Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

A thread about banning, paradoxically about stopping discussion of banning

692 views
Skip to first unread message

Lawyer Daggett

unread,
May 27, 2023, 11:47:50 AM5/27/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
1
Enigmatic riddles aside, who would prefer that discussion
or suggestions that people be banned be severely curtailed?

2
I further suggest that abuse of discussion about banning people,
decided at the discretion of the moderator, perhaps after a
warning, be a consensus reason to ban a poster.

The reasoning is that threats to have people banned have a
chilling effect on debate, are bullying under a guise of authority,
and are an usurpation of the authority that rests with the moderator,
blessed be his name.

For instigating this thread, I shall consider myself warned so
will not further respond to this thread. I discourage anyone from
making more than one post to this thread.

DB Cates

unread,
May 27, 2023, 2:00:35 PM5/27/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I trust in DIG. At most one, and only one, 'heads up' to DIG if you feel
he has missed some(thing/one).
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

RonO

unread,
May 27, 2023, 2:37:57 PM5/27/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
This doesn't apply to the current instance because it wasn't a threat.
It was just what would happen if the assoholic behavior continued.

The poster that is going to be put up for banning understood what would
happen if he kept up the senseless harassment, and he chose to go down
that path. No one forced Nyikos to do what he did. There would have
been no chilling effect of honest worthwhile debate because Nyikos
understood that what he was doing was just senseless harassment. He can
try to put up any positive things that ever came out of his past
harassment, or even what might have come out of what he did to start
lying about the past again in order to be banned. There hasn't been any
attempt by Nyikos for any honest discussion on any topic. Just think
about all his efforts over the first 4 years of his posting. A year
into his incessant harassment (just because he was wrong about something
stupid) he claimed that he was going for a technical knockout. He
claimed that he was going to produce 3 posts where he knocked me down,
but he could not produce any that had occurred in a whole year of
harassing posts. The claims went on for another 3 years with Nyikos
obviously harassing me intent on delivering something that he could call
a knockdown, but he came up empty, and he finally gave up. For three
years he would keep going back to Hemi and tell him that the knockdowns
were still coming. We can likely ask Hemi what that was like. Nyikos
finally gave up and claimed to have delivered the third knockdown but
would not tell me what it was nor give me a link. He has just continued
the sick harassment for over a decade. I can't recall anytime when
Nyikos' harassment was about anything worth discussing. It all turned
out to be junk that he had to start lying about or recycling old lies.
Look at the current example of him lying about my religious beliefs
again. He has been running from the last holy water repost where he was
shown to be lying about that junk since August, but he decided to start
lying about it again. I gave him the link to the holy water repost.
Usually he will try to lie about the repost for a while, but he decided
not to do that in this instance because I informed him that a request
that he be banned was going to be submitted.

Defending a lying asshole like Nyikos when he obviously requested to be
banned is tragically stupid. Nyikos knew what would happen if he
continued his senseless harassment. He chose to be banned. No one
forced him to do what he did. He knew what the consequences were, and
he obviously welcomed them. It may be some kind of cry for help, but TO
isn't any place to get mental help. Nyikos likely realizes that
banishment would be the best thing for him, that is why I gave him the
option of requesting his own banishment. He obviously wanted to be
banned or he would not have done what he did. Nyikos knows that I have
never not done what I said that I would do. He knew it wasn't a threat,
but just what would happen if he could not control himself.

This has never been about any honest discussion. Nyikos' failure with
his 3 knockdowns demonstrated that it had all been senseless harassment,
and he has just been lying about all those initial failures since. Just
look at the latest junk that he tried to lie about since getting shut
down with the last holy water repost. He had to resort to lying about
things in all examples because he never cared if he was harassing me
about anything real. Just look at his antics in the Frozen thread that
resulted in me finally telling him that if the senseless harassment did
not stop that I would ask that he be banned. Nyikos was just cooking up
more junk that he would be lying about for years. It should just end.

Nyikos asked to be banned. That is the bottom line. If he had been
trying to avoid being banned he would not have done what he did. He
didn't even try to harass me about some new topic. He just started up
with his old lies about my religious beliefs. Nyikos knew what the
consequences were, and he accepted them when he started up his usual
harassment.

Ron Okimoto


RonO

unread,
May 27, 2023, 2:45:33 PM5/27/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
No one has made any request to DIG at this time. Nyikos has until next
Wed to ask DIG for his own banishment. If he doesn't I will make the
request for him. It is what Nyikos was told would happen, and it is
going to happen.

Ron Okimoto

DB Cates

unread,
May 27, 2023, 6:15:51 PM5/27/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In which case, on this subject, you are, IMO, an idiot.

John Harshman

unread,
May 27, 2023, 9:00:35 PM5/27/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
This is really up to DIG, not anyone else. So far he has used his powers
sparingly and for good. Non-issue.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
May 27, 2023, 10:11:49 PM5/27/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Hopefully he completely ignores the whole recent tangent that Lawyer
Daggett alludes too. No reason for him to get involved.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
May 27, 2023, 10:15:35 PM5/27/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
[snip to someone interjecting my name for whatever the fuck reason]
>
> The claims went on for another 3 years with Nyikos
> obviously harassing me intent on delivering something that he could call
> a knockdown, but he came up empty, and he finally gave up. For three
> years he would keep going back to Hemi and tell him that the knockdowns
> were still coming. We can likely ask Hemi what that was like.

Going back that far would involve a licensed professional mediating with
therapy puppets to mitigate the remembered trauma. Still too soon.

But given I usually harp on Peter for bringing me into discussions, why
exactly are you doing it? Shouldn’t we be trying to deescalate a bit here
perhaps.

jillery

unread,
May 28, 2023, 4:36:35 AM5/28/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Exactly so. I hope DIG agrees, for all our sakes.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

RonO

unread,
May 28, 2023, 12:41:43 PM5/28/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I apologize for getting you involved in bad memories.

You are corroborating evidence. For that 3 year period Nyikos had some
weird notion about claiming that if someone did not respond to one of
his posts for a certain period of time that they were running, and it
could be claimed to be a win for him. About once a month I recall
Nyikos informing you that his knockdowns were still coming. He would do
it when you were posting in the same thread that he was harassing me in.
For whatever reason Nyikos picked you to keep lying to himself about
the knockdowns that did not exist. My guess is that he kept doing it so
that he wouldn't break his own rules about running from a post. I do
not recall him consistently doing it with any other poster. He would
bring it up with other posters, but not with the consistency that he
would do it with you. You seemed to be his target most of the time.

It is just an example of Nyikos harassing me for no better reason than
to knock me down, and he did it for a very long time before he called it
quits, claimed victory and started to pretend that he had never done
such a stupid thing. Nyikos never told me what the last knockdown was,
nor did he give me a link to the post. His first two attempts were a
dead loss for him, so he didn't even try to defend the last one. The
harassment continued, he just didn't have a reason for doing it any
longer except to keep up the harassment.

You would just be the best evidence that the event occurred since you
had to personally deal with the Nyikosian stupidity for over 3 years.
No one else that I recall had that type of extended experience.

During that period Nyikos was obviously just harassing me to knock me
down, but he kept coming up empty mainly because he kept recycling the
same old lies about the past, and all those posts were a dead loss for
the effort. Nothing ever changed since then except that I implemented
the holy water reposts that cut the harassment periods to a couple weeks
instead of months before Nyikos had to quit and recharge his lying meter
giving me a month or two break.

Ron Okimoto

Martin Harran

unread,
May 28, 2023, 1:00:35 PM5/28/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
I really wish that people would learn that beloved uncles muttering to
themselves in the corner are best left to themselves, muttering to
themselves in the corner.

RonO

unread,
May 28, 2023, 1:15:36 PM5/28/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I do not know what you guys are so worried about. I expect DIG to give
Nyikos a second chance, just like Kleinmann. What you all have to worry
about is what the sadistic miscreant does with that second chance. My
take is that Nyikos requested to be banned, and if given a second chance
he shouldn't take it because he likely knows that he would blow it.
Just as he blew the chance that he already had. That would likely be
worse for him than an outright ban. I gave him the chance to leave on
some type of positive note by him making the request to be banned.
Nyikos got a week to do the right thing. Nyikos knows that I didn't
have to do that. He understands exactly what he did to precipitate the
current situation, and he understands that he is fully responsible for
the expected consequences of his own behavior. He was able to control
himself for a couple of months, but he has some weird notion that after
a certain period of time it is OK to start lying about the same junk.
There is no doubt that Nyikos understood what would happen if he did
what he did. I have never not done something that I claimed that I
would do.

Ron Okimoto

John Harshman

unread,
May 28, 2023, 9:07:40 PM5/28/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I'm afraid that was a Captain Queeg-level rant. You seem upset to the
point of irrational obsession, and my only advice is to try very hard to
cool down.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
May 28, 2023, 9:40:35 PM5/28/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Who took the God damned strawberries??!!

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 29, 2023, 1:52:30 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 28 May 2023 18:01:36 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com>:
Two points...
1) Ron's perception of Peter's actions may be incorrect, but
that doesn't make them "Queeg level".
2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
"feature".
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Öö Tiib

unread,
May 29, 2023, 3:38:03 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Peter's actions weren't described as "Captain Queeg level". Rons rant
was described so. IOW simpleminded, stubborn, paranoid, and
confrontational, but not necessarily insane. The boringly repetitive
verbosity is what makes Ron's typical rants different from
Captain Queeg.

> 2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
> sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
> "feature".
>
To me he leaves strong impression of trying to remain civil. May be that is
what evokes those shitstorms?

Martin Harran

unread,
May 29, 2023, 4:44:09 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 08:52:30 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:

[...]

>
>> 2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
>> sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
>> "feature".
>>
>To me he leaves strong impression of trying to remain civil. May be that is
>what evokes those shitstorms?

As most regulars here know, my religion is very important to me and I
treat it very seriously. Assuming you are referring to Peter, when he
suggests, with no foundation, that I am actually an apostate, do you
consider that as him being civil?

When he claims that he has plenty of evidence for me having no use for
Jesus's commandment against bearing false witness but cannot produce a
single piece yet declines to withdraw his accusation, do you consider
that as him being civil?

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
May 29, 2023, 6:02:20 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On one of the other news groups that I frequent
(sci.physics.relativity) one of the entertainments is to watch the
kookfights between people who are just as much crackpots as one
another. Here, by contrast, we are increasingly seeing fights between
people who are in most respects quite sensible. I don't find these
entertaining at all. I killfiled one of the worst offenders some time
ago, but maybe more needs to be done. I think that you, 嘱, and I see
things in much the same way.




--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016







broger...@gmail.com

unread,
May 29, 2023, 6:25:35 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Isn't there something in the Sermon on the Mount about being blessed when people speak ill of you and that you should rejoice when it happens because that is how their ancestors treated the prophets?

Lawyer Daggett

unread,
May 29, 2023, 7:35:37 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Sayre’s Law, “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional
to the value of the stakes at issue."

Lawyer Daggett

unread,
May 29, 2023, 7:35:43 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 6:25:35 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:


> Isn't there something in the Sermon on the Mount about being blessed
> when people speak ill of you and that you should rejoice when it happens
> because that is how their ancestors treated the prophets?

