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?
[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]
[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? Kinda feels like that moment when Jesus recommended that the one without sin should cast the first stone
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?
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.