ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags internet incidents , internet issues , John Synott , madeleine mccann , manfromatlan , trolling

Reply
Old 29th April 2017, 08:34 AM   #241
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,375
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
What a train wreck of a thread. And a hidden agenda of a train wreck at that. Utterly unsurprising, of course.
As a lurker, I wish I could like this response since it pretty much nails it.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2017, 01:03 PM   #242
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 17,901
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
What a train wreck of a thread. And a hidden agenda of a train wreck at that. Utterly unsurprising, of course.
As a lurker, I wish I could like this response since it pretty much nails it.

The thread is bait?

__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 01:46 AM   #243
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,784
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
What a train wreck of a thread. And a hidden agenda of a train wreck at that. Utterly unsurprising, of course.
Logical fallacy: 'I declare this thread rubbish, therefore it is closed'.

Translated: 'I have badly lost my side of the debate and used terrible examples. I even invoked Godwin.'
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11

Last edited by Vixen; 1st May 2017 at 02:43 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 02:03 AM   #244
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,784
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No, Vixen. It's a quick and easy way to expose your ridiculous "argument" that "Why would anyone be scared of an opinion?" by presenting to you some opinions which some people would indeed be scared of - and which some people (in fact, all reasonable people) would be justified in taking steps to confront and censor (in the widest definition of the term).

Another example of "just an" opinion is the charming opinion posted by the [1]now-infamous "Sweepyface", that McCanns should suffer [2] “for the rest of their miserable lives”. Most reasonable people would believe that this is unpleasant and unwarranted harassment of two people. Most reasonable people would agree that this sort of [3] hate speech warrants action and condemnation. Or, according to Vixen's polarised view, perhaps the McCanns - and all other people - should just "shrug their shoulders and recognise it to be just an opinion and simply ignore and disregard the outlandish within nanoseconds"..........

Anyhow, I'm out of this Trojan Horse of a thread too. Horrible.

Here we go: more logical fallacies.

[1] Appeal to the crowd. Make out it is popular belief 'Sweepyface' is 'infamous', when it is only Martin Brunt of Sky News with an agenda on behalf of the parents and Dr Synnot (_sp?) with his own agenda to reflect the views of his masters mentor at Liverpool (I believe Kate hails from there).

[2] “for the rest of their miserable lives” is a careless out-of-context quote lifted sloppily from another poster, Planigale, with no attempt whatsoever to verify the context in which it was stated. It was almost certainly part of a rational conversation/debate by 'Sweepyface' with another and almost certainly conditional. For example, as in the sense of "IF...[the parents did it]...THEN...[they should suffer]...for the rest of their miserable lives”.

This would be a fair comment for the person holding the opinion to have, even if you or I disapprove of it. She is clearly thinking about the unimaginable suffering of the little girl, aged three.

There is a wide consensus of opinion that the fact is, small children were left alone in a holiday apartment with an unlocked door night after night, with the parents some twelve minutes walk away. Thus, within that context, 'Sweepyface' is simply repeating popular opinion (no matter how excoriable that might be to you or me).

[3] It is not 'hate' speech. According to wikipedia, 'hate speech' is:

Quote:
Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.
Another poster has made a weak argument that this definition should extend to the McCanns, 'because having a negative opinion about parents of a murdered child is cruel and counts as harassment'.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11

Last edited by Vixen; 1st May 2017 at 02:04 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 04:43 AM   #245
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,142
Originally Posted by toto View Post
Yes. I was a bit lazy paraphrasing the Daily Mail which referred to "Scotland Yard chief" , later being more precise as Mathew Best has kindly clarified.
Scotland Yard is the headquarters of London's Metropolitan Police, not a national force (which the UK doesn't have).

Last edited by Information Analyst; 1st May 2017 at 04:46 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 05:31 AM   #246
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Scotland Yard is the headquarters of London's Metropolitan Police, not a national force (which the UK doesn't have).
yes
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 06:42 AM   #247
toto
Muse
 
toto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by toto View Post
yes
Another valid criticism of me might be that I did not provide a link originally. So just to tie up this loose end, I provide it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Cann-case.html
__________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Samuel Beckett
toto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 07:11 AM   #248
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Here we go: more logical fallacies.

[1] Appeal to the crowd. Make out it is popular belief 'Sweepyface' is 'infamous', when it is only Martin Brunt of Sky News with an agenda on behalf of the parents and Dr Synnot (_sp?) with his own agenda to reflect the views of his masters mentor at Liverpool (I believe Kate hails from there).

[2] “for the rest of their miserable lives” is a careless out-of-context quote lifted sloppily from another poster, Planigale, with no attempt whatsoever to verify the context in which it was stated. It was almost certainly part of a rational conversation/debate by 'Sweepyface' with another and almost certainly conditional. For example, as in the sense of "IF...[the parents did it]...THEN...[they should suffer]...for the rest of their miserable lives”.

This would be a fair comment for the person holding the opinion to have, even if you or I disapprove of it. She is clearly thinking about the unimaginable suffering of the little girl, aged three.

There is a wide consensus of opinion that the fact is, small children were left alone in a holiday apartment with an unlocked door night after night, with the parents some twelve minutes walk away. Thus, within that context, 'Sweepyface' is simply repeating popular opinion (no matter how excoriable that might be to you or me).

[3] It is not 'hate' speech. According to wikipedia, 'hate speech' is:



Another poster has made a weak argument that this definition should extend to the McCanns, 'because having a negative opinion about parents of a murdered child is cruel and counts as harassment'.


OK. A quick rebuttal to this ignorant and fundamentally misleading post:

Do you just make stuff up out of thin air to suit your position, Vixen? It would appear so.

1) The full tweet posted by "Sweepyface" which contained the offensive hatred towards the McCanns was as follows:

Q: How long must the McCanns suffer?" A: "For the rest of their miserable lives".

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...suffer-forever

That was the FULL content of the tweet. No "conditionals" there, Vixen. Why did you see fit to invent the idea that there were? I see a clear agenda at play there, Vixen.

Here are some more charming tweets from "Sweepyface":

I fear, that we are in this 4 long haul, up to all of us to a) Bang home the facts, b) make #mccann s live in shame for years


#mccann I "hate" cruelty, liars, those who profit from anothers tragedy, ergo my "hate for Kate and Gerry" is justified

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmit...v9#.kcobWqkVrA

No "conditionals" there either, Vixen. No "taking out of context", Vixen. In fact, "Sweepyface" is unequivocally stating that she hates the McCann parents, that she wishes them to live in shame for years, and that (from the second tweet above) she clearly implies that she is accusing them of "cruelty, (being) liars, and (being) those who profit from anothers (sic) tragedy".

I'm extremely, extremely curious at your continued (risibly inept and uninformed) attempts to defend "Sweepyface" and other hate speech from anti-McCann internet commentators. And I'm also extremely interested in your continued attempts to muddy the waters of the debate by claiming that all this is nothing but reasonable people presenting "alternative" views of the case, and those people then unfairly/unreasonably getting their "reasonable opinions" closed down by a powerful cabal linked to the McCann parents. I think it's pretty clear to see what's actually going on here, Vixen.


And that really WILL be my final word in this thread, save to add in some links to articles pointing out how badly affected the McCann parents (and their surviving children, who are now well old enough to see stuff online and hear about it on the grapevine) are by the continual hate speech (including continual accusations that they participated in Madeleine's disappearance) being aimed at them. These are the McCanns who - according to your disgusting position - should simply brush off any and all "opinions" aimed at them as nothing but "people with a reasonable alternative view about the case"............

http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/30/gerry-...ecade-6606406/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/344841...-human-nature/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...lings-10325926

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...-online-trolls

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk...ccanns-9962517

Last edited by LondonJohn; 1st May 2017 at 07:13 AM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 08:22 AM   #249
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,784
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
OK. A quick rebuttal to this ignorant and fundamentally misleading post:

Do you just make stuff up out of thin air to suit your position, Vixen? It would appear so.

1) The full tweet posted by "Sweepyface" which contained the offensive hatred towards the McCanns was as follows:

Q: How long must the McCanns suffer?" A: "For the rest of their miserable lives".

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...suffer-forever

That was the FULL content of the tweet. No "conditionals" there, Vixen. Why did you see fit to invent the idea that there were? I see a clear agenda at play there, Vixen.

Here are some more charming tweets from "Sweepyface":

I fear, that we are in this 4 long haul, up to all of us to a) Bang home the facts, b) make #mccann s live in shame for years


#mccann I "hate" cruelty, liars, those who profit from anothers tragedy, ergo my "hate for Kate and Gerry" is justified

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmit...v9#.kcobWqkVrA

No "conditionals" there either, Vixen. No "taking out of context", Vixen. In fact, "Sweepyface" is unequivocally stating that she hates the McCann parents, that she wishes them to live in shame for years, and that (from the second tweet above) she clearly implies that she is accusing them of "cruelty, (being) liars, and (being) those who profit from anothers (sic) tragedy".

I'm extremely, extremely curious at your continued (risibly inept and uninformed) attempts to defend "Sweepyface" and other hate speech from anti-McCann internet commentators. And I'm also extremely interested in your continued attempts to muddy the waters of the debate by claiming that all this is nothing but reasonable people presenting "alternative" views of the case, and those people then unfairly/unreasonably getting their "reasonable opinions" closed down by a powerful cabal linked to the McCann parents. I think it's pretty clear to see what's actually going on here, Vixen.


And that really WILL be my final word in this thread, save to add in some links to articles pointing out how badly affected the McCann parents (and their surviving children, who are now well old enough to see stuff online and hear about it on the grapevine) are by the continual hate speech (including continual accusations that they participated in Madeleine's disappearance) being aimed at them. These are the McCanns who - according to your disgusting position - should simply brush off any and all "opinions" aimed at them as nothing but "people with a reasonable alternative view about the case"............

http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/30/gerry-...ecade-6606406/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/344841...-human-nature/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...lings-10325926

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...-online-trolls

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk...ccanns-9962517

Sorry, but wishing 'shame' on someone is hardly covered by the Prevention From Harassment Act.

No matter how much you or I might disagree, she DOES explain her views - which are 'fair comment' as she explains she has thought it through - even if you may not have done, or expressed it differently.

Quote:
I "hate" cruelty, liars, those who profit from anothers tragedy, ergo my "hate for Kate and Gerry" is justified.
'Hate' is a typically English expression which means no more than that you have a strong dislike of someone. I had a work colleague who used to wish another colleague, 'a long painful death from cancer', and he was usually a nice guy.

Takes all sorts!

And nota bene 'Sweepyface' has put 'hate' in clear quotation marks indicating she is quoting someone else (thus, it IS conditional - i.e., on condition it is even 'hate') or to show it is a straightforward colloquialism or slang.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11

Last edited by Vixen; 1st May 2017 at 08:43 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2017, 07:22 PM   #250
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,119
No, there are no online trolls. This should be pretty obvious, as there are no online bridges for them to hide under.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 07:09 AM   #251
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,082
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Imagine you were Maddie MCann. If alive, you would want interest maintained in finding you. If dead - heaven forfend! - you would want the perpetrators brought to account, even if they turn out to be 'people in high places'.
Agreed, want her found, hopefully alive and well and whoever took her found in extreme pain and agony. No, I do not care if they were mentally defective.
Not an excuse!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 07:12 AM   #252
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,082
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So, in your mind, a 'guilter' is synonymous with a 'sadist' and 'cyberbully' (=troll).

Some could argue that calling someone by a derogatory playground name, more worthy of eleven year-olds, is in itself demeaning and a gross generalisation.

I have often come across people who take it very personally if you disagree with anything they say, so I never argue with them.

When I come to a forum, one expects to be able to debate an issue objectively. However, of course, there will always be those who can only argue by use of logical fallacy such as the sweeping generalisation and the ad hominem.


If you want us to accept your proposition, 'All "guilters" are sadistic cyberbullying trolls', you do need to back it it up with some kind of evidence.

Simply quoting Dr Synott doesn't in any way show that those persons who believe Maddie came to great harm are devoid of any feelings and are psychopaths.

His methods seem underhand. He set up a fake twitter account and encouraged 'Maddie' tweeters to communicate with his team and claims to have deliberately provoked them with material undermining their concerns over the cadaver dogs. When they responded with counter-material he accuses them of having a personality disorder.

I can't see that this constitutes a properly designed psychology study.
You might was to start a new thread on the case you had removed from your posts in this one!!! Or, if the other case has a thread add yours to it!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2017, 06:49 AM   #253
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,784
A quick update: Huddersfield Uni have responded to the complaints about the Synott study breaching BPS ethical codes, denying the claim.

As it marked its letter 'Private & Confidential', it obviously doesn't have faith in its own conclusions.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2017, 04:59 AM   #254
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,048
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A quick update: Huddersfield Uni have responded to the complaints about the Synott study breaching BPS ethical codes, denying the claim.

As it marked its letter 'Private & Confidential', it obviously doesn't have faith in its own conclusions.
That's not obvious at all.

What it probably means is that it regards its conclusions as private and confidential.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 01:51 AM   #255
Henri McPhee
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,569
It does make me cross for internet posters to suggest the parents did it in the Madeleine McCann case. There are similar biased postings against the parents with no supporting evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case in America.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2017, 07:56 AM   #256
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,804
Especially when it's a well-known fact that Fleet White was responsible for both crimes.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 05:24 AM   #257
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,230
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A quick update: Huddersfield Uni have responded to the complaints about the Synott study breaching BPS ethical codes, denying the claim.

As it marked its letter 'Private & Confidential', it obviously doesn't have faith in its own conclusions.
So the research was approved by a research ethics committee, the journal would only print what it regarded as ethical research and a complaint to the university that the research was unethical has not been upheld. That would seem to confirm the research was ethical.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 05:37 AM   #258
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,230
Elsewhere there has been discussion about 'photoshopping'. It does seem a feature of what may be called trolling or I prefer cyber-harassment to create photoshopped pictures. This is a link to a photoshopped picture in relation to the McCann case. It features (I believe) the faces of the parents as Punch and Judy, with a retired police officer's (who expresses the opinion that their involvement in the disappearance of their child as being ridiculous) face as the puppet operator.

The significance for those who are unfamiliar with the story of Punch and Judy is that Punch kills his baby (and subsequently others; perhaps one of the earliest literary representations of a serial killer).

The argument about 'free speech' falls down when 'fake' images are created with the intent it seems of insulting the victims of harassment and those who support the parents.

Work referenced above shows that generally with cyber-harassers (not just in the McCann case), the use of the free speech argument is correlated with the 'dark trio' of narcissism, machiavellism, and sadism. I suspect that it would be even more strongly correlated with the creation of photoshopped pictures.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:34 AM   #259
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Elsewhere there has been discussion about 'photoshopping'. It does seem a feature of what may be called trolling or I prefer cyber-harassment to create photoshopped pictures. This is a link to a photoshopped picture in relation to the McCann case. It features (I believe) the faces of the parents as Punch and Judy, with a retired police officer's (who expresses the opinion that their involvement in the disappearance of their child as being ridiculous) face as the puppet operator.

The significance for those who are unfamiliar with the story of Punch and Judy is that Punch kills his baby (and subsequently others; perhaps one of the earliest literary representations of a serial killer).

The argument about 'free speech' falls down when 'fake' images are created with the intent it seems of insulting the victims of harassment and those who support the parents.

Work referenced above shows that generally with cyber-harassers (not just in the McCann case), the use of the free speech argument is correlated with the 'dark trio' of narcissism, machiavellism, and sadism. I suspect that it would be even more strongly correlated with the creation of photoshopped pictures.

Indeed.

The very fact that the sort of online vigilante warriors who make unfounded accusations in cases such as the McCann case do not seem to accept that there are limits on free speech in a liberal democracy is extremely instructive in and of itself. They adopt the cloak of "free speech" and "fair comment" to justify and endorse the behaviours and actions of themselves and others like them, when what they are actually doing is stepping well outside the reasonable boundaries of free speech and fair comment to make nasty, unsupported accusations towards the objects of their opprobrium.

And I totally agree that the creation of photoshopped collage images (such as the one you linked to, concerning the McCann case) is probably very closely correlated to Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Those who devise such images (often with captions, if the image alone does not convey their message sufficiently adequately or clearly), and who then create the images and publish them, are arguably seeking praise and approval from like-minded online vigilante trolls, for their "skill" and "wit" in producing this sort of stuff. It allows them to imagine that they are some sort of Oscar Wilde or Hogarth de nos jours, when in fact all they are is nasty, sad little individuals with serious personality disorder issues.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2017, 03:28 AM   #260
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
So the research was approved by a research ethics committee, the journal would only print what it regarded as ethical research and a complaint to the university that the research was unethical has not been upheld. That would seem to confirm the research was ethical.


I would imagine that the university - and Synnott himself - didn't fail to spot the irony in the very subjects of the research complaining that it was unethical. Synnott should include it as an interesting addendum to his conclusions
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2017, 09:42 AM   #261
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,784
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
So the research was approved by a research ethics committee, the journal would only print what it regarded as ethical research and a complaint to the university that the research was unethical has not been upheld. That would seem to confirm the research was ethical.
Bearing in mind, Synott is a member of this committee.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2017, 09:44 AM   #262
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,784
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Elsewhere there has been discussion about 'photoshopping'. It does seem a feature of what may be called trolling or I prefer cyber-harassment to create photoshopped pictures. This is a link to a photoshopped picture in relation to the McCann case. It features (I believe) the faces of the parents as Punch and Judy, with a retired police officer's (who expresses the opinion that their involvement in the disappearance of their child as being ridiculous) face as the puppet operator.

The significance for those who are unfamiliar with the story of Punch and Judy is that Punch kills his baby (and subsequently others; perhaps one of the earliest literary representations of a serial killer).

The argument about 'free speech' falls down when 'fake' images are created with the intent it seems of insulting the victims of harassment and those who support the parents.

Work referenced above shows that generally with cyber-harassers (not just in the McCann case), the use of the free speech argument is correlated with the 'dark trio' of narcissism, machiavellism, and sadism. I suspect that it would be even more strongly correlated with the creation of photoshopped pictures.

If it breaks the law, report it.

Otherwise, caricature and satire is a healthy part of our free Western democracy.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2017, 09:47 AM   #263
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,784
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Indeed.

The very fact that the sort of online vigilante warriors who make unfounded accusations in cases such as the McCann case do not seem to accept that there are limits on free speech in a liberal democracy is extremely instructive in and of itself. They adopt the cloak of "free speech" and "fair comment" to justify and endorse the behaviours and actions of themselves and others like them, when what they are actually doing is stepping well outside the reasonable boundaries of free speech and fair comment to make nasty, unsupported accusations towards the objects of their opprobrium.

And I totally agree that the creation of photoshopped collage images (such as the one you linked to, concerning the McCann case) is probably very closely correlated to Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Those who devise such images (often with captions, if the image alone does not convey their message sufficiently adequately or clearly), and who then create the images and publish them, are arguably seeking praise and approval from like-minded online vigilante trolls, for their "skill" and "wit" in producing this sort of stuff. It allows them to imagine that they are some sort of Oscar Wilde or Hogarth de nos jours, when in fact all they are is nasty, sad little individuals with serious personality disorder issues.

Stop being so precious.


The disappearance of Maddie McCann was world-wide news. Of course some people are going to speculate X,Y or Z, given it has never been solved.

That is the way of the world.
__________________
...hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

~Rev 3:11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.