Suicide should be available to everyone

[Ecmandu]

The smaller the gauge, the bigger the barrel...

10 gauge is better ...

Women know all guys lust after them

[Carleas]

I disagree with the whole ban-people-with-mental-illnesses thing. As long as I've known it, ILP has been frequented by people who are diagnosably mentally ill. I don't think we've ever had a time since I've been here (since I first found ILP, not just in my tenure janitor-in-chief) that there wasn't at least one openly mentally ill staff member. And the boards have always had a colorful set. The very field of philosophy is full of kooks. Normal people don't ask these questions.

But I also basically disagree with the milder form: banning people just because they're bad at philosophy or messageboarding. If people are actually disruptive, I'm on board, and I'm open to the idea of banning them, even permanently. If someone proves themselves unable to participate in a non-disruptive way, they shouldn't be here. But that's different from people who are just not very good at what they're trying to do. I favor generally a standard of good faith over quality, with the caveat that sufficient problems of quality can trump all the good faith in the world.

But, to take Mr. Ecmandu as our present example: while I think most of Ecmandu's posts are devoid of content, and most of his ideas fall into the category of "not even wrong", he has produced at least one philosophically interesting idea, namely the intuition pump of looking at a world where suicide is cheap, easy, and painless for anyone who wants it, and asking what that would would have to look like so that no one was committing suicide. I think that's an interesting thought, and one which I'd have missed if we banned him when it became obvious that he's technically mentally ill and isn't great at normal participation in discussions.

[phyllo]

Normal people don't ask these questions.

[phyllo]

Are we going to see any changes at all to the site moderation?

[Ecmandu]

Carleas,

Actually my greatest idea is that the biggest problem in existence is: overlapping desires and mutually exclusive desires; that if we can solve that one problem, we solve every problem ever, forever and ever.

My suicide ideas are about meaning (make suicide cheaper, easier, painless ... Whatever gets the rate to zero, is inherent meaning)

These two ideas are connected threads that speak to the core of everyone's existence.

[Carleas]

Actually my greatest idea is

That idea seems less novel to me. It's discussed all the time in policy circles, under terms like "tradeoffs".

Normal people don't ask these questions.

I stand by it. Have you never had someone roll their eyes and say "come on, man" in an exasperated tone as you slide into the third hour of Socratic inquiry?

Are we going to see any changes at all to the site moderation?

Do you actually want change? Removing Ec's thread's was a change, and here we are.

[phyllo]

No changes in the foreseeable future. Good to know.

[Ecmandu]

My concept isn't game theory Carleas.

I literally want two men to exclusively have the same wife; I literally want lesbians to consent to sex with men while still always being lesbians.

I'm on a whole different plane here...

I'm not working with game theoretical constructs from lower plane beings in flat world

[Ecmandu]

I edited my last message for clarity

[Carleas]

In a spirit of sincere good will and constructive criticism, I'll tell you how I interpret that post, and you can consider or dismiss what I have to say as you choose.

You aren't trying to present an idea that's in any way accessible to your audience. You're presenting a crackpot-ish idea, seemingly with no awareness of how crackpot-ish it sounds. Then you're effectively demanding that if anyone wants to understand it, they need to get on your level because you'll make no effort to explain it in a way that's accessible to anyone who isn't already inside your head. And you reject a major body of work on the kind of problem you seem to be concerned with, further indication that normal means of inquiry will be fruitless. That obstinacy reads, most charitably, as showing off, and least charitably as being full of shit.

Reading this, I think to myself, What are the odds this random guy on the internet has anything worth exploring? And what are the odds that some random guy on the internet who won't or can't clearly and directly explain his position is nonetheless sitting on some deep philosophical insight? And, assuming this is such a guy, what are the odds that the worth of this thing is so great that it offsets what will likely be an arduous slog through this random internet guy's back catalog, and perhaps months of carefully crafting questions like answers to a zen koan in order to get a little more color on what the hell random internet guy is talking about?

And I conclude that all those odds are just about zero, and, while you might have something, I have effectively no reason to expect that you have something, and yet less reason to think I can get you to explain it. I have no reason to risk wasting my time, when there's already a limitless supply of other reading material that's pre-vetted by people whose opinions I trust and, moreover, that is presented with the aim of explaining the ideas its advocating.

And then I stop reading your post. I know that your post isn't meant to be a full exposition of the idea, but if you'd linked to a full exposition of your idea I would very likely not follow it.

[Ecmandu]

That's not my issue carleas...

The thing about solving this for philosophic zombie worlds using behavioral signatures and variations instead of consciousness signatures is the problem of lots of beings who understand this is the biggest problem.

If you aren't even smart enough to know this is the biggest problem, all that means, is that we're doing the work for you... So just sit back while it's being done.

[Uccisore]

You aren't trying to present an idea that's in any way accessible to your audience. You're presenting a crackpot-ish idea, seemingly with no awareness of how crackpot-ish it sounds. Then you're effectively demanding that if anyone wants to understand it, they need to get on your level because you'll make no effort to explain it in a way that's accessible to anyone who isn't already inside your head. And you reject a major body of work on the kind of problem you seem to be concerned with, further indication that normal means of inquiry will be fruitless. That obstinacy reads, most charitably, as showing off, and least charitably as being full of shit.

Ecmandu is obviously crazier than a shithouse rat, but this particular pattern isn't a sign of mental illness, I find. It seems to me that when people do philosophy essentially alone, their philosophizing often takes the form of developing private jargon to describe their biases with, and not actually an investigation of anything. When somebody continues like this for a while, their eventual confrontations with the outside world take the form of showing off all the complicated sentences they have learned to construct, and insisting that anybody who doesn't see them as deep or meaningful just isn't on their level. I could name a lot of people here who seem to follow this general pattern, and the common thread among them is that they haven't had a lot of exposure to philosophy outside off their own head.

[Uccisore]

I disagree with the whole ban-people-with-mental-illnesses thing. As long as I've known it, ILP has been frequented by people who are diagnosably mentally ill. I don't think we've ever had a time since I've been here (since I first found ILP, not just in my tenure janitor-in-chief) that there wasn't at least one openly mentally ill staff member.

There's me, for example. I'm pretty clearly a few sandwiches short of a picnic, ask anybody who knows me.

[Ecmandu]

I think you're all crazy. Seriously. I understand what it means to have a routine of private language that get regurgitated ... Some of it is brilliant, and some garbage. Uccisore calls it a routine.

I think anyone who wants something to the exclusion of others is certifiable and should be locked up.

Trixie understands everything I said here.

The definition of crazy that people use as a rule of thumb, is perceptual phenomenon that nobody but you can observe forever.

[phyllo]

Take comfort in the fact that you are a valued member of ILP. You are free to philosophize to your heart's content.

[Uccisore]

Are we going to see any changes at all to the site moderation?

Why? "I don't care about insults as long as they don't derail conversations" has been in a sticky thread at the top of my section of the forums since I've been running it, right?

[phyllo]

Are we going to see any changes at all to the site moderation?

Why? "I don't care about insults as long as they don't derail conversations" has been in a sticky thread at the top of my section of the forums since I've been running it, right?

Oh, the site is just about what YOU like or want.

[Uccisore]

Oh, the site is just about what YOU like or want.

So I should change a rule that's been in place for years, because otherwise Society and Politics would be 'just about what I like or want', which is clearly unacceptable because of your sardonic emoticon. You know something of my politics. Does Society and Politics truly strike you as a place that is 'just about what I like or want'?

[phyllo]

The mods have their fiefs and they run them however they want. A lack of consistency, across the site, is one of the problems.

[Uccisore]

The mods have their fiefs and they run them however they want. A lack of consistency, across the site, is one of the problems.

That's why all the other mods need to start doing things my way ASAP.

[The Golden Turd]

I disagree with the whole ban-people-with-mental-illnesses thing. As long as I've known it, ILP has been frequented by people who are diagnosably mentally ill. I don't think we've ever had a time since I've been here (since I first found ILP, not just in my tenure janitor-in-chief) that there wasn't at least one openly mentally ill staff member.

There's me, for example. I'm pretty clearly a few sandwiches short of a picnic, ask anybody who knows me.

So what we are saying essentially is, Ecmandu is fully qualified to be a moderator then? I can name a couple of mods bat shit crazy, posting nothing but gibberish, giving the site no intrinsic value as far as ideas go. Why not Ecmandu for the Green? We need a moderator for the math section.

[Uccisore]

[

So what we are saying essentially is, Ecmandu is fully qualified to be a moderator then?

If there was only one kind of crazy, and Ecmandu and I were both it, I suppose so!

[Ecmandu]

I'll tell you exactly what I know about math...

Number theory

I'm a genius at it.

You can literally know everything about number theory and not even know how to add or subtract.

I've looked at solving septeptant equations before...

It's really fucking hard!

Most questions people ask in math (I have no formal education) I'd have to read cliff notes for.

I would not be a standard pick for a math moderator.

[Ecmandu]

You all obviously know what a quadratic equation is...

Septantent is just 7...

I was trying to find the algorithm for infinite equations of this sort ...

I need more data to find it.

[Ecmandu]

Let's get this straight.

Uccisore deleted a post in politics that almost nobody on earth can answer (probably even Uccisore) if asked.

The question: what is left (liberal) and right (conservative); what is democrat and republican?

Left (liberal) is: be who you are, if you fuck with anyone else's "be who you are" we send you to prison

Right (conservative) is: to hamper individual freedom for the sake of innovation in all forms because of collectivism, will never move the collective forward

Democrat: everything is voted and decided by popular vote

Republican: everything is decided by representatives (specialists) in their field

Now, why Uccisore would see fit to delete that in politics, and then tell me I know NOTHING about politics, makes him look mentally ill.

Then in the society aspect of the forum, which he also deleted, I posted that suicide should be legal and a right for everyone to facilitate the idea of personal freedom against slavery. Again, Uccisore is mentally ill to decide this has nothing to do with society.

Then I said that if trumps tax returns had been hacked, he would not be our president. This means that the hackers decided the election!

He deleted all three of those, and everyone, even Carleas, calls my content absurd, and calls me mentally ill.

I'm crazy as fuck folks...

But my sanity makes all of you look absurd and crazy relative to me... And that should scare you!!

Another thing; when I say the biggest problem on earth is mutually exclusive desires and overlapping desires; and that people hide from this truth to appreciate their self esteem from stratification.

That is the definition of sanity.