D. - you backpeddle desperately for a philosophic get out of jail free card regarding your conduct with Dr. S, he pissed you off, you called him a selection of choice phrases. What’s with the big deal. Join the human race already.
Dr. S was always going to be the underdog, and no-one likes to see Pee-Wee herman getting flattened by Mike Tyson.
You forgot the “don’t fight with monsters” rule. Like it or not, you’re ILP’s Spiderman - I know - you didn’t ask for it, you didn’t want it - but the intellectual arachnid bit you hard. And now the “with great power comes great responsibility” clause applies… You finally pushed the meniscus of the consensual view of you too hard and it broke - And now people are boinging back and forth trying to restore equilibrium with the ‘New’ Dunamis.
what you don’t get is when the principles of Satanism are name calling, the accusation of violating them is not ad hom. What it advocates is bullying and destroying others. The first cardinal sin is 1. Stupidity. To call Dr. S. stupid is to hold him to his own standard and to find him wanting. If you really were shutting down threads based on name calling, Dr. S would be shut down any time he comments on another.
The idea that people are posting actual theories, and that these theories are discussable here, is a bit more than ludicrous.
you backpeddle desperately for a philosophic get out of jail free card regarding your conduct with Dr. S, he pissed you off, you called him a selection of choice phrases.
No. I treated him all along by his own admitted bully standards. The truth is that I found his “theory” almost meaningless to comment on and only eventually did so to point out his own inconsistancy.
Thirst made a very good point to Dr. Satirical that he was not following his own principles in not seeking to “destroy” me, and Dr. S. complained that there is no way to destroy me on this site. Well far be it from me to let the principles of Satanism be so constrained. Perhaps a little lesson in the kinds of “destruction” that can be accomplished, that is without the intervention of the weak-minded.
Some would argue that a rule is only legitimate iff it is applied equally and in all cases, not just at random. For example, I know very well that I have used ad hominem attacks at ILP, I have used ad hom attacks in the philosophy forum itself. Nothing ever happened to any of my posts.
There is at least one poster I can think of… for the past year all he has ever contributed is ad hominem attacks.
Dunamis, regularly and repeatedly, is insulted at this site. The one time I see ILP mods enforce the Ad Hom rules is when Dunamis turns the tables. Turns the tables against whom? A friggin Satanist for christ’s sake (ho ho ho). This occurred, in point of fact, as a demonstration of the fallacious nature of the Satanists position in regards to principles said Satanist POSTED HIMSELF one one one
The argument that you are simply enforcing the rules, well I won’t call it a lie, I will say that, as a “position”, it is untenable.
I have to agree with GCT. I too have resorted to ad hominem attacks in the past in various forums against various members. Yes, it is true that I rarely do it… ahem… but it is true. Those same members have used ad hominem attacks against me and the threads were not locked. When these “rules” are applied unevenly there are problems which make me want to resort to more ad hominem attacks.
By the way GCT, were you referring to me as the one member you could think of?
Little red sports cars get more attention from police than less striking cars. Dramatic infractions generate more dramatic responses. It is all less than perfect, and it is all readily observable. Judgment calls are made all the time.
The monitoring of ad hominem attacks is decidedly incomplete. Numerous infractions go unaddressed. It is the gift and curse of responsibility. Do we need draconian regulations of every post? Is that what people want here?
Actually Thirst, no. I was prepared to refer to your fights with Aspacia, SAITD vs Aspacia, Adlerian vs Psyque, Myself vs SAITD, Myself vs Yopele, Everyone with a brain Vs Iron Dog, Greedy Dick vs class, Dr. S vs the various people he has picked on from time to time, Gamer vs Dunamis, Gamer vs DeTrop, Detrop vs the world (well not the world, oddly he and I rarely argue about anything) and so on as individual cases.
The person I was thinking of doesn’t seem to post here anymore (so I suppose his posts might be a moot point).
I get the sense that it may be argued that the ad hom rule applies to the Philosophy forum only. That doesn’t explain the ad hom attacks of the past. I get the sense the ad hom rule now only applies to recent posts, that doesnt explain the ad hom attacks I see in other active threads. I get the sense that some may be tempted to argue that rules are only being enforced, I believe that argument is insufficient at this point. I am beginning to believe that what we are seeing here is something much more personal in nature. I wouldn’t know what that might be, but it has that sort of veneer to it.
No, chaotic ad hoc application of the rules by the “wise”, (despite the fact that I have found it absolutely useless to post any ideas any longer because they draw only ad hom responses), is always better. That way we can learn from the intuitions of those in charge, as they unexpectedly swoop down deus ex machina.
The way I see it Ben is responsible for originally creating this space. Everyone who posts something is responsible for what they post. Ben always remains responsible for the space. The moderators are delegated responsibility from Ben to maintain the space.
Now this maintenance is low key. Very low key. There is a huge freedom on what people can post. There a guidelines that point towards what is unacceptable in this space. The boundaries are mutable. They are sometimes rigid, often significantly accepting. As long as the individual posters act as self-regulating agents then no external regulation is required. Add to that the fact that posters regulate each other and it usually works fairly well.
Some people get more pressure put on them in the system to be a regulating agent. Dunamis, you have been a notable example of this. You have been called on to be a leader, not by anyone, but by everyone. But I think you dislike that.