Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

You have to keep in mind that one of the chief metrics of trolling is causing drama.

Arguing with a troll for the benefit of the audience's education is fine to a certain extent, but that extent should have been page 2 or 3 of this thread --i'm guilty as well, don't get me wrong--

When it becomes clear that, even with seven or eight cogent refutations that the troll has no intention of even modifying his rhetoric even slightly, to the degree of refuting video evidence and scientific papers with single line dismissals and copypasta irrelevance, you have to realize they are purposefully wasting time and their goal is not to proselytize, not to learn or convert, or be converted; no their goal is to see how long of a 'discussion' that can be generated with as few prods as possible.

It's blindingly easy to skim a "wall of text" response, search for keywords, pop them into google and copypasta the first contrary thing that comes up just to poke the proverbial hornet's nest. Then you pull up the armchair and count how many hornets came out, and you see if you could do it again. When you get stung (banned) it means you failed, and you'll try a different hornet's nest and have your fun elsewhere.

As was said, nothing of value was lost in b&ing him, he'll just go to a twilight forum and post how much jacob sucks for his drama.

However, I think a great deal was lost for us in the process. Read over these threads from a neutral perspective, we went very overboard, some members even got angry and kept beating this dead horse. It doesn't reflect well on intellectualismj

I agree with your points about a Category 2 OP who is clearly a troll through their behaviour - even though they haven't stated that they are one.

I have no objections to such being banned - as long as everyone (the audience, in particular) can see that he's a troll and that's the reason for the ban.

Category 1 is easy - they're self-identified (like "Czar").

Category 3 ("Tortucans") are reasonably identifiable - though they may arrive confused and may appear intransigent, in time they'd begin to change their views.

It's this Category 2 that's the problem - if the individual is simply stuck in their attitudes (not due to being a troll!) - then we have to be careful not to ban them, lest - as I said - it appears we're doing so because we haven't "won"/can't "win".

Once the audience tags the OP as a "troll", then it's alright to ban them.

[As regards intellectualism not coming off well, due to some losing their temper: in some ways this has been a good test to see how people should behave when faced with "trolls" - keep calm, you've got the evidence on your side.]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

While I agree with much of the above, and while I am always more inclined toward inclusion rather than exclusion, this particular OP was given more than enough rope to hang himself, as should be pretty clear to any onlookers, even in the absence of the reasonably comprehensive detailing of his many instances of malfeasance provided subsequent to his banishment.

I don't think anything was lost here in any respect, TBH.

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Are we categorizing them now? Hmm...

Close encounters with a troll of the third kind.

It does have a certain ring to it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

Greetings,

Are we categorizing them now? Hmm...

Close encounters with a troll of the third kind.

It does have a certain ring to it.

It would be a useful way to think of OPs - "Trolls", "Tortucans" and the middle group, undecided for whom we await further evidence before categorizing them as members of one of the first two groups.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[mumblingmickey]

Re: Царь Славян's Take on The Theory of Evolution

William Dembski has presented just such a method. If we have no known natural law to explain a certain pattern and the said pattern conforms to an independently given pattern and is improbable enough to have happened by chance, it exhibits specified complexity. And then we are reasonably justified in infering design. Because there are no other known explanations, and we know from experience that intelligent agents can produce specified complexity, that makes intelligence the best current explanation.

William Dempski clearly has never heard of complex systems adaptability... if he ever had done he wouldn't be coming up with such idiotic ideas.

There is a difference between the two as well... Dempski can't demonstrate his... But Murray Gell-Mann and others can most certainly demonstrate theirs... and can even give that ability to you. At which point after reading and demonstrating how complexity works to yourself the 'intricacies of the flower' argument will vanish in your head... poof! just like that.

I'd certainly challenge you to point out precisely what structure you can think of in the entire universe is 'designed' by a conscious intelligence...as opposed to the intelligence of a process.