The PZ Myers Memorial Debate, Round Two: And The Winner Is…
Posted in Atheism, Blogosphere, PZ Myers Memorial Debate, Religion on | 11 minutes | 19 Comments →
The interlocutors submitted their second round of arguments and this time, they limited themselves to one piece each. You can read both pieces in their entirety over at VoxWorld. If you don’t read their arguments first, my judgment won’t make as much sense.
Opening Argument Summary
Vox’s argument can be summarized as, “E/L->gods because I can’t think of any better way to explain alleged moral consistency.”
Dominic’s argument can be summarized as, “E/L->no gods because first attempts at explanation are almost always incorrect.”
Extended Commentary: Vox’s Argument
In a move that can only be described as a strategic blunder, Vox spent 500+ words—over 15% of his total argument—trying to justify this loosely-defined “gods” concept as the subject of the debate, as if he hadn’t already covered this ad nauseum in the comment threads. Interestingly, even though Dominic admitted to “the mistake of overlooking the topic of the debate,” Vox reminds the less intelligent, “The atheist position that Dominic is championing is not defined as disbelief in the existence of the Christian God, but as disbelief in the existence of all gods. To his credit, Dominic understands and accepts this, and everyone would do well to follow his example.” For Pete’s sake Vox, we get it already. This would be much more enjoyable were it not so obvious that Vox thinks practically everybody besides himself is a complete moron worthy of talking down to.
When Vox gets around to debating, he wisely opts to strengthen his argument from moral evil, which I criticized as “fancy poetic metaphor” the first time around. Unfortunately, he doesn’t give the argument the support it needs. Specifically, Vox attempts to prove A) that the existence of evil requires the presence of a source of good, and B) that the only entity capable of dictating an objective and definitive good is the Creator or His agent. He proved neither, and honestly, aside from his comments about pedophiles, I found his argument bloated, boring, and non-sequitur, filled with naked assertions to boot. Reference to an “internal brake” doesn’t prove anything. The failure of psychoanalysis doesn’t prove anything. Repeated allusion to the “failures of the materialist consensus” doesn’t prove anything. Vox simply asserts a “relatively small range of variations in moral sensibilities,” but a semi-educated person must wonder what planet he’s referring to. IMHO, the variations throughout history cannot be called anything but gaping. People used to toss others to lions for entertainment. Slavery used to be a-okay. Even the Israelites used to stone people for things we teach in elementary school. Need I go on? Hell, Vox himself seems to think that the “Law” is arbitrary. Even if we granted Vox’s claim—which we ought not—moral consistency doesn’t prove an external Law or a Lawgiver. Moral consistency is just as consistent with common evolutionary and biological underpinnings, as Dominic noted in Round One.
Returning to the creative writer within, Vox writes, “The Law can only be broken if the Law exists. Evil can only exist in the presence of the Good.” Spare me! This is the same poetic nonsense I rejected the first time around. People exist. They do things. There are some things most people like. There are other things most people dislike. None of this proves any sort of “law” or “evil” or “good” or “lawgiver.” Since this is the only argument Vox offers in this round, I have no choice but to conclude that he has not advanced his case.
Extended Commentary: Dominic’s Argument
Dominic attempts to falsify Vox’s claim that it is ahistorical and unscientific to dismiss the plethora of testimonial evidence for gods, but his attempt strikes me as hair-splitting hypocrisy: “The true statement would be that it is ahistorical to dismiss all testimonial evidence out of hand.” Dominic tries this “out of hand” distinction thinking it saves him, yet, astonishingly, he uses “cultural influence” as a reason to dismiss the testimonial evidence for gods out of hand! No longer does one need to evaluate case-by-case as Vox correctly suggested in Round One, Dominic can just dimiss it all categorically because of “cultural influence.” The support? “…show me someone who is possessed by a demon that spits on both the cross and the name of Christ who has never heard of Christianity or been exposed to anything Christian. Show me someone recounting an experience of being sexually molested by little grey aliens with big heads and huge hypnotic eyes who’d never heard of or been exposed to Hollywood films or other popular culture sources that tell us what aliens do and what they look like. There has been no such showing yet.” Pure chutzpah. Dominic should have done the research. If he or anyone else wishes to accuse me of unduly swift dismissal, we can have it out in the comments. I will supply what Dominic claims has not been shown.
