Forum Philosophy Update

Nice argument.
And it’s good to see you implicitly agree with Serendipity’s position on free speech here.
You really can’t see how long this ‘football game’ is and why we CAN IN FACT MAKE UP THE RULES WHILE WE ARE HERE, can you? I addressed that issue.
I suppose I would have hoped that before calling someone an idiot you’d actually read their posts carefully. But I like Serendipity see nothing wrong with you breaking forum rules and playing the game differently than Carleas would like.

In any case, you seem like a commenter. You like to make short statements, generally about other people. Can you make an argument?

I made a post on one of the first pages of the thread that summed up what I believe is the case here, and elsewhere. You’re going to great lengths to describe how you think it ought be. There’s a difference between seeing how things are, and thinking of how you want them to be. All the hot air in the world doesn’t change much when it comes to the reality that pretty much everywhere in the real world, at a certain level it’s authority that dictates the way that things are, at least when it comes to things over which people can have control.

Moderating a message board is not murder. Telling someone that certain things can’t be said in a place over which you have a right to control what’s said does not limit their ability to express themselves in other venues, and therefore has almost no affect on their free speech.

You may consider, so that you can clear up your understanding of reality, the idea that freedom to do something, and freedom from certain things have to be balanced against one another. So unrestricted speech or expression isn’t good in and of itself, because it can expose others who have a right to be free from certain things to those things which they should have a right to be free from being exposed to.

Pretty simple stuff. You can’t just do whatever the hell you want on someone’s board when it’s deemed to be disruptive, undesirable, outside of the norms agreed upon by the community, etc. You also can’t debate it endlessly to the effect of being disruptive, undesirable, outside the norms agreed upon by the community. And you can’t be the one who gets to decide what’s deemed disruptive, etc.

Since you’re into rights, I find it a bit odd that you’re not taking into consideration the property right of the person who owns the forum. Does he not by that right have the authority to dictate to some extent at least the content that he allows on his board?

To stir debate about your own right to violate his right over his property, and to aim toward having it be your will that dictates what is and is not acceptable and allowed is to attempt to infringe on his property right and to deprive him of control over his board.

People can make rules for games as they go? Censorship is murder? Think about the “arguments” that are being put fourth here and it may be easier to understand why you’re not being engaged in any serious fashion, and why according to the evidence that you yourself have posted here that it may be a completely rational inference for someone to think that you’re an idiot.

It seems like, given what you write below that you are responding to other people than just me.

Which is why we are discussing this with Carleas and also discussing this with people here who are against what Serendipity is suggesting. Calling it hot air is confused. This is a discussion forum and we are discussing things. We have presented arguments for something and if you look at Serendipity’s posts you will see that they include arguments that Carleas is choosing to engage in and noting himself as interesting points. He’s not a victim. He is choosing to engage in a discussion in a thread he started in a discussion forum. If you don’t like discussions of ideas, you are not in the right place.

Right, someone else said that. Perhaps you are responding to them.

Sure. But different forums weight things differently. Carleas is not a machine, he may change his mind. He has certainly engaged in the discussion. Presumably if he met arguments he found convincing he might change his mind. Further, the discussion may be valuable in and of itself.

I haven’t made the argument that one can do anything they want.

The points made in this thread are being made to the person who owns the thread. An adult who may or may not change his mind. It is also interesting to see what the justifications are. Perhaps I will change my mind. This is a philosophical discussion forum. I and others are discussing something. AGain, if you think that is wrong, then you are in the wrong place. If you think discussions are valid, then you could weigh in on SPECIFIC PROBLEMS with the specfic freedoms being suggested and also the specific ways, other than banning, that community norms might be enforced - which is more what I have written about here. What you seem to be saying is that it is wrong to bring up the view and argue for that view in a fucking discussion forum. I don’t get that.

Where have I suggested I have a right to violate his right over his property. Serendipity who has been discussing it with Carleas, is trying to make legal and moral arguments in favor of greater freedom of speech. And how the hell can you be in a philosophy discussion forum and use the term ‘stir debate’ AS IF THAT IS A PEJORATIVE TERM?

Obviously they can. Obviously if Carleas was swayed, he being one of the players here, or if he was willing to let democracy decide, we could make that change. Just like some kids on a soccer field could change a game, even in the middle, if the owner of the football realized that it might be fun, good, fair, to play with different rules.

And you still can’t even just admit your checkers example was not compelling at all.

Keep harping on that one argument made by someone else. He made a whole heap of arguments that you are not mentioning and he put work into them.

Even if I were it would be a violation to call me that. I notice you still present nothing to back up the assertion that I was an idiot by referring to anything I have written. IOW you are precisely the kind of poster, in this thread, that Carleas want to restrict the free speech of. You do not address points AND you insult people. My posts were in dialogue with Phyllo where I defended shaming. You have not referred to those, and it would be hard to do so, since you posts in relation to me would fall under the kinds of posts I was arguing can be useful. Of course they would be useful if they come AFTER arguments referring to points made by the person in question AND that person does not engage rationally with you.

I see you:
1)staying at a very general level and not making arguments against specific kinds of freedoms being suggested.
2)Not interacting with specific points made
3) not admitting you are wrong when you are
4) having a fundmental dislike of discussion
5) having drawn the false conclusion that this forum could not change its rules
6) reacting to me as if I am Serendipity
7) Thinking that raising issues for discussion with the owner and hoping to change his mind is a violation of his rights and immoral
:sunglasses: assuming that it is moral for the owner to limit speech, but not feeling any onus in arguing for this position
9) not seeming to notice that Carleas is not reacting to this discussion as if it is per se immoral to question him
10) being a hypocrite

You violate the rules of the forum while saying that even discussing the validity and morality of those rules is a violation of Carleas’s ownership rights. This is being a hypocrite. The slimy little way you try to make it and observation of fact just shows the lengths you are willing to go to not notice your own hypocrisy. Oh, where is the Mr. Reasonable weighing freedom of speech with the rights of others…LOL. Hypocrite.

Then you don’t accept the rules of the game and you are playing a different game - a game where you have decided on the rules. And you have decided without the approval of the other players.

I don’t want those changes. I didn’t agree to those changes. I signed up with specific rules in place.

So where does that leave me in this game?

The current situation is actually simple:

Mr R is breaking the current forum rules. He ought to get a warning from the moderators.

You ought to be supporting me on this until rule changes are discussed, selected and put into effect.

Thanks for supporting your right to use any software that I wrote without my permission and without compensating me for my work. =D>

I’m the official hall monitor around here and you’re all in violation, you will all receive board warnings within a short period of time. Please check your inboxes, you’re welcome. :-"

The players on the field have agreed to the rules that were determined by other players on other fields then standardized for a revenue-generating show where the rules are: play by my rules and I’ll give you money regardless if you win, or a scholarship or notoriety or some compensation. If you play by these rules, you get this reward. And the player can accept or reject the job.

If you play music to make money, then the goal isn’t music, but money. Likewise if you play a game to make money, the goal isn’t the game, but the money and it’s no longer a game, but a job.

To play a game by someone else’s rules, you have to be compensated somehow. To play a game by rules you’ve made or rules you have no problem with (have taken to be your own) requires no compensation because the reward is the game.

The last superbowl, the problem arose of whether a touchdown was valid because in order to make a touchdown, the player must have control over the ball and it was judgement-call if the player actually had control. That judgement couldn’t have rested with either of the teams because each team is biased, so an unbiased referee had to decide the outcome. What constitutes “control” cannot be dictated in a rulebook and neither can it be decided by the players.

Likewise in online communities, what constitutes insult cannot be written down, but it can and must be judged by other members of the community since it is the community at large that determines what is offensive.

It used to be that blowing people off was a social transgression, but now we have so many people that it’s not possible to keep up with replying to every comment and it’s no longer as rude to blow people off. That change was determined by society and not a dictator. Whether or not opening doors for women is a virtue or denigration is yet to be determined by society, not a dictator who is currently scratching his head out of indecisiveness about whether women should feel offended or flattered.

Phyllo, is this an insult? :confusion-scratchheadblue: How can we discern intent? :confusion-shrug:

Yeah, see? Banning and censorship is not necessary. People will figure out how to get along.

Maybe I’m a little too sensitive about being called stupid and maybe in the future I’ll lighten up about it and maybe Mr R will realize that calling people names isn’t perceived by others in the same way he thinks it is and he’ll lighten up as well. Maybe it’s a function of how determined the community is to hold itself together.

We need people to disagree with us because if everyone agreed with me, I’d have nothing to do here. Having someone to take the opposite side lets me determine what it is that I think. We need diversity, but we also have to get along somehow.

Authority is given by the people.

Eternal banishment is eternal banishment.

You don’t have the right to control what the public has access to. If this forum were not visible to the public, then I’d agree with you.

Some forums have private sections that are not public and within those, free speech doesn’t exist. (Though it’s usually opposite wherein you have more freedom in the private section than the public.)

I think I’d have a right to be free from starvation and illness before I’d have a right to be free from insult, and yet I do not have those rights. First bring me free food and healthcare so that I may exercise my RIGHT to be free from hunger and malady and then we’ll talk about my right to be free from insulting remarks and information.

Disruption isn’t speech; it’s action.

If the board owner has made his board public, then obviously he does not own it or it wouldn’t be public. You cannot have the public’s ear and also claim expectation of privacy. The law has gotten around that by claiming lack of scarcity in that someone can easily go somewhere else, but I disagree on that.

Plus, I am a property owner in the truest sense of the word “property” and I have no rights. Any idiot can come on my property then sue the hell out of me for something that has nothing to do with me. And my property is in no way public.

That’s a good point.

So what rules do you have to have?

Why does he need to get a warning from mods instead of members? Because the members have no power? Yes they do… they can collectively ignore or ridicule or just point out that it’s not an argument.

You don’t want to be a daddy and I don’t want another one.

Did you make your software public? Did you make it possible to download and install your software without first paying you? If so, it’s public. If not, then not.

Pirate sites can offer it for free, but you didn’t sanction the pirate site and therefore you did not make the software public. It’s only public if you make it so.

Music is played over the airwaves and is therefore public. I can copy and listen all I want, but I cannot sell it.

I think its odd that the ones arguing most vehemently for authoritarian control are the ones stridently breaking the most rules. It’s advocating for one’s own punishment and, not only is that hard to understand, but it also seems not very reasonable.

Phyllo, you said things that you regret as if you should have been issued demerits for the errors which places you likewise in the category of having “bewildering” motivations. Why would you want to give yourself warning points?

The rules state:

[i]However, we are a community first, and as a community we must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness. A community based on the exchange of ideas cannot persist when individuals are attacked as individuals for the ideas they express. Anything that inhibits the community will prevent us from our purposes.

Because ideas are so central to a person’s life, they can contain deep significance. Enshrining the critical consideration of all ideas while maintaining a civil discourse can be difficult. Therefore, radical positions must be approached delicately. Certainly, philosophy is a story of radical ideas, and so such ideas are welcome, but the radicalism of an idea must be balanced with a proportionate care in expression. The line between radicalism and antagonism is thin.

ILP is its members, and the ideas they bring with them. This site is a community. When that community falters, ILP falters in its purpose. The actions of its members define its tone, its quality, and its utility as a haven for the ideas it holds dear. Let your actions here reflect that ethos.[/i]

More specifically:

[i]2.1 Show courtesy to other posters at all times: no flaming. Insulting, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards others will result in a warning.

2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued.[/i]

Holy cow to that last one! Let’s read that again: If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them a warning may be issued.

How is everyone here not banned? :confusion-shrug: Kinda feels like that moment when Jesus recommended that the one without sin should cast the first stone :laughing:

But really… why are the ones harping about the rules also most-unable to keep the rules?

And how has Mr Reasonable been here for 11 years while accumulating 25,000 posts yet still be unable to adhere to the rules which he so enthusiastically defends? :confusion-scratchheadblue:

I realize this post may be construed as demeaning and whatnot, but how else am I to convey the conundrum?

This is reminiscent of the gun debate wherein the ones advocating for stricter control are, statistically, the ones more likely to need it. I’m curious why that is.

I wish this kind of pattern was responded to. Not banning, but something like a forum consensus, to, well, shame.

I have found this thread interesting and have learned that:

  1. two checker players, playing a checker game could not mutually decide to change these arbritrary rules in the middle of a game. Decide say that Kings can jump over two squares. No not possible. More relevantly the ‘game’ of discussing philosohical ideas cannot have its rules changed over time by the people having these discussions. We simply cannot change that. In ten years ilovephilosophy must have the exact same social rules as it does now. It is physically and socially impossible to ‘change games in the middle’ of this long, extended set of games.
  2. stirring debate is a problem in a philosophy discussion forum.
  3. one should break rules in specific but argue against the freedom to do so in general
  4. Carleas is being victimized in this thread
  5. that while Patterns of interaction that are normal in nearly every social, professional and leisure activity are wrong here. I.e. shaming. We should not use ‘pointing out patterns of interaction we dislike’ as members of this community. Though advocates of not doing this have had a tendency to do it themselves here.

:open_mouth: If I break the rules then I ought to get penalized. That’s only fair.

I regret posts where I was manipulative and where I let my frustration get the better of my judgement.

It does appears that you are “bewildered” by my ethics, morality and motivations. The fact that I want the current forum rules to be enforced seems to be “bewildering”.

The forum rules are not being enforced so it hardly matters if those rules are replaced by new rules which are not going to be enforced.

Furthermore, you don’t have a problem with breaking the written rules, so really the only rules in effect would those that “the community” gets together on at any moment. These “rules” (for lack of a better word) are going to be vague and undefined. Right?

Since there are only about 20 active members here, in practice the shaming would be done by two or three people.

Why are you asking me another question? I asked for an answer from Karpel and you.

Here I would need you to note what that advice actually was. That way I could comment on its applicability given the existential parameters of my own life here and now. And the extent to which I have the option to act on it with respect to conflicting value judgments in the is/ought world.

Instead, you note this:

This is embedded far more in the either/or world. Many do in fact suffer from back pain. And these methods have in fact been demonstrated to be effective in relieving that pain.

It can all be more or less measured if the options are pursued.

On the other hand, you could tell a woman that if she does not want to risk a possible unwanted pregnancy, she should avoid sex altogether. Or engage only in oral sex or anal sex or masturbation.

But if she chooses to engage in vaginal sex and practices safe sex and still becomes pregnant, is it rational/virtuous to abort the pregnancy?

How is that calculated with any degree of finality? What advice could someone like Moreno offer to her?

What could be more discomfiting for a man or woman then to confront the question “how ought one to live?” and come to conclude this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Since you are not drawn and quartered yourself when confronting conflicting goods in a No God world, I would not expect you to grasp just how discomfiting that frame of mind can be.

On the other hand, what if you come to embody it yourself?

Then you too could seek out possible remedies.

Yes, but this “social mammal” construes “I” here in the is/ought world as revolving largely around this:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Here, shame/shaming is deemed to be an existential/political contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

In other words, while I come into this world with the genetic capacity to feel and/or inflict shame, that is always situated out in a particular world awash in any number of conflicting memetic narratives.

Consequently, to what extent can philosophers pin all of this down such that shame/shaming is understood wholly, essentially, objectively, naturally, deontologically.

Note to others:

Is this actually true?!! :wink:

Still, let him bring this accusation down to earth by noting behaviors that often come into conflict over conflicting goods and we can broach the components of our respective philosophies more, say, substantively.

Okay, all of that may well be true. But to the best of my knowledge no one here is required to read my repetitious groots. Let alone respond to them and be made fools of.

Not unlike, for example, you? :-k

I’m not going to go rummaging through thousands of posts. It ought to be easy enough for you to remember if you took any advice offered on this forum. Since you can’t I think that the answer is ‘no’.

Another one of your side shifts. My point was that there are reasons why people stop talking to you which have nothing to do with being uncomfortable with the philosophical contents of your posts.

I am reminded of the end of ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’:

Note the difference between you and him.