Maybe. Maybe not. What's the idea with a post like this?phyllo wrote:Thread nearing end.
Moderator: Carleas
Maybe. Maybe not. What's the idea with a post like this?phyllo wrote:Thread nearing end.
I don't think it needs to be formal. I have already been doing it. I have seen other people do it. Right now however, being a good seed can actually be interpreted as going against forum rules. But notice that no one has been punished for summing up what they consider the bad behavior of another poster, even in fairly blunt terms.phyllo wrote:Well, there are something like 10 or 11 forums and the "good seeds" would have to be actively reading the posts.If it is small, and it seems to be, then you don't need many seeds.
Carleas has been proposed and I assume you would nominate yourself and Serendipper ... who else?
No substance, no dealing with posts responding to what you wrote. It's OK, you're not a philosopher or a good discussion partner. Your vote for no change is noted. You have an opinion.Mr Reasonable wrote:Whichever one of you guys keeps saying "daddy"...just stop. That's something girls are supposed to say when you're fucking them. It's just weird when you do it. So stop it. Fucking weirdos.
I'll happily address it when you address some of the responses you got earlier in the thread. What I see is a potshotter, throw in a comment type of poster, not someone who is interested in engaging with ideas. Serendipity, Phyllo, Carleas and I have made a lot of points, reasoning our way through a number of ways at looking at the issue. Your criticism above fits your own posts much better per word than anyone else's. But sure, if you actually participate in a way that shows you can discuss ideas, I'll focus on your potshot above.Mr Reasonable wrote:I'm pointing out that someone is having to appeal to emotions and prod others with inflammatory language to bridge the gap in the reasoning that they're able to produce. If you can't accept that and address it then that's on you. Eat a dick.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Whichever one of you guys keeps saying "daddy"...just stop. That's something girls are supposed to say when you're fucking them. It's just weird when you do it. So stop it. Fucking weirdos.
phyllo wrote: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.
Mr Reasonable wrote:I'm pointing out that someone is having to appeal to emotions and prod others with inflammatory language to bridge the gap in the reasoning that they're able to produce. If you can't accept that and address it then that's on you.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Eat a dick.
Mr Reasonable wrote:Stop ad homming and stop baiting people with inflammatory language.
"daddy" and "potshot" are ad homs, and signs of weakness in your ability to reason.
Work on that.
Mr Reasonable wrote:You only get good posts from me when you make good posts, and they have to be ones that I'm interested it.
I have no interest in helping you to learn to cope with authority. It's just boring.
I know you're putting in a lot of work and that you're trying really hard. You must have strong feelings about all this. But it's still petty and boring and there's nothing stimulating about reading it.
So I'm just going to be quick and tell you what you're doing wrong. If you can keep your ego out of it then you can learn and be better, but I'm not going to do the work for you nor will I play the rhetoric game.
You know as well as I do that you're full of shit.
Mr Reasonable wrote:If you don't know as well as I do that you're full of shit,
then I'll keep throwing out pot shots and you can try and infer from them what you can.
Mr Reasonable wrote:I just read up until you said phylo was my ally. He's not.
Sorry phylo, but I haven't read enough of your posts so don't take that personally. I have no idea what your position is here and I don't know how you think or what your beliefs are. What I do know is that someone is saying you're my ally, which can't be true since I'm not really allied with anyone.
[my emphasis added] You could add in various common fallacies, and then responses that even embed quotes as if it is responding but then the response does not fit what it is responding to. I suppose I would want, ideally, patterns like potshotting, not understanding onus and being incoherent. By potshotting I mean focusing on small portions of posts rather than engaging main points, especially if effort has been put in to respond directly to and carefully to the potshotters points. ARgument by evasion, which is rude without breaking politeness rules, as they are now. All this can be much more subtle and it would be unfair to expect Carleas to find these himself or event to adjudicate, especially if a lot of people gave a damn and reported many. Hence my supporting suggestions about using group pressure on such posts. This is happening now and all the participants in this thread have engaged in this, including breaking other rules to do it with impact. I think it would be good if it was less haphazard and I still think that ignoring people is a must, though a later step in the process after engaging with the pattern directly has not worked.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.
phyllo wrote:Who is "we"?Okay, but how do we write about human interactions in what some construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningless world?
One that ends for all of eternity in oblivion? And, as well, in what Camus and others deemed to be a No God world.
phyllo wrote: Camus was writing about that absurd and meaningless world and yet he found personal meaning and happiness there - without God and with oblivion.
phyllo wrote: So what the hell is wrong with those philosophies beyond "I'm not convinced"? Why aren't you convinced?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:He thinks there is no way to determine moral behavior. Of course one can still discuss group norms and how to practically make these work for those present, without thinking of this as objective morals. But in any case, the thread is not meaningful to him. He cannot have a position on the thread, since he views it in moral terms only. It is irrelevant to him.
phyllo wrote:I tried and I didn't succeed.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:ARgument by evasion, which is rude without breaking politeness rules, as they are now.
The purpose of the rules is not to "have rules" ... it's to have a well-functioning forum.And the thread itself is meaningful to me in that it exposes yet another example of the point that I do raise about "rules of behavior".
Consider:
Carleas could embrace one of three policies here...
1] might makes right. It's his forum and the rules are in sync with that which suits him.
2] right makes might. He has determined that there is in fact an optimal set of rules and that the forum must abide by them.
3] moderation, negotiation and compromise. He recognizes that different folks have different narratives/agendas regarding these things. He has come up with a set of rules/policies [subject to change] that come as close as he deems "the best of possible worlds" might be. Here and now.
Power [rules] wielded somewhere in the murky middle of that which I construe to be embedded in dasein and conflicting goods.
Good point, though given that it is a discussion forum, then the conclusion that a position sucks due to length is silly. It's not a philosophy twitter forum. I get that some people may not be interested in reading longer posts and may also not want to respond with any detail given their technology, but they 1) have no basis for thinking long posts suck and 2) aren't discussing philosophy, at least often, when they lob opinions and assertions as posts. There could be ways to make interesting points that are very restricted, and that would be great participation. But too often the shorter posts are dismissals of a whole post based on an opinion, not an argument, about one piece of it. We are not taking votes here.Serendipper wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote:ARgument by evasion, which is rude without breaking politeness rules, as they are now.
The problem is mobsile devices make debate too difficult.
You have to dumb it down for the kiddies because, as Mr R said, if they're not immediately interested or grow bored within a run-on sentence, then your position sucks because it's not iphone/ADD compatible.
Maybe your argument is why a number of forums seem to be going downhill. On the other hand there are forums where the level of philosophical debate is higher.People are dumb animals and if you're trying to make money off them or desire to become popular with them, then you're going to have to cater to them. The mob runs the show either with or without authority.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Good point, though given that it is a discussion forum, then the conclusion that a position sucks due to length is silly. It's not a philosophy twitter forum. I get that some people may not be interested in reading longer posts and may also not want to respond with any detail given their technology, but they 1) have no basis for thinking long posts suck and 2) aren't discussing philosophy, at least often, when they lob opinions and assertions as posts. There could be ways to make interesting points that are very restricted, and that would be great participation. But too often the shorter posts are dismissals of a whole post based on an opinion, not an argument, about one piece of it. We are not taking votes here.Serendipper wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote:ARgument by evasion, which is rude without breaking politeness rules, as they are now.
The problem is mobsile devices make debate too difficult.
You have to dumb it down for the kiddies because, as Mr R said, if they're not immediately interested or grow bored within a run-on sentence, then your position sucks because it's not iphone/ADD compatible.
Mr Reasonable wrote:You only get good posts from me when you make good posts, and they have to be ones that I'm interested it.
I have no interest in helping you to learn to cope with authority. It's just boring.
I know you're putting in a lot of work and that you're trying really hard. You must have strong feelings about all this. But it's still petty and boring and there's nothing stimulating about reading it.
Maybe your argument is why a number of forums seem to be going downhill. On the other hand there are forums where the level of philosophical debate is higher.People are dumb animals and if you're trying to make money off them or desire to become popular with them, then you're going to have to cater to them. The mob runs the show either with or without authority.
Well, it's good he knows he hasn't made any good posts at least in this thread. The really bizarre part of what you quoted here isSerendipper wrote:To illustrate:Mr Reasonable wrote:You only get good posts from me when you make good posts, and they have to be ones that I'm interested it.
I have no interest in helping you to learn to cope with authority. It's just boring.
I know you're putting in a lot of work and that you're trying really hard. You must have strong feelings about all this. But it's still petty and boring and there's nothing stimulating about reading it.
We're not philosophers; we're entertainers!
1) the authority asked for feedback and you are obviously coping with the authority figure 2) he wasted time to write that rather than posting in a topic he found interesting? It makes no sense. I don't think he's honest about the choices he makes and he's a hypocrite. So I have him on ignore.I have no interest in helping you to learn to cope with authority. It's just boring.
Likely.They probably have less members.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users