Matthew 5:11-12
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A11-12&version=NIV

Öö Tiib

unread,
May 29, 2023, 9:25:36 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 11:44:09 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 08:52:30 UTC+3, Bob Casanova wrote:
> [...]
> >
> >> 2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
> >> sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
> >> "feature".
> >>
> >To me he leaves strong impression of trying to remain civil. May be that is
> >what evokes those shitstorms?
>
> As most regulars here know, my religion is very important to me and I
> treat it very seriously. Assuming you are referring to Peter, when he
> suggests, with no foundation, that I am actually an apostate, do you
> consider that as him being civil?
>
I have never seen you formally declaring your abandonment of your
religion, far from it. That is what apostate does IMHO.
It was in December, Glenn saying that you are atheist but Peter
replying to Glenn something about apostate. Then there was
lot of back and forth redefining "apostate" and what was said.
Peter used word "apostate" in some unusual meaning (that remained
dim to me).

> When he claims that he has plenty of evidence for me having no use for
> Jesus's commandment against bearing false witness but cannot produce a
> single piece yet declines to withdraw his accusation, do you consider
> that as him being civil?
>
Yes, something like that was in March when you did dig that apostate stuff
back up. He promised to demonstrate that "evidence" next week but did not.
Perhaps that was in attempt to silence you or to test something of
your chutzpah ... vanity ... arrogance ... pride? I am disinterested in those
dirt-throwing threads so only skim over ... and even if my name is dragged
in then usually don't reply.

jillery

unread,
May 29, 2023, 10:12:46 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

That's what he said.


>Rons rant
>was described so. IOW simpleminded, stubborn, paranoid, and
>confrontational, but not necessarily insane. The boringly repetitive
>verbosity is what makes Ron's typical rants different from
>Captain Queeg.
>
>> 2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
>> sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
>> "feature".
>>
>To me he leaves strong impression of trying to remain civil. May be that is
>what evokes those shitstorms?


So when he deletes relevant text, that qualifies as "trying to remain
civil" to you?

As for shitstorms, that is his stock-in-trade. Apparently you haven't
noticed that either.

Martin Harran

unread,
May 29, 2023, 10:15:36 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On Mon, 29 May 2023 06:20:56 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 11:44:09 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
No, it was because he couldn't find anything to post.

> I am disinterested in those
>dirt-throwing threads so only skim over

Then you shouldn't be so quick to assume that Peter tries to be civil.

Martin Harran

unread,
May 29, 2023, 10:15:36 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On Mon, 29 May 2023 03:23:44 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:44:09?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
Two issues with that. Firstly, Peter does not attack me because of my
belief in Jesus Christ, he attacks me because I refused to ally with
him in his puerile fights with Jillery and, as is well known here, if
you are not Peter's friend you are de facto his enemy and therefore,
in his eyes, open to any kind of accusation however unfounded.

Secondly, there is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount about allowing
deliberate lies to stand. On the contrary, I regard it as my duty to
debunk such lies.

I could add that I know my own behaviour isn't always perfectly
Christian but that's the nature of being human. At least, unlike
Peter, when I realise I have wrongly criticised someone, I have no
hesitation in correcting what I said and apologising where
appropriate.

jillery

unread,
May 29, 2023, 10:15:36 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:56:55 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>ago, but maybe more needs to be done. I think that you, Öö, and I see
>things in much the same way.


If you haven't killfiled Nyikos, then you have ignored the worst
offender.

jillery

unread,
May 29, 2023, 11:06:48 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 04:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 6:02:20?AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> ago, but maybe more needs to be done. I think that you, ?, and I see
>> things in much the same way.
>
>Sayre’s Law, “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional
>to the value of the stakes at issue."


The above is a clever way to imply that your expressed opinions lack
feeling or lack value, which is left as an exercise for the reader.

jillery

unread,
May 29, 2023, 11:11:13 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
>appropriate...


... except to jillery.

Öö Tiib

unread,
May 29, 2023, 11:57:41 AM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
That is unrelated, and statistically non-correlated thing that is sometimes
done by other posters as well. Sometimes it is tricky to remain civil
without being dishonest, sometimes it is used to dishonestly misrepresent
words of other poster.

> As for shitstorms, that is his stock-in-trade. Apparently you haven't
> noticed that either.
>
Often it is called for. Feels like some kind of game ... I don't care to figure the
rules out.

Öö Tiib

unread,
May 29, 2023, 12:20:37 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 17:15:36 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023 06:20:56 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 11:44:09 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
But you agree that you dug it out in March and there were some others who
expressed disappointment that you could not let it to rest.

> > I am disinterested in those
> >dirt-throwing threads so only skim over
>
> Then you shouldn't be so quick to assume that Peter tries to be civil.
>
That is my impression. Some do not try at all and most who try sometimes fail.
From ID proponents who have posted recently ... MarkE, israel socratus and
Dale have been more successful than Peter. I may be wrong, I am fallible, too.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
May 29, 2023, 12:27:54 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yeah, I suppose that whole "turn the other cheek" business should come with a footnote reading "unless turning the other cheek would conflict with you duty to resist unjust aggression."

John Harshman

unread,
May 29, 2023, 12:27:55 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
No, that's not what he said, or maybe not depending on who "he" is.

I was describing Ron's rant, not Peter's. Bob Casanova's statement is
ambiguous, but it you take it as grammatically correct then it had to be
talking about Peter's actions (plural) rather than Ron's perception
(singular).

Of course I have on various occasions compared Peter with Queeg, but not
this time.

RonO

unread,
May 29, 2023, 1:22:25 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It is all true and doesn't seem to be much of a rant. Can you point out
what is rant-like when I have simply summarized what happened? It seems
like just a matter of fact summary. Can you describe the situation any
more simply? There should be no issue with calling Nyikos the sadistic
miscreant that he is.

What you guys should consider is why I gave Nyikos the chance to ask for
his own banning. His bogus harassment was so obvious that it seemed
like he was asking to be banned. I thought that it might have been some
type of torture for him to not exhibit his sadistic tendencies, and that
he had been suffering during his period of trying to do the right thing.
He had obviously decided to ask to be banned. He hadn't tried to
skirt the issue by posting some type of angelic post that was on topic
and resulted in some type of productive discussion, but had just started
up with a bunch of the same lies that he has been harassing me with for
over a decade. It might be the case that Nyikos realized that the
mental burden was too much to bear in restraining his sadistic
tendencies. It might be the case where Nyikos would rather be banned
than not be able to harass me with the same old lies. Delivering those
lies may be very important to Nyikos. I gave him the option because I
didn't want to torture the guy. If Greig gives Nyikos a second chance
Nyikos will be stuck enduring his internal torment until he breaks
again. Why else would I give the poor guy that option. I wrote up a
draft of the letter requesting that Greig act on the matter. I did not
need to give Nyikos a week to help himself.

You all should deal with that aspect of why Nyikos did what he did to be
banned. He obviously did not have to do it, and he did it in such a way
as to insure that he would be banned. It seems to be more of a cry for
help than anything else. Removal is the only help Nyikos can expect.

Ron Okimoto

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 29, 2023, 1:37:00 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 03:23:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:44:09?AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
I believe so. But that doesn't make either those ancestors
or the current "ill-speaker" civil. The opposite, in fact.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 29, 2023, 1:37:00 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
No, that was John's comment about Ron's post: "I'm afraid
that was a Captain Queeg-level rant.". My comment was WRT
John's comment about Ron's post, not about Peter.
>
> Rons rant
>was described so.
>
Precisely, as I wrote.
>
> IOW simpleminded, stubborn, paranoid, and
>confrontational, but not necessarily insane. The boringly repetitive
>verbosity is what makes Ron's typical rants different from
>Captain Queeg.
>
>> 2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
>> sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
>> "feature".
>>
>To me he leaves strong impression of trying to remain civil. May be that is
>what evokes those shitstorms?
>
If you think Peter tries to remain civil, I can only say we
must have been reading posts by different Peters.

He doesn't often, if ever, resort to "bad" language, but
civil? Nope.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 29, 2023, 1:47:39 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 09:20:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com>:

>On 5/29/23 7:08 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
OK, so it should have been "perceptions". Big whoop; it was
obviously referring your comment about Ron's post, "I'm
afraid that was a Captain Queeg-level rant", not about
Peters actions, plural-singular mismatch aside.
>
>Of course I have on various occasions compared Peter with Queeg, but not
>this time.
>
>>> Rons rant
>>> was described so. IOW simpleminded, stubborn, paranoid, and
>>> confrontational, but not necessarily insane. The boringly repetitive
>>> verbosity is what makes Ron's typical rants different from
>>> Captain Queeg.
>>>
>>>> 2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
>>>> sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
>>>> "feature".
>>>>
>>> To me he leaves strong impression of trying to remain civil. May be that is
>>> what evokes those shitstorms?
>>
>>
>> So when he deletes relevant text, that qualifies as "trying to remain
>> civil" to you?
>>
>> As for shitstorms, that is his stock-in-trade. Apparently you haven't
>> noticed that either.
>>

Martin Harran

unread,
May 29, 2023, 2:02:49 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On Mon, 29 May 2023 09:20:22 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
What part of "I know my own behaviour isn't always perfectly
Christian but that's the nature of being human" did you not grasp?

John Harshman

unread,
May 29, 2023, 2:07:19 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I choose not to elaborate. Nothing you say here has changed my opinion;
the opposite, if anything. Clearly, I didn't achieve my aim.

John Harshman

unread,
May 29, 2023, 2:07:19 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/29/23 10:41 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023 09:20:44 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <john.h...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 5/29/23 7:08 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:31:33 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
It clearly wasn't quite obvious, as at least one person was confused.
People in general use too many pronouns with unclear antecedents.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
May 29, 2023, 2:37:07 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Imperfect behavior does not seem relevant to the rest of your response. I cited the sermon on the mount
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

You did not say, "yes, those verses apply to my situation, but, like all humans I am fallible." Instead you argued (1) that "peter does not attack me because of my belief in Jesus Christ", unlike the people mentioned in the cited verses, and (2) that you have a moral duty to debunk such lies.

So you do not seem to be making a case that arguing with him over his claim that you are an apostate violates the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, but that being a fallible human you cannot help yourself. Instead you seem to be arguing that you are doing the morally correct thing by "debunking such lies," and that the cited verses are not directly relevant.

Hence my remark about "turning the other cheek," and the caveats one might add to it to allow one to do what one wanted to do to prevent unjust aggression. Since "turning the other cheek" is not, in the text, limited to cases in which you were slapped for your belief in Jesus.

RonO

unread,
May 29, 2023, 2:55:37 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> 2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
> sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
> "feature".
>>

If you understand Nyikos you understand that projection is one of his
main defense mechanisms. I do not know how projection works, but Nyikos
does it routinely. If Nyikos is caught doing something stupid or
dishonest Nyikos claims that someone else is guilty of doing it. The
last holy water repost included the Dirty Debating thread that Nyikos
started around a year after returning to TO. It was all projection on
Nyikos' part, and he only ended up demonstrating all his own dirty
debating tricks. When Nyikos was trying to abuse me by starting a side
thread claiming that I had done something really funny, he knew that he
was purposely trying to abuse me. He drew the side thread out for
multiple posts seeming to savor every moment refusing to deliver the
punch line about what was so funny. It was supposed to be something
that took multiple posts to claim how bad it would make me look. When
he delivered the punch line, it was literally nothing. I only had to
point out that google didn't work that way so I could not have done what
Nyikos claimed that I could do. Nyikos went into a rage and claimed
that the victim of his sadistic endeavor was a sadistic maniac. Nyikos
obviously knew who the sadistic maniac was, and why he harasses me on TO.

Nyikos has to harass me with the same old lies for the same reason that
Kleinmann had to keep harassing me. Probably the first Nyikosian post
to TO upon his return was a post to me, and Nyikos was just wrong about
it, and told me to hop to getting the evidence that he was wrong. It
wasn't difficult to gather the evidence that he was wrong, but Nyikos
panicked. I didn't know why, but he started misdirection posts in other
threads and ran from the evidence that he had asked me to get. Nyikos
was just wrong about something stupid, and he has had to lie about that
to this day. It turned out that Nyikos had some weird image of himself
as some type of internet superman, and started claiming that he had
never lost an exchange on the internet, but he had obviously stumbled in
his first post back to TO. Nyikos has had to harass me about his stupid
mistake since then. His harassing efforts just spawned more things that
he has had to lie about forever. It is something that he needs to do.
He understands that he is lying because he has a limit for lying and has
to stop the harassment for a month or two before starting up again. By
Nyikos' own projection he does it because he is a sadistic maniac.

My only crime was that Nyikos was wrong about something that I had
posted. When he realized that he was wrong, he panicked and started his
stupid harassment campaign. Just like Kleinmann had started his
harassment campaign after being wrong about something stupid. Nyikos is
just more sane than Kleinmann and Nyikos has a limit for the number of
lies that he can harass me with in a given thread. There is no doubt
that Nyikos tracks how many times he tells the same lie in a series of
posts, and he has a limit before he has to switch to lying about
something else. He knows that he is lying in order to harass me. It
seems to be something that he has to do in order to satisfy his sadistic
nature. His projection on the topic indicates that he harasses me in
order to make me pay for his being shown to be wrong about something in
his first post back to TO.

Really, Nyikos comes back to harass me. I do not go out to find him,
but in those bouts of his harassment he will will claim that I am the
one harassing him because of something that he did to me years ago.
This is obvious Nyikosian projection when he is the harasser, and I am
the victim. Nyikos makes that claim in bouts of harassment that he
initiates. Nyikos understands that he is the one harassing me, and he
does it for the same reason that Kleinmann started his harassment
campaign. Nyikos was wrong about something stupid, and he has to lie
about that forever. Harassing me allows him to lie to himself about all
the internet screw ups involving his harassment that he has
accumulated since his first screw up. For his own sadistic reasons
Nyikos has to maintain the harassment in order to keep lying to himself
about the past. He thinks that he is making me pay for something that I
supposedly did to him long ago.

Nyikos has been harassing me since his return to TO back in Dec. 2010.
I know that he has limits for lying because he harasses me with the same
lies during the bouts of harassment. I know he counts the lies because
he consistently does it with the same lies over and over. It enabled me
to construct the holy water reposts that made Nyikos reach his limit for
lying very quickly. Instead of the harassment lasting for months it was
cut down to a week or two before Nyikos has to take his break to
recharge his lying meter. Since the initiation of the holy water
reposts the time spent free of Nyikosian harassment has been longer than
the time spent getting Nyikos to stop the harassing episodes.

Ron Okimoto

Mark Isaak

unread,
May 29, 2023, 2:55:37 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/29/23 7:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> [...]
> Then you shouldn't be so quick to assume that Peter tries to be civil.

My impression is that, when Peter acts as judge, jury, and executioner
to address a point that he feels is somehow morally faulty, that is what
"being civil" means to him. I wish he would consult a competent ethical
philosopher on the issue.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

RonO

unread,
May 29, 2023, 3:21:57 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What a cop out. What do you not get about what has been happening? Why
do you think Nyikos did what he did? He did not post something that he
expected any productive discussion on. Lying about my religious beliefs
has been something that he has done to harass me for over a decade. The
last Holy water repost included that subject, and demonstrated that
Nyikos was lying about it. Nyikos had been running from that repost
since August. Why do you think that Nyikos did exactly what he needed
to do in order to get banned? Why didn't he try to post something on
topic and try to initate a productive discussion? Nyikos obviously
wanted me to get Greig involved. Nyikos did not have to post anything
to me. He chose to do it for some reason. Do you think that Nyikos is
insane enough to do it because he believed that I would not do what I
said that I would do? In Nyikos' own exerience he knows that I always
do what I claim that I will do.

Ron Okimoto

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 29, 2023, 6:42:16 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:51:42 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

>On 5/29/23 7:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> [...]
>> Then you shouldn't be so quick to assume that Peter tries to be civil.
>
>My impression is that, when Peter acts as judge, jury, and executioner
>to address a point that he feels is somehow morally faulty, that is what
>"being civil" means to him.
>
Perhaps, but allowing the one accused of incivility to act
as judge and jury regarding his own behavior isn't usually a
very good idea.
>
> I wish he would consult a competent ethical
>philosopher on the issue.
>
Whyever would he do that, since his opinion is obviously and
beyond question correct?

(Yeah, snarky. His behavior is why I don't see his posts any
more.)

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 29, 2023, 6:45:36 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 13:54:05 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
I've been excessively exposed to his behavior in the past,
which is why I no longer see his posts. Perhaps it's time
for you to just let go, and either killfile him or simply
ignore anything he posts. He seems to feed on argument, so
starve him.

RonO

unread,
May 29, 2023, 7:20:36 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Banning him solves all the issues, and there is no reason for Nyikos to
exist on TO as he does. Nyikos knew what would happen because I always
do what I say that I will do. He didn't try to avoid banning by trying
to post relevant honest productive discourse. He chose to harass me
with the same junk that he has been lying about for over a decade.
Nyikos obviously wanted to be banned. I will make that request unless
he requests it himself. I really, don't think that Nyikos wants Greig
to give him a second chance, because Nyikos is just like Kleinmann and
he would blow it because he has to feed his sadistic nature. It is just
overwhelming. He obviously couldn't quit on his own to avoid being
banned. Nyikos needs to harass me for his own sick reasons. He
obviously can't help himself. TO doesn't need to be the place to feed
that sick desire.

Ron Okimoto

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 29, 2023, 7:47:13 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 18:15:52 -0500, the following appeared
All of which you can have from your perspective if you don't
see his posts; what others see is of no relevance. But your
choice.

RonO

unread,
May 29, 2023, 7:50:36 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/27/2023 10:42 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> 1
> Enigmatic riddles aside, who would prefer that discussion
> or suggestions that people be banned be severely curtailed?
>
> 2
> I further suggest that abuse of discussion about banning people,
> decided at the discretion of the moderator, perhaps after a
> warning, be a consensus reason to ban a poster.
>
> The reasoning is that threats to have people banned have a
> chilling effect on debate, are bullying under a guise of authority,
> and are an usurpation of the authority that rests with the moderator,
> blessed be his name.
>
> For instigating this thread, I shall consider myself warned so
> will not further respond to this thread. I discourage anyone from
> making more than one post to this thread.
>

What should be evident in all of this is that you guys are all harassing
the wrong person. If you love Nyikos so much, you had 2 months to
convince him to stop his senseless harassment. You knew that he could
stop for limited periods of timed of between one and two months so you
should have taken that time to harass him and convince him that there
was no such thing as being able to lie about something again once some
lying meter gets recharged. You know Nyikos believes that he can start
lying again after a certain amount of time because he has lived by it
for years. I have no idea of what gets reset, but that is how it has
been for over a decade. After one or two months he can start lying
about the same things again.

You should have obviously been spending this energy on getting Nyikos to
be a decent human being. You should have tried to convince him that
there was no amount of time that could elapse before telling the same
lies was at all acceptable.

Why cry about things after Nyikos requested to be banned? You should
all know that he did exactly what he needed to do in order for me to ask
Greig to ban him. He didn't try to engage in any honest and productive
discussion, he just resorted to his usual harassment about things that
he has been lying about for over a decade. Nyikos obviously wanted me
to request his banishment. It was so much like a cry for help that I
gave him the option of asking Greig to ban himself. It looked like
Nyikos could not deal with not being able to harass me. If Greig had
given him a second chance it would just be a couple months before he failed.

You guys failed Nyikos, not me. You are harassing the wrong guy.

Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto

jillery

unread,
May 29, 2023, 8:07:56 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 09:20:44 -0700, John Harshman
That's what I said, as in NOT Peter's actions, but Ron's perceptions.
And that's what Casanova said. "Ron's perceptions" is the subject of
Casanova's comment.

Restrain your jerky knees.


>Bob Casanova's statement is
>ambiguous, but it you take it as grammatically correct then it had to be
>talking about Peter's actions (plural) rather than Ron's perception
>(singular).
>
>Of course I have on various occasions compared Peter with Queeg, but not
>this time.
>
>>> Rons rant
>>> was described so. IOW simpleminded, stubborn, paranoid, and
>>> confrontational, but not necessarily insane. The boringly repetitive
>>> verbosity is what makes Ron's typical rants different from
>>> Captain Queeg.
>>>
>>>> 2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
>>>> sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
>>>> "feature".
>>>>
>>> To me he leaves strong impression of trying to remain civil. May be that is
>>> what evokes those shitstorms?
>>
>>
>> So when he deletes relevant text, that qualifies as "trying to remain
>> civil" to you?
>>
>> As for shitstorms, that is his stock-in-trade. Apparently you haven't
>> noticed that either.
>>

John Harshman

unread,
May 29, 2023, 8:10:37 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Nobody is harassing you with the possible exception of Nyikos (wouldn't
really know since I don't read anything he posts to you or you to him).
And you have the ability to avoid his harassment by not reading it too.
Wouldn't that be better for all concerned?

John Harshman

unread,
May 29, 2023, 8:30:36 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
A lot of people have problems with pronouns having ambiguous
antecedents. You're one of those people. So is Casanova. What Casanova
said is not what he meant.

Incidentally, it's not being incorrect that makes a Queeg-like rant.
It's more the obsessive quality. And the self-pitying, self-justifying tone.

RonO

unread,
May 29, 2023, 8:42:23 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
As before I am going to do what I told Nyikos that I will do, and that
is apparently what Nyikos wanted, and that is what he is going to get.
It is likely the best option from Nyikos' perspective.

You are talking to the wrong person on this issue. Like all the others
you should have exerted this energy in getting Nyikos to stop his
senseless harassment so that he would not be banned. What possible good
would not banning him do if he won't change?

If you think that killfiles would rob Nyikos of his sadistic jollies,
why would torturing the asshole be better than banning him. I don't
want Nyikos to suffer, I just want him to stop. Banning him removes the
torment about why he can't do what he wants to do.

Nyikos has some weird rules to make lying acceptable. He has broken
those rules by his own foulups, and it seems to really bother him
because it likely means that he is really lying. My guess is that at
some level Nyikos doesn't want to be the lying asshole that he is, and
has those rules to pretend that what he does is legitimate. My take is
that Nyikos will be able to lie to himself about being banned so that it
is some type of noble badge of honor.

Ron Okimoto

jillery

unread,
May 29, 2023, 9:05:36 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 08:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
That is entirely related, as it's an example of uncivil behavior.


>and statistically non-correlated thing that is sometimes
>done by other posters as well.


Deleting RELEVANT text is done by posters in troll mode, which makes
it a poor example for your argument. I suspect you're conflating
posters deleting IRRELEVANT text, a relevant distinction which escapes
him and apparently you.


> Sometimes it is tricky to remain civil
>without being dishonest, sometimes it is used to dishonestly misrepresent
>words of other poster.
>
>> As for shitstorms, that is his stock-in-trade. Apparently you haven't
>> noticed that either.
>>
>Often it is called for. Feels like some kind of game ... I don't care to figure the
>rules out.


When shitstorms are called for doesn't inform how you qualify "civil
behavior".

Perhaps I misread your previous comment. You wrote "trying to remain
civil". That would make sense if you mean he's trying and failing.

RonO

unread,
May 29, 2023, 9:05:36 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Sorry, blaming the wrong guy again. Who is the victim in this case?
Why harp on me and make me do something about it besides getting rid of
the problem? What kind of sense does that make? If you wanted Nyikos
around to spar with you should have tried to convince him like you are
trying to convince me. I don't read the vast majority of junk that
Nyikos posts to other posters, but he keeps taking jabs at you in his
posts to me, and I have to keep telling the loser that I don't care
about his issues with other posters. You seem to be Nyikos' main
target, but he spread it around to just about everyone. Look at the
Frozen thread to see how Nyikos sucked in multiple posters who were not
interested in the topic, but replied to his junk involving them. Nyikos
spent most of the thread fending them off as he was lying about his
harassing post to me. Jillery made a comment about off topic posts and
killfiles that drew in another poster to continue the off topic banter.
Nyikos definitely did not spawn any productive discussion about the topic.

The Frozen Planet II thread is where I told Nyikos that if his senseless
harassment continued that I would ask for him to be banned. He stopped
harassing me for a couple months. The rest you seem to know.

Ron Okimoto

John Harshman

unread,
May 29, 2023, 10:06:43 PM5/29/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
None, apparently. I had thought you at least might be reachable. Fair
enough, I was wrong. I'm out.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 30, 2023, 12:15:45 AM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 19:36:29 -0500, the following appeared
This is, hopefully, my last response on this.

No, I'm not talking to the wrong person. What Peter does or
doesn't do or write is of supreme unimportance to me,
because I DON"T SEE HIS POSTS, BY CHOICE. You, OTOH, don't
seem to me to be as far gone as he is, which is why I read,
and sometimes reply to, you. To me, banning him is
irrelevant, since unless someone I *do* read replies to him
his posts are invisible to me, which is exactly how I wish
it.
>
>If you think that killfiles would rob Nyikos of his sadistic jollies,
>why would torturing the asshole be better than banning him. I don't
>want Nyikos to suffer, I just want him to stop. Banning him removes the
>torment about why he can't do what he wants to do.
>
Frankly, as long as I don't see his posts all of that is
irrelevant to me; his "jollies", his self-torture, and all.
>
>Nyikos has some weird rules to make lying acceptable. He has broken
>those rules by his own foulups, and it seems to really bother him
>because it likely means that he is really lying. My guess is that at
>some level Nyikos doesn't want to be the lying asshole that he is, and
>has those rules to pretend that what he does is legitimate. My take is
>that Nyikos will be able to lie to himself about being banned so that it
>is some type of noble badge of honor.
>
And again, all of that is included among the reasons I no
longer have to see his posts, by MY choice. And I don't
really care what his personal problems are; I'm not his
psychiatrist, his confessor or his wife. You do whatever you
wish if you want to simulate any of them; it's all the same
to me.

Martin Harran

unread,
May 30, 2023, 2:32:07 AM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On Mon, 29 May 2023 11:34:45 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
You made an initial point about the Sermon on the Mount and I replied
that it didn't apply to Peter, he wasn't attacking me for my religious
beliefs. I added a comment about my own imperfections as a Christian;
that was about my behaviour in general, not specifically about the
Sermon on the Mount.

You then brought up a separate point about turning the other cheek.
That does apply to my reaction to Peter and I accept that my responses
to him fall short in Christian terms. That's why I referred you to my
general point about my own imperfections.

I'm not sure what is confusing or contradictory about that.

jillery

unread,
May 30, 2023, 3:56:38 AM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 29 May 2023 17:26:12 -0700, John Harshman
>> And that's what Casanova said. "Ron's perception" is the subject of
>> Casanova's comment.
>>
>> Restrain your jerky knees.
>
>A lot of people have problems with pronouns having ambiguous
>antecedents. You're one of those people. So is Casanova. What Casanova
>said is not what he meant.


My flawed grammar and your implied perfection don't inform this
discussion.


>Incidentally, it's not being incorrect that makes a Queeg-like rant.
>It's more the obsessive quality. And the self-pitying, self-justifying tone.


I am aware of the spirit of the metaphor. More to the point, so is
Casanova, as shown by his subject "Ron's perception".


>>> Bob Casanova's statement is
>>> ambiguous, but it you take it as grammatically correct then it had to be
>>> talking about Peter's actions (plural) rather than Ron's perception
>>> (singular).


Casanova's alleged ambiguity is readily resolved by assuming his
subject suffers a typo aka a dropped "s", which is as common as your
ironic typo above "it you take it". Or do you accept that your typo
qualifies your comment as incoherent gibberish?

The larger point is only trolls obsess about typos and mismatched
antecedents in Usenet posts.


>>> Of course I have on various occasions compared Peter with Queeg, but not
>>> this time.
>>>
>>>>> Rons rant
>>>>> was described so. IOW simpleminded, stubborn, paranoid, and
>>>>> confrontational, but not necessarily insane. The boringly repetitive
>>>>> verbosity is what makes Ron's typical rants different from
>>>>> Captain Queeg.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
>>>>>> sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
>>>>>> "feature".
>>>>>>
>>>>> To me he leaves strong impression of trying to remain civil. May be that is
>>>>> what evokes those shitstorms?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So when he deletes relevant text, that qualifies as "trying to remain
>>>> civil" to you?
>>>>
>>>> As for shitstorms, that is his stock-in-trade. Apparently you haven't
>>>> noticed that either.
>>>>
>>

Öö Tiib

unread,
May 30, 2023, 4:52:37 AM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, 29 May 2023 at 21:55:37 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/29/23 7:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> > [...]
> > Then you shouldn't be so quick to assume that Peter tries to be civil.
> My impression is that, when Peter acts as judge, jury, and executioner
> to address a point that he feels is somehow morally faulty, that is what
> "being civil" means to him. I wish he would consult a competent ethical
> philosopher on the issue.
>
I did mean "trying to be civil" in sense that orderly and cultured not outright
kind and polite (that members of discussion forums rarely are). The "moral"
battles about whatever "wrongdoings" towards each other are boring for
me so such things I typically skip or read as replacement to sleeping bills.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
May 30, 2023, 8:55:37 AM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Well, I was confused because on the one hand you seemed to be claiming that it was your moral duty to respond to Peter as you did, in order to "debunk such lies", but on the other hand you seem to be saying that by responding as you did you failed in a moral duty to turn the other cheek. So the bit that's unclear is whether you feel you have a moral duty to respond to insulting lies about yourself or whether you have a duty to "turn the other cheek."

John Harshman

unread,
May 30, 2023, 9:10:37 AM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You appear not to understand what trolls are. And in fact the ambiguity
in Casanova's pronoun was not the result of the typo. In fact the typo
resolved that ambiguity, just in the wrong way. It's of course a
universal principle that any spelling flame must contain at least one
typo, but I don't think there was any ambiguity in the correction.

What are you so angry about? Why play the troll card?

Mark Isaak

unread,
May 30, 2023, 11:10:36 AM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/29/23 4:15 PM, RonO wrote:
> Banning him [Nyikos] solves all the issues, [...]

No, it most emphatically does not. First, it would remove from the post
one of the few people who contribute on-topic discussion fodder.
Second, it sets a precedent that could justify bans on at least three
other regular participants here (including you).

I propose that the ban on DrDr. Kleinman be lifted. If you can't deal
with the heat, *you* should leave the kitchen.

Mark Isaak

unread,
May 30, 2023, 11:20:37 AM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/29/23 4:46 PM, RonO wrote:
>
> You should have obviously been spending this energy on getting Nyikos to
> be a decent human being.  You should have tried to convince him that
> there was no amount of time that could elapse before telling the same
> lies was at all acceptable.

"Consider how hard it is to change yourself, and you'll understand how
hard it is to change another person." - Anon.

One fact you overlook is that the faults that bother you so much about
Peter are ones that you also have. I submit your efforts are misplaced.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
May 30, 2023, 11:30:37 AM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I propose that the ban on DrDr. Kleinman be lifted. If you can't deal
> with the heat, *you* should leave the kitchen.
>
At least a trial run if he were to return.


Bob Casanova

unread,
May 30, 2023, 12:00:37 PM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 30 May 2023 15:29:56 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
Aside from Jabriol, who was banned for what I feel to be
good and sufficient reason, banning for content should be
the absolute last resort; that's why killfiles exist, and if
the newsreader (or ersatz newsreader, GurgleGropes, for
instance) doesn't support them one still has the option of
ignoring the "offending" ones. DIG's bans for nymshifting
and (IIRC; I could be wrong) excessive crossposting are a
different subject, and completely his choice.

Just my 20 mills; YMMV.

Lawyer Daggett

unread,
May 30, 2023, 1:00:38 PM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I hereby curse you with the ultimate curse.
I nominate you to take over the moderation of talk.origins.

Lawyer Daggett

unread,
May 30, 2023, 1:25:37 PM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 9:10:37 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/30/23 12:52 AM, jillery wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 May 2023 17:26:12 -0700, John Harshman
> > <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > Casanova's alleged ambiguity is readily resolved by assuming his
> > subject suffers a typo aka a dropped "s", which is as common as your
> > ironic typo above "it you take it". Or do you accept that your typo
> > qualifies your comment as incoherent gibberish?
> >
> > The larger point is only trolls obsess about typos and mismatched
> > antecedents in Usenet posts.
> You appear not to understand what trolls are. And in fact the ambiguity
> in Casanova's pronoun was not the result of the typo. In fact the typo
> resolved that ambiguity, just in the wrong way. It's of course a
> universal principle that any spelling flame must contain at least one
> typo, but I don't think there was any ambiguity in the correction.
>
> What are you so angry about? Why play the troll card?

As a strange aside, I have become very annoyed by the weird
abuse of the terms troll and trolling. They have grown to be
way too much of a character of "thing I don't like". It's nonsense.

The term trolling has a very simple basis. It relates to its fishing
predicates. It's considered to be a lazy manner of fishing. Some
consider it to be an unworthy manner of fishing, at least as compared
to, for example, fly fishing. Trolling leaves a baited line behind a
boat that is propelled across a body of water. It attracts fish in what
many consider to be an artless manner.

With respect to on-line discussion forums, the notion of trolling
is thus the behavior of laying out bait in a lazy manner. It is about
making purposefully controversial statements for the purpose
of getting a bite, a reaction. Broadening this somewhat, it is
an attention seeking behavior, often from someone who does
not necessarily hold to the belief implied by the bait, but are
instead more interested in eliciting a reaction.

That is the essence of trolling. It is fishing for reactions. It lacks
ownership of sides in the broader debate. It is, at its essence,
attention seeking behavior. This meaning of trolling is a worthy
description of an easily recognized behavior. It has sadly been
obfuscated to be attached to different types of abusive behavior.

RonO

unread,
May 30, 2023, 7:00:37 PM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Why should you harass me, and claim that doing what I told Nyikos that I
would do is something that I need to be reasonable about. You guys are
harassing the wrong guy and you all know it.

Why do you guys want to keep Nyikos around as he currently is? Nyikos
harassing me with a topic that he had to start lying about was a minor
part of the negativity fostered by Nyikos in that thread. Most of the
posts in that thread were likely posters bickering with Nyikos or each
other about Nyikosian stupidity.

The only way that things are going to get better around here is if
Nyikos is forced to try to reform. He can't do it on his own. I do
expect Greig to give Nyikos a second chance. What Nyikos does with that
chance is up to him, and if you want him to stick around you should be
on his case, and not mine. You should start now. You are obviously too
late at this time to have prevented the current conditions. Why would
you want to be too late the next time.

Ron Okimoto

RonO

unread,
May 30, 2023, 7:15:37 PM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/30/2023 10:15 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/29/23 4:46 PM, RonO wrote:
>>
>> You should have obviously been spending this energy on getting Nyikos
>> to be a decent human being.  You should have tried to convince him
>> that there was no amount of time that could elapse before telling the
>> same lies was at all acceptable.
>
> "Consider how hard it is to change yourself, and you'll understand how
> hard it is to change another person." - Anon.
>
> One fact you overlook is that the faults that bother you so much about
> Peter are ones that you also have.  I submit your efforts are misplaced.
>

Consider that no one even tried, and yet they are willing to harass me
about doing something reaonable and straight forward as a solution to
the problem. You know that it is really the only solution. It wasn't
anything that Nyikos could not do. He even managed to go a couple
months without doing it.

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. I do not
constantly lie to harass anyone. It just is not anything that I have
ever had to do. You seem to have some screwy understanding of what
Nyikos has been doing. Just as you misunderstood what was going on with
the Top Six. Did you go back and check that I never had to harass
anyone with any refutation of the Top Six? Do you now understand what
actually happened? If you do not, you shouldn't have made your above
comments.

Ron Okimoto

RonO

unread,
May 30, 2023, 7:45:37 PM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/30/2023 10:07 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/29/23 4:15 PM, RonO wrote:
>> Banning him [Nyikos] solves all the issues, [...]
>
> No, it most emphatically does not.  First, it would remove from the post
> one of the few people who contribute on-topic discussion fodder. Second,
> it sets a precedent that could justify bans on at least three other
> regular participants here (including you).
>
> I propose that the ban on DrDr. Kleinman be lifted.  If you can't deal
> with the heat, *you* should leave the kitchen.
>

All you have to do to understand Nyikos Negative influence on TO is to
go to the Frozen II thread. Nyikos harassing me with stupid lies about
what he had posted is just a minor part of the negativity spawned by
Nyikos in that thread. Nyikos can't help but take potshots at other
posters not involved in the discussion in his "relevant" posts. They
come to the thread and start battling about off topic junk between them
and Nyikos, and then they start bickering among themselves.

Nyikos was supposedly posting on topic, but he was just trying to harass
me with junk that he hadn't bothered to determine if it was anything
worth harassing me about. Once he found out that he had been wrong he
just started up lying about what he had posted. This is a terrible
thing to happen because the Nyikosian lies just turn into material that
Nyikos has to lie about forever in future harassing posts. It had
happened in the last two Nykosian harassment attempts, and I had to put
a stop to it. The last thing that I want is for Nyikos to create new
things that he has to lie about forever. What triggered the current
banning issue was that Nyikos started up lying about junk that he has
been lying about for over a decade. Nyikos started to harass me in
exactly the way that he needed to do in order to start the banning process.

Go to the Frozen II thread and see what type of on topic discussion
Nyikos spawns on TO.

Really, the TO regulars not only started bickering with Nyikos about
other junk, but they started in on each other.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/ovJitGN1A6w/m/nqRt9cnvAQAJ

I informed Nyikos that he had to stop his senseless harassment or I
would ask Greig to ban him. Nyikos stopped for a couple months, and we
didn't have a repeat of the Frozen II fiasco that I would have been
involved in until he decided to start up his harassment again, and here
you are harassing the wrong guy. Really, when Nyikos did exactly what
he needed to do in order to get banned, the regulars came in and started
to harass me about it, and not Nyikos. Misrepresenting what Nyikos
actually does is stupid. Nyikos may be an easy target because he
doesn't care very much about whether what he wants to discuss is real or
not. Just like the Frozen II thread it is pretty easy to demonstrate
that Nyikos is just wrong about something. That is no reason to keep
the guy around, just so that you have some type if easy target to kick
around.

The sad thing about this harassment is that you all know that Greig will
give Nyikos a second chance. What you should be doing is starting your
efforts to get Nyikos to reform and do the right thing. Allowing him to
keep doing the wrong thing is obviously not going to solve the Nyikosian
problem on TO.

Ron Okimoto

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
May 30, 2023, 8:15:37 PM5/30/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2023 15:29:56 +0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
>
>> Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I propose that the ban on DrDr. Kleinman be lifted. If you can't deal
>>> with the heat, *you* should leave the kitchen.
>>>
>> At least a trial run if he were to return.
>>
> Aside from Jabriol, who was banned for what I feel to be
> good and sufficient reason, banning for content should be
> the absolute last resort; that's why killfiles exist, and if
> the newsreader (or ersatz newsreader, GurgleGropes, for
> instance) doesn't support them one still has the option of
> ignoring the "offending" ones. DIG's bans for nymshifting
> and (IIRC; I could be wrong) excessive crossposting are a
> different subject, and completely his choice.
>
> Just my 20 mills; YMMV.

DrDr could be annoying as shit especially given the number of posts threads
he was on generated. And his nicknaming was obnoxious though I don’t recall
him tagging me. He and Peter (who had a nickname from DrDr) went at it
quite a bit. Peter applied his math background on DrDr’s ideas. DrDr did
unintentionally inspire me to deep dive into lateral gene transfer in
bacteria wrt antibiotic resistance which was loads of fun (seriously).

jillery

unread,
May 31, 2023, 12:40:38 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 30 May 2023 06:10:09 -0700, John Harshman
More accurately, you appear to have a different understanding of what
trolls are. There's a difference.


>And in fact the ambiguity
>in Casanova's pronoun was not the result of the typo. In fact the typo
>resolved that ambiguity, just in the wrong way. It's of course a
>universal principle that any spelling flame must contain at least one
>typo, but I don't think there was any ambiguity in the correction.
>
>What are you so angry about?


Don't blame me for your problems.


>Why play the troll card?


Just following suit.


>>>>> Of course I have on various occasions compared Peter with Queeg, but not
>>>>> this time.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rons rant
>>>>>>> was described so. IOW simpleminded, stubborn, paranoid, and
>>>>>>> confrontational, but not necessarily insane. The boringly repetitive
>>>>>>> verbosity is what makes Ron's typical rants different from
>>>>>>> Captain Queeg.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) Peter seems to have an absolute genius for evoking that
>>>>>>>> sort of reaction; perhaps it's not accidental, but a
>>>>>>>> "feature".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me he leaves strong impression of trying to remain civil. May be that is
>>>>>>> what evokes those shitstorms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So when he deletes relevant text, that qualifies as "trying to remain
>>>>>> civil" to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for shitstorms, that is his stock-in-trade. Apparently you haven't
>>>>>> noticed that either.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

jillery

unread,
May 31, 2023, 12:55:37 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 30 May 2023 08:07:42 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

>On 5/29/23 4:15 PM, RonO wrote:
>> Banning him [Nyikos] solves all the issues, [...]
>
>No, it most emphatically does not. First, it would remove from the post
>one of the few people who contribute on-topic discussion fodder.


Incorrect. [Nyikos] almost never posts on-topic. Worse, his comments
are more comparable to what asses turn fodder into.


>Second, it sets a precedent that could justify bans on at least three
>other regular participants here (including you).


Third, RonO can solve his issues all by himself, without involving
DIG.

Fourth, modifying Beagle's filters tends to cause unintended and
negative consequences, ex. dropping posts for no apparent reason.


>I propose that the ban on DrDr. Kleinman be lifted. If you can't deal
>with the heat, *you* should leave the kitchen.

--

Mark Isaak

unread,
May 31, 2023, 1:10:37 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Again I emphasize:

The problems you see with Nyikos are problems that you also have in
yourself. Heal thyself, and only *then* worry about Nyikos.

jillery

unread,
May 31, 2023, 1:15:37 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Isaak has repeatedly demonstrated willful blindness to the offenses of
preferred individuals, and a failure to distinguish between those who
offend and those who note their offenses. But then, so do you. I
suspect you both consider such behaviors as positive features.

jillery

unread,
May 31, 2023, 1:20:37 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 30 May 2023 10:23:56 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for focus>

>As a strange aside, I have become very annoyed by the weird
>abuse of the terms troll and trolling. They have grown to be
>way too much of a character of "thing I don't like". It's nonsense.
>
>The term trolling has a very simple basis. It relates to its fishing
>predicates. It's considered to be a lazy manner of fishing. Some
>consider it to be an unworthy manner of fishing, at least as compared
>to, for example, fly fishing. Trolling leaves a baited line behind a
>boat that is propelled across a body of water. It attracts fish in what
>many consider to be an artless manner.
>
>With respect to on-line discussion forums, the notion of trolling
>is thus the behavior of laying out bait in a lazy manner. It is about
>making purposefully controversial statements for the purpose
>of getting a bite, a reaction. Broadening this somewhat, it is
>an attention seeking behavior, often from someone who does
>not necessarily hold to the belief implied by the bait, but are
>instead more interested in eliciting a reaction.
>
>That is the essence of trolling. It is fishing for reactions. It lacks
>ownership of sides in the broader debate. It is, at its essence,
>attention seeking behavior. This meaning of trolling is a worthy
>description of an easily recognized behavior. It has sadly been
>obfuscated to be attached to different types of abusive behavior.


Stipulating for argument's sake all that you say above, keep in mind
that abusive behaviors meet those specifications.

Martin Harran

unread,
May 31, 2023, 3:35:38 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On Tue, 30 May 2023 05:52:58 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are two separate issues here - attacking a lie and attacking the
person who used it to attack you.

In regard to *any* lie that I become aware of, whether it is about
myself or someone else, I certainly think that I do have a moral duty
not to ignore it. A lie can do tremendous harm and to simply ignore
one would be guilty of acquiescing to the lie and the potential harm
it may do.

In attacking someone who has used a lie to attack me and try to impugn
my character, I think the 'turn the other cheek' aspect comes into
play in how I treat the person who made the lie. I should simply focus
on exposing the lie and not attack their character in response or seek
any sort of revenge. I generally try to do that but do not always
succeed in it. I think the old saying about "trying the patience of a
saint" applies to Peter and I am certainly no saint!

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
May 31, 2023, 6:50:38 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
That makes sense. Time is limited, and there are a lot of lies in the world. So I suppose one would consider how much harm the lie would cause were it widely believed, how likely it is to be believed, and how much effect on the probability of its being believed one can have by not ignoring it. "Covid vaccines contain mind control microchips," might be a more harmful lie than others you could think of, and then there's the question of what exactly "not ignoring the lie" means, and how to work against its spread.
> In attacking someone who has used a lie to attack me and try to impugn
> my character, I think the 'turn the other cheek' aspect comes into
> play in how I treat the person who made the lie. I should simply focus
> on exposing the lie and not attack their character in response or seek
> any sort of revenge. I generally try to do that but do not always
> succeed in it. I think the old saying about "trying the patience of a
> saint" applies to Peter and I am certainly no saint!

Don't worry, I've never confused you with either a saint or an apostate Catholic. For one thing, I myself am an apostate Catholic and I'm sure you don't know the secret handshake.

peter2...@gmail.com

unread,
May 31, 2023, 8:55:38 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/29/23 7:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> > [...]
> > Then you shouldn't be so quick to assume that Peter tries to be civil.

> My impression is that, when Peter acts as judge, jury, and executioner
> to address a point that he feels is somehow morally faulty, that is what
> "being civil" means to him.

Actually, I am just in the role of a plaintiff who makes charges of
dishonesty/deceit, or hypocrisy, or cowardice, or unfairness.

It's up to others to refute the charge, and they almost never
try to do that. I told that to John Harshman when he made
a disingenuous remark to the opposite effect:

+++++++++++++++++++++++ repost, with embedded repost ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>What I'm saying is
> that people commonly disagree that they're dishonest, lying, or libelous
> in the various cases you harp on.

Not commonly. The usual action is to double down with more
attacks, or to ignore the post altogether. You have chosen the latter course
twice this year, after I caught you behaving as described, in spades:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/cqAQGHmXKAc/m/RhSe0kyFAQAJ
Re: The Silurian hypothesis:
Apr 21, 2023, 9:35:27 PM

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/qHuni8UqsRA/m/UZKEqq5_AwAJ
Re: The Silurian hypothesis:
May 3, 2023, 10:00:10 PM

At the end of the latter post, I responded to some silliness by you as follows:

___________________________________________ repost ___________________________

> And now there will be an endless series of back and forth attacks
> resulting from this irrelevant seed.

What nonsense! You never replied to the post I linked at the beginning.
I expect the same to happen to this post.
================================= end of repost

Of course, my "expectation" came true, with not just the first post linked above
entering into the expectation, but with dozens of other such posts over the years,
where the evidence was just too strong.

++++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt +++++++++++++++++++++++
from
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/khZM_6plMSc/m/5hIEXjNNDAAJ
Re: Clueless
May 26, 2023, 12:21:40 PM

True to form, Harshman hasn't replied to the above post yet; in fact, he hasn't
posted to that thread at all since he made the dishonest comment that he
made at the beginning of the excerpt.


> I wish he would consult a competent ethical
> philosopher on the issue.

Next to paleontology and astronomy/cosmology, philosophy is
my favorite subject in which I am not a professional. I have often
made comments about how subjective the morality of people like
Harshman is: deceit, even libel, being no big deal when done by
Harshman, or by someone in good with him.

In contrast, I have often called myself a "goddamn moralizer"
because I care about old-fashioned things like dishonesty, etc. and I don't care who it is done against.

You might remember, Mark, I once started a whole thread to get at the truth of a raging dispute
between Kleinman and yourself that began with you saying that he ought to stop medical practice
because of the seriousness of a lie he had told about something you had said another time.

It took about a month, but then someone whom I hadn't encountered before and
haven't encountered since, dug up *the* statement of yours about which Kleinman had
allegedly told his lie, and the truth was somewhere between what you had claimed
and what he had claimed. If anything, it was closer to what he had claimed.


Peter Nyikos

PS I chalk the whole raging dispute up to faulty memory by both of you. I am not trying to open up old wounds;
I am only trying to impress on you how objective my morality is.

Öö Tiib

unread,
May 31, 2023, 9:25:38 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Problem was that most his "posts" were copy-paste mindless answers,
only few of us got him to say something sometimes ... otherwise
he just spammed that noise.

Mark Isaak

unread,
May 31, 2023, 10:50:38 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/31/23 5:52 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
>> I wish he would consult a competent ethical
>> philosopher on the issue.
>
> Next to paleontology and astronomy/cosmology, philosophy is
> my favorite subject in which I am not a professional. I have often
> made comments about how subjective the morality of people like
> Harshman is: deceit, even libel, being no big deal when done by
> Harshman, or by someone in good with him.

That's sure not how it comes across in your posts. In fact, just in
this part I quoted, you don't comment on someone's actions, you attack
the person, in effect calling him a moral reprobate or worse. Yours is
not morally proper behavior.

And there is nothing wrong with morality being subjective. Finding an
objective basis for morality is problematic at best, and for a person to
live by an objective morality would go against how our brains work; it
would be so unnatural as to probably be impossible. My impression is
that you have never really studied morality.

Mark Isaak

unread,
May 31, 2023, 11:05:38 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/30/23 10:14 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
> <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 11:10:36?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 5/29/23 4:15 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>> Banning him [Nyikos] solves all the issues, [...]
>>>
>>> No, it most emphatically does not. First, it would remove from the post
>>> one of the few people who contribute on-topic discussion fodder.
>>> Second, it sets a precedent that could justify bans on at least three
>>> other regular participants here (including you).
>>>
>>> I propose that the ban on DrDr. Kleinman be lifted. If you can't deal
>>> with the heat, *you* should leave the kitchen.
>>> --
>>> Mark Isaak
>>> "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
>>> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
>>
>> I hereby curse you with the ultimate curse.
>> I nominate you to take over the moderation of talk.origins.
>
>
> Isaak has repeatedly demonstrated willful blindness to the offenses of
> preferred individuals,

That is a dangerous falsehood. Letting offenses go by without comment
does not mean one does not see them. Usually there is no need to
comment, since anyone else can see the offense as well as I can.
Commenting on every offense has its own, worse, problem, in that it
often escalates hostilities. Escalating hostilities is not good.

> and a failure to distinguish between those who
> offend and those who note their offenses.

When the offense *is* noting other offenses, there is no distinction,
except in the names of the persons acting. If not making that
distinction bothers you, so be it; be bothered.

> I suspect you both consider such behaviors as positive features.

You might be right.

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
May 31, 2023, 11:20:38 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 10:50:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/31/23 5:52 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> [...]
> >> I wish he would consult a competent ethical
> >> philosopher on the issue.
> >
> > Next to paleontology and astronomy/cosmology, philosophy is
> > my favorite subject in which I am not a professional. I have often
> > made comments about how subjective the morality of people like
> > Harshman is: deceit, even libel, being no big deal when done by
> > Harshman, or by someone in good with him.
> That's sure not how it comes across in your posts. In fact, just in
> this part I quoted, you don't comment on someone's actions, you attack
> the person, in effect calling him a moral reprobate or worse. Yours is
> not morally proper behavior.
>
> And there is nothing wrong with morality being subjective. Finding an
> objective basis for morality is problematic at best, and for a person to
> live by an objective morality would go against how our brains work; it
> would be so unnatural as to probably be impossible. My impression is
> that you have never really studied morality.

There's only a rather "meta" and practically unimportant difference between subjective and objective morality. If you disagree with someone's moral stance you are either disagreeing with what their subjective morality dictates or with their subjective opinion about what objective morality dictates. In effect, there's only an academic difference related to the answer to the question "What are we arguing about when we argue about morality?" The argument is still there regardless of whether you think morality is subjective or objective.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
May 31, 2023, 11:45:38 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/23 5:52 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> [...]
>>> I wish he would consult a competent ethical
>>> philosopher on the issue.
>>
>> Next to paleontology and astronomy/cosmology, philosophy is
>> my favorite subject in which I am not a professional. I have often
>> made comments about how subjective the morality of people like
>> Harshman is: deceit, even libel, being no big deal when done by
>> Harshman, or by someone in good with him.
>
> That's sure not how it comes across in your posts. In fact, just in
> this part I quoted, you don't comment on someone's actions, you attack
> the person, in effect calling him a moral reprobate or worse. Yours is
> not morally proper behavior.
>
> And there is nothing wrong with morality being subjective. Finding an
> objective basis for morality is problematic at best, and for a person to
> live by an objective morality would go against how our brains work; it
> would be so unnatural as to probably be impossible. My impression is
> that you have never really studied morality.
>
Morality is socially constructed and intersubjective at best. If humans or
other organisms with individual and social interests didn’t exist there
would be no morality. I don’t know what is objectively discoverable about
making up human (or animal) rights and granting them to ourselves (or
animals like us). Well-being as a measurable form of utilitarianism is but
one narrow consideration as is the duty and commands of deontology. The
Tanakh had imperatives, many of them considered intersubjectively silly or
destructive in the present era. All will evaporate with our extinction or
the expanding sun.

John Harshman

unread,
May 31, 2023, 11:55:38 AM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/31/23 7:48 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/31/23 5:52 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> [...]
>>> I wish he would consult a competent ethical
>>> philosopher on the issue.
>>
>> Next to paleontology and astronomy/cosmology, philosophy is
>> my favorite subject in which I am not a professional. I have often
>> made comments about how subjective the morality of people like
>> Harshman is: deceit, even libel, being no big deal when done by
>> Harshman, or by someone in good with him.
>
> That's sure not how it comes across in your posts.  In fact, just in
> this part I quoted, you don't comment on someone's actions, you attack
> the person, in effect calling him a moral reprobate or worse.  Yours is
> not morally proper behavior.
>
> And there is nothing wrong with morality being subjective.  Finding an
> objective basis for morality is problematic at best, and for a person to
> live by an objective morality would go against how our brains work; it
> would be so unnatural as to probably be impossible.  My impression is
> that you have never really studied morality.
>
Subjectivity isn't what he means, really. He actually means
inconsistency or selectivity. Of course he's wrong about that in both
the general and the specific case. I would agree that morality is
subjective, i.e. not having an absolute basis. I would disagree with his
characterization of my morality and about whether I have indulged in
deceit or libel. But that's Peter being Peter.

peter2...@gmail.com

unread,
May 31, 2023, 12:25:38 PM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 10:50:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/31/23 5:52 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> [...]
> >> I wish he would consult a competent ethical
> >> philosopher on the issue.
> >
> > Next to paleontology and astronomy/cosmology, philosophy is
> > my favorite subject in which I am not a professional. I have often
> > made comments about how subjective the morality of people like
> > Harshman is: deceit, even libel, being no big deal when done by
> > Harshman, or by someone in good with him.

> That's sure not how it comes across in your posts. In fact, just in
> this part I quoted, you don't comment on someone's actions, you attack
> the person,

... but not on the part you deleted, which partially explains what I wrote.
Were you to unpack the links I provided there, you would see MANY
times more.

And there is a great deal more that I could document, but you would
probably react in the way Harshman replies to such evidence ever since the beginning
of 2011: a reaction to which I gave him the nickname, DontWanna HearAboutIt
many years ago.


> and for in effect calling him a moral reprobate or worse.

Wrong. I have no idea whether his way is the right way, or whether mine is.
At the age of 23 I faced an even worse possibility: that there is a hereafter
which is like the Gulag Archipelago, where common criminals
lorded it over the other prisoners, among whom were "politicals" whose only crime
was to call attention to the injustices around them.

I decided after a few days on two things: I would be too much of a johnny-come-lately
to the art of deceit, hypocrisy etc. were I to start then. It would
stick out like a sore thumb and I would be steamrollered by those
with lifelong practice at it.

Second, if someone like me were among the damned in such a system,
I would be in damned good company: Socrates, Jesus, Danton, ...


> Yours is not morally proper behavior.

On what system of morality is this based?


> > And there is nothing wrong with morality being subjective. Finding an
> objective basis for morality is problematic at best, and for a person to
> live by an objective morality would go against how our brains work; it
> would be so unnatural as to probably be impossible.

Only according to an excruciatingly simple-minded picture of objective
morality. The three people mentioned above would probably flunk it.


> My impression is
> that you have never really studied morality.

Your unmarked deletion of an account of a crucial dispute between you and
Kleinman, and my reaction to it, voids whatever validity your impression has.

My reaction was done according to objective morality, which pays no attention
to the identity of the individuals involved. Both you and Kleinman had been
very abusive of me, but my motive was one of pure disinterested justice.

If that seems impossible to you, then you have a lot to learn about morality.


Peter Nyikos

Martin Harran

unread,
May 31, 2023, 5:20:38 PM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On Wed, 31 May 2023 03:49:36 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this depends to some extent on a mixture of proximity and
competence. Peter's lies about me are by definition proximate to me
and well within my competence to deal with. Daft arguments about Covid
online are more removed from me and there are people far more
competent than me actively fighting against them and showing how wrong
they are. Here on TO, for example, there has been little need for me
to get involved in arguments about vaccination as they have been
debunked by people far better qualified than me; I have, however, from
time to time chipped in where I thought I had something useful to add.
It's perhaps worth pointing out that I'm not alone in seeing Christian
duty in this; Pope Francis has spoken out forcibly about the evil of
sharing 'fake news':

https://www.archstl.org/sharing-fake-news-makes-one-an-accomplice-in-evil-pope-says-1271

Martin Harran

unread,
May 31, 2023, 5:25:38 PM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On Wed, 31 May 2023 05:52:38 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:55:37?PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/29/23 7:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > Then you shouldn't be so quick to assume that Peter tries to be civil.
>
>> My impression is that, when Peter acts as judge, jury, and executioner
>> to address a point that he feels is somehow morally faulty, that is what
>> "being civil" means to him.
>
>Actually, I am just in the role of a plaintiff who makes charges of
>dishonesty/deceit, or hypocrisy, or cowardice, or unfairness.
>
>It's up to others to refute the charge, and they almost never
>try to do that.

I certainly refuted your charges against me. You responded by
undertaking to produce evidence to back up your claims the *next
week*. Two months have elapsed and you haven't done so, you simply
try to ignore what you did in the hope that people will forget about
it.

[...]

broger...@gmail.com

unread,
May 31, 2023, 6:35:38 PM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
And they piss you off. From my apostate Catholic point of view, it's perfectly fine to react if you're pissed. No need to look for a moral duty to do so. Just a question of what you can realistically hope to accomplish. I doubt anybody else, or anybody whose opinion is worth caring about, thinks you are a closeted apostate Catholic, so it's not as though you are correcting anyone's false impressions about you. If you are waiting for an apology from the source, I suspect you'll wait a very long time. You won't get no satisfaction.

Mark Isaak

unread,
May 31, 2023, 10:15:38 PM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 5/31/23 9:25 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 10:50:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 5/31/23 5:52 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I wish he would consult a competent ethical
>>>> philosopher on the issue.
>>>
>>> Next to paleontology and astronomy/cosmology, philosophy is
>>> my favorite subject in which I am not a professional. I have often
>>> made comments about how subjective the morality of people like
>>> Harshman is: deceit, even libel, being no big deal when done by
>>> Harshman, or by someone in good with him.
>
>> That's sure not how it comes across in your posts. In fact, just in
>> this part I quoted, you don't comment on someone's actions, you attack
>> the person,
>
> ... but not on the part you deleted, which partially explains what I wrote.
> Were you to unpack the links I provided there, you would see MANY
> times more.

No, the part I deleted did not explain anything relevant. And no amount
of unpacked links will change the fact that you attacked his character,
not his behavior.

>> and for in effect calling him a moral reprobate or worse.
>
> Wrong. I have no idea whether his way is the right way, or whether mine is.

You have no idea whether deceit, even libel, is moral or not? I find
that hard to believe.

>> Yours is not morally proper behavior.
>
> On what system of morality is this based?

The Golden Rule. Kant's categorical imperative. Common decency. Take
your pick.

>>> And there is nothing wrong with morality being subjective. Finding an
>> objective basis for morality is problematic at best, and for a person to
>> live by an objective morality would go against how our brains work; it
>> would be so unnatural as to probably be impossible.
>
> Only according to an excruciatingly simple-minded picture of objective
> morality. The three people mentioned above would probably flunk it.

I hope you read the other three responses to that paragraph, which all
made good points.

>> My impression is
>> that you have never really studied morality.
>
> Your unmarked deletion of an account of a crucial dispute between you and
> Kleinman, and my reaction to it, voids whatever validity your impression has.

I didn't reply to it because I don't remember it. And I know enough
about memory not to trust other people's memory of it, either. Whereof
one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

peter2...@gmail.com

unread,
May 31, 2023, 10:15:38 PM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 11:45:38 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
> > On 5/31/23 5:52 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 2:55:37 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> I wish he would consult a competent ethical
> >>> philosopher on the issue.
> >>
> >> Next to paleontology and astronomy/cosmology, philosophy is
> >> my favorite subject in which I am not a professional. I have often
> >> made comments about how subjective the morality of people like
> >> Harshman is: deceit, even libel, being no big deal when done by
> >> Harshman, or by someone in good with him.
> >
> > That's sure not how it comes across in your posts. In fact, just in
> > this part I quoted, you don't comment on someone's actions, you attack
> > the person, in effect calling him a moral reprobate or worse. Yours is
> > not morally proper behavior.
> >
> > And there is nothing wrong with morality being subjective. Finding an
> > objective basis for morality is problematic at best, and for a person to
> > live by an objective morality would go against how our brains work; it
> > would be so unnatural as to probably be impossible. My impression is
> > that you have never really studied morality.
> >
> Morality is socially constructed and intersubjective at best.

I've been trying for easy understandability by using the words
"subjective" and "objective." But I got fed up with the hairsplitting
about them before I turned 20, and coined the expressions
"principle-oriented ethics" and "individual-oriented ethics".

A case of a student I caught taking a test for another is a good
introduction. By turning him in, I was principle-oriented.
When it came time for the trial, the one in my class had been pressured by
the Dean's office to identify the student who had taken the test--
I had never met him before and had to let him go to "go back to
my dorm and get my ID card to show you I am ____________"
[Of course, he never returned, but my student showed up half an hour later.]

One thing my student said at the trial was of the essence of individual-oriented ethics:
he complained about how he had been pressured to "rat" on one
of his friends, which he deemed to be worse than cheating on a test.

The story had a happy ending for me, and the Dean, and I hope for you --
but that's another story for another post.


And what you write below is an interesting exploration of
abstract generalities, but I have no comment on it for now.
It's time to get ready for bed and an early start tomorrow.


Peter Nyikos

Mark Isaak

unread,
May 31, 2023, 10:40:38 PM5/31/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Also, be sure to look up "fundamental attribution error." It is a
concept that every student of ethics should be entirely familiar with.

jillery

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 1:10:38 AM6/1/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 31 May 2023 08:05:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

>On 5/30/23 10:14 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 09:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
>> <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 11:10:36?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/23 4:15 PM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> Banning him [Nyikos] solves all the issues, [...]
>>>>
>>>> No, it most emphatically does not. First, it would remove from the post
>>>> one of the few people who contribute on-topic discussion fodder.
>>>> Second, it sets a precedent that could justify bans on at least three
>>>> other regular participants here (including you).
>>>>
>>>> I propose that the ban on DrDr. Kleinman be lifted. If you can't deal
>>>> with the heat, *you* should leave the kitchen.
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Isaak
>>>> "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
>>>> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
>>>
>>> I hereby curse you with the ultimate curse.
>>> I nominate you to take over the moderation of talk.origins.
>>
>>
>> Isaak has repeatedly demonstrated willful blindness to the offenses of
>> preferred individuals,
>
>That is a dangerous falsehood. Letting offenses go by without comment
>does not mean one does not see them.


Your characterization above fails to distinguish between choosing
battles and willful blindness. They are easily distinguishable when
multiple posters demonstrate the same behaviors in the same thread,
and often in the same post, and only one is singled out and criticized
for those behaviors. The eyes have to virtually jump over the
comments of preferred individuals while focusing on the comments of
the one being criticized.


>Usually there is no need to
>comment, since anyone else can see the offense as well as I can.


Your comment above is other words for "it's obvious", a convenient
ploy to avoid taking the time to state a clear case and instead rely
on allusion and innuendo, a common troll tactic.


>Commenting on every offense has its own, worse, problem, in that it
>often escalates hostilities.


Your comment above is mindless exaggeration. Nobody even tries to
comment on every offense, even if that were possible.


>Escalating hostilities is not good.


And yet you regularly escalate hostilities with specific posters when
you selectively criticize them for the same behaviors other posters
manifest, often in the same post.


>> and a failure to distinguish between those who
>> offend and those who note their offenses.
>
>When the offense *is* noting other offenses, there is no distinction,


A mindless truism. Your "when" doesn't inform the case I identified.
Your own posts have identified behaviors that are intelligently
designed to offend, so I know you are capable of making that
distinction when it suits you. The problem is you wear that suit
selectively.


>except in the names of the persons acting. If not making that
>distinction bothers you, so be it; be bothered.
>
>> I suspect you both consider such behaviors as positive features.
>
>You might be right.


That you rationalize your willful blindness by conflating it with
legitimate behavior some infamously characterize as "hear no evil, see
no evil, speak no evil", raises a question; to whom is my alleged
falsehood dangerous?

Burkhard

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 4:40:39 AM6/1/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Well, that's an improvement in clarity - the way you use subjective and objective is totally different from the way in which these terms are used by philosophers and ethicists, so bound to lead to confusion. Principle vs individual could be better, but then again "individual centric ethics" is sometimes used for two historically related approaches to ethics, the "casuistic" methods developed especially by Jesuit theologians in early modernity ( Vincenzo Filliucci , Antonino Diana, Paul Laymann, Hermann Busenbaum) and in modern days virtue ethics, with writers like Elizabeth Anscombe , Alasdair MacIntyre Paul Ricoeur, Philippa Foot or Martha Nussbaum) Both go back to Aristotle, and emphasise the importance of personal virtues, which can be context dependent, over abstract general rules - "being virtuous" means something different for a soldier than a surgeon, in many contexts, e.g.

As an aside, both casuistics and and to virtue ethics have been or are mainstream catholic ethical though, though VE is these days also embraced by many secular thinkers like Food or Nussbaum.

What you seem to mean with "individual oriented" seems to be different from what these mean, but it is difficult to make out what type of ethics you really have in mind when using that term

>
> A case of a student I caught taking a test for another is a good
> introduction. By turning him in, I was principle-oriented.
> When it came time for the trial, the one in my class had been pressured by
> the Dean's office to identify the student who had taken the test--
> I had never met him before and had to let him go to "go back to
> my dorm and get my ID card to show you I am ____________"
> [Of course, he never returned, but my student showed up half an hour later.]
>
> One thing my student said at the trial was of the essence of individual-oriented ethics:
> he complained about how he had been pressured to "rat" on one
> of his friends, which he deemed to be worse than cheating on a test.

