Triablogue Caught in a Web of Deception
How to Fight Cyber-Bullies and Win
Delusion is standard fare at Triablogue, but this time even they have a difficult time explaining away a post that was so flagrant in its ethical violations that it had to be removed on August 6, 2010. Their embarrassing ethical fiasco left only a dead link here: Triablogue’s Dead Link.
The post was written by Paul Manata, and it purported to show that renowned ethicists had demolished claims I had made about ethics and metaethics. In a very ill-conceived prank, Manata contacted a number of academic philosophers to ask their opinions about my stance on the circularity of many ethical premises, and those philosophers supposedly all refuted my position. But within a few hours of being published, the post was gone.
What happened? If the refutation was so compelling and ethically proper, then why remove the post at all? And why have they kept it so quiet until now (and after I mentioned it) if they were so proud of what they did? Indeed, nothing could be a greater defeat for Triablogue than having to take a post down.
ETHICS 101
On their website, Triablogue admits taking down the post and it offers these reasons for the ignominious defeat they suffered. See Triablogue’s Non-Explanation.
Moral relativism affirms that while the initial premises of any ethical system cannot be established by absolute rationales, one can still evaluate whether an ethical system is logically following the initial premises one affirms.
Triabloggers affirm to live by truth and honesty, and they were shown not to be doing so.
The second reason Triablogue offers is where a blatant untruth or lie is found. I can thoroughly document this untruth if they force the issue and they seem to assume that I don’t have at least some of the relevant e-mails from these philosophers that Triablogue has. Since I do not want to add to the time or trouble caused by Triablogue to these professional colleagues, I have decided not to identify them.
For now, I can say the following:
1. Manata was unable to refute my arguments on his own, and so he sought to use an appeal to authority to refute me.
2. The philosophers contacted by Manata were given a version of my arguments filtered through Manata, and so they did not evaluate my arguments from my own writings. What Manata gave them were already tainted and distorted versions. Thus, these philosophers were not really evaluating my arguments at all.
3. When I contacted these philosophers to warn them of what Manata had done, one of them responded and reported the following:
A. Manata represented himself only as a student working on something Avalos had written in connection with a course Manata was taking.
B. The philosopher contacted by Manata was not even told about Triablogue and was not asked to say something for publication on that website.
C. That philosopher subsequently asked that his comments be removed, and Manata agreed to remove all of the others, too.
D. Triablogue, not I, censored the post when Manata realized that his juvenile prank had boomeranged on him. After all, Triablogue controls the website, and so how could I censor it?
So, either Manata lied to these philosophers about his intentions, or he was not telling them the whole truth about his intentions. Manata used their work for a purpose at least some of them did not intend.
THE COVERUP CONTINUES?
If one looks at the comments section of the relevant thread Triablogue’s Non-Explanation, one also sees another blatant contradiction in the following exchange:
After all---Couldn’t he even ask Manata? Why did Triablogue not issue an explanation about their dead link that was only up for a few hours? Didn’t their own readers deserve an explanation? If Hays was willing to say that it was not taken down because of ethical reasons, why couldn’t he tell us the reason it was taken down?
In any case, it really does not matter whether I am a moral relativist or not. What matters is that at least one of the moral authorities that Triablogue consulted thought Triablogue was violating HIS ethical standards, not just mine.
THE PSYCHOANALYSIS MANEUVER
From there, Triablogue’s attempt to whitewash their ethical lapses just gets worse. Apparently, they have now also added a psychiatry degree to their extensive academic training.
Indeed, the main thing they have left is to assail my supposed “social inferiority” complex due to my economic and ethnic background. Actually, I am not ashamed at all of my background, and I have written on my background quite frequently.
If one were to employ the psychoanalytic maneuvers Triabloggers apply to others, then we could argue that Manata’s own background as a supposedly fierce “gang banger,” fighting bravely against Filipino and Mexican gangs, seems to be more of a myth now. See Manata’s past.
The removal of the post suggest that he is not a fighter, but rather a cowardly cyber-bully who runs when challenged. He may have been the hapless fellow cowering in the alleys when the big boys came looking for him. After all, he was the first to run to these philosophers when he could not handle the argument on his own. Why is that not described as being a “little pansy”?
The rest of the comments by Parsival38 (aka Steve Hays?) on the thread are simply rehash. This person, by his own definition (peer reviewed journal articles), has no standing in epistemology or ethics, and so he is not even able to judge whether I am competent in those fields. Hays is not in a position to say who is or is not an epistemologist.
The idea that Prometheus is not a scholarly press is also simply nonsense. The books by Prometheus are reviewed by recognized scholars in recognized scholarly venues (e.g., Review of Biblical Literature), and so it shows that other scholars do recognize their books as scholarly. As far as I know, Tribloggers have no books by any publisher, scholarly or not, to their credit.
THE DAY TRIABLOGUE WANTS TO FORGET
August 6, 2010 should be remembered as the date when Triablogue saw its own work as so inane, juvenile, and ethically incoherent that it had to erase it from the world. Manata, who usually trumpets even the slightest supposed victory, has kept quiet this long about it because he knows his defeat was as definitive as it gets in the blogosphere.
What is certain is that Hays and Manata help to operate a website that is so ethically challenged that even ethicists they consult as authorities have contempt for it. Those ethicists apparently could not stomach the ethics of these supposed experts in metaethics. In fact, even Triablogue could not stomach its own ethics or it would not have taken that post down.
Finally, it will not matter even if Triablogue does post responses purported to come private communications with philosophers. With Triablogue’s credibility with at least some academic ethicists now in tatters, it is clear that supposed quotes and refutations from philosophers posted on Triablogue cannot be taken at face value.
Unless those philosophers post it on their own websites or write it in their own publications, nothing on Triablogue said to come from private communications with philosophers should be trusted to be what Triablogue claims it to be.
QUESTIONS FOR TRIABLOGUE
1. Given Triablogue’s professed adherence to high ethical standards, did Hays ever request that Manata show him the correspondence he sent to these professional philosophers?
2. If Manata did share such correspondence, did Hays ensure that Manata represented himself and his intentions truthfully to these philosophers?
3. If Manata did not represent himself truthfully, will he be censured, reprimanded, or forced to issue some sort of apology? Will Triablogue issue an apology or explanation for this sort of misrepresentation?
POSTSCRIPT
In case someone asks why we bother responding to amateur cyber-bullies, the decision is not always an easy one. Some say responding grants Triabloggers more credibility, when they deserve none.
I actually did not respond to this prank publicly until Parsival38 (aka Steve Hays) trolled the DC site with further personal attacks in the thread to a November 10 post on DC (Avalos Profile).
The problem with the Triabloggers is that they sometimes become inconsiderate of the time professional colleagues have to expend undoing their pranks. Triabloggers think that universities and professors are in the business of settling every argument that they cannot handle themselves. Thus, when it becomes clear that they have no respect for taking the time of colleagues, then it is time to expose them for what they are. This worked very well on August 6, 2010 because some of my professional colleagues told me that that they had learned their lesson about answering e-mails from Triabloggers and other people they don’t know.
Delusion is standard fare at Triablogue, but this time even they have a difficult time explaining away a post that was so flagrant in its ethical violations that it had to be removed on August 6, 2010. Their embarrassing ethical fiasco left only a dead link here: Triablogue’s Dead Link.
The post was written by Paul Manata, and it purported to show that renowned ethicists had demolished claims I had made about ethics and metaethics. In a very ill-conceived prank, Manata contacted a number of academic philosophers to ask their opinions about my stance on the circularity of many ethical premises, and those philosophers supposedly all refuted my position. But within a few hours of being published, the post was gone.
What happened? If the refutation was so compelling and ethically proper, then why remove the post at all? And why have they kept it so quiet until now (and after I mentioned it) if they were so proud of what they did? Indeed, nothing could be a greater defeat for Triablogue than having to take a post down.
ETHICS 101
On their website, Triablogue admits taking down the post and it offers these reasons for the ignominious defeat they suffered. See Triablogue’s Non-Explanation.
i) How can Avalos ascribe “flagrant ethical violations” to a post when he’s a moral relativist?The first one is easy to refute because Triablogue just doesn’t seem to understand even the basics of relativist ethics. Moral relativism does not deny that logic operates once you have accepted the basic premises of your ethics.
ii) It wasn’t taken down due to ethical problems. It was taken down because Avalos, acting like a little pansy, contacted some of the individuals who panned his incompetent argument as a pressure tactic to censure Manata’s post.
Moral relativism affirms that while the initial premises of any ethical system cannot be established by absolute rationales, one can still evaluate whether an ethical system is logically following the initial premises one affirms.
Triabloggers affirm to live by truth and honesty, and they were shown not to be doing so.
The second reason Triablogue offers is where a blatant untruth or lie is found. I can thoroughly document this untruth if they force the issue and they seem to assume that I don’t have at least some of the relevant e-mails from these philosophers that Triablogue has. Since I do not want to add to the time or trouble caused by Triablogue to these professional colleagues, I have decided not to identify them.
For now, I can say the following:
1. Manata was unable to refute my arguments on his own, and so he sought to use an appeal to authority to refute me.
2. The philosophers contacted by Manata were given a version of my arguments filtered through Manata, and so they did not evaluate my arguments from my own writings. What Manata gave them were already tainted and distorted versions. Thus, these philosophers were not really evaluating my arguments at all.
3. When I contacted these philosophers to warn them of what Manata had done, one of them responded and reported the following:
A. Manata represented himself only as a student working on something Avalos had written in connection with a course Manata was taking.
B. The philosopher contacted by Manata was not even told about Triablogue and was not asked to say something for publication on that website.
C. That philosopher subsequently asked that his comments be removed, and Manata agreed to remove all of the others, too.
D. Triablogue, not I, censored the post when Manata realized that his juvenile prank had boomeranged on him. After all, Triablogue controls the website, and so how could I censor it?
So, either Manata lied to these philosophers about his intentions, or he was not telling them the whole truth about his intentions. Manata used their work for a purpose at least some of them did not intend.
THE COVERUP CONTINUES?
If one looks at the comments section of the relevant thread Triablogue’s Non-Explanation, one also sees another blatant contradiction in the following exchange:
MICHAEL SAID:So, on the one hand, Steve Hays tells us he knows that ethical violations were not the reason the post was removed. On the other hand, when asked by Michael why it was taken down, he can only meekly retort that “I didn’t take it down, so that’s not for me to say.” A pusillanimous answer if I’ve ever read one.
Sorry, are we able to know why the post was taken down?
11/16/2010 6:16 AM
STEVE SAID:
Well, I didn't take it down, so that's not for me to say.
11/16/2010 8:18 AM
After all---Couldn’t he even ask Manata? Why did Triablogue not issue an explanation about their dead link that was only up for a few hours? Didn’t their own readers deserve an explanation? If Hays was willing to say that it was not taken down because of ethical reasons, why couldn’t he tell us the reason it was taken down?
In any case, it really does not matter whether I am a moral relativist or not. What matters is that at least one of the moral authorities that Triablogue consulted thought Triablogue was violating HIS ethical standards, not just mine.
THE PSYCHOANALYSIS MANEUVER
From there, Triablogue’s attempt to whitewash their ethical lapses just gets worse. Apparently, they have now also added a psychiatry degree to their extensive academic training.
Indeed, the main thing they have left is to assail my supposed “social inferiority” complex due to my economic and ethnic background. Actually, I am not ashamed at all of my background, and I have written on my background quite frequently.
If one were to employ the psychoanalytic maneuvers Triabloggers apply to others, then we could argue that Manata’s own background as a supposedly fierce “gang banger,” fighting bravely against Filipino and Mexican gangs, seems to be more of a myth now. See Manata’s past.
The removal of the post suggest that he is not a fighter, but rather a cowardly cyber-bully who runs when challenged. He may have been the hapless fellow cowering in the alleys when the big boys came looking for him. After all, he was the first to run to these philosophers when he could not handle the argument on his own. Why is that not described as being a “little pansy”?
The rest of the comments by Parsival38 (aka Steve Hays?) on the thread are simply rehash. This person, by his own definition (peer reviewed journal articles), has no standing in epistemology or ethics, and so he is not even able to judge whether I am competent in those fields. Hays is not in a position to say who is or is not an epistemologist.
The idea that Prometheus is not a scholarly press is also simply nonsense. The books by Prometheus are reviewed by recognized scholars in recognized scholarly venues (e.g., Review of Biblical Literature), and so it shows that other scholars do recognize their books as scholarly. As far as I know, Tribloggers have no books by any publisher, scholarly or not, to their credit.
THE DAY TRIABLOGUE WANTS TO FORGET
August 6, 2010 should be remembered as the date when Triablogue saw its own work as so inane, juvenile, and ethically incoherent that it had to erase it from the world. Manata, who usually trumpets even the slightest supposed victory, has kept quiet this long about it because he knows his defeat was as definitive as it gets in the blogosphere.
What is certain is that Hays and Manata help to operate a website that is so ethically challenged that even ethicists they consult as authorities have contempt for it. Those ethicists apparently could not stomach the ethics of these supposed experts in metaethics. In fact, even Triablogue could not stomach its own ethics or it would not have taken that post down.
Finally, it will not matter even if Triablogue does post responses purported to come private communications with philosophers. With Triablogue’s credibility with at least some academic ethicists now in tatters, it is clear that supposed quotes and refutations from philosophers posted on Triablogue cannot be taken at face value.
Unless those philosophers post it on their own websites or write it in their own publications, nothing on Triablogue said to come from private communications with philosophers should be trusted to be what Triablogue claims it to be.
QUESTIONS FOR TRIABLOGUE
1. Given Triablogue’s professed adherence to high ethical standards, did Hays ever request that Manata show him the correspondence he sent to these professional philosophers?
2. If Manata did share such correspondence, did Hays ensure that Manata represented himself and his intentions truthfully to these philosophers?
3. If Manata did not represent himself truthfully, will he be censured, reprimanded, or forced to issue some sort of apology? Will Triablogue issue an apology or explanation for this sort of misrepresentation?
POSTSCRIPT
In case someone asks why we bother responding to amateur cyber-bullies, the decision is not always an easy one. Some say responding grants Triabloggers more credibility, when they deserve none.
I actually did not respond to this prank publicly until Parsival38 (aka Steve Hays) trolled the DC site with further personal attacks in the thread to a November 10 post on DC (Avalos Profile).
The problem with the Triabloggers is that they sometimes become inconsiderate of the time professional colleagues have to expend undoing their pranks. Triabloggers think that universities and professors are in the business of settling every argument that they cannot handle themselves. Thus, when it becomes clear that they have no respect for taking the time of colleagues, then it is time to expose them for what they are. This worked very well on August 6, 2010 because some of my professional colleagues told me that that they had learned their lesson about answering e-mails from Triabloggers and other people they don’t know.
0 comments:
Post a Comment