Boycott TSZ

Posted on by

I thought about it. But decided not to.

First, as I have said, I think the boycott of UD is irrational. So why should I respond by doing something equally irrational? I shouldn’t.

Second, I think debate should be encouraged not discouraged. Boycotting the main site for the oppositon is hardly conducive to that end. To borrow a phrase from Elizabeth, there’s something asymmetrical here.

And third, I’m the real skeptic here. Unlike you poseurs.

Lots of interesting subjects raised in the UD is Dead Thread.

What is a body plan?
the capacity of the human mind to see what it wants to see
Is biology even science?
Is fantasy better than real life?
Where does the energy come from to move the goalposts?
If everyone accepts ID, why can’t it be science?
Materialism is dead matter
Is the flagellum manufactured or replicated?
is a self-replicating automaton even possible?
If not then entire machine metaphor needs to go. Or is it dead too?
In what sense are physical laws materialist?
Are crop circles made of crops?
Can you spell epistemological verificationism?
What is a genome?
The Multiple Designer Hypothesis

Don’t feel slighted Tom, I figure you’ll start your own thread when you get to it. 🙂
Unlike Gregory. Is there anything that is NOT designed?

65 thoughts on “Boycott TSZ”

  1. Mung: What keiths ought to have written is that UD suppresses some discussion and in that sense it is not open, but he didn’t.

    Funny thing. I’ve been pointing out the need for that distinction and he tries to make it look like just the opposite, as if I am the one who can’t tell the difference.

    But to answer your question, no, the one does not follow from the other.

    Also, the number of moderators at UD who can actually shut down discussion are probably few in number, and I find it unlikely that they are watching all threads at all times. That leaves plenty of room for open discussion.

    This may be true if Barry did not put many comments into moderation, never to appear. I have been attempting for the last couple weeks, in a very civil fashion, and not a single comment has survived moderation.

    I suspect that this is because Barry does not want to have more than a handful of ID opponents on his site.

    But I did note that Joe, recently banned from UD, is now commenting as Virgil Cain. It seems that this never ending moderation limbo does not apply to ID supporters.

    That is not open discussion.

  2. keiths, you’re a hoot. Who wrote the following?

    Can you spot the difference between these two sentences?
    1. Texas executes prisoners.
    2. Texas executes all prisoners.

    You ought to be able to get this one right.

  3. Gregory:
    For example, if a new poster asked a very poignant and specific question to UD regulars, such as “why doesn’t the IDM acknowledge the many non-IDist ‘design theorists’ (and thus, stop their attempt at monopolising that term) or treat theists who reject IDism with respect and fairness?” that person would be banned/expelled immediately and the post would be erased.

    You mean like this post?

  4. Acartia:But I did note that Joe, recently banned from UD

    I want to say that as an ID proponent, I am delighted that Joe was banned. He occasionally had some insightful comments, but the name calling was embarrassing.

  6. Mung,

    If you spent as much time thinking and writing your own thoughts as you do waffling and finding *any excuse* not to answer, you might eventually turn into a dialogue partner. So far, you’re just a crude IDist goon who wants to play above his pay grade.

    From that same thread:

    “Hi Gregory, You make a good point about the distinction between (capitalized) Intelligent Design, and (lower case) intelligent design. The latter belief does not require that the Designer left any visible, discernible traces of His activity.” – vjtorley

    Why do other IDists have courage in conversation that Mung lacks? Why can’t Mung face simple, basic, foundational questions that in the end will demolish IDism? Oh, right, that should be obvious.

  7. Elizabeth:
    Welcome onetime!I hope you make it two and threetime

    Thanks EL! I don’t get on here often, but you do always make your “opponents” (I don’t think we’re actually opponents, we just disagree on this) welcome.

  8. No, I don’t think of us as “opponents” either. I usually talk about ID critics and ID proponents.

    We can agree on lots of other things (and disagree – indeed, ID critics have been known to disagree on quite a lot too!)

  9. Mung: You mean like this post?

    Followed your link. It was a comment by Gregory in his inimitable style. Are you suggesting it is other than fair comment? As I see it, it is perfectly fair comment.

  11. Elizabeth:
    I think Mung was pointing out that Gregory was free to make it

    OK, I should have read more closely before posting. :$

  12. Gregory was banned from UD for pointing out such things that Mung will not answer to here or there.

  13. Gregory,

    Gregory was banned from UD for pointing out such things that Mung will not answer to here or there.

    Are you sure it wasn’t for referring to himself in the third person?

  15. onetime: I want to say that as an ID proponent, I am delighted that Joe was banned.He occasionally had some insightful comments, but the name calling was embarrassing.

    Given Joe’s abusive nature, I thought that there would be others at UD that would be cheering Joe’s bannination. Unfortunately, the only comments I saw were those complaining about his departure. And, after a few days, he is back as Virgil Cain, making no attempt, other than the name, to disguise who he is. If Barry was consistent in his moderation approach, he would also ban Virgil and delete all of his past comments. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for this.

Leave a Reply