“Patriarchy! [picture of rich lady]” is not a syllogism, it isn’t a complete idea; it isn’t an example of reasoning, let alone well-reasoned. You can see the same level of philosophical complexity walking down the average city street, past a homeless person and a high-rise. Making a point takes more than juxtaposing images or thoughts.
This is exactly the kind of thread for which the Sandbox was created. If any post can be called “half-formed”, it is a post like this one.
At least move it to nonphilosophical chat Carleas. Don’t send it to the area of the forum where threads go to die.
I won’t argue against the sandbox, but your living in the wrong country Carleas if this is your approach to philosophy. Oh fuck… the original definition for syllogism was exactly what your claiming them not to be. It was the literal just a positioning of thoughts and images. Satyr’s pathetic little site even had (may still have, I heard it was redesigned, never checked up) this to a degree built into it’s sections.
Are you going to argue next planes don’t fly, or astronauts don’t actually go to space? Scuba diving isn’t actually about going under the sea? Thats how foolish your statement sounds.
We wouldn’t allow protests under free speech if this was the definition for what constitutes speech. Our political discourse is magically supposed to arise somehow from pissed off, incoherent protesters into legislation apparently in your mind.
Fact of the matter is, and it’s a very solid, impossible under reasonable doubt, back up by a few thousand years of precedent, what Joker presented in that thread as fairly orthodox in it’s approach. He has some fantastic precedent well beyond what I mentioned above for that thread.
Its ironic, you must walk past thousands of comedic cartoons making a point in DC each year, and just utterly fail to understand any single one of them. Do you just stare at them and blink, shouting “that’s not a thesis”?
Philosophy stretches well, well beyond the rules of order and parliamentary procedure they taught you in law school. You got short thrift in your education, I would take your old communications class professors to court for robbing you blind. Nobody but fools actually limit philosophy to the methods your talking about. A idea can’t be fully explored without exploration of the full dialectic, we should be very thankful guys like Joker are exploring classical modes of exposition. You read a thread like that, it’s as if your in ancient Athens, Alexandria, Antioch or Rome listening to the greatest Dog Philosophers denounce the vice and backwardness of society, in it’s contradictions, paving a path through their example to Eudaimonia. That is a fully legitimate form of philosophical exposition. It is directly descended from Diogenes “Republic”, the first satire and critic on Plato’s Republic and Laws. Don’t try to bullshit anyone that that hasn’t been central to the western philosophical tradition since the beginning. It has always been present. Don’t pretend otherwise, being a administrator doesn’t begin to make you historically correct on this. Any definition on political philosophy MUST bend to this.
The same Seneca who wrote The Pumpkinfication of the Divine Claudius also wrote the first Roman Mirrors for Princes for Nero. The two strands of thought are related, Pumpkinfication comes from Cynicism, Mirrors comes from Stoicism, but even that comes from Cynic suppositions that paved the way.
I’m really stumped at just what in political science hasn’t been transformed by that philosophy. You make some very bizarre and off the wall statements sometimes Carleas. Your the administrator, but not the king of philosophy. It shall remain in full effect, around the world, in debates and speeches around the world, and I hope a guy wearing a Obama, Trump, or Hillary mask carrying a sign with a single word on it holds you up in traffic daily, till you get it. Your literally living in the wrong city, you should trade Joker out for his Unibomber Cabin and write great expositions, and Joker can dissapear into the endless throngs of policy protests you apparently turn your nose up to in disgust, cause they aren’t saying ANYTHING.
Its just disturbing to know someone working in national government in DC is this blind to the language of the crowd, the fundamentals of political science. You pretend to be a lawyer, claim to of written your masters on communications… yet everyone walking around you apparently is a unqualified zombie who aren’t worth listening to.
Do you not grasp my concerns here? Both for this site, philosophy universally, and the bizarreness of you seeking a trade and profession, where if we took your statements above as how you actually approach philosophy, especially political philosophy, makes everything you do a literal mockery.
Do others with whom you work think like this? Do you just stand at the windows, laughing as they March by, laughing at those stupid idiots waving signs, as meaningless zombies? “Thats not how democracy works fools, write a tractate, or file a injunction”…
You deeply worry me sometimes Carleas. Your like, Kryptonite to the whole idea behind having a Republic. I don’t think we could technically have elections, certainly not election signs, under your outlook. Ads would be banned. Street corner soliciting to passing cars… what can they say with a image and a few thoughts? The Greek and Roman classics definitely banned… we can’t have them in Carleas outlook, as I pointed out, guys just like Joker we’re a major influence, using similar rhetorical approaches.
You know… the law profession itself as a universally understood medium, open to all to study was Roman Cynicism… the priesthood in Roman kept the lass secret, till one of the scholars of the law school sat on the steps, teaching anyone the law as they passed. The republic wasnt always very Democratic, there deginstely was class tension between those rich enough to become lawyers and the plebians too poor to learn it. Their only experience of it was through being prosecuted. We do a lot to laud the 12 tables, and later on the Plebian and Patrician balance of power, but there was a dark era between.
You really have no idea how dark philosophy would get if we all played by your rules. I’m not merely talking here, but philosophy as a whole, and our nation. We shouldn’t try to defend philosophy by suppressing it. Its idiotic and immature, never really works out for the best in the long run.
I’m very impressed with Joker. He seems to be rounding himself out in philosophy. Any classicist who focuses on philosophy would be nostalgically impressed by many of his posts, including this one here. You should put, as a good example of what a bona ride, orthodox approach to presenting a debate on a political science topic, this thread as a accepted varient. Its rather classical and elegant, works in Ancient Athens and New York. Ancient straight to the point, seem less economy, and mist importantly, it attracted a counterdebator. It has the qualities that make good philosophy so attractive. If he keeps this up, he might become a well known philosopher. Memes are returning back into fashion (as I mentioned Publius Syrus earlier, his mimes were memes), he can refine this into a well honed political instrument for provoking debate.
If your interested in studying rhetoric, any of you, I first urge you to look at Jokers thread. Its a fine start before you crack open the classics. I mean this from the bottom of my heart, I do get excited when I see old forms reemerge, and show they still have vitality. Its very beautiful. Anyone with a love for ancient philosophy should have a appreciation for that thread.
May I play the part of defense? Mirrors come from a different source, and has modern and post modern implications for the likes such as: Heidegger, especially Nietzsche, and Foucault. Seneca was a kind of psychologist. On the other hand, syllogism derives from Thales, and is related to geometric principles. It’s in kind a difference between an argument and a motion. The division of the motion into two halves is akin to a presentation of an argument and a counter argument. So both views are equally valid, yet where each belongs to what category, again is based on preference, clarity, and methods for sorting.
The need to sort May be primary, as to clarification is concerned , before a preference can be established.
Why thank you Turd. 
Turd told me in another thread that he was just kidding and that he didn’t mean any of that nice stuff he said up there ^.
Oh, hmm…
What you have is a conservative tight wad who doesn’t like any of my threads or espoused perspectives that moves everything out of spite. At least be honest about it. Carleas, and you sit on your hands by doing nothing.
We all know that threads sent to the Sandbox die as it is well out of sight from the main sections of the forum. The discussions in those threads die rather quickly.
This is just mainstream politicos stifling creativity and new opinions that go against their orthodox beliefs.
It’s a bunch of bullshit and every one of you moderators know it.
I wonder, will there come a day where all my threads are moved to the Sandbox?
I guess the society forum is only for the liberal, conservative, and libertarian douchebags with their orthodox perspectives or politics.
We can’t have any anarchists, cynics, or nihilists running around there creating amuck, can we? 
I try my best devotings hours of my time invested in my writing presenting an alternative perspective to the world and you all spit in my face.
Again, I agree with the call. You aren’t engaged in philosophy. At most charitable, you are doing a kind of performance art: you certainly are trying to communicate something, but you aren’t reasoning, you aren’t explaining your position, you aren’t making the sort of explicit connection of ideas that a philosophy forum exists to house.
It’s like you’re at a conference where people are presenting papers, and you’re mad because your interpretive dance is getting booed off stage. Interpretive dance is swell, it’s a valid means of expression, and done well it can be quite moving. But it’s not the fare of a conference.
Try expressing your ideas with words alone, and use somewhere in the ballpark of 200 of them. Express the same idea, that humans are livestock, but make the argument, support your assertions with evidence and reasoning, something like, “This is true, and if that and this are true, then this must be true, but if that’s true, then humans are livestock…” Try doing that, and if your post gets moved, you’ll have a very strong case that Uccisore is a mean old conservative who doesn’t like your edgy ideas.
As it stands, the evidence you’ve presented here equally well supports the hypothesis that Uccisore doesn’t think your interpretive dance is right for his conference, and I’m inclined to agree with.
Typical and here I expected more from you. Naive on my part.
You’re just like the rest orthodox in your views only you’re the liberal counter part. You can’t stand anything that doesn’t fit in your neat tightly grasped orthodox philosophical views and you’ll go into censorship if it doesn’t meet your criteria.
Also, I write in all my threads but apparently this is lost on you, my guess intentionally on your part.
I use a lot of images in my threads for entertaining aesthetics but it is also used for illustrative points in argumentation as a helpful aid in presenting a conveyed message. Whatever, you’ve revealed your true colors.
I guess I’ll just get use to residing in the Sandbox, won’t I?
No, it’s a valid piece for the Sandbox. The Sandbox is for things that are not fleshed out much at all. And your thread was not. It has a weak implicit argument. YOu are not some iconoclast rebel with a unique way of presenting ideas or in that thread unique ideas implicit or otherwise. Throwing a bunch of images down is vague and saves you the trouble of presenting an argument. I could imagine using images in a unique way to present an argument, but it would not be like that.
I can’t see what the problem is. You get to post. Your threads will appear in people’s new posts threads. Many people barely notice which forum it is in. The Sandbox even allows for budding genius that is not fleshed out. It is a more relaxed less clearly argued area. That’s what your posts are. You mention it being entertaining, well that fits there.
Or you could make the arguments.
But here’s the thing. Your images add not the slightest bit to the argument I said was implicit. It is not as if they add some nuance. They simply present women with money. It is a less efficient but perhaps more entertaining way to present a weak argument.
I could see if your images presented some beyond the weak implicit argument, but they do not.
And presenting them as images means you do not have to actually make the argument, which avoids bearing any burden. Other people must first do your job and make the argument explicit, then argue against it or support it.
If you have an image based thread where the images actually present some nuance and a good argument I would defend it. I don’t think a thread has to have words, but this thread and others come off as laziness or making it harder to have your ideas critiqued. When someone pointed out your OP did nothing that was claimed in the OP you could not even acknowledge this obvious truth. You could have acknowledged that that image did nothing and then presented images where you thought something more nuanced was being presenting in images. But your images just end up being examples, at best. Examples are not an argument.
A bot could use the cue serial killers and collect images from the internet. Or collect images of rich women. It’s not philosophy, yet. But there it is nicely findable in the Sandbox, where people who want to be entertained or find some vaguer mulling will find it. Others will simply find it in their new posts lists and go there without even thinking about where it is.
Playing the radical, unique thinker victim is just silly on this issue.
It’s interesting that you see it that way, because it comes across more as though you use lots of images because expressing complex ideas is hard, and copy-pasting images is much easier. You post images in place of a point, not in support of it.
At least, that’s how it seems to me. Maybe this will help convey my message:
That is not always the case. Sometimes, pictures are louder than words.
I mean, thats how art galleries were developed, because there was a brief period of time where art actually had value and conveyed things words couldnt say.
I mean, some videogames would lose their truths if they had an obnoxious narrator commenting on everything.
Absolutely, and I really don’t mean to minimize the value of interpretive dance. Though I’m sure it sounds sarcastic, and I did use ‘interpretive dance’ specifically because it sounds like something worthless, I like interpretive dance and I’ve seen some very moving performances that communicated something that would be very difficult to put into words.
The point, rather, is that this isn’t an art gallery, it’s not a dance studio; the Society, Government, and Economics forum on the site ILovePhilosophy.com is meant to house philosophy related to society, government, and economics, and posts that consist almost entirely of a series of photos without direct commentary, explanation, or tying-in, are just not philosophy. They may be art, they may communicate a message, they may be deep and powerful in their own right (I don’t think they are in this case, but in theory they could be), but they aren’t philosophy.
Carleas and crew just don’t like any new expirimental philosophy or methods that don’t fall straight into their orthodox views and ways. End of the story.
They can’t handle raw, untamed, and uncontrollable viewpoints. It’s too much for them.
It’s too dangerous and a threat to their beloved mainstream.
I have no love of moderating at all, however with that said,
posting a photo and calling it philosophy, isn’t philosophy,
especially considering you didn’t take or create the photo.
Posting a picture and proclaiming it philosophy is a weak move
and personally, I find it a really dam irritating. a photo or a video
is a superficial means to impart information because it doesn’t get to
the story or narrative we need to make a decision. A picture may be pretty and nice
like a photo of a sunset but doesn’t say anything about the sunset or say anything
about anything, just that this sunset is pretty. There is no information or story or
narrative about a picture of a sunset and we can’t decide anything or judge anything
or have a story about a picture that has no context. With words, we can have a story,
we can have context, we can have something to decide on, a picture, not so much.
there is nothing complex or innovated or original about posting a picture and
calling it philosophy of some sort. Its weak, irritating and superficial. use your words.
words are philosophy and can be about context and innovated and original.
Kropotkin
Oh my gosh, photo illustrative philosophy threatens our simpleton pedantic philosophical orthodoxy! Run for the hills!
Protect and save the children! 
Am I the only person who doesn’t even care or notice where a thread is? I just log on and click new posts, then if those are all boring I’ll click view your posts and scroll down the page. How much does it really matter if a thread is in this or that section?