Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    14 Aug '16 11:48 / 1 edit
    While I agree with much that constitutes the Duchess' worldview, after more than a year's worth of toxic debating style peppered with all caps, forever shouting her innocence, would the debates forum be better off if the Duchess were given a lengthy Debate's ban?

    While I might also agree with the sentiment of defending anyone's right to speak even when I disagree with what they are saying, I also believe that the Duchesses style quickly turns any exchange of views into a personal referendum, of her legitimacy to speak, while consistently drowning out any opposition to her worldview with toxic assertions designed to de-legitimise the voices of others.

    Initially I endured her inputs as collateral damage to debate forum participation, but given the sustained, relentless and unyielding histrionic efforts on her part to discredit any who would participate, is it time for the mods to call it a day and give her the boot?

    Say yeah or nay and add your comments in support or rejection of a ban please.
  2. 14 Aug '16 12:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    While I agree with much that constitutes the Duchess' worldview, after more than a year's worth of toxic debating style peppered with all caps, forever shouting her innocence, would the debates forum be better off if the Duchess were given a lengthy Debate's ban?

    While I might also agree with the sentiment of defending anyone's right to speak even when I d ...[text shortened]... her the boot?

    Say yeah or nay and add your comments in support or rejection of a ban please.
    I feel that Duchess64's caustic diatribe is simply a reflection of the users insecurity. Why else would we need to attempt to vilify almost everyone that disagrees with our stance? Its a great pity because the user has raised some interesting issues but cannot seem to divorce themselves nor the people with whom they are supposed to engage from the issues themselves. It becomes rather tedious and predictable after a while. Unless the caustic diatribe is seriously defamatory and slanderous I see no reason to ban the user although it is rather annoying to have almost every thread derailed by attempting to make debate personal.
  3. 14 Aug '16 12:14
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    it is rather annoying to have almost every thread derailed by attempting to make debate personal.[/b]
    That is the point, though I also would rather not a ban, I think a suspension may be warranted. A bit sad though as she does have a lot of damn good views that would add immensely to a good debate, she is obviously knowledgeable. If only she would debate.
  4. 14 Aug '16 13:02
    Originally posted by kmax87
    While I might also agree with the sentiment of defending anyone's right to speak even when I disagree with what they are saying, I also believe that the Duchesses style quickly turns any exchange of views into a personal referendum, of her legitimacy to speak, while consistently drowning out any opposition to her worldview with toxic assertions designed to de-legitimise the voices of others.
    If you want Duchess banned because you personally dislike her, but are OK with keeping whodey who is almost incapable of starting a thread without an obvious lie, then there is something seriously wrong with you.
    If you don't like talking to Duchess, then ignore her posts. There is even a script that will totally remove her posts from your view.
    If you want her banned then cite a legitimate reason why you think she has violated the forum policies, rather than waffling on about how you don't like her style.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Aug '16 13:40
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    If you want Duchess banned because you personally dislike her, but are OK with keeping whodey who is almost incapable of starting a thread without an obvious lie, then there is something seriously wrong with you.
    If you don't like talking to Duchess, then ignore her posts. There is even a script that will totally remove her posts from your view.
    If you ...[text shortened]... she has violated the forum policies, rather than waffling on about how you don't like her style.
    Duchess makes dozens of posts per week which violate the TOS, whodey does not. The former disrupts thread after thread with vicious personal attacks in response to mere disagreement with their views. Such behaviour is destructive to the very purpose of the Forum and would not be tolerated in almost any other internet discussion group.

    A forum ban of some length is surely warranted.
  6. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    14 Aug '16 13:42 / 2 edits
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Racists and mysoginists have a debateable opinion. Duchess form of debate when challenged isto the effect of: "joe shmo is in idiot in mathematics, as proved in the science forum" (paraphrasing). While that may be true,...what bearing does it have on the content of my post in the debate forum??? Personally, I just ignore her...as she does me. Writing a thread to ban someone probably will just fuel the fire. The good old fashion "silent treatment" would be far more effective in bringing Duchess closer to internal reflection (if she was aware of it) or , and the more likely scenario, is that leaving her posts unchallenged will make her "feel" as though she has dominated the forum, get bored, and move on. Just my two cents.
  7. Standard member vivify
    rain
    14 Aug '16 13:57 / 1 edit
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Why do this? Why did you twist what he said to equate to mere annoyance? Clearly, he's not describing behavior that's merely irritating, like making corny jokes; he's describing abusive behavior.

    If you disagree with him about Duchess, that's fine; but don't twist his words into something they're not in order to do so.
  8. 14 Aug '16 14:03
    Originally posted by vivify
    Why do this? Why did you twist what he said to equate to mere annoyance? Clearly, he's not describing behavior that's merely irritating, like making corny jokes; he's describing abusive behavior.

    If you disagree with him about Duchess, that's fine; but don't twist his words into something they're not in order to do so.
    he is describing irritation. he didn't post a single instance where duchess made a ban worthy offense or for that matter, something we don't all do.

    until then, all we have is that he finds her toxic enough to make this thread, but not a thread for banning whodey, fishead or eladar.
  9. 14 Aug '16 14:08
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    Racists and mysoginists have a debateable opinion. Duchess form of debate when challenged isto the effect of: "joe shmo is in idiot in mathematics, as proved in the science forum" (paraphrasing). While that may be true,...what bearing does it have on the content of my post in the debate forum??? Personally, I just ignore her...as she does me. Writing a t ...[text shortened]... ke her "feel" as though she has dominated the forum, get bored, and move on. Just my two cents.
    "Racists and mysoginists have a debateable opinion. "
    it is hate speak, it is unacceptable. it is no more debatable than "earth is flat" (even though a local moron wants to debate it). duchess is calling someone sexist or illiterate or whatever reason. if you don't like her reason, call her out on it, prove it is a flawed reason.

    there is a difference however between calling you an idiot and making racist remarks.
  10. Standard member vivify
    rain
    14 Aug '16 14:12
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    he is describing irritation. he didn't post a single instance where duchess made a ban worthy offense or for that matter, something we don't all do.

    until then, all we have is that he finds her toxic enough to make this thread, but not a thread for banning whodey, fishead or eladar.
    Again, if you disagree with him about Duchess doing anything worthy of a ban, that's fine; but you're not being honest in minimizing his statement to mere irritation.
  11. Subscriber joe shmo
    Strange Egg
    14 Aug '16 14:59
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "Racists and mysoginists have a debateable opinion. "
    it is hate speak, it is unacceptable. it is no more debatable than "earth is flat" (even though a local moron wants to debate it). duchess is calling someone sexist or illiterate or whatever reason. if you don't like her reason, call her out on it, prove it is a flawed reason.

    there is a difference however between calling you an idiot and making racist remarks.
    Racism is not hate speak. It is "real" speach about "real" competition in the "reality" of the natural world. If you think those laws don't apply to humanity your mistaken. Just because humanity has enshrouded itself in a societal bubble, doesn't mean that we are not subject to the laws of survival in the natural world.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Aug '16 15:15
    Originally posted by joe shmo
    Racism is not hate speak. It is "real" speach about "real" competition in the "reality" of the natural world. If you think those laws don't apply to humanity your mistaken. Just because humanity has enshrouded itself in a societal bubble, doesn't mean that we are not subject to the laws of survival in the natural world.
    Racism is ignorant speech. Race itself is a dubious social construct and the idea that one "race" is innately superior to another is foolishness:

    Race doesn't matter. In fact, it doesn't even exist in humans. While that may sound like the idealistic decree of a minister or rabbi, it's actually the conclusion of an evolutionary and population biologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

    Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right qualitative type of variation -- it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.

    Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, the world is colorblind. That is, it should be.

    "Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," says Templeton. "Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity."

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php
  13. 14 Aug '16 15:29
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I feel that Duchess64's caustic diatribe is simply a reflection of the users insecurity. Why else would we need to attempt to vilify almost everyone that disagrees with our stance? Its a great pity because the user has raised some interesting issues but cannot seem to divorce themselves nor the people with whom they are supposed to engage from the i ...[text shortened]... t is rather annoying to have almost every thread derailed by attempting to make debate personal.
    It is irritating to make a post to a thread, come back later, and see that the thread has been derailed into an exchange of personal attacks that replaces any reasonble conversation.

    The people who have hair-trigger defense mechanisms come to be known for it, and we can ignore them instead of being drawn into such time-wasting exchanges. It just takes self-discipline.
  14. 14 Aug '16 15:34
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right qualitative type of variation -- it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.
    Although I agree that most variation is individual and not 'race', the second sentence makes no sense.
    Too small for what?
    Not the right qualitative type of variation for what?
    The biological term 'race' isn't overly well defined, but there is not doubt that human races exist per the biological definition:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)
  15. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Aug '16 15:36
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I feel that Duchess64's caustic diatribe is simply a reflection of the users insecurity. Why else would we need to attempt to vilify almost everyone that disagrees with our stance? Its a great pity because the user has raised some interesting issues but cannot seem to divorce themselves nor the people with whom they are supposed to engage from the i ...[text shortened]... t is rather annoying to have almost every thread derailed by attempting to make debate personal.
    Were her first posts personal attacks? I don't know the early history of her comments and it would be tedious to find them.

    But banning a person for posting too many times? Or personal attacks that were replies of the same?

    Then we would all be banned.