I can't see how that matches your description above, and why it illustrates "individual centric ethics". Simply by your account of the event, one can also reconstruct it as both of you using principle-based approaches, just disagreeing on the principle.

Your principle is: Everyone should always be loyal to their employer and protect their reputation, even if this inflicts harm on third parties", his principle is "everyone should always be loyal to their friends and protect their reputation, even if this is harmful to oneself"

Some approaches to ethics may want to decide which of these principles is better, others may be happy to accept that there can be conflicts between rules- virtue ethics e.g. may argue that the moral duties of a professor (what it means to be a virtuos professor) are different from the moral duties of a virtuous student.

But regardless of what approach one takes, and which rules one thinks better supported, nothing in your account indicates that the difference between the protagonists matches one of principle vs individual based ethics.

Martin Harran

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 7:15:39 AM6/1/23
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:32:09 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's the accusation of being a liar that pisses me off more than the
accusation of being an apostate - that was self-evidently just daft.
Lies directly about a person's character are more focused and more
likely to be taken at face value by onlookers. My level of being
pissed off is accentuated by him also hitting another of my
flashpoints, the hypocrisy of telling lies himself and then trying to
chastise other people for behaving just like he does.

> From my apostate Catholic point of view, it's perfectly fine to react if you're pissed. No need to look for a moral duty to do so. Just a question of what you can realistically hope to accomplish. I doubt anybody else, or anybody whose opinion is worth caring about, thinks you are a closeted apostate Catholic, so it's not as though you are correcting anyone's false impressions about you. If you are waiting for an apology from the source, I suspect you'll wait a very long time. You won't get no satisfaction.

I don't anticipate any apology; my hope is that if I keep reminding
him of his behaviour that he might just think twice about launching
any attacks on me in the future. that he cannot back up.

It is of course too much to hope for that he might think twice about
similar unfounded attacks on other people - he clearly just can't
help himself.

peter2...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 9:50:39 AM6/1/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
If this has anything to do with Mark refusing to list your contribution
to Chez Watt (for May) but letting mine stand, you are way off base
on that score.

If not, please pardon the interruption, and continue as planned before I interrupted.

Peter Nyikos

Ernest Major

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 12:20:39 PM6/1/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 01/06/2023 09:38, Burkhard wrote:
> I can't see how that matches your description above, and why it illustrates "individual centric ethics". Simply by your account of the event, one can also reconstruct it as both of you using principle-based approaches, just disagreeing on the principle.
>
> Your principle is: Everyone should always be loyal to their employer and protect their reputation, even if this inflicts harm on third parties", his principle is "everyone should always be loyal to their friends and protect their reputation, even if this is harmful to oneself"
>
> Some approaches to ethics may want to decide which of these principles is better, others may be happy to accept that there can be conflicts between rules- virtue ethics e.g. may argue that the moral duties of a professor (what it means to be a virtuos professor) are different from the moral duties of a virtuous student.
>
> But regardless of what approach one takes, and which rules one thinks better supported, nothing in your account indicates that the difference between the protagonists matches one of principle vs individual based ethics.

A distinction I make is between legalist (man is made for the law) and
humanist (the law is made for man) ethics, which cuts right across all
the Abrahamist religions, and I expect other religious traditions as
well. I'd offer Shammai and Hillel as examplars, though I understand
that involves some simplification of their positions.

I see Peter as an advocate for legalist morality.

--
alias Ernest Major

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 12:55:39 PM6/1/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Too simple a dichotomy, plus Carl Schmitt was a legalist and proponent of
the power politics Peter abhors, roughly that might makes right.

Peter seems to be embracing a merit based academic ethics plus the
principle that cheating or deceit are wrong as applying the categorical
imperative per generalizing the cheaters’ maxim would collapse the academic
system.

WD Ross went well beyond Kant’s simpleton deontology and expanded it into a
pluralistic framework.

In the quirky Left Is Not Woke by philosopher Susan Neiman, she critiques
Foucault’s and Schmitt’s power driven philosophies and wonders why the left
is so smitten by Schmitt (a Nazi). It’s because the right has latched onto
his friend-enemy framing with a ruthless vengeance and we must know our
enemy.

She mentions the popular idea that professed morality is a mere cover for
self-interest and is making an interesting turn from Foucault and Schmitt
toward sociobiology-ev psych. Seems she’s not a fan.

peter2...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 1:25:39 PM6/1/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ah, Burk, I was expecting you to join this thread along about now.
You may want to look over some of the earlier posts, especially the ones
that address Ron O's peculiar [1] behavior.

[1] This is the most value-light word that fits what he is up to.]
First off: I am NOT referring to "principle oriented systems of ethics" etc. My approach
is both more ancient and more modern than these. The ancient one goes back to Homer,
but more relevantly, to Aesychlus, whose plays reflected the breakdown of many
traditional ideas, just as in our time. Our own behavior in talk.origins is a microcosm of that breakdown.

The modern is rooted in existentialism, as exemplified in Kierkegaard's three stages on life's way,
of which the first is the aesthetic stage. According to William Barrett
in _Irrational_Man_, Kierkegaard regarded moralists who confine themselves to abstract
analysis (as in the above paragraph of yours) as acting out their aesthetic stage,
as distinct from the second, moral stage.

I'm at my office in the university, but when I get back home I'll look at my copy there,
and might have more to say about what Barrett wrote.

>
> As an aside, both casuistics and and to virtue ethics have been or are mainstream catholic ethical though, though VE is these days also embraced by many secular thinkers like Food or Nussbaum.
>
> What you seem to mean with "individual oriented" seems to be different from what these mean, but it is difficult to make out what type of ethics you really have in mind when using that term

I've also used the term "person-oriented" for "individual-oriented," but that can
easily be misinterpreted. It is the opposite of the principle-oriented usage
in "The law/God is no respecter of persons." That is, what counts in
dealing with the actions of people has nothing to do with who the actor is.

I recall how surprised I was to see that Nixon could have been treated
like a criminal on top of being stripped of the Presidency: I had taken it for granted
that Presidents had the equivalent of diplomatic/Parliamentary immunity.
This immunity is a mild case of person-oriented ethics.


> >
> > A case of a student I caught taking a test for another is a good
> > introduction. By turning [the one for whom the test was taken] in, I was principle-oriented.

Note the correction in brackets. The one who actually took the test
was not reported for months, as can be deduced from what I wrote next:

> > When it came time for the trial, the one in my class had been pressured by
> > the Dean's office to identify the student who had taken the test--
> > I had never met him before and had to let him go to "go back to
> > my dorm and get my ID card to show you I am ____________"
> > [Of course, he never returned, but my student showed up half an hour later.]

My student readily confessed, in the office of a highly trusted colleague of mine,
with her and me as the witnesses, to having gotten the other student to cheat for him.
But he would not tell us his identity, and we didn't press him because
that was the job of the Dean's office and those appointed by it.

> >
> > One thing my student said at the trial was of the essence of individual-oriented ethics:
> > he complained about how he had been pressured to "rat" on one
> > of his friends, which he deemed to be worse than cheating on a test.

> I can't see how that matches your description above, and why it illustrates "individual centric ethics". Simply by your account of the event, one can also reconstruct it as both of you using principle-based approaches, just disagreeing on the principle.

Unfortunately, words are almost never adequate guides; your legal training should tell you that.
It is the main job of appellate courts to interpret laws, which hardly ever can foresee all situations.
The Catholic Church does the same, by the process of casuistry.

>
> Your principle is: Everyone should always be loyal to their employer and protect their reputation, even if this inflicts harm on third parties",

On the contrary: it is individual-oriented, with the employer as the individual [or collective, as
in the case of a university].

What makes it principle-oriented is the principle of fairness. Cheating on tests is unfair to other students,
because it gives the cheater an unfair advantage over them when it comes to jobs, etc. And if cheating
is generally left unpunished, it would lead to the breakdown of the whole educational
system, which in turn is one of the pillars of our civilization, and famously the Chinese civilization.

> his principle is "everyone should always be loyal to their friends and protect their reputation, even if this is harmful to oneself"

That is strained to begin with, as it revolves about the concept of what a "friend" is,
and that is a tremendously ambiguous concept. Friends who command that sort
of loyalty are a small handful, and best treated as individuals.

Individual-oriented morality almost always involves "looking out for Number One,"
and almost always above all else [1]. Then it expands to friends of the above sort, and then
to lesser degree to those of the sort we see a lot of here in talk.origins: people who have bonded over the years
and instinctively prefer each other to those who are out of favor with them. And it doesn't
go much further than that, except in the form of groups and institutions that they treat with
a similar loyalty, ranging from the home team in a sport to patriotism for one's country.

[1] Returning to your "principle" of loyalty to one's employer and to the cheating of students:
the person who turns a cheating student in is "looking out for Number One" because if he didn't turn
a student whom he caught cheating, he would be breaking a rule laid down by the employer,
and will suffer the consequences.


> Some approaches to ethics may want to decide which of these principles is better, others may be happy to accept that there can be conflicts between rules- virtue ethics e.g. may argue that the moral duties of a professor (what it means to be a virtuos professor) are different from the moral duties of a virtuous student.
>
> But regardless of what approach one takes, and which rules one thinks better supported, nothing in your account indicates that the difference between the protagonists matches one of principle vs individual based ethics.

Now that I have gone deeper into what my distinction is all about, how do you see this difference now?


Peter Nyikos

Mark Isaak

unread,
Jun 1, 2023, 1:45:39 PM6/1/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I still disagree with your term "willful blindness". It assumes that
seeing something and not acting on it can be ruled out, and it can't be
ruled out. "Discriminative persecution" might be a better term. (There
is probably an even better term than that; I forget the names of all the
various biases.)

>> Usually there is no need to
>> comment, since anyone else can see the offense as well as I can.
>
> Your comment above is other words for "it's obvious", a convenient
> ploy to avoid taking the time to state a clear case and instead rely
> on allusion and innuendo, a common troll tactic.

Do you really think the newsgroups would be improved if every JTEM post
was answered by 6-10 other posts taking issue with multiple parts of it?

>> Commenting on every offense has its own, worse, problem, in that it
>> often escalates hostilities.
>
> Your comment above is mindless exaggeration. Nobody even tries to
> comment on every offense, even if that were possible.

The use of "every" in everyday speech is not necessarily literal; it is
frequently used rhetorically to suggest a large percentage. But to
satisfy nitpickers, I shall rephrase:

Commenting on any offense has its own problem in that it often escalates
hostilities, and the risk and scale of that problem increases as the
frequency of the commenting increases, until it soon surpasses the
problems of not commenting.

>> Escalating hostilities is not good.
>
> And yet you regularly escalate hostilities with specific posters when
> you selectively criticize them for the same behaviors other posters
> manifest, often in the same post.

Not nearly as often as I deescalate them by not replying. Which you
seem to consider a problem, too.

>>> and a failure to distinguish between those who
>>> offend and those who note their offenses.
>>
>> When the offense *is* noting other offenses, there is no distinction,
>
> A mindless truism. Your "when" doesn't inform the case I identified.

You didn't identify a case to me.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages