Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
What is the official DART Moderator Position on/
- Mankinis
- Speedos, but with large gut overhang rendering the speedos invisible (Ala Peter Griffin)
- Usage of melted glue outside it’s appropriate context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Piano stool in the streets, a chaise longue in the sheets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I’d take the cushions off some of those and rummage for change... nasty boy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Dude, I can show pics of leather couches from the ikea catalogue that show up on adult content sites.His pics are on Tumblr and other adult content sites as well. I guess I should be able to post topless female models who also happen to be on adult content sites? However, Bsh has already stated he would not allow that. Can you see the hypocrisy here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Reverse image search tells me it comes from a model called Joepietrefesa’s Instagram page.If you are trying to tell us that picture did not come from an adult content site, then you're obviously a bigger liar than I thought. Gay mens adult content sites are full of pics just like it, and you know it. You've stated that you're gay and that picture is clearly of a sexual nature for you because there is no other reason for you to post it as your avatar. So, rather than fabricating some pathetic excuses about beaches and department stores, tell us the real reason why you're using it?
Created:
What we need is an agreement with Iran that places strict limits on their Nuclear Capacity, and allows the west to perform detailed inspections to ensure they are in compliance with their own limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Virts avatar is showing a little bit of sexy wrist action.
Ban him!
Created:
Posted in:
The only violation of bsh’a profile pic is that it doxxes what I look like irl
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
The waist band of your models underwear spells out ISIS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
And how exactly do you expect moderators to establish that I make arguments knowing that they’re wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The issue is that you don’t seem to be grasping the central point I’m making; and so I am forced to make a more specific argument to prevent having to deal with a page full of quotes - none of which are particularly relevant.
But you’re explaining what the issue is pretty well.
You beleive I’m arguing in bad faith, I beleive your arguing in bad faith. We’re both convinced.
Which one of us should get banned?
Created:
Posted in:
There is not a way to pick out bad faith actors who aren’t engaging in obvious spam or any of the objectively determinable prohibited conduct that is already against the rules - that is literally the whole point.
Any subjective criteria that cuts deeper and would cover what you seem to want, would allow me to categorize what you’re doing right now I’m this thread as being a “bad faith actor”.
Created:
Posted in:
Personal attacks are not assessing the validity of the content, and all the examples are above are not assessing the validity or quality of the content being posted, but are directly assessing what the content is.
I’m not talking about exclusively dumb people: I specified a lot of different points.
The issue is, that I can spin what you’re doing here as engaging in bad faith; because the criteria listed are so subjective they could apply to anyone. I don’t think your addressing the key point I’m making, and your really asking questions that are orthogonal to what I’m saying and not really in the context
Does this mean I should be able to remove you from the topic?
Thats the problem that you are confusing when lumping in arguing in bad faith with personal atta k rules. They’re not
the same.
The reason they are not the same is that I can tell if you call me a **** or a **** or a ****ing **** **** who **** ****** **** while on horseback. It’s objective. I can also tell whether you release personal information about me. Or threaten me. Or post something obviously off topic deliberately. Or hate speech. Or adult content.
It is not objective as to whether or not what you’re saying is engaging in good faith. I don’t think your dealing with my key points, and have confused two different things, and have subtly misrepresented what I’m saying: how do we judge whether your arguing in good faith or not? Does someone
look at your arguments after a complaint, then try and determine whether what you said is valid and logical? Are they going to come to a different position if they agree with you or not? Probably. And that’s the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well that is a given, I was talking about more generally. When people cant see.
Created:
Posted in:
It’s called self reflection, or sometimes metacognition. The important goal for anyone who’s thinking is rational, and logical is to recognize your own possibility of error and bias and constantly seek them out and repeatedly correct. When you start from the principle that those that are critical, or disagree are always correct; it really does help you to really correct your own thinking.
If you’re not constantly perpetual paranoid fear that you’re actually one of the idiots who believe in nonsense, and don’t understand or recognize it: you probable are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
i don’t think you’re really understanding the key point here. The key point I’m making is that when the decision of moderators is based exclusively on interpretation of the validity of the content and nature of what people are arguing; it becomes inherently subjective.
For example, I don’t think you’re really engaging on my key argument, or fully understanding it. Would this fit the criteria for me removing you from my thread? Or classifying you as someone who is not interested in discussion?
I could argue it both ways depending on which side I’m on. As it’s either you misunderstanding me, or me not expressing myself well.
if I said something facetious, is it an attempt at satirical mockery of a point that is inherently stupid, or is it deliberate trolling and failure to engage in the point? It would depend on whether I think the point is stupid.
There are going to be people who troll, people who are stupid, people who don’t understand and don’t know how to argue, there’ll be people who have a screw loose and people with intellectually bankrupt positions they can’t support and are forced to defend their crass and idiotic opinions with memes and dismissive nonsense - and it’s been that way since the dawn of the internet. Each one of them think the same is true about every other, and so it’s literally not possible to satisfactorily do anythkmg about any of them without inherently preventing the free exchange of ideas and debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It doesnt really take up a whole lot of time.I am so honored to be called your enemy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As I stated in my first post, what I’m presenting is not part of my point of view as a vote moderator, but as a forum user. Bsh doesn’t tell me what can and can’t be talked about - however I am of course fairly careful when talking about matters regarding moderation as it’s easy for my personal views to be confused with my moderation position. I’ve not responded primarily because it’s the weekend, and as I spend 99% of my time here during compile breaks, or Pooping, I have much less available time.
My problem, as I sort of outlined in my first point - is that who are the bad faith actors is normally subjective and depends on which side of a discussion you’re on in the case you lower the bar of what makes a bad faith actor.
We have fairly specific rules about conduct that is and isn’t allowed: the issue with these is more concerning the time it takes to be dealt with rather
tham it not being dealt with appropriately - imo as a forum user.
While I accept the frustration of facetious comments, or unhelpful discussion - the specific issue is that there is no criteria you can use that is objective and will cover only those who are arguing in bad faith. Even if you tried, the issue you would find is that it would be trivially easy to apply it to almost everyone depending on whatever whim or point of view you held at the time.
This goes back to what I said: To paraphrase, when moderators have to determine whether the content of people’s post is valid and applicable; rather than whether their specific actions and behaviours cross an objective threshold of negatice behaviour (personal attacks, abuse, etc), it’s not possible to do that in a way that’s fair to most of the people AND not end up with a one sided, one position forum from which every opposing opinion has been removed.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Grats Rational!
Created:
Posted in:
Easy one - nearly a full forfeit, opponent plagiarized almost his entire argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So there’s a couple of things here.
Save for extreme abuse; the moderators are generally immune from the personal attack clause of the CoC. It’s important that members feel free to openly criticize moderation. That’s why you see bsh, virt and myself being openly attacked by individuals in some threads, posts, debates, etc, and those threads don’t get locked.
This behaviour is not normally allowed against regular members - hence why multiple
threads and debates personally attacking other members are removed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Firstly, I’d recommend removing the links to an external thread that doxes members...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The problem is that you can’t moderate based on the validity of someone’s arguments. If someone is simply an idiot and doesnt realise it, is unable to convey their point of view, or is deliberately dishonest - there’s no objective test that isn’t down to the moderators subjective personal opinion.
If the moderator were, say, Trump supporting conservatives - they could probably say the same about either you or I.
Created:
Posted in:
From a position of being a forum user - rather than as moderator - the issue is the determination of “bad faith actor”.
Just because someone is stupid, ignorant or deluded does not make them a bad faith actor. Being deliberately dishonest, evasive or otherwise frustrating reasonable discussion doesn’t make them a bad faith actor either.
There are intentionally intellectually dishonest individuals on this forum, who will evade, dodge, duck: troll and otherwise misrepresent everything to the point it is not practically possible to have an intelligent or meaningful discussion with them on most topics.
I’m sure they’d say the same about me.
And that's the problem.
While hard trolling, personal attacks, doxxing and abuse are objectively measurable - being a dick, being obtuse or dishonest is much more of a subjective determination.
Worse, there is nothing more boring than having a forum without anyone being intelliectually dishonest, distorting facts or generally being an idiot.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And perfect we’ve come full circle.
You said something factually untrue. It can only reasonabley be interpreted to be a lie.
You haven’t been able to defend your lie - and you’ve not been able to do more than try and change the subject, or dodge the main issue I’ve been raising.
You’ve failed to dodge, failed to defend your position: and now you’re simply resorting to copying me.
I described the evidence that you are deliberately writing false information in my previous post. I know you’re not going to acknowledge it, as it seems that truth and argument is irrelevant.
I’ve been asking repeatedly why you are deliberately peddling and continuing to peddle false information - knowingly?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You said something that is objectively untrue.
You made a claim that was directly and contradicted - explicitly - by both Mueller and the report. That’s how I know it’s untrue.
Given that you’ve repeatedly claimed that you are party to the details of the report, and have referenced THE LINE BEFORE THE ONE THAT CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM, the chances making the claim without realizing your claim is objectively false, can be reasonably concluded as 0.
The idea that with the details you’ve already presented that you “accidentally” missed the specific facts that show your claims are objectively false when you reference a high level of detail on everything else, is so laughable that I’m not even taking this claim seriously.
Because there is 0 chance you didn’t hear Mueller, or read the part of the reports that prove your claims false: this renders what you said, objectively a lie.
This is emphasized by your intentional and deliberate refusal to acknowledge the error by changing the subject, dodging, deflecting and changing your argument.
You lied; continued to lie, are still lying and, for some reason you’re trying to claim and imply you weren’t intentionally trying to mislead - which is also being deliberately dishonest.
Why do you continue to lie?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So why did you lie?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If Barr claims Mueller exonerated Trump because he didn’t specifically accuse him of a crime: then yes he is lying - just as you are currently
As I have said repeatedly - only to be ignored - The report and Mueller explicitly they could not accuse the president of a crime was because he felt the rules prevented him from doing so. The report and Mueller express my stated things the other way round - that they would refuse to say he committed a crime, but would definitely say if he did not.
Thus you, Trump, Barr - or anyone - who claims that lack of an accusation in the report is an exoneration is a flat out dishonest liar.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s not relevant.
Whether Mueller should or shouldn’t have claimed the President should have been impeached does not change the fact: that according to both the report - and Mueller himself - the report does not conclude there was nothing worthy of prosecution.
You lied.
You’re continuing to lie.
You keep lying.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What Mueller should and should not have done, and what you (or Barr for that matter) think he was allowed to do is not relevant to what we’re talking about.
You made specific claims about what the Report meant.
Those claims were objectively false - and so blatantly false that you realistically would have known they were false. You intentionally lied
You sat down at your computer or phone - and specifically and intentionally decided to say something that was untrue.
Whether or not your current argument - which is tangential, and largely unrelated to the point I’m talking about - is correct or not, does not in any way, shape or form change what Mueller objectively meant by his report. What was included in the report, and what was stated later by Mueller clearly and objectively stated that the Mueller report categorically did not conclude what you said it does.
You brazenly lies: for no reason, and I’m interested in why you lied.
Are you simply serially dishonest? Where you more interested in trying to sound like you had an argument that you simply ignored what wastrue? Or is what is true largely immaterial to your thinking? That love for the party trumps facts and trumps the objectively reality that we live in, that demonstrates your original claims were flat out false?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What Mueller should and should not have done, and what you (or Barr for that matter) think he was allowed to do is not relevant to what we’re talking about.
We’re talking about what the meaning of the report was.
You are claiming that the report meant the president did not commit crimes worthy of indictment.
This is factually false, and is so blatantly false that you knew it was false when you said it.
The author of the report, and the report itself expressly said this is not what the report meant.
You may not agree with their reasoning - but your disagreement with his reasoning doesn’t make your original claim any less of a blatant lie.
This is my issue - what you said was so flagrantly false - that I cannot fathom why you felt the need to say it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mueller didn’t say congress could not accuse the president. that is factually false.
He said a criminal justice investigation is unable to accuse the president.
You keep saying factually untrue things.
Mueller explained he could not accuse the president of committing a crime. Mueller explained that it had not committed a crime - they would have said.
Thus: claiming that the Mueller report containing no exoneration - and no accusation shows there was no impeachable or indictable conduct is objectively false. You are continuing to lie
>>>>>You may not like this outcome. You may want him to have accused the president (If he had you’d probably be sitting here lying that he shouldn’t have accused the president). But he didn’t and explained why <<<<
He explained what the lack of accusation in the report meant - and it meant something factually opposite from what you claim. You are continuing to lie.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mueller didn’t say congress could not accuse the president. that is factually false.
He said a criminal justice investigation is unable to accuse the president.
You keep saying factually untrue things.
Mueller explained he could not accuse the president of committing a crime. Mueller explained that it had not committed a crime - they would have said.
Thus: claiming that the Mueller report containing no exoneration - and no accusation shows there was no impeachable or indictable conduct is objectively false. You are continuing to lie
You may not like this outcome. You may want him to have accused the president (If he had you’d probably be sitting here lying that he shouldn’t have accused the president). But he didn’t.
He explained what the lack of accusation in the report meant - and it meant something factually opposite from what you claim. You are continuing to lie.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mueller explained he could not accuse the president of committing a crime.
Mueller explained that it had not committed a crime - they would have said.
Thus: claiming that the Mueller report containing no exoneration - and no accusation shows there was no impeachable or indictable conduct is objectively false. You are continuing to lie
At this point it’s fairly obvious that neither facts nor reality matter to you. Only what you can spin to sound reasonable.
Mueller explained that it had not committed a crime - they would have said.
Thus: claiming that the Mueller report containing no exoneration - and no accusation shows there was no impeachable or indictable conduct is objectively false. You are continuing to lie
At this point it’s fairly obvious that neither facts nor reality matter to you. Only what you can spin to sound reasonable.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You say that they found no illegal conduct that was grounds for impeachment.
The report explicitly stated they would have said so were no indictable illegal conduct.
Mueller explicitly stated that as the president could not be indicted - he could not accuse him of crime.
This means your claim that the absence of accusation is proof of lack of evidence of crime is objectively false.
It’s so obviously and explicitly false to anyone who has any information at all - it can only be presume to willfully and deliberately dishonest.
You must have known your claim was untrue - yet said it anyway. This is actually an important point here: you lied on purpose despite knowing it is an obvious lie. Why would you so brazenly lie and continue to lie in front of everyone, knowing it is easily and trivially provable that it was a lie?
The report explicitly stated they would have said so were no indictable illegal conduct.
Mueller explicitly stated that as the president could not be indicted - he could not accuse him of crime.
This means your claim that the absence of accusation is proof of lack of evidence of crime is objectively false.
It’s so obviously and explicitly false to anyone who has any information at all - it can only be presume to willfully and deliberately dishonest.
You must have known your claim was untrue - yet said it anyway. This is actually an important point here: you lied on purpose despite knowing it is an obvious lie. Why would you so brazenly lie and continue to lie in front of everyone, knowing it is easily and trivially provable that it was a lie?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let’s also specifically point out that claiming that he found no grounds for impeachment is factually untrue - and explicitly contradicted by both the report and Muellers own comments. What you’re saying is objectively untrue.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Perfect.
So you concede what you said was untrue.
I want you to explain why.
Youre sitting there at a computer desk, faced with a choice of saying something f that was true - and instead you opted to say something that was objectively untrue.
I’m interested in exactly what part of your thought process lead you to decide that while you could tell the truth - lying was a great way to defend your position.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime
You said that Mueller concludes there was nothing worthy of indictment.
This is straight up false - Mueller has explained why the president was not accused of a crime; and it is because Justice department guidance prevented him from doing so.
What you said is objectively false? Why do you keep lying about it?
Created:
-->
@DBlaze
Im off and on, I often lose replies.
Created:
-->
@DBlaze
No. What you just said is factually untrue.
I do not know whether you believe this because this is the reality you want to believe - or this is what you have been told: but the Mueller report found who instances of obstruction of justice for which any other person in the Us would have been indicted for - had it not been the president.
The Mueller report expressly said that if there were no grounds for prosecuting a crime - they would have said: and in multiple examples on a variety of other potential crimes they explained why. They declined to indict Trump Jr for the Trump Tower meeting, not because it didn’t meet the grounds for an illegal Action, but they were not convinced that Trump Jr knew it was illegal.
Mueller didn’t accuse Trump or explicitly committing a crime - as this is what an indictment is for - and a sitting president cannot be indicted; and guidelines restrict accusing someone of a crime if they are not being indicted. He did not accuse Trump of committing an impeachable offence - as this is congresses Job - and restricted by the same regulations.
This is laid out both in the report - and in Muellers subsequent comments about it.
To claim the report somehow shows he did nothing wrong, or nothing impeachable is logically, factually and objectively false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Actually, Saudi Arabia is primarily responsible for terrorism. One of the main issues in SA is that to maintain power, the ruling Saud Dinasty, introduces radical Islamic teaching into schools several decades ago, and is the biggest force in exporting the ideological radicalism of Terrorism. It is no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of 9/11 terrorists and their Al Qaeda leaders were all from Saudi Arabia.
However, while Saudi Arabia bombs civlians in Yemen, torture and hack apart US permanent residents in their consulates, drive the ideological basis for radicalism Islamic Terrorism, and engage in brutal repression and crack downs on dissidents: but the bombs, jets, guns and bonesaws are all American - so they remain a key ally.
Saying that though, this is probably legit as there has totally never been another time that a hostile regional power that sat opposed to US geopolitical interests in a particular area was falsely accused of purposefully attacking ships in a stretch of water as a pretext to gain wider public support for a ramp up military involvement and hostilities with that Country....
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, spin spin spin.
You’re stating an outright flagrant lie. And I am interested in your thought process! Do you believe the lie? Are you doing it because “the big lie” is harder to work out how to deal with? Are you an elected Republican and that’s just what you guys do!
You said that Mueller found nothing worthy of indictment for obstruction.
This is flat out horseshit - so substantially horseshit that I am genuinely interested in what went through your head when you said it. It’s so divorced from reality that you know it’s false.
Mueller even stated that if there was no crime, he would have stated as much.
Youre simply just dodging the original lie by subtly changing the subject.
No. What you said is factually false.
Why did you lie? Why are you continuing to lie?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, this is the same ridiculous spin. But that’s what I’m trying to figure out.
You’re making claims that are objectively untrue - by implying Mueller didn’t find any thing worthy of obstruction.
Thats not what happened. The report said that wasn’t what happened. Mueller said that wasn’t what happened.
Why are you lying about it?
Why are you trying to pretend that Mueller didn’t find anything worthy of prosecution when he specifically said that he would have said so if that we’re the case?
Why are you now trying to maintain that same line, and try and dodge out of it with side tracks?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, I would very much like to focus on your lie. Not on obvious dodges.
You said that Mueller concludes that nothing worthy of indictment for Russian collusion or obstruction happened.
That is objectively false. That is a massive, obvious lie.
Mueller, as stated concluded nothing on the matter of obstruction - and explicitly said he didn’t conclude anything.
He didn’t indict the President as he concluded that DoJ policy prevented him.
So when you say that the report concluded nothing happened, you know that’s a ridiculous lie, I know it’s a ridiculous lie, everyone knows it’s a complete lie.
Why did you say it?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, I would very much like to focus on your lie.
You said that Mueller concludes that nothing worthy of indictment for Russian collusion or obstruction happened.
That is objectively false. That is a massive, obvious lie.
Mueller, as stated concluded nothing on the matter of obstruction - and explicitly said he didn’t conclude anything.
He didn’t indict the President as he concluded that DoJ policy prevented him.
So when you say that the report concluded nothing happened, you know that’s a ridiculous lie, I know it’s a ridiculous lie, everyone knows it’s a complete lie.
Why did you say it?
Created: