Thursday, October 30, 2008

   Reserving the Right; a language of difference
There is a good chance, that pretty much everyone who comes across this page knows what has happened to my account on the O-Boards. I would just like to show everyone my side of the story. This is going to be a very long article, since I am essentially fighting for my right to exist in these forums.


I returned to these forums after a long period of time, because I had grown bored of the regular hum-drum going-ons of other online communities, and desired a place where you had to actually compose your posts, and posts were of more length/quality than they were.

This is exactly what happened. As soon as I came onto the forums, I found an environment that had much more prestige than the other places that I had been. Unfortunately, I soon learned a little bit more about the "prestige" there.

Maybe it was fate, for when I return, the main topic that I am infamous for (homosexuality) immediately crops up. Maybe this is only a temporary block in my online life, that will either be climbed or removed completely (because I do think that this is, in all honesty, an unfair banning). Regardless of the reason, I find my membership terminated. I cannot view the last message in my inbox, for this banning was a very recent decision. The Given reason?

"Unanimous staff decision. Based on cheap debating tactics, rudeness, highly inflammatory remarks and ignoring Moderator warnings"

Hm... I am going to assume that this isn't in reference to topics like Dingledodies. No, I am pretty sure what has happened.

I have held controversial stances in the past. I always have, being one of those individuals that doesn't respect everyone's beliefs and actions for the sake of doing so. Happy to point the finger at someone, and outright tell them what is right and what is wrong. This has become part of my personality, for the trials of fire have taught me how some of the faulty ideas that everyone embraces will often lead me down a path that require absolutely no thought on the issue, forcing me to concede a point just because it is socially accepted to do so. It is like Plato's Apology, where Socrates is put to death due to social desires of the masses, for he has violated everyone's beliefs with his reasoning. I will bring some of these things up as I go into detail about particular events.

I suppose I would very well write a response designed to please the courts, but I will not do this. For to do so would be to undermine my very philosophies of life, and to continue to appease the nature that has lead to my current status on the forums. To walk about without virtue would be to walk about as a shell of a man. To gain membership or an apology under dishonest, hypocritical, or incorrect means would be a shallow and short-lived victory.


In response to each of these reasons:

I partly blame what I call a different "language of the culture". This is an issue of culture shock, where the normal practices in one area are frowned upon in another area due to local beliefs and histories. You can say the exact same thing, and have it interpreted in completely separate connotations, and have complete misunderstandings on the statement. In particular, using irony and contrasts, inserting strikes into quotes, claiming fallacies, using rhymes and plays off of famous lines, and operating under the assumption that you are correct is the norm that I am used to. Not only is it preformed "all in good taste" without any sort of statement in regards to the other person's existence, but it provides multiple techniques to illustrate several ideas that are used in posts (such as hypocrisy, willingly ignoring the messages of a point, repetition, ect) in a method that just cannot be expressed in a long, paragraphed styling like the one I am writing here. Now, I soon learned that many of these tactics were taboo, and I would learn these through time.

Though I am under a double-standard. This is what happens in an instance where the people in power violate their own embracing of multi-cultured stances in lieu of personal comfort. To be an acceptor of all people is easy when you are in a like-minded crowd, but it is truly the test of faith when it is challenged by a presence that is not easy to respect. A presence that points the finger, is not like minded, and discriminates freely must be respected just as equally, or else it is a violation of the very stance that is held by the individual, and therefore an invalidation of any grounds to exercise this stance.

Something that was a topic (particularly in discussion of the prior mentioned dialogue by Plato) was whether or not "any evil could catch touch a good man". I came to an unfortunate answer in regards to this:

It is not whether or not you are actually "good" that matters in society. The only thing that matters is the opinion of the people that see you. If everyone in society were convinced that you committed a murder, whether or not you actually did is irrelevant. You would be tried and punished regardless. If Hitler had been successful in the final solution, we may very well be praising him for furthering human evolution, instead of condemning him beyond his own death.

Now, I'm pretty sure you want specific examples. These, I will provide:

http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=59700&page=4

Interesting exchange occurs between me and James (which I think has lead to his incredible bias against me). Things particularly get interesting on the next page. This is when James opens up with a new line of attack:

"You just can't make that statement, because you're assuming that every woman reacts to every rape the same way (your'e also assuming that all rapes are inherently the same as well)."

"I'm not making a generalization, I am simply saying that your complete dismissal of the long-lasting effects of rape on the rape victim only serves to nullify your original point.

