Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    Let's not jump into any ad hominem fallacies, fellas. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
    It would make sense that if you claim your opinion to be "highly educated", you could say how it became "highly educated".

    Well, you know, if you weren't entirely full of ****.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
      It would make sense that if you claim your opinion to be "highly educated", you could say how it became "highly educated".

      Well, you know, if you weren't entirely full of ****.
      Arguments speak for themselves. If I have highly-educated arguments, then it stands to reason that I'm highly educated on the subject.

      I'll let you decide whether or not my arguments are highly educated, and if you believe they are not, I'll be eagerly awaiting your counterarguments.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
        there are written accounts of Jesus being executed written by Romans, and hundreds of of written accounts by various people of Jesus existing, what more evidence do you need
        That is not evidence. There are hundreds of written accounts claiming that elves and fairies exist. You definition of proof would make ghosts, sea monsters, big foot and demons exist....

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
          there are written accounts of Jesus being executed written by Romans, and hundreds of of written accounts by various people of Jesus existing, what more evidence do you need
          Anything less than a 1080p, high-definition video recording fails to meet the Christ-denier's standards of evidence. Apparently, the level of evidence we use for every other historical figure -- credible written accounts -- doesn't apply here.

          Selective skepticism at its finest (or would that be worst?).

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
            Arguments speak for themselves. If I have highly-educated arguments, then it stands to reason that I'm highly educated on the subject.

            I'll let you decide whether or not my arguments are highly educated, and if you believe they are not, I'll be eagerly awaiting your counterarguments.
            I am fully willing to admit I am not highly educated on this subject. It's of little personal value to me.
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
              That is not evidence. There are hundreds of written accounts claiming that elves and fairies exist. You definition of proof would make ghosts, sea monsters, big foot and demons exist....
              You're conflating evidence and proof.

              Evidence is any data which increases the probability that a proposition is true.
              Proof is what is reached once the probability of a proposition being true reaches the point that it cannot be credibly denied.

              So, with that in mind, tell us, how do credible written accounts for Jesus Christ's existence not increase the probability that Jesus Christ existed? If you don't believe those written accounts are credible, then why not?

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                Did The Prophet exist? Did Bhudda, Cnfucious, Aritstotle, Plato, heck...did George Washington exist?
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                  You're conflating evidence and proof.

                  Evidence is any data which increases the probability that a proposition is true.
                  Proof is what is reached once the probability of a proposition being true reaches the point that it cannot be credibly denied.

                  So, with that in mind, tell us, how do credible written accounts for Jesus Christ's existence not increase the probability that Jesus Christ existed? If you don't believe those written accounts are credible, then why not?
                  The only written account about Jesus other than the Bible and other texts that the church ordered destroyed was a short statement by Josephus a Jew who wrote about happenings for the Romans. Those credible written accounts of Christ were written at least 70 years and most were 100 years after his death. None of them were written by people who knew or saw Jesus Christ. They were recording oral traditions. The fact that they claim that Jesus rose from the dead and raised the dead is plenty of reason to discount them....

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                    Anything less than a 1080p, high-definition video recording fails to meet the Christ-denier's standards of evidence. Apparently, the level of evidence we use for every other historical figure -- credible written accounts -- doesn't apply here.

                    Selective skepticism at its finest (or would that be worst?).
                    The amusing thing about this is that you would be the first to reject real evidence like discovering Christ's remains in a tomb or grave. Are you aware that there is a tomb for Jesus Christ in India? Show me the source for those Roman accounts of the execution of Jesus. I only know of one and that is by Josephus who barely mentions Jesus. What is your source for those written accounts of Christ's life? Were they done in Jesus' lifetime by people who actually met or saw him?

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
                      One can be very sure that they are not real. We are all atheists who have rejected hundreds of Gods. Rejecting a couple more won't make any difference. Evolution is real and anyone who does not believe in it should be put in the same cell with our politicians who deny climate change......
                      Exhibit X of one way in which an atheist can be dogmatic . . .

                      I wish they would simmer down a bit.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                        The teleological argument is exactly as I said: The belief that nature is designed and directed towards a goal.
                        You know what's weird? Depending on how I look up the word, 'teleology', I get apparently contradictory definitions.

                        Merriam-Webster seems to agree with what you're saying:

                        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleology

                        a : the study of evidences of design in nature
                        b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature
                        c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
                        2
                        : the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
                        3
                        : the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena
                        Yet when I look up the word using my Google Dictionary function in Chrome, here's what pops up:

                        The explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes
                        What the . . . ?

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          As to the education of GRH on the subject, I don't think he's talking about having a degree in a specific collegiate field, but rather that he's 'done his homework' on topics, concepts, arguments, themes related to the kinds of things we've been discussing here. I've read into it myself over the last few years (though I don't think to the extent he has), and from what I'm seeing, I think he has 'done his homework' on it and in this context is 'highly educated'. Not to say he can't be wrong about any given thing, just that I don't think he's pulling this out of his ***, either.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            By the way, didn't James Cameron have a documentary a few years back where they thought they found evidence of Christ having a wife and/or kids?

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                              comical... ignoramuses... ignorance...corrupt...comically-outdated...silly...pathetic
                              This is all I really read from you. I hear you attacking the holes in Darwinian evolution, but I never hear a legitimate, scientific argument for Intelligent Design.

                              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                              Darwinian theory has been revealed as one great big argument from ignorance. "I don't understand how it happens, therefore, it happens randomly." You could replace all of On the Origin with that single sentence and you'd in no way change the substance of the book.
                              I can play that game too: "Intelligent Design theory has been revealed as one great big argument from ignorance. 'I don't understand how it happens and science hasn't explained it yet, therefore, God an intelligent agent must have done it.' You could replace all of their arguments with that single sentence and you'd in no way change the substance of their arguments."

                              The key thing here, is that Intelligent Design simply is not science. It fails to qualify as a scientific theory. It asserts a conclusion that is not scientifically testable or sustained by further explanation. It hasn't proposed a scientific means of testing its claims. It's a position devoted almost entirely to attacking Darwinian evolution. It's the "God of the gaps" argument, which argues that because there are gaps in scientific knowledge, this MUST be evidence or proof for the existence of God.

                              "Welp, we can't explain this yet. Must be God." and "This biological structure looks and operates like a machine! Wait a minute...machines are MADE! But only intelligent beings make machines. Machines don't occur naturally. Oh wait, I got it. God!" is all I really hear from ID proponents.

                              Of course, ID proponents don't acutally use the term "God" because then they wouldn't be able to get ID into public school textbooks. Interesting that the term "intelligent design," as we know it today, popped up shortly after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court case, which ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools was unconstitutional.

                              So they renamed creationism "intelligent design" and once again tried to get it into public schools. And in the 2005, teaching intelligent design in public schools was ruled unconstitutional in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District federal case. The judge in the case, John E. Jones III (a Republican appointed by George W. Bush, by the way), wrote in his ruling, "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." (You can read the ruling here: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf)

                              If you haven't already, I encourage you all to watch the PBS documentary about this case, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI).To save GRH some time rebutting that case, you can just go here: http://www.discovery.org/a/2879 .

                              Again, this is all fine if you believe it. Some of you have stated that God cannot be scientifically proven and must be taken on faith. I'm fine with that. Just don't try to argue that it is science.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                I hope I live to see the day that all these people looking for the big secret to our existence, find out that we are basically just a very complex form of bacteria with a rather basic purpose.

                                Think about it for a second. The world is our host, and we are slowly, but surely, eating away at it, bit by bit. Name something on earth we don't destroy or consume? Take away our artificial sense of self worth and superiority, that every living thing probably has for reasons of survival, and what do you have? Well, I personally see a large group of organisms that breed at an extremely high rate and consume way more than they "need" to survive. And if god is looking the world through a microscope from far away, it would probably look pretty similar to bacteria destroying its host.

                                If it wasn't for our ridiculous need to feel important and superior, we might realize the easiest way to find our "reason" for existence is to study YOUR BEHAVIOR and how that fits into the big scheme of things. You don't learn about YOURSELF by looking at your environment, sure there are bits of information that apply to you, but at the end of the day you are studying the environment. Just like you don't learn much about a monkey by studying a tree and you don't learn much about a dog by studying his yard. So why the hell would you be looking for a god or trying to figure out how everything started to find a reason for YOUR existence? Do you expect him to tell you? Wouldn't that just lead you to more questions if anything?

                                It took us a long time to come up with the big bang theory, lol. That is a theory that basically everything started by nothing, exploding. What an incredible theory! I'm sure that is exactly what happened.

                                There is a definitely a reason for our existence. But it doesn't necessarily mean it is gonna be interesting.

                                What other reason for our existence could there be? Are we really a special being? Do we behave like one? Is Honey Boo Boo and her Mom.......Gods' image? What have we really given the world that was good for anything other than us? Is anything on earth, better off for our presence? Wouldn't we bring something substantial to the table if we had a special purpose? Would we choose to spread like cancer and destroy if we were godly in any way? I personally don't think so.

                                And I don't believe we have the capability of finding any of these answers because they don't exist in our reality. We are not special, we are not godly in any way, and we do not offer much to the rest of existence. I know that doesn't appeal to most people. And the truth is, we'll ask question after question until the world has gotten what it needed from us and we'll never have found any real answers, just more questions. I mean, we've already been at it for thousands of years and what have we really learned of value in this quest? Nothing. We have developed theories but people are no more sure about their place in the universe than they were 1000 years ago. For everything we learn, we prove something else isn't quite what we thought it to be. A god you can't prove exists, or that we evolved from monkeys are probably our best work to date. And it took us a long time to come to these conclusions, lol. We are not nearly as smart as we think we are people.

                                Look at GRH for example. That dude is so convinced he already knows something. But read his posts on this and what do you really have there? Did he offer up anything new, or of great worth? Did he clue you in on why you are here?

                                Nope.

                                He also is so arrogant about this, he believes we are gonna learn something substantial in the next 50 years. Think about that. We haven't even scratched the surface in studying our own minds or the environment we occupy, we have yet to step foot on anything outside of our own orbit. But we are gonna understand something so much more than that in just 50 more years? There is a lot of ground to cover and it's pretty ambitious to believe you'll ever understand, let alone in a relatively short period of time.

                                Would you define that belief as intelligent? Or maybe the thinking of a simple minded organism with an inflated sense of worth and ability?

                                And I'm not trying to degrade him or his opinions either, he is obviously someone who is well read on scientific theory and the specifics. He is also far more well spoken than I am on the matter. And I respect the fact he is passionate about what he believes and confident about it. But sometimes I think that "education" can hinder you from going into it with an open mind, which is crucial in a quest for truth, and not just self serving brain food.


                                JMO
                                Last edited by Taterhead; 05-02-2013, 12:54 PM.
                                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X