NationStates Jolt Archive

Hack, I don't mean to cause trouble, but I am somewhat confused by this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8973771&postcount=50) and locking of the thread:


Sigh. I'm so glad everyone's sick of things. Let me show what I'm sick of:
Refusal to creatively legislate the Resolution by the one side
The other side claiming that a Repeal somehow bans abortion world-wide
One side using Appeal to Emotion
The other side using Appeal to Authority
Both sides using Appeal to Popularity
Both sides dancing the line of flaming
Both sides dancing the line of flamebaiting
Both sides ignoring Moderators when they're told to keep within forum rules

Locked. Again. That's about enough of being at each other's throats. If you can't debate within the rules of the forum, don't debate this topic. My patience is wearing thin.

I would like some clarification, please. And I guess I have a side-complaint.

(I'm also just frustrated because I wrote a long and careful argument that posted just before the lock. And in the prior thread, I had drafted a long and careful argument that I couldn't post because the thread was locked while I was drafting the post. I realize I am somewhat venting here. Please forgive me.)

I have not been in the UN recently, so I'm not clear what instruction by Moderators was being ignored.

I can see the dancing the line of flaming & flamebaiting. I assume that is why the thread was locked. Is this correct? Or is there something I am missing?

Bad arguments and logical fallacies may be erroneous, but I am sure you did not intend to imply they were against forum rules or a reason for locking a thread.

My side-complaint is a minor pet peeve. I am not sure what you are calling an improper Appeal to Authority. Citation to authority may be proper or improper. Citing authority is not a fallacy per se.

Again, this is somewhat of a vent. I apologize in advance if I am wasting your time.

Thank you. :)

From my understanding it is due to this happening before and the fact that the proposer is appealing to emotion all the time (i don't have a problem with it as long as you give a reason and say it is your opinion). The other side, Fass, Vastiva and Demon Lord Enigma always acting as if they are the authority on the subject and applying there national law as if it is somehow UN law. They both flamed a little and flamebaited so i think MGH was right to lock it. It was just spinning into the same, with no attempt to discuss the resolution proper, i mean the opponents of it could simply have said they were not going to support it and state why and then leave it at that but meh

I have not been in the UN recently, so I'm not clear what instruction by Moderators was being ignored. A thread was locked by me previously for the same thing. And somewhere around post 25, Fris told everyone to cool it.

I can see the dancing the line of flaming & flamebaiting. I assume that is why the thread was locked. Is this correct? Or is there something I am missing?Largely, but also because the thread had turned into a General Forum-style debate over the merits of abortion as opposed the Repeal.

Bad arguments and logical fallacies may be erroneous, but I am sure you did not intend to imply they were against forum rules or a reason for locking a thread.Correct.

I am not sure what you are calling an improper Appeal to Authority. Citation to authority may be proper or improper. Citing authority is not a fallacy per se.The one that leaps to mind was Fass attempting to end debate by saying that he was a 3rd year medical student and had assisted in abortions, while complaining about Appeals to Emotion. Not against the rules, but I was also listing things that were irritating me.

A thread was locked by me previously for the same thing. And somewhere around post 25, Fris told everyone to cool it.

Largely, but also because the thread had turned into a General Forum-style debate over the merits of abortion as opposed the Repeal.

Correct.

The one that leaps to mind was Fass attempting to end debate by saying that he was a 3rd year medical student and had assisted in abortions, while complaining about Appeals to Emotion. Not against the rules, but I was also listing things that were irritating me.

Got it. I'd forgotten about Fris's warning and overlooked Fass's obvious unverifiable claims to authority.

Between the vent and the response, I'm all content now. :)

Thanks!

I just wish to clarify that my "appeals to authority" were all done OOC and that they were used in pre-empting the posting of abortion pictures and irrelevant, emotional appeals, as I was explaining why they would not work for me, as "I've been there, done that." My knowledge about the pictures and ability to feel emotions pertaining to them had been questioned in OOC, and it was only afterwards that I responded by explaining my OOC situation.

So, I did not use my merits anywhere in the actual debate about the proposal and did not anywhere mention them IC, I just mentioned them after my knowledge about the procedures was put into question in an OOC way. Thus I do feel that it is somewhat erroneous to label it "appeal to authority" and somewhat misleading to leave out the context when doing so.

