What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Discussing A Bad Faith Debating Rule

Horton

Cat
Administrator
So yep. I know I didn’t include one in my initial set of rules as I didn’t feel like there was need

However, seems people want one? So what are our opinions on it?
 

Ravan

Gone
Things like superspecific semantic arguments (he’s not a pedophile, she was 13, so she’s a teenager), making huge and extraordinary claims with no evidence (all progressives want white genocide), and the use of known liars as sources (alex jones, project veritas, breitbart, etc...) and then fighting when people dismiss them as sources are some of my biggest issues.
 

Horton

Cat
Administrator
Ok, like for Breitbart, what exactly is the issue with answering if or if not Breitbart is reliable in a debate? I don't read it as it's a right crap producer, but like I've seen people on SV honestly cite stuff like the Daily Mail and the reaction is more "that's dumb", rather then "infract!"?

Alex Jones I might draw the line at, as is outright conspiracy theories like "9/11 was done by Jews" kind of crap. but I don't see why a lot of these things can't be debated?
 

Ravan

Gone
Ok, like for Breitbart, what exactly is the issue with answering if or if not Breitbart is reliable in a debate? I don't read it as it's a right crap producer, but like I've seen people on SV honestly cite stuff like the Daily Mail and the reaction is more "that's dumb", rather then "infract!"?

Alex Jones I might draw the line at, as is outright conspiracy theories like "9/11 was done by Jews" kind of crap. but I don't see why a lot of these things can't be debated?
Not just using it, but using it and then refusing to accept when other people dismiss it. We know they lie. Here’s a link of their editor admitting that they lie specifically to protect Trump:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/breitbart-fake-news-alex-marlow/

And it’s in a conservative source.
 

V4Guss

Well-known member
Author
One thing I'd really like to fall under a no bad faith debating rule is when a member repeatedly refuses to engage with an argument (instead doing something like shooting off snark/one-liners or zero content posts about the argument) or backup their claims at all. My interactions with Rodyle were basically this.

Ravan I'd like to note you're only giving right wing examples... do you have left wing examples of bad sources? Not that I'm right wing or left wing, I just think that both examples should be given if you're going to cite examples of bad sources.
Things like superspecific semantic arguments (he’s not a pedophile, she was 13, so she’s a teenager)
I know you're going to call this a semantic argument... but it is true what I'm about to say. Attraction to pubescent individuals is hebephilia and attraction to adolescents is ephebophilia. Pedophilia is attraction specifically to prepubescent individuals. I don't see what's wrong with correcting terminology. Also I'll point out that ephebophilia is very common, teenagers are really common in porn (from artwork to live action or photographic porn advertising that actors are eighteen) and erotica. Hebephilia is also fairly common... at least in art and written work (while Japan is most notable for it, a lot of countries fetishize younger teenagers or preteens even if acting on such a thing means the real thing is condemned) and I'd note teen actors/actresses and singers are often fetishized even in the US, Europe, and Asia. I'm also going to point out that fictional artwork and written work of underage individuals in pornographic situations has been ignored or deemed not important in several countries. Places like Japan and a few European countries the rationale is that fictional art and written work does not harm actual underage individuals. In the US it normally gets ignored due to fiction of such things being in a legal grey area for various reasons.

I am not necessarily condoning these things and I don't think a person should act on it in real life if they happen to like art or written work of it, but I wanted to point out your terminology is incorrect and that the idea "Anyone attracted to people under the age of consent is a pedophile" is flawed and is something that contributes to moral panic regarding it and I would say moral panics are wrong because people don't think rationally when they happen.

@Horton, I really don't think correcting terminology on subjects or pointing out a truth on something should fall under bad faith debating even if it controversial. As I noted there is terminology for the example Ravan gave there and it's rather common for cultures to glorify and fetishize youth, even to the point where it falls under hebephilia and ephebophila.

I understand the point of a no bad faith debating rule and want to see it implemented, but I don't want to see it used to shut down controversial topics or "wrongthink" or used by a mod to infract a person because the mod happens to not like the argument or person and can't find a legitimate reason to infract. SV and SB have done these things.
Ok, like for Breitbart, what exactly is the issue with answering if or if not Breitbart is reliable in a debate? I don't read it as it's a right crap producer, but like I've seen people on SV honestly cite stuff like the Daily Mail and the reaction is more "that's dumb", rather then "infract!"?

Alex Jones I might draw the line at, as is outright conspiracy theories like "9/11 was done by Jews" kind of crap. but I don't see why a lot of these things can't be debated?
Outright insane or idiotic conspiracy theories I don't see why we can't just point and laugh at it when it pops up for the most part. I'd lean more to agreeing that bad sources should just be dismissed or ignored rather than infracted. However, being deliberately misleading about sources or misrepresenting them, that is lying in your argument seems like it would be more infraction worthy.
 
Last edited:

Sarcobite

THE DONALD TRUMP PROTECTS!!!!!
Author
Cut The Shit
Alex Jones speaks truth and is the defintion of a valid source.
 

V4Guss

Well-known member
Author
Alex Jones speaks truth and is the defintion of a valid source.
Sarcobite, please go troll and shit post somewhere else on the forums if you must do it.
 

Ravan

Gone
I should clarify that I’m not calling for people to be infracted for using vad sources. I’m calling for them to be infracted for creating a giant derail about how we have to pretend that those sources aren’t known liars and dissect every single separate article, after which they just vanish instead of admitting they used bad sources. Until the next week or next thread when they do it again.
 

IndyFront

Ξ⌊:Ξ≪⊕ `∧∀⊥∥'⌊: ∀∃∃∀⌊:⊕⌈≪⌊:⊕Γ.
Author
I should clarify that I’m not calling for people to be infracted for using vad sources. I’m calling for them to be infracted for creating a giant derail about how we have to pretend that those sources aren’t known liars and dissect every single separate article, after which they just vanish instead of admitting they used bad sources. Until the next week or next thread when they do it again.
It should be enforced as thread-derailment then, not 'bad faith debating,' the mods over at SB use that tactic to silence view points they do not like. Enforcing it as thread-derailment would insure across-the-board effect to all members regardless of politics.
 

Ravan

Gone
Can you prove he's a member of GRU?
When someone has made it clear that they are only there to troll and not to contribute anything of value, does it matter what their motives are? Or should they simply be removed?

Please note that I do not believe he is a paid GRU employee or any such nonsense
 

Alias

Bean Daddy
Moderator
When someone has made it clear that they are only there to troll and not to contribute anything of value, does it matter what their motives are? Or should they simply be removed?

Please note that I do not believe he is a paid GRU employee or any such nonsense
Sarco is a troll. However he has not exhausted his four temp ban's or did something that warrant's a perma ban. Until then he's gonna be a member of this site. This is starting to become a de-rail so focus on this debate about bad faith debating.
 

Ravan

Gone
Sarco is a troll. However he has not exhausted his four temp ban's or did something that warrant's a perma ban. Until then he's gonna be a member of this site. This is starting to become a de-rail so focus on this debate about bad faith debating.
True, although that brings us back to another major annoyance in debates. Driveby shitposts like the jackass who popped into a thread, ranted about how liberals hate whites and america, and then vanished. People who don’t bother to stick around and defend their gish-gallop of claims.
 

Alias

Bean Daddy
Moderator
True, although that brings us back to another major annoyance in debates. Driveby shitposts like the jackass who popped into a thread, ranted about how liberals hate whites and america, and then vanished. People who don’t bother to stick around and defend their gish-gallop of claims.
Put them on ignore.
 

Ravan

Gone

Horton

Cat
Administrator
Either you drive people like that out, or they drive everyone else out.
Like he’s already been infracted today anyway
 

Ravan

Gone
We're not going to purge the site of certain members.
You don’t have to. If you actually enforce good faith debating, shitposters will purge themselves.
 

V4Guss

Well-known member
Author
You don’t have to. If you actually enforce good faith debating, shitposters will purge themselves.
Shit posting does not always equal bad faith debating however.
 
Top Bottom