There is not currently a vote.


We are deliberating the following proposal:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllCowsEatGrass

OK I'm going to go ahead and propose this.

Logic and facts have no bias, and they have no murkiness. They are clear, and definite, unbiased, and fair, and I think they make an excellent foundation for this new State.

I propose The People's Rights of Logic

We are in the Amendment Period. Anyone can offer any amendment to the quoted proposal.

The Amendment period will end at 8:44 am Central, 9:44 am Pacific on Friday March 17th 2017

If I offered an amendment to make you a moderator, would you vote for it kerowo?

You don't know? Did you read the moderation thread in the forum?

hey spank, you wanna offer any amendments? What do you think of having this as the basis of forum rules?

Isn't your proposed rule an example of the 'fallacy fallacy' in your own image?

I think you haven't been very reasonable and your meme has an authoritarian fallacy about it, even while it contains useful information for the individual and social practices of logic.

However, on the logical choice of a ban linking to a site based on the site's content, that remains both logical and reasonable thing for decision makers to do. It's reasonable that having stuff like a black crime section is self-limiting towards access.

How so?

In what way? Provide specific examples.



What specifically are you referring to?



Do you think it was logical and reasonable for chezlaw to ban me for citing two Breitbart articles I was using as examples to illustrate the fact that Breitbart is not credible because they publish falsehoods?

Do you think it is logical and reasonable to not even attempt to answer these questions?















Is this reasonable?

Is addressing the question straight up like someone worthy of being in the position of moderator an unreasonable thing to expect? Or is banning people and not even bothering to try to answer these questions unreasonable?

Yes, it was reasonable. The moderators told you not to post links to Breitbart and you kept doing so anyway so they gave you a 1 day ban.

The moderator was making **** up as he went because he can't get his nonsensical rules straight.




Do you agree with this statement?

I think if a rule is illogical, it should not be a rule; illogical rules make poor rules, thus they should not be.

The reasoning that a site's content determines if it is allowed or banned seems to have been overlooked by you. Please correct me if you have granted the site's role and position in the scenario.


The authoritarian fallacy is as obvious as the phrase 'you shalt'. Minor, unless people are treated that way, like they don't have free thinking to operate their own mental faculties.

If you posted links to a banned site and received a consequence and that is how the forum works, do you really have to ask if that is reasonable?

No. Here is the relevant rule:

Fair enough.

This sounds reasonable to me aceg. I probably just wouldn't worry about it.

Nothing is happening with that forum other than getting shut down when Mat get's tired of it. If I was modded to it again I'd ban those I mentioned and then anyone who made a claim without sourcing it.

You didn't answer my questions.

You're appealing to authority. You're saying chezlaw's actions were just because he is a moderator.

You're not logically justifying the rule. No one is, in fact. Would you like to try again?


You also neglected to answer this:

Do you agree with this statement?

I think if a rule is illogical, it should not be a rule; illogical rules make poor rules, thus they should not be.




And who all was involved in the crafting of that rule?

On what basis would you ban them, and do you think there are better punishments for claiming something without a citation?

So this Cow guy, Mat put him in charge of forming a new world order?

I responded to the content of your post and included explanatory content relevant to your post. You are welcome.

LirvA or whatever previously banned poster this is, maybe you should get outside for a while.

Excuse me, this cow girl. tyvm.




You did not answer my questions, thank you.





Is this an amendment?

I'd use the sanity defense.

Making bull**** claims is disruptive enough to political discussion that it is enough evidence the person making the claim isn't interested in having a discussion and is instead just trolling so banning them seems about right.

I would agree that this is a pretty big problem, and I think that it is best to have a rule set which specifically addresses issues like this.

For instance, this would be a violation of the Burden of Proof.

I understand that the issue of racism and sexism and homophobia and issues like this are very sensitive. Bigots spouting off bigotry is not a good look. It is my experience that behind bigotry is very often a violation of logic.

For instance, let's say a white supremacist asserts that the white race is genetically superior. Well, the facts of the matter are that humans originated in Africa, and as such, all humans have some amount of pure African DNA. So his argument is defeated by logic itself.

But this is not to say that specific rules that get into the minutia cannot be made, that's not to say this at all. Anyone can discuss and propose anything. What this proposal I've made is, is a basis for which all other laws can be derived.

Specific rules addressing things like racism and sexism can and should be made, but they should be made logically.



If you think this can be a well thought out, structured, and actionable rule, you can offer an amendment if you like




I think we should try to reach consensus on the premise before deciding what the conclusion should be.