Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Just for the record peers are not just people that agree with you, I think it would depend on the specifics ,when and how did you teach this religious doctrine?
Exactly. This isn’t about teaching about Jesus, Sal, it’s about you admitting to using strawman arguments, fallacious reasoning, and false claims to destroy childrens’ ability to think rationally about certain scientific topics. That’s child abuse. You should stop doing it.
Not really. My experience with Patrick is that even if I tell him that he is wrong about my state of mind he declines to accept that I am being truthful about my state of mind, in contravention of the site rules.
Nope. I said the behavior he admitted to constitutes child abuse. I wish he’d see that and stop doing it.
Well, we haven’t seen fifthmonarchyman around in a while, so I’ll go with phoodoo.
Oh goody. My ability for critical thinking wasn’t killed off.
OK so it’s alright for us to call evolutionists “child abusers” for lying to the children. We should get to prosecute teachers for child abuse for mindlessly spewing the lies of evolutionism to the kids under their care.
This is going to turn this blog into a Saturday Night Live skit, but instead of “Jane, you ignorant slut” all comments will start with “(insert name here), you child abusing slime.”
Perhaps he voted with his feet, like Alan suggested. Who else appears to have voted? If you’re trying to kill this site keep it up.
It’s left serious permanent damage though.
But I’m sure you can accommodate that too
Evolutionists use strawman arguments, fallacious reasoning, and false claims to destroy children’s ability to think rationally about certain scientific topics. That’s child abuse. You should stop doing it.
From Ed Brayton (now of Free thought blogs):
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/29/dawkins-and-the-religion-petit/
The only way Patrick gets away with his accusation that I’m abusing children is redefining what that means to other people. He certainly won’t get it from the government, nor do many of the atheists/agnostics like Brayton advocate such a definition (like Patrick’s) proceed from government.
Hence Patrick’s accusation is only based on what he believes is the definition of abuse, not what I believe is the definition of abuse, not what the parents of the children believe is abuse, likely not what the children (after they are of age) will believe is the definition of abuse, not what the Government believes is abuse, and not what Child Protective Services believes is abuse. Only Patrick’s idiosyncratic definition of what constitutes abuse.
Hence it is an equivocation on Patrick’s part.
Even Salvador thinks you said he admitted to child abuse. Perhaps an apology is in order.
stcordova,
Would this also apply to atheism? How about evolutionary theory? Homosexuality?
You’re a liar, Patrick.
Hey Mung
Let’s imagine an alternative history in which Patrick’s comment had been sent to Guano, where it belongs.
You can’t keep track of what you said.
Egregious abandonment of truth, integrity, and logic. A banner day in the history of TSZ moderation.
Who are you to talk about integrity when you can’t be bothered to address this?
Hey hey, Mung!!!
Depends, which class?
Strike three. Go ride the pine and think about your total lack of critical thinking Mung. It won’t help you in the slightest, but still
dazz, this thread is for discussing Moderation Issues.
newton,
What class? Details please!
Oh really?
You only start whining about the rules (again) now that your total lack of integrity and critical thinking has been exposed
dazz, to Mung:
Mung is poorly acquainted with what he calls “that integrity thingy”.
Nah. I’m just better at spotting the lack of integrity in others. 🙂
keiths wants to find a way to support Patrick’s lies, but his integrity prevents him. Or not.
keiths, like Patrick, is hoping for a change in the rules. Since Patrick lacks the guts, and keiths lacks the power, they conspire together to drive from the site any dissenting opinion.
Pathetic little men in their pathetic little power struggle over a pathetic little blog.
Considering that you’re entirely incapable of spotting your own lack of integrity, that’s not saying much.
Mung,
We’re the ones arguing for less moderation, doofus. Dissenting opinions, including those expressed in a way that violates the current rules, would be protected from being guanoed if we had our druthers.
