I don’t know, but I probably would have said “Ok look, I realize you having some difficulty in believing I walked on the moon, so if it will help, I’ll swear on the bible for you. Happy now? No? Then I’m out of ideas to help you, now please leave me alone until you can think of something that I can demonstrate for you.” Why would I not say that? The only thing I can imagine is that if I believed in god, I would not want to swear on a lie.
What did I miss? Dang it.
Yes, I agree with you.
Yup, except not sure it’s healthy to feel pride in defeating someone. It should be more like helping someone who has fallen down to stand up.
No I wasn’t aware, but nice to meet you and glad you’re here to represent your beliefs.
Yeah, with some differences. Don supports guns and is tougher on immigration, but is in bed with the jewish banksters.
Yes, but then again, is democracy so attractive? Would you put a prospective operation or medical treatment up to a popular vote? It’s always bugged me that people who have no idea about economics are voting on economical issues. Abortion? Ok I suppose that’s subjective enough to put to a vote, but minimum wages? Most people aren’t qualified to have an opinion.
What is your reasoning for that position?
Seriously? Denying the holocaust will get you banned from here? Is it an unwritten rule? How is anyone to know the rule exists?
I would love to have a forum where subtly destructive patterns are moderated as much as openly insulting ones. Often the most damaging posters are people who are generally polite but who never quite manage to respond to what you have written and/or refuse to acknowledge that a criticism has been mentioned, let alone respond to it, often simply repeating their assertions, people who confuse expressing opinions with mounting a cohesive argument, strawmen lovers, appealers to authority and so on. Someone who makes a lot of racist statements or insults people can be very disruptive, though it should be noted that if the rest of the community responds intelligently, there is no problem. Of course if you insult people, it tends to set of worthless to the topic responses, but then that means we have a community problem not simply an individual problem. It is also, I find, easier to ignore, than someone with the vague form of rationality who draws you in but never acknowledges or concedes anything that might trouble their view. Of course, I bear responsibility for being lured in when I am.
If I look around the forum I see a lot of opinion making and really sloppy arguments, with the occasional interesting post. Keeping away right wing extremists may or may not have lead to more focused discussions, but really I find it hard to imagine that this is the case, given the current state.
It is easy, and understandibly more appealing to no doubt busy moderators, to focus on CONTENT. But pattern of interaction is really more destructive.
I think shaming is good. I wish the community would shame not content but inability to carry out coherent dialogue with integrity. I mean, it does happen. A number of people have reacted to Prismatic who is a classice example of someone so sure they are right, they cannot acknowledge the slightest mistake and commit many of the sins I mentioned above. AT least three people have bluntly commented on his shortcomings here, after trying through many, many posts to have a rational dialogue with him. I think that kind of shaming is good. In fact I would like to see more shaming and less banning. Not that it has worked in Prismatic’s case, nor am I optimistic with some of the people mentioned earlier in this thread.
I also think people should be encourage to ignore posters. Right now there is this weird conception that it is a sin or weak or cowardly to put people on ignore or otherwise ignore them. Jesus, do people listen to just random podcasts and radio shows. Just flip a coin to decide what books to read, what friends to have, who to have deep discussions with? No. We all make choices. More people should be ignored. Don’t feed the trolls, regardless of whether they are polite impervious idiots or rude people. If you cannot learn from them adn they cannot learn from you, what the hell are you wasting your time talking to them for?
Announce you will ignore them - shaming, factual information, a nod to your colleagues - then ignore them.
Make shame and shunning the core natural consequence punishment here. Shaming itself is fair and gives the person good feedback. Then when they are shunned, get little response, they understand why. Shaming will not make changes or much, but shunning after shaming will.
And we don’t need Carleas to do this, though it would help if he saw the wisdom of this.
Yes, or at least frowned upon.
I think it’s very important to make concessions when we’re wrong. Good points need to be encouraged and reward given for what is earned. If you make a good point, I want to tell you so as feedback and to let you know that I’m playing fair and worthy of conversation.
Not conceding is the moral equivalent of cheating to win a game and who wants to play with cheaters?
But it seems the best to be hoped for is that a person simply leaves the conversation. No concession, no thanks, just poof. I guess that’s better than going round and round 
I wish I knew how to fix prism. Cognitive dissonance elicits a fight response involving a part of the brain not having rationality, but survival in mind. So the more evidence that is presented, the more they dig in. And the smarter the person is, the more creative ways they can find around being wrong. Good read: scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-sm … bad-ideas/
I feel like I’d miss part of a conversation and maybe the person can change over time then I’d never know it if they were on ignore. I figure I can ignore them without having to put them on ignore.
Yeah no kidding.
I think shaming will work if enough people or the RIGHT people are participating. Obviously someone who is not respected by the person won’t be able to shame, but if the shamer is respected, then it will produce a feeling of remorse.
Yeah a blessing would be good.
I genuinely believe that communities should be capable of maintaining themselves, and if they can’t, they aren’t communities, but herded animals in need of guidance. It’s a shame that online communities would need the caliber of oversight typically reserved for elementary schools.
Well, you said that it was clearly insulting and I didn’t agree. So it’s much more debatable (and harder to moderate) than when someone is called a retard or moron in a post.
I think that I have asked about the obligations of the patrons about 4 times and each time you avoid it.
Moving on.
Sounds preposterous to me.
I said that he retained some rights. Apparently he doesn’t have enough rights to dump the entire video on youtube. Look, I don’t know enough about the exact situation to comment beyond making the general remarks about copyright.
“Discover the cure for cancer on my pc”
I don’t know what that means.
I think that you misunderstand my entire position. It’s not about me, my feelings being hurt, me being offended 
.
I don’t want anybody to be directly insulted because that destroys the discussions, discourages people from participating and stops them from speaking freely.
People who are not morons when they don’t share your opinions and/or then they disagree with you.
I can see lots of negatives but no positives.
One can choose a preferred path which one believes leads to a better result.
I don’t know why you would even write that.
You and I, think it was you also anyway, could be said to have shamed Prismatic. IOW we pointed out what we saw as the shortcoming of his responses. This can be shaming in that it can cause shame, but I think the intentions to some extent are similar to intentional shaming in parenting, social groups, where the offending behavior is pointed out publically.
Are you referring to a specific incident?
It’s a public forum so practically everything I say is in public. I rarely use PM.
I pointed out his logic errors which I would not call shaming.
I complained to him that he often called people shallow, narrow, ignorant and immature. I would not call that shaming either. I didn’t do it in PM because he didn’t just target me, he targeted others as well.
I got an explanation of why he was doing it. I didn’t pursue it further.
I think those personal comments are not appropriate for a philosophy forum. “Shallow” is not as bad as “retard” but it’s still a personal attack.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&p=2688936&hilit=prismatic#p2688936
though I think I was confusing you with another poster, may apologies for that.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&p=2689006&hilit=prismatic#p2689006
Here pointing out what you consider a negative pattern of behavior.
And this one…
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&p=2688936&hilit=prismatic#p2689132
Now, as said, I confused you with another poster. More than this poster and I have responded more generally than you have and fit the shaming pattern I encouraged above better than your posts. Perhaps it speaks to Prismatics need for chastisement that even when I mix up your name with someone else you have done things which less perfectly fit the kind of shaming I am recommending, but nevertheless are present in your posts.
You responded more specifically - though indicating a general criticism (the reference to his psychology) - and were ad hom in the sense of directing criticism at the person not the argument.
I am suggesting that if a broad pattern of ruins discussion behavior is enacted by one poster MAKING GENERAL shaming statements is perfectly appropriate. We would do it at a dinner party and at college seminar in a debate in a meeting. Not always, not always when we should - given all the reasons one may hold back what needs to be said - buy it is a part of pretty much any community self-regulation. Hey, what you are doing is fucked up. It is good feedback for the person. It provides them with information- which is almost always ignored now, but sometimes has longer term affects when the same feedback comes again and again. Sometimes, I have noticed, the person shamed does not acknowledge anything, but changes behavior, tones it down, tries to respond more to those he or she is arguing with, gets more careful about making cogent arguments. Better if they could openly acknowledge but still positive results.
here you are making fun of him.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193717&hilit=prismatic&p=2689164&view=show#p2689165
The moderators should have told him not to call others “shallow”, not me.
I don’t want to be doing that and if moderation was effectively implemented here, then I would not have to. I don’t come here to be somebody’s Daddy.
If I’m running a meeting where people present their work and it’s critiqued by others, then one of the rules is “No personal attacks”. Nobody is a moron or shallow or ignorant. Their work is not moronic or shallow. If there is a deficiency in their work then specific problems and errors are pointed out.
Since I’m running the meeting, I’m enforcing the rule.
There is way to interact with your peers. If you want to do something different afterwards at a pub or dinner then that’s your decision.
I don’t want Prismatic to feel ashamed. I want him to realize that by making those comments, he is not communicating effectively and that he is reducing the level of communication in general.
I don’t think I said it was clearly insulting, but now that you mention it, yeah it clearly is:
if you don’t think that falling off a ladder repeatedly will lead to increasing discomfort, then I think you should fall off a ladder repeatedly and get back to me about it.
Breaking it down, we have:
if you don’t think that falling off a ladder repeatedly will lead to increasing discomfort = If I’m that stupid
then I think you should fall off a ladder repeatedly = I should be punished for being stupid.
and get back to me about it = so he can gloat.
If I am that stupid, then I should get hurt because of my stupidity and display my crippled self before his ego.
I’d prefer he simply call me stupid than make such a drama out of it, which is far more insulting. How do you see it differently?
I’m not avoiding anything. What obligations of patrons?
Nothing here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693526
Here you said viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693656
He now has bunch of obligations placed on him. At the same time, those who appear on the webcam, seem to have no obligations. They have a lot of new rights.
I said no new rights, but the same old rights of free speech.
Here you said viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693786
So the pub owner gets added obligations but the patrons have no added obligations even if the owner has a clearly expressed policy on use of the webcam and the patrons have agreed to the policy. Is that your position?
And that is where we are now. What obligations would the patrons have because the pub owner decided to do something? If the pub owner makes a choice, the obligations are on him; not the patrons.
Your accusation that I’m avoiding addressing your point smells of malicious intent to discredit me. Slander - the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation. But it’s ok… I’m not going to make a big deal out of it; just saying.
I don’t want to say anything to offend you because I enjoy our conversations. I’m just asking that you not accuse me of immoral activity without evidence.
You see? This is how we handle things without moderators. I say “here is how you’re coming across” and you say “oh I didn’t mean it like that” and we go on. We come to a mutual understanding of each other’s issues and consequently make different choices in future interactions.
Yup
Why?
I told you the situation. Schiff and other invitees were arguing on CNBC’s video tape. It is precisely the same as you and I arguing on Carleas’ forum. Exactly the same. So it boils down to: Does Carleas have the right to prevent you from displaying your conversation with me on another medium? It’s a simple question.
Of course, to my knowledge, Schiff has never addressed his own censorship because, presumably, it would undermine his philosophy of sucking the capitalist dong.
What I meant was that I wish I could help in your effort to call others out, but I can’t keep up with my own postings.
You said here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=25#p2693787
I have tried to keep the discussions at least a bit philosophical. But I’m tired of it.
So I said I wish I could help.
What are the negatives that you see?
Ok, but that’s teleological.
Because it would seem that if you believe in natural selection, then you would also believe in natural selection for communities. Yet you don’t seem to, which seems odd to me. Why believe it is not necessary to have a god to guide humanity while at the same time believing we need moderators to guide humanity?
A majority of human beings are dumb herd animals, only a wise or intelligent dictatorship can lead them. A benevolent philosophical sheep herder is needed.
I try not to rock the boat too much around here as people get spooked rather easily. Seen plenty of people get banned over the years here. I admit however that I’m not always on my best behavior where I’ve been trying to reign in on myself. I’ve been getting better I like to think compared to my younger years as an adolescent.
I don’t think that making someone feel shame is the right thing to do. I don’t think it’s how people ought to interact.
I don’t think that one has to be theist (or atheist) to see that a hockey game plays better, faster, smoother with referees. The players can concentrate on the game instead of worrying about and arguing about infractions.
If a player refuses to play by the rules, then he gets warned, penalized and ultimately ejected from the game. Those rules and their enforcement make the game itself possible.
This forum is a game of sorts with rules.
Guess that’s the way you see it.
I would brush it off.
“malicious”
“slander”
“accuse me of immoral activity”
Well, well, well.
Yeah, not impressive. Definitely not something that I want.
Except I would not say “oh I didn’t mean it like that”. And we would not “go on”.
You told me your version of the story. You told me what you wanted me to hear about it.
To know what is actually going on, I would have to check the CNBC version and the YouTube version and the Schiff version. Then could make an intelligent evaluation.
How did the people come into being? Who was the herder before there were herders?
It seems you’re thinking that by some remarkable luck we’ve made it this far in our evolution, so we should immediately take the reigns or we’ll go off a cliff.
Let’s say, just for example, that you believe the white race is superior (whatever that means), so would you believe there was someone directing folks coming out of africa on which way to go in order to evolve into white people? Who was the herder? Even if you think they didn’t come from africa, they had to come from somewhere and who guided them?
Whatever it is that you think is good that needs the protection of a dictator begs the question of how it arrived in the first place without said dictator dictating how things should be. If you claim remarkable luck, then that remarkable luck has been remarkable for a remarkably long time because 1 million years ago we could have said it was all remarkable luck so far, so why shouldn’t the luck continue without a guide?
And nevermind that power corrupts. That’s another line of attack on the monarchical theory of the universe. As well as benevolence being an impossibility because in order to love you must hate that which threatens what you love, so no one can be absolutely benevolent.
[i]You see, you never really know in which direction progress lies. And this is today a fantastic problem for geneticists. The geneticists, you know, because they think they are within some degree of controlling the DNA and RNA code, believe that it is really possible, perhaps, to breed the kind of human beings that we ought to have. And they say, “Hooray!” But they think one moment and they think “Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah! But what kind of human being?” So they’re very worried.
And just a little while ago, a national committee of graduate students and geneticists had a meeting at the University of California, and they asked a group of psychologists, theologians, and philosophers to come and reason with them about this and give them some insight. And I was included. That means that they are really desperate. 
So I said, “I’ll tell you what, the only thing you can do is to be quite sure that you keep a vast variety of different kinds of human beings, because you never know what’s going to happen next. And therefore we need an enormous, shall I say, varied battery of different kinds of human intelligence and resources and abilities. So that there will always be some kind of person available for any emergency that might turn up.”
So you see, there’s a total fallacy in the idea of preaching to people. This is why I abandoned the ministries; I’ve often said, not because the church didn’t practice what it preached, but because it preached. Because you cannot tell people what sort of pattern of life they ought to have, because if they followed your advice, you might have a breed of monsters.[/i]
A plague of righteous people 
But I’m here to tell you that anytime you get a similar group of organisms together in one spot, they’re going to be wiped out. Nature wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to chow down on such a plentiful snack. If you have all pine trees, the pine beetle makes itself at home and leaves you with nothing. The more you try to dictate what is good, the more you expose yourself to the possibility of extinction for lack of variety.
How long have you been here? I thought you were new per the date on your thingy there.