Choosing hats has decided to create a post personally attacking me. You can view the post at choosinghats.com. This originated with a complaint about their comment practices started by another blogger named Rosa Rubicondior who tweeted that they were deleting comments. I replied with a follow up tweet claiming they selectively filter comments by posting a screen shot of a comment that has still never made it out of moderation. In my tweet, I used the term "more proof". Apparently they did not like my use of the term "more proof" and decided it better to personally attack me instead of just approving the comment.
After reading the attack post choosing hats created I felt obligated to comment on it to clear up some misunderstanding on their part or at least to defend my self. The comment I made was submitted on December 22 2011 at 11:28 and as the time of this post has still not been approved. Of course other comments have been approved after I submitted mine so its not as though they haven't seed it yet. Since they are obviously not going to approve it I felt this would be as good as anyplace to post it.
My comment to choosing hats submitted on December 22 2011 at 11:28. (Still awaiting moderation)
I find it very interesting that you have the time to create a whole post about the petty issue of your comment practices and how atheists have such a problem with it yet you do not have the time to click the approve button on the comment its self. As for the difference between deleting comments and selectively filtering them, I see very little difference when comment moderation is on. Why would a moderator need to delete a comment they can just not approve in the first place? As you pointed out, I more accurately described the situation by using the phrase “selectively filter” so as to clarify that I was not making an accusation that was untrue. I admit that my use of the phrase “more proof” may have been ill advised but still not entirely inaccurate when compared to the screen shot that was actually shown of Rosas comment *awaiting moderation*.
The comment of mine in question did not violate any of your comment policy and was a response to another comment made on the post (not the post itself as you indicate). The excuse given by a CH moderator is that time was not available to approve the comment. This is obviously false since time seems to be quite available as indicated by this post alone and my original comment is still awaiting moderation. Anyway, I feel this is all quite petty as I have already indicated even before you wrote this post. Of course you did not point this fact out and instead tried to make it look like I believe there is some conspiracy.
“Note that Jnani does not ask any questions. He does not provide any arguments. He just gainsays what was asserted in the post. So in response to Jnani’s comment I can just say, “Nope, there is not any ought, purpose, or meaning in the unbelieving worldview, and there are issues with these things in a naturalist worldview despite the alleged existence of subjective (whatever that is supposed to mean) conscious beings.” I might continue, “It is not flat wrong, but rather it is right, to say that there is randomness in a naturalistic worldview, and the Christian worldview does not have anything like a ‘problem of randomness,’ since God does everything in accord with His immutable nature.””
Not all comments need ask a question or outline an argument, as evidence by the comment I was replying to. My comment was making a correction to what I believe was a gross overgeneralization made by another commenter. You may disagree with me but to create a whole post about some petty issue of comment moderation and then just “gainsay” the comment in question seems a bit odd. If you disagree with my comment the appropriate place would have been to just respond to it where it was.
“I agree with what Paul Manata said to Jnani, “You state these things so matter-of-factly, as if reasonable and well-informed people do not disagree with you…” “
As pointed out to Paul, I do say some things so matter-of-factly. It’s called taking a position. If it is a problem to take a position on something then I guess we all have problems.
As pointed out to Paul, I do say some things so matter-of-factly. It’s called taking a position. If it is a problem to take a position on something then I guess we all have problems.
We all know you have issues with how my WV deals with things like induction but your sneaking in: “Jnani falsely thinks that determinism solves the problem of induction” is quite funny, as my comment in question does not address POI. In fact if I remember correctly, we had quite a long conversation about the very topic of POI a while back. I also remember we were supposed to have a public skype discussion/debate on the matter and you backed out. When you decide to get over the petty issues and deal with something of substance, the offer is still open.
Thanks,
Jnani
Jnani
