We need an admin to control VA

[CIN]

Also, I'd like to point out that VA has organized a 5-or-so-year-long, angry, obsessive, relentless witch hunt against anyone here who is more or less a "philosophical realist". It borders on insanity.

Rather reminiscent, in fact, of the more-than-7-year-long obsessive, relentless (and yes, at times angry) witch hunt Peter Holmes has been conducting against anyone who is more or less a moral realist. This despite the fact that in the 2020 Philpapers survey, out of 1718 professional philosophers, 62% were moral realists and only 26% moral anti-realists (https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUPOP-3.pdf). Ponder that fact, amateur subjectivists. Should we say that Peter's witch hunt, too, borders on insanity? Or does Peter get a free pass because most of the people here are subjectivists like him?

Censorship is out of place in a philosophy forum. This is a free speech area, not Putin's Russia. It would perhaps be nice to have a switch so we could each hide the posts and threads from people who really get on our tits, but even this is probably a bad idea, because it might end up with subjectivists only talking to subjectivists and objectivists only talking to objectivists, at which point this sub is effectively dead.

If you don't like VA's posts, don't read them. And if you think he's an idiot, don't reply to his posts, because if you waste your time replying to idiots, you're being even more of an idiot than they are.

[mickthinks]

You can't really ignore VA …

I can. And I do. Maybe you lack the will?

You don't seem to comment on the kind of topics that VA does.

There's not much overlap, true. But the intersection between us is not empty, and yet the number of occasions when I might have engaged with him and didn't far outnumber the occasions when I did. You should try it.

I don't even know who you are.. lol and I love you too!

[Iwannaplato]

Censorship is out of place in a philosophy forum.

Well, you could combine some of his threads and encourage him to do this on his own. But, I get it, you're not interested in doing such things. We'll deal.

This is a free speech area, not Putin's Russia.

Wait, did someone suggest you imprison or kill VA?
What an asshole that person is. I gotta reread this thread.

If you don't like VA's posts, don't read them. And if you think he's an idiot, don't reply to his posts, because if you waste your time replying to idiots, you're being even more of an idiot than they are.

Hm. You must know he replies to VA's posts, and yet here you are replying to his posts....

It'll come to me, it's like dominoes falling.

In any case, not my logic, fortunately or the next one would hit me.

[Iwannaplato]

Censorship is out of place in a philosophy forum.

Wait, I just realized something. This would mean that Satyr left a philosophy forum, this one, on his own. How did that happen? A pulpit with no moderation and he left.

[iambiguous]

Look at what biggie has to do just to keep his moral relativism thread afloat. Things shouldn't be that bad.

He doesn't have to do that. Nobody cares about what he writes in that thread. Who cares if that thread goes inactive and disappears?

Ok, there you have me, I never read that thread because it's sort of shit. But at least biggie keeps that crap in one thread. Same as that VVilliam guy, all the crazy lives in one thread. VA is a triple-Kropotkin of nonsense.

We'll need a context, of course.

Note to bots: Sic em!

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous has said he engages in his polemics and provoking trick with people who do respond to him since this is working: meaning he's getting thousands and thousands of views.

Look, if some here need to be convinced it is the views that I am after so be it.

But, in regard to my own reaction to how others react to me, I'm sticking with this:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

Fortunately [for me] I have found a new forum. It explores science and philosophy at the intersection of academia and the existential. It's not a public forum, however, and only those who are invited can participate. So far, everyone seems to accept that my contributions there are worth sustaining. And no bots as far as I can tell.

And, just for the record, I have yet to come upon anyone here that I would consider inviting myself.

[Atla]

Also, I'd like to point out that VA has organized a 5-or-so-year-long, angry, obsessive, relentless witch hunt against anyone here who is more or less a "philosophical realist". It borders on insanity.

Rather reminiscent, in fact, of the more-than-7-year-long obsessive, relentless (and yes, at times angry) witch hunt Peter Holmes has been conducting against anyone who is more or less a moral realist. This despite the fact that in the 2020 Philpapers survey, out of 1718 professional philosophers, 62% were moral realists and only 26% moral anti-realists (https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUPOP-3.pdf). Ponder that fact, amateur subjectivists. Should we say that Peter's witch hunt, too, borders on insanity? Or does Peter get a free pass because most of the people here are subjectivists like him?

Censorship is out of place in a philosophy forum. This is a free speech area, not Putin's Russia. It would perhaps be nice to have a switch so we could each hide the posts and threads from people who really get on our tits, but even this is probably a bad idea, because it might end up with subjectivists only talking to subjectivists and objectivists only talking to objectivists, at which point this sub is effectively dead.

If you don't like VA's posts, don't read them. And if you think he's an idiot, don't reply to his posts, because if you waste your time replying to idiots, you're being even more of an idiot than they are.

Peter Holmes's "witch hunt" is like 2 threads, and VA's possibly hundreds. I see you failed to see the point.

And what's an "amateur subjectivist"? Will we grow out of it, once we've succumbed to the appeal to authority/popularity you brought up?

[Atla]

You can't really ignore VA …

I can. And I do. Maybe you lack the will?

You don't seem to comment on the kind of topics that VA does.

There's not much overlap, true. But the intersection between us is not empty, and yet the number of occasions when I might have engaged with him and didn't far outnumber the occasions when I did. You should try it.

I don't even know who you are.. lol and I love you too!

So like you only engaded him 3 times instead of 10-20? Someone should document this unprecedented act of self-restraint.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is fucking stupid. Every day he posts another "what is truth" or "what is fact" and another thread demanding satisfaction from Pete.

Can he not just be forced to keep all his FSRC shit in one FSRC thread? And maybe just ban him if he can't control himself?

FDP is very childish and his philosophical base is bankrupt, is an empty philosophical vessel that make the most and loudest voice. He is so stupid to spend so much time squabbling on such matter instead of providing rigorous counter arguments.

The above is a lie.
I had not posted another 'what is truth' or specifically 'what is fact'.
I did post the point re 'fact' from various perspectives because
'what is fact' is a critical point for PH to support both his thread implying 'Morality is not objective because there are no moral facts".

Philosophy is not 1+1=2 but rather deal with very complex issues with fine nuances and thus philosophical issues must be dealt from many angles.

I assert it is very stupid and inefficient to lump all perspectives of an issue to a 655-pages thread and increasing, that is mixed within a pile of shit.
It is searching needles in a haystack when one need to make reference to relevant past posts.
The mark of good problem solving is to divide the problem into smaller or the smallest manageable unit then view them from an overall basis from a distance.

I am very familiar most forums discouraging the opening many threads, but I did so here after I noted the moderator did not mind, e.g. those from e.g. Dattaswami, Agent Smith, etc.
If there is a reminder and actual moderation that a large numbers of posts are to be discouraged, then I will follow that, but that is not the case at present here.

Btw, the Ethical Section was almost dead. It seems not many are interested in discussing Morality and Ethics.
I believe my posts which cover a very wide range [with some duplications] of moral and ethical subjects are keeping the traffic busy in the Ethical Section.

FDP had not contributed any relevant thread to this section except irrelevant complains.

My advice to anyone is, just ignored my threads and posts if you have no interests in them or put VA in "Ignore." I have done that myself.

That one get riled and fussed over such matter is a sign of immaturity and inducing mental sufferings to oneself.
I noticed those who complains and attack me are those whose philosophical stances I have squashed, so that is their defense mechanisms at work subliminally.

[Peter Holmes]

Also, I'd like to point out that VA has organized a 5-or-so-year-long, angry, obsessive, relentless witch hunt against anyone here who is more or less a "philosophical realist". It borders on insanity.

Rather reminiscent, in fact, of the more-than-7-year-long obsessive, relentless (and yes, at times angry) witch hunt Peter Holmes has been conducting against anyone who is more or less a moral realist. This despite the fact that in the 2020 Philpapers survey, out of 1718 professional philosophers, 62% were moral realists and only 26% moral anti-realists (https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUPOP-3.pdf). Ponder that fact, amateur subjectivists. Should we say that Peter's witch hunt, too, borders on insanity? Or does Peter get a free pass because most of the people here are subjectivists like him?

I've been tackling an argument, not conducting a witch hunt. And if, sometimes, I got angry - which I regret - it was usually in response to abuse from people who called me a philosophical gnat or a 'dumb ****'.

If you (CIN) or anyone else has a valid and sound argument for moral objectivism, then here's a place to present it for others to assess and respond if we want to. You could try recycling the argument of one of the 62%, and see how it fares. After all, evidence and argument are what matter.

[Iwannaplato]

VA is annoying and he creates noise. But that's part and parcel with a nearly competely unmoderated forum. It's good that the moderators got something to do in this thread - justify their inaction and mock people a bit, one even mounted a poor argument which was presumably ironic. But generally speaking they're right about it being easy to ignore VA. It is rude that subforums and new posts will get filled up with unnecessary new threads, but heck it's just a few second of extra scrolling.

VA even uttered a fairly good defense above. HIs defense would truly apply if he was capable of responding to what people say in the posts in his threads, but still.......I liked the nice projection at the end of his post.

It's like gravity or entropy: some people are utterly impervious. It's an ontological given. I think, in the end, or at root, it's the imperviousness that's galling. Not the overall imperviousness but his imperviousness to anything at all. AS far as core beliefs, when's the last time you saw anyone change their mind about a core-to-them issue in a philosophy forum. That's a black swan event (in the original sense). But complete imperviousness, well, yeah, one gets to encounter that more here. It could be a selling point.

It is one of the signature qualities of forum that there are a number of best philosophers in the world: Wizard, Advocate, Roydop are some self-awarded examples. Another signature quality are the participants who post primarily to people not present. They got plans. They going places. They can't be sullied by careful reads of other people's posts who actually post here. Future publishers, fellow time travelers, bots...we're just not that important.

Hell, it's not like a lack of moderation could ever lead PN to be like Ilovephilosophy.

In any case, if you're not here in part to become embroiled in fascinating character studies, then you should, as some do, move over to Philosophy Forum.

Own up to how mesmerizingly impervious some people can be. You know that on some level it's an itch you can't help but scratch.

And if the people most annoyed by VA ignored his threads, they would slip away. So many of his new threads are directly targeted at critics.

[Iwannaplato]

So like you only engaded him 3 times instead of 10-20? Someone should document this unprecedented act of self-restraint.

Well, we could simply stop responding. I mean, if you me, FDP, PH stopped responding, it would eliminate his usual justification for new threads. The 'Hey I think I found the magic bullet response to the last thing you said OP'.

I mean, are we concerned about 'letting his confusions stand' or something? that his influence will grow?

The month of April, none of us respond.

I mean, I can openly admit there is a kind of fascination to VA and his imperviousness.

But, I've been getting bored of late.

Let's just ignore, but it would help if it is all his main interlocutors as a group.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Also, I'd like to point out that VA has organized a 5-or-so-year-long, angry, obsessive, relentless witch hunt against anyone here who is more or less a "philosophical realist". It borders on insanity.

Rather reminiscent, in fact, of the more-than-7-year-long obsessive, relentless (and yes, at times angry) witch hunt Peter Holmes has been conducting against anyone who is more or less a moral realist. This despite the fact that in the 2020 Philpapers survey, out of 1718 professional philosophers, 62% were moral realists and only 26% moral anti-realists (https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUPOP-3.pdf). Ponder that fact, amateur subjectivists. Should we say that Peter's witch hunt, too, borders on insanity? Or does Peter get a free pass because most of the people here are subjectivists like him?

I've been tackling an argument, not conducting a witch hunt. And if, sometimes, I got angry - which I regret - it was usually in response to abuse from people who called me a philosophical gnat or a 'dumb ****'.

If you (CIN) or anyone else has a valid and sound argument for moral objectivism, then here's a place to present it for others to assess and respond if we want to. You could try recycling the argument of one of the 62%, and see how it fares. After all, evidence and argument are what matter.

Don't lie, as I noted, no one had labeled you a gnat.

I often use the term 'gnat' but have never directed that at you because so far you are decent [with minor exceptions]; our discussion has been amicable, except to critique your narrow and shallow philosophical thinking.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So like you only engaded him 3 times instead of 10-20? Someone should document this unprecedented act of self-restraint.

Well, we could simply stop responding. I mean, if you me, FDP, PH stopped responding, it would eliminate his usual justification for new threads. The 'Hey I think I found the magic bullet response to the last thing you said OP'.

I mean, are we concerned about 'letting his confusions stand' or something? that his influence will grow?

The month of April, none of us respond.

I mean, I can openly admit there is a kind of fascination to VA and his imperviousness.

But, I've been getting bored of late.

Let's just ignore, but it would help if it is all his main interlocutors as a group.

Don't be that arrogant.
Irritants like IWP, FDP, Atla had been in my 'ignore' list for a long time but with intermittent responses in between.
It is with PH [decent guy] whom had disagreed with my views [hope he will continue to do so] that had facilitated [mainly] to increase my moral database. [so far 1800 file in 113 folders]

[Wizard22]

This is fucking stupid. Every day he posts another "what is truth" or "what is fact" and another thread demanding satisfaction from Pete.

Can he not just be forced to keep all his FSRC shit in one FSRC thread? And maybe just ban him if he can't control himself?

Put on your depends and worry about your own threads before complaining about others'.

Oh wait, you don't have any threads, because you don't have any thoughts/philosophy of your own...other than Ad Homs, reputation attacks, and smears behind other people's backs, like a schoolgirl.