Petition to unban lys

Unless you can provide a different meaning for the word equality, no.
Where the word has not been constrained to a specific group (whether of opportunity or outcome), you should take the broadest meaning, which is all categories of equality. So not just opportunity and not just outcome, but both and then some.

Phoneutria,

So what you’re saying here is that Satyr doesn’t have such a thick skin, that he couldn’t simply ignore this (although I can in some way understand this) or even invite iambiguous over there to answer to them? He had to send a WOMAN. Oh, Satyr, I am really surprised at you. What kind of a satyr are you anyway? You could have been more resourceful than that.

And I will have to take a look-see to see if indeed Rant was the only place she was being Satyr’s mouthpiece and in reply to Iambiguous. Either way, it doesn’t much matter. The killer goes before the judge and says "But your honor, I only killed him because he said mean things about me. If he didn’t, he would be alive today. Maybe that’s a poor comparison but it still works for me.

She will leave… I think she’s already gone and not of her own volition. Perhaps at some point, her banning will be irrelevant but not at this point, not yet but I may be incorrect in my assessment.

:laughing: Of course they do. But that doesn’t actually say much does it? Who is it who might be wounded by that statement? lol
We can all at times be a herd of dumb animals but some of us are less of a herd or less of the Borg than are others. Who is it who is to establish who is more so or less so?

I can see the precipice and on either side of it is ilp and Know Thyself. As I said, we can all be dumb animals at times but not at all times and not all of us. I’m not actually excluding myself in that last.

But I think that we have to be very discerning of what herd we follow. Personally, I don’t like being part of any herd, I like to be the dragon that flies above it all or the wolf which goes her own way but being part of a society alas one can’t always be that - unless they enter a cave and become a hermit. But we can decide who we will walk with and agree with.

ah, a herd of dumb animals…

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

The survival of the fittiest and all that - I wonder - how many have already plunged into the abyss of that precipice.

One wonders about that…
Why would wise men and women care about the opinions of fools?

The reasons for discussing of ILP on KT and KT on ILP escape my understanding. :confused:

The only reason that I put my two cents into this thread is because :

  1. a solution is relatively simple.
  2. this vote puts Carleas into an awkward position and should have been avoided

Enough with all the drama shit. This is a philosophy site, not a soap opera or a stage.

People are unequal. Thus equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are in contradiction, as when there is equal opportunity, equal outcome can only happen if all participants are equal.

People are equal under a democratic rule where it pertains to obedience of rules. Outcome should be the same regardless of who you are. If you break a law, you go to jail. If you disobey a rule, you are banned.

I don’t think you understand what I meant.

Equality of opportunity pertains to law allowing the same freedom, aka, putting equal restrictions on everybody, aka all start the race from the same line and nothing obstructs them from finishing it except their own natural limitations.
Equality of outcome means that, since people are different, they must treated unequally in order to artificially make them equal, aka, you have to put more restrictions on the more competent ones, and artificially elevate the less competent ones - affirmative action would be an example of this.

They are only consistent if you think all people are, literally, equal, as this would mean that if you give equal opportunity to them, they all start from the same line, they will all finish the race the same.

Well I already knew since coming across so many of them but I went back and checked on the archives and Lyssa did post an exhorbitant amount of SATYR says of this and that and not only in rant but in rant not having anything necessarily to do with Iambiguous.
The fact remains that Satyr having been banned, despite what is thought ought to be, should be, could be posted, Lys broke the rule.

But also in Society, Government and Economics, Off Topic, Philosophy, I’m changing my race to African American (don’t recall what that was.
Satyr says this.

A lot of what was posted by her in rant for instance on nihilism had nothing to do with Iambiguous but just being Satyr’s mouthpiece.

I’m not much of a philosopher to speak of but in what way is that philosophy or science or anything? If Satyr is a father figure or surrogate he has to allow his children to grow up and to learn to think for themselves albeit I can see that Lys knows how to use her mind and to think for herslef. But perhaps she needs to learn this in other ways.

I think I’m finished here and there insofar as this Lys thing and her banning is concerned. If I indeed felt that her banning was unfair and unjust, that might make a difference. As it is though, I said my piece and to continue going on like this is just plain stupid in light of the fact that I’ve said all that I, myself and I can.

There are far more interesting places to be and discussions to be had in here.

AD, imagine if I took a thinker you admire, respect and agree with, and misconstrued his positions in order to make them easier to attack, made lies about his personality, and attacked him from where he cannot defend himself.

What would you do?

I voted no, because I can see all the drama happening. I don’t see a point in voting yes when all this drama is created from her.

Looking at her last 25 posts: 1 was in Society, 1 in Philosophy, 2 in Off-topic (in Iambiguous’ nihilism & uberman thread) and the rest were in Rant (Iambiguous’ nihilism thread). So 92% about Iambiguous.

Such an informed and thought-out opinion is always welcome. Thanks for your participation, dear sir.

[size=50]And to think these kind of retards vote…[/size]

No problem.

I can create rules for my race that are the same for everyone, and anyone choosing to enter the race must abode by the same rules and outcomes.
The race is from here to there, going between the flags. If you go outside of the flags you will be thrown out of the race. Winner gets chocolate iceam, everyone else gets a hand chopped off.

Your argument is that the rules should be different to make everyone equal because some are faster than others, so that all will have the same opportunity. Like for example the slowest races get to go out of the flags a number of times.

So if we transport that to the actual situation in this thread, it would be like saying the most infracting posters should get more tolerance from the mods.

Lys crossed outside of a flag and we are petitioninng to let her back into the race.

So… your point?

It was said in the other thread on this topic that Lys/Satyr have a tendency to explode when they feel threatened, pumping the forum full of incoherence in terms of mass quotes. Its relevant apparently, in the sense of on topic, but isn’t even trolling properly, but rather qualifies a mass spam attack. There is a threshold for absorption of data, and it goes down when its not original data, they are clearly aware of this effect and so need to be banned for a while. I’m historically very pro free speech, always was for Satyr returning, not completely convinced Lys is even a real person… but yeah, mechanically flooding the site to the point people can’t read anymore is wrong, as its intentionally murdering the discussion for the protection of ego. Can a egoist engadge in a philosophical discussion? Yes, but the risk is this: Once it starts to hurt your security or sense of self, you can go close quarters or back off and quit, but you really don’t have the right to evade and make a mockery of discussion. You put your ego on the line, its fair game. Its why in the US the right of privacy doesn’t fully extend to public or famous figures, as free speech isn’t just about the exchange of ideas, but the worth of such ideas by examining the kind of individual who puts it forth. Saul had a hard time as Paul, convincing people he had a authentic experience, Hieddegar will never be accepted as a legitimate philosopher due to his Esoteric Nazi Theology role.

So yeah, reinstate them after a few months. Outside of Satyr, I’m probably the most banned member of this site (I recall I actually complied with the bans against me when Joker and I was banned roughly the same time, but Joker came back much earlier with a different account).

I and SIATD are about the only ones ironically who respected the bans, and the latter was permabanned. In my case, not a single ban was legitimate, yet I followed through.

Its obvious the ban system doesn’t work too well here. Yet, mechanical spamming does need to be countered, so short bans are appropriate.

And someone mentioned I was a KTS member… I have a whopping total of two posts over there. This Turd is Carleas’ Turd, homegrown and unflushable. Don’t go blaming me on another forum, I’m very much a phenomena of this site alone.

Honestly, the spam issue needs resolved. We can’t invite her back until that technical detail of her(his) goes away. That was the only real problem I recall Carleas/Only Humean had (outside a natural disgust and loathing for Satyr, which is very healthy, and sane, and hardly contradicts logic… there are rules to logic, but overwhelming loathing and disgust for a individual is an aspect of the A Priori Natural Law already existing, and needs not be formally stated, as far as community organization is concerned. It is natural to desire to exclude the sick headed twisted fucks, it is TOLERANCE- the philosophical virtue we adopted under Aristotle for accepting Philosophers come under unexpected and disorderly modes.

Satyr can be completely wretched, disgusting, fucked up… but the injunction to tolerance as philosophers, the requirement to open mindedness, only applies if they can show themselves to be philosophers. Diogenes was accepted because he was a great mind, who engaged and debated, inquired and sought less savory truths. Diogenes would of been rejected outright had all he done behaviorally was absurd and disgusting, without hint of a deeper motive of creed, much less intelligence.

The Spam they can put out sounds a lot like the latter. It is therefore not a contradiction of asserted A Priori structured Rules to act outside of the scope of logic, as Natural Law preexisted the rules in the first place. The extremes, demanding everyone falls under a single kind of comportment, accept virtually identical (and unnatural) logical fallacies is likewise equally invalid as its against the natural law, as only a subset of the population can fall under the sway of this thought, and most of the philosophers produced in history worth discussing would be excluded.

I don’t therefore, think they have to change that much. They do need to be more honest in how they approach the dialectic. Spamming is bullshit, its only valid as a military tactic, to block communications. Communications is vital in philosophy.

Oh, whoever it was who said I won’t discuss or debate, you gotta PM me the thread. Half the site is unread posts, I’ve been engaged in very fierce debates about the history of Colchise regarding Jason and the Argonauts and it’s supposed Egyptian origins for the last week, which involves a lot of research into sources… sources next to no one reads and is hard as hell to track and interpret. I do this sort of thing ALL the time, and as a result, half the site goes unread here for me. If someone other that Zoot Allures have a desperate debate and are waiting for a reply, PM me the link, I more than likely don’t even know you posted. I for example, didn’t even know Lys was ranting in the thread I made for Erik where I claimed I was changing my race to African American. Its one of a hundred billion lit up, the discussion wasn’t going anywhere because Zoots and Erik wanted to become Space-Nazis living on Jupiter ruling over the Solar System. Fine, whatever… report to NASA, we will launch every skinhead into space.

I literally don’t know which thread or discussion I denied you a discussion in. Its likely something incredibly lame and takes 2 seconds to crack. I spent a whole night last week answering a query Orbie had. I’m hardly evasive, I’ll put the work behind it if its warranted, but you (each of you) are but one individual, and I only notice a handful of people around here. There are 2-3 people in this thread alone I know absolutely nothing about in terms of your beliefs or opinions. I know absolutely nothing about Artimas, little about Philo, very little about Arbiter of Change, wish I knew less about Arc and Phoneuturia (that shit rots the brain).

I couldn’t begin to guess country of origin, political persuasion, ideology or philosophical ideas you hold. Why? Cause you don’t stand out. Its not because your posts are exquisit and too refined, its because you don’t stand out. Nothing in particular about you stand out, where I’ve read and said “This guy is on to something” or “This guy is a attention span deficient pot smoker pistingbgibberish”. You’ve managed to achieve pure anonminity, despite having thousands of posts between you.

I only recall denying discussion to Periphial, and it was cause he outright lied, and was banned for it. I don’t see the point in engaging a bold face liar on a forum, and he was banned for it. I would like to say I’m denying Zoots on the dualism /Non-Dualism debate, but he currently lacks a coherent position that can even be reasonably debated, once he gets some reading done (beyond the definition of what Solipsism is) I will gladly discuss with him so he can carry out his war on me. Just a little funny as I’m a Cognitive Dualist, and he is Anti- Solipist, suggesting that he too is a Dualist, so all I hear is confused anger and noise and am honestly mystified as to how I should respond. Plus his reading comprehension is low and wants me to shrink the sum total of every idea down to a paragraph, so he can more easily refute it. Impossible. Others grasp my longer posts just fine, I put out even longer ones in history discussions.

Only two issues I’m aware of, period. Got issues, PM me so I know someone is even challenging me somewhere to reply.

There isn’t any debate, because all you can do is ramble. Epistemological solipsism is an impossible position that collapses onto itself, and I presented a few very easily understood arguments against it. Browser disappeared and you went off on some scatter-brained diatribe that did everything but clarify your position or answer to my challenge.

A day later you are talking about cognitive dualism which at that point in the solipsism argument was neither here nor there. So I went with you, took something out of your new ramble, and asked you to clarify it. You didn’t, so I did it for you.

After day three it was no longer my intent to keep the discussion on track, but to pick out and show inconsistencies in the various things you have said along the way. We aren’t arguing anymore, because you can’t argue, you can’t focus on anything, you cannnot summarise or clarify anything, and you have little understanding of how an argument works. All you do is ramble about a hundred things at once.

Your biggest problem is that you have filled your head with content that you cannot simplify or organize into a coherent position.

I’m not an anythingist, even less a dualist. If I was forced to pick a spot I’d be a substance monist because mind/body dualism is riddled with problems.

Philosophers don’t make me angry. They disappoint me. And where my reading comprehension is low, it is such because if I have found a fundamental flaw in the basic premises of a position, I don’t proceed further. That anybody else does is their business.

And I don’t ask you to shrink your posts for the purposes of refuting them like I’m some asshole who wants you to be wrong. I do so for the purposes of making it easier for you to recognize problems with your arguments. You’ve just admitted to not knowing how to respond to even the smallest of my posts. Imagine how much trouble you would have if I actually put effort into this.

No they don’t, because much of what you say cannot be grasped. These people simply watch and enjoy your writing style… something very good in certain respects, but not qualifiable as rigid argumentation; your history lessons are not formal arguments so there is nothing to dispute except the historical accuracy of it all. And frankly, I’m less worried about who did what in 1176, and more worried about your inability to comprehend an argument.

Where did I say that? :open_mouth:

you are saying this thread does not present equality of outcome.

Quote me saying that.
Or at least quote something written by me which you interpreted as me saying that.