## Forum Philosophy Update

Moderator: Carleas

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Zero_Sum wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:I support the restriction of speech under my chosen political ideology

What is your reasoning for that position?

A majority of human beings are dumb herd animals, only a wise or intelligent dictatorship can lead them. A benevolent philosophical sheep herder is needed

How did the people come into being? Who was the herder before there were herders?

It seems you're thinking that by some remarkable luck we've made it this far in our evolution, so we should immediately take the reigns or we'll go off a cliff.

Let's say, just for example, that you believe the white race is superior (whatever that means), so would you believe there was someone directing folks coming out of africa on which way to go in order to evolve into white people? Who was the herder? Even if you think they didn't come from africa, they had to come from somewhere and who guided them?

Whatever it is that you think is good that needs the protection of a dictator begs the question of how it arrived in the first place without said dictator dictating how things should be. If you claim remarkable luck, then that remarkable luck has been remarkable for a remarkably long time because 1 million years ago we could have said it was all remarkable luck so far, so why shouldn't the luck continue without a guide?

And nevermind that power corrupts. That's another line of attack on the monarchical theory of the universe. As well as benevolence being an impossibility because in order to love you must hate that which threatens what you love, so no one can be absolutely benevolent.

Alan Watts on this:

You see, you never really know in which direction progress lies. And this is today a fantastic problem for geneticists. The geneticists, you know, because they think they are within some degree of controlling the DNA and RNA code, believe that it is really possible, perhaps, to breed the kind of human beings that we ought to have. And they say, "Hooray!" But they think one moment and they think "Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah! But what kind of human being?" So they're very worried.

And just a little while ago, a national committee of graduate students and geneticists had a meeting at the University of California, and they asked a group of psychologists, theologians, and philosophers to come and reason with them about this and give them some insight. And I was included. That means that they are really desperate.

So I said, "I'll tell you what, the only thing you can do is to be quite sure that you keep a vast variety of different kinds of human beings, because you never know what's going to happen next. And therefore we need an enormous, shall I say, varied battery of different kinds of human intelligence and resources and abilities. So that there will always be some kind of person available for any emergency that might turn up."

So you see, there's a total fallacy in the idea of preaching to people. This is why I abandoned the ministries; I've often said, not because the church didn't practice what it preached, but because it preached. Because you cannot tell people what sort of pattern of life they ought to have, because if they followed your advice, you might have a breed of monsters.

A plague of righteous people

But I'm here to tell you that anytime you get a similar group of organisms together in one spot, they're going to be wiped out. Nature wouldn't pass up the opportunity to chow down on such a plentiful snack. If you have all pine trees, the pine beetle makes itself at home and leaves you with nothing. The more you try to dictate what is good, the more you expose yourself to the possibility of extinction for lack of variety.

I would publicly state my beliefs on the holocaust or World War II here on the forum but I won't for such politically incorrect beliefs of mine pertaining the subject would get me permanently banned here very quickly. I'll just leave it at that.

Seriously? Denying the holocaust will get you banned from here? Is it an unwritten rule? How is anyone to know the rule exists?

I try not to rock the boat too much around here as people get spooked rather easily. Seen plenty of people get banned over the years here. I admit however that I'm not always on my best behavior where I've been trying to reign in on myself. I've been getting better I like to think compared to my younger years as an adolescent.

How long have you been here? I thought you were new per the date on your thingy there.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:
What are the negatives that you see?
I don't think that making someone feel shame is the right thing to do. I don't think it's how people ought to interact.

Why do you feel that shaming is the wrong thing to do?

Because it would seem that if you believe in natural selection, then you would also believe in natural selection for communities. Yet you don't seem to, which seems odd to me. Why believe it is not necessary to have a god to guide humanity while at the same time believing we need moderators to guide humanity?
I don't think that one has to be theist (or atheist) to see that a hockey game plays better, faster, smoother with referees. The players can concentrate on the game instead of worrying about and arguing about infractions.
If a player refuses to play by the rules, then he gets warned, penalized and ultimately ejected from the game. Those rules and their enforcement make the game itself possible.

This forum is a game of sorts with rules.

That's a good observation that seems right at first, but the reason for referees is that there are only 2 teams, so we need a 3rd person for a judge. Communities have many independent "teams" and don't require a referee to judge since any member can chime in with an opinion on a situation and act as a referee.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:
More than this poster and I have responded more generally than you have and fit the shaming pattern I encouraged above better than your posts. Perhaps it speaks to Prismatics need for chastisement that even when I mix up your name with someone else you have done things which less perfectly fit the kind of shaming I am recommending, but nevertheless are present in your posts.

You responded more specifically - though indicating a general criticism (the reference to his psychology) - and were ad hom in the sense of directing criticism at the person not the argument.
The moderators should have told him not to call others "shallow", not me.
I don't want to be doing that and if moderation was effectively implemented here, then I would not have to. I don't come here to be somebody's Daddy.
We would do it at a dinner party and at college seminar in a debate in a meeting.
If I'm running a meeting where people present their work and it's critiqued by others, then one of the rules is "No personal attacks". Nobody is a moron or shallow or ignorant. Their work is not moronic or shallow. If there is a deficiency in their work then specific problems and errors are pointed out.
Since I'm running the meeting, I'm enforcing the rule. o

There is way to interact with your peers. If you want to do something different afterwards at a pub or dinner then that's your decision.

OK, then what were you doing with Prismatic where you talked about his psychology, where you referred to his posts as hilarious and did not explain how? The links above that is.
And it's not about being a daddy, it is all about being a peer. To use the term 'shaming' is on the polemic side, but it will certainly be experienced as shaming by many if their patterns of behavior are pointed out to them and criticized. And referring to someone's psychology and referring to their posts, for the gallery, as hilarious, is functionally shaming. You are pointing at them publically.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:
I'd prefer he simply call me stupid than make such a drama out of it, which is far more insulting.
Guess that's the way you see it.
I would brush it off.

So you would brush off the insult or brush off the noninsult? Brushing it off implies you've determined it to be an insult or you wouldn't have said you'd brush it off.

Your accusation that I'm avoiding addressing your point smells of malicious intent to discredit me. Slander - the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. But it's ok... I'm not going to make a big deal out of it; just saying.

I don't want to say anything to offend you because I enjoy our conversations. I'm just asking that you not accuse me of immoral activity without evidence.
"malicious"
"slander"
"accuse me of immoral activity"

Well, well, well.

You forgot "smells"

You accuse me of not addressing your point when I've been wearing myself out addressing your points. Maybe it's an honest mistake; I don't know, but it smells malicious. That means it's consistent with what a person who is looking for a way out via discreditation would do, but leaves open the possibility of an honest mistake. It's hard to prove intent.

You see? This is how we handle things without moderators.
Yeah, not impressive. Definitely not something that I want.

Why not? Would you prefer to be banned than scolded?

I say "here is how you're coming across" and you say "oh I didn't mean it like that" and we go on.
Except I would not say "oh I didn't mean it like that". And we would not "go on".

Why not? You accuse me of avoiding your question, I refute that with evidence but say it's ok, let's move on, then you say you don't want to move on? Why would you do that? I'm friendly

I told you the situation.
You told me your version of the story. You told me what you wanted me to hear about it.

Fine. Make it hypothetical then. Suppose you and I are having a conversation on Carleas' forum; would you consider it right if Carleas forbid you from displaying that conversation on some other medium?

If you can't answer that one, then I can make a pretty strong case that you actually are avoiding the question lol
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:I don't want Prismatic to feel ashamed. I want him to realize that by making those comments, he is not communicating effectively and that he is reducing the level of communication in general.
Though the specific approach you took was more like shaming. You addressed third parties, you mocked. Look, maybe you reacted in ways in a specific interaction that you don't stand behind in general. It's not to catch you out. I do find it telling that even though I confused who you were, it still turned out you had reacted to Prismatic in a manner that, if he took it seriously, would like cause shame. These kinds of responses to not necessarily have to cause shame. A person might immediately get it, and just shift, not being attached to the way they were behaving. My goal would not be shame, but to be honest about it, it is likely that calling someone out on their behavior is shaming

shaming (ˈʃeɪmɪŋ)
causing one to feel a painful emotion resulting from an awareness of having done something dishonourable, unworthy, degrading, etc

People do not change easily for the most part. I don't think the first step is to go general. It might be a simple: hey, when you insult me, I lose interest. Or, you are not responding to my points and this makes it less interesting to talk to you. But once a general pattern is present and gentle responses are having no effect, the other person needs motivation.

Here with Iambiguous you are really getting into a more general response - it is ad hom about motivations and presumably comes out of some generalized frustration. He may or may not feel shame when he reads this, but most people, when confronted with such a post, if they realized it was true, would feel shame.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190026&p=2662397&hilit=iambiguous#p2662385

I found these posts all fairly quickly. I am not going to go digging to see if there are even better examples in response to Iambiguous, Prismatic or someone else. Perhaps you don't support what you did in these posts. If so, I would suggest that certain people drove you to a point where you felt there were pernicious patterns to their behavior, enough to drive you to ad hom comments (not arguments) and point out these patterns. I think that is valid peer response. It is not being a Daddy, though that would not necessarily be wrong. It is an adult response to patterns of poor behavior. You may be right, you may be wrong, but that person has gotten strong feedback about their habits. If they keep getting it from peers, they need to take it seriously. Of course even consensus could be wrong, but it is good information to have about the community one is in. Perhaps these guys are just fine and we are off. Well, they might thrive in another community. And both Iambiguous and Prismatic, from what I have seen, are not the kind of people who get banned. Still, they can really bring down a forum, I think.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Fine. Make it hypothetical then. Suppose you and I are having a conversation on Carleas' forum; would you consider it right if Carleas forbid you from displaying that conversation on some other medium?

If you can't answer that one, then I can make a pretty strong case that you actually are avoiding the question lol
I think that I already answered but maybe I was not clear enough.

So:

I don't think that I lose the right to use my part of the conversation unless I specifically sign it way. IOW, I can always use the statements that I made in the conversation if I exclude his statements. Admittedly, if I wanted to post it somewhere with his part edited out, it would look pretty silly.

If I signed away all my rights, then it's my bad. I can't use any part of the conversation. I should have read the agreement more closely. Honestly, I'm too lazy to read it again and check.

I also think there is an unwritten agreement in effect. If he asked me not to use the conversation, then I would not use it unless I thought that there was some serious issue of public welfare or a specific person's welfare at stake. But maybe that's just me.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

That's a good observation that seems right at first, but the reason for referees is that there are only 2 teams, so we need a 3rd person for a judge. Communities have many independent "teams" and don't require a referee to judge since any member can chime in with an opinion on a situation and act as a referee.
That's not going to make the game play better, faster, smoother ... multiple "teams" making calls is only going to make it worse.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Though the specific approach you took was more like shaming. You addressed third parties, you mocked. Look, maybe you reacted in ways in a specific interaction that you don't stand behind in general. It's not to catch you out. I do find it telling that even though I confused who you were, it still turned out you had reacted to Prismatic in a manner that, if he took it seriously, would like cause shame. These kinds of responses to not necessarily have to cause shame. A person might immediately get it, and just shift, not being attached to the way they were behaving. My goal would not be shame, but to be honest about it, it is likely that calling someone out on their behavior is shaming

Perhaps you don't support what you did in these posts.

I think that some of my posts were purely statements of fact and ought not to be taken in any other way. Some were statements of fact which were not clear and could have been misinterpreted as something else.

I think that some of the posts were my attempts to manipulate, to accuse, to bully and to shame. I regret those. I do not condone that behavior. I brought down the level of the forum.

I need to be more on guard so that it doesn't happen again. Think twice, post once.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

So you would brush off the insult or brush off the noninsult? Brushing it off implies you've determined it to be an insult or you wouldn't have said you'd brush it off.
There is hard division between 'insult' and 'non-insult' when it comes to words like "retard".
It's not clearly divided when dealing other statements like "fall off a ladder". You place it into 'insult' and I put into 'non-insult'. When faced with these different evaluations, my reaction is to "brush it off" as falling into a debatable, unclear, unsettled regions. You haven't convinced me that it's an insult and I haven't convinced you that it's not an insult. We're not going to dwell on it, are we?
Why not? Would you prefer to be banned than scolded?
Given the example, I would prefer to be banned.
Why not? You accuse me of avoiding your question, I refute that with evidence but say it's ok, let's move on, then you say you don't want to move on? Why would you do that? I'm friendly
Evidence? You just accused me of all sorts of 'extreme' motivations and intentions. That's stuff you can't possibly know. I don't consider that to be evidence.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:

I think that some of my posts were purely statements of fact and ought not to be taken in any other way. Some were statements of fact which were not clear and could have been misinterpreted as something else.

I think that some of the posts were my attempts to manipulate, to accuse, to bully and to shame. I regret those. I do not condone that behavior. I brought down the level of the forum.

I need to be more on guard so that it doesn't happen again. Think twice, post once.
WEll, I suppose I am glad you found it useful. For me we lost some useful communal feedback.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am not going to go digging to see if there are even better examples in response to Iambiguous, Prismatic or someone else.

Just for the record, anyone here can respond to me in any manner they see fit. If someone feels I deserve to be ashamed of my contributions here, shame away.

Still, my point regarding that which is of interest to me philosophically -- how ought one to live in the is/ought world? -- is basically that feeling shame doesn't really make much sense. Why? Because in recognizing that my views here are in turn [subjectively/subjunctively] just existential contraptions, I acknowledge right from the start that I once rejected them before and, given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge, I may well reject them again.

Indeed, with respect to identity, value judgments and political economy, and given how grim, how bleak and how utterly cynical my frame of mind is here and now, a part of me would very much like to "think up" a way to jettison all that.

Then I too might engender the sort of "comfort and consolation" that I construe to be embodied in the objectivists among us. I have access to none of that here and now.

Given the moral and political interactions of mere mortals in a No God world, I honestly do believe "in my head" that "I" live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that segues eventually into oblivion.

And if some are able to convince themselves that their own interactions with others revolve around an essentially meaningful world that segues eventually into one or another rendition of immortality and salvation then, hey, come in, who "wins" in the end here?

Me?!!!

Karpel Tunnel wrote:And both Iambiguous and Prismatic, from what I have seen, are not the kind of people who get banned. Still, they can really bring down a forum, I think.

Really, just out of curiosity, how might I manage to bring this particular forum down? The bulk of my contributions here revolve around those things that largely distract me from my "philosophy of life". Mundane irony, song, film.

I think in part though I tend to discomfit the "serious philosophers" among us. And that is because my own philosophy of life revolves almost entirely around exposing the profound limitations of philosophy -- at least with respect to that which I deem to be its most important function of all: probing the existential factors embedded in human social, political and economic interactions. The part where words meet worlds.

In my view, once Will Durant's "epistemologists" among us get closer and closer to that, the more philosophy itself begins to seem less relevant to the actual interactions that we engage in from day to day.

They move on.

Or so it seems to me.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33869
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

They move on.
Well, you ask for help with your dilemma, but never take any advice. You keep repeating the same ideas, using the same words and examples. There is no evidence of any progress, or even movement is a particular direction, in the discussions.

"Moving on" seems logical and inevitable.
Last edited by phyllo on Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Serendipper wrote:
Zero_Sum wrote:How did the people come into being? Who was the herder before there were herders?

It seems you're thinking that by some remarkable luck we've made it this far in our evolution, so we should immediately take the reigns or we'll go off a cliff.

Let's say, just for example, that you believe the white race is superior (whatever that means), so would you believe there was someone directing folks coming out of africa on which way to go in order to evolve into white people? Who was the herder? Even if you think they didn't come from africa, they had to come from somewhere and who guided them?

Whatever it is that you think is good that needs the protection of a dictator begs the question of how it arrived in the first place without said dictator dictating how things should be. If you claim remarkable luck, then that remarkable luck has been remarkable for a remarkably long time because 1 million years ago we could have said it was all remarkable luck so far, so why shouldn't the luck continue without a guide?

And nevermind that power corrupts. That's another line of attack on the monarchical theory of the universe. As well as benevolence being an impossibility because in order to love you must hate that which threatens what you love, so no one can be absolutely benevolent.

Alan Watts on this:

You see, you never really know in which direction progress lies. And this is today a fantastic problem for geneticists. The geneticists, you know, because they think they are within some degree of controlling the DNA and RNA code, believe that it is really possible, perhaps, to breed the kind of human beings that we ought to have. And they say, "Hooray!" But they think one moment and they think "Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah! But what kind of human being?" So they're very worried.

And just a little while ago, a national committee of graduate students and geneticists had a meeting at the University of California, and they asked a group of psychologists, theologians, and philosophers to come and reason with them about this and give them some insight. And I was included. That means that they are really desperate.

So I said, "I'll tell you what, the only thing you can do is to be quite sure that you keep a vast variety of different kinds of human beings, because you never know what's going to happen next. And therefore we need an enormous, shall I say, varied battery of different kinds of human intelligence and resources and abilities. So that there will always be some kind of person available for any emergency that might turn up."

So you see, there's a total fallacy in the idea of preaching to people. This is why I abandoned the ministries; I've often said, not because the church didn't practice what it preached, but because it preached. Because you cannot tell people what sort of pattern of life they ought to have, because if they followed your advice, you might have a breed of monsters.

A plague of righteous people

But I'm here to tell you that anytime you get a similar group of organisms together in one spot, they're going to be wiped out. Nature wouldn't pass up the opportunity to chow down on such a plentiful snack. If you have all pine trees, the pine beetle makes itself at home and leaves you with nothing. The more you try to dictate what is good, the more you expose yourself to the possibility of extinction for lack of variety.

How long have you been here? I thought you were new per the date on your thingy there.

I do not wish to hijack this thread where I welcome your input of this conversation in the following threads where I will do my best to address all your points. Also, I've been on this forum under various guises and usernames since 2007.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193832
"I'm sorry, but the lifestyle you've ordered that you've grown accustomed to is completely out of stock. Have a nice day! "-\$

Zero_Sum
Evil Neo-Nazi Extraordinaire.

Posts: 2876
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: U.S.S.A- Newly lead Bolshevik Soviet block. Also known as Weimar America.

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:
They move on.
Well, you ask for help with your dilemma, but never take any advice. You keep repeating the same ideas, using the same words and examples. There is no evidence of any progress, or even movement is a particular direction, in the discussions.

"Moving on" seems logical and inevitable.

What does it really mean to take someone's advice with regard to the hole that I have dug myself into?

All I can do is to ask them to note the extent to which they are not down in the hole themselves.

And then to speculate as to the extent to which I might think or feel or behave in the same way.

Really, what else is there?

At least I'm not arguing that if they're not down in the hole with me, they are wrong.

And they can always choose to stay exactly where they are: convinced that human interactions are not essentially meaningless and absurd in a No God world. Some even manage to conjure up one or another set of beliefs regarding immortality and salvation.

And, here, psychologically, something is almost always better than nothing.
Last edited by iambiguous on Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Objectivists: Like shooting fish in a barrel!

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 33869
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

What does it really mean to take someone's advice with regard to the hole that I have dug myself into?
A number of people have given you advice on how to deal with your dilemma ( Moreno for instance). Yet I don't recall any posts which indicate that you took any action.

For example, someone might tell me that he has back pain and I suggest that he tries Yoga. If he comes back and says that he tried 4 classes over the span of a month it didn't help, then I know he took some action. Unfortunately it did not work.
If he says that he has back pain but he makes no mention of my Yoga suggestion, then I would suspect that for some reason Yoga does not interest him. I might suggest something else like Pilates or Feldenkreis.
But if he keeps coming back with the same complaint of back pain and he gives no indication that he has tried doing anything at all, then I'm not going to waste time giving him advice. He obviously doesn't want to get rid of his pain, he wants to talk about his pain.

And after a while, I get tired and bored of hearing about it. That's especially true when it's a one way discussion of his problems. I would probably like some advice and sympathy about my problems. But if we constantly have to talk about his back pain, I don't get what I need out of the interaction.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

All I can do is to ask them to note the extent to which they are not down in the hole themselves.
This seems to be saying that nobody can give advice about getting out of the hole since everyone is in the hole. Nobody has a way out.

Asking for help would appear to be useless. Why keep asking? In the off chance that THE ONE who got out might answer? But you won't try his advice anyways. Why would you?

phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

iambiguous wrote:Still, my point regarding that which is of interest to me philosophically -- how ought one to live in the is/ought world? -- is basically that feeling shame doesn't really make much sense.
Saying that feeling shame does not make any sense, does not make any sense, in the sense (ha, ha) that it is a category error. Shame is interpersonal - it may or may not come from objective values, but it certainly need not. It is about having done something that my community, including myself, has a problem with. They don't like it, they think God forbids it, they think it leads to negative consequences, they think it smells aweful, whatever. It's a social mammal thing, and whatever your epiphenies have accomplished, you are probably still a social mammal even if you are an anti-social one. If you are a psychopath, well, then it's not a category error.

Why? Because in recognizing that my views here are in turn [subjectively/subjunctively] just existential contraptions, I acknowledge right from the start that I once rejected them before and, given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge, I may well reject them again.

Indeed, with respect to identity, value judgments and political economy, and given how grim, how bleak and how utterly cynical my frame of mind is here and now, a part of me would very much like to "think up" a way to jettison all that.

Then I too might engender the sort of "comfort and consolation" that I construe to be embodied in the objectivists among us. I have access to none of that here and now.

Given the moral and political interactions of mere mortals in a No God world, I honestly do believe "in my head" that "I" live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that segues eventually into oblivion.

And if some are able to convince themselves that their own interactions with others revolve around an essentially meaningful world that segues eventually into one or another rendition of immortality and salvation then, hey, come in, who "wins" in the end here?
Honestly. Can't you see how fucked up it is to repeat this here, again. It is not relevent to the topic. Is it masochism? Are you trying to upset people by repeating something I am pretty sure everyone in the thread has responded to elsewhere in threads where it belongs?

Really, just out of curiosity, how might I manage to bring this particular forum down?
See above.
How can it bring things down: since you are not abusive - at least from what I have seen - can string together rational arguments. You can lock people on you. It can seem like an interactive dialogue will take place. But all discussions will end up with you repeating your assertions and focusing on what you think and what the other person's statement did or did not do FOR YOU. Rather than some other options like seeing what you are doing does to others. When you comment on this, it is always the implicit smug: I seem to make objectivists angry, uncomfortable. Not being able to imagine that there are effects and problematics ones from your behavior that have nothing to do with other people's weaknesses and your bravery for having shucked off objective values. Not being able to imagine how what makes you uncomfortable affects the dynamic and the content of your discussions and your inability to, ironically enough, see the discussions accurately from other viewpoints than your own - hence your repeated, I make you uncomfortable smugness. How convenient.

I think in part though I tend to discomfit the "serious philosophers" among us.
Perfect example.

Nothing that can get a ban or even a warning from most moderators, unfortunately. An appearance of an open mind. And actually not that much appearance of being able to respond to specifics in other people's responses. You are not the only one. Prismatic is like this also. A facade of responding to what you wrote. He's not as smart as you are - and/or his not having English as mother tongue is a problem - but in any case it creates a morass. A bog.

You think this bog is because no one can face the horror that there may be no ground to their objective values. This may be a factor in some dialogues. But it is not the rule, however appealing that interpretation may be to you.

These kinds of patterns where a person cannot learn or shift interpretations but there is a facade of 'rational' dialogue destroys forums. Of course, as I said earlier, the community is ultimately responsible. We need to undo the training that allows us to conflate apparant rational dialogue from rational dialogue where both parties can learn. That is, the community after responding to these patterns and not seeing any change, could ignore/shun that person. BEcause in the end it is a form of trolling, just a subtler one and one that Carleas will never, ever intervene in.

I will do my best to live up to this shunning since shaming is not effective. The interesting development with the internet is that I can shun even if others do not. To be effective for the forum, it would need to be a majority shunning. But to be effective for me, it need not be. Of course if the general level of the dialogue is affected by those I shun, I may have to move on, but it's not like the Amish. I can't see you at the barn raising, even if the rest of the community still can.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:
Fine. Make it hypothetical then. Suppose you and I are having a conversation on Carleas' forum; would you consider it right if Carleas forbid you from displaying that conversation on some other medium?

If you can't answer that one, then I can make a pretty strong case that you actually are avoiding the question lol
I think that I already answered but maybe I was not clear enough.

So:

I don't think that I lose the right to use my part of the conversation unless I specifically sign it way. IOW, I can always use the statements that I made in the conversation if I exclude his statements. Admittedly, if I wanted to post it somewhere with his part edited out, it would look pretty silly.

If I signed away all my rights, then it's my bad. I can't use any part of the conversation. I should have read the agreement more closely. Honestly, I'm too lazy to read it again and check.

I also think there is an unwritten agreement in effect. If he asked me not to use the conversation, then I would not use it unless I thought that there was some serious issue of public welfare or a specific person's welfare at stake. But maybe that's just me.

That's a good answer. I appreciate that.

Two things come to mind:

1) Do you think it is right that you could be compelled to sign away your rights to your half of the conversation in order to participate on a public forum?

2) Aren't both parts of the conversation "public"? Obviously, there is no expectation of privacy, so isn't it public? Once it's on social media, it's out there and there's no taking that back. So if the conversation is public, how can you sign away rights to something that you don't own?
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:
That's a good observation that seems right at first, but the reason for referees is that there are only 2 teams, so we need a 3rd person for a judge. Communities have many independent "teams" and don't require a referee to judge since any member can chime in with an opinion on a situation and act as a referee.
That's not going to make the game play better, faster, smoother ... multiple "teams" making calls is only going to make it worse.

What's the difference if the 3rd teams acts as a referee as opposed to a real referee? Neither have any invested interest in either other team.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:
So you would brush off the insult or brush off the noninsult? Brushing it off implies you've determined it to be an insult or you wouldn't have said you'd brush it off.
There is hard division between 'insult' and 'non-insult' when it comes to words like "retard".

Not necessarily. A couple guys may be giving each other a friendly hard time. The meaning would be in the context.

It's not clearly divided when dealing other statements like "fall off a ladder". You place it into 'insult' and I put into 'non-insult'.

The insult is in the context. I'm still not sure I understand how you don't see it as an insult.

When faced with these different evaluations, my reaction is to "brush it off" as falling into a debatable, unclear, unsettled regions.

Oh, so it's unanswerable and because of that you blow it off?

You haven't convinced me that it's an insult and I haven't convinced you that it's not an insult. We're not going to dwell on it, are we?

Depends if something can be gained or established by pressing the issue. I'm interested in the differentiation between implied and direct insult as I think they're both open to interpretation and insult is implied within the context regardless if it appear direct on the surface. For instance the guy named "idiotsavant" being called "idiot" isn't necessarily an insult, but insult is discerned from the context.

Why not? Would you prefer to be banned than scolded?
Given the example, I would prefer to be banned.

I can't argue with a preference, but why on earth would you rather be banned than scolded?

Why not? You accuse me of avoiding your question, I refute that with evidence but say it's ok, let's move on, then you say you don't want to move on? Why would you do that? I'm friendly
Evidence? You just accused me of all sorts of 'extreme' motivations and intentions. That's stuff you can't possibly know. I don't consider that to be evidence.

Here is the evidence viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=50#p2694015

Therein is the evidence that you said "I think that I have asked about the obligations of the patrons about 4 times and each time you avoid it."

Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:
That's a good observation that seems right at first, but the reason for referees is that there are only 2 teams, so we need a 3rd person for a judge. Communities have many independent "teams" and don't require a referee to judge since any member can chime in with an opinion on a situation and act as a referee.
That's not going to make the game play better, faster, smoother ... multiple "teams" making calls is only going to make it worse.

After seeing a roman chariot race on documentary it dawned on me that the reason we need referees is for an objective view of the situation because each driver can't see the whole race. But in some games the players may be able to have an objective view; like monopoly, the 3rd person could be objective and has access to no more or less information than anyone else playing if an issue between 2 players arose that needed moderating. Or like ILP where each player has access to a full view of the playing field and 3rd parties are objective because none of us are really allied (except in kissing the butt of the boss... I see that a lot on forums. Whatever the boss says is supported by virtue of people looking to support whatever leader there is. Loyalty is a virtue, et al.). No boss = no loyalty and that guarantees objectivity on the field.

I suppose an objection could be that morality is up for vote and determined by democracy as opposed to dictation by the boss. Honestly, I can't say which is better from a philosophical perspective, but people tend to vote for democracy as if it were a virtue.

For instance if we put the issue of potential insult up for vote by the members of the board because it cannot otherwise be resolved between the two members, then whoever decides to chime in with a vote helps determine what is decreed to be right and wrong. This is opposed to the appointment of an agent who can dictate the rules and avoid the argumentum ad populum issue, assuming it is even a valid objection because:

Morality only exists relative to other people since one cannot be immoral to himself. Therefore, the bigger the sample size of people offended, the better the picture of generalized morality one can paint. For instance, would it bother you if I punched you in the nose? If the question is put to a vote and the answer a resounding yes, then we consider it immoral to punch someone in the nose. That seems to work.

Now, morality dictated by an agent presupposes the agent is capable of knowing what offends everyone and to what degree in order to consider what is moral and not, which is a very slippery slope to tread and it supposes that one knows more than many. It seems unlikely that any such person could exist and then the moral obligation to the people that the person would hold seems insurmountable. That is, can you find someone that smart and that conscientious and how are you qualified to recognize such a person?

One of those guys Stefan had on said if you think you can rule the people in a moral and benevolent way, then that is evidence that you wouldn't. It's always the ones with good intentions who causes the most havoc. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. "Kindly let me help you or you'll drown," said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree. How do you know what is good for others? How do you know what is good for you?

Argumentum ad populum has its downsides, but I vote that it's preferable to dictatorial rule.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

Here is the evidence viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=50#p2694015

Therein is the evidence that you said "I think that I have asked about the obligations of the patrons about 4 times and each time you avoid it."

The reason you think that you have addressed my question and I don't, is that we have different perspectives on the situation.

I specifically mentioned an agreement or set of rules posted by the pub owner. I see an obligation on the patrons, to abide by the rules. You see no such obligation.

I see a social obligation on the patrons when they are in the pub - an unwritten obligation - to behave in a proper way (I'm not going to define proper because it would take too long.). You don't see it.

I see a similar obligation when I go to a Jew's lamb roast. As a guest, I have an obligation to be polite, respectful and grateful. I'm certainly not going to spit on him and call him names.

As for my last post, you have no evidence that I consider your action "immoral" or that I'm being "malicious". Those are ridiculous claims.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

1) Do you think it is right that you could be compelled to sign away your rights to your half of the conversation in order to participate on a public forum?
I don't think that it's unreasonable. I have a choice of agree or not agreeing. I can choose not to participate under those conditions. I can go to other forums with other policies. I can choose to use other mediums of expression.

The availability of other options is an important aspect here. If I was both required to sign and required to participate under some sort of threat ... I would have a problem with that.
2) Aren't both parts of the conversation "public"? Obviously, there is no expectation of privacy, so isn't it public? Once it's on social media, it's out there and there's no taking that back. So if the conversation is public, how can you sign away rights to something that you don't own?
I think that creates a conflict with creators of content - patent and copyright protection of work. You seem to be saying that if a singer performs in a public venue, then the performance becomes public property and anyone can distribute it. That doesn't seem right to me.

Similarly when an invention is sold to the public, then anyone can copy it. Again, I don't think that is right.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

For instance if we put the issue of potential insult up for vote by the members of the board because it cannot otherwise be resolved between the two members, then whoever decides to chime in with a vote helps determine what is decreed to be right and wrong. This is opposed to the appointment of an agent who can dictate the rules and avoid the argumentum ad populum issue, assuming it is even a valid objection because:

Morality only exists relative to other people since one cannot be immoral to himself. Therefore, the bigger the sample size of people offended, the better the picture of generalized morality one can paint. For instance, would it bother you if I punched you in the nose? If the question is put to a vote and the answer a resounding yes, then we consider it immoral to punch someone in the nose. That seems to work.

Now, morality dictated by an agent presupposes the agent is capable of knowing what offends everyone and to what degree in order to consider what is moral and not, which is a very slippery slope to tread and it supposes that one knows more than many. It seems unlikely that any such person could exist and then the moral obligation to the people that the person would hold seems insurmountable. That is, can you find someone that smart and that conscientious and how are you qualified to recognize such a person?
I think that you are mixing up inventing the rules of a game, enforcing the established rules and changing rules during a game.

Someone can invent a game with specific rules. Nobody compels you to play the game if you don't like the rules.

When you agree to play, then you are agreeing to the rules. An "authority" can then enforce the rules. And this is much more efficient than relying on some sort of general vote.

A really problematic issue arises when there is no authority enforcing the rules and there is a dispute on what the rules are, how they should be interpreted, which rules to add and which to drop. The game become unplayable because there are essentially no fixed rules.
Disputes like that can be settled by a vote between games. Then potential players can decide whether they want to play under those rules in the next game.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 11551
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Forum Philosophy Update

phyllo wrote:The reason you think that you have addressed my question and I don't, is that we have different perspectives on the situation.

That's not excuse for you to assert that I have not addressed your question.

I specifically mentioned an agreement or set of rules posted by the pub owner. I see an obligation on the patrons, to abide by the rules. You see no such obligation.

Yes but the agreement may not be legal (or moral) which depends on who is invited in and who is audience of the webcam.

I see a social obligation on the patrons when they are in the pub - an unwritten obligation - to behave in a proper way (I'm not going to define proper because it would take too long.). You don't see it.

Behavior is different from speech.

I see a similar obligation when I go to a Jew's lamb roast. As a guest, I have an obligation to be polite, respectful and grateful. I'm certainly not going to spit on him and call him names.

Spitting is action and behavior which is assault. Calling of names falls under speech which is protected if the roast was public. Of course, calling of names could be slander if the names called imply falsity, which is illegal. If I call you a filthy jew and you're neither dirty nor jewish, then that could be slander. But if you are dirty and jewish, then it's a statement of fact.

As for my last post, you have no evidence that I consider your action "immoral" or that I'm being "malicious". Those are ridiculous claims.

To avoid your question would be immoral and your assertion then was accusing me of being immoral. That's substantiated and not ridiculous. I can't prove malicious intent, which is why I said it "smells of" malicious intent, but if you're accusing me of being immoral when I have not, then it very well could be malicious unless it was an honest mistake.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext