points that don't agree with you, which amounts to soapboxing, which is just one of the rules you broke.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You're ignoring points that don't agree with you, which amounts to soapboxing, which is just one of the rules you broke.

Citing links to support an ongoing discussion is alright, but insisting people read outside links without discussing the content in the thread is against the rules too.

There's just no way anyone should have to browse through the dozens of (dubious or otherwise) Youtube links to qualify themselves for the discussion on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Myopia is definitely biasing the content of many posts lately. 

 

I'll also throw in that any discussion suffers when any of the participants adopts a must-win-the-debate attitude that precludes them from recognizing competing points and good arguments. Kafei, your style suffers from this a lot, and while you think it makes you victorious, it just frustrates others that they continually have to keep pointing to what they said two minutes ago, which you ignored in favor of waving your hands and repeating your same refuted arguments.

It's difficult to know if you choose to do this consciously or not. The results are the same, so what does it matter? You're ignoring points that don't agree with you, which amounts to soapboxing, which is just one of the rules you broke.

 

You say a lot of nothing. What points in particular did I not address? There's absolutely no specificity at all in your post, just pure empty and baseless criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kafei said:

Yet no MOD can specifically point out how I broke any rules. 

With all due respect, why don't you read the rules and become familiar with them....In line of course with your own advice to me when I asked for a specific answer and you referred me to a block of text. :P

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'll also throw in that any discussion suffers when any of the participants adopts a must-win-the-debate attitude that precludes them from recognizing competing points and good arguments. Kafei, your style suffers from this a lot, and while you think it makes you victorious, it just frustrates others that they continually have to keep pointing to what they said two minutes ago, which you ignored in favor of waving your hands and repeating your same refuted arguments.

It's difficult to know if you choose to do this consciously or not. The results are the same, so what does it matter? You're ignoring points that don't agree with you, which amounts to soapboxing, which is just one of the rules you broke.

 

11 minutes ago, Kafei said:

You say a lot of nothing. What points in particular did I not address? There's absolutely no specificity at all in your post, just pure empty and baseless criticism.

You just added total confirmation and solidity to Phil's legitimate points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rangerx said:

Citing links to support an ongoing discussion is alright, but insisting people read outside links without discussing the content in the thread is against the rules too.

There's just no way anyone should have to browse through the dozens of (dubious or otherwise) Youtube links to qualify themselves for the discussion on this board.

I did discuss and explain the content in the lectures, and those lectures are their to aid your understanding, they are for your benefit. I've seen all of 'em in their entirety. I follow this research quite diligently, I've read all the peer-reviewed and published material relative to this research. 

52 minutes ago, beecee said:

With all due respect, why don't you read the rules and become familiar with them....In line of course with your own advice to me when I asked for a specific answer and you referred me to a block of text. :P

Maybe if you actually read that block of text, you'd realize I did answer you. 

52 minutes ago, beecee said:

You just added total confirmation and solidity to Phil's legitimate points. 

What point? He said absolutely nothing in specific, he just made a whole bunch of baseless accusations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I did discuss and explain the content in the lectures, and those lectures are their to aid your understanding, they are for your benefit. I've seen all of 'em in their entirety. I follow this research quite diligently, I've read all the peer-reviewed and published material relative to this research. 

Although it can and has been pointed out to you that all those are, are simply philosophical opinions on some philosophical research, and that what you actually claimed was not actually said, this is a thread started by you on your perception that the mods were biased. And according to the rules anyway, that subject is now off topic and closed. 

So we are discussing your perception that the mods are/were biased? Perhaps in actual fact, if you could accept that you perhaps were/are biased, for your total out right dismissal of simple known facts, in favour of your own prejudices then we maybe able to continue. 

Perhaps you should read Phil's post again, and stop trying to make up your own rules, or unjust, unreal interpretations of those rules based on your own prejudices. 

12 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Maybe if you actually read that block of text, you'd realize I did answer you. 

No, you pointed me to a block of text, when I asked for a specific content re any non existent evidence. You were/are obliged to answer me.

Quote

What point? He said absolutely nothing in specific, he just made a whole bunch of baseless accusations. 

And they all applied to yourself and your inability to accept that you may be wrong, and your obvious "must win" attitude, even to the extent of ignoring valid evidence and arguments, invalidating your wrong stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I did discuss and explain the content in the lectures, and those lectures are their to aid your understanding, they are for your benefit. I've seen all of 'em in their entirety. I follow this research quite diligently, I've read all the peer-reviewed and published material relative to this research. 

Maybe if you actually read that block of text, you'd realize I did answer you. 

What point? He said absolutely nothing in specific, he just made a whole bunch of baseless accusations. 

So let's reverse roles for a moment. Let's say I put  a hundred links in a comment that refuted your point. Would you watch every one of them start to finish before commenting further?

Quite frankly, I doubt it and that's the reason for the rule.

Besides that, being a zealot fails for a refusal to listen. Being a martyr won't win the day by appealing to sympathy either. Fail x2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be very frustrating when you just know you are right and people still, foolishly, insist on disagreeing with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Strange said:

It must be very frustrating when you just know you are right and people still, foolishly, insist on disagreeing with you. 

Yeah, it is. beecee said, "And they all applied to yourself and your inability to accept that you may be wrong, and your obvious "must win" attitude, even to the extent of ignoring valid evidence and arguments, invalidating your wrong stance."

If I was wrong I wouldn't be here, the fact that he/she (I'm not sure) projects concepts like "must win," that I'm supposedly ignoring points which invalidates the research I've cited. Well, it's precisely the opposite, I'm not here to win anything. I'm merely reiterating precisely what the science that's been done has established. The truth is beecee can't fathom the fact that he/she may be wrong, and that's why you see projections such as "must win," because that's how he/she exhibits her/hiself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone other than me see this thread as a microcosm of the problems being described elsewhere?

