Destroyer wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

theropod wrote:

I will not, and did not, hesitate to express my opinion on this matter. I reported several of his posts and made a couple detailed statements to the moderation team regard what I saw as blatant trolling. Ultimately it was a choice made by the mod team. The reason the report page has a text box is for the very reason of gathering member input about all reports that are filed. Whether you like it or not the mod team acted in a manner they saw fit. Why you are whipping this dead horse baffles.

I find your complaints misplaced, and are themselves sailing close to the wind of trolling. What you apparently fail to grasp is that Kafei was banned for posting in a manner that didn’t lend itself to rational discourse. You opinion not withstanding.

RS

I will leave it up to the members and lurkers with integrity to determine whether or not Kafei's posts contained rational content... The biased view here seems to be that because he presented nothing that resembled scientific evidence, his persistence that the research supported his claims, was indeed Trolling... I, however, say that his persistence was indicative of a man with conviction.

Excellent well poisoning there and an interesting comment when kefai demonstrated little to no integrity in this thread whatsoever. Whether he believed the crap he was selling here or not is beside the point. He consistently misrepresented the science and the evidence he presented here, even after being corrected over and over again.* It doesn’t matter whether dishonesty in discussion here is to the membership or to oneself, it amounts to the same outcome – a thread of thousands of posts that obfuscates facts and goes nowhere. That’s not why this discussion board exists.

It is for that very reason that I reported him calling for him to be banned which thankfully produced the desired result.

*additionally, spamming these threads with the same lengthy Youtube videos over and over again, not citing, quoting, or even paraphrasing the content with time stamps. There should be a rule about Youtube spamming as evidential support in the FUA but that’s for another discussion.

This will be my final post in this thread.

There may well be justifiable grounds for not accepting Kafei's defence of his argument as containing evidential scientific support - as he himself kept insisting. As for obfuscating facts, that is the opinion of Kafei's opponents in this debate, and therefore of no interest to me unless presented with unbiased evidential support... Obviously, the man was repetitive: he had numerous opponents and refused to surrender.

However, his fundamental claim, that a certain dose of this particular drug induced mystical experiences has only been seriously challenged by a handful who claim to have taken that amount themselves without experiencing the mystical. So, when all is said and done, it is just their word against Kafei's claims. That is the sum total of this whole debate irrespective of all else that has gone on here.

lol

Destroyer wrote:
However, his fundamental claim, that a certain dose of this particular drug induced mystical experiences has only been seriously challenged by a handful who claim to have taken that amount themselves without experiencing the mystical. So, when all is said and done, it is just their word against Kafei's claims. That is the sum total of this whole debate irrespective of all else that has gone on here.

I think the 'claim' "this particular drug induced mystical experiences" is uncontentious, He made some claims about this being "universal" which were entirely unsubstantiated, indeed the research he referred to showed the opposite.
And there was zero evidential support for these experiences actually being mystical, The research didn't claim that and in turns Kafei said the same, then later mentioned "seeing God", always careful to avoid making a definite claim about one or the other.

So the trivial substance of the 'claim' was that this drug is one instigator of range of mystical-seeming experiences in some subjects.
Universality was refuted. Mysticism was unsubstantiated.
He also claimed that these mystical-seeming experiences were a common inspiraton for many religions but he never went into that and he evaded the obvious implication that that a religion inspired by halucinations isn't worth much.
What a vacuous waste of time it all was.

Given how long he was allowed to preach this drivel I think he was very fairly treated overall.

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
However, his fundamental claim, that a certain dose of this particular drug induced mystical experiences has only been seriously challenged by a handful who claim to have taken that amount themselves without experiencing the mystical. So, when all is said and done, it is just their word against Kafei's claims. That is the sum total of this whole debate irrespective of all else that has gone on here.

I think the 'claim' "this particular drug induced mystical experiences" is uncontentious, He made some claims about this being "universal" which were entirely unsubstantiated, indeed the research he referred to showed the opposite.
And there was zero evidential support for these experiences actually being mystical, The research didn't claim that and in turns Kafei said the same, then later mentioned "seeing God", always careful to avoid making a definite claim about one or the other.

So the trivial substance of the 'claim' was that this drug is one instigator of range of mystical-seeming experiences in some subjects.
Universality was refuted. Mysticism was unsubstantiated.
He also claimed that these mystical-seeming experiences were a common inspiraton for many religions but he never went into that and he evaded the obvious implication that that a religion inspired by halucinations isn't worth much.
What a vacuous waste of time it all was.

Given how long he was allowed to preach this drivel I think he was very fairly treated overall.

Occasionally the density of the replies are such that even I feel obliged to go against my wishes.

If due attention had been paid to my previous post then everything that followed becomes redundant. I clearly stated that Kafei's claims to having scientific support need not be a part of the equation. Therefore the replies by yourself and therapod clearly took no account of this.

