Well let me apologize for my obvious strawman. I mean, when I saw quips like this:
Ben
As you can imagine, it’s always a joy to hear people say how much they love this site less and less. When you really can’t stand it anymore, let me know, and I’ll give you your money back.
Ben Again, in a post entitled Again:
Tentative:
As far as a quit button, I can’t help you with that. Bannings are at the request of staff, but can only be effected by the owner of the site. PM Ben if you don’t like the site, or to not waste your time doing that, leave on yur own accord
OBW:
So I trust you will be both voting with your mouse and never returning to ILP; the corrupt, squalid, ego-driven hell hole that it is? I’ve set you up your own version so you can show us how to do it properly - iloveopinions.com
My first thought was that, by golly, you want us all to stay!
Yes, that is what ben actually means when he says we are free to go elsewhere, and that we can have refunds… its the sheer concern for dialogue which lurks behind his posts.
And Tentative… brave foot soldier, he says outright, if you don’t like the site, leave of your own accord.
Yes, this is obviously a Strawman I have created. :Edit: to add maybe I am mistaken, but I would say it is a reasonable mistake give the quotes above and the fact that they can all be found in this thread.
My issue isn’t the banning, as that would contradict damn near everything I have argued here over the last few months. My issue, now, is with this attitude, you call a strawman, but in fact, is clearly not, when you have one mod clearly stating if you dont like it leave, and two more saying much the same though I am sure one such as yourself is adept at offering alternative interpretations to a line where you encourgae particpants to go elsewhere.
Yes, because clearly change only starts at the top and works it’s way down.
Sure, Ban me or make me a mod. I’ll ban myself, but not until the following people are gone:
I would keep James no. 2, as his smile retains a kind of empty minded mongoloid beauty about it that just screams Philosophy.
Then I would remove every forum save the Philosophy Forum, which will then consist entirely of posts from Mastriani talking about his Kung Fu practice and James just smiling at him like he was Embrace Trees at the prom with a nipple hanging out of her dress.
Subjectivity permeates the very fabric of this website, and you want me to fix it? It a job for everyone here, a responsibility shared by all but accepted by none, not even the Mods.
But here I am going to give you a gift. I count more than three instances of ad hominem above. Who cares if I am joking or not, or if I am liked or not. Ban me, and then, start applying the same standards to everyone else. Maybe then you can avoid problems like this, that seem to crop up every few months or so.
Don’t stop at just the ad hom though. You also lock or remove threads that deal exclusively with Homework questions, not because such questions are inherently unphilosophical, but we can’t be asked to do other’s work. In truth, homework questions aren’t seen as genuine, unless they come from a perky teenaged blonde I suppose. But then again, it is perfectly fine to do the work, so to speak, on threads consisting of nothing more than a poster’s day, his or her job, favorite hobbies, and so on. Making the site all inclusive leaves you with nothing, except for banning people when they call each other poo poo heads.
And that is why I asked to be banned, as it is the last act I have left that might possibly engender some change, though I doubt it very much. So please, ban me.
Poo poo head.