Along similar lines, Dominic writes, “[testimonies of alien abduction are] a class of testimony that is equivalent to and practically indistinguishable from testimony of interactions with gods, as opposed to testimony of interactions with the mundane.” Dominic still doesn’t seem to understand that alien abduction testimonies are indistinguishable from testimonies of interactions with gods because they are testimonies of interactions with gods, according to the loose definition of “gods” supplied. Trying to draw this line of distinction is a failed endeavor. Further, to claim the two classes of testimony are “indistinguishable” is to completely undermine Dominic’s conclusion that “Gods are not real because the true reason for the eyewitness testimony that they are based on is something else entirely.” If he can’t distinguish between the testimonies of gods and aliens—as Dominic undeniably admitted—on what grounds does he distinguish enough to claim that testimonies of gods are based on something else entirely? This just isn’t adding up. Dominic didn’t show A3 false, and actually committed the error he sought to establish.
In response to Vox’s analogy from Round One, Dominic writes, “That it would have been silly for a hypothetical group of Aztecs to deny the existence of hostile Spainards before ever meeting a white man is intentional obfuscation, because Vox’s own argument is entirely dependent on the idea that the gods have in fact been met.” Good point, but to say Vox is “intentionally obfuscating” is presumptuous. Dominic doesn’t know that. After all, it remains possible that despite his MENSA membership, the “internet superintelligence” might have simply missed the obvious. After all, truth is stranger than fiction, right Dominic?
Turning towards Vox’s argument from moral evil, Dominic claims that Vox dashes his own argument to pieces by stating both:
…[the moral sense] is something that is simultaneously internal to the consciousness and outside the desires and the awareness of consequences,
…and,
It could also be a pre-programmed implant, in which case we would speak of the implanter rather than the transmitter.
Dominic creates the impression that these two statements are mutually exclusive. They are not. “Internal to the consciousness” doesn’t mean “generated / sustained / informed entirely from within.” It seems Dominic was too swift in his dismissal there. He did not show B3 false.
As for B4, whether or not man’s moral sense has changed much over time unfortunately depends on an arbitrary idea of what “changed much over time” means. As we’ve briefly explored, history shows a significant moral trajectory. On the other hand, some things have remained fairly constant, e.g., our concept of a “good” person is one who abstains from the seven deadly sins. Dominic uses vengeance to argue that our moral sense reverses polarity even in the here and now, but he overlooks the reason the death penalty is not murder. Murder is the taking of an innocent life. A true reversal would be Joe murdering an innocent person, then demanding justice when somebody else murders his wife. Even then, that wouldn’t necessarily prove a reversal. Joe may have had the “internal brake” present when murdering. Additionally, one might say the universal recognition of and desire for justice is a powerful argument in Vox’s favor: people have historically shown an unshakeable belief that the world should be—or at least could be—just. That’s beside the point. Vox didn’t show B4 true, but Dominic didn’t show it false.
Turning to his argument for the non-existence of gods, Dominic attempts to clarify and strengthen his “truth is stranger than fiction” argument. He appeals to phlogiston, ether, and geocentrism as examples proving the hypothesis that, “For any new experience or phenomenon, when man attempts to explain the phenomenon using the tools for understanding at his disposal, the first attempt at explanation is almost invariably wrong.” I grant that this seems intuitively true. After all, Darwinian gradualism was wrong much to the dismay of twentieth-century atheists, but what of Lyell, Kepler, Einstein, Hubble, and the Herschels, to name a few? Each of these individuals made first attempts that appear correct. It seems easy to offer examples that challenge his hypothesis, which makes one suspect Dominic is simply cherrypicking his way to the goal line. Regardless, Dominic doesn’t give any analysis to prove his point. How many “first explanations” have been correct? How many have been incorrect? He needs to give us a reason to believe that “the first attempt at explanation is almost invariably wrong.” That some first attempts have been wrong doesn’t entail that they are almost invariably wrong. Additionally, even if we grant his hypothesis, that almost all first attempts are invariably wrong doesn’t entail that any particular first attempt is necessarily wrong.
