AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I have just proved the obvious. Not that it means anything, that is. Just that a banned poster has come back. Well, actually, I suppose I haven’t proved anything. Just that they use the same words, which is… irrelevant. The only thing that determines the validity of the argument is the argument, not the mouth from which it spews.
Next time IP ban? Or was that ban just a gesture?
From what I’ve seen I think she should be permabanned. All she does is attack other members without logical interjection.
I agree.
BTW cool sig schism, I always liked that Hicks line.
Yeah, Bill Hicks is one of my favorite people of all time. He really knew what he was talking about.
Wow, the lynch mob from the drug addicts thread (http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=154911) wants to ban the pro drug war girl. 
And they think they can get away with it because the obviousness of being home-schooled by my mom (the person you knew as “JennyHeart”) is “sufficient” reason to delude that we are one and the same person.
I let the site owner and moderators and everyone know up front from the moment I arrived who I was, and I wasn’t banned. 
And I have continued to reiterate the matter when “appropriate”. 
So you have no “identity” issue here, boys. 
I will remind you, that no moderator worth their salt would reward the LCD sheep’s obvious ploy, as it is quite clear that you want me banned for my issue perspective and my complete way of effectively getting at the truth as a good philosopher does. 
Indeed, many don’t have a problem with me at all.
It seems, however, that all the self-admitted drugees do. 
And, of course, how convenient that you ignore the fact that in the drug war thread I was attacked long before I defended, and I was attacked solely because the pro drug addict attackers ran out of “rational” replies to my valid on-topic points.
So, as I predicted, here you all have ultimately lynch-mob flocked: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=155601.
And, now that I have you all together, it’s indeed time for a little poetry corner. 
Enjoy: So their God He did smite
To the Angels’ delight
Yes the sheep they all beamed with such glee
For the realm had been spared
From the threat of truth bared
That so bothers the mass LCD
The one that was hung
Had been treated like dung
For her crime of refusing to cave
To the mob that was hired
By the rams co-conspired
For to banish society’s brave
And the henchmen were paid
So they mostly just stayed
Quite aloof from the aftermath’s fray
Where a few with some guts
Did for sure make no buts
About right-doing gone quite astray
Though 'midst threats of smite too
Strong goats bleated anew
The sad lament of justice awry
And they wondered aloud
To the brave in the crowd
Who’ll remove now the mote from God’s eye?
As a general rule of thumb, I am opposed to banning. The only person I can think of who deserved to be banned is PoR because his rampant hate-speech made ILP the sort of place that I actively couldn’t visit while I was at work.
Being annoying, or violating rules of logic, even using ad hom as a primary means of debate do not constitute reasonable grounds for banning.
We’re all adults here. No need to appeal to authority in that regard.
And there are good reasons for this rational conclusion.
When one person takes a valid issue stance that differs from the vast majority, the vast majority may experience the Lone Ranger as “annoying” … when what is really happening is that the LR’s presentation of the facts and truth on particular matters (like drugs and when a person begins to live and such) results in the masses experiencing a conviction they preferred not to face, and the fact of that matter annoys them. In those situations, it’s not the LR who is annoying — the experience of feeling annoyed orients in the annoyed.
As to “rules” of logic, again, anyone who thinks that rational reasoning and logic is the sole and most powerful way of getting at the truth is arguing with over two thirds of his hands tied behind his back. There are many ways of getting at the truth, more so than limiting one’s self to mere rational reasoning logic of the mind. The soul has its ways … and so does, as my mom would say, the heart, the ontological foundation of our being. Since getting at the truth is the object of a good philosopher, it is to be expected that not everyone here is seeking a refuge from the real world where people feel and value their ontological kinship with others.
As for ad hom, as long as it isn’t a true attack, appeal to one’s personal opinion and behavioral and attitudinal realities is most germane in nearly all matters. In the drug war thread, a topic about which 99% of those are opposed to the drug war are active addicts, asking if a drug war opposer is using one of the deadly redeemingless drugs is apropos to the matter, as such use can explain where a user’s obvious erroneous presentation of “drugs don’t harm anyone” orients. The same is true with regard to discussing when a person begins to live. If someone has had an abortion or has supported such but doesn’t want to view themselves as a “killer”, information shows that they will deny the obvious truth that a person begins to live at conception and for that “killer” reason alone. Revealing such correlation presents information that can be intelligently used to gather more truthful information in our Einsteinian “it’s relative to the obvserver” world.
Indeed, you never want to ban someone who transcends the anachronistic dominant paradigm.
Such transcendence is how we all learn something truthful that’s new.
What we really dislike about such comments is the fact that calling us active addicts is both illogical and meaningless. She gives no sources, no examples, nothing. She is simply a difficult person.
Be a good neighbor!
What does?
In other words, we’re angry because you’re correct and we’re not, correct?
Yuck! Where’s my other less than a third?
First, while truth may be discovered by other means, logic is the only way by which it can be communicated. Logic is the only way an agreement can be come to between two who at first disagree.
Second, my befuddlement at your use of “ontological” is impeding my understanding of the paragraph. As far as I know, the definition of “ontological” is solely
But the context in which you are using it seems to require a fourth definition. What is it?
You are committing the logical fallacy of ambiguity by not defining “true attack”.
Such an explanation is not necessary. All you need to do to prove the drug addict’s argument wrong is show how it does not use a valid logical form or show that one or more of the premises are false. Trying to find out why the person subscribed to the false argument in the first place is unnecessary and a waste of your time.
The same applies here. An argument is either true or false, whether it comes from my mouth or yours or that of the great Eureka(!) himself. Also, I didn’t quite grasp your reference to Einsteinian subjectivity. I’m sorry, I’m tired and not feeling very bright.
Just because something is new doesn’t mean it is correct, or incorrect. It just means it’s new.
More than sufficient, to me, but I will take your word at face value as I hope you take mine. I’m a homeschooler too, and I find I am quickly becoming my mom. It’s scary.
We want you banned because you’re right and we’re wrong, and we don’t like that. Is that your conclusion?
Also, I use a CRT. They’re better for gaming 'cause they don’t have a native resolution, though nights like this mine starts to burn holes in my eyes.
I tend to spell it “druggies”, but do as you like. I have not done drugs, never will, and think, frankly, that doing so would be extremely fricking’ stupid. And before you ask, I don’t support the “rights” of those that use them because I don’t believe in “rights”.
This is not true:
…which is an adhominem.
This was written before matthatter’s comments, which, as I have already said, he should not of made. And whereas matthatter has stopped, you have not.
Also, though matthatter’s post was laced with taunting, it still contained some rational argument.
It is easy to make predictions about oneself.
What are your thoughts on being home-schooled, Sabrina?
Funny; I’m homeschooled as well. Interesting. I’m not becoming either of my parents exclusively, though, so…
What kind of homeschooling are you doing and why are you doing it? (This goes for anybody)
As to the other stuff:
I wrote what I think is a fairly level-headed and easy-going approach to the war on drugs issue-thing.
Repeated breaking of the rules. Sabrina ad-homs in almost every post, I have no idea why she’s still here. Soft mods? No one bothering to make official complaints? Who knows?
SIATD, you’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
I’m just kidding man.
What is the difference between “hate-speech” and “personal attack”? There the same thing, aren’t they?
What are you doing back? [size=59]And where are the black helicopters you said you were sending.[/size] Why is this site still alive? You should have torn out its heart by now!
I couldn’t find a qualified hacker so I gave up.
The black helicopters are grounded because my alien superiors have mind control on the FBI and they won’t allow them to hurt me.
I, and I alone, will stop the New World Order from happening.
Totally and completely different.
Personal attack: Tunis is a freakin’ moron. Note how it is directed at the individual. We’re all adults, we can handle that sort of thing.
Hate Speech: Well, check out this thread The things said in that thread by PoR have no place in any civillized discussion, period. edit: The pm is mostly what I am talking about.
Ahahahaha. He’s a PoR’ing lunatic nutcase freakjob whacko. Batshit crazy indeed.
He can join batman
[size=0]Ihavetowritethisformysubmitbuttontowork[/size]
“No one bothering to make official complaints?”! Maybe that’s the reason. If members feel enough is enough they should PM the mods.
I could see if a poster just lost their cool one evening. No point in being harsh. But when it’s an unending stream of personal attacks it ruins the forum.
There’s somthing in Lockes Essay about law (rules) and punishment. I can’t recall the exact chapter and verse, but it goes something like this:
“There can be no such thing as a law without a punishment for breaking that law. Because a law without a penalty attached is a mock law.”
You don’t have to read Lockes Essay
to understand that. That’s true with civil law. Rules for employee’s in a corporation. Rules on this forum, etc.
Maybe the mods are very busy and just haven’t had time to clean up lately. Maybe there’s been a lack of formal complaints. I don’t know either.