Thank you for your kindness, but the point is that I did refute the points made, but the less intelligent Nazi [I suppose you can have some intelligent Nazis ~ just not wise ones] just appeared to be running on his own steam - so to say; the argument got left behind in his tirade of personal and racist attacks.
I think some, indeed many thoughts are unthinkable or at least un-debateable. Conversations require moderation where the individuals involved are unable to moderate themselves. Some debates should just be removed/deleted/closed if they do not yield anything one can work with. It just makes forums look bad, and I don’t know why some people think its clever to just post a load of infantile crap, just to appear as outrageous and cool in some respect; it is not!
Change that and there are plenty of good things about the forum, I would have enjoyed it.
There are Nazis, Christians, Muslims etc, out there [not all or indeed most] who believe in a set of absolutes, and they are not going to budge on their beliefs. In such cases there is no debate, they are not going to change and everything you say gets distorted and twisted around in their minds.
Yeah I agree in general, but so far there have been only 3 individuals who have necessitated such confinement. Realunoriginal, for reasons you’ll know if you’ve ever met him; eyesinthedark, because he kept on claiming he had won debates without explaining how or why; and Joker, who was spamming. We don’t ban anybody. They just re-register with proxy IP anyway.
I think you are either referring to Vanitas or eyesinthedark. Vanitas was formerly opposed to the forum in general and was conducting an ideological attack on it. She/he then came round and seemed to be attempting to fit in using his/her understanding of what we stand for. He/she then disappeared quite a while ago.
But in either case one should be able to hold their own even against aggressive, stupid behaviour. You should have taken the opportunity to show-up your opponent. What we have going over there is an attempt to facilitate discussion of ideas, and methodology of discussion, which is not permitted in the usual forum. For example, one is usually protected from insult here… but there are times when a post demands that kind of response, whether justified or not; and KTS gives you that option.
The idea is to express yourself exactly as who and what you are, and to face the consequences of that expression. What is looked for is honesty, not good manners. Or indeed political correctness. Know thyself means: self-exploration.
Hmm maybe, I mean I thought I had done that but he/she continued regardless, perhaps there comes a point where you don’t want to share the same house with someone - so to speak. I am very into the communal approach, where if we were all in the same room and had to share the same place, you just wouldn’t talk to people like that. To me the world is a commune, even if we live separately.
The net gives a way for people to act in ways they wouldn’t if you were sat at the same table, and I think it’s a moderators job to kinda bring people back to reality, and remind them that it is a shared space we all live in.
One should be able to tell when the moment arrives that the others quality of mind has been sufficiently displayed for the audience. At that point, just walk away.
But if you are in a commune, I would imagine that you do not always get to choose your company but are nevertheless obliged to deal with them, however they might act. Finding oneself under attack and discovering how you behave under such an attack is also an avenue towards self-exploration. Again: know thyself. Either you re-assert your own position or become subverted by the one seeking to displace it.
Do you think that you are benefiting at all if you are always protected from such an attack? I think the contrary, myself.
Absolutely, yes, though I see your point. I benefit from debate but once that’s over and you realise you are talking to a brick wall, there is only deficit.
Going back to the communalism thing, in my experience in groups peoples relationships evolve with one another, so you wouldn’t get Nazism. Sometimes you get outsiders being treated as such [sometimes in a group attack upon that individual], and then it is your commune being the Nazis. My thinking here is that the commune philosophy needs to move between communes also.
If you worked with such people you’d have to say something no? eventually if he didn’t change you’d have to move on, or if you knew him and knew he worked there, then you probably wouldn’t begin working there.
Forums are the same as any community, when you first go on one you first see if you like the look of the place, then have a few discussions to see if you feel comfortable with the group. If I made a forum I’d be looking at that and making sure I am providing a suitable environment for the commune to work. I am only talking about minimal moderation here.
I’ve had a subscription for a couple of years, I think it’s interesting and often covers things I’d not otherwise come across, introducing new philosophers and philosophies and explaining more mainstream subjects clearly.
Exactly. After reading the May/June issue, I proceeded to order by the four most recent back issues (which i’m still waiting on ). The cover stories: “Are Death’s Days Limited?” , “[Environmental] Sustainability”, “Minds & Brains” and “Kant and Co.” All topics which are of interest to me, and which usually get overshadowed in popular culture by the latest escapeds of the Kardashians and the like.
). The cover stories: “Are Death’s Days Limited?” , “[Environmental] Sustainability”, “Minds & Brains” and “Kant and Co.” All topics which are of interest to me, and which usually get overshadowed in popular culture by the latest escapeds of the Kardashians and the like.