More importantly, “first explanations are usually wrong” only carries weight against explanations, which are distinct from experiences and observations, which are the prime constituents of testimonial evidence. The “plethora of evidence” Vox alludes to is mostly—perhaps even entirely—based on experiences and observations. With the exception of philosophers, the “plethora of evidence” wasn’t people saying to themselves, “Gee, I wonder what created the world, oh it must be this thing called God.” Rather, these were people going about their business then suddenly T-boned by the “supernatural” and miraculous. Granted, these things were explained as “gods,” but if gods are superhuman beings with control over nature, it doesn’t take much explanation to verify an instance. In contrast to celestial quandaries where definitive answers often elude, superhuman beings have either appeared and controlled nature, or not. No imagination is necessary. No explanation is required to observe this phenomenon, therefore it doesn’t seem vulnerable to the “first attempts at an explanation are almost invariably wrong” objection.
Dominic writes, “The response received so far to this argument has been a dismissive wave of obvious to Dominic does not make it true. The counter examples being perfectly mundane references to Starbucks and Internet porn. No imagination is necessary to postulate the existence of either, and the retort so far has been remarkably asinine. There is no need to rely on extrapolation to paint a complete picture when acertaining either Starbucks or Jenna Jameson is real.” That’s not entirely fair, as his claim has evolved a bit. The first time around, he said he finds “simple claims too convenient,” and although Vox’s rebuttal missed the mark, mine did not [murder convictions sustained by straightforward forensic evidence; Ockham’s razor]. So there was more than a “dismissive wave” behind the rejection of his first claim, and there is more than a “dismissive wave” behind the rejection of its descendant: myopic focus on incorrect first attempts doesn’t demonstrate the hypothesis, which itself is not germane to testimonial evidence.
In Conclusion
Vox did not persuasively demonstrate his argument from moral evil. Dominic failed to show A3 and B3 false. B4 seems irrevocably tied to subjectivity hence still up for grabs. Dominic did not persuasively demonstrate his hypothesis that the first attempt at an explanation is almost invariably correct, nor did he attempt to account for the fact that testimony is distinct from explanation. I declare this round a draw.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...I read these judgments and can’t help but laugh. Anyways, gonna be out of town for a few days. Will be back to check up on things on Monday. Have a good weekend.
cl
says...That’s what I was thinking while reading your arguments. Don’t get flippant because they’re weak. Take heed and step your game up. At the very least, give a reason why my judgments shouldn’t be taken seriously. Any old schmoe on the internet can be flippant.
Devon
says...They’re all crying over at VP about how the draw isn’t fair. I think you called it like you saw it, so I spoke up. Looking forward to the third round.
xdpaul
says...cl, one thing I’d ask you to reconsider on your judging: comments by participants made outside of the confines of the strict word limits should have no bearing on your review. Whether Vox or Dominic comment elsewhere, or even on the debate itself, shouldn’t factor in. Both, I’m sure, have commented, in your term, ad nauseum, on these issues, but I don’t think that should factor in. Halftime and postgame commentary by either one of them is as pertinent to the actual score as armchair quarterbacking.
Devon, draws are annoying in any competition, whether warranted or not. Cl justified his draw, but I think it should come as no surprise that such a call is considered controversial, especially when his call was a potential tiebreaker.
cl
says...Devon,
Yeah, what can you do? They cry over there about most anything, even spelling. I’m sure you’ll notice it’s the same few people with their personal vendettas, so I don’t give much weight to their whining at all. Check out the Dishonest Atheist thread if you really wanna laugh… foul-mouthed swearing tirades in Jesus’ name. Gotta love VoxWorld!
xdpaul,
Their “outside the confines” comments didn’t have any bearing on my judgment, whatsoever. I didn’t judge on anything besides my opinion of the arguments. OTOH, I’m glad you seem to agree the draw was justified.
VD
says...I don’t think it is accurate to claim that anyone is crying about the draw not being fair. First, I have no problem with it nor do I have any other complaints about the judging. Second, most of the people who are complaining were advocating a system that makes it difficult for there to be draws prior to the debate’s start. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that they are less than pleased that their concerns have turned out to be justified.
But no one is saying it isn’t fair. In fact, the only time the concept even came up was when people declared that the judging had been fair. Which, given the contentious nature of most discussions on this subject, is a tribute to all three judges.
And it would be very hard to argue that a draw was not a reasonable conclusion when one judge called it one way and another judge called it the other.
Crude
says...I think it’s funny that the most substantial comments about round 2 seem to be “everyone’s arguments fail”.
This is easily the weirdest debate I’ve seen on this subject in a while.
For what it’s worth, Vox himself seems to think your review was fair (collectively with all the other reviewers), though yeah, some people do seem a bit pissed at you now.
Crude
says...Whoops. And there we go.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...Well, when you say things like:
“Dominic creates the impression that these two statements are mutually exclusive.”
I know they’re not, both statements say the same thing, that Vox admitted the source of our moral impulse is a part of us in the midst of arguing that it wasn’t. That was the point. You missed it by a mile. Then, you take it upon yourself rewrite the definition of evil that’s already been agreed upon for the purpose of the debate when addressing B4. Ergo, you’re hard to take seriously.
But I’ll settle for a draw in a debate where I’m expected to provide some rock solid, knock-out, golden bullet argument that proves a negative against someone who only needs to say “well… maybe gods are real.”
Ok, gone for reals. Got an early flight to catch tomorrow.
Crude
says...But I’ll settle for a draw in a debate where I’m expected to provide some rock solid, knock-out, golden bullet argument that proves a negative against someone who only needs to say “well… maybe gods are real.”
Heh. Rock-solid, knock-out, golden bullet argument that proves a negative? I was under the impression the debate was about the existence of evidence for gods, not proving the existence or non-existence of gods. Kinda funky of you to knock cl for supposedly misunderstanding you and an agreed upon debate term, and then flubbing what the actual debate is about.
cl
says...Well, why not. Let’s fisk.
Vox,
While the whiners in question didn’t technically say “it’s not fair,” they’re still just whining, whining, whining, like they do about practically everything else that involves dissent. Devon’s point stands: illogical, irrational whining from your supporters. It’s as if they think I should have given credit where I didn’t feel any was due. You know as well as I do that that’s bunk.
Valid arguments generally prevent draws. If either one of you would have offered valid arguments, I wouldn’t have judged a draw. The only concerns I saw were about judging the entire debate a draw, which I’m hopefully not going to have to do. Was anybody whining about judging an individual round a draw? I don’t think they were, which would mean this bit about their concerns being justified is nonsense.
I agree, and this further supports Devon’s point. It’s silly that people like Nate and your wife can’t see past their “we don’t like cl” glasses. They had nothing positive to contribute to this discussion, whatsoever. No mention of logic, reason, justification, validity, or the lack thereof. Just empty pissing and moaning. Your wife in particular annoys the hell out of me, as her role at VoxWorld is blatantly obvious: attack and denigrate dissenters while rubbing your shoulders and splashing water on your face, deleting any comments that are too unsupportive, with no regard for “The Rules” whatsoever. But, enough of that, you admit the whole show is rigged, and I agree, so… on to the next.
Look: I think we’ve got a good thing going here, and I respect your respect for the judging, don’t get me wrong. It’s just that your little team of sycophantic defense lawyers bring nothing to the table. They discourage the free and rational thought these things need.
