beauty

[Peter Kropotkin]

Beauty is the ascription of a property or characteristic to a person, object, animal, place or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure or satisfaction. Beauty is studied as part of aesthetics, culture, social psychology and sociology.

The experience of "beauty" often involves an interpretation of some entity as being in balance and harmony with nature, which may lead to feelings of attraction and emotional well-being. Because this can be a subjective experience, it is often said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."[2] Often, given the observation that empirical observations of things that are considered beautiful often align among groups in consensus, beauty has been stated to have levels of objectivity and partial subjectivity which are not fully subjective in their aesthetic judgement. Ugliness is the opposite of beauty.

K: from our friends at Wiki....or to say it another way... we find beauty given our
own indoctrinations of family, the state, church, media, socially....

an example of this is the fact that Olive Oyl of Popeye fame, was the ideal
understanding of feminine beauty during the 1920's....

as was Marilyn Monroe was during the 1950's... see a picture of Olive Oyl
and see how skinny she is and note a picture of Monroe and she wasn't...
but new research points out that Monroe wasn't an "a plus" size either....
(being married 25 years has given me insight, not wanted, into women and
their sizes) and we can see over the years the ever changing understanding
of a women and beauty.....

and example of this is the 1970's when it was Farrah Fawcett and
her ubiquitous poster found on every teenager's wall during that time....
(not mine because I had to share a room with my younger brother and my
mom forbid that poster.... so as not to lead to impure thoughts I would guess)

anyway.. beauty has always been subject to ever changing principles..
for example, Greek women's beauty... you would have women with the brow
that went over the entire eyes.... hate that look.. BTW....

but beauty has also existed in forms other then women....
you see the beautiful sunset or the painting or the house...

each one is just another example of beauty....

so what is beauty? it is a subjective viewpoint that is heavily influenced
by current cultural, social, economic, political and philosophical influences within
society at large.... beauty and our understanding of being beautiful,
is based upon the standards set by the society and it various aspects like
social, political, economic, philosophical aspects of society.....

we see beauty as society wishes us to see beauty.....

your serve, IAM...

Kropotkin

[Dan~]

I think beauty is an objective thing.
It is a sense.
A sense of beauty is based first in instinct.

I don't like when people say that beauty is only subjective and nothing else.

Beauty is an assessment of a real object.
Seeing beauty is like seeing color.

Anyone that doesn't know what beauty is is obviously foolish, or disgenic.

[Magnus Anderson]

Beauty is a measure of how desirable a person is as a spouse based on how they look. So of course it is objective. Shifting tastes prove nothing just like how shifting opinions prove nothing.

[promethean75]

...

[iambiguous]

Beauty is a measure of how desirable a person is as a spouse based on how they look. So of course it is objective. Shifting tastes prove nothing just like how shifting opinions prove nothing.

And of course this applies to morality too.

Right?

Clearly, there are biological elements embedded in how human beings react to the "looks" of others. Certain features seem more appealing than others. Both historically and cross culturally.

But on the level of the individual this becomes increasingly more problematic. Whether in regard to a human face, a human body or a "work of art".

Again, the mentality of someone like Magnus seems to reflect with I call the "psychology of objectivism". They have come to invest "I" in a particular set of assumptions about beauty and what becomes most critical for them is not whose assumptions about beauty is correct but that there is only one set of assumptions that is correct.

Their own.

[Magnus Anderson]

And of course this applies to morality too.

Right?

Right. But that's not the subject of this thread.

Clearly, there are biological elements embedded in how human beings react to the "looks" of others. Certain features seem more appealing than others. Both historically and cross culturally.

That's correct. But also, certain relation exists between the set of all looks and the set of all physical and psychological traits (courage, strength, agility, intelligence, health, compassion, etc.) When a look is more frequently associated with desirable than undesirable physical and psychological traits, and when it is so more than other looks, we say it is an objectively better look than those other looks. That's what beauty in the objective sense of the word refers to.

Note that this is not strictly a response to your post, since I'm not sure you will understand it. It's a response to the OP.

Again, the mentality of someone like Magnus seems to reflect with I call the "psychology of objectivism". They have come to invest "I" in a particular set of assumptions about beauty and what becomes most critical for them is not whose assumptions about beauty is correct but that there is only one set of assumptions that is correct.

Their own.

You're accusing me of being a dogmatist i.e. that I'm unwilling to introduce the possibility that I am wrong and to change my position in face of new evidence. But this thread isn't about me -- don't make it about me. If you want, you can start a new thread elsewhere -- not sure exactly where -- that is titled something like "Is Magnus Anderson a dogmatist?". You'd be welcome to present an argument in favor of your position but don't do it here.

[iambiguous]

Clearly, there are biological elements embedded in how human beings react to the "looks" of others. Certain features seem more appealing than others. Both historically and cross culturally.

That's correct. But also, certain relation exists between the set of all looks and the set of all physical and psychological traits (courage, strength, agility, intelligence, health, compassion, etc.) When a look is more frequently associated with desirable than undesirable physical and psychological traits, and when it is so more than other looks, we say it is an objectively better look than those other looks. That's what beauty in the objective sense of the word refers to.

But you speak of objectivity here as though we could hand the discussion and debate over to mathematicians and biologists and chemists and physicists and ask them to settle it once and for all.

Same with philosophers, aesthetes and art critics.

As though if you showed them a hundred human faces and a hundred human bodies and a hundred works of art they could calculate with any degree of precision which were the most beautiful and which were the least beautiful

Meanwhile leaving out entirely the point I raise about how much more problematic it all becomes in regard to individuals living out in very different worlds historically and culturally and experientially.

Again, the mentality of someone like Magnus seems to reflect with I call the "psychology of objectivism". They have come to invest "I" in a particular set of assumptions about beauty and what becomes most critical for them is not whose assumptions about beauty is correct but that there is only one set of assumptions that is correct.

Their own.

You're accusing me of being a dogmatist i.e. that I'm unwilling to introduce the possibility that I am wrong and to change my position in face of new evidence. But this thread isn't about me -- don't make it about me.

Come on, what I make all discussions in regard to aesthetics and morality and politics revolve around is the distinction I make between those who insist that their own standards and values reflect the objective truth and those who recognize the extent to which such judgments are rooted existentially, subjectively in dasein.

So, in regard to your assertions about beauty above you either are or are not a dogmatist. Then the question becomes the extent to which in your interactions with others you become an authoritarian as well. If you were in a position of power, would you tolerate opposing views on beauty...or would others have to accept your own criterion.

Be honest.

If you want, you can start a new thread elsewhere -- not sure exactly where -- that is titled something like "Is Magnus Anderson a dogmatist?". You'd be welcome to present an argument in favor of your position but don't do it here.

If you are serious I would be more than willing to start one. Just say the word. Or start it yourself.

[Magnus Anderson]

But you speak of objectivity here as though we could hand the discussion and debate over to mathematicians and biologists and chemists and physicists and ask them to settle it once and for all.

I do think that we can hand the subject to mathematicians, biologists, chemists and physicists (though I think we should actually hand it to mathematicians, biologists and psychologists) and ask them to use their expertise and tools to arrive at a scientific opinion.

But that's not what I said.

As though if you showed them a hundred human faces and a hundred human bodies and a hundred works of art they could calculate with any degree of precision which were the most beautiful and which were the least beautiful

Faces and bodies are enough. And yes, they could calculate such a thing.

But that's not what I said.

Meanwhile leaving out entirely the point I raise about how much more problematic it all becomes in regard to individuals living out in very different worlds historically and culturally and experientially.

Perhaps because it's irrelevant?

Come on, what I make all discussions in regard to aesthetics and morality and politics revolve around is the distinction I make between those who insist that their own standards and values reflect the objective truth and those who recognize the extent to which such judgments are rooted existentially, subjectively in dasein.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. How you arrived at your beliefs is one thing and whether those beliefs are true (i.e. correspond to reality) is another thing.

