That is true and i must say that the moderation at ILP is better than its many counterparts.
The only objection i have that ILP does not care much about the civility in the language and allows many such terms/words which should not be allowed in philosophy.
Perhaps, the reason is that majority of its members are from US, where such words have been become the essential part of public discourse, thus this phenomenon does not pinch in their eyes.
with love,
sanjay
What terms/words would you have stopped?
Dick, asshole, what a fuck, fucking argument, bitch, whores etc.
I think that is enough.
with love,
sanjay
You know I didn’t mean it really 
Sanjay, those are fairly mild.
What would you substitute?
Also do keep in mind the masks humans wear.
Have you thought about how this relates to you mind thread in the psychology department, sanjay? If we were to do a unfortunate thing, and cut out cursing, we would lose the apparatus in the mind that governs cursing, and the segway it allows to other forms of rhetoric, and therefor other forms of logic never easily approached using more mundane, off topic, yet polite forms of speech.
Take the accidental ass licking quote… where did it lead? It lead to deadlock by the very user who posted it, causing him to give up and reassert himself more indepth in another thread… the entire two threads were designed to elicit a certain kind of response, presented by user A to user B, but user B counterintuitively wholly accepted everything at face value, user A couldn’t adapt and turned inwards for a explanation and justification.
Look at the very meaning of the title for that thread you quoted from, and see how it evolved in the next thread he continued in… it ironically was fulfilled, on his end. We never would of hit this level of catharsis and honesty had we stuck to orthodox use of syllogisms.
And there is no underlining dharma for moderators, other than spambots. It’s what they make of it, and the population. If this was a childrens website… yes, as protection of children is valued, but protecting philosophers from dialectics is usually unwise… though even I could see exceptions being made, case by case… if it ceased being philosophical and turned into pure trauma.
The rhetorical forms are not fixed in the west, and there isn’t a overvalued, sacrosant core to debate. Many tried to institute them… church enforced orthodoxy, academics logical fallacies, the courts an impersonal empiricism… but nothing really dominates, each has obvious weaknesses, and we collectively rip at them. It’s because, we know they aren’t full systems, and have a largely bullshit basis when evading others forms of thought, affirming itself without justification.
Kris,
That is exactly what i was saying.
Ideally, what should be considered as indecent and vulgar, is defined as fairly mild by you.
See. Enviornment has been changed the definitions.
And, you know the substitute. It is obvious and quite simple to implement but it would attract a lot of resistence.
Habits die hard, whether good or bad.
with love,
sanjay
Its not a habit we are considering, but the paradoxical foundations of a pleasant and mild manner philosophy in seeking out its opposite unconsciously. Take the high and noble speech used on Satyrs site… he emphasizes Epicurean ideals, and all we get from the aesthetics of such pleasantries is pure shit, in its rawest form.
This has deep roots in Epicurean philosophy itself, when they first founded the garden school, all they could do was bitch and gripe about others, and take a increasingly nihilistic outlook on life… to the point of attracting the prostitute Leontium to lead them intellectually in such Vulgar taunts, right in what we consider the height of greek philosophy at that!
It is, a fundamental aspect of philosophy, and always been part of the discourse. I’d be a rich man if I got a dollar for everytime I’ve heard a vedantic preaching and at the same time denouncing absurd the Buddha… don’t even get me started with the fictional absurdities of the Nietzscheans and Christ and Christianity.
There is something much different, and hidden going on here, something philosophy hasn’t fully charted yet. If you try to exile it, we will all in time have to seek asylum with it. Thats how deeply integrated it is.
Got that fucker?
You forgot about the masks we wear.
In front of parents we speak and behave one way, in front of employers another way, etc. Here we are anonymous friends and enemies. Emotions are not held in so tight. Most have jobs, family etc. where we control our emotions. Here it is a slight freedom. And considering there are far far worse vulgarities known to all, I think over all it is mild. I could make a sailor look like a nun. And there is English, Canadians, South American, Australians, that out number the US participants. Those Ausies and Brits can be crude.
CN,
You failed to get to the bottom of the issue.
I am not asking to curb all the feeling and become a machine.
There are always valid and invalid ways of doing things. If the same target can be achieved by remaningin the limits, why break those?
Look at this conversation-
One of our friend said this-
This is certainly demeaning and insultive to half of the mankind. Having said that, it is still certainly neither vulgar nor cross the limit of the decency, as fas as the language is concerned.
And, i replied to him by this -
See, i hit back equally hard, if not more. And, he cannot cry foul either because i was playing the game by the norms set by him.