Crude,
Yeah, the irony is that Dominic admitted he didn’t understand the premise of the debate in Round One, yet here he is railing against me, when I simply criticized the premise while understanding it just fine.
Is that a criticism of my judging, or are you referring to comments at VoxWorld in general?
I know, but they’re the same whiners who whine about anything I say–unless of course it’s in support of Vox or against the disrespected atheist du jour. It’s pathetically predictable over there, Crude, it really is. As much as Vox likes to think VoxWorld isn’t the same sort of echo chamber as PZ’s hall, I disagree.
I didn’t get that…
Dominic,
You say you didn’t think the two statements I cited were mutually exclusive? Fine. I got that wrong. Will you really be so pedantic to imply that misapprehension of your intent amounts to valid criticism? You certainly think those two statements are mutually exclusive with the rest of Vox’s argument. IOW, I understood the meat of your argument, which you affirmed in the above snippet I cited. Vox didn’t simultaneously argue X and ~X. Prove otherwise.
Nonsense. I based my dismissal of your claim that B4 was false on the subjective nature of “changed much over time.” Right? Right. So, while it may be true that I think the definition of “evil” as “a self-aware force” is wholeheartedly stupid and deserving of scorn, I’ve judged both of your arguments according to the definition you agreed on, not in defiance of it. I mean, let’s be real here: evil is “a self-aware force?” That’s stupid, Dominic, entirely, absolutely, irrevocably stupid. I have no idea why you two even agreed to that terminology, and in case you haven’t noticed, I’m not the only one who’s taken that terminology to task. It’s ridiculous. Nonetheless, I judged you both according to it. I didn’t redefine anything.
Why, because you mistakenly thought I misunderstood the meat of your objection to Vox’s “external moral sense” argument then went immediately into flippant dismissal mode? Surely you jest.
If that’s what you think Vox’s argument amounts to, you should really just throw in the towel and save us all the time. That you would caricaturize his argument thus is pretty sad. Vox’s “plethora of evidence” argument is intact, and your sole response is, “gods aren’t real because the evidence is evidence of something else.” Of course, no mention of what this “something else” is, you just expect us to take your word for it that it’s not gods. If you think that arguments deserves respect, you’re high as a kite. Get some R&R over the weekend, come back with a fresh mind, and let’s talk.
Crude
says...cl,
Is that a criticism of my judging, or are you referring to comments at VoxWorld in general?
I’m only referring to Vox’s/Dominic’s arguments and the consensus of the judges. Even the guy who voted for Dominic seemed to think everyone’s arguments were failing. It’s not really a criticism of anyone, just an observation.
I think coming down on you for declaring the round a draw is silly – it’s clearly not against the rules, and you ARE a judge, so that’s that. On the other hand, you keep bringing up your problems with Vox’s site and style in the middle of the judging, which will clearly rile people. On the other other hand, like you care about riling anyone, eh?
I know, but they’re the same whiners who whine about anything I say–unless of course it’s in support of Vox or against the disrespected atheist du jour. It’s pathetically predictable over there, Crude, it really is. As much as Vox likes to think VoxWorld isn’t the same sort of echo chamber as PZ’s hall, I disagree.
I’ve been lurking at Vox’s for a while, and I now and then check over at PZ’s. I really don’t think it’s the ‘same sort of echo chamber’. Vox clearly has his fans, but he also just as clearly has his detractors, some of whom are regulars. And some of his most prominent fans have disagreements with him and spar at length over those. My impression of Myers is that he tends not to even dive into the comments section unless it’s to pile on someone who the pack is already against.
That said, of all the people I’ve seen challenge Vox, you honest to God gave him the biggest fight I’ve ever seen. And to Vox’s credit, he kept responding. Myers would have hidden behind his comment monkeys and immediately clammed up. Coyne would have holed your comments instantly.
I didn’t get that…
Right as I was saying ‘I don’t think Vox was complaining about your vote’, Vox showed up to say he’s not complaining about your vote. That’s all.
BTW, did you add some new code to this site? Because every time I double-carriage-return it’s pulling me out of the comment box. Kinda frustrating.
cl
says...Crude,
Gotcha.
I didn’t say anything about the site, and I only dedicated a passing line to my distaste of the condescending style. I’m not sure that can qualify as “keep on bringing it up.” But I see your point. No, I really don’t care if the sycophants get riled, and I expect that they would, in the same way anyone else would if their idol was being criticized.
I agree, but that’s difference between Vox and PZ, or Coyne and PZ using your latter example, not VoxWorld and PZWorld, or VoxWorld and CoyneWorld. The worlds surrounding these characters strike me as identical. So, to recap: yes, there are slight differences in the host of each echo chamber. The chambers themselves strike me as identical all the way through. Dissenters get mocked with foul-mouthed name-calling by New Atheists on the one side and New Christians on the other. There’s hardly ever a reasoned argument and heaps of backpatting. Each are their own social scenes. Etc. IMHO, all that crap simply deters from cold pursuit of truth.
Did he? Last I recall, he said “I have nothing more to say on this,” and left TobyTemple and others to bat cleanup. It got awfully quiet over there once I exposed his false claim [that I redefined “morality”]. Then again, I haven’t been back to that thread in a while. I’ve got something more ambitious up my sleeve… [folds hands] :)
No, WordPress is just quirky like that. I’ve been meaning to yoink everything out of their system and code my own site for some time now, I just haven’t got around to it. Personally, I always write my comments in a text editor first, then paste them in the combox. I’ve had far too many comments vaporized by WP bugginess.
philip
says...I’ve been a lurker at Voxworld for a number of years and though I don’t have time to get involved in extended back and forth, I just wanted to say I agreed with almost everything you posted there and that your responses to some of the individuals echoed exactly what I was already thinking.
So much for an echo chamber.
The most amusing thing to me was that while those with an IQ of less than 100 were quick to attack your decision to call Round 2 a draw, that not one of those light bulbs thought to question judge Alex’s decision on how he came to award the round to Vox.
I say this because you gave what I thought was an extended and *rational* defense of your decision while Alex offered little to no support for how he came to his. (Though in fairness to Alex, he did offer to send extended commentary to those that asked.)
Perversely, I’m thinking, “If cl had just declared the round a draw without giving any reasons, how much more vicious and nasty could Nate, Spacebunny, toby and taylor be?”
Your last rejoinder in the comment thread to Vox over the scoring and then taking him to task was well done and well put. And for the Christian, there is Scriptural support for the criticism you tendered.
Looking forward to Round 3 of the debate.
cl
says...Philip,
Nice to make your acquaintance.
alexamenos’ extended commentary matched mine almost point by point, and I think it was really well-reasoned. If he gives permission, I’d be happy to link to his PDF from here. I think you’d concur with most or all of it, as I did.
As far as Round Three goes… see my latest post. I’ve resigned as judge. I’ve got better things to do than pander to their self-aggrandizing scene, but it’s not necessarily over yet. I mention a caveat that might pull me back in, but only because I respect my fellow judges and don’t want to trash their hard work.
Enjoy your weekend.
VD
says...While the whiners in question didn’t technically say “it’s not fair,” they’re still just whining, whining, whining, like they do about practically everything else that involves dissent. Devon’s point stands: illogical, irrational whining from your supporters.
Ridiculous. Devon’s point doesn’t stand at all. He made a completely false claim. Not a single person was whining about fairness. A few people didn’t want the possibility of a draw before the thing even got started and their concerns have proven to be well-founded, so they complained. And there is more active dissent at VP than on practically any site of similar traffic out there. For crying out loud, the inflation vs deflation argument alone is going on six years now.
