Hello Rick Lewis, Thank you

Welcome to the forum

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Thundril
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:37 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Hello Rick Lewis, Thank you

Post by Thundril » Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:39 pm

Atthet wrote:
RickLewis wrote:However, if people feel the amount of bad language is preventing them from enjoying the forum, or
That's the bottom line, isn't it? Enjoyment?

If philosophy is not "enjoyed", then it has no worth or value.
Non sequitur
Rick Lewis has exposed himself. Philosophy is about "feeling good" about yourself, never about being insulted, or punished, for being stupid.
The purpose of the forum is not necessarily the same as the purpose of philosophy.
I, for example, have no philosophical training (it probably shows, too); I just enjoy talking about ideas. The purpose of this, or any other, discussion forum is whatever the creator of the site had in mind, that motivated the work and expense of creating it. If that purpose was to offer an opportunity for enjoyment, well, why not?
And frankly the repetitive schoolboy willy-waving that some try to pass off as philosophical discussion is rarely enjoyable, entertaining or enlightening, except for the individuals who perpetrate it.
Exactly what profound truth, interesting new thought, or essential insight is furthered by calling a young woman a ****?

Atthet
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Hello Rick Lewis, Thank you

Post by Atthet » Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:56 pm

Thundril wrote:The purpose of the forum is not necessarily the same as the purpose of philosophy.
You got that right! And Rick Lewis proved this just now.

Thundril wrote:I, for example, have no philosophical training (it probably shows, too); I just enjoy talking about ideas. The purpose of this, or any other, discussion forum is whatever the creator of the site had in mind, that motivated the work and expense of creating it. If that purpose was to offer an opportunity for enjoyment, well, why not?
Have you ever considered that philosophy is not about "enjoyment"?

If philosophy is not about "enjoyment", then doesn't creating a philosophy forum for enjoyment defeat the purpose?

Thundril wrote:And frankly the repetitive schoolboy willy-waving that some try to pass off as philosophical discussion is rarely enjoyable, entertaining or enlightening, except for the individuals who perpetrate it.
Exactly what profound truth, interesting new thought, or essential insight is furthered by calling a young woman a ****?
You're fixated on propping up and protecting pussy. Forget about pussy for a second, why are women to be protected from their own stupidity? What's "wrong" with calling a **** a ****? Answer these questions first.

Why is it "wrong" to "hate"? Why is it wrong to call somebody out on their stupidity? Why is it wrong to call genetic feces, what they are?

Is philosophy only about sugarcoating people's stupidity, about "feeling good" and "enjoyment"? To Rick Lewis, and the herd of sheeple here, yes, yes it is. This is proved now, and quoted, in writing. This "philosophy forum" is about personal enjoyment, of the herd. The herd's stupidity must be protected from its own stupidity.

On the forum "ilovephilosophy", the moderators and administrator there, said the same thing. Philosophy was about "socializing with friends", enjoyment, not challenging people's beliefs, or insight, or new ideas, or even thoughts or thinking.

Philosophy is about fraternizing with people who already agree with your premises. It is a social gathering, not an foundation for thoughts.

Thundril
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:37 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Hello Rick Lewis, Thank you

Post by Thundril » Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:58 pm

RickLewis wrote:
Because this censoring would be happening automatically, and would be completely impersonal and impartial, it presumably wouldn't provoke the "you can't stop me"/"yes we can" etc escalation which Mick describes.

I've always been a bit irritated with word censoring on forums, and we have never enabled it because it seems to be treating forum users as less than sensible adults. After all, an occasional bit of swearing doesn't kill anybody anyway.

However, if people feel the amount of bad language is preventing them from enjoying the forum, or creates a bad image for the magazine, or (most important of all) puts off potential posters who might otherwise contribute something good here, then this could be a really easy way to fix it. Whaddaya think? If you like the idea, what words should be censored?

p.s. If we enable the auto-censoring, there is even an option for individual members to override it so that THEY (and they alone) can see the uncensored versions of words! If they really want to. :)
The automatic nature of that facility does lend itself to the label 'censorship', but really it's more like editorship, IMO. Chopping out unnecessary, repetitive and relatively meaningless words, and even entire paragraphs, is not a bad thing for an editor to do. It brings out the worthwhile stuff more clearly.. It may even have the effect of provoking some contributors to give up on contentless shit-spraying, and make the effort to say the worthwhile things they are capable of.

