Debate talk:Is the government a religion?

Colophon/Explanatory note
The section Help with troll? has been moved here from the Chicken Coop. The CC version (ending with my own "Could/Should this thread be moved to the debate's talk page?"-comment) has thus been erased. Feel free to add stuff pertinent to a talkpage (i.e. metadebate issues such as how this debate should be conducted or structured). Have fun. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with troll?
A troll has hijacked a debate page I started. At first he seemed to be arguing in good faith, but after I kept pointing out logical fallacies in his attempts at arguing, he changed from what I now recognize as a concern troll to a flamer. He's hijacked the page where it's litterally comment after comment of stuff like "you're dumber than a nazi. Think about that when you jack off." and its just really gotten offensive and it's seriously detracting from actually having an adult debate. It's just page after page of moron and idiot etc to where its kind of bordering on vandalism. If someone really wanted to look into this topic, they would have to go through pages of juvenile trolling. Is there a way to edit out the posts that don't actually contribute to the actual debate in good faith? The debate is "Is the government a religion And the user is King Skeleton Please how can we ban him from spamming the page w/ juvenile poo flinging and such?LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeaaahhh, this isn't going to get you anywhere.--TiaC (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Waaaaah! Nasty man told me truth & I don't like it. Make him stop! Waaaaah! Scream!! (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While it is regrettable that King Skeleton took the low road of abusive language, with "moron" and "idiot" freely dished out, it looks like that response stemmed from a loss of patience with LogicMaster777's imperviousness to reasonable discourse. Others may read it differently, but I see a pattern of LM777 ignoring the overall picture, and picking at trifling, marginally relevant minutiae in the language of his interlocutors. That debate started with some terms poorly defined, and carried on with them cast differently from one moment to the next.
 * So, yeaaahhh, this isn't going to get you anywhere. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is inevitable considering the topic because the topic is riddled with the complication that we are trying to define a concept that is based on muddled and superstitious medieval philosophical traditions. And mainly for this reason: the terminology and the way it is used is complicated by a linguistic challenge in that the terms "state" can be equivocated and confused to refer to many things. So clarifying the use of the word is necessary to understanding the referent especially since it can have an abstract referent or a concrete referent and I think it's essential to the debate.
 * The central issue is: Is the state a reasoned scientific concept or is it based on dogma and faith, and also the anthropomorphizing reification of the state in the government religion.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Continued discussion of that central issue will be more appropriate on the debate page. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the worst case of "I must be right, because I told you I was" I've ever seen. Ikanreed (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I need to agree with King. LogicMaster can’t seem to describe what he thinks and why to the point anyone else can even understand what he is saying.  Mostly because Logic keeps changing the definition of his beliefs repeatedly.  Everyone seems to understand the problem though.  Like claiming 1+1 = banana, sometimes people are just wrong and not the world around them.
 * To me If you can’t understand what uneducated illiterate tribal humans understood 4,000 years ago, as some sort of governing body is needed, it does make one an idiot. It might be insulting to be called an idiot; it's not really an insult if it is an accurate estimation of the problem.  Any more than someone who lies being called a liar or someone who steals being called a thief (just examples, not calling anyone those). EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, sonny, the consensus seems to be that you, yourself, aren't contributing to the debate in good faith. Can you understand why that is? --Maxus (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a logical explanation?LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I want to have a good faith debate on the actual issue but I am stale mated by an edit war situation. I would like to address actual arguments but until the edit war has reached a negotiated truce I cannot participate in a real debate since I will just risk being edited out.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You've had a week of people asking you to act in good faith and you have decided to act in bad faith every time...why should anyone believe you now? The thing about lying repeatedly is that even if you finally decide to act truthfully no one believes you because they can't differentiate it from all the times you lied before.  The only thing that seems to be forcing you into a truce now is that you tried, and failed, to get people who disagree with you banned and failed.  Do you honestly think people don't have a memory or can't read?  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * When have I ever acted in bad faith?!?! Merely repeating an accusation is not evidence. I have never done anything in bad faith. Provide some evidence to back it. If we have debaters who refuse to stop cluttering the page with personal attacks, they are showing themselves to be acting in bad faith. What kind of debater goes into a debate with the objection that they refuse to adhere to a no ad hiominem or no personal attack rule. They clutter up the whole page with personal attacks. If you HAVE to insist on a "right" to hijack the whole debate with personal attacks, how are you showing good faith. I just want a section of the page where there will be a logic-based debate without trolls hijacking a logic and reason based debate .LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read it over and over. Willful ignorance is just more lying.  As I stated before, it is not a personal attack to call someone stupid if they are being so.  It's earlier on this page so more lying.  Why should anyone waste any time with someone that has no integrity?  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe what he means is "for some amazing and inexplicable reason people aren't accepting my attempt to label the entire existing debate as trolling and appoint myself as moderator of it." He's quite the autocrat for an anarchist. :PKing Skeleton (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What kind of debater goes into a logic-based debate saying they refuse to have an ad-hominem free zone. "I simply refuse to allow there to be one area of the page I can't clutter up with ad hominem" WTF? If it's based on ad hom, its not logic. If it's By insisting that you have the "Right" to clutter up any part of the page yo want with ad hom, you show you are acting in bad faith.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A true logician woud not go into a debate saying "No, we can't have a debate without personal attacks and ad hom, I reserve the "right" to bring fallacies into the logic-based debate"? Seriously? GTFO.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you insist that you have to use a known fallacy, you show yourself to be only trying to "win" rather than debate usin logic to establish truth.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As usual you don't understand logic. As has already been explained to you, ad hominem is a logical fallacy where an insult is used to falsify a premise. The insults we are using are conclusions based on your behaviour and methods. They are completely valid logical inferences. What you are using here is called the style over substance fallacy, which takes the way an argument is presented as indicative of it's truth value.
 * You know what someone who slings insults in a debate is? Honest. I'd rather debate with someone who's willing to call me a fucker than someone who's going to be trying to score points by being superficially polite. King Skeleton (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I really don't care if you are a fucker because it's irrelevant to the debate. You can be a fucker and still be right. I just want to debate based on logic.Even if what you say is true, that you have proof that I'm an idiot, how is it directly relevant to the issue up for debate? You just said you aren't using it to falsify any premises, so... kind of begs the question: Why you feel it needs to be cluttering up the whole page where the actual debate should happen? Your refusal to keep you irrelevant personal attacks out of the actual logical debate where the main issues are being debated shows your deliberate intent to clutter and hijack the page and the debate. Bad faith trolling. I want that out of the main debate, why do you need it to be there if you admitted it is irrelevant to the premises being debated? LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This would imply you had studiously attempted to keep the debate on-topic rather than using dishonest delaying tactics like asking people to define common words and ignoring the meat of people's posts to focus on minor points of order. People started insulting you because they got fed up with someone who clearly had no intention of conducting an honest debate. This you're doing now being yet another example of doing anything but addressing the meat of people's arguments. Do you think people can't see the points I made which you ignored to focus on this "boo hoo, I'm being insulted" style over substance crap? King Skeleton (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol asking you to define your terms is why you need to hijack the debate.

"Do you think people can't see the points I made which you ignored to focus on this "boo hoo, I'm being insulted" style over substance crap? " Lol, the points you made are buried in pages pof clutter. I want your actual points in the actual debate. I'm not trying to censor you out but do not clutter the real debate w/ side issues and insults, ok? Can we do this? Keep that at the bottom of the page, or else we can put your insult section right at the top so you can be the star of the show with your insult comic routine and then the real debate can be at the bottom but plz do not hijack the real debate.LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So this is "polite," is it? Contemptuous, dismissive, haughty and condescending? You have no idea how bad your own behaviour is under that veneer of superficial politeness, do you? King Skeleton (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I'll admit my bias: I went through a process similar to King Skeleton: I received no cogent replies from LogicMaster777 except questions which either ignored my objections, mangled them, or redefined the terms (try to search for family/families for one illustrative example). Finally, when I got fed up and instead did a post-mortem (as the debate really never got anywhere) focussing on the lame techniques employed by LogicMaster777, I was accused of being a troll.
