While the newest of anyone adding to this thread so far,
not a bad thing mate fresh blood/fresh ideas
I have seen at least one thread where I believe this sort of behavior has happened. But IRL I know someone who has just enough knowledge to think he can participate on a higher level than he actually can but genuinely does not understand that when we correct him we are not bashing him and that he is wrong.
I would agree that some posters are not capable of many things, but I am talking about intransigence that is based on deliberate
intent, not on any other qualifier.
So, banning - the idea makes me very uncomfortable.
Agreed ......up to a point
I don't know what the moderators can do to restrict someone's posts but that would be somewhat better - but I do worry about it becoming a chore riding herd on the violator.
A suggestion: when such a violator is reported and if the moderator agrees that such deception is taking place then the violator is officially given a choice to come clean or be restricted in some fashion (depending upon how such things work). It will force the violator to face their own actions and take responsibility or suffer appropriate consequences.
A variation of this tool of persuasion does exist, it is The Emergency Room (ER).
You may not have noticed it as it is not used very often at all as fortunately most posters are either convinced in thread to amend their ways, or just run away.
ER does require mod oversight so no doubt it is an added and onerous duty, but it is designed so that us forumites have direct input in regards to our own view of what has gone on that has caused a poster to end up in ER.
Being new I do realize this might be what was already being suggested with several things unspoken and my lack of experience is making me obtuse. But better to suggest and be obvious than not say anything and have a solution go unproposed.
I had completely blanked from my mind the fact that ER exists so thank you for nudging that ossifying organ into gear.
I should have titled this thread as
Is intransigence in the face of proof acceptable on this forum? Or is blatant intransigence from a worthy cause for a ER visit?
I would think that this deceit and disregard would come under trolling as in the rules.
Mods when acting as mods really shouldn't in my biased opinion evaluate the brilliance or stupidity of a poster's argument or with the poster's personal biases or even with a poster's ability to comprehend counter arguments.
Agreed (with qualifiers) eg... apart from the need to judge how deliberate some provocative behaviour may be ...etc.
But Rick that was never part of this question anyway.
If X seems to disregard obvious evidence, a smite from the user community seems like an obvious appropriate response. Mods when acting as users, are allowed to use the smite button and call out blatant stupidity as they see fit.
Smiting may have a positive effect, but I honestly think it is only the smiter who gets that non-negative return. Most smitees seem to arc up or if thick-skinned enough, just don't give a shit.
And I am asking just what tolerance to lying and dodging the forum is willing to show?
Smiting has proven completely ineffective with X, and we are left with deciding does the type of intransigent poster of the title needs further adjustment?
The evidence for theism, doesn't exist in a scientific sense. At best, the most intelligent arguments are indirect and consider the following:
2) the unknown
3) personal experience.
Some theists are quite stupid. I mean, some of the videos for CSE Ministries denying obvious points of science ...
again, you appear to be addressing a different question than what I'm asking mate.