I am at fault in my way for setting the path that got the topic steered away from the original post. I was hoping to steer it back, but that was not meant to be. As this did in a way result in harm, I hereby apologize for it.

But, I will say this. Wegason, you missed the point. We're not bringing up our national laws as being UN law. We were bringing them up as both examples of how to deal with the problem and explanations about why we failed to see a problem.

I am at fault in my way for setting the path that got the topic steered away from the original post. I was hoping to steer it back, but that was not meant to be. As this did in a way result in harm, I hereby apologize for it.

But, I will say this. Wegason, you missed the point. We're not bringing up our national laws as being UN law. We were bringing them up as both examples of how to deal with the problem and explanations about why we failed to see a problem.

Well, actually, I was bringing up our (Vastivan) national law when Rogue Newbie was stating "it's against the law!" as he seemed fixated on the idea of "real life = Nation States" both times he's posted this thread.

I wonder if using the "read the FAQ" and "read the Stickies" cards would have been seen as flaming, or as an appropriate answer?

I just wish to clarify that my "appeals to authority" were all done OOC Yeah, that's kind of the point.

So, I did not use my merits anywhere in the actual debate about the proposal and did not anywhere mention them ICThe debate had already devolved into OOC bickering at that point. Furthermore, logical fallicies are perfectly fine in character, and characters are flawed.

I just mentioned them after my knowledge about the procedures was put into question in an OOC way. Thus I do feel that it is somewhat erroneous to label it "appeal to authority" and somewhat misleading to leave out the context when doing so.No, that actually sounds like a textbook example (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html).

No, that actually sounds like a textbook example (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html).

There is a world of difference in going in and saying "I claim this, because I am that" out of the blue, and responding to claims saying "you don't know this" and then saying "Yes, I do, because that is what I do". My knowledge in the subject matter of abortions was being questioned, I countered.

"More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious."

I just happen to be qualified to spot things that fall out of the range of normal anatomy, and thus indeed can spot faked abortion pictures quite easily, but we'll leave it at that.

I just happen to be qualified to spot things that fall out of the range of normal anatomy, and thus indeed can spot faked abortion pictures quite easily, but we'll leave it at that.

Welcome to the internet. On the internet, such claims cannot be verified. I should know: I invented it. I'm Al Gore.

Welcome to the internet. On the internet, such claims cannot be verified. I should know: I invented it. I'm Al Gore.

*Chuckles* i'm Prince William ;)

Welcome to the internet. On the internet, such claims cannot be verified. I should know: I invented it. I'm Al Gore.

Al Gore never claimed he invented the Internet. (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp) You'd know that if you were Al Gore.

Anyway, thanks to the wonderful world of the Internet, universities who offer lists of people who attend their courses can easily be accessed. My real name, including medical faculty e-mail address, could easily be found on the homepage of my university. So, confirmation is very easy in this case, if need be.

Anyway, thanks to the wonderful world of the Internet, universities who offer lists of people who attend their courses can easily be accessed. My real name, including medical faculty e-mail address, could easily be found on the homepage of my university. So, confirmation is very easy in this case, if need be.

Thats nice, but who can say you are giving your real name?

I have a question thats a bit off topic, but how do you make new threads?

Your serious? Ok, when you are in a forum, there should be a button near the top, under where it says welcome you last visitied. It should say new topic or post new topic. You click that, give it a title and do a thread.

EDIT: It does not say new topic, it says new post.

Al Gore never claimed he invented the Internet. (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp) You'd know that if you were Al Gore.Way to take things entirely too seriously. That was a joke (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=joke).

Anyway, thanks to the wonderful world of the Internet, universities who offer lists of people who attend their courses can easily be accessed. My real name, including medical faculty e-mail address, could easily be found on the homepage of my university. So, confirmation is very easy in this case, if need be.Oh it is, is it. Now I'm Dr. Merrill N Workhoven from Oregon, USA. Go ahead. Look the name up. You'll find that I am indeed an anesthesiologist.

Oops! That's not right. That's my uncle!

Any appeal to personal (offline) authority on the internet is weak and undefensible.