It's one thing to start from a position of being against all abortions and then trying to make sure all evidence fits into that prism. It's another thing to accept that all cases are not the same and that individual choices will vary for many different reasons."

"This almost sounds like it comes from a text book! Thank you, Dr. Crimson Spider. Where did you get your degree is psychiatry and pediatrics?

In all seriousness, reaching a personal conclusion is one thing. But don't pass that off as some kind of empirical final word.

It is ironic that a male would sit here and make generalizations about the experiences that a woman has. My underlying point all along was that I'm in no position to arbitrarily decide what "degree" of suffering for a woman is acceptable or how she "should" react to that. It's incredibly arrogant to do so - and if I were a woman, I certainly wouldn't want that directed at me."

This is a tactic that soon follows afterwards by nearly every person in this thread: Just say that person is generalizing, and then he is instantly incorrect. Also take note of the bitter sting of sarcasm in this post. Though I am fine with the sarcasm (and even play off of the idea later), James has insulted me.

When you treat me like I am some little child who is manipulating everything in order to fit into some play world where I am right, this is not a statement in regards to my argument. This is a statement regarding me; who I am. James is basically claiming that I am:

#1: Completely dishonest in my evaluation in order to justify some sort of idea.

#2: So stupid that I have wrapped myself into a self-delusional bubble.

#3: Only debate with people in an attempt to impose my will upon others.

#4: I am completely detached from the gravity of rape (like my mother's case) and am completely ignoring any negative side effects regarding it.

And by contrast, that he is not, or has enough high ground to claim my ignorance on the issue. The position that he acts like he holds is one of moral authority and intellectual authority. The standard assumption that no, I must be incorrect because I can be accused of generalizing and because I am not James.

Whether or not James thought I was accusing him of making certain claims, or whether or not he was silently imposing the idea that I was against (which he later admits, as I point out to Allamorph), James continued on, despite my admission that I was willing to just let my debate with him fall down and end. No, I have to be accused of "generalizing" over and over again, and the mere fact that I have "generalized" somehow is a problem, and the fact that James has either made a mistake in his wording or has made an invalid claim just cannot be true, so he continues to refuse to admit that he didn't say things correctly, or his real position on the stance.

Then, SunFallE comes into the debate. She apparently thinks that it is an effective method to dismiss anything I say as "Stuff Goes Here", and then play the intellectual/moral superiority position. This I also found to be disrespectful to me, and to anyone else who has put an effort into writing a post longer than a paragraph. I responded with hostility to this tactic.

By this time, I had been asking questions, expecting a response as a particular instance. If you notice, I never receive one. Interesting that people are all too willing to say that I am generalizing, but refuse to point out where, when, or how. I had to figure out where people have misunderstood me on my own. In fact, when I hear James say:

"By suggesting that the individual circumstances surrounding each case of rape are irrelevant, you are implying that the specifics of each case are unimportant."

It makes me angry about how the continual refusal to answer my questions continues on, and that my reasoning in an above post that completely disproves this entire situation (an inaccurate caricature of my argument) is ignored. This was so bad that I just swallowed my rantings, and made a new post from scratch on the subject at hand. To no avail, for James and Indi continued to throw the "Your generalizing" card, Indi being the only person who actually supported her argument, albeit unsuccessfully.

Then Allamorph joins in. Now, he actually accomplishes things, albeit extremely insulting in doing so. Examples:

"Fixed. Don't be an arse. Every one of us is more than capable of returning the favor twenty-fold. We just (typically) choose to be the better man."

"The people responding to you in this thread have done you the courtesy of reading your posts, despite the length.

Return the bloody favor."

Uh-huh, and apparently "being the better man" really is "I'm better than you, kid". What pisses me off is the complete irony of this post. Essentially he is claiming that he and the rest of the forum are so much better than I, or that I am so much worse than anyone else that I should be humbled by their awesome presence. The great irony is that by claiming this, especially under the treatment that was given to me, is a hypocrisy of epic proportions. As if you have built yourself up so high and mighty from an empire of dirt that you can stand in full judgment of who I am, and you can do this by claiming the power of your own capability to be eviler than I.

If I am wrong in the debate, please prove me wrong. This, I beg of you. But don't make a prideful statement of your own malice to contrast your superiority over me. If you are going to address something I have done incorrectly, both Nerdsy or TimeChaser have demonstrated a concise, non-insulting, humble approach to resolving the issue in this thread. Follow their example instead of being so stupid that you fail to realize the stupidity of your own position on the forum, either from complete unawareness of your own actions or from a hypocritical exercise of double standards. Because that is a failure for the history books.

"And check your posts. Several times you have asked people to justify rape, and not abortion after rape. You look rather foolish, really."

Nothing quite like an unnecessary statement contrasting your own prideful stance of personal of writing ability over me in an out-and-out slap in the face.

But alas, Allamorph and his admitted lack of any respect for me (in the Tattoos Thread) actually accomplishes things where others do not. Interesting point, he managed to point out another local taboo to me. To this, I responded directly to Indi:

"Deal. In retrospect, quote altering wasn't the best medium :("

Which, of course, by reasoning would mean that it was an issue that was resolved, and no longer was a subject. Though this doesn't matter to the Unanimous Staff:

Staff: "Don't do that."
Me: "Yeah, I won't do that again."
Staff: "Too late. Immuh BANNIN' WIT MUH LAZARR BLAAAARGH!"

Though, the action of editing someone's quote for effect obviously isn't lost, for James then does even better later:

"Mod Note: CS, it's worth pointing out that everybody understands this. Yet when people provide detailed scientific data you simply don't read it. So none of those disagreeing with you are speaking from ignorance. Please read posts more carefully. - James"

Key thing to notice is that this is in my post. Though it commits a fallacy of hindsight bias, in which you use an after the fact justification in order to support an otherwise bad decision that you had made prior. Yes, I had to "not read it" just because I hadn't read it yet (which I had at this point. Very interesting PDF that Indi linked to. I also addressed Indi about this). Also, this didn't mean that the tactic used wasn't the tactic used. You can actually know about a facet, and then play the argument from ignorance card instead of just supporting the claim about invariability first hand.

And the clincher in this particular topic:

"Try to pull yourself out of that "I'm always right" bubble, please. As I've said, people here are respecting you by taking the time to respond to your comments."



If you call this respect, then I have been framed.

Now, what basis are these claims of my being framed do I operate under? You see, there are certain "givens" that I operate under, and that I expect from both sides of the debating. If we are not operating under my standard, I still except reciprocity in regards to ethics applied. But, it seems like it is submittable for me to be exiled from Athens on grounds where my opponents are essentially hypocritical to my actions, and my positions.

Logically, I would like to address the first issue which I never bring up in the debate at hand: "I am always right".

You see, you are always right. You do not walk into a room under the assumption that everything you see is incorrect. If you see that the sky is blue, when you say it is blue then you are correct. The sky is blue. If someone claims that the sky is green, and you tell him it is blue, are you then supposed to just throw out the possibility that you may be correct (an irrelevant given to any circumstance)just because the opposition feels that they are being oppressed by your "I'm right" stance? Perish the thought you are correct, and be damned if you operate under the principle that you actually know something about life.

If assuming you are correct wasn't standard in a debate, I would not participate, because it would just become a contest where each person would masterbate each others' egos to the idea of respecting everyone's opinion. If I get in a debate about the color of grass, I am going to assume that I am correct, just as my other side is going to assume that they are correct. This is how people operate in real life, this is the standard that I bring to the field, and as a given to the field it is going to be unsaid and applied evenly to both parties.

But it wasn't. I can be wholly wrong, my opponents wholly correct, and if neither person acknowledges actively and immediately that the other side may be correct, then it is I who is at fault? Lets not forget that I have admitted that I was incorrect on numerous occasions, both in operating practice and in the facts at hand. This wasn't enough to stop the banning laser, though.

Second, is the issue of assuming bias. The fact is, no matter where you go, you will find bias. It is a requirement of humanity to have bias on any issue that is present. I say that Bias isn't a good enough reason to discredit a claim, because otherwise you would have to remove every single human-made observation and statistic available.

I always operate under the fact that I will be biased, and my opponents will be biased. This is a given, and an unfortunate aspect that is always present. But, apparently my opposition in this thread thought it impossible for them to be biased, or that their links were unbiased. And the mere fact that I may be biased is grounds enough to continually insult my integrity on the matter.

Third, my very direct manner of claiming fallacies and bad logic comes off as offensive to people. Probably from the connotation of authority that I have in doing so. Casually spouting out Ad hoc ergo propter hoc, ad hominem, red herring, strawman, is offensive to people, because we usually characterize ourselves by our arguments. I have to admit that it was, at first, equally offensive to me. However, I learned to come to terms with this manner of debating, because it is very effective and it is very direct. It states very quickly what stays, and what goes.

Not only from the misunderstandings that everyone has about phrases like "Argument from Ignorance", but the decisiveness that I would operate under offended people. As if I have to sit back and constantly service irrationality so my opponents won't be offended by someone who disagrees with them. This does offend people, and I guess it passes as a "cheap tactic" since I am the only one who employs it, unless it is a response to my writings (which then it is employed to me, as expected).

Fourth, the Burden of Proof: This is not really to say that someone isn't completely unproven, but that a certain position or statement requires that someone initially argue for its change. Particularly, it requires that if you make a statement, you must support this statement. By contrast, the term "Burden of Proof" means that someone who doesn't do this is somehow illogical because they believe something without evidence. When I throw this term around, it is a reality-checker to many (and reality is preferred relative), and probably very insulting to many individuals.

Also, it appears to be more important about what I do, and not what I say. If James really wasn't talking about his silent position in this thread (that rape justifies abortion in all cases, an interesting note of hypocrisy in blanket generalizations here. BTW, let the records show that he does support this idea), then his entire position has been nothing more than an elaborate and futile nit-picking of my writing style! Yes, I can clarify the understandings that I have said things that have been misunderstood, yes I can show that his wording has caused some confusion and I can drop the case there, yes I can show that I am talking about a different subject at hand to the one currently, yes I can attempt to move away from generalizations and talk about logic, but that is all irrelevant. No, I may have made a particular group feel dissatisfied about a misunderstanding for a "generalization", and this is punishable by death. Or, it is punishable by a continuous hypocritical disrespect of my person.


If... that is actually the issue. It may not be, which is the point I will bring up now.

If you followed the thread that I linked to through, you may have noticed that my last post was on my Birthday (27th of October), and the issue wasn't pursued any further. I wasn't banned until today. Unless it took 3 days for moderators to decide that my "travesties" on a thread were enough to warrant my banning with no official warning other than Allamorphs introductory personal message (itself an insulting means to degrade my position through assumed superiority on his part) months ago, then there is another issue at hand.

Another thread that I am infamous for is the debate over homosexuality, which has transitioned fully into a same-sex marriage debate. Of course, the other forums that I go to generally don't allow these types of threads because of the fact that you are asking someone to commit a social taboo if they don't agree with everyone else.

But alas, someone opened a thread on the subject, and I responded. Beginning afterwards was a series of exchanges that was really interesting if I may say so. Different definitions coming about, breaking down social norms and evaluating stances, psycho-analyzing common stances and phrases, all manners of tactics employed on the issue. I was challenged, I was pleased, and with Drix I even laughed (straight logic roflmao).

Regardless, It is obvious by observation that I hold a statistical minority on the issue: A grand total of 2 or 3 agree with me. Then, by moral relativity, I am by default incorrect, and thus I am the "troublemaker". I am the troublemaker because the position I hold is the opposite of everyone else, and by arguing for my position I violate everyone by questioning an ideal that they hold personally true to themselves.

This is the norm, however. As a Christian, It is expected that my position be assaulted every day by westernized society. I have learned to let my callouses grow hard, so the climb upward will be less painful. I do not require that my position be justified by another person's own uncertainty: I require that I justify my own position on my own. I expect this of everyone else, just like how Socrates expects everyone to question and evaluate their lives.

But, not everyone does. Everyone would be happier with just silencing strife, comfortable into regressing to their faith that they are correct, and walking away. Completely unaware of the hypocrisy that has taken place, and not even caring.

It would be by the virtue of my statements being controversial that would warrant their banning, regardless of whether or not I am breaking any rules.

