really i just want a format where i can say “you violated the rules because you refuse to back up what youre saying” to the many posters here who love to critique me without any references or arguments backing up their emotional ejaculations.
i have to sit and endure such trash, because nowhere in ILP is it a forum requirement to NOT SPOUT UNSUBSTANTIATED GARBAGE, other than in the debate hall. but sometimes, just having an open-ended ongoing conversation, not in a debate format, would be nice… id like to easily be able to show “ok, here, poster X is not justifying what hes saying with anything at all, therefore, mod, please ban him from this thread” and get my wish, so i can actually carry on a decent conversation without it degenerating into psychological rationalizing and ego-trips. i cant do this in the regular forums. so, id like a format where i can. it would tend to eliminate much of the rabble that seems so drawn to me for some reason (i know im attractive and all, but cmon…)
If it were that easy to say what is and what isn’t justified, this site would be pretty boring. I mean, philosophy is an armchair discipline, and a lot of discussion hinges on what we mean by ‘unsubstantiated garbage’. In this post, I won’t cite any sources, but I think I’ll substantiate my claim pretty well by making a reasoned argument from a set of givens. If you question my givens, I might then cite a source to back them up, or I might fall back on yet another given, and you might yet again question it. None of this seems improper for a philosophical discussion.
Are we to ban people from the proposed board for committing fallacies? Or just for taking the wrong givens?
^ im only talking about very limited and focused discussions on particular philosophers or a particular work/text.
not general or abstract/opinionated conversations such as are the norm on ILP. theres nothing wrong with such conversations, and yes its impossible and undesirable to make everyone cite a source when they say something, BUT, in this limited capacity of a sub forum a person would be required to either make a solid argument or provide some evidence to back up his claim… not prove it, just back it up in some sort of legitimate way.
saying “na na i cant hear you, im right and youre wrong na na na” in a million different ways, as happens all the time all over the place in ILP, wouldnt be allowed. its not so much about making people PROVE what theyre saying, as eliminating this other childish trolling behavior that pervades ILP.
and as i said, it would be in a very limited capacity only.
