Hydrogenaudio Forums

Misc. => Recycle Bin => Topic started by: radorn on 2018-03-09 15:58:43

Title: [TOS #2/5] Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-09 15:58:43
This is a very tendentious uttering that reminds me of creationists when they speak about evolution. Or short: It's bullshit.

It seems you haven't noticed that the topic of this thread and the forum it is hosted in is NOT the origins of the universe and life, but just AUDIO.
There's plenty of places on the Internet where your bigoted opinions on how "creationism", as you call it, is, by your TENDENTIOUS comparison, "bullshit", will be on-topic, but I'm quite sure that this is not one of them, so you keep that line of commentary out of here.
Maybe the "Off-Topic" section of this community will happily receive whatever debates or flamewars you may desire to start on that particular topic. Although, I've never been there and don't know what rules apply. I suggest you check them.

That'll be all.
Title: Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-13 02:24:01
Creationism, being pseudoscience that lately dresses itsefl up in the technical jargon of science [...]

You know full well that this isn't and shouldn't be the place to discuss that subject. Are you trying to bait me?
If I replied to your claim it would derail the thread, it would be absolutely off-topic in this forum and administrative action would probably ensue.
It doesn't matter what you or a billion like you believe on this subject. Saying that "Creationism is pseudoscience" is a claim, and, as such, it can be debated. But such a debate is out of place here, and rightfuly so. I'm not even asking for permission to discuss origins here. I come here for AUDIO, and I don't think opening that door here would be beneficial. If I want to debate origins, I go where that issue is ON-TOPIC.

I feel tempted to reply to your claims, but then I would be doing the exact same thing I'm criticizing you for.
Is it really so unreasonable to ask that a forum about audio stays on it's topic?
Your stance about this being "a board that favors science" is pointless and irrelevant because the discussion about origins does not affect in the slightest the discussion about audio, so why don't you keep your opinions on the matter to yourself?
This has nothing to do with catering to "my 'opinions'" (as you contemptuously put it), but with intellectual honesty.
Title: Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2018-03-13 11:10:15
Creationism, being pseudoscience that lately dresses itsefl up in the technical jargon of science [...]

You know full well that this isn't and shouldn't be the place to discuss that subject. Are you trying to bait me?


I'm one of those horrible born-again Christians, but even for me, creationism is just plain intellectually a poster child for pseudoscience. I favor working fights that are just and should be won. IMO this isn't. PS I am also anti-Trump. :-)
Title: Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: Funkstar De Luxe on 2018-03-13 12:17:48
Where the fuck is this thread going?
Title: Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-13 15:42:50
I'm one of those horrible born-again Christians, but even for me, creationism is just plain intellectually a poster child for pseudoscience. I favor working fights that are just and should be won. IMO this isn't. PS I am also anti-Trump. :-)
Again, why even say that? I'm trying to stay away from discussing that here.
Either we discuss origins or we don't, and I don't think we should do that here. Agreed?
To keep asserting points of view in a topic that doesn't pertain here, especially when these points of view are expressed as simple disparaging of the opposing view, is baiting, even if unintentional, in which case I suggest one should get the reins of his own will and INTENTIONALLY avoid it.
TOS #2 ??
Where the fuck is this thread going?
Back to audio, I hope.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2018-03-13 22:13:10
Where the fuck is this thread going?

Into a subthread on what and which analogies, comparisons, or even metaphors, can and can't be used. They are all tools of language and discussion. If an analogy is a bad analogy it can be demonstrated to be so, Bad analogies and inappropriate examples are pften used to support week arguments. They can be attacked. Say, "You can't say that because it isn't true, or doesn't work that way," Not "You can't say that because, erm..."
Title: Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-13 23:11:57
Into a subthread on what and which analogies, comparisons, or even metaphors, can and can't be used. They are all tools of language and discussion. If an analogy is a bad analogy it can be demonstrated to be so, Bad analogies and inappropriate examples are pften used to support week arguments. They can be attacked. Say, "You can't say that because it isn't true, or doesn't work that way," Not "You can't say that because, erm..."

I find "erm..." to be a gross misrepresentation of my arguments.
Following your advice in this particular case would necesarily result in opening an actual debate on origins in an audio forum, in a thread about supersonic sampling rates. Is that what you suggest? Because I think that's a really bad idea.

I think my point could be resumed as "don't bait debates you don't want to have or that would be out of place".
I think that would fall into the scope of TOS #2.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: pelmazo on 2018-03-14 09:11:45
This discussion is about audio, so keep your opinions about the origins of the universe and life to yourself, as I do with mine, and don't shoehorn them into this thread.
If your concern is that the thread may turn away from audio, and discuss unrelated topics instead, then I'm with you.

But that's not what I wanted, and I doubt it is what will happen. The analogy between audiophilism and creationism is not quite as far fetched as you might want to believe. I don't see why it should be off topic here to draw fitting and potentially illuminating analogies.

Creationism, being pseudoscience that lately dresses itself up in the technical jargon of science, is an entirely appropriate analogy for Hans's brand of audiophilia.
Indeed, and this is quite evident from the style of argumentation, and their conduct in a debate.

I believe it is a general challenge of our current societal situation, to separate the truth from the bullshit (which seems to get poured on us from ever larger buckets), and part of this is to learn spotting dubious patterns of argumentation.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: ajinfla on 2018-03-14 12:59:02
The analogy between audiophilism and creationism is not quite as far fetched as you might want to believe.
It's spot on. Using it as an analogy (as you did) is not the same as delving into debating it's merits. That's a way to red herring the actual argument that audiophoolery is analogous to belief, like creationism.
Title: Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-14 13:10:31
@pelmazo
And there you go again, baiting debates that do not have a place in here.
If I were to casually throw arround that evolution is, or equate it with, "bullshit" as you do with creation, a bunch of people would gang up on me, and administrative action would more than surely ensue, and even more surely if I were to start an actual debate on the subject. They would be right to do that, and so would they if they applied the same treatment to comments like yours.
I could have done just that in this very same thread, and I consider that I have way better arguments for it than your camp does, regardless of what you think. But, as I said, that has no place here. Last time I checked, this place was meant to discuss AUDIO.
The debate on origins has no bearing on any audio subjects, so why do you feel the need to "stick it to those dumb creationists"? Save that for when you attend one of those atheist rallies with Dawkins & friends, will you?

I think my point could be resumed as "don't bait debates you don't want to have or that would be out of place".
I think that would fall into the scope of TOS #2.

@ajinfla
I say the same to you. If you don't want to debate it, and you shouldn't as this is a forum about audio (I'm getting tired of repeating this OBVIOUS fact), don't bait it. Whether you are right or not has no bearing on this. You are just CLAIMING something, regarldless of how self-evident you deem it to be. As a claim it is, I have counter claims for it, but, once more, they have no place in a forum about audio, NOR DO YOURS.

Is this so hard for you to see? Being right in that issue that is irrelevant for this forum is so important to you that you have to be such zealots about it?

If you pay attention, all I'm saying is that you keep the discussion to audio and resist the temptation of slipping your politics and BELIEFS in.
But it seems you guys just can't control yourselves...

Either we discuss origins or we don't, and I don't think we should do that here. Agreed?
Title: Re: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: ajinfla on 2018-03-14 13:14:47
Ok, so you're a butthurt creationist. Move on
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-14 14:19:13
Comparisons to creationism are perfectly acceptable.

Pretending you're a moderator by saying what is allowed is not perfectly acceptable.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: pelmazo on 2018-03-14 14:43:23
I could have done just that in this very same thread, and I consider that I have way better arguments for it than your camp does, regardless of what you think.
That's another analogy between audiophiles and creationists. Audiophiles would also claim to have "better arguments". If you want to know which ones, they invariably mention their ears. For them, that argument beats anything that could possibly be offered by the "scientific camp".

If you understand why "their ears" isn't a good argument at all, you have a better chance understanding which arguments in the creationism-evolution debate are good, too.

Quote
...so why do you feel the need to "stick it to those dumb creationists"? Save that for when you attend one of those atheist rallies with Dawkins & friends, will you?
That's not what I wanted. I thought I had a good analogy, that's all. That it prompts you to blow off that much steam was unexpected to me, but I don't think that's my fault. If you are scientifically-minded, you should be able to understand why creationism is so unpopular amongst scientists.

I haven't attended any atheist rally so far, btw. I just find it irritating that atheism isn't the default, and that it has such an embattled status that people feel that rallies are needed. But it shares that with other stances that should be default, like gender and race equality, or universal healthcare.

There you go, more political beliefs slipped in. :-)
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: Siekmanski on 2018-03-14 14:46:22
Comparisons to creationism are perfectly acceptable.

Especially if you call yourself "Audio Evangelist" as Hans does.
The only thing that bothers me, you don't get a chance discussing his view on audio on his channel.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-14 15:29:57
Comparisons to creationism are perfectly acceptable.

Pretending you're a moderator by saying what is allowed is not perfectly acceptable.

I see. Please, settle these, then:
1: When someone makes that kind of comparison, what kind of response is acceptable to show my disagreement?
2: Is it acceptable to present the case that evolutionism is pseudocience in response to the same accusation expressed towards creation?
3: Is it also allowed to say that evolution is, and evolutionists say "bullshit", as others have said of creation?
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-14 15:34:32
@pelmazo
I have made plenty clear why I have refrained from presenting any arguments in the origins debate so far. Since I don't think it belongs here, it would be hypocritical of me to be the one starting it. Also I don't expect such debate to be well received by the administrators, as it sounds like something that would violate TOS #5. But I guess we'll have official word on that soon?
So you know, I do plenty of origins debate... elsewhere.
At this point, you have no basis whatsoever to advance that my arguments would be comparable to appealing one's own ears in an audio debate. At this point, your accusation is a baseless, cheap, and opportunistic display of prejudice.
Also, I should point out that you haven't presented any arguments for evolution either. So far you've just rested on it's wide acceptance, which says nothing whatsoever about it's merits. Your argument about the rejection of creation among (many, not all) scientists, is a fallacious appeal to authority.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: ajinfla on 2018-03-14 16:06:44
Nice job of diverting the argument from Youtube audiofoolery to creationism there Hans
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: pelmazo on 2018-03-14 16:12:17
At this point, you have no basis whatsoever to advance that my arguments would be comparable to appealing one's own ears in an audio debate. At this point, your accusation is a baseless, cheap, and opportunistic display of prejudice.
Hold your horses, please.

The case that led me to my analogy wasn't you, it was Hans Beekhuyzen's video, to which you linked in the opening post here in the thread. Perhaps you are Hans, but I couldn't possibly have known, nor have I suspected it. Please read again my post #16, and you may recognise that my analogy was specifically prompted by Hans' calling the Nyquist Theorem "just a theory". It is this way of suggesting that it doesn't have the character of a "truth", being just one of potentially many theories, that reminded me of the creationists, which give the same treatment to evolution.

So, again, it is not the content that I wanted to emphasize here, it was the type of argument.

Quote
Also, I should point out that you haven't presented any arguments for evolution either. So far you've just rested on it's wide acceptance, which says nothing whatsoever about it's merits.
I don't need to present any such argument if my aim is to point out the analogy in argumentation style, wouldn't you agree?

I am not a biologist, hence you probably wouldn't take a substantial pro evolution argument from me anyway. Not being a specialist, my own opinion in this matter doesn't rest so much on the scientific detail, but on the more fundamental realisation, that postulating a creator doesn't actually explain anything. From a scientific viewpoint, a creator is a useless explanation, because you can explain everything and its opposite with it. It doesn't give you any help in distinguishing wrong from right explanations, nor does it allow any insight into how, when, why, with which tools, and with whose help the creation happened. If the universe around us was the work of a creator, I sure would want to have a look into his workshop, but you know as well as I know, that this is not going to happen. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, the creationist argument is "not even wrong". It is useless, just as reference to one's ears is useless as evidence in audio science.

Consequently, creationists, just as audiophiles, typically spend their time trying to shoot holes into the established scientific viewpoint, apparently believing that this makes their opinion look better in comparison. But any science is full of holes anyway, otherwise we would be done. There are always cases where a good explanation is still missing, so further work is needed. There's no need for a reminder from the creationist side, or the audiophile side. They should instead focus on demonstrating that their favorite explanation actually holds water, has explanatory power, leads the way to experimental clarification, and hence amounts to useful science.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-14 16:18:33
Well said, pelmazo.  It should be a satisfactory answer to radorn's questions.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-14 17:41:33
How can you say now that this is not directed at me?
I could have done just that in this very same thread, and I consider that I have way better arguments for it than your camp does, regardless of what you think.
That's another analogy between audiophiles and creationists. Audiophiles would also claim to have "better arguments". If you want to know which ones, they invariably mention their ears. For them, that argument beats anything that could possibly be offered by the "scientific camp".
If I say that I think I have better arguments and you say that what I'm doing is comparable to arguing about one's ears, how is that not about me? You are advancing what my arguments are and their validity even before I even present them. And I said many times why I don't present them.... which brings me to:
Well said, pelmazo.  It should be a satisfactory answer to radorn's questions.
If you are refering to the questions I specifically directed at you... then no, not satisfactory all. Not even related.

The only thing that is implicitly answered by your actions, is that it seems OK to actually debate origins here, since pelmazo is doing it and you praise his intervention. Tell me IF and HOW I am misinterpreting that.

It seems reasonable to me to have your explicit confirmation, so, please, answer my questions as I previously stated them:

1: When someone makes that kind of comparison, what kind of response is acceptable to show my disagreement?
2: Is it acceptable to present the case that evolutionism is pseudocience in response to the same accusation expressed towards creation?
3: Is it also allowed to say that evolution is, and evolutionists say "bullshit", as others have said (repeatedly) about creation?

Finally:
They should instead focus on demonstrating that their favorite explanation actually holds water, has explanatory power, leads the way to experimental clarification, and hence amounts to useful science.
I can't possibly know what lines of argumentation you have seen or from which proponents; which you have ignored, or how fairly you are representing them when you bring them up. I can't vow for any of that. What I do know is what I have seen myself from both the naturalist model and the creation model and how valid or invalid I consider their thinking and argumentation and how much I agree or disagree with their conclusions.
I will provide you with some links via private message, and if greynol thinks I should, I'll also post them here, along with a brief statement on how I see this whole issue in a similar vein to pelmazo's intervention.
I still believe this whole thing was unnecesary and could have been avoided if you and others just refrained from baiting the debate. And, yes, I insist that calling creation pseudocience and bullshit is baiting, because affirming any of that calls for a debate, and it's dishonest if that debate can't be had; which is also a particular debate that I don't think should be had here...
...and, greynol, I don't pretend to supplant moderator powers, but wouldn't that violate TOS #5? If it indeed does violate TOS #5, as I believe, do I also get a pass if I do it, as pelmazo seems to get a pass? Does it sound fair to you to say that "either we all do it or nobody does"?
I really, really don't want to debate origins here, as I repeatedly said. I do plenty of that elsewhere. But it's your call now.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-14 17:57:32
If you want to discuss why creationism is not faith-based pseudoscience you're welcome to do that in the off-topic forum.  The world has been waiting for a scientific explanation for a very long time now.

Your combative tone will end now.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-14 18:15:00
@greynol
I may eventually accept your invitation, thank you, but I'm afraid my questions still remain unanswered. Should I assume that there won't be an answer?
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: drewfx on 2018-03-14 18:21:16
I would suggest that analogies that invite controversy - whether merited or not - are not effective analogies.

One of my personal rules of forum behavior is "never argue the analogy - it only takes things off-topic".
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-14 18:42:18
Someone will always get pissed off no matter what you do.

It's clear to me that no one is attempting to argue the merits of creationism vs non-creationism.  However radon has made it clear that he's is ready and willing and has gone so far as to claim he will be victorious (talk about troll baiting!).

As I already said, radorn is welcome to argue how creationism isn't faith-based pseudoscience like placebophilia is in another discussion in the off-topic forum.  If he feels people are being unfair in the comparison he can then point them to the other topic to have that discussion there.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-14 19:12:04
It's clear to me that no one is attempting to argue the merits of creationism vs non-creationism.
pelmazo just did that in a two paragraph exposition, and others have done so with one-liners.

However radon has made it clear that he's is ready and willing
Not true. I've been saying all the time that I don't want to, and it's only because you keep pushing it that I reluctantly would do it.

and has gone so far as to claim he will be victorious (talk about troll baiting!).
Huh? You'll have to point me to that, because I do not remember having said any such thing.

As I already said, radorn is welcome to argue how creationism isn't faith-based pseudoscience like placebophilia is in another discussion in the off-topic forum.  If he feels people are being unfair in the comparison he can then point them to the other topic to have that discussion there.

That sort of answers one of my question #1 [When someone makes that kind of comparison, what kind of response is acceptable to show my disagreement?]
So, If I understand it correctly, if someone goes on to claim or imply that creation is a pseudoscientifical bullshit in any thread on the forum, interested users (like me) can't answer that in the same thread, but, instead what they should do is open an Off-Topic thread and link that into the original thread?

This begs question #3 again [Is it also allowed to say that evolution is, and evolutionists say "bullshit", as others have said (repeatedly) about creation?]
So, is it allowed to say in any thread in the forum that evolution is a bullshit pseudocience and their proponents say bullshit? and if one does that, should others also open Off-Topic threads as an answer instead of replying in the same thread?

This leaves question #2 [Is it acceptable to present the case that evolutionism is pseudocience in response to the same accusation expressed towards creation?]
pelmazo did just that minutes ago in this very thread. He didn't have to move it to Off-Topic, and he even received praise from moderation. Is that official policy that applies to all users and all opinions on that issue?
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: krabapple on 2018-03-14 21:19:00
@pelmazo
I have made plenty clear why I have refrained from presenting any arguments in the origins debate so far.

'origins debate'?!  You and your creationist messaging rhetoric: piss off. 

Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-14 21:32:14
There is no origins debate, just a bunch of posturing by the OP.  It's pretty obvious that he's the one who wants to debate.

...and he's welcome to do it, just not in this topic.

Had he had the composure to respectfully disagree with pelmazo's sentiment instead of essentially telling him to STFU things would have been different and I would have happily binned any tangential discussion per TOS #5, but it didn't happen that way.

pelmazo politely explained his position and radorn continues to behave as if there is some debate at play.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-14 22:09:35
@greynol https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115577.msg954307.html#msg954307 ...I'm still waiting.
I thought you didn't answer my questions because you weren't arround, but it seems you do anwer others to baselessly attack my character?

You say there's no origins debate, but I've seen many people throw one-liners to that effect and also this two-paragraph exposition right here:
I am not a biologist, hence you probably wouldn't take a substantial pro evolution argument from me anyway. Not being a specialist, my own opinion in this matter doesn't rest so much on the scientific detail, but on the more fundamental realisation, that postulating a creator doesn't actually explain anything. From a scientific viewpoint, a creator is a useless explanation, because you can explain everything and its opposite with it. It doesn't give you any help in distinguishing wrong from right explanations, nor does it allow any insight into how, when, why, with which tools, and with whose help the creation happened. If the universe around us was the work of a creator, I sure would want to have a look into his workshop, but you know as well as I know, that this is not going to happen. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, the creationist argument is "not even wrong". It is useless, just as reference to one's ears is useless as evidence in audio science.

Consequently, creationists, just as audiophiles, typically spend their time trying to shoot holes into the established scientific viewpoint, apparently believing that this makes their opinion look better in comparison. But any science is full of holes anyway, otherwise we would be done. There are always cases where a good explanation is still missing, so further work is needed. There's no need for a reminder from the creationist side, or the audiophile side. They should instead focus on demonstrating that their favorite explanation actually holds water, has explanatory power, leads the way to experimental clarification, and hence amounts to useful science.

Do you really think it's fair to say that there isn't a debate going on? And, as much as you insist, it seems that, among the few that have directly intervened in this discussion, the only one who hasn't actually debated origins is me (I'm not counting those that didn't comment in one sense or the other about creation or evolution, of course). If you are so sure that I did debate it, just point to where I supposedly said such a thing.

All I said and reasoned from the beginning was "no baiting". As an answer, I was given a debate that I didn't start (and a rather rude one at that, comprised, in great part of one-liner insults and prejudice) and now I'm somehow being held responsible for. Seriously? While I kept saying that I didn't want to debate origins, I was told repeatedly that creation is nonsense, pseudoscience, "bullshit" and that I was "butthurt", and that I should "piss-off". Yet, somehow, I'm told that I'm the offender here. Come on now!

Now, if you have the time to accuse me of "posturing", you certainly have time to answer the questions that I've repeated at least 3 times now without an answer from you.

EDIT:
Had he had the composure to respectfully disagree with pelmazo's sentiment instead of essentially telling him to STFU things would have been different and I would have happily binned any tangential discussion per TOS #5, but it didn't happen that way.

So, all the blame is on me now? And what would be respectful disagreement in this case?
Since he equated creationism with "bullshit" as part of a comparison, what should I have said, then?
Something like this, perhaps? "well, actually, fellow member pelmazo, I find that it's actually the evolutionists that spew pseudoscience and bullshit, so your comparison is flawed"? That would be TOS #5 and TOS #2 as much as his was TOS #5 and TOS #2. I find that your judgement in what's an offense here is quite biased.
No, my point is that all this taking the piss on creation is unwarranted and off-topic in a forum and thread about audio, and that's what I said from the very beginning, so, please, stop distorting my words.

EDIT2: IN FACT, I've just remembered, that, after replying the first time to pelmazo's initial "bullshit" calling, and my post being removed for TOS #10 (I replied in Spanish assuming he was Spanish too because of his username), I reported his post but no action seems to have been taken. I was thoroughly ignored. But now you say you would have taken care of it? Somehow I find that a little hard to swallow, given the record so far.
Title: error
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-14 22:42:38
double posted by error
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: eagleray on 2018-03-14 22:48:32
Creationism?  That's not just off topic, it doesn't fit with a digital audio resource forum at all.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-14 23:02:48
No matter how much screed he posts I've already provided the answers to his questions, even if he's too dense to get them.

In a science based forum, creationism is bullshit, BTW.  No philosophical wankery is going to change that.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-14 23:22:22
Creationism?  That's not just off topic, it doesn't fit with a digital audio resource forum at all.
Well, I've been saying that all along, but apparently that constitutes supplantation of moderator authority somehow.
Also, I find highgly hypocritical that, while the origins debate is off-topic (to which I agree, if somehow somebody hasn't noticed), apparently, saying that creationism is, and it's proponents say, "bullshit", is not only allowed, but even praised, and those of us (or, it seems, just me?) that find offense in that, are told to shut up and suck it. No action is taken towards those that insult me when I ask for decent treatment, and I'm even told that its all my fault... I guess because I didn't shut up and sucked it.
I ask questions to moderators, trying to find out what the proper way to deal with this is, but instead of answers, I get slandered.
It's all quite surreal.
I'm still waiting for a proper answer that seems will never come.

EDIT: Add more to the collection: "dense" and "philosophical wankery"
And, no, greynol, you haven't answered my questions, and you know it. Don't act like you have because you haven't. No ammount of sidestepping the issue and calling me names is going to change that. Only answering the questions will.
They are 3 simple direct questions. You are a moderator. You are supposed to be able to answer them directly and I would even dare say that you have the responsibility to answer them. If you can't then call on someone above you to do it. Why are you delaying this?
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: kode54 on 2018-03-15 01:03:57
It certainly is possible to suggest that either science or pseudoscience or religion or all of the above are varying degrees of explaining the function of reality within the realm our mortal minds can understand, and that many of them can coexist with each other. This isn't really the place to argue which explanation is better or worse, except that which is more scientific.

Then again, the nearest I feel like positing is that the religious explanations for existence were debated and agreed upon by a great many people who formed factions that agreed on their own explanations, and quite many of those factions try to argue why their explanation and only their explanation is the correct one. Written history only goes back so far, but most of the popular roots have some explanation of how the universe was created by a deity or deities. Science only has the big bang theory, which cannot be proven either, as nobody has a way to see exactly what created our universe, but we've come close to running simulations to try to prove some things, at least I think so. Big bang is the closest science has, and that's apparently not enough to satisfy a lot of people.

Meanwhile, I am ambivalent about the whole concept of a creator, as I don't think it's necessary to believe in a creator for morality to exist, as a fully mortal being with no afterlife should want to value their mortal existence, and want to coexist within the ecosystem around them, and perhaps form bonds with their fellow beings. If only for selfish reasons, they should at least want to value their links to others as a means to continued existence.

If I were to be overly concerned about the existence of a creator, and whether I believed that this really mattered within the scope of mortal existence, the only realm I can see at the moment, then I could also posit that science and the process of evolution could be a means by which an unseeable and undetectable deity could gently manipulate existence for the better. One could even posit that the entire universe is the body of their deity, if they so wished. They still would not be able to directly interact with that deity, or prove its existence beyond the shadow of a doubt. My mortal mind is limited, but I'd think that a careful designer would want its creation to play out mostly unhindered. Stepping in could only hamper progress by taking away choice.

In the realm of Christianity, I have even posited the idea that the beings known as Satan and the demons are even a necessary evil, if you must believe that supernatural beings must exist to whisper the evil choices into your thoughts, or else you would never know them to make your own choice. Their ancient documents teach that their evil lord wanted to lead the world without any free will, and yet their evil lord exists for the sole purpose of giving contrast to what would otherwise be purely a logical "good" choice to make in every situation.

Oh look, I'm debating religion on a forum I administer. Come now, let's stop this, and pretend that it never took place, lest we continue this charade ad nauseam.

For the record, I consider myself a secular humanist, and believe that humans can evolve their own social structures to benefit all, without having to scare each other with the as yet unexplainable as a means of forcing a point. My faith leads me to believe that most if not all organized religions were committee based and developed based on what many great thinkers posited would be the best ways to control the masses, possibly for the greater good, possibly for selfish reasons, I do not know. I tend to think any good social structure that leads to order instead of chaos, with the least measurable losses, and that at least tries to benefit all the people it possibly can, will help the world to prosper. Unfortunately, with so many people polling that science is unimportant in their lives, but at least matters enough to them to get their children to learn it, leads me to believe there may not be as much hope now, but there could be great hope for our future generations to explain the world around them by means other than pseudoscience.

I've been known to use pseudoscience occasionally, but it's usually not religion based, it's more simplified explanations or guesses that actually sound like science.

Do I really sound like I should be carrying this topic on? I've mostly ignored it, except to glance at it. I'd rather see more 192kHz nonsense continue than this debate over religion vs science, as if those two things provably preclude each other.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-15 01:34:37
@kode54
Honestly speaking and, at the risk of being given the boot: You must realize that none of what you just said answers any of my questions.
I also would rather discuss audio than this. I've been saying that from the beginning, but it seems the more I repeat that, the more I get insulted.
Please, even if you don't share my ideas (which isn't the issue at hand), put yourself in my place for a minute.
I take for granted my ideas on origins being called every name in the book when I debate them in a place open to that topic. It's part of the "job".
But, here, I didn't even bring them up, but rather, some one else brought them up, unwarrantedly, to use them, in his view, as an illustration of "bullshit" for the purposes of a comparison. Should I just "shut up and suck it" when someone does that? Even when it wasn't me that brought these into the discussion in the first place? It wasn't me that called someone else's unrelated convictions bullshit in the first place. Doesn't decent treatment account for nothing?
If it had been me that brough creation or evolution or any other unrelated controversial topic into the discussion, then it would have been my fault, but, as much as some pretend to misconstrue the facts to make it appear as if that was the case, the reality is far from it. And it only takes an honest person a quick browse through the thread to see that.
What should I do when even moderators take the liberty to join other users in intulting me while they repeatedly ignore reasonable questions that I make about board policy?
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: saratoga on 2018-03-15 02:32:17
But, here, I didn't even bring them up, but rather, some one else brought them up, unwarrantedly, to use them, in his view, as an illustration of "bullshit" for the purposes of a comparison. Should I just "shut up and suck it" when someone does that?

I tried reading this thread and I am not sure I can follow what you are saying.  Do I understand that you are upset that someone compared belief in audio to belief in creation?  I think you can do two things, either argue that one type of belief is different than the other, or let it go. 

What should I do when even moderators take the liberty to join other users in intulting me while they repeatedly ignore reasonable questions that I make about board policy?

Did anyone actually insult you personally?  Or do you mean that people disagreeing with you was insulting?  If the former, they shouldn't do that, if the latter, you probably shouldn't be insulted just because other people disagree with you.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-15 04:06:47
But, here, I didn't even bring them up, but rather, some one else brought them up, unwarrantedly, to use them, in his view, as an illustration of "bullshit" for the purposes of a comparison. Should I just "shut up and suck it" when someone does that?

I tried reading this thread and I am not sure I can follow what you are saying.  Do I understand that you are upset that someone compared belief in audio to belief in creation?  I think you can do two things, either argue that one type of belief is different than the other, or let it go. 

Someone posted a comment where he stated that Hans' audiophoolery reminded him of creationist argumentation, as a way to illustrate how both are, in his view, "bullshit". Well I certainly agree that audiophoolery is bullshit and demonstrably so. But I don't agree with creation being bullshit, and whatever some may believe, it hasn't and won't be proven to be so. But that's besides the point, because, while many pretend to extend this forum's scientific character as a moral shield against all charges of bigotry, the topic of this forum is audio unless I'm terribly mistaken, and wether the universe and life appeared suddenly in a mature form by an act of creation by a supernatural being or are the result of gradual natural processes, has absolute no bearing on any audio talk, and, since it is TOS #5, even though moderators now bend backwards breaking their own rules as some kind of demonstration, I see no reason why it should be OK to attack either and insult those that hold to them.
I certainly didn't, but others have done so REPEATEDLY.
The problem seems to be that I'm the only one that holds to the unpopular position, and, because of that, nobody gives a damn if I or my ideas are unduly attacked and without provocation from my part.
I believe pelmazo when he says he didn't intend to insult anyone. That's because he is of the popular evolutionist persuasion and thought it nothing to casually throw arround his contempt for the opposing view and it's proponents. Likewise, most people here, including moderators say that's it's OK.
But when I ask a few questions about what things would be OK for me to do, in light of what seems to me a rather biased treatment, I get no answer: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115577.msg954307.html#msg954307
I'm STILL waiting for these to be properly answered, despite of greynols deceptive claims about him already having done so, calling me names while doing that.

Which conveniently brings me to this:
Did anyone actually insult you personally?  Or do you mean that people disagreeing with you was insulting?  If the former, they shouldn't do that, if the latter, you probably shouldn't be insulted just because other people disagree with you.

Judge for yourself:

and has gone so far as to claim he will be victorious (talk about troll baiting!).
Huh? You'll have to point me to that, because I do not remember having said any such thing.

Misrepresenting my statements to present me as a "troll baiter"

'origins debate'?!  You and your creationist messaging rhetoric: piss off. 

Such a display of civism!

[...] just a bunch of posturing by the OP [...]
[...] Had he had the composure to respectfully disagree instead of essentially telling him to STFU [...]

Apparently telling others to not bait makes me a posturer, unable to control myself, and bossing arround like I own the place.
I find rather insulting when they tell lies about me.

[...] I've already provided the answers to his questions, even if he's too dense to get them.[...]

I'm too dense, it seems, to see greynol's invisible answers.

No philosophical wankery is going to change that.

A "philosophy wanker"... so colorful


Quite a few posts have been removed from this thread, including this from Arnold for reasons I might prefer not to know: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115640.msg954231.html#msg954231
He even said he believed creation to be pseudoscience! What are the politics behind this? Was it because he said "I'm a christian"? I don't understand, or maybe I prefer not to understand.
It was removed along with many other comments, most mine, when I reported TOS #2 on this pearl: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115640.msg954280.html#msg954280
Conveniently, many other posts by others defending evolution were allowed to stay here, even when they contained references to my posts that were removed.

EDIT: @greynol
You have said many things about what you think I should do, and, when I ask you about the ambiguities and inconsistencies in your statements, you basically tell me that you have said all you had to say and that I should figure it out myself... This is rather passive-agressive for someone in a position of power, don't you think?
The unambiguous things you have commanded, I haven't yet transgressed.
As for the ambiguous things and the subtext: I'm not stupid, I get exactly what you want from me, and I find it rather unfair. But since you are playing mute, I find it only proper that I also play deaf. You see, it's NOT MY JOB to "take hints" or read into your subtext; these things you seem reluctant to say aloud. I'm not the voice of your mind. You are the one in a position of authority, so be responsible and speak up. If you won't aknowledge your own subtext, don't expect me to do so.
I posed you three questions here: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115577.msg954307.html#msg954307 It's high time you answer them and be done with this.
Title: Re: [TOS #2] Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-15 05:03:03
About your delusional self-confidence regarding your ability to argue in favor of creationism in a science-based community, here you go...

I could have done just that in this very same thread, and I consider that I have way better arguments for it than your camp does, regardless of what you think.

Funny how you were the only one drawing lines in the sand delineating two "camps".  No one else even thought twice about it.





Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-15 05:09:34
Regarding the repeated misuse of the reporting system, radorn's questions have been answered.  If he's waiting for some other response, none will be given.

If radorn or anyone else wishes to start a new topic in order to defend the pseudo-scientific beliefs of creationism you are welcome to it.  In the meantime comparing placebophilia to creationism because they are both faith-based is a non-issue.  If we cannot get past this then this topic will be closed.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-15 06:20:34
About your delusional self-confidence regarding your ability to argue in favor of creationism in a science-based community, here you go...

I could have done just that in this very same thread, and I consider that I have way better arguments for it than your camp does, regardless of what you think.

Funny how you were the only one drawing lines in the sand delineating two "camps".  No one else even thought twice about it.

Why don't you put the whole quote? As a regular user I don't even have access to quote buttons in trashed posts, so just click the link and see.
It's really difficult to follow now that an arbitrary selection of posts in this thread have been graciously "relocated" to the trash bin, but, resuming, I was just replying to the repeated anti-creationism claims others where making, which seemed unfair while I refrained from directly confronting them in respect of TOS #5. I only said that I could be doing the exact same thing they were doing and that I considered I have better arguments than theirs. I can't even say that now without you miscronstruing it as some sort of taunt? Seriously?

That thing you say about me "drawing lines in the sand" doesn't even make sense. There are two camps, aren't there? There's those that believe the naturalist model to be better and those that believe the creation model to be better. Are they one same group now? Because that would be a shocking revelation to many people, including me.
"No one else even thought twice about it."?? are you implying that there is some sort of underground creationist-evolutionist fellowship arround and all that posted are members? Man, call the press right now! Seriously, what in the world are you talking about?

And, by the way, I saw you were calling me a "dumbass" and confirming it with at "yes, it's a personal insult", before you redacted the post. I was going to answer to it, but thought I would rather go to bed and answer tomorrow. Then I refreshed the page and bam, gone! Good move, but not quick enough. I have editted posts myself too, tweaking this an that, but that turn of yours is worth a trophy, my friend. Bravo!

About your mention of some "questions" "about the repeated misuse of the reporting system", I have to say that I don't know what you are talking about. I asked 3 questions, and none of them have any relation to what you say. An despite your continued denial, they remain unanswered, and no reason has been given for this refusal.

Now I'm going to bed. It's really late where I live. See you later.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-15 06:40:33
About your mention of some "questions" "about the repeated misuse of the reporting system", I have to say that I don't know what you are talking about. I asked 3 questions, and none of them have any relation to what you say. An despite your continued denial, they remain unanswered, and no reason has been given for this refusal.
Here you go...
Quote
There's a problem here and the moderator that came refuses to answer simple questions about behavior and adds to the intulting activity. He has shown nothing but bias so far. I'm hoping some other more reasonable mod or admin can intervene.
...or am I misconstruing the obvious again?

You're doing an excellent job of looking like an intellectually challenged donkey all on your own, so I didn't see the need to rub it in.  I'm glad you were able to read the post before I thought better than to put an exclamation mark on the state of your position.  Insisting there are two camps combined with an apparent lack of understanding about scientific method and burden of proof doesn't help you, BTW.

Thread closure is looming.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: ajinfla on 2018-03-15 11:41:52
Well I certainly agree that audiophoolery is bullshit and demonstrably so. But I don't agree with creation being bullshit

Quote
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods beliefs, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

This isn't a believer-audio site, in case you hadn't noticed. So yes, audiophools-Hans-creationist-flat earthers, etc. are all believers...and fair analogies.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: pelmazo on 2018-03-15 11:42:30
I believe pelmazo when he says he didn't intend to insult anyone. That's because he is of the popular evolutionist persuasion and thought it nothing to casually throw arround his contempt for the opposing view and it's proponents.
Just for the record: I am of the "evolutionist persuasion", but I thought I had made clear that the object of my contempt isn't the creationist view, but the way they argue, which they share with audiophiles like Beekhuysen. I do admit, that I have contempt for some of the proponents in both fields, but the reason for that lies in their use of twisted, unsound, and often fraudulent argumentation.

I have no issue with believers who use sound logical reasoning and show an appreciation of not only the facts, but also the actual arguments of the other side.

This stance only got reinforced by a set of videos by creationists, which radorn has sent me in a personal message. They really are a showcase of creationist determination to distort the facts. It is funny to be accused of contempt, when you see how much thinly veiled contempt for science is oozing out of every one of those videos.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: ajinfla on 2018-03-15 11:54:21
This stance only got reinforced by a set of videos by creationists, which radorn has sent me in a personal message.
Which version of the fairy tale? The Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Norse, Aztek, etc one? Let me guess, he dismisses the others in favor of his...LOL
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: pelmazo on 2018-03-15 12:02:21
Which version of the fairy tale?
It was the version of creationism that's dominant in the USA.

But that's actually part of the problem: How directly they jump from the postulate of an undescribed creator, to identifying him with a particular figure from a particular book. There's no sign of a mental pause to justify this giant leap.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: ajinfla on 2018-03-15 12:20:03
I'd rather not discuss Creationism or any other fairy tale believer idiocy. But I'm perfectly fine with using them for audiophool fairy tale believer analogies when discuss audio, because they are so apt...and easily dismissed.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: saratoga on 2018-03-15 17:23:32
But, here, I didn't even bring them up, but rather, some one else brought them up, unwarrantedly, to use them, in his view, as an illustration of "bullshit" for the purposes of a comparison. Should I just "shut up and suck it" when someone does that?

I tried reading this thread and I am not sure I can follow what you are saying.  Do I understand that you are upset that someone compared belief in audio to belief in creation?  I think you can do two things, either argue that one type of belief is different than the other, or let it go. 

Someone posted a comment where he stated that Hans' audiophoolery reminded him of creationist argumentation, as a way to illustrate how both are, in his view, "bullshit". Well I certainly agree that audiophoolery is bullshit and demonstrably so. But I don't agree with creation being bullshit, and whatever some may believe, it hasn't and won't be proven to be so.

Then you can argue how they are different, or you can let it go.  What else were you expecting? 

But that's besides the point, because, while many pretend to extend this forum's scientific character as a moral shield against all charges of bigotry,

That isn't relevent though.  This is a forum about audio.  If you want to argue about people being bigoted against some random thing, you shouldn't be doing it in this thread.  People will correctly point out that this is off topic, and moderators will correctly remove posts about this.

The problem seems to be that I'm the only one that holds to the unpopular position, and, because of that, nobody gives a damn if I or my ideas are unduly attacked and without provocation from my part.

Lots of ideas in this thread were attacked, some by you.  No one cares because this is a discussion forum and discussing and attacking ideas is the purpose of this thread.  It seems to me you expect special treatment here.  You want the freedom to bash other's ideas, while having your own off limits.  But that isn't how discussion works; you can ask for special treatment but people are just going to point out how ridiculous that would be.

Which conveniently brings me to this:
Did anyone actually insult you personally?  Or do you mean that people disagreeing with you was insulting?  If the former, they shouldn't do that, if the latter, you probably shouldn't be insulted just because other people disagree with you.

Judge for yourself:

I think the answer from those quotes is "no".  People did not insult you, they disagreed with things you said and the way you presented arguments, which is appropriate.   If you find that insulting, then you should probably not be putting yourself in a position where you might meet people who disagree with you.

He even said he believed creation to be pseudoscience!

Creationism is pseudoscience.  It is a religious belief, not a scientific theory.  One cannot scientifically falsify God, that is the whole idea of faith.  This also has nothing to do with anything, and is completely ridiculous in context. 

 
EDIT: @greynol
You have said many things about what you think I should do, and, when I ask you about the ambiguities and inconsistencies in your statements, you basically tell me that you have said all you had to say and that I should figure it out myself... This is rather passive-agressive for someone in a position of power, don't you think?

I'm not greynol, but I'll give you some general advice from skimming this thread.  You are obviously extremely upset and not thinking things through clearly, and to such an extent that it is difficult to even understand you.  If you can't even express yourself, then no one is going to be able to respond to your concerns.  Instead, take a break, think things through, and decide on a civil, comprehensible way to address whatever it is you think needs addressing.

Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-15 18:52:02
[...] videos by creationists [...] radorn has sent me in a personal message
How lovely!
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-15 20:16:39
If you check the thread (unless greynol has already purged the relevant post, I haven't checked), I already told pelmazo I was going to send him those videos. I don't know what's with all the surprise and mockery for that now. You people are acting like little children in a playground. "uuuuuh, he sent him videos, what a dork!" seriously...
As for your opinion on their content... that's your opinion and I don't share it and no millions of people agreeing with you will make it more compelling.

sartoga, greynol and others:
Are you saying that dumbass, butthurt, piss off, and other pearls are the proper way to conduct a conversation now, just because you agree with the opinion of who's using them and disagree with whom they are used against? If that's not bias, then what is it?

greynol: I still think you are BS'ing me with the "questions" issue, but I don't know anymore, perhaps you are so blinded with disgust that you really believe what you are saying. Nevertheless, I asked 3 questions that have so far never been answered, and now you point to the text of one report I sent, which isn't even a question, and pretend like it has some kind of wrong in it. What game are you playing?

Look. You people obviously don't appreciate me or what I have to say and probably won't be starting to do so any time soon.
You have three choices which are wholy in your hands:
1 Either we keep this nonsense, of which I'm getting rather bored of,
2 or you recognize that I have a point with the no-baiting complaint (a particular point which is notoriously and conveniently absent from all of your posting, centered instead in blasting me for being a creationist),
3 or you use the power you have and been threatening to use and purge the posts, the whole thread or even me.

So, yeah... your call.

See you later, or not, or whatever.

Cheers.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-15 21:02:57
Yawn.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: saratoga on 2018-03-15 21:03:45
sartoga, greynol and others:
Are you saying that dumbass, butthurt, piss off, and other pearls are the proper way to conduct a conversation now, just because you agree with the opinion of who's using them and disagree with whom they are used against?

That is not what I said.  I will restate myself since you have misunderstood.  You have chosen to become angry and attack people because they disagree with your opinions while demanding that other people treat you better than you have treated them.  Since this is not persuasive, nor polite, you should expect people to dismiss your position as bullshit, because as you have presented it, it is bullshit.  Either do better or just don't complain when you fail to convince people. 

Nevertheless, I asked 3 questions that have so far never been answered, and now you point to the text of one report I sent, which isn't even a question, and pretend like it has some kind of wrong in it. What game are you playing?

This is not true.  Several people, myself included, answered your questions. 

I am completely serious when I suggested that you take a while to calm down, compose yourself, and think what you mean to say.  What you are doing is not going to work. 
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: radorn on 2018-03-15 21:36:02
@sartoga So, I have misunderstood... eh? You asked me "where have they insulted you?", I posted a list a few things they said to me, including dumbass, butthurt, piss-off and other really lovely compliments. What have I misunderstood? And exactly where have I "attacked" anyone, as you say? The only thing I have said all along is "quit the baiting", and the rest was replying to the nonsensical accusations. I don't know where you draw this idea that I have somehow attacked anyone here, but it doesn't come from any honest place.

@greynol You still cling to passive-agressive mockery instead of taking action.
Either enforce your dogma or stop the nonsense.
As for the 3 questions. I'll post them here for the last time. You people can decide to answer them or not. I won't continue further than this, as you have decided to prevent it from going anywhere.

I'm just copy-pasting from the last time that I asked these (which was already the 3rd time), in response to this statement by greynol:
Quote
As I already said, radorn is welcome to argue how creationism isn't faith-based pseudoscience like placebophilia is in another discussion in the off-topic forum.  If he feels people are being unfair in the comparison he can then point them to the other topic to have that discussion there.

That sort of answers one of my question #1 [When someone makes that kind of comparison, what kind of response is acceptable to show my disagreement?]
So, If I understand it correctly, if someone goes on to claim or imply that creation is a pseudoscientifical bullshit in any thread on the forum, interested users (like me) can't answer that in the same thread, but, instead what they should do is open an Off-Topic thread and link that into the original thread?

This begs question #3 again [Is it also allowed to say that evolution is, and evolutionists say "bullshit", as others have said (repeatedly) about creation?]
So, is it allowed to say in any thread in the forum that evolution is a bullshit pseudocience and their proponents say bullshit? and if one does that, should others also open Off-Topic threads as an answer instead of replying in the same thread?

This leaves question #2 [Is it acceptable to present the case that evolutionism is pseudocience in response to the same accusation expressed towards creation?]
pelmazo did just that minutes ago in this very thread. He didn't have to move it to Off-Topic, and he even received praise from moderation. Is that official policy that applies to all users and all opinions on that issue?

It's been implied repeatedly that I must take a hint and consider them answered. I get exactly what you want, I'm not an idiot or irreflexive as many of you have said. But I'm not settling for that. I consider the "hint" that I must take from all that's been said to be a bigoted biased proposition, and I'm not going to "shut it and suck it". If you consider are so right about your position, why don't be bold and state it unambiguously here and now? You have the power to enforce all of this if that's what you want, but it seems you are afraid or ashamed of... something. I don't know, you tell me.

You know what... forget all that, just ban me already. I'm fed up with this. It's not worth it.
I'm leaving for I don't know how long. Maybe I'll come back some day and find out if I'm still a member or not.

Cheers.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: greynol on 2018-03-15 21:48:00
He's been a jerk about it since March 3rd.  I should have slapped a muzzle on him then.

To restate my stance:

1. Equating a non-scientific/faith-based (bullshit) approach for defending the need for 192kHz samplerates to the non-scientific/faith-based (bullshit) approach for defending creationism is perfectly OK.  Why?  It should be self evident: we are a science-based community that rejects the positing of faith-based (bullshit) arguments.

2. Pissing and moaning about #1 is not acceptable.

3. Engaging in a tangential discussion about how the two things in #1 are not the same in this topic is not acceptable; however taking the food-fight over to the off-topic forum will be allowed in order to appease the OP.  That is the best he can hope to get.

4. It's not fair?  Too bad, so sad.  The OP is no way obligated to continue digging this hole for himself.

@radorn

In response to the idiotic questions being asked of me which up to this point were somehow not addressed(?) by the policy that I've laid out:

Question #1:
When someone makes that kind of comparison, what kind of response is acceptable to show my disagreement?

Answer #1:
You respectfully state that you disagree and move on.  You don't tell someone to shut up either in English or whatever you think is the native language of the person to whom you're addressing.  Further attempts to squelch these comparisons which have since been deemed acceptable will not be tolerated.  Why?  See #1 above.

Question #2:
Is it acceptable to present the case that evolutionism is pseudocience in response to the same accusation expressed towards creation?

Answer #2:
Evolutionism (which to me is just a silly construct created by people who have a faith-based and adversarial world view) isn't pseudoscience.  But to humor you, see #3 above.

Question #3:
Is it also allowed to say that evolution is, and evolutionists say "bullshit", as others have said (repeatedly) about creation?

Answer #3:
See #3 above.

PS: Your recent post was removed since it was more of the same whining and I was already in the process of crafting this response.
Title: Re: more 192kHz nonsense?
Post by: eagleray on 2018-03-16 01:13:10
I have some suggestions:
Crank up your stereo and let someone complain about the noise.
Drive your car too fast and get a speeding ticket.
Buy an expensive bottle of single malt and drink it like it was cheap.
Anything but this...
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019