Since we can assume that Kafei's argument cannot be scientifically supported, where do we stand? Kafei, at most, could have been given warnings for preaching. That in itself could have seen him alter his approach: if he realized that persistent unsubstantiated claims about 'universality' or 'conversion of atheists' when under the influence of this drug simply would not be tolerated and would have to be classified as preaching unless he presented the evidence.

Warnings for preaching, I would have considered appropriate under the circumstances.

The fact is that any one of us can be banned for any reason or none, at any time. We're here at the owner's discretion, and he has conferred that power to the mods. Often a ban takes place that various people think is not fair. I can see why you would want to voice your objection, but it seems pretty clear that the mods viewed his repeated failure to engage in honest discourse as amounting to trolling and kicked him.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:I clearly stated that Kafei's claims to having scientific support need not be a part of the equation.

But they do need to be, they made up the bulk of his posts, and drew the bulk of responses. Specifically they contain, almost in its entirety, the disputed material. You can't give those posts a free pass because of the content of the rest.

No. They do not need to be if the man is given a warning from the outset. If he clearly understands that unsubstantiated claims of this nature will not be tolerated, he is then put on guard about his offences.

Destroyer wrote:
Since we can assume that Kafei's argument cannot be scientifically supported, where do we stand? Kafei, at most, could have been given warnings for preaching. That in itself could have seen him alter his approach: if he realized that persistent unsubstantiated claims about 'universality' or 'conversion of atheists' when under the influence of this drug simply would not be tolerated and would have to be classified as preaching unless he presented the evidence.

Warnings for preaching, I would have considered appropriate under the circumstances.

Kafei's attention was draw to this very point several times I believe, but he did not change his behavior. He just didn't listen, he just repeated those claims over and over, never engaging with the criticism. It was always "you don't understand..."

GrahamH wrote:

Destroyer wrote:
Since we can assume that Kafei's argument cannot be scientifically supported, where do we stand? Kafei, at most, could have been given warnings for preaching. That in itself could have seen him alter his approach: if he realized that persistent unsubstantiated claims about 'universality' or 'conversion of atheists' when under the influence of this drug simply would not be tolerated and would have to be classified as preaching unless he presented the evidence.

Warnings for preaching, I would have considered appropriate under the circumstances.

Kafei's attention was draw to this very point several times I believe, but he did not change his behavior. He just didn't listen, he just repeated those claims over and over, never engaging with the criticism. It was always "you don't understand..."

He needed to be officially warned.

He didn't, clearly.

Destroyer wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

theropod wrote:

I will not, and did not, hesitate to express my opinion on this matter. I reported several of his posts and made a couple detailed statements to the moderation team regard what I saw as blatant trolling. Ultimately it was a choice made by the mod team. The reason the report page has a text box is for the very reason of gathering member input about all reports that are filed. Whether you like it or not the mod team acted in a manner they saw fit. Why you are whipping this dead horse baffles.

I find your complaints misplaced, and are themselves sailing close to the wind of trolling. What you apparently fail to grasp is that Kafei was banned for posting in a manner that didn’t lend itself to rational discourse. You opinion not withstanding.

RS

I will leave it up to the members and lurkers with integrity to determine whether or not Kafei's posts contained rational content... The biased view here seems to be that because he presented nothing that resembled scientific evidence, his persistence that the research supported his claims, was indeed Trolling... I, however, say that his persistence was indicative of a man with conviction.

Excellent well poisoning there and an interesting comment when kefai demonstrated little to no integrity in this thread whatsoever. Whether he believed the crap he was selling here or not is beside the point. He consistently misrepresented the science and the evidence he presented here, even after being corrected over and over again.* It doesn’t matter whether dishonesty in discussion here is to the membership or to oneself, it amounts to the same outcome – a thread of thousands of posts that obfuscates facts and goes nowhere. That’s not why this discussion board exists.

It is for that very reason that I reported him calling for him to be banned which thankfully produced the desired result.

*additionally, spamming these threads with the same lengthy Youtube videos over and over again, not citing, quoting, or even paraphrasing the content with time stamps. There should be a rule about Youtube spamming as evidential support in the FUA but that’s for another discussion.

This will be my final post in this thread.

I don't believe you.

Destroyer wrote:There may well be justifiable grounds for not accepting Kafei's defence of his argument as containing evidential scientific support

You keep trying to frame this as a matter of opinion, but that won't make it so.
It is a fact that Kafei consistently failed to provide citations from reputable, scientific sources.

Destroyer wrote:- as he himself kept insisting.

Again, what someone insists is completely irrelevant, what matters is what they can demonstrate.
And Kafei consistently failed to provide evidence or scientific studies that supported his claims.

Destroyer wrote:
As for obfuscating facts, that is the opinion of Kafei's opponents in this debate,

I see that opinion is a term you don't properly understand.

Destroyer wrote:and therefore of no interest to me unless presented with unbiased evidential support... Obviously, the man was repetitive: he had numerous opponents and refused to surrender.

Again, any bias a person might have is irrelevant to the facts they present.
Your incessant well-poisoning only serves to demonstrate biased behavior on your part.

Destroyer wrote:
However, his fundamental claim, that a certain dose of this particular drug induced mystical experiences has only been seriously challenged by a handful who claim to have taken that amount themselves without experiencing the mystical.

I see burden of proof is another concept you don't understand.
Not only did Kafei completely fail to demonstrate the existence of the 'mystical', he could not even manage to present a rigorous definition.

Destroyer wrote:
So, when all is said and done, it is just their word against Kafei's claims.

Nope. That's what you're desperately trying to paint it as.
Facts are not a matter of opinion, no matter how many times you try to insist or imply that they are.

Destroyer wrote: That is the sum total of this whole debate irrespective of all else that has gone on here.

Nope, that is an irrational fiction of your own devising.

Fallible wrote:He didn't, clearly.

He wasn't, clearly.

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:I clearly stated that Kafei's claims to having scientific support need not be a part of the equation.

But they do need to be, they made up the bulk of his posts, and drew the bulk of responses. Specifically they contain, almost in its entirety, the disputed material. You can't give those posts a free pass because of the content of the rest.

No. They do not need to be if the man is given a warning from the outset. If he clearly understands that unsubstantiated claims of this nature will not be tolerated, he is then put on guard about his offences.

That's not taking them out of the equation at all. There's fractured logic here.

The question is whether the infraction they contain warrants an outright ban, or a series of warnings. You can't answer that question without looking at and considering their content.

Look, let's not beat around the bush here. Kafei made some claims which cannot be scientifically supported. If he had been warned about repeating those specific claims without supporting evidence, then who knows what would have followed.

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

But they do need to be, they made up the bulk of his posts, and drew the bulk of responses. Specifically they contain, almost in its entirety, the disputed material. You can't give those posts a free pass because of the content of the rest.

No. They do not need to be if the man is given a warning from the outset. If he clearly understands that unsubstantiated claims of this nature will not be tolerated, he is then put on guard about his offences.

That's not taking them out of the equation at all. There's fractured logic here.

The question is whether the infraction they contain warrants an outright ban, or a series of warnings. You can't answer that question without looking at and considering their content.

Look, let's not beat around the bush here. Kafei made some claims which cannot be scientifically supported. If he had been warned about repeating those specific claims without supporting evidence, then who knows what would have followed.

Further demonstration that you've no interest in the facts.
I pointed out to you, multiple times that, not only was Kafei warned by multiple participants, he had a history of preaching which already got him banned on other fora.

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:He didn't, clearly.

He wasn't, clearly.

Yeah? Your statement was that he needed to be.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

No. They do not need to be if the man is given a warning from the outset. If he clearly understands that unsubstantiated claims of this nature will not be tolerated, he is then put on guard about his offences.

That's not taking them out of the equation at all. There's fractured logic here.

The question is whether the infraction they contain warrants an outright ban, or a series of warnings. You can't answer that question without looking at and considering their content.

Look, let's not beat around the bush here. Kafei made some claims which cannot be scientifically supported. If he had been warned about repeating those specific claims without supporting evidence, then who knows what would have followed.

Further demonstration that you've no interest in the facts.
I pointed out to you, multiple times that, not only was Kafei warned by multiple participants, he had a history of preaching which already got him banned on other fora.

Preaching, plagiarism and quote mining, and the latter two he received moderator attention for.

Fallible wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Fallible wrote:He didn't, clearly.

He wasn't, clearly.

Yeah? Your statement was that he needed to be.

Yes, that's correct. He needed to be officially warned but clearly was not

Fallible wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Destroyer wrote:

Thommo wrote:

That's not taking them out of the equation at all. There's fractured logic here.

The question is whether the infraction they contain warrants an outright ban, or a series of warnings. You can't answer that question without looking at and considering their content.

Look, let's not beat around the bush here. Kafei made some claims which cannot be scientifically supported. If he had been warned about repeating those specific claims without supporting evidence, then who knows what would have followed.

Further demonstration that you've no interest in the facts.
I pointed out to you, multiple times that, not only was Kafei warned by multiple participants, he had a history of preaching which already got him banned on other fora.

Preaching, plagiarism and quote mining, and the latter two he received moderator attention for.

OK.

Why do you say he needed to be?

Fallible wrote:Why do you say he needed to be?

To put him on guard as to what will and will not be tolerated on the forum.