It’s a Mandelbrot thread! He’s a fractal Kafei. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Yeah, it is. beecee said, "And they all applied to yourself and your inability to accept that you may be wrong, and your obvious "must win" attitude, even to the extent of ignoring valid evidence and arguments, invalidating your wrong stance."

If I was wrong I wouldn't be here, the fact that he/she (I'm not sure) projects concepts like "must win," that I'm supposedly ignoring points which invalidates the research I've cited. Well, it's precisely the opposite, I'm not here to win anything. I'm merely reiterating precisely what the science that's been done has established. The truth is beecee can't fathom the fact that he/she may be wrong, and that's why you see projections such as "must win," because that's how he/she exhibits her/hiself.

Attacking the person, not the discussion is against the rules.

Kafei is not long for this place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kafei said:

Yeah, it is. beecee said, "And they all applied to yourself and your inability to accept that you may be wrong, and your obvious "must win" attitude, even to the extent of ignoring valid evidence and arguments, invalidating your wrong stance."

If I was wrong I wouldn't be here, the fact that he/she (I'm not sure) projects concepts like "must win," that I'm supposedly ignoring points which invalidates the research I've cited. Well, it's precisely the opposite, I'm not here to win anything. I'm merely reiterating precisely what the science that's been done has established. The truth is beecee can't fathom the fact that he/she may be wrong, and that's why you see projections such as "must win," because that's how he/she exhibits her/hiself.

Yeah, beecee sure can't fathom being wrong. They even started a thread to complain about being told to follow the rule on this site, led in OP with calling this place "ridiculous", and have proceeded to argue with every participant in the thread without exception. F'n Beecee, smh. If only they could see themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kafei said:

Yeah, it is. beecee said, "And they all applied to yourself and your inability to accept that you may be wrong, and your obvious "must win" attitude, even to the extent of ignoring valid evidence and arguments, invalidating your wrong stance."

If you were at all paying attention, and took any notice of what anyone else said instead of single mindedly pushing your own agenda, you would have seen I was actually quoting another person, who I believe hit the nail fair square on the head with regards to yourself. :P

Quote

   If I was wrong I wouldn't be here,

Of course!!!!:rolleyes: The same goes for all the other cranks, god botherers and trolls that have come here preaching unsupported and unevidenced nonsense. In actual fact the weight of evidence against you, says you are wrong, and are simply pushing an agenda that has seemingly been indelibly scrawled in your brain since you were a kid. Exactly what the person I quoted was actually saying.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Attacking the person, not the discussion is against the rules.

Kafei is not long for this place.

Attacking the person? I'm merely deflecting what beecee said towards me. Why didn't you criticize her/him for attacking me? You conveniently overlooked that, and this is more evidence of the biases that are rampant here.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

If you were at all paying attention, and took any notice of what anyone else said instead of single mindedly pushing your own agenda, you would have seen I was actually quoting another person, who I believe hit the nail fair square on the head with regards to yourself. :P

Either way, you agreed with what they said. Doesn't matter if you quoted someone else. The claims simply aren't true.

Quote

Of course!!!!:rolleyes: The same goes for all the other cranks, god botherers and trolls that have come here preaching unsupported and unevidenced nonsense. In actual fact the weight of evidence against you, says you are wrong, and are simply pushing an agenda that has seemingly been indelibly scrawled in your brain since you were a kid. Exactly what the person I quoted was actually saying.

You've never presented me with any evidence that contradicts the science I've cited. You merely quote out-dated articles and think you've made a point. I'm citing very recently published science and even linked to lectures of current science that still in progress like the self-confirmed atheists who volunteered to participate in this research. That study is still going on.

Edited by Kafei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Either way, you agreed with what they said. Doesn't matter if you quoted someone else. The claims simply aren't true.

Sure I did. As I said, he hit the nail fair square on the head, I make no apologies for observational data that distinctly supports that description of your posts in generral.

Quote

You've never presented me with any evidence that contradicts the science I've cited. You merely quote out-dated articles and think you've made a point. I'm citing very recently published science and even linked to lectures of current science that still in progress like the self-confirmed atheists who volunteered to participate in this research. That study is still going on.

Two thread closures attest to the error of your ways. My only criticism of both closures is that the mods lent too far over backwards to try and give you a fair go. You shit in your own nest my friend...don't go playing the victim now and blaming everyone else. But again that topic is closed. This thread  is on your unjust criticism of the mods, me, and the forum and anyone who has dared to criticise your errors and misinterpretations..

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sure I did. As I said, he hit the nail fair square on the head, I make no apologies for observational data that distinctly supports that description of your posts in generral.

What nail? What argument are you talking about? You've never presented any evidence for your case.

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Two thread closures attest to the error of your ways. My only criticism of both closures is that the mods lent too far over backwards to try and give you a fair go. You shit in your own nest my friend...don't go playing the victim now and blaming everyone else. But again that topic is closed. This thread  is on your unjust criticism of the mods, me, and the forum and anyone who has dared to criticise your errors and misinterpretations..

No, the closures and the downvotes on my post are a testament to the fact that these threads are simply filled with biased atheists. That's all that means. I know you'd like to think it means something else, but that'd be wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, beecee said:

But again that topic is closed.

And bringing it up in subsequent threads is against the rules.

Tick tick, tick tick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Kafei said:

 The same goes for all the other cranks, god botherers and trolls.

You really hate theists, don't you?

when-someone-says-god-is-real-4487469.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.