Philosophy Now Forum

RickLewis wrote:

Atthet wrote: On a philosophy forum, where truth must be honored above all, and where confronting reality must be the focus point, Satyr is banished for confronting the delusions of Judeo-Christianity, and its progeny.

Actually, no - on a small point of correction, "confronting the delusions of Judeo-Christianity, and its progeny" is fine here. Satyr was banished for being a pain in the backside.

BTW, "radical ****" gets you a one day ban. I'm having a crackdown on racial slurs. And stupidity.

I don't have a problem with you banishing bullies. I detest bullies. But you could at least give a reason when you delete comments. I've had comments removed that in no way, shape or form could be construed as anything remotely offensive, except to an insane person. One was just a laugh icon to someone else's funny, non-offensive comment! Let us know what we can and cannot write please.

I don't know why that specific post of yours was deleted. However, if there was a whole thread which had turned aggressive and nasty, maybe chunks of it were deleted and your post (and the one you were replying to) were "collateral damage". Only a guess.

Yes, on the whole I agree with you that if we are now moderating more heavily for a little while, and deleting posts, then we need to clarify what can and cannot be said on this forum. To some extent AMod has already done this, in his announcement thread here, in the sticky thread helpfully titled "From the Moderator. Please read this":

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=394

There he says "Any posts with obvious pointless crudities and over use of obscenities will be deleted at my whim and judgement." But to expand a little further on that, racial and sexual insults, and aggressive personal attacks on other forum members will definitely result in posts being deleted and (in the extreme) people getting banned. Apart from that, you are all still free to say whatever you like!

You can still say "fuck" or "fucking" if you feel you really must. But you can't call somebody a "fucking moron" or a "fucking turd". What am I saying? Most people here wouldn't dream of doing so anyway, and most of those who do habitually debate that way here are now permanently or temporarily banned. Anyway, play the ball not the man (or woman) and you can't go far wrong.

RickLewis wrote:I don't know why that specific post of yours was deleted. However, if there was a whole thread which had turned aggressive and nasty, maybe chunks of it were deleted and your post (and the one you were replying to) were "collateral damage". Only a guess.

Yes, on the whole I agree with you that if we are now moderating more heavily for a little while, and deleting posts, then we need to clarify what can and cannot be said on this forum. To some extent AMod has already done this, in his announcement thread here, in the sticky thread helpfully titled "From the Moderator. Please read this":

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=394

There he says "Any posts with obvious pointless crudities and over use of obscenities will be deleted at my whim and judgement." But to expand a little further on that, racial and sexual insults, and aggressive personal attacks on other forum members will definitely result in posts being deleted and (in the extreme) people getting banned. Apart from that, you are all still free to say whatever you like!

You can still say "fuck" or "fucking" if you feel you really must. But you can't call somebody a "fucking moron" or a "fucking turd". What am I saying? Most people here wouldn't dream of doing so anyway, and most of those who do habitually debate that way here are now permanently or temporarily banned. Anyway, play the ball not the man (or woman) and you can't go far wrong.

So you can't call someone a fucking moron, but I assume you can call an opinion fucking stupid or moronic - is that right?
I know such distinctions are always going to test any system of scrutiny.

Here's a question - I think calling someone anti-semitic is much worse than being called a fucking turd. It is a racist insult of the worst kind. Were you to assent to someone's right to use that phrase of another you would be faced with the necessity to judge if that were a fair and true statement. tricky!

chaz wyman wrote: So you can't call someone a fucking moron, but I assume you can call an opinion fucking stupid or moronic - is that right?

Yes, that's right.

chaz wyman wrote: Here's a question - I think calling someone anti-semitic is much worse than being called a fucking turd. It is a racist insult of the worst kind. Were you to assent to someone's right to use that phrase of another you would be faced with the necessity to judge if that were a fair and true statement. tricky!

Calling somebody anti-semitic might be an insult, but I don't think it is a racist insult. We can't put a blanket ban on people calling one another "anti-semitic" or "fascist" or "commie" or whatever without impeding the legitimate discussion of ideas. To some extent you just have to be thick-skinned or else free debate becomes impossible.

That's how it looks to me as regards moderation. But as I said, if people try to play the ball not the man, these problems won't even arise.

RickLewis wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: So you can't call someone a fucking moron, but I assume you can call an opinion fucking stupid or moronic - is that right?

Yes, that's right.

chaz wyman wrote: Here's a question - I think calling someone anti-semitic is much worse than being called a fucking turd. It is a racist insult of the worst kind. Were you to assent to someone's right to use that phrase of another you would be faced with the necessity to judge if that were a fair and true statement. tricky!

Calling somebody anti-semitic might be an insult, but I don't think it is a racist insult. We can't put a blanket ban on people calling one another "anti-semitic" or "fascist" or "commie" or whatever without impeding the legitimate discussion of ideas. To some extent you just have to be thick-skinned or else free debate becomes impossible.

Calling someone is totally racist.

That's how it looks to me as regards moderation. But as I said, if people try to play the ball not the man, these problems won't even arise.

Okay you sound like a fascist anti-semite to me!


So- not racist??

I think not!

How is that racist? I don't get it.

RickLewis wrote:How is that racist? I don't get it.

It's a term that uses race as a concept of distinction and division.
Let's say I attack Mubarek and someone says I am anti-arab, or anti- muslim. They have ignored the real issue.

If I attack Einstein's theory of relativity and someone accuses my of anti-semitism how is that NOT racist.
It is not important to me is someone calls me a honky kyke, its meaingless, if someone says I hate all jews that is a racist assault.

chaz wyman wrote:

RickLewis wrote:How is that racist? I don't get it.

It's a term that uses race as a concept of distinction and division.
Let's say I attack Mubarek and someone says I am anti-arab, or anti- muslim. They have ignored the real issue.

Yes, exactly - they have ignored the real issue (unless your sole criticism of Mubarak was that he was Arabic or Muslin, in which case they were stating the obvious!) and that, not racism, is what is wrong with their reply to you.

RickLewis wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

RickLewis wrote:How is that racist? I don't get it.

It's a term that uses race as a concept of distinction and division.
Let's say I attack Mubarek and someone says I am anti-arab, or anti- muslim. They have ignored the real issue.

Yes, exactly - they have ignored the real issue (unless your sole criticism of Mubarak was that he was Arabic or Muslin, in which case they were stating the obvious!) and that, not racism, is what is wrong with their reply to you.

I know he is specifically whining about me. So, here is my question: If chaz writes that the Jews control the US economy and all the banks, and the only evidence he offers is a list of three wealthy Jews, isn't it a logical inference that he is in fact anti-semitic, because no rational person can believe the Jews control the US economy based on such flimsy evidence? And, isn't a person spreading lies about the Jews more disgusting than calling someone a "fucking moron"? Chaz has also written that Jews are racist, and that to be a Jew, one must hate Muslims. The list of irrational statements Chaz has written about Jews on this forum is actually quite lengthy. I'm calling him an anti-semite because only an anti-semite would make such remarks. The same is true for when reason blames the Jews for causing the great depression, or claiming that the Jews must control the US because President Nixon, a well-known anti-semite, said so. Since when is a person who really is anti-semitic immune from being called on their anti-semitism?

OK, so now we are descending from the general to the particular. Yes, I expect chaz is referring to your attacks on him for being anti-semitic. We won't tolerate anti-semitism here, and if I thought your attacks were justified I'd have done something about it. However, I don't think they are. I read an exchange the two of you had, and I think you pushed Chaz a particular way and interpreted him in the most uncharitable way possible.

Let me illustrate the sort of thing I mean. If I say that "the US Federal Reserve was controlled by somebody Jewish from 1987-2006" then that is a factual claim and not in itself anti-semitic (though also fairly boring and irrelevant to debate about Alan Greenspan's policies). If on the other hand I say that "the US Federal Reserve was controlled by the Jews from 1987-2006" then that would be anti-semitic. It would be treating an individual as if he was acting as a representative of an entire worldwide religion, and would also have unpleasant overtones of a conspiracy. It would be crazy and it would be offensive.

The impression I gained of your debate with chaz (and no, I really don't have time to wade through the minutiae of those posts now, thanks anyway) is that he made some statements mainly of the first kind and was pressed to illegitimately generalize them to statements of the second kind. That is murky territory, but I think you have in some cases uncharitably interpreted statements of the first kind as statements of the second kind, consequently leapt much too quickly to the assumption that chaz was anti-semitic, and then interpreted everything he subsequently said in that light.

I don't think it is remotely racist to accuse somebody of being anti-semitic, but it certainly can be very insulting when it has no firm basis in the evidence. Therefore I can understand chaz's irritation. Please do me a favour and drop it. Give it a break. The two of you are generating only heat and not light. Talk about something else.

RickLewis wrote:OK, so now we are descending from the general to the particular. Yes, I expect chaz is referring to your attacks on him for being anti-semitic. We won't tolerate anti-semitism here, and if I thought your attacks were justified I'd have done something about it. However, I don't think they are. I read an exchange the two of you had, and I think you pushed Chaz a particular way and interpreted him in the most uncharitable way possible.

Let me illustrate the sort of thing I mean. If I say that "the US Federal Reserve was controlled by somebody Jewish from 1987-2006" then that is a factual claim and not in itself anti-semitic (though also fairly boring and irrelevant to debate about Alan Greenspan's policies). If on the other hand I say that "the US Federal Reserve was controlled by the Jews from 1987-2006" then that would be anti-semitic. It would be treating an individual as if he was acting as a representative of an entire worldwide religion, and would also have unpleasant overtones of a conspiracy. It would be crazy and it would be offensive.

The impression I gained of your debate with chaz (and no, I really don't have time to wade through the minutiae of those posts now, thanks anyway) is that he made some statements mainly of the first kind and was pressed to illegitimately generalize them to statements of the second kind. That is murky territory, but I think you have in some cases uncharitably interpreted statements of the first kind as statements of the second kind, consequently leapt much too quickly to the assumption that chaz was anti-semitic, and then interpreted everything he subsequently said in that light.

I don't think it is remotely racist to accuse somebody of being anti-semitic, but it certainly can be very insulting when it has no firm basis in the evidence. Therefore I can understand chaz's irritation. Please do me a favour and drop it. Give it a break. The two of you are generating only heat and not light. Talk about something else.

I have to disagree, because the whole 'Jews control the banks' assertion is part of the 'Jews did it' conspiracy theory nonsense. Chaz was definitely saying that Jews have control of the financial world. It has been pointed out to him umpteen times that this is not only illogical, but also impossible, yet he just keeps making the same assertion over and over again. He brought it up in the first place and I don't know why he doesn't simply admit that he's wrong. Chaz cited those people as some kind of 'proof', which is laughable. I don't have any particular agenda here except that I care about the truth. I don't see it as any different from the 9/11 'truther' theory that 'The Jews' were responsible for that as well. It's all part of the same package; thinly disguised anti-semitism.

RickLewis wrote:OK, so now we are descending from the general to the particular. Yes, I expect chaz is referring to your attacks on him for being anti-semitic. We won't tolerate anti-semitism here, and if I thought your attacks were justified I'd have done something about it. However, I don't think they are. I read an exchange the two of you had, and I think you pushed Chaz a particular way and interpreted him in the most uncharitable way possible.

Let me illustrate the sort of thing I mean. If I say that "the US Federal Reserve was controlled by somebody Jewish from 1987-2006" then that is a factual claim and not in itself anti-semitic (though also fairly boring and irrelevant to debate about Alan Greenspan's policies). If on the other hand I say that "the US Federal Reserve was controlled by the Jews from 1987-2006" then that would be anti-semitic. It would be treating an individual as if he was acting as a representative of an entire worldwide religion, and would also have unpleasant overtones of a conspiracy. It would be crazy and it would be offensive.

The impression I gained of your debate with chaz (and no, I really don't have time to wade through the minutiae of those posts now, thanks anyway) is that he made some statements mainly of the first kind and was pressed to illegitimately generalize them to statements of the second kind. That is murky territory, but I think you have in some cases uncharitably interpreted statements of the first kind as statements of the second kind, consequently leapt much too quickly to the assumption that chaz was anti-semitic, and then interpreted everything he subsequently said in that light.

I don't think it is remotely racist to accuse somebody of being anti-semitic, but it certainly can be very insulting when it has no firm basis in the evidence. Therefore I can understand chaz's irritation. Please do me a favour and drop it. Give it a break. The two of you are generating only heat and not light. Talk about something else.

Now, you are being disingenuous. I figured as much. Chaz's statements were that the Jews controlled the entire US economy. That is factually false, to the point of irrational absurdity. It also invites the irrational response of Jewish persecution to "fix" the economy. I know what AC Grayling would say about the statements. He wouldn't hesitate to call them what they are, anti-semitic. But thanks for your post, because now I know for sure that you do condone anti-semitic idiocy on your forum. In my opinion, this forum is at odds with those who do have a serious interest in intellectual matters. I will certainly not be renewing my subscription to your magazine, and will encourage others not to do so as well. Nor will I return here, so you can let the anti-semites have free reign. I doubt they influence anyone with their statements, save their fellow anti-semites.

SecularCauses wrote:
Now, you are being disingenuous. I figured as much. Chaz's statements were that the Jews controlled the entire US economy. That is factually false, to the point of irrational absurdity. It also invites the irrational response of Jewish persecution to "fix" the economy. I know what AC Grayling would say about the statements. He wouldn't hesitate to call them what they are, anti-semitic. But thanks for your post, because now I know for sure that you do condone anti-semitic idiocy on your forum. In my opinion, this forum is at odds with those who do have a serious interest in intellectual matters. I will certainly not be renewing my subscription to your magazine, and will encourage others not to do so as well. Nor will I return here, so you can let the anti-semites have free reign. I doubt they influence anyone with their statements, save their fellow anti-semites.

If you knew me at all you would realize how astonishingly stupid your last post is. And incidentally, just a few posts ago in this thread I banned a forum member for using anti-semitic language.

However, if you are going, you are going. But here's a free piece of advice to carry away from here with you: it is always stupid and detrimental to your case (as well as very bad manners) to accuse the referee in any dispute of bad faith the moment they fail to take your side about something.

SecularCauses wrote: I know he is specifically whining about me. So, here is my question: If chaz writes that the Jews control the US economy and all the banks, and the only evidence he offers is a list of three wealthy Jews, isn't it a logical inference that he is in fact anti-semitic, ?

As those 3 are actually the people IN FACT control the economy, and that I have praised several other jews including Woody Allen, Daniel Barenboim, Spinoza, Einstein and Jonathan Miller, the only logical inference to draw is that you are a racist.

chaz wyman wrote:... the only logical inference to draw is that you are a racist.

Nonsense, chaz—the logical inference is that SecularCauses's argument is invalid—which makes you both as bad as each other.