 * I seriously considered undoing King Skeleton's revert but decided against it: While I agree that LogicMaster777 might get some mileage out of "rebooting" the debate (and perhaps doing a better job the second time around), the division into "Troll zones" and "Troll-free zones" is just begging for LogicMaster777 to ignore anything uncomfortable by claiming that stuff posted in the "Troll-free zone" is just the product of "poo-flinging statist trolls" (apparently the phrase du jour).
 * Instead, I've created a simple structure with a "Proposition 1.1" section and a "Responses 1.1" subsection (as someone had already posted a new reply, but in the "symbolic logic only" section).
 * And just for the record, LogicMaster777's definition of King Skeleton as a troll seems to be roughly that of "persistent person who disagrees with me and in frustration over my consistent lack of serious response is ridiculing me". King Skeleton has written plenty of cogent replies in the beginning of their exchange and only got harsh when LogicMaster777 kept on with the nonsensical reiterations that any evidence for the existence of states was not real (by "redefining it out of existence"). ScepticWombat (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, I am not trying to gloss over your points, but there is so much to get to and I have a life away from here. Not trying to ignore/gloss over. King Skeleton: Sorry you feel that way. Maybe I'm a prick to you more than I want to acknowledge. I don't just presume I am right and you are wrong(or try not to). I think a lot of your challenges made some good points. Wombat: how about we just make it personal attack free and ad hom free, saying troll free implies what you say that I want to dismiss dissent as "troll". I don't. I want your arguments in there without having to get it hijacked. I think Red had some good points I do not want to censor them out. I also think a lot of my stuff went off the rails into irrelevancy and that should be in the "less relevant" zone as well. It's not about getting rid of statists to promote anarchy although I acknowledge I may have a bias (I am trying to be objective). It's about getting out irrelevant clutter to focus on the directly relevant. Actually statism v anarchy should be kept to a minimum so my "statists act like this" stuff is really not fair to have in there either.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about a "directly relevant" section and a "tangential" section since it doesn't carry a prejudicial connotation.?LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I vote 'no'. I can see how that might be appealing, but the reality is that this technological format is not well-suited to multi-person debates and such workarounds don't cure it. It gets messy and that's annoying at times. Sorry 'bout that. MarmotHead (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's just level for a moment here: your central point is that your opponents are wrong about the contents of their own minds, and that they are irrational. This is unfalsifiable since your opponents rejecting your argument serves as proof, because you have pre-determined yourself to be rational. You can't hold a rational debate if you've rigged it so only you can possibly win. In general if your terms include "if everyone says I'm wrong I still win" something has gone wrong somewhere.
 * If you actually want to have this debate, you'd be far better adjusting your claim in light of the current evidence (ie, that the assembled people do believe there is such a thing as the state). You might want to start by asking us what we believe the state is and then listening to the answers rather than trying to show why they're wrong. King Skeleton (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest moving this thread back to the relevant debate page. It really doesn't look like Chicken Coop business. 01:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * [moderator hat on] +1. LogicMaster, please stop wasting everyone else's time - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Could/Should this thread be moved to the debate's talk page? I mean, it is kind of talk page stuff anyway (bickering over the way the debate should be conducted and structured), and the talk page is currently completely empty. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Something sensible in this discussion! Good move ScepticWombat.--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Useful additions to rhetoric articles.
I've noticed that there have been a number of productive edits made to our articles on rhetoric that seem to be inspired by this debate. In the interest of getting something productive out of it, I'd like to encourage that this continues. Please, when you see either a particularly inane position or a good explanation of a logical fallacy and the flaws within, look into adding material from it to the appropriate page. --TiaC (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)