Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 1:15 am
Philosophy sites are like women. You have to experience them in order learn about them. Philosophy Forum was a failure.
So I was right in every respect. You are back here because you annoyed everyone over there with your boring monomania until they shunned you. And you have learned nothing, all your failures are entirely the fault of others.
Yes. "Monomania" is an excellent word in context. In philosophy forums, as with any forums (I'm also a member of a music forum) everyone has "their thing". The ones who annoy are those who keep harping about the same thing, starting numerous threads on more or less the same thing, often with some whining - bumping their agendas at the expense of more open minds.
However, the forum's "failure", ie. his banning, was due to him going a bit feral with the abusiveness and contemptuousness, persistently ignoring warnings. It was the fourth and final strike before which he'd gifted the forum with 107 of his topics, many about Plato's save, Simone's ideas and/or The Great Beast. So he had a good run before finally becoming too annoying to other members and mods who were/are just trying to talk about stuff without too much drama.
It's a shame. I've found Nick interesting and informative plenty of times. A smart man. Alas, the incessant preaching, whining, disparaging, misrepresentation and demonisation of others is a high price to pay.
Oh I see. I thought he was just back here to indulge a short term strop because they couldn't be arsed with some attempt he made to hijack some other guy's essay with his nauseatingly repetitive discussion of the cave (which he seems not recognise is only a simile designed to illustrate a point), and the beast (which he doesn't understand is an intentionally limited analogy).
I didn't realise he'd gone and got himself banned. So I guess we are stuck with him in perpetuity. Just another hopeless relic to sit on the shelf with Bob, getting intermittently mocked for never making any sense, but never sent on their way because this forum presumably never bans anyone.
Is there any way to at least persuade him to stop humble bragging about getting laid one time? I can put up with his tedious angst, but advertising his psycho-sexual malfunctions on the internet is just grim.
It's a shame. I've found Nick interesting and informative plenty of times. A smart man. Alas, the incessant preaching, whining, disparaging, misrepresentation and demonisation of others is a high price to pay.
What do I preach? When do I whine and who am i misrepresenting. The only one I ever demonized was the dreaded demon "Asimytogamy and you're better off without it. This is what I mean by secular intolerance as expressed by those like Greta and F4. There is no substance in it - just meaningless ad homs. Secular intolerance is strictly defined as the intolerance of anything threatening the imagined superiority of secular society for defining values. It doesn't bother me. I feel bad for the kids that suffer this while they are trapped in institutions of psychological child abuse called schools. If they don't become good snowflakes, they must be condemned. Scary stuff but that is where we are going when we so willingly ignore and mock the great ideas as brought to us by those like Plato which open the mind.
We will hit bottom and then some expert will write a book called "Who Could Have Known?"
I didn't realise he'd gone and got himself banned. So I guess we are stuck with him in perpetuity. Just another hopeless relic to sit on the shelf with Bob, getting intermittently mocked for never making any sense, but never sent on their way because this forum presumably never bans anyone.
I didn't get banned. I didn't break any rules. Ideas got banned. They were found to be annoying. You know how annoying speculations on Plato's cave can be when explaining the current human condition. That is the ugliness of secular intolerance. it attacks whatever opposes its imagined superiority and when these oppositions become to accurate, they must be eliminated.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 7:33 pm
Greta wrote about me:
It's a shame. I've found Nick interesting and informative plenty of times. A smart man. Alas, the incessant preaching, whining, disparaging, misrepresentation and demonisation of others is a high price to pay.
What do I preach? When do I whine and who am i misrepresenting.
Yes, and when was he ever interesting or informative? As for smart, that is a completely groundless assertion. I have to say, Greta, this is a most unfair assessment of Nick_A.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 7:39 pm
They were found to be annoying. You know how annoying speculations on Plato's cave can be when explaining the current human condition.
I certainly do, Nick but when you start going on about Simone Weil you take annoying to a completely different level.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 7:39 pm
They were found to be annoying. You know how annoying speculations on Plato's cave can be when explaining the current human condition.
I certainly do, Nick but when you start going on about Simone Weil you take annoying to a completely different level.
I agree. What can be more annoying to a card carrying superior secularist than Simone Weil who Albert Camus called the "only great mind of the times."
Here is a woman no less who was a young Marxist whose intelligence was admired by Leon Trotsky but had the nerve to die a Christian mystic. Now that's annoying! The nerve of some people. How can a brilliant Marxist and atheist die a Christian mystic? Absurd! She would have been kicked out of PF at the first sign of such nonsense. Such an insult is simply intolerable for the educated secular mind.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 8:21 pm
I certainly do, Nick but when you start going on about Simone Weil you take annoying to a completely different level.
I agree. What can be more annoying
Exactly. Does this mean you're starting to see sense, Nick.
I didn't realise he'd gone and got himself banned. So I guess we are stuck with him in perpetuity. Just another hopeless relic to sit on the shelf with Bob, getting intermittently mocked for never making any sense, but never sent on their way because this forum presumably never bans anyone.
I didn't get banned. I didn't break any rules. Ideas got banned. They were found to be annoying. You know how annoying speculations on Plato's cave can be when explaining the current human condition. That is the ugliness of secular intolerance. it attacks whatever opposes its imagined superiority and when these oppositions become to accurate, they must be eliminated.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 8:21 pm
I certainly do, Nick but when you start going on about Simone Weil you take annoying to a completely different level.
I agree. What can be more annoying
Exactly. Does this mean you're starting to see sense, Nick.
Actually there is nothing new about this. What could be more annoying to the earth bound secular teachings than Jesus? So they had to crucify him. Socrates was no better. What could be more annoying than his ideas which these experts claimed corrupted the youth of Athens? So he had to drink the hemlock. All things considered I just have these educated secularists attacking me while waving pitchforks. I'm getting off easy.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 9:11 pm
What could be more annoying to the earth bound secular teachings than Jesus? So they had to crucify him.
I hope you're not blaming me for that. Jesus had been dead for nearly 2000 years before I started getting annoyed by him.
With you one can never be sure. You will be taken by experts to an office where you will be hypnotized and your past lives will be revealed. Experts will then determine at what point you are no longer responsible for your past lives. If you are found guilty you will then be locked in a cell and forced to continually listen to Barry Manilow songs for ten years. If that doesn't teach you right from wrong, nothing will.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2017 9:40 pm
Are you getting anywhere or just passing the buck?
I'm doing my best. It's just that I sometimes do things without knowing why and I'm not sure if that's my fault.
We all do this. We react by habit. I've read that the definition of a man is one who is master of himself. I know how far I am from being a man. All we can do is decide if we want to be more of a man and make the necessary efforts to become capable of choice. There is nothing wrong with knowing we have faults. The hard part IMO is acquiring the need and the courage to grow from them. It is often easier to become intolerant and blame others.