As for this:

Again, the mentality of someone like Magnus seems to reflect with I call the "psychology of objectivism". They have come to invest "I" in a particular set of assumptions about beauty and what becomes most critical for them is not whose assumptions about beauty is correct but that there is only one set of assumptions that is correct.

Their own.

Opposing beliefs cannot be all true. Only one of them can. It's logically impossible for two opposing beliefs to be both true.

So "John is more beautiful than Patrick" and "Patrick is more beautiful than John" cannot be both true. Only one of them can. It's either/or. Unless, of course, they are actually mutually compatible statements and we're misinterpreting them as being mutually incompatible.

And everyone thinks their beliefs are true until they find a reason to believe otherwise. And when they discover that some of their beliefs are false, what they do is they replace them with those they think are true.

So, in regard to your assertions about beauty above you either are or are not a dogmatist. Then the question becomes the extent to which in your interactions with others you become an authoritarian as well. If you were in a position of power, would you tolerate opposing views on beauty...or would others have to accept your own criterion.

Be honest.

This thread isn't about me, so this is irrelevant.

If you are serious I would be more than willing to start one. Just say the word. Or start it yourself.

You don't need my permission.

[iambiguous]

But you speak of objectivity here as though we could hand the discussion and debate over to mathematicians and biologists and chemists and physicists and ask them to settle it once and for all.

I do think that we can hand the subject to mathematicians, biologists, chemists and physicists (though I think we should actually hand it to mathematicians, biologists and psychologists) and ask them to use their expertise and tools to arrive at a scientific opinion.

Unfortunately, we are not ourselves able to conduct this experiment. We'll just have to agree to disagree whether mathematicians, biologists and psychologists [along with philosophers, aesthetes and art critics], if shown 100 human faces, 100 human bodies and 100 works of art, "could calculate with any degree of precision which were the most beautiful and which were the least beautiful."

Meanwhile leaving out entirely the point I raise about how much more problematic it all becomes in regard to individuals living out in very different worlds historically and culturally and experientially.

Perhaps because it's irrelevant?

Irrelevant? How could the reaction of individual human beings regarding what to them is or is not beautiful be irrelevant? On the other hand, from the perspective of the objectivists this might be the case because to the extent that any individual does not share the objectivist's own assessment, they are wrong. Still, what if the objectivists themselves disagree? Well, if you are one of them, they too would have accept your own judgment, wouldn't they? Or [necessarily] be wrong.

Come on, what I make all discussions in regard to aesthetics and morality and politics revolve around is the distinction I make between those who insist that their own standards and values reflect the objective truth and those who recognize the extent to which such judgments are rooted existentially, subjectively in dasein.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. How you arrived at your beliefs is one thing and whether those beliefs are true (i.e. correspond to reality) is another thing.

Okay, but we will still need specific examples and someone able to definitively pin down which beliefs/individual prejudices are true.

Again, the mentality of someone like Magnus seems to reflect with I call the "psychology of objectivism". They have come to invest "I" in a particular set of assumptions about beauty and what becomes most critical for them is not whose assumptions about beauty is correct but that there is only one set of assumptions that is correct.

Their own.

Opposing beliefs cannot be all true. Only one of them can. It's logically impossible for two opposing beliefs to be both true.

And then of course how far you are willing to extend this assumption:

For example, Jane and Joan both had abortions. That's not just someone's personal opinion. It is in fact demonstrably true.

So, let's gather our "mathematicians, biologists and psychologists" and have them pin down which of the two women is the most beautiful. Next they will tell us whether these abortions were moral or immoral. Some believe they are moral, others immoral. But it's logical impossible for both beliefs to be true.

Yes, even in the world of beauty and ethics only one belief can in fact be true. So, sure, why not yours, right?

If you are serious I would be more than willing to start one. Just say the word. Or start it yourself.

You don't need my permission.

Nope, after reading your points above, it wouldn't be worth my time. You strike me as an Ayn Rand Objectivist. And almost all of them take their imperious, "metaphysical" aesthetic and moral truths with them to the grave.

[Magnus Anderson]

And then of course how far you are willing to extend this assumption:

For example, Jane and Joan both had abortions. That's not just someone's personal opinion. It is in fact demonstrably true.

So, let's gather our "mathematicians, biologists and psychologists" and have them pin down which of the two women is the most beautiful. Next they will tell us whether these abortions were moral or immoral. Some believe they are moral, others immoral. But it's logical impossible for both beliefs to be true.

Are you sure this isn't off-topic? Because I am sure it is. This thread has nothing to do with morality. You keep trying to hijack other people's threads whenever opportunity arises.

And note that my initial post said nothing about what is truly beautiful and whether it is possible at all for humans to discover what is truly beautiful.

Yes, even in the world of beauty and ethics only one belief can in fact be true. So, sure, why not yours, right?

You're putting words in my mouth. I merely said that two opposing beliefs cannot be both true. Only one of them can. So it does not have to be mine. It can be yours. But it's also possible that neither is true.

[obsrvr524]

I think Mr Anderson has it right.

[Magnus Anderson]

Nope, after reading your points above, it wouldn't be worth my time. You strike me as an Ayn Rand Objectivist. And almost all of them take their imperious, "metaphysical" aesthetic and moral truths with them to the grave.

Right, so you asked for a debate. But I didn't suggest a debate. I suggested that you start a thread where you'd be discussing subjects (such as "The Psychology of Magnus Anderson") you're discussing in places where they shouldn't be discussed (such as a thread about beauty.) I said nothing about my willingness to participate in such a thread. The entire point was that you're being off-topic and that you should move your off-topic posts elsewhere.

And note that it is not me who said "Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist!" Rather, it is you who said "Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist!" Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

[iambiguous]

And then of course how far you are willing to extend this assumption:

For example, Jane and Joan both had abortions. That's not just someone's personal opinion. It is in fact demonstrably true.

So, let's gather our "mathematicians, biologists and psychologists" and have them pin down which of the two women is the most beautiful. Next they will tell us whether these abortions were moral or immoral. Some believe they are moral, others immoral. But it's logical impossible for both beliefs to be true.

Are you sure this isn't off-topic? Because I am sure it is. This thread has nothing to do with morality. You keep trying to hijack other people's threads whenever opportunity arises.

Sure, that's one way to actually avoid addressing the point that I am making here. Or you can accuse me of "derailing the thread".

Instead, why don't you actually respond to the points that I am making above? Or, okay, we can take it to another thread. But only if you are willing to address the arguments I make.

And note that my initial post said nothing about what is truly beautiful and whether it is possible at all for humans to discover what is truly beautiful.

Okay, then in regard to those 100 human faces, 100 human bodies and 100 works of art, what are you saying? If different people have different personal opinions regarding beauty, what criteria would be used to establish what is "truly beautiful"?

Yes, even in the world of beauty and ethics only one belief can in fact be true. So, sure, why not yours, right?

You're putting words in my mouth. I merely said that two opposing beliefs cannot be both true. Only one of them can. So it does not have to be mine. It can be yours. But it's also possible that neither is true.

So, let's try to determine what you are saying.

If Joe thinks that Jane is beautiful and Jim things that she's pretty but not beautiful, there is still the authority out there able to demonstrate which belief is the right one? Or to insist that, on the contrary, neither of them are beautiful?

Let's take a specific example: Melissa Broder: https://www.google.com/search?source=un ... 42&bih=597

Now, on her "so sad today" twitter page, she often complains about her looks. She just doesn't think her face and her body are attractive enough. And I am myself ambivalent. In some photos she does seem beautiful to me, while in others, her face looks "funny", and not so attractive.

Now, my argument is that in a God world, God, as an omniscient being, is able to tell us beyond all doubt which men and women are truly beautiful. He could let us know once and for all how we should react to Melissa's face and body.

But, in a No God world, how exactly would mere mortals [far, far removed from omniscience] go about establishing it? Other than to insist that "in their head" they believe one thing rather than another.

And, again, that's in regard to "just beauty". When the objectivists also insist that this sort of logic can be used to settle moral conflicts in a No God world, the consequences can be considerably more drastic.

[iambiguous]

I think Mr Anderson has it right.

Yeah, but is he right about Trump and Biden and China?

New thread! New Thread! New Thread!

[iambiguous]

Nope, after reading your points above, it wouldn't be worth my time. You strike me as an Ayn Rand Objectivist. And almost all of them take their imperious, "metaphysical" aesthetic and moral truths with them to the grave.

Right, so you asked for a debate. But I didn't suggest a debate. I suggested that you start a thread where you'd be discussing subjects (such as "The Psychology of Magnus Anderson") you're discussing in places where they shouldn't be discussed (such as a thread about beauty.) I said nothing about my willingness to participate in such a thread. The entire point was that you're being off-topic and that you should move your off-topic posts elsewhere.

And note that it is not me who said "Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist!" Rather, it is you who said "Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist!" Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

Okay, let's start here...

How is this...

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life in regard to beauty.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective on beauty expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about beauty; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy of beauty with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about beauty with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own views about beauty as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom about beauty has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

...not at all applicable to you?

How instead is your own belief about beauty derived some something entirely different?

[obsrvr524]

Nope, after reading your points above, it wouldn't be worth my time. You strike me as an Ayn Rand Objectivist. And almost all of them take their imperious, "metaphysical" aesthetic and moral truths with them to the grave.

Right, so you asked for a debate. But I didn't suggest a debate. I suggested that you start a thread where you'd be discussing subjects (such as "The Psychology of Magnus Anderson") you're discussing in places where they shouldn't be discussed (such as a thread about beauty.) I said nothing about my willingness to participate in such a thread. The entire point was that you're being off-topic and that you should move your off-topic posts elsewhere.

And note that it is not me who said "Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist!" Rather, it is you who said "Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist!" Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

Okay, let's start here...

No - not HERE. He said start your own thread for that.
And if he doesn't want to defend his "psychology" in that OTHER THREAD, I will take on that role for him.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Magnus Anderson"

Are you sure this isn't off-topic? Because I am sure it is. This thread has nothing to do with morality. You keep trying to hijack other people's threads whenever opportunity arises.

And note that my initial post said nothing about what is truly beautiful and whether it is possible at all for humans to discover what is truly beautiful.

K: I believe that the ancient Greeks did in fact connect Beauty with Morality..
so it is indeed possible to connect beauty with Morality as the Athenians did....

but more to the point, why not try to connect beauty to morality?
I don't see any downside to at least try to connect them.....

I remember reading about a court case a few years ago, where
the woman in question, I believe it was a teacher-student sex thing...
anyway, literally she stood up in court and said, I am too beautiful
to go to jail and they acquitted her..... based on that one sentence...


Kropotkin

[iambiguous]

Right, so you asked for a debate. But I didn't suggest a debate. I suggested that you start a thread where you'd be discussing subjects (such as "The Psychology of Magnus Anderson") you're discussing in places where they shouldn't be discussed (such as a thread about beauty.) I said nothing about my willingness to participate in such a thread. The entire point was that you're being off-topic and that you should move your off-topic posts elsewhere.

And note that it is not me who said "Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist!" Rather, it is you who said "Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist!" Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

Okay, let's start here...

No - not HERE. He said start your own thread for that.
And if he doesn't want to defend his "psychology" in that OTHER THREAD, I will take on that role for him.

I have no idea what you are telling me here, but I will let you start the new thread and choose the context in which to explore the "psychology of objectivism".

I should warn you though that we will no doubt both go into this with absolutely no respect for the other's intelligence. Out in the "is/ought" world, you are just another James S. Saint pinhead to me.

You know, in polemicist mode.

[obsrvr524]

K: I believe that the ancient Greeks did in fact connect Beauty with Morality..
so it is indeed possible to connect beauty with Morality as the Athenians did....

but more to the point, why not try to connect beauty to morality?
I don't see any downside to at least try to connect them.....

Iambiguous wasn't "connecting morality and beauty". He was dissing Mr Anderson for being a moral objectivist concerning beauty - as I see him do on almost every subject to everyone who disagrees with his own dasein objectivist morality.

I remember reading about a court case a few years ago, where
the woman in question, I believe it was a teacher-student sex thing...
anyway, literally she stood up in court and said, I am too beautiful
to go to jail and they acquitted her..... based on that one sentence...


Kropotkin

There are idiots everywhere.

I will let you start the new thread and choose the context in which to explore the "psychology of objectivism".

So you want ME to go start a thread on a different subject - always, as he said - trying to divert and change the topic to your own obsessions.

If you are not willing to start your own threads to spew your opinions on topic, then I think you should plug your facial bleedn douche hole concerning subjects that are not on topic in other people's threads. How is that for being a "talking about what is true in your own moral objectivist head".

[iambiguous]

I will let you start the new thread and choose the context in which to explore the "psychology of objectivism".

So you want ME to go start a thread on a different subject - always, as he said - trying to divert and change the topic to your own obsessions.

Start it, don't start it. Either way, the contempt I have for your intelligence in regard to conflicting goods at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments and political economy, is not likely to budge much at all. It never did with James.

Truth be told, if that thread ever does become a reality, my main aim would be to make a complete fool out of you. Or, rather, to continue to. On the other hand, how challenging could that be?

And no doubt you think the same of me.

So, sure, role the dice, start the thread, and we'll let the others here decide.

[Karpel Tunnel]

An interesting issue is whether animals appreciate beauty and it seems they do. Darwin thought so. After a while it was considered a code for health, etc. But now animal appreciation of beauty is making a comeback in the scientific community.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/maga ... nimal.html

[obsrvr524]

my main aim would be to make a complete fool out of you. Or, rather, to continue to.

You have only been making a fool of yourself. You believing otherwise is further evidence of it.

So, sure, role the dice, start the thread, and we'll let the others here decide.

To use a quaint American term, I think they call that being "chickenshit".

An interesting issue is whether animals appreciate beauty and it seems they do. Darwin thought so. After a while it was considered a code for health, etc. But now animal appreciation of beauty is making a comeback in the scientific community.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/maga ... nimal.html

That is easy to believe.

[iambiguous]

my main aim would be to make a complete fool out of you. Or, rather, to continue to.

You have only been making a fool of yourself. You believing otherwise is further evidence of it.

Wow, the sheer beauty of his stupidity!

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

[iambiguous]

An interesting issue is whether animals appreciate beauty and it seems they do. Darwin thought so. After a while it was considered a code for health, etc. But now animal appreciation of beauty is making a comeback in the scientific community.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/maga ... nimal.html

Again, there's no doubt that nature has programed one or another rendition of beauty into animal interactions. Including us.
Call it, say, the "peacock syndrome".

But peacocks and all the other critters out there don't contend with the vast multitude of historical, cultural and experiential memes that shape and mold our nature into clearly far, far, far more complex and convoluted and conflicting assessments.

[Magnus Anderson]

Sure, that's one way to actually avoid addressing the point that I am making here.

Yes, I am avoiding addressing your point and I do so because I think that by addressing your point I would initiate an off-topic discussion.

Okay, then in regard to those 100 human faces, 100 human bodies and 100 works of art, what are you saying? If different people have different personal opinions regarding beauty, what criteria would be used to establish what is "truly beautiful"?

I said nothing about what method should be used to discover what is "truly beautiful". But I do have a rough idea. Note that it's a rough idea. It's not an idea you can take and implement straight away. Some details are missing and must be filled in. In other words, further work is required.

No - not HERE. He said start your own thread for that.

I also told him to provide an argument in favor of his claim (which is "Magnus Anderson is a dogmatist") and he didn't do that either.

Basically, he ignored everything I said

Only moderators can stop him -- and they aren't doing their job.