Consensus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-07-2017, 01:12 AM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 02:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 01:52 PM)Aliza Wrote:  The member base has already listened to your argument and they don't agree with you. This is not because you have not explained your argument well... this is because we feel that you're wrong. You've stated your case, we've stated our cases, and we disagree.

I'mma disagree. A well explained argument is succinct. Wall-o-text need not apply.

Depends. If we speak about history then one could need book to show why one particular interpretation is right (or less wrong?).

As a side note - that's why I drop book titles so often. If someone is interested then book will explain it far better than me and will be more convincing than single quote.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
13-07-2017, 01:15 AM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 11:10 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I have leveled the charge of not addressing problems I have brought up, and that the people who respond resort to personal attacks. Just since the last time I posted.

***

Christ you idiot. You think this shit's about you and you alone? "Your attitude and your behaviour determine how people see you and whether you're liked. " applies to everyone here.
---
Saying that what you post is drivel, is not a personal attack.



Unlike this: Pray, tell, are you, by any chance, with Cirque du Soleil? Because no one but a contortionist can have their head embedded so far up their own ass and still manage to walk and talk, and type.

[Image: eyEAa.jpg]
---
Just because the topic is interesting to you doesn't mean that it's interesting to us.

If you can't move on without our engaging you to your satisfaction, then that really sounds like your problem, not ours. I would suggest professional help because you should probably not be so dependent on the approval of others. I remember you were all whack-a-doodle over my not feeling the pain you experienced as a teenager. This is an ongoing trend with you and it's well past the point of excusable miscommunication or crossed wires. Get help.
---
Oh, I forgot to add: Do you think we're fucking working for you? What is wrong with you?
---
(12-07-2017 06:49 PM)outtathereligioncloset Wrote:  [Image: horse2.gif]

---
***
An actual helpful comment even if it doesn't address the problems I have brought up.

Yeah, but the discussion isn't evolving. There's this point in time when I recognize that my audience on this atheist forum just isn't going to be swayed by my arguments. We discuss, the discussion evolves and we reach certain points of consensus, but on the subject of G-d, I'm not going to sway anyone.

Do I beat a dead horse? No!

I respect that on this subject, this just isn't my audience and I never drone on, and on, and on about why everyone should believe like I believe.
****
And if I am open to being swayed? Has anyone actually presented counter arguments to my objections? Or have they made degrading, demeaning, and ad hominem attacks? I could go through this thread and pull out each time that an ad hominem attack has been made instead of addressing an objection I have brought up. I could then go through and pull out each time my problems with consensus thinking and rep systems have been addressed. If you would like I could present the numbers instead.

Rather than addressing problems I am bringing up people find it easier to make ad hominem attacks.

(12-07-2017 06:44 PM)Dr H Wrote:  I'm still new enough here that I'm not sure how much of the "Colosseum" is for open responses, so if I'm stepping out of line here, just tell me and I'll go elsewhere.

I'm not a big fan of "rep" systems, being an old veteran of Usenet newsgroups, and inclined to let everyone have their say for as long as they have a thick enough hide to handle the responding flames.
Agreed.
[qupte]
That said, some systems are better than others.
I address this elsewhere in the thread and I am right there with you. Some rep systems are better than others, I in no way deny that. Its one reason why I tried to not make this about TTA's rep system in particular until pressed to.
Quote:In the Amazon fora, from whence I came here, the equivalent was "do you think this post contributes to the discussion" and your choice was "yes" or "no" -- or you didn't have to vote at all. If a post accumulated a certain number of "no" votes, the post became "hidden" from the thread. It could be recovered easily enough, but I always found that an annoyance and an interruption in the flow of reading the thread.

I rarely voted at all, and I never "no" voted anyone, no matter how much of a misguided twat I might have thought them to be.
If I didn't feel that they or their posts were worth my time, I simply didn't bother reading or responding to them.
[/qupte] I've seen this other places and have mixed feelings about it. for much the reasons you give.
Quote:On a few rare occasions I "yes" voted posts -- mostly of people I disagreed with -- simply to keep their posts from being hidden;
even misguided twats deserve the courtesy of free speech.
That would be an example of how positive feedback can be a problem.

Quote:At any rate, certain posters unpopular in certain forums were routinely "no" voted into oblivion. This would be true no matter what they posted, which -- like the stopped clock -- sometimes happened by random chance to be reasonable, or even interesting. This was especially annoying when it happened to the original post in a thread. I mean, how could the post that started the thread be considered as "not contributing" to the discussion in a thread that wouldn't have existed without it?
Again this is the problem I see with positive feedback. The biggest problem with positive feedback is that it's not something where you can easily see when the machine is going off the rails. It's small misalignments building up over time until the whole thing explodes in your face one day out of what seems like no where.

Quote:I've been in other online fora where the choices were more honest. Instead of voting "does this post contribute", one could either "like" or "dislike" a post. Again, I rarely used the system, preferring to express my like or dislike through discussion rather than mouse-clicks. But again, I saw the system abused in attempts to suppress unpopular opinions.
This brings me back to a point I made previously of "what is the purpose of a rep system?". If it's to provide feedback to the user then why is it public? I don't think it's unfair to think that there is an attempt to create bias pro and con.
Quote:Still other fora have "rep" systems similar to TTA. But actually TTA has gone them one better by having both the "rep" and the ability to "like" individual posts. I like that negative rep doesn't necessarily hide or delete a person's posts. This gives people a chance, at least, to interact with even an unpopular poster as a reasonable person, on a case-by-case basis, as it were. That, and the ability to present comments with "rep" make this one of the better systems I've seen. Not only do you see that people like or dislike something you've done, but they get to tell you exactly why, which can help put things into context.
If that were how it was used then I would absolutely agree with you. Not that I wouldn't still have a problem with the fact that the rep system exists but I would be less critical of it.

Quote:All that said, I still feel these sorts or rating systems are unnecessary, and I don't use them a whole lot. They can smack of the emotional coups and clicks of a grammar school playground. They attempt to simplify what is usually a very complex texture down to a ridiculously simple level: yes/no; like/dislike. It's pretty rare that I feel all one way or the other about an idea, a person, or even a post. And I'm happy to let you know -- in detail -- what I think and why I think it, rather than just heave a spitball, or leave a candy bar in your mailbox.

My 2¢ ; have at me, if you will Argue

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm can only hope that hearing my concerns voiced by someone else will motivate others to actually participate in the conversation.

Facepalm

Yeah, I can't figure out who you're attempting to reply to.

Meh....whatever.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2017, 01:18 AM
RE: Consensus
(13-07-2017 01:12 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 02:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  I'mma disagree. A well explained argument is succinct. Wall-o-text need not apply.

Depends. If we speak about history then one could need book to show why one particular interpretation is right (or less wrong?).

As a side note - that's why I drop book titles so often. If someone is interested then book will explain it far better than me and will be more convincing than single quote.

A book is fine, quoting from and referencing a book is fine. But if you're *explaining* something, with the goal of others understanding you, e.g. if you're explaining 3rd reich history to someone on the forum, then you might say "you are incorrect, <quote> from <book> shows it so", but you wouldn't copy-paste the entire book as an "explanation". Same with lengthy posts. Unless they're incredibly well put together, they're just tedious waffle.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
13-07-2017, 01:22 AM
RE: Consensus
(13-07-2017 01:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(13-07-2017 01:12 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Depends. If we speak about history then one could need book to show why one particular interpretation is right (or less wrong?).

As a side note - that's why I drop book titles so often. If someone is interested then book will explain it far better than me and will be more convincing than single quote.

A book is fine, quoting from and referencing a book is fine. But if you're *explaining* something, with the goal of others understanding you, e.g. if you're explaining 3rd reich history to someone on the forum, then you might say "you are incorrect, <quote> from <book> shows it so", but you wouldn't copy-paste the entire book as an "explanation". Same with lengthy posts. Unless they're incredibly well put together, they're just tedious waffle.

Sure.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
13-07-2017, 02:39 AM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Savage: 1) Lacking restraints "normal" to civili- blah blah blah
You're playing semantic word games which are pointless when I've already given not just a workable definition but also, throughout my responses, numerous examples of savage behaviour we no longer engage in in civilised society.

The fact they believed they had what they considered "good" reasons to enslave and ritualistically murder people doesn't make it any less an example of savagery. You are on the verge of tipping over it to full on dishonesty.

(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  This presupposes that knowledge always carries forward.
This is fair, and I even considered mentioning, however, I decided it wasn't relevant as YOU would have to show that there has been a loss of human knowledge about the world that would put ANY civilisation in the past on equal footing with today technologically or philosophically, or really any way at all. Which is what you would have to ACTUALLY do to justify your assertions in the OP.

All of written history shows the same thing, a continuing process of iteration on top of iteration, sometimes slower sometimes faster.

(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  And or that all knowledge or customs are valid in all times and places.
And once again I'm left to ask you what the fuck you are on about seeing as how I've been arguing that they are not. Literally the opposite of that.

(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Given that at some point in the human went from not believing in gods to believing in gods I would say that is a down grade.
Noooooo.... they went from having no answers to making up answers. They did this because they were ignorant of how the world works and ignorant of how to find out how it actually works.

(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Are we today more technologically advanced.
Yes, yes we are according to every single scrap of evidence ever collected. Evidence trumps your imaginings. If you want to challenge that view...get some fuckin' evidence.

(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  We don't know what they thought or believed. For all we know they could have been a civilization of Greek philosophers who studied the natural world. Or they could have raped and murdered each other all the time. or they could have been anything in between.
Why is this evidence thing so hard for you to grasp? We know LOTS about what a LOT of older civilisations thought. We have entire fields of study about ancient civilisations thought, believed and how they acted.
EVIDENCE.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Germ theory actually isn't a necessary concept to understand "don't shit where you drink". Dead animal. That animal drank down stream of dead animal. Now that second animal is dead.
You are making my argument for me ya know. really easy stuff to figure out and the inability to not figure it out makes them...more or less ignorant? Hmmm. I bloody wonder.




(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  When did they develop the concept of human sacrifice to appease the gods(more on this in a moment)? Again when and how did they develop the idea of crystals and rocks curing disease?
Irrelevant to whether they did or did not believe these things and whether they were or were not more ignorant for believing these things.

Tell ya what find me a single example of any civilisation from the time of the examples you gave me earlier that was as morally, technologically, socially, and philosophically as advanced as the first world nations are today. When you are done failing at that too you will understand why your assertion is wrong.

We are less ignorant and less savage than our ancestors were and that is a goddamn FACT according to the evidence.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  As to the human sacrifice. Something that gets lost in the modern world is the luxury we have today.
Fuckin' 'ell son I don't care WHY they did it, it's fucking irrelevant to the fact that doing it is more savage than modern times.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  When did the theory of gods originate?before then? I'm so glad you know the answer, please tell me where you read about this so I can read about it too. Or did Adam find out about the existence of gods while walking in the garden? How and when did the concept of spirits, souls and the like enter the human consciousness?
Again, not relevant to whether they were or were not more ignorant. Why is this hard for you to understand?


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  With the first homo sap?

Ok ya, you clearly don't understand evolution. There was no first human, which I was partially alluding to when I asked you if one species of cat taught another how to meow.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  You are making a pretty heavy assumption to believe it was there from the beginning.
I don't believe that, never said that, nor did I imply that. You have serious problems with reading comprehension.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  and you accuse me of being disingenuous?
Yes because you are and that has been demonstrated. Your failure to understand what the fuck I'm talking about is not an example of me being so.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  What technology is required for the theory of evolution? For the theory of gravity?
Technology is not the issue, it's the fact that people didn't have access to a whole host of information that we do which made them more ignorant of how the world functioned than us. BY BLOODY NECCASSITY.
In the exact same way, we are more ignorant of interstellar flight today than the people in our future who will engage, hypothetically in this case, in actual interstellar flight.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  The first steam engine was built in the first century. Cistercian monks were building a proto-type blast furnace until Henery VIII came along. How many times and in how many places has technology been invented only to be lost, only to be reinvented? How many times was writing invented? How are we suppose to know? When does proto-writing become writing? Given how little writing from early antiquity exists what is the likelihood that we would be able to find yet older writings?
This again is utterly irrelevant to my objection to your implication that we are not justified in viewing the past as more ignorant and savage. It was and that's a fact. people 10 fucking years ago were more ignorant than we are now because we have a more accurate picture of how the world works today than we did 10 years ago. I don't have to go back to pre-written civilisation I can go back to fucking 2007 and still be right.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Could they build the empire state building? Not an equal question at all. If you dropped an engineer from today back then could he build the empire state building? No. Why? Access to resources.
You fail to understand my point AGAIN. They don't just lack resources they lack KNOWLEDGE of literally every single thing that would go into making the building including the godsdamn floor!
Again. Motherfucker again, my point is they are more ignorant of hwo thigns work. FACT.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  How many times does something have to be invented and reinvented before it sticks? I have no idea. Göbekli Tepe is last time I knew the oldest known civilization to date and it wasn't discovered all that long ago. Given the age of the species I am not willing to say it is or is not in fact the oldest, nor am I willing to say that there was or was not a more advanced(for values of advanced) civilization. What conditions must obtain for civilization? Can we find those conditions elsewhere? The world is a big freakin place.
100% irrelevant to what I am actually saying.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  What ifs and could be are the stuff of science.
Is it now? Please then, by all means, point me to a peer-reviewed publication where the science is "what if" and not actual evidence.
You do not get to use a bunch of fucking conjecture unsupported by any evidence as support for your assertions. Which you have done. Repeatedly.



(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  What your doing is making a hard claim about how ancient humans were.
No, the evidence is. The evidence we have tells us a lot about them and the gaps in our knowledge, of which there are many, can not be filled with your goddamn JAQing off and conjecture cause you need to in order to support your assertions.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  You are not out right saying it but you are strongly implying that they were stupid (see empire state building) as opposed to ignorant.
I have literally been saying the opposite this entire time. They lacked knowledge, not intelligence, knowledge.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  And you are making several assumptions about the conditions necessary to acquire knowledge of certain scientific facts.
I've, said nothing on that subject at all. Human knowledge is iterative. It builds upon it's self. They are not stupid because they can't come to conclusions about the world that require thousands of layers of iteration of human knowledge that they don't even have access to.

Here is some advice, free of charge, spend less time trying to pull imaginary strawmen out of thin air and more time reading and understanding what I am actually saying.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I said Neanderthal because from what I can remember that was the stronger theory of the author. The specific claim of the author was that homo sapiens did not invent those things but rather learned them somewhere else. The author theorized that Neanderthals were not the originators either yet the evidence was far less conclusive. While exactly where we got language, art, etc from was in question, that we got it from somewhere else was not.
You don't understand evolution.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  In just audiobooks ONE of my accounts is almost at a thousand books.
Make it 1001 and buy a book about what the scientific method is, how it works, and why it's important so I don't have to repeatedly explain it to you. You don't have to find me the name of the book because it's not relavant to your assertion in your Op which is what I actually care about.


(12-07-2017 01:55 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Why do I assume they were living closely together?
I never said that they were not so why do I care?

(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  To return to the original topic of the thread, I will upfront say that part of the reason it has taken me so long to post a reply is because I wanted to give your question some serious thought. Part of the reason for delay was that I had some personal stuff going on. I say this so you will know I was not attempting to avoid your question.
This would be all fine and dandy ....if you had answered my question honestly in the end but ya didn't. It's late so I'm going to just cut all the shit I don't care about and get to the meat of the matter.





(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  It speaks nothing of the opinion of those who have not take the time to rate a poster.
You probably wont get why...but that kinda dismantles all your whinging about "consensus".

(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Do I think the reputation system has been manipulated against me? No. Do I think my negative reputation is fair and earned? This is a harder question to answer.
It's really really not but go on.

(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Instead to make the question easier to answer I might phrase the question this way "Do I think that the individuals who rated me had a reason to give me the rating they did?". The answer to this question is yes. What it tells me of their reason is nothing. Perhaps they took issue with my approach. Perhaps they took issue with what I said (something entirely different). Perhaps a hundred different reasons. I can't even say that there was a single particular reason as humans are complex and rarely able to be pin holed into a single reason for anything. What it tells me overall, however, is nothing.
And here is where you have tucked your arms, bent your legs, and leapt full-force into dishonesty. What an absolute crock of shit, their reasons are written right there on your fucking rep boy. We know EXACTLY why then down repped you. It's not some fucking mystery, they tell you exactly why.

(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  As to Black Mirror let me ask you a question.
How about you don't. You have had your chance to give examples of your claims actually happening, not just here but elsewhere, and every single one has been debunked. A bunch of them you didn't bother to read or research yourself, the rest are all examples not of "consensus gone wrong" as you explicitly said.

(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  To the charge of anti-intellectualism I recommend that you go back and look at the context in which quotes were used.
The context you used it is was against scientists of the past making claims, concordant with the available evidence at the time, which you insisted was due to "consensus". Which is was not. Oh, and you got your dates wrong....by decades. Oh and that's also how the scientific method works.

(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  You have not addressed in any way the problems of positive feed back and or negative feed when it comes to consensus formation.
First off I don't care about what could happen, I care about what does happen (in this context at least). I "addressed" your assertions by comparing your claims with the reality of this specific rep system. They did not comport. Then you gave me examples of "consensus gone wrong" from outside the rep system and they ...were not. At all. Like even the smallest amount.

I have given you every single opportunity to prove your case and you failed. Can happen does not mean must happen, and I'm not particularly interested in following you down the rabbit hole when you can't answer a yes or no question honestly.

None of the problems or objections you raised has manifested here in any detectable way so why should I care about your wankery?

Most of your terminology has been debunked, your examples have been debunked, you have provided no evidence of these "fundamental flaws" actually manifesting, provided no corroborating data or evidence, repeatedly posted links the contents of which you either didn't read or didn't understand and the most damning of all.......
......
......
......
is that seems like a whole lot of wasted time trying to justify you starting a cry baby thread, like so many before you, because you got down repped and you wanted to make yourself feel better about it by attacking its legitimacy.

Gods below you are boring.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
13-07-2017, 03:48 AM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2017 03:53 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: Consensus
As stated before if you wish to continue the prehistory discussion we may do so on new thread.
Quote:
(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  It speaks nothing of the opinion of those who have not take the time to rate a poster.
You probably wont get why...but that kinda dismantles all your whinging about "consensus".(Ad Hominem)
I get your point. It doesn't answer my counter point of what is the purpose of publicly displaying the points? Is it to create bias both pro and con. If this is not the case then what is the purpose?
Quote:
(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Do I think the reputation system has been manipulated against me? No. Do I think my negative reputation is fair and earned? This is a harder question to answer.
Instead to make the question easier to answer I might phrase the question this way "Do I think that the individuals who rated me had a reason to give me the rating they did?". The answer to this question is yes. What it tells me of their reason is nothing. Perhaps they took issue with my approach. Perhaps they took issue with what I said (something entirely different). Perhaps a hundred different reasons. I can't even say that there was a single particular reason as humans are complex and rarely able to be pin holed into a single reason for anything. What it tells me overall, however, is nothing.

And here is where you have tucked your arms, bent your legs, and leapt full-force into dishonesty. What an absolute crock of shit, their reasons are written right there on your fucking rep boy. We know EXACTLY why then down repped you. It's not some fucking mystery, they tell you exactly why.(ad hominem)
***
Quote:
(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  As to Black Mirror let me ask you a question.
How about you don't. You have had your chance to give examples of your claims actually happening, not just here but elsewhere, and every single one has been debunked. A bunch of them you didn't bother to read or research yourself, the rest are all examples not of "consensus gone wrong" as you explicitly said.
*slavery was alright
*Up until the last decade "scientists" were still pushing the idea that most mammals were monogamous, now we know less than 3%(perhaps, maybe, we really hope) are monogamous.
To add a few more
*Nicolaus Copernicus
*Giordano Bruno
*Einstein

As to the missing point I will say that it is disputed and that I am still looking for the original book so i will drop it.
Quote:
(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  To the charge of anti-intellectualism I recommend that you go back and look at the context in which quotes were used.
The context you used it is was against scientists of the past making claims, concordant with the available evidence at the time, which you insisted was due to "consensus". Which is was not. Oh, and you got your dates wrong....by decades. Oh and that's also how the scientific method works.
Originally I made three points two of which are listed above, the third of which I have said I will drop because I need to find the original source. Of the three only two were in reference too science. Historically "scientists"(IE those who have degrees from prestigious universities) have made the claim that humans are naturally monogamous. As of late that narrative has changed to claim that humans are monogamish (an unsupported claim but for which they keep attempting to prove even against the evidence). I will also point to the STD/circumcision studies endorsed by the CCD. The way these studies are conducted are by comparing circumcised Americans and Sub-Sahara Africans. There are a few studies which are done strictly in Africa. When you look at these studies however there are very serious problems with the way they are carried out. Including some of these studies relying on self reporting. Why the hell wouldn't a scientist compare first world countries which are much closer in conditions such as USA and European countries. The CCD has gone back and forth several times on circumcision for political reasons. That is not science.
Quote:
(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  You have not addressed in any way the problems of positive feed back and or negative feed when it comes to consensus formation.
First off I don't care about what could happen, I care about what does happen (in this context at least). I "addressed" your assertions by comparing your claims with the reality of this specific rep system. They did not comport. Then you gave me examples of "consensus gone wrong" from outside the rep system and they ...were not. At all. Like even the smallest amount.
Being unaware of the problem means that when it does occur you will be caught unprepared, and unable to introduce negative feedback before the problem occurs.
Quote:I have given you every single opportunity to prove your case and you failed. Can happen does not mean must happen, and I'm not particularly interested in following you down the rabbit hole when you can't answer a yes or no question honestly.
Being aware of the problem is one way to prevent it from happening. Further you have not addressed how the issue of positive feedback is addressed. In fact you have glommed onto a single dispute which has nothing to do with the problem of consensus. Where and who introduced fire, art, etc is disputed fine I completely drop it. that in no way addresses the issue of slavery and monogamy which were also listed.
Quote:None of the problems or objections you raised has manifested here in any detectable way so why should I care about your wankery?(Ad Hominem)
The fact that they have not yet manifested does not mean that they will not. Has the problems not manifested or are you unaware of the fact that they have already manifested? I note that you excised the portion which showed ways in which positive feedback may be manifesting unbeknown to the users.
Quote:Most of your terminology has been debunked, your examples have been debunked, you have provided no evidence of these "fundamental flaws" actually manifesting, provided no corroborating data or evidence, repeatedly posted links the contents of which you either didn't read or didn't understand and the most damning of all.......
......
......
......
is that seems like a whole lot of wasted time trying to justify you starting a cry baby thread, like so many before you, because you got down repped and you wanted to make yourself feel better about it by attacking its legitimacy (Ad Hominem.

Gods below you are boring.(Ad Hominem)
[/quote]
It seems to me like you have made zero effort to actually answer the problem of consensus as a valid form of argument, and also how consensus systems avoid positive feedback.
There is a reason why ad populum is listed under fallacies. Further every piece of evidence has been dismissed out of hand without any real objection being made too it. I have gone back through the posts and each time my points are excised or the response is "your wrong" without actually explaining how positive feedback (or other points I make) are avoided.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2017, 03:52 AM
RE: Consensus
(13-07-2017 03:48 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  It seems to me like you have made zero effort to actually answer the problem of consensus as a valid form of argument, and also how consensus systems avoid positive feedback.
There is a reason why ad populum is listed under fallacies. Further every piece of evidence has been dismissed out of hand without any real objection being made too it. I have gone back through the posts and each time my points are excised or the response is "your wrong" without actually explaining how positive feedback (or other points I make) are avoided.


Hey dipshit.

Ad Hominen is when you make an insult in place of an argument. If however you can make an argument without insult, or show the other side has no basis (perhaps because they lack any evidence?), then an insult is merely icing on the cake. Adding an insult in such a case is not a logical fallacy, as the argument or tear down stands on it's own merits; the insult is just garnish on the plate.


Alright, now you can return to utterly failing to get the point.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-07-2017, 04:29 AM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 11:10 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I have leveled the charge ..

Laughat

Whoopdefuckingdo.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
13-07-2017, 04:39 AM
RE: Consensus
(13-07-2017 03:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(13-07-2017 03:48 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  It seems to me like you have made zero effort to actually answer the problem of consensus as a valid form of argument, and also how consensus systems avoid positive feedback.
There is a reason why ad populum is listed under fallacies. Further every piece of evidence has been dismissed out of hand without any real objection being made too it. I have gone back through the posts and each time my points are excised or the response is "your wrong" without actually explaining how positive feedback (or other points I make) are avoided.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason"
If you reject the popular definition then let me use Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. More colloquially, it is also known as missing the point.


Hey dipshit.

Ad Hominen is when you make an insult in place of an argument. If however you can make an argument without insult, or show the other side has no basis (perhaps because they lack any evidence?), then an insult is merely icing on the cake. Adding an insult in such a case is not a logical fallacy, as the argument or tear down stands on it's own merits; the insult is just garnish on the plate.


Alright, now you can return to utterly failing to get the point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2017, 04:41 AM
RE: Consensus
(13-07-2017 03:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(13-07-2017 03:48 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  It seems to me like you have made zero effort to actually answer the problem of consensus as a valid form of argument, and also how consensus systems avoid positive feedback.
There is a reason why ad populum is listed under fallacies. Further every piece of evidence has been dismissed out of hand without any real objection being made too it. I have gone back through the posts and each time my points are excised or the response is "your wrong" without actually explaining how positive feedback (or other points I make) are avoided.


Hey dipshit.

Ad Hominen is when you make an insult in place of an argument. If however you can make an argument without insult, or show the other side has no basis (perhaps because they lack any evidence?), then an insult is merely icing on the cake. Adding an insult in such a case is not a logical fallacy, as the argument or tear down stands on it's own merits; the insult is just garnish on the plate.


Alright, now you can return to utterly failing to get the point.
I was actually using the more common definition of the which is in use as provided above but again if that fails to suit Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. More colloquially, it is also known as missing the point.

Again I point out the lack of actually addressing points I have made.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: