Show Trial #1231 for Rueben.

[Enigma]

Being relatively humanitarian wimpy, I propose that he be sent to the mines, though I'm open to suggestions as to precisely which mines. Possibly salt mines? Uranium mines? Guano mines?

Land mines. :)

[Edi]

I think it is also important to mention that I was not given the full "four strike rule".

What's that I hear? Rules lawyering, looks like. Since you obviously now took the time to read the board policies to see what could help you, it actually does you no favors to go to lengthy detail about the Disciplinary Action rules after your behavior. That's because you obviously missed the

Imperial Rules

1. My House, My Rules. I own the forum. I pay for the hardware, I maintain the software, I pay for the bandwidth. As a guest in my house, you must recognize that I set the rules, not you. If you think that is unjust, TOO FUCKING BAD.
2. Let The Staff Decide. The administrative staff and Senate will decide what is an appropriate punishment when someone breaks the rules. Sometimes we may be in a lenient mood, but that does not tie our hands for the future.
3. No Lawyering. These rules are here to tell you what you can and can't do, but they do not define "rights" which you can throw in the faces of the staff if they agree that you've done something wrong. We have clarified rules or even added retroactive rules in the past (eg- the harassment rule) due to certain peoples' actions, and we are quite willing to do so again. In other words, this is not a court of law. Don't nitpick semantics or look for legal loopholes.

Namely IR2 and IR3. I'll let you in on a secret: Supermods (such as me) are not allowed to summarily ban people unless we're talking about spambots, child pornographers and similar scum. Otherwise you would have been gone long ago. Your case was discussed pretty extensively among the mod staff and the unanimous conclusion was that you're being dishonest through and through. Not coincidentally, that also seems to be the unanimous conclusion of the board at large. I wonder why. In any case, it was at the behest of the administrators of the board (who do have those summary ban powers) that this show trial was set up.

Do you have any other rules you would like to throw in our face?

[Ruben]

What's that I hear? Rules lawyering, looks like.

I did not assert that you have to do it, or that I have the right to it, but I do think you should consider it. After all, I don't think I am equal to the people you have on your current "shit" list. I do not go around harassing people, or Cyber stalking, or trolling, so, I don't understand why I am on the same list.

I'll let you in on a secret: Supermods (such as me) are not allowed to summarily ban people unless we're talking about spambots, child pornographers and similar scum.

You probably would have banned me on my first post.

Your case was discussed pretty extensively among the mod staff and the unanimous conclusion was that you're being dishonest through and through

I would honestly like to know how you define "dishonesty". Anyhow, on the the quote we mentioned, I was not dishonest, I took the facts out of the article. The article said quite clearly:

There was some truth to the underlying charge. Cathar teaching was that procreation enslaved more angels in human bodies. It followed that procreation was bad.

Notice: that the article said "some" truth to the charge, but the article is in reference to marriage, not reproduction. It asserts the reproduction charge as fact.

Then it again said:

The Second qualification is that in Cathar thought the horror of sex and reproduction applied principally to Parfaits (men) and Parfaites (women). Ordinary believers or credentes were not expected to remain chaste, though it would be desirable if they did so.

So, yes this does state, quite clearly, that the Cathars did "discourage" reproduction. I remind you that I did not say that they "prohibited" reproduction because that we be absurd for anyone, if I had said prohibited I you might have a case, but I did not. The word discourage, by the way, has a weak meaning:

2 a : to hinder by disfavoring <trying to discourage absenteeism> b : to dissuade or attempt to dissuade from doing something <tried to discourage her from going http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/DISCOURAGE

So, yes they did, by definition, discourage reproduction. Now, yes, the Author went into a whole apologetic spiel about how this was maintaining with the traditions of the early church, and was no different than what the Church was doing, but that is the opinion of the author, not a fact. The fact, as the article itself said, was that the Cathars viewed reproduction as undesirable. There is a difference between the Church's view of chastity, and celibacy, and that of the Cathars. Namely that the cathars, as the article itself admitted, believed reproduction was to be discouraged on the grounds that it enslaved angels. Where as in traditional Christianity, celibacy is for the purpose of dedication to God. I would challenge anyone on this forum, and the author of the article, to show that the early church ever taught anything similar to what the Cathars taught about reproduction. By the way, the Cathars take on Christianity is clearly wrong since genesis say "go fourth and multiply". Now, Edi, I ask you, how exactly is that dishonest?

But if you still need another source here is the encyclopedia of catharism

Sexual intercourse and reproduction propagated the slavery of spirit to flesh, and sexual abstinence was considered desirable even in matrimony. Informal relationships (what might be termed concubinage) may have been considered preferable to the social contract of marriage among Cathar credentes. Perfecti were expected to observe complete celebacy. Abandonment of a wife or husband (and abrogation of a social contract, though not necessarily a relationship of love) might be necessary for those who would become Perfecti.

The slaying of life was abhorrent to the Cathars, just as was the senseless copulation that produced enslavement in matter. Consequently, abstention from all animal food except fish was enjoined of the Perfecti. (The Perfecti apparently avoided eating anything considered to be a by-product of sexual reproduction, including cheese, eggs, milk and butter.) War and capital punishment were also absolutely condemned, an abnormality in the medieval age, and a fact that prohibited the Cathar Perfecti from bearing arms even in their own defense. http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Cat ... id/1009644

Notice that this is an objective source, where as the other one is a Cathar apologetics site. So, we have two sources that back up what I am saying, so how am I dishonest?

Not coincidentally, that also seems to be the unanimous conclusion of the board at larg

Yes, but they are also accusing Knobbyboy88 of the same things. Claiming dishonesty is a typical copout in a debate, all this proves is that people don't like what I have to say. I could just as easily accuse Thanas of dishonesty for saying that Theophilis was a saint, or claiming that Republic Spain was not anti-clerical (a fact another user attested to).

show trial

Let me ask you, is this a trial at all, because all the voting options end in me being banned?

So anyway, in conclusion, I still stress that you do not ban me, because I am not a spammer, or a hacker, or a troll, or dishonest for that matter. Of course, this is your decision, but I urge you to consider it.

[Mr. Coffee]

Um... Why are we having a showtrail for a sandwich?

[Dark Flame]

Why is he not realizing that the throwing around of insults is not indicative of anything at all? That's board SOP. It's not a sign of the "OMG PERSECUTION" that he thinks it is.

Hey dumbass, quit being a fucking martyr and own up to the fact that you lied and you're a jackass that can't decipher the difference between debating and douchebaggery. I say temp ban, then if he does it again throw him to the lions. Hell, he wants to entertain us, this is his shot...

[Oni Koneko Damien]

For what it's worth: He's actually kind of entertaining. Just look at how much he squeals and writhes when you poke him. Any other walking-dead-man would have either left in a huff or gone into meltdown and spammed themselves into oblivion. Granted it seems to be the only positive contribution he's made so far. I say keep the show-trial going just to see how shrill he gets, then dump him.

[Edi]

I'll let you in on a secret: Supermods (such as me) are not allowed to summarily ban people unless we're talking about spambots, child pornographers and similar scum.

You probably would have banned me on my first post.

Shows that you know very little. I read your first post, figured that the thread might become interesting or alternatively turn into a trainwreck. The latter happened. I expected that you would engage in behavior that would get you banned eventually, which is what happened in the debate postmortem thread.

Not coincidentally, that also seems to be the unanimous conclusion of the board at larg

Yes, but they are also accusing Knobbyboy88 of the same things. Claiming dishonesty is a typical copout in a debate, all this proves is that people don't like what I have to say. I could just as easily accuse Thanas of dishonesty for saying that Theophilis was a saint, or claiming that Republic Spain was not anti-clerical (a fact another user attested to).

Yes, he is called dishonest, and rightly so, because he uses the exact same kind of tactics that you do and simply repeats the same shit all over and lies about his sources even when his premises have been refuted, thus cutting the entire foundation out from under his argument.

show trial

Let me ask you, is this a trial at all, because all the voting options end in me being banned?

Took you long enough to figure that out, didn't it?

So anyway, in conclusion, I still stress that you do not ban me, because I am not a spammer, or a hacker, or a troll, or dishonest for that matter. Of course, this is your decision, but I urge you to consider it.

You're not a spammer, or a hacker, but you do fit the definition of a troll. Not the flaming, disruptive kind of troll who goes into threads to just wreck them with spam posts or snipe at people. Instead, you're the kind of troll one frequently encounters in various Miss Manners type forums where as long as you don't use swearwords, you can get away with almost anything, such as stonewalling and lying about sources, repeating arguments and nitpicking ad nauseam and obfuscating until everyone just quits a thread in disgust.

Your debate record stands for itself as a mark of your honesty, or more properly lack thereof. Your conduct wrt your sources and arguments has invariably been very similar to that of a Mafia boss denying any responsibility for a murder he ordered, citing the pretext that there is no gunpowder residue on his hands and that he was nowhere near the place when it happened. Even when it happened at his behest.

I won't ban you. I won't need to, because one of the other supermods or one of the admins will. It would be bad manners to enact arbitration of an argument that one takes part in, like I have done here. It would present...what's the term? Yes, conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest in things like this are not a good thing. Don't you agree?

In case you missed the cutting sarcasm and malice in that paragraph, that is exactly the kind of behavior you have been engaged in and defending and then going wide-eyed "Who, me?" when confronted with it.

[LaCroix]

Do you even bother to read what you post?

3. Strike Three. If the violations continue after warnings and privilege removal, or if the offense is deemed serious enough, we will escalate to a banning vote in the SenateShowtrial, since the regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Bans may be either temporary or permanent, but most bans are permanent.

emphasis/correction mine. We hate liars with a passion, a burning passion. A on the stake kind of burning passion.

And in your very first post you spouted bullshit about condoms being unreliable and aggravating the aids problem in Africa! The problem is people fucking around without condoms! That's about the biggest lie, ever!

[CaptainChewbacca]

SDN is like pirates. They're not rules, merely guidelines. If you make an ass/cock/pest of yourself, then you get bumped up the progression.

[Frank Hipper]

You probably would have banned me on my first post.

You know what pisses me off so much about this kind of shit?

Not JUST that it's a lie (who was it that was given a special forum and dedicated space to defend their position, and that after arguing the point at some length already?), not JUST that it's squeeling about a non-existant injustice, but that it's so fucking predictable I could have forecast it in my sleep.

How many times have I seen some sort of apologist with an agenda get their ass handed to them in a debate, seen them resort to any number of loathsome behaviors in the process, and in the end screech like scalded dogs about the other side being prejudiced and ignoring the perfection of their argumentation!

And why?

Because the opposing side doesn't fall to their knees in sycophantic paroxysms of gratitude for being shown the "error" of their ways.

Again, and again, and again, and again this happens.....



Look, when NO ONE in a diverse group of hundreds of people comes forward and says "Hey, this guy has a point!", maybe you're just fucking WRONG, idiot!

It doesn't matter if you're arguing a Truther, a Creationist, a Bush Republican, or a New Atlantean, they all shove their thumbs up their asses when pressed to the wall and bitch about "unfair bias" or some variant of it.

[Solauren]

Why is this annoying little shit-stain waste of bandwidth still on the board?

Are the executioners busy sharpening weapons or something?

[Zixinus]

Edi hits it right on the nail: Ruben's tactic hasn't been the use of logic, but very evasive and very accusative practice, of always maneuvering his way that he always makes his opponent to prove an unprovable premise, and uses Wikipedia or some apologist source to found his own premise. This practice shot himself in the foot when he thought no one would notice that he modifies one of his claims.

Back in the Colosseum he did something similar: he quoted Green to prove that condoms played no role in the initial success in fighting AIDS and sourced this argument on one, single page that is not available in the preview he cited.
It is my shame that my debating skills could not overcome his to show his lies.

It's actually a bit frightening: if someone is not highly educated or very keen in logic or at least not carefully check his sources, Ruben's argument might come across as honest. His trolling is very subtle and exploits innate human weaknesses rather than use logic.

Here he does nothing but follow the "admit nothing, deny everything and accuse everyone else" tactic, well-known to hypocrites.

[Wyrm]

Damn. No "Bludgeon repeatedly in the nads with a cricket bat, then ban," option. I feel my vote shall be uninspirational.

[Crossroads Inc.]

You probably would have banned me on my first post.

You know what pisses me off so much about this kind of shit?

Not JUST that it's a lie (who was it that was given a special forum and dedicated space to defend their position, and that after arguing the point at some length already?), not JUST that it's squeeling about a non-existant injustice, but that it's so fucking predictable I could have forecast it in my sleep.

How many times have I seen some sort of apologist with an agenda get their ass handed to them in a debate, seen them resort to any number of loathsome behaviors in the process, and in the end screech like scalded dogs about the other side being prejudiced and ignoring the perfection of their argumentation!

And why?

Because the opposing side doesn't fall to their knees in sycophantic paroxysms of gratitude for being shown the "error" of their ways.

Again, and again, and again, and again this happens.....

:x

Look, when NO ONE in a diverse group of hundreds of people comes forward and says "Hey, this guy has a point!", maybe you're just fucking WRONG, idiot!

It doesn't matter if you're arguing a Truther, a Creationist, a Bush Republican, or a New Atlantean, they all shove their thumbs up their asses when pressed to the wall and bitch about "unfair bias" or some variant of it.

HERE HERE Frank!

You have hit the nail on the head, and htis is something I hope people like Ruben eventually understand. Be it Bush supporters, Creationists, or Church Supporters, all of these people are colluded and protected in isolated groups where they are surrounded by people who Only Think the way They do... An Endless echo chamber affirming them that THEIR way is the RIGHT way and everyone else is wrong... More to the point, usually in the religious groups, they are tought time and again that through preaching this infallible 'truth' that others are bound to fall to thier knees and shout "Of course! How Blind I was to the truth!" and change their minds.

Personally despite what others have said, I don't think Ruben was a "Troll" I htink he was simply somone who was raised to believe his view point was totally correct and all others are totally wrong. "Critisim" is something his mind simply can't comprehend. And so when he runs head first into a whole bored of people who not just fail to instantly agree with him, but ,horror of horros, are willing to show he is Painfully wrong on a GREAT Many things... What other options does he have?

In the end people like him through up their arms in a rage, usually spouting "You never gave me a chance! You were all against me form the start! Persecution!!!" and then run away to thier warm protetive world where everyone will tell them hes right...

[Shroom Man 777]

He can go get fucked in the mouth.

[Zixinus]

Is he banned yet? I believe he sent me two lovely little PMs:

You don't know anything about the history of science.

Quotation: "The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science". (p. 7), Colin A. Russell "The Conflict Thesis", Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, Gary Ferngren, ed., Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0".

Quotation: "In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the ‘warfare between science and religion’ and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science". (p. 195) Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press Chicago, Ill..

Quotation: "In its traditional forms, the conflict thesis has been largely discredited." (p. 42) Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives.. Cambridge University Press.

. . . the story of the supposed opposition of the Church and the Popes and the ecclesiastical authorities to science in any of its branches, is founded entirely on mistaken notions. Most of it is quite imaginary. Much of it is due to the exaggeration of the significance of the Galileo incident. Only those who know nothing about the history of medicine and of science continue to harbor it. That Dr. White’s book, contradicted as it is so directly by all serious histories of medicine and of science, should have been read by so many thousands in this country, and should have been taken seriously by educated men, physicians, teachers, and even professors of science who want to know the history of their own sciences, only shows how easily even supposedly educated men may be led to follow their prejudices rather than their mental faculties, and emphasizes the fact that the tradition that there is no good that can possibly come out of the Nazareth of the times before the reformation, still dominates the intellects of many educated people who think that they are far from prejudice and have minds perfectly open to conviction. . . .

Walsh, James Joseph, The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time, Fordam University Press, New York 1908, p. 19.

Despite the growing number of scholarly modifications and rejections of the conflict model from the 1950's . . . in the 1970s leading historians of the nineteenth century still felt required to attack it. . . . Whatever the reason for the continued survival of the conflict thesis, two other books on the nineteenth century that were published in the 1970s hastened its final demise among historians of science. . . 1974. . . Frank Turner. . . Between Science and Religion . . . Even more decisive was the penetrating critique "Historians and Historiography" . . . [by] James Moore . . . at the beginning of his Post-Darwinian Controversies (1979).

Wilson, David B. The Historiography of Science and Religion in Ferngren, Gary B. (2002). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. p. 21, 23

While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.

Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)

Kepler's laws of planetary motion is also liked to The reformulation of physics in terms of energy and Christianity.

Barker, Peter, and Goldstein, Bernard R. "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy". Osiris, Volume 16: Science in Theistic Contexts, University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 88–113; Smith, Crosbie. The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The Athlone PRess, 1998.

Here are some more sources for you.

Ronald Numbers (Lecturer). (May 11 2006). Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective. [Video Lecture]. University of Cambridge (Howard Building,

“Templeton Foundation Post-dinner Discussion”, after the Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective lecture Ronald Numbers, 11 May 2006, at St Edmunds College, Cambridge; the transcript is available at http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/Numbers/

Jeffrey Russell. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback; New Ed edition (30 January 1997). ISBN 027595904X; ISBN 978-0275959043.

"the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences", are cited by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research.

Ronald Numbers (Lecturer). (May 11 2006). Myths and Truths in Science and Religion: A historical perspective. [Video Lecture]. University of Cambridge (Howard Building, Downing College): The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. (May 11 2006). Myths and Truth

Edit: Sorry the link to this one is dead

So, basically sir, you are wrong, and not just wrong, but...

Oh and this:

Since people on this forum love to hear me bitch about persecution check out this vid.

Pathetic isn't it?

[Lord Revan]

Being relatively humanitarian wimpy, I propose that he be sent to the mines, though I'm open to suggestions as to precisely which mines. Possibly salt mines? Uranium mines? Guano mines?

Land mines. :)

why waste good mines for that?

[Thanas]

I don't know why, but somehow the image of him sitting in his basement, clipping youtube videos together, sobbing about how he is just like Jesus, persecuted by the evil Edi and Thanas brings a distinct happiness to my heart.

[Zixinus]

Just curious: is anybody actually genuinely familiar with the literature he quotes? I am willing to bet that the one (and only one) that he links is an apologist source, I am curious whether he misrepresents the sources he didn't link.

[Shroom Man 777]

Wow. Oh man. Wow.

You should make "Be quiet" or whatever your catchphrase, Thanas. Edi must say "CRUCIFY HIM CRUCIFY HIM CRU-CRU-CRUCIFY HIM" as his catchphrase too!

ITS ON YOUR HEADS!

Man!

[Thanas]

He is talking about the conflict theory in its strictest form, which basically says the church generally and always oppressed science and hindered scientific growth. Of course that theory is outdated now and not a lot of people argue it anymore.

However, he is wrong if he thinks my posts are arguing the (strict) conflict theory. All I said was that the church destroyed scientific works and persecuted scientists. Thus, there was repression. I never argued that the church always oppressed every scientific work and that would be wrong, though I do not see how one should think that from my post, given that I never stated such. I gave specific examples of a repression of science in some ages and did not say the church always opposed scientific growth.

Like any organization that has absolute power, the church policy was not dictated by "one great plan" to destroy science. There are however numerous examples where the church opposed scientific growth, even in the modern times.

Ruben takes this to the extreme strawman of my stance being "the church always was and is anti-scientific." Of course, he only posts single lines or so from extensive works, meaning that I am willing to bet good money that he selectively quotes there at well.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Apparently, someone has too much time on his hands....

[Thanas]

Wow. Oh man. Wow.

You should make "Be quiet" or whatever your catchphrase, Thanas. Edi must say "CRUCIFY HIM CRUCIFY HIM CRU-CRU-CRUCIFY HIM" as his catchphrase too!

ITS ON YOUR HEADS!

Man!

But I already have a catchphrase - that is much more applicable.

Ban him.

I wonder whether I should pull out the old Panzertruppen uniform of my grandfather while saying it and record a youtube video.... oh wait, I am not Ruben and actually have a life.

[Shroom Man 777]

please thanas

do it

just record yourself in a uniform shrieking BAN HIM in an outrageous german accent

you can use it on anyone and everyone

even me

it will be glorious!

[Zixinus]

Yeah Thanas, that would be awesome.

EDIT: And I think Thanas's best catchphrase would be "You have no case". The way he presented it was just effective: no angry outbursts, no deep mockery, just statement of sources and facts, then dispassionately stating: you have no case.