CN, [b]that is the way how it should be. I understand that things can happen during heated discusion and i do not mind that much either. But, the limit of decency should not be crossed.
Actually, it needs a lot of intelligence to hit without being vulgar. Abusing using verlgur terms is quite easy but one has to translate his anger into art. That is philosophy.
Some difference should be maintained between a social forum and a philosophical one[/b].
with love,
sanjay
Now, you are taking the excuse of the history.
Do you still practice all those values?
If not, then why only this?
It is nothing but to hide your bad habit or practice in the name of history.
CN,
Stop these childish attempts.
You are not smart enough to provoke me.
I am well aware of the fact when to react and when not.
with love,
sanjay
That is true. People use to have to faces generally.
But, if that is true, it is given they have to lie about either one of those.
Freedom is there to be used for the betterment, not misused.
Secondly, i found Canadians and Britishers behind in the race of being indecent, thoug they are trying hard to catch up their US counterparts. And, Aussies are clear world winners. Even Americans cannot mach their skills.
with love,
sanjay
No lies, the faces are a part of us. We show each person a different part depending on the relationship. You do not act or speak the same way to your parents as you do to your closest friend. I assure you, that your parents know this unless they are naive, which I seriously doubt.
Kris,
Behaving differently to different people is not always lie or masking. Different relations requires different treatment and that is necessary too.
Problem arises when one wants to take advantage by changing the behavior, or say onething in the open and does the opposte behind the close door; hyprocricy.
Like a husband and wife can be somewhat casual or even argue while behaving with each other, because their relation allows that. But, that same couple cannot be the same casul either with parents or their children, becasue parents deserve respect while children need caring and soft approach.
That is not masking and neither objectionable.
But, when a leader criticises postitution in the day and goes to them in the night, then it is masking or hyprocricy.
In the same way, if one does not use abusive and vulgar language normally, but does that on the net because anonymity allows it, it is double facing.
with love,
sanjay
No, its not. They just have a safe anonymous outlet for that part of them. You too have a vulgar part wether you show it or not. You choose to inhibit it and expect all to inhibit theirs because of your sense of decorum.
I learned long ago that words are only weapons if you allow them to pierce your mind. They are just harmless farts in the wind otherwise.
Kris,
What do you mean by vulgar part? And, how is it pertinent with all this?
I do not feel any need to be vulgar, even if desire to hit anyone. That can be done remaning in the limits.
Secondly, your concept of safe outlet is wrong. words are not ineffective but influence people.
Life is all about control and discerning between good and bad. And, sooner ot later, repeated acts are converted into habit.
If a person is using indecent language 2-3 hours a day on the net, one day he will use that in his real life also. and, that will happen without any realization also.
Secondly, it creates an overall bad enviornment that affects all, even those, who are not habitual of that language.
Why should all suffer for giving one or some the safe passage?
with love,
sanjay
We cannot agree. I do not agree that words should have such power. The human should be more astute and independent. I would rather humans become immune to words. You however wish the control and prefer to keep it or so it seems. If words had less control over emotions then how much hate and fighting will remain? A child finds that saying a word gives it attention, good or bad, that child will use that word for the attention. A child will crave any attention good or bad. Giving words such power directs a person to continue. Ignore the bad praise the good and you direct the child. Of course this does not work for all. But, it does work and works for adults. When you become offended or emotional about words you give control to the word smith.
Kris,
If words have literally so inefftive on adults, why tobacco and liqior companies are not allowed to advertise via public discourse?
And, why people are warned or even banned even a imaginary world like ILP?
And, if you remember, you also had problem with some of the posts in the past?
The only difference between you and me was the degree of liberty.
Should i dig out those posts of your again?
Our enviornment necessarily affets us. There is no escape.Sometimes it may look that we are aware of this and would not fall in the trap but things use to permeate into our subconscious without realization. Yes, the quantity of the impact may differ in different cases, and that depends on the state of previous mindset of any individual.
That is why it is rightly said that one should keep good company and one can be judged by his company, while going by your perception that seems to be wrong.
with love,
sanjay
Oh please do dig out my posts but, dig out the WHOLE conversation do not attempt to take it out of context. Do not leave out one iota of the entire discussion. Sure I play the game but, never not once have I been angry or hurt. Amused, hell yes. Because predictable people amuse. And hopefully they change, but rarely. So do so but only with the entire conversation, not just mine.
No, i would not. I well understnd the importance of the context.
I did not claimed that either.
It looks to me that you are playing one here with me also.
with love,
sanjay