Thundril
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:37 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Hello Rick Lewis, Thank you

Post by Thundril » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:07 pm

Atthet wrote:
Thundril wrote:The purpose of the forum is not necessarily the same as the purpose of philosophy.
You got that right! And Rick Lewis proved this just now.
Thundril wrote:I, for example, have no philosophical training (it probably shows, too); I just enjoy talking about ideas. The purpose of this, or any other, discussion forum is whatever the creator of the site had in mind, that motivated the work and expense of creating it. If that purpose was to offer an opportunity for enjoyment, well, why not?
If philosophy is not about "enjoyment", then doesn't creating a philosophy forum for enjoyment defeat the purpose?
You just agreed, in your first sentence above, that I was right when I said that the purpose of the discussion forum is not necessarily the same as the purpose of philosophy. And now you're disagreeing with yourself?

Answer these questions first.

Why is it "wrong" to "hate"?
Define your terms.
Why is it wrong to call somebody out on their stupidity? Why is it wrong to call genetic feces, what they are?
Define your terms

On the forum "ilovephilosophy", the moderators and administrator there, said the same thing. Philosophy was about "socializing with friends", enjoyment, not challenging people's beliefs, or insight, or new ideas, or even thoughts or thinking.
And would I be right in supposing they threw you out on your disagreeable arse?
Philosophy is about fraternizing with people who already agree with your premises. It is a social gathering, not an foundation for thoughts.
Debate is about disagreeing in a constructive manner. I could spend ten more pages trying to explain to you that you strike me as a solitary ego-wanker with nothing to offer of any intellectual merit whatsoever.. But, I can't be arsed. You'll just have to take my word for it.

Atthet
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:53 am

Re: Hello Rick Lewis, Thank you

Post by Atthet » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:18 pm

Thundril wrote:You just agreed, in your previous sentence about, that I was right when I said that the purpose of the discussion forum is not necessarily the same as the purpose of philosophy. And now you're disagreeing with yourself?
I'm not disagreeing. Philosophy, and a philosophy forum, created by a spineless ego-maniac, fame monger, are different subjects.

Thundril wrote:Define your terms.
Why is it "wrong", morally condemned by Judaeo-Christian ethics, to "hate", to spread negative emotions against those who themselves are negative and emotive? It's clear, now answer my question.

Thundril wrote:And did they they throw you out on your disagreeable arse?
The answer is too obvious. Sheeple can only handle small amounts, a quick burst, of pure truth, at a time. It's like getting a shot in your arm with a syringe, you don't want the needle sticking in there forever, do you.

Thundril wrote:Debate is about disagreeing in a constructive manner. I could spend ten more pages trying to explain to you that you strike me as a solitary, opiniated ego-wanker with nothing to offer of any intellectual merit whatsoever.. But, I can't be arsed. You'll just have to take my word for it.
Says you. What do I say? I say, spare me your girlish, faggish feelings, woman. Are you a woman or a man?

Do you want to know what's most constructive? Cutting through the shit, and the genetic feces, and going straight to the "heart" of these matters. When I cut, I want it to be effective. When I stab, I want to pierce your heart on the first thrust. I don't want to play around, like children in the sandbox, and call this masturbation "philosophy".

If your beliefs are not changed, if your thoughts are not challenged and provoked, if you are not the most offended you've ever been in your life, and will be for the rest of your life, then you are not a philosopher, and this "philosophy forum" is worth nothing. Your mind will bend before mine, or mine to yours. Your cowardice will be exposed, or mine will. Do you have what it takes to think for once in your miserable life, probably not?

Thundril
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:37 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Hello Rick Lewis, Thank you

Post by Thundril » Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:57 pm

Atthet wrote:
Thundril wrote:Define your terms.
Why is it "wrong", morally condemned by Judaeo-Christian ethics, to "hate", to spread negative emotions against those who themselves are negative and emotive? It's clear, now answer my question.
On those definitions, I'm not sure it is always wrong to hate. I suspect it probably isn't. Your definitions are not the definitions I'd normally use, particlarly your definition of hate, as something to do with communication; I tend to think of hate as an emotion, rather than the communication of an emotion.
Further, I don't really subscribe to 'Judeo-Christian' ethics, so I'm probably not the best qualified person to answer your question, as clarified by your definitions. But as near as I can guess, hating probably isn't always wrong. Many people hate racism, for example, and the main proponents of 'Judeo-Christian ethics' don't seem to think there's anything wrong with that.
Thundril wrote:And did they they throw you out on your disagreeable arse?
The answer is too obvious. Sheeple can only handle small amounts, a quick burst, of pure truth, at a time. It's like getting a shot in your arm with a syringe, you don't want the needle sticking in there forever, do you.
Ah, they did. I see.
Thundril wrote:Debate is about disagreeing in a constructive manner. I could spend ten more pages trying to explain to you that you strike me as a solitary, opiniated ego-wanker with nothing to offer of any intellectual merit whatsoever.. But, I can't be arsed. You'll just have to take my word for it.
Says you. What do I say? I say, spare me your girlish, faggish feelings, woman. Are you a woman or a man?
'Man and woman He created me both' as Oscar Wilde said. Or someone else.

Do you want to know what's most constructive? Cutting through the shit, and the genetic feces,
Define 'genetic feces', please?
and going straight to the "heart" of these matters. When I cut, I want it to be effective. When I stab, I want to pierce your heart on the first thrust. I don't want to play around, like children in the sandbox, and call this masturbation "philosophy".

If your beliefs are not changed, if your thoughts are not challenged and provoked, if you are not the most offended you've ever been in your life, and will be for the rest of your life, then you are not a philosopher, and this "philosophy forum" is worth nothing. Your mind will bend before mine, or mine to yours. Your cowardice will be exposed, or mine will. Do you have what it takes to think for once in your miserable life, probably not?
[/quote]
Yes, you're right. I can't work up whatever it would take to deal with this spittle-flecked rant you present as philosophy.
. 'Bye.

marjoramblues
Posts: 639
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:37 am

Re: Hello Rick Lewis, Thank you

Post by marjoramblues » Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:39 pm

John:
Also, imagine some other publication, like a national newspaper or whatever, that decided to do a piece on Philosophy Now and how it was bringing philosophy to the masses (or whatever the angle was) and they visited this forum to get a taste of the online debates that take place amongst it's readers. I wonder if people being called "cunts" and discussions on "niggers" would get a glowing review.

You shouldn't have to feel like you need a bath after visiting a philosophy forum.

Sorry, maybe I'm going on a bit and not really offering much in the way of solutions but that's those are my thoughts on the matter.
No worries, John - I too have 'gone on a bit' on other threads, at different times. I've raised all kinds of angles, including the fact that there are visitors/students linked here from eg the Open University. It is not so much what the current members would want - as far as I am concerned, the root problem and solution lies in the hands of the forum owners.

It was great to hear of your success with the OU - and I'm sure that it will have inspired others.
Let it be known that forums can be 'moderated' in a way that enables freedom of speech -and a secure and safe place to explore old and new ideas. And it needn't be 'automatic and non-personal' or 'heavy-handed'...

but perhaps it depends also on the type of software available ? So, can a thread be 'closed' after gentle warnings, or what ?

I'm actually fed-up of all of this...and will be taking a break...again...

BFN marjoramblues , previously known as 'mhoraine' for those that care to know...

and edited to reply to quote:
Put a call out for volunteer mods and you're likely to get exactly the wrong sort of people applying, people with an appetite for command and control of the discourse. We've never had that here, and I am not the only one who doesn't want it.
As for guid(e)lines, I have never seen, and I don't believe I ever will see, a set that is 'clear' enough to remove all discretion and, in my experience, discretion always results in injustice.
Is there anyone mad enough who would want to mod this place, with or without the support of some guidelines. Hats off to AMod - or AMods, I wouldn't want, or be up to, doing their job.

I'm sure Rick would exercise discretion and not put out a general call - perhaps 'invite'.

Just because people have never 'seen' effective use of 'Spirit of Forum' guidelines, with a firm but welcoming approach, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Bye.

AMod
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Hello Rick Lewis, Thank you

Post by AMod » Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:04 pm

They used to have these obscenity filters on the old IRC chat rooms. The problem was that its just to easy to get around them and became a game for many.

I think it best if I just delete any post that contain what I think are to many or obviously crude obscenities despite whatever purpose the poster thinks they are using them for.

I'll make an announcement.

AMod

chaz wyman
Posts: 5333
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Hello Rick Lewis, Thank you

Post by chaz wyman » Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:56 pm

AMod wrote:They used to have these obscenity filters on the old IRC chat rooms. The problem was that its just to easy to get around them and became a game for many.

I think it best if I just delete any post that contain what I think are to many or obviously crude obscenities despite whatever purpose the poster thinks they are using them for.

I'll make an announcement.

AMod
I think John made it quite clear that autofilters are not what anyone is talking about. Proscribing words is not the problem.
The problem is people who come on the the board to provoke unphilosophical arguments; gratuitous insults; going off topic; and a range of other objectionable abuses of freedom of expression.

Does such freedom give you the right to shout "Fire" in a packed cinema?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest