New Thread?
@Benkei @Jamal @Michael @Hanover @Moliere @Count Timothy von Icarus
Need feedback from moderators: is it cool if I or someone else created a Climate Change Skepticism thread? It could likewise be put in the lounge but this way the actual climate change thread can be reserved for discussing climate change its effects, recent research, mitigation ideas, etc etc and not having on-topic posts be constantly drowned out by nonsense?
I know we dont like redundancy, but I really think its necessary at this point.
In the same way that a thread on evolution and a thread on creationism or intelligent design should be separate
Need feedback from moderators: is it cool if I or someone else created a Climate Change Skepticism thread? It could likewise be put in the lounge but this way the actual climate change thread can be reserved for discussing climate change its effects, recent research, mitigation ideas, etc etc and not having on-topic posts be constantly drowned out by nonsense?
I know we dont like redundancy, but I really think its necessary at this point.
In the same way that a thread on evolution and a thread on creationism or intelligent design should be separate
Comments (126)
Surely climate change skepticism belongs in the climate change thread.
Otherwise the climate change thread just becomes an echo chamber for pessimism about climate change and complaints about the lack of action to reduce CO2 levels. A good discussion needs different viewpoints. Otherwise it is just preaching to the faithful.
Mikie, you want the actual climate change thread to be reserved for discussing recent research, mitigation ideas, etc. Which thread would you post in if you were skeptical about recent research or mitigation ideas?
Plenty of meat on the bone of what is "not evident" to chew on.
No dog in this fight, but it's not an exhausted subject if philosophers get cranked up.
Which thread it should be in will just be a rose that smells the same.
Just a thought.
apologetic smile
But then, this has already become another climate change thread. Probably should be merged.
In that case you will have to rename the existing "climate change" thread to be "climate change evangelism".
Or you could rename the existing "climate change" thread to be "climate change - preaching to the faithful".
Why is Mikie so scared of anybody challenging his beliefs? Could it be that he can't defend his beliefs?
Exactly. . :up:
I want to discuss what can be done about it.
Part of the argumentarium of denialism is to equate awareness of the danger of climate change with religious belief. The Australian PM who repealed a working carbon tax in favorite of planting trees did that. It situates it in the domain of personal belief rather than environmental science.
Anyway - this thread should be merged.
Youre right, but I want to be nice. No one admits to being a denier these days no one. Not even Trump.
Currently and several times over the years the main thread gets spammed by nonsense. After pages of engagement and refutation especially by @unenlightened and some others more denialist garbage gets thrown in anyway, derailing the topic and cluttering the thread.
YOU !!!. Want to be NICE !!!. . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:
Quoting Mikie
Then you should stop doing this spamming of the main thread by nonsense. . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:
It is difficult in these times to draw these lines, and I would think that they ought never be absolute. But if such topics are to be allowed, at the least, high standards of rigour in evidence and argument should be required. What is hard to take in the topic under discussion is the disruption of what is otherwise a slow and hopefully educational development of the topic, by low quality and disagreeable posts, from people who think themselves clever and hilarious - aka trolls.
I certainly do not want to discuss climate change denial with anyone and would not participate in such a thread. And I do not believe anyone else would want to present their views there either; it is the attention that results from disruption and conflict that is craved.
The solution? Nonsense should be deleted, and trolls should be banned. Shimples!
Yes. As I mentioned, its akin to a thread on biological evolution being spammed by creationist garbage. Of course they call themselves intelligent design theorists now, much like climate deniers call themselves skeptics, but the analogy holds. Its religious-like nonsense that isnt amenable to reason, argument, or evidence.
I too think most of it should be deleted and trolls banned but thats asking a lot of moderators to constantly monitor the goings-on of a long thread. I think a better solution is to create another thread and flag posts that are off-topic (denialist bullshit) to be moved there. Thus people who feel qualified to disagree with the worldwide consensus and overwhelming evidence because they think for themselves (i.e., have spent several hours on YouTube) have a place to share their thoughts, however childish. And we can more easily ignore them.
If that doesnt work, Ill create a separate, more specific thread about climate change and leave the old one to the trolls.
Please define what "climate change denial" is.
Mikie constantly calls me a "denier" whenever I post something that he doesn't agree with.
I am not a climate change denier. I have told Mikie many times that I accept that global warming is happening. I accept that humans are responsible for most of the increase in the CO2 level above 280 ppm. And I accept that this will cause some problems. Does that sound like "climate change denial"?
Many of my posts are about whether the proposed "solutions" to climate change are feasible. For example, the possible problems with solar power, wind power, EVs, lithium batteries, etc.. It is important to know whether the proposed "solutions" to climate change will work, and/or cause other problems. Mikie doesn't like that. He wants to control the climate change thread so that it only reflects his views.
Quoting unenlightened
Who will have the role of climate change thread "police"? Who judges whether something is "climate change denial". Mikie would like to be judge, jury, and executioner.
In other words, you want to make the climate change thread an "echo chamber" that preaches what you believe. That sounds extremely "unhealthy" to me.
@Jamal@Michael@Hanover@Benkei@Baden@Count Timothy von Icarus@Moliere
As stated, no dog in this fight. So lets see what the intrepid mods make of Mikie's question.
pacific smile
From the Pacific Ocean (Oceania), yes?
The request doesn't seem to be for a debate thread, but for a thread that accepts certain studies as authorative so that you can learn along with like minded folks what those authorities state and perhaps imply might be in the future.
As in, if you were taking a course on Kant, your task would be to learn what he said, perhaps realize some inconsistencies, but being disallowed outright rejection and questioning of his project.
Or, another analogy, Sunday school class is set aside to extract the wisdom from the Scripture, not to challenge the very validity of it.
So, if I've charecized the inquiry correctly enough, i turn to our guidelines. It says nothing about an OP being necessarily phrased as a debate, but it does say this:
"Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having."
So, to open the discussion...
Do you guys think the thread suggested demands an acceptance that one's ideology is the only one worth having, or do you distinguish it from this rule?
Straight to the point. Good.
appreciative smile
What ideology are you referring to exactly?
Imagine a thread on evolution, where creationists spam constantly. Is objecting to this spam ideological?
A more extreme example: a thread about the events of the Holocaust being spammed by Holocaust deniers. Ideological? Is it bigoted to suggest that perhaps they need another thread?
And no its exactly a suggestion that a debate thread is started. The climate change thread wasnt intended to be a place where the basic, overwhelmingly supported facts are repeatedly attacked with silly, long-refuted, thinly-veiled climate denial arguments. Hence why a separate thread should exist for that purpose.
The suggestion isnt to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone however deserving.
If I may. I believe that Mike's point, which perhaps is falling on somewhat deaf ears, is that the rules of the Forum could be improved, somehow.
And that's always a good thing, isn't it?
Mikie. You are trying to depict me as a denier. But I am NOT a denier.
As I said above. I accept that global warming is happening. I accept that humans are responsible for most of the increase in the CO2 level above 280 ppm. And I accept that this will cause some problems.
Does that sound like "climate change denial"?
Well, that's what's known as a performative contradiction: you are emphasizing the exact point of your sentence which you should not be emphasizing
Okay then. :grin:
I am NOT a climate change denier.
Is that acceptable?
... The Devil is in the Detail, is he not?
He's the hyper-Lawyer...
... :naughty:
Is it an ideology that the mods are in charge? Is the rule an ideology? shall we debate forever the terms of the debate?
I think any debate needs some ideology in the form of a commitment to honesty, and an acceptance of the terms of the debate. I think therefore that this forum has such an ideology and sets the standards for participation. If you as moderator think that belief in climate change, or that shit smells is an ideology, or a matter of opinion, then I will have to consider my position as contributor.
I have been putting up videos of careful explanations of scientific papers, and then having to deal with quotes and citations from petrol-heads, disreputable sensation-monger press, and click-bait sites, and I am mightily dis-chuffed with wasting my time on them. If you find the topic too controversial to deal with such nonsense, I will seek a site where sensible discussion can be had without constant interruption.
Whereas my suggestion is precisely the opposite, to prevent the expression of nonsense and rubbish, and ban people who persist in so doing. I guess it must be an ideological disagreement.
Who makes the decision about whether something is nonsense or rubbish? You seem to think that you are entitled to make that decision.
You want to be able to post anything that you want to, but you want to deny other people the same privilege. You want to delete people's posts that you disagree with or don't like. That sounds like the sort of thing that a dictator would do.
Absolutely. And that has been done, countless times and not just from curmudgeons like me, but from far more patient and thorough individuals. But that can come to dominate the discussion, and the climate change thread wasnt meant to be such a venue. Thus, why not branch that discussion off to a separate thread?
People can discuss anything they like creationism, a flat earth, Holocaust denial, anything, as far as Im concerned (within the sites rules). Just in the appropriate thread. The climate change thread isnt a debate about whether climate change is happening, or how the scientific community is probably wrong about it because of groupthink, etc.
I make the decision for myself, and I express it with evidence in support. The site owner and the volunteer moderators are the ones entitled to make the decision for this site. My opinion might inform or persuade, or it might not. They might ban me instead.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
No. I don't want anyone to be able to post anything they like; and I would be happy to be banned from any site that was run like that. I was an admin for several years of the predecessor of this site, and I did not enjoy at all deleting peoples' posts or banning them, nor did I enjoy the abuse and tedious accusations that were routinely made like those you have made above. I did those things to preserve something I consider valuable a community of communication. Such cannot exist without standards and discipline.
Quoting frank
This is a discussion site, and I want to discuss. But I don't want to discuss garbage.
I know. I should have said my suggestion.
Quoting unenlightened
Exactly.
Then your point is that they should ban Agree-to-Disagree? I think he's the only person who posts on that that thread with any regularity (other than yourself). His posts aren't really bad enough for banning. They'll probably ban me before they do him.
I agree. I didn't follow the climate change thread but I agree that sometimes it is need to open another thread to keep the focus on a specific topic.
Yes.
Quoting frank
That seems to indicate that at least one of us making the thread uninteresting to others. But @Mikie also posts. I think he mostly ignores @Agree-to-Disagree these days.
Quoting frank
"Who makes the decision about whether something is nonsense or rubbish? You seem to think that you are entitled to make that decision.", as was Disagreeably said to me a few posts back.
This is another of Mikie's comments from a week ago:
If what we desire is a high quality thread, maybe cut down on the childish flaming? I mean, these types of comments go on for pages and pages.
Right so create a thread where we can debate anything, even a flat earth. But the geology thread isnt the place for that.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Quoting frank
Quoting frank
Quoting frank
Quoting frank
Quoting frank
I only hope one day I can be as deep, as thoughtful, as substantive. Then maybe I too can be as sanctimonious.
I'm just saying that it looks like you flamed for years and years, and now you want the moderators to do something about the fact that your thread is a cesspool. *shrug*
Yes. I had him on the ignore list for over a year among others. Now that thats not an option, I can see all the more how often the thread has been trolled.
But, you can only get such a setting in your own home/on your own site. Don't invite the denier to your house when you and those who agree want to discuss it. Or find/create a site geared toward your views.
If I had been moderating, I would have deleted and warned @Mikie too, several times. I might even have deleted some of my own posts. If you are trying to make an argument that the standards are very low, too low, I agree. If you are trying to argue that Mikie is the main problem here or in the other thread, well that would be another matter entirely.
In general, I would be more tolerant of occasional flaming from a decent poster, than prolific low quality posters.
Quoting Patterner
I thought this was my home.
I'll let that be my final comment on this topic.
Thank you for saying this. I wish Mikie the best. I hope he finds a way to let go of whatever it is that makes him lean into bitterness. I hope he finds the way to have a little faith in other people.
Yes, and rightfully so.
I dont suffer fools. I dont like them, I have little tolerance for them. Especially sanctimonious ones. But I do hope they find the shining path to self awareness and their own gross hypocrisy someday.
Not unless you own it. No one owns The Philosophy Forum. Not the concept of one, at least. You can't legislate something like that, how would even do it? What you can legislate, in any case, is the ownership of a website, and even the name of a website. So, this website, can have a legal owner (I'm not saying that it actually has one, I'm saying that it's a legal possibility). This site can even have a legal ownership (again, not saying that it necessarily does) of the domain name, i.e, the three "w" etc. followed by thephilosophyforum, like that, with no spaces, then a period and whatever follows after that.
The discussion (the most interesting aspect of this specific discussion) is what actually follows after that. Consider the latter part of the domain name of this very thread: "/discussion/15777/new-thread/p2".
Can you (anyone) actually own something like that, in a legal sense? Well, it's a contentious point, because arguably, since I'm writing these very words into this very comment, they're my words, so I own them. And if I own my own words, you can't own them, and this is by definition. And if you want to own my words, I can sell them to you. When I do that, I don't sell my actual capacity to write, unless we sign a contract that says so.
Does accepting a EULA involve the user in that sense? It's an interesting question. What if I didn't read the EULA or the Terms of Service? What if I actually clicked on "OK"? That's why that button always has a sign above it that says "Do you agree with these terms and/or have you read these terms and have you understood them?", etc.
That's the sort of thing that can be debated in a Court of Law.
Etc.
Quoting Mikie
Well, Mikie, you have the basic human right to have an opinion, mistaken as it might otherwise be, just like everyone else does. How about that? Sound good? It sure does to my ear.
For one thing, when it comes to mitigation there are plenty of valid concerns about the costs of any particular mitigation efforts/policy outweighing the benefits, particularly since both economies and ecosystems are very complex and full of tipping points. Hence, it hardly seems right to disallow any questioning of particular policies or projections.
So, it might be better just to flag low quality or troll posts.
I repeat for the 3rd time (Perhaps Mikie will read and accept it this time, but I am not holding my breath)
I am NOT a climate change denier.
I accept that global warming is happening. I accept that humans are responsible for most of the increase in the CO2 level above 280 ppm. And I accept that this will cause some problems.
Does that sound like "climate change denial"?
But Mikie constantly calls me a [climate change] denier. I think that Mikie needs to acknowledge that he is wrong.
But that's my entire point as an individual, Timmy. When I complain about the latter, people suggest between the lines that I'm over-reacting. Yet when I complain about the former, they treat me like I'm somehow trolling them. So what's the deal here? I'm somehow not allowed to give people a taste of both their own and a better medicine?
I appreciate the response but nothing comes of that. Whereas moving off-topic posts is perhaps more manageable. This way climate deniers (who definitely ARENT climate deniers, wink wink) can spam and troll a separate thread with their inane observations.
I agree about mitigation efforts and problems with transitioning to renewables, etc. In fact Ive discussed them at length. Thats quite different from making things up, or posting misinformation from low-quality sources, or citing well-known climate deniers over and over again, even after the first 50 were roundly debunked.
In any case I just flagged several. Maybe someone can take a look. For example, I recently tried posting a thorough post about climate as an introduction, for those possibly interested and it gets drowned out, yet again, by irrelevant discussions and vendettas. Should those not be removed? Why arent they? Is anything in the lounge now just a free-for-all? I know we give some leniency to emotional topics like the Middle East and Ukraine, or even Donald Trump but cant science be discussed intelligently without spam?
Quoting frank
And you think I care? I'm an Artist, dude. I carry my skills with me, wherever I go.
Quoting Mikie
Did you notice my comment about your "thorough post about climate as an introduction"?
In case you didn't read it, or can't remember it, I said:
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Would a [climate change] denier say that?
You are right. Anything could be rubbish or sublime depending on the observerit's just like art
I cannot let this piece of elitist capitalist ideology stand unchallenged. :wink: Home is where the heart is. You may have your heart in your wallet, but not necessarily. Most of us do not own our own home. But "Everybody's got to be somewhere."
If there are specific aspects of climate change adjacent philosophy someone wanted to discuss, it's probably easier to make an independent thread about it. Like how ought you prepare for the end of the world, what metaphysics is appropriate to even imagine climate change and so on.
That would also make it much easier to see which posts are on topic and which aren't. Climate change denial is definitely on topic in a generic thread about climate change related issues.
If you think someones post is utterly delusional, dont respond. Or better, humbly educate and clarify, and when the troll continues to miss the point or deny clear reality, stop responding.
But policing truth deniers and enforcing banning and deletions of ideas, in a forum whose sole currency is words and the ideas those words are about? Sounds antithetical to the methods of science and mission of philosophers.
Shut people up with truth. This isnt a classroom where only the loud ones are heard over the noise - we get to carefully, thoughtfully say exactly what we want to say every time in TPF.
Basically, it sucks to have to explain oneself to people who disagree. People suck, but once in a while we learn from them, or they agree with us, and restate what we were trying to say only better.
So, to me, learning and stating things with clarity is worth all the endless, childish, pains of dialoging with you people. :lol:
So I totally disagree with the notion that there is no place on a climate change thread for the concept not climate change. Its the same subject.
We are all too quick to judge each other. A denier is a mindless simpleton is a sub-human - by default, everyone who posts here is equally human so whatever we adjudge of the others, we risk adjudging of ourselves.
Be humble, tell them they are a good person but their arguments and words are shit, explain why, and move on.
Its the only way to have a true philosophy forum like this if you ask me. Rules (law, reality, truth) and police (ethical action, necessity) are questions here, so we should resist using them to narrow the dialogue.
Basically what I said, only with your typical pith.
And we probably disagree with each other 75% of the time, which proves the rule that this forum doesnt need a rule that would limit speech to echos, even if they are too wordy like mine.
Im not advocating that.
There is such a thing as staying on topic. The topic isnt to debate whether climate change is happening. That should be a separate thread. Just as a thread about evolution shouldnt include debates about creationism.
True, you can just ignore people but then wheres the boundary? At what point should we have any rules at all? Next time a thread is started on Kant, Ill start talking about Donald Trump. Hows that sound? Just ignore me because any other action would be antithetical to the methods of science and mission of philosophers.
Ok good. So this should be a moment of agreement where we can continue a conversation. We both basically seem to think the same thing: policing and banning and deletions are not to be advocated for the sake of staying on topic.
Quoting Mikie
I agree that a thread about X shouldnt be spammed with discussions about Z or Q, and I happen to agree that creationism is theology whereas evolution is empirical science.
But climate change is empirical science so it is full of fact gathering that must be evaluated, analysis that begs further development, conclusions subject to logical scrutiny, hypotheses that prompt the whole process of fact gathering, analysis and conclusion again . To say a hint of distrust of the soundness of a conclusion, or the counter example to some fact means the person has gone off topic - seems weak to me.
I feel your pain - I spend most of my time on the forum restating what I already said because people are taking it in the wrong direction, or just misinterpreting me.
But, I think, we have to remain willing to steer the conversations where we think they should go and cannot make a rule that would be able to be applied in any just, equitable, functional manner to keep conversations from veering off topic. People make metaphysical points all of the time here and others only want to talk about language and logic in refutation of the metaphysics. There is no rule to prevent this.
People say the black cat is on the red mat as a basis for an optics conversation, or a physics conversation, or an epistemological conversation, or a metaphysical conversation, or an ontological conversation, or as an example for a linguistic conversation. If I want to stay epistemological about it, great, but I cant imagine a rule that would help steer people away from saying something about optics or metaphysics or linguistics.
Quoting Mikie
Do you really think that is what I meant? I know my thoughts were subject to the extreme interpretation that I am advocating for no rules at all. Im not.
But what is the rule you want? How would you frame the specific words of the rule?
A rule for this issue is at best stay on topic, and dont be an asshole. And I give the moderators full discretion at determining what is beyond the limits of on topic and who is being an asshole. Thats not up to me because its not my forum, and this vague rule gives me an opportunity to speak my mind despite anything anyone else says, and I dont want that to change. So we dont need any more rules.
If you post about X, and someone goes utterly off topic and carries the whole post in another direction, Id say, tell the mods and let them delete or not delete as they see fit, and if its not enough, try to start your post again. Reword it and try again. Im sure some sort of targeted trolling or spamming or ignorance would be addressed by the mods.
We dont need a rule. I wouldnt know how to frame it. Saying a topic like evolution that prompts a reply about creationism should somehow be prohibited seems utterly impossible to codify into a general rule.
Like I said, talking with people sucks. Most of us dont know what we are talking about or how to say it best, or both. TPF is where we get to test and improve our own thoughts and writing - let the rest of the trolls have at it.
Whats already in place: if you want to debate climate change, whether its happening, whether its human caused, etc., go to the debate thread. Simply a matter of staying on topic.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Im all for that. The last sentence has nothing to do with me.
Im interested in discussing the predictions and obstacles in the way of mitigation. Im not interested in debating climate deniers who pretend to be doing this.
Cool.
This is the right question. :up:
Positions on climate change are ideological. The TPF taboos are also ideological, but whereas a taboo against Holocaust denial is ideological, there are significant differences in the international Overton window with respect to these two issues. I don't see how an international website should impose local taboos on an international user base.
(Note that words like 'ideology' and 'taboo' are here being used in a technical, non-pejorative sense.)
I like the idea of a to this issue, but one-off requests that lack overall consistency with the ethos of the forum, and which create lots of extra work for moderators do not seem like a great option. At some point you're looking for a think tank rather than a philosophy forum.
Its exactly consistent with the ethos of the forum, and actually saves moderators time.
So I have no idea what youre talking about.
I find 's point more persuasive than your assertion.
Quoting Mikie
I find 's post more persuasive than your assertion.
This should not surprise. He's like the kid every lets run around and do weird shit because they're not to be taken too seriously.
Which had nothing to do with what you said.
Quoting Leontiskos
Which has nothing to do with what you said.
And neither had much to do with what I said either.
Thats not what was said. Try reading.
Quoting AmadeusD
Is this English? You write as well as you read.
Quoting AmadeusD
I dont recall having any interaction with you whatsoever, so not sure where this is coming from.
I dont even know who the hell you are, but OK!
Risible :lol: That tells me all I need to know about you, in any case. (Speaking of self-awareness.)
:up:
Yeah youre right. Keeping a thread on a topic is definitely against the forums ethos.
If youre both too stupid to understand whats been said, and dont bother to read, or Dont care, then consider shutting the fuck up next time. :up: :grin:
Yeah, says the guy who takes lets stay on topic as insisting on one stance is against the forums ethos.
Yes, among you and those line you, Im sure its well known. In fact I hope it is, because maybe youll stop bothering me with stupid bullshit like this.
Maybe petition for a thread called, "New Thread Skepticism," and ask the mods to enforce a rule where everyone who disagrees with Mikie must post there instead of here. Or better yet, ask the mods to create a new forum, "The Other Philosophy Forum," and have them enforce a rule where everyone who disagrees with Mikie must post on that forum instead of this forum. Then you won't have to deal with these pesky disagreements. Because that obviously won't create extra work for moderators! It will "actually save moderators time." :lol:
Quoting Mikie
TPF doesn't moderate sub-topic premises, such that an OP could set out an ideological premise which is not allowed to be disputed within the thread. The OP's presuppositions are always open to debate as long as they are within the broad topic. Ergo:
Quoting fdrake
In my opinion what you are asking for is a form of evangelization, and contravenes that rule. But even if it isn't evangelization it would still be a request to moderate a sub-topic premise. In other words, what you are proposing is a special stricture on a thread, not a topic.
Must be fun arguing against strawmen.
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting fdrake
I, and others, dont necessarily even agree with this but given whats actually been said, thats exactly the point: simce its so generic and so broad, and thus gets spammed and trolled often because of it, why not create another thread thats more specific. That was the question to the moderators. Pretty straightforward except for those who want to make a show of their dedication to free speech and open debate; in that case, deliberately exaggerating the request is essential. Gives them something to fight for even if its made of straw.
Quoting Leontiskos
No. Im proposing a more specific topic, and hoping to keep to that topic. Asking that people stay on topic, moving posts to another thread, etc., is constantly done by moderators here. Whether they agree that a separate thread should be created and not be redundant was the question for them.
It's not about Climate Change Skepticism, but about Climate Change Amelioration Skepticism, according to the author's radio interview's findings.
So can't vouch for what is not yet read, but it is an aspect that may interest you.
"Breaking together, a freedom loving response to collapse" by Jim Bendell.
( If this OP is really about questions of Climate Change and not a request for further refined information about how to treat sacred cows without upsetting the cow worshiping population.)
Please, don't let this insert interrupt a good old ding dong.
hopeful smile
I cant say I fully understood all of your post, but appreciate the effort. Theres certainly a lot of debate about how best to mitigate the problems were already seeing and will continue to see. No doubt.
The OP was really just a question for moderators. It was about whether I could create another thread without it being considered redundant (and therefore merged). In retrospect I might have just submitted it to them privately thus giving the many people who have a beef with me one less opportunity to display their motivated reasoning.
Which implies one has already been made. Which is not true, except my you.
Quoting Leontiskos
Then your idea of what the ethos of the forum is is your own problem.
I dont see any issue whatsoever with keeping things on topic, and dont see it contravening anything whether its rules or poorly-defined spirits.
Speaking of which Im moving this to the other thread.
Yeah, and geophysics includes flat-earthers, and evolution includes creationists, etc. Got it. Whatever you say.
It's instructive that it is not only your opponents who believe you are attempting to prevent free expression, but .
You get that feeling too.
The book referred to should have been posted in your Lounge OP. Alas, that OP was only just discovered.
Good luck.
cheery smile
Yep. If you make a thread on geophysics or evolution, then posts from flat-earthers and creationists would be on topic. I'm glad you're figuring this out. :up:
So is there an actual problem with reading comprehension here? Or are you just being lazy? Or perhaps just wanting to be silly for some reason?
Quoting unenlightened
How someone can read this and conclude that he believes Im attempting to prevent free speech, I dont know. But you do you.
Then its truly remarkable how wanting to avoid those discussions by narrowing the conversation down in a separate thread is considered problematic. According to you, theres basically no way to do so. Finepoint made. I dont agree.
Making a separate thread is no help. You could make a million threads on geophysics and flat-earthers could post in all of them.
Quoting Mikie
And yet you're faced with the contradiction that even according to the topic of your new thread climate change skepticism is on-topic given that climate change skepticism has to do with the effects of climate change. Your Holocaust counterpoint was . But we will agree to disagree.
Granted, I don't think the way TPF is set up is inevitable. Other approaches are possible. But TPF's approach is not particularly bad.
No it doesnt. Any more than Holocaust denial has to do with the consequences of the Holocaust. You can make up a story about how Gee, they ARE talking about the consequencesthey just believe the consequences were nil, but I dont have time for silliness.
I'd also add that we look to the rules to determine if there is a violation, and we try to make rules explicit as needed so that we don't have to rely upon general principles of right and wrong to determine if there were a violation.
It's for that reason I asked for citation to a rule for justification for modding on the basis of whose post we find more justifiable.
A Holocaust denier would be in violation of the rule:
"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."
That is, it's a black and white rule that is clear for posters and mods. It's much more difficult to enforce a "rule" that is implied because it's debatable even what the rule is.
As an example, when AI became prevalent, a rule was then created. We didn't feel we could enforce something we never made clearly a rule.
The point being is that an argument for a rule violation is far more persuaive by reference to the rule violated as opposed to what one thinks the rule ought to be and enforcing it upon general rules of fair play.
That is, expect there to be legalistic enforcement of the rules as the ordinary course, but expect equitable enforcement of general principles of fairness extraordinary.
Staying on topic isnt that hard to enforce. Ive done it; youve done it.
Also, Id refer to this:
as basically what I was asking about. If its found to be the case that making a more specific thread is just as hard to moderate, fine.
I dont see why people who want to discuss a particular topic must inevitably be disrupted and drowned out by useless debate, but so be it. In that case I should go to all the God threads, ignore the specific topic, and just bring the conversation back to how God doesnt exist. Then keep doing so, even if ignored. Im sure that would