A particularly interesting break in the status of my banning was made. When a moderator actually took the time to explain what has gone on, I see that the theory that my banning was a cop-out remains. The phrase that was used in the "particular incident" that lead to my banning was one on the same-sex marriage debate. Now, I had made the statement that no rights were denied, and the objective definition of marriage should stay the same. Drix answered (in probably the best argument I had seen in that entire thread) by making comparisons between same-sex marriage and interracial marriages. I responded earlier by saying that it was bad logic that showed no discrimination between the specifics between interracial marriage, same sex marriage, and beastiality. This claim had gone unanswered, so I brought it up again in response to Drix in the following manner:

"You are wholly correct on this. The statement isn't bigoted at all. In fact, it is one of the best stances for arguing against legalizing interracial marriages, because it is completely true, honest, and exposes the nature of the lesser arguments toward legalizing Interracial Marriages as being full unsubstantiated and bad reason for legalization. I do not think that human-animal *cough* interracial marriages should be allowed on the basis of sexual preferences toward different colored or different featured creatures, and the amount of emotional or financial comfort that they receive from their dog *wheeze* preferred spouse. It is the name for an act, an institution, a legal right, and it is not a requirement toward the happiness of the individuals who partake in this or similar acts. It is not required that someone wishes to partake in this right.

BTW, I am making a comparison between logic showing no discrimination between an accepted norm (interracial marriages), and an unaccepted practice (Beastiality). Just to clear that up if any misunderstandings were to occur."

I will, for the sake of argument, assume that this statement qualifying as a condition for my exile is not out of the misunderstanding of my intentions. Just for the sake of argument, because it if were true, then this would be an exercise in the unlikely unanimous stupidity of the moderating staff of the forum, or their direct concern over the stupidity of other members (if that is to be encouraged).

This is a technique that I had actually seen on the forums myself, used many years ago. I have seen many renditions. The quote substitution, the strike-through, the bodily language used to pseudo-hide arguing points, and the like. It was acceptable practice then to preform this kind of action, for it provided an extremely short and effective means of conveying the message.

And, since my message was that bad logic showed no discrimination between issues, then what better method would there be to actually substitute terminology from one into another? I can very well say "they don't show discrimination", which I had done already, but to no avail. The point remained ignored. I actually provided a paragraph in which I used countless tricks in the book to argue for a unanimously unacceptable practice under the same grounds. But, again to no avail. So, having said my peace, I took the much simpler, shorter, poignantly effective medium to convey this idea once again. This time, it was so poignant that it moved the motion of an eviction in my direction.

There are only a few reasons to justify an eviction from these means: The aforementioned stupidity of the staff, a violation of personal belief so strongly that it had to be silenced, the language-communication culture being violated again, and/or a prior negative disposition against my stance/person seeking an outlet to justify action. Neither of the above reasons in any combination are sufficient grounds to honestly remove a member. This is so bad of a reason to remove a member that I assumed that this particular paragraph played no role. Now, it seems, I am wrong.


So, lets go down the checklist:

"Unanimous staff decision. Based on cheap debating tactics, rudeness, highly inflammatory remarks and ignoring Moderator warnings"

#1: Cheap Debating Tactics: From an inability for my opposition to hold a high ground, both in practice and logically, I would not be guilty for what is essentially culture shock because you must have the higher ground in order to have correct judgment on the issue. Higher ground is not "I'm a moderator, so I can insult you and write history as I want".

#2: Rudeness: Because the beast that I must service is ultimately irrationality, I stand to say that I am NOT fully responsible for other people being offended by my content, especially when the intention was not to be rude at all.

#3: Highly Inflamatory remarks: Guilty of being different I suppose. Again, I will not service the beast of irrationality, especially in a topic where someone asks of my opinion in a controversial nature. To not continue to argue my stance or to point out the flaws of others in logic is a disrespect to other forumers, and it is disrespectful because I am effectively dismissing any intellectual property they have in lieu of my own superiority.

#4: Ignoring Warnings: Moderators have failed their duty to make a "warning". I need something other than an insult to my integrity and a contrast to another member who was obviously not related to any of my practices or intentions at all. This warning consisted of things, such as claiming that if another forumer lumps two separate ideas together into one incorrect stance, that it is my fault that they have so hastily taken offense to me. Also complaining about my writing style (in this case, the rhyming scheme) to the point of actually insulting my intelligence directly is not a "warning". It is a travesty to represent authority in that nature. "Hah hah! I'm a mod, so I can say what I want!"


If I am too controversial and offensive by nature to go to those forums, fine. I have come to terms that I have outgrown this forum, in my level of reasoning and in attitude on life. That is understandable if you want to protect your members from the scary and mean spider. But the conditions for this banning are hypocritical, illogical, and outright incorrect.

I will walk away if you truly desire it. I will walk away under one condition: I want a formal, completely sincere apology from the staff of this forum for their conduct. Give me an apology, or un-ban me. Because frankly, that was pathetic. I expected better from you, Staff of theOtaku.
Comments (3) | Permalink