Your wife in particular annoys the hell out of me, as her role at VoxWorld is blatantly obvious: attack and denigrate dissenters while rubbing your shoulders and splashing water on your face, deleting any comments that are too unsupportive, with no regard for “The Rules” whatsoever.
In the immortal words of Derrick Coleman, whoop-de-damn-do. She thinks you’re an idiot. And if you can’t figure out how to comment there without being annoying and officious, that’s really your problem not anyone else’s. Hundreds of people have managed to do it every single day for eight years now. And you have completely misunderstood her role… since you don’t realize how little attention I pay to the comments. They’re there for the readers, not me.
It’s just that your little team of sycophantic defense lawyers bring nothing to the table. They discourage the free and rational thought these things need.
If you think they’re sycophantic defense lawyers, you truly do not understand how VP works. Nate, just to give one example, is my leading inflationist critic and fantasy football bete noire. They think for themselves, they’re not interested in defending me. Everyone, including Spacebunny, knows I’m perfectly capable of handling that.
Did he? Last I recall, he said “I have nothing more to say on this,” and left TobyTemple and others to bat cleanup. It got awfully quiet over there once I exposed his false claim [that I redefined “morality”].
There was nothing more to say. Everything required to conclusively show how your assumptions were incorrect had already been said. Everyone else understood it. Now, you can dismiss them as sycophants and demigod worshipers if you like, but that won’t make it true.
CL, I don’t have a problem that you are such a prideful little fellow. That sort of thing doesn’t happen to bother me. But you really appear to have a serious inability to admit that you are wrong, or to back up and reconsider things when someone tells you, repeatedly, that you have failed to understand something significant. And insisting that you understand something while demonstrating to all and sundry that you quite clearly don’t is neither an effective nor convincing tactic.
sconzey
says...Erm. I fail to see why it matters that Vox proposed a new scoring system halfway through. Clearly what matters is whether the judges accept it. Once Vox and Dominic declared you the judges, the only say they have in the matter of scoring is the one you let them.
If Vox’s proposed scoring system at the end of round 3 declares him the winner, but the judges say ‘I award Vox 2 points for round 1, 0 points for round 3 etc.’ then it’d be a little bit difficult for him to then say ‘yeah, but I totally win based on this scoring system I proposed halfway through without consulting anyone’
It is entirely plausible that VD and SB are inconsistent in enforcing their own commenting policy, but “their place; their rules” — their rules are still legitimately their rules, even if they’re not the ones they have written down.
philip
says...@Vox
Before the brouhaha between cl and Spacebunny escalated to where resigned as judge in the debate I made 2 short posts, one simply affirming agreement with some of cl’s comments and another in response to taylor saying that “cl had insulted everyone on this blog” where I said that was not true in that I wasn’t insulted.
I posted those under “philip”.
I was fully prepared to be lambasted, ridiculed, cursed or mocked, but I was totally flummoxed to find that they had been just simply EXPUNGED– no 1st warning, no 2nd warning, no reason, no nothing, just “poof”.
I note cl’s post that I commented on is still there intact, as is taylor’s.
I’ll await your response before I go with what I think is the explanation.
cl
says...Philip,
So check this out… scroll down 70 comments or so, or do a search for “9/26/11 1:35 AM” where you will find another ultimatum from Spacebunny:
…so I posted your comment above, in it’s entirety, as it is one of many examples of Spacebunny deleting anything critical of Vox Popoli, Vox Day, etc. She deleted it, and I assume that means I’m no longer allowed to comment there.
Isn’t it odd? She asks for an example of her deleting comments supportive of criticism against Vox, I give it to her, and she just replies “…no dear…. anecdotes won’t cut it.” LOL! So, what? I’ve got to supply a randomized, double-blind trial to prove that Spacebunny deletes comments that don’t portray her man Vox Day in a positive light?
That place is crazy.
Hunt,
Remember when you came over here a few weeks ago, when the Dishonest Atheist thread was going off? Do you remember the comment of yours Spacebunny deleted? Was it critical of Vox and/or supportive of me? If so, there’s another example.