Aug 062006
 


The Infidels.org has a discussion board on the creation evolutionary controversy. IDers affectionately refer to it as the swamp. Sometimes the slimy swamp creature crawl out and start to menace society. Notice what happens when I show up at KCFS, the thread is swarmed by slimy creatures.

But as Tom Cruise said in Top Gun, “I love a target-rich environment!”

The standard template which I expect the opponent to employ:

1. misrepresentation
2. citation of irrelevant literature
3. a straw man knockdown, followed by, “this shows what an idiot sal is”
4. 5 or 6 piling on congratulating each other on the supposed refutation of my point
5. swarm and bait tactics will attempt to derail the conversation with red herrings
6. ad hominems a plenty
7. and they’ll respond to what ever I say by something like, “you proved nothing”

The effective counter strategy:

If one is arguing for a definsible position, then the proper debate technique in such an environment when out numbered 20-to-one is to go after a leadership target until the leadership target is vanquished. Repeat the process for the remaining. At the end, only compulsive spamming die-hards will be left.

Some of the lesser targets will only be like land mines as they’re so logically challenged, they go into Chewbacca Defense Mode just by the mere act of debating!

These threads can go up to a thousand posts with the other side compulsively trying to have the last definitive word.

It’s good batting practice for me at keeping one’s cool and finding innovative and witty ways to slam ones opponent in debate.

  9 Responses to “KCFS, Swamp, and Panda slimeballs are attacking me, but I love a target-rich environment”

  1. ID critics (like Barbara Forrest) deceptively manufacture connections between Creationism with ID, based on some pro-ID advocates are also creationists. This is total hypocrisy when you have a large adherence to Atheism by Darwinists and their premiere website like infidels.org.

  2. When the other side is resorting to insults and ad hominems rather than reasoned dialogue that is a concession. This comment was so rude, even Krebs had to move it off the thread:

    moved comment

  3. “infintile”? “chipmonks”?
    Since we all make them I usually think it’s a little undignified (and generally irrelevant) to comment on spelling errors.
    But in a rant where a person calls his opponent an “idiot” and mocks his “intellect” and “smarts” you’d think a little more care would be warranted.
    Then again, the spelling errors were the classiest thing about the comment.

  4. As a veteran of many battles in “The Swamp” (as Sal calls it), I can attest to the truth of Sal’s template. It’s boilerplate Darwinism at its best (or worst, as the case may be!). But here’s the thing that constantly amazes me. All of these attacks come from a crowd that prides itself in following logic and reason and scientific method in order to reach what they consider to be valid conclusions about reality, life, nature, etc. But when one of their own commits such obvious fallacies such as the ones to which Sal refers, you never hear one peep from any of the swamp rats…never ever!! But, should an evolution doubter, creationist or IDP commit some far less egregious fallacy of logic (or, God forbid, a simple tipo), then the swamp rats go into feeding frenzy mode!! Would they held each other to the same standards of logic and reason that they expect, nay demand from IDPs. But such is the price of disingenousness, deception and delusion!

  5. Thank you all for the kind words.

    Now what is happening is the other side will start just spamming the thread. They’ll be taking lot’s of cheap shots, etc. If I respond to the cheap shot’s even politely, it ends up being a ping-pong of the form:

    Greg: green is blue, and you think angels make planets orbit

    Sal : that’s not so

    Greg: yes it is

    Sal : no it’s not

    Greg: yes it is

    Etc.

    And a deliberate stalemate ensues. The thread is effectively shut down if I allow it to go there. This is known as a “thread closing tactic” . The nuclear option where the other side wants to have everyone sink rather than allow on side to prevail.

    The proper tactic then is to simply keep putting facts on the table, ignoring insubstantive jabs. There will be many jabs and the other side will vent trash the thread as best that they can with irrelevancies, insults and red herrings.

  6. Sal writes:

    The proper tactic then is to simply keep putting facts on the table, ignoring insubstantive jabs. There will be many jabs and the other side will vent trash the thread as best that they can with irrelevancies, insults and red herrings.

    If their side can demand logical, scientific purity from our side, then we should extend the courtesy the other way. Perhaps judicious use of the moderator’s power to delete would be in order from time to time.

  7. High everyone,

    The thread currently in question is Parallel Thread, Keeping my promise….

    Salvador

  8. Well it just shows level of their culture and intelligence. Anti-intellectual tone of their posts are striking.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.