Says the pathetic little creo begging for a mod position at every opportunity , LMFAO
Let’s imagine an alternative history in which Mung isn’t a trolling shithead knee-jerk defending anything any IDiot does, no matter how despicable.
Do you mean even less than what Elizabeth outlined? Do you mean even less than what Patrick agreed to when he agreed to become an admin?
Patrick wants license to call people liars, deceivers, intellectually dishonest, mentally ill, demented, ignorant, stupid, etc., etc. All of which you and he can do today! Just do it in Noyau.
Arguing for less moderation my ass. What is it that you and Patrick desire to post that you cannot post under the existing rules? Porn?
I agree to disagree.
Atheism :Comparable Philosophy, evolutionary theory : biology, homosexuality: sex Ed.
Maybe you could describe the actual teaching experience that Patrick views as child abuse.
Then why do you spend so much time and effort doing it? Why would you want to be a moderator of a pathetic little blog?
“Pathetic little men in their pathetic little power struggle over a pathetic little blog.”
We’e all watching ID wind down.
newton,
Perhaps he would like to make it less pathetic.
He could do so any time he wants by leaving TSZ. So could you. Go back to posting just at UD and you’d raise the average IQ of both places.
The law of large numbers through flipping fair coins. I sent the six year old out of the room, and then invited him back to look at the coins on the table. He could figure out that when the coins on the table were all heads, I had put it in that configuration. He did a lot better than evolutionary biologist Nick Matzke:
The law of biogenesis and that life does not naturally come from non-living matter. Why the bottle of milk says “Pasteurized”.
The chicken and the egg paradox.
The ability to make inferences without directly seeing through card games. I taught them the word “inference.” And then related to the Bible verse: “Blessed are they who believe, yet have not seen.”
How to build Rube Goldberg machines.
No, he didn’t. Nick was quite unambigous in all his answers, and all of them were correct.
So you are lying to them!
Sounds pretty innocuous,thanks. Though not sure believing without seeing passage is about making an inference, in fact it seems more like believing thru faith not reasoning and known facts. The part about knowning life must come from life seems a bit inaccurate
All these things are arguments against an evolutionary mechanisms, interesting choices. Was there a context for the choices, was this a math class?
stcordova,
And then you exercised his critical faculties by showing him a crystal, and asking if you had put that in that configuration too? No? Ah well.
Throw 500 coins on the table. Count the number of heads. Pick one coin at random and toss it. Count the number of heads again. If there are less heads now, flip the coin you just tossed to leave all the coins as they were before the last toss, If there are more heads or the same number, go back to tossing a random coin.
Repeat the process and you will eventually have 500 heads at some point, all by means of random variation plus selection.
I agree but that would defeat the point of of why Sal was teaching the concept to the six year olds.
True that.
Yes, but the kid would know then I was being methodical and using my mind and eyes and hands on each coin that wasn’t heads rather than just shaking them in the little bucket and pouring them out. The point is, if I wanted to him to know I didn’t just pour stuff out after shaking the bucket he could know.
I obviously left out some details.
I could appeal to the binomial distribution, which is what I’m equivalently teaching, but that’s a bit above his age level. So by your own standards who would be straight with the kids, you or me? Not you.
This is teaching a simplified version of the binomial distribution (and violations thereof). Coins are better proxies to illustrate this principle than crystals. When he grows up, and if he takes biochemistry, and learns about spontaneous racemization of amino acids and how this would destroy the possibility of long alpha helices (like in real proteins) during the polymerization process, he’ll know life doesn’t naturally arise from a Urey-Miller scenario, despite the untruths to that effect still widely advertised.
Hopefully he’ll remember being taught the math correctly, vs. this example of intelligent selection:
Darwin’s followers argued that nature acts like an intelligent selector, and falsely advertised this is the way nature works, but it doesn’t. One doesn’t see chiral amplifications of molecules in thermodynamically racemizing environments which have an inherent tendency to obey the binomial distribution.