I don’t think that it’s unreasonable. I have a choice of agree or not agreeing. I can choose not to participate under those conditions. I can go to other forums with other policies. I can choose to use other mediums of expression.
The availability of other options is an important aspect here. If I was both required to sign and required to participate under some sort of threat … I would have a problem with that.
I think that creates a conflict with creators of content - patent and copyright protection of work. You seem to be saying that if a singer performs in a public venue, then the performance becomes public property and anyone can distribute it. That doesn’t seem right to me.
Similarly when an invention is sold to the public, then anyone can copy it. Again, I don’t think that is right.
I think that you are mixing up inventing the rules of a game, enforcing the established rules and changing rules during a game.
Someone can invent a game with specific rules. Nobody compels you to play the game if you don’t like the rules.
When you agree to play, then you are agreeing to the rules. An “authority” can then enforce the rules. And this is much more efficient than relying on some sort of general vote.
A really problematic issue arises when there is no authority enforcing the rules and there is a dispute on what the rules are, how they should be interpreted, which rules to add and which to drop. The game become unplayable because there are essentially no fixed rules.
Disputes like that can be settled by a vote between games. Then potential players can decide whether they want to play under those rules in the next game.
That’s not excuse for you to assert that I have not addressed your question.
Yes but the agreement may not be legal (or moral) which depends on who is invited in and who is audience of the webcam.
Behavior is different from speech.
Spitting is action and behavior which is assault. Calling of names falls under speech which is protected if the roast was public. Of course, calling of names could be slander if the names called imply falsity, which is illegal. If I call you a filthy jew and you’re neither dirty nor jewish, then that could be slander. But if you are dirty and jewish, then it’s a statement of fact.
To avoid your question would be immoral and your assertion then was accusing me of being immoral. That’s substantiated and not ridiculous. I can’t prove malicious intent, which is why I said it “smells of” malicious intent, but if you’re accusing me of being immoral when I have not, then it very well could be malicious unless it was an honest mistake.
So we’re back to lack of scarcity undermining the need for the fairness doctrine. Because other forums exist, then no one forum need be fair.
It’s purely theoretical because in reality, there are only so many financial shows. CNBC, Fox business, and RT. The commie Russians don’t mind Peter sharing his videos while the capitalist CNBC does. Interesting
And there are only so many philosophy forums and while it’s true I could start another, I couldn’t start one that said “provoking thought since 2001”. The field is not level. What domain names are left? Philosophy1014U? The field is not level and scarcity does exist.
That’s why we have concert filmings on youtube.
Why isn’t it right to copy it? What is not right is selling the copy for profit. But I can copy anything I see for my own use.
I can’t copy music and sell it, but I can copy and listen and even let other people listen.
Rules should be determined by the players of the game, not those who do not play. Why take the power from your own hands in determining what is right for you and place it into someone else’s hands? You said you do not want to be a daddy on here, but why do you need a daddy to tell you what is right and wrong? Simply because it’s more efficient???
So because it’s more efficient and faster to shoot someone in the head rather than argue with them, we should implement that policy?
Oh really? Can you name a game that has not had its rules determined by the players?
The rules of chess were designed by the players of the game. Each card game was designed by those who were playing the card game. A group of guys playing with a ball decided they should have some rules to define a game… and then appointed someone to be a referee who could take an objective view and be impartial judge to enforce the rules they made.
I shoot billiards with random fellas and we make the rules up as we go along. “Ball in hand or let it slide?” “Is the break a called-shot or does the ball pocketed determine who is solids?” How we want to play the game is our business to decide.
Rules of games are whatever the players decide them to be and aren’t dictated by those who don’t play. You can play by dictation if you choose to, but ultimately it is by your choice to let someone else tell you what to do.
I made up games all the time as kid with my friends. I have always, child and adult, adjusted games to fit the players, setting. People who lack creativity may not set the rules of their games or adjust them but there’s not reason to limit them when we do not need to. The only reason in general to limit them is to save time. IOW if you want to make up a new way to play soccer or a soccer-like game, you have to have discussions, test things, rather than just accepting, in the main the rules. But here in a forum of course that can be done. We can easily slowly transform in any direction and many online activities do this and as the members evolve what is going on.
Unless we are saying that the forum is FOR Carleas, which would be odd, then it is FOR the players, Carleas being one. He may have the power to determine things, but fuck, if I am at my house and people at my party want to play a new interesting version of charades, let’s go for it. If it means my walls catch on fire, well, OK, I will set my foot down. But as long as my belongings are not harmed, and that’s what most of us want, let’s do it.
Oh my god. Football is football and the players on the field don’t get to make up the rules. This shit isn’t difficult. If you want to make up your own game then you’re allowed to do that. Just not while on a football field during a football game.
Well, gosh, that’s not a response to what I wrote. What are we stuck in the middle of a game with hired refs and no time. We could easily decide over time via discussions to change the rules of this ‘GAME’. It’s not like we have three hours to play on a saturday and busy lives. And even then, we could message and email our way to new forms of kicking the ball around, JUST LIKE ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO MAKE UP DOZENS OF VERSIONS OF CHESS AND CHECKERS, your example. People make shit up all the time. The fact that most people just follow someone elses rules is 1) because some forms got ritualized and 2) because they are lazy or too busy. These factors need not apply here.
Soccer/footbal variations - personally I’ve played, half field, I’ve played with small goals and no goalie, I’ve played on asphalt with soccer rules but with a hockey puck, no ball, I’ve seen it played with cars, a hackey sack - which must remain off the turn or you lose possession, I’ve played indoor soccer, I’ve played on courts that were make with slaloms and other obstacles redbull.com/us-en/variation … -the-world pastemagazine.com/articles/ … kills.html the18.com/news/soccer-hybrids-so … -1-we-want
IOW me and my friends made up versions. I’ve joined versions that were made by city planners - the odd field course. And humans around the world have developed variations. Some that become leagues.
These fucking games are for us. We make em. They are not like God’s commandments.
And this is just stuff I can find on the internet. People have gotten together and made up many, many, many more variations - as one time events, as something they repeated.
This is where the games COME FROM. They come from humans making up stuff.
Some of it becomes habitual and some people can’t create shit. But the people here who are not capable of coming up with anything could still choose to try something new.
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 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.
assuming that it is moral for the owner to limit speech, but not feeling any onus in arguing for this position