Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gillianren
No, but way more ATM proponents than mainstream proponents.
|
How much is "way more"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gillianren
Oh, and I think if you show examples of genuine intellectual dishonesty, whether it's against the letter of any given rule or not, action will be taken no matter which side of the argument the person is on.
|
If it's not against any rule, what's the action that can be taken?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Who said they aren't?
|
I said that according to the rules they aren't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
If somebody states something is well accepted, but it isn't, or they state it incorrectly they can be and usually are corrected.
|
Yes, in many cases things go well even without rules, but not always.
[Skipping the rant about ATM proponents]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Sounds to me like that isn't a mainstream proponent, and you can expect mainstream proponents to find issue with their argument. If they continue with false mainstream arguments, they will be asked to support them like any other ATM proponent.
|
If the person argues against some ATM-idea while doing that, then that person is mainstream proponent which probably is not best of terms but it's commonly used in this context.
I've seen some instances where some fair minded mainstream proponent corrects another, but I haven't seen a single instance of moderator making an intervention and demanding mainstream proponent to support their sayings when that mainstream proponent is repeating false arguments.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Then they should ask for clarification.
|
Yes, and I'm talking about what to do in the situations where those queries for clarifications are just ignored.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
I disagree with that.
|
Current rules don't hold mainstream proponents responsible of their sayings besides insults and other such things. The fact that sometimes things work out even without rules is besides the point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Assuming that you mean "questions posed to mainstream proponents by ATM'ers", then I certainly have no problem with that except in cases where those "questions" are an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the ATM proponent...
|
Yes, I meant basically that, but I think that generally anyone who is making an argument should be held responsible for that argument. Sometimes that responsibility might not be more than just pointing out a basic physics text, but I think that the responsibility should be explicitly mentioned in the rules for everyone, not just ATM proponents.
And I do think that questions (and challenges, critiques, etc) should be, as Nereid says, pertinent in order to fall under this rule. Question attempting to shift a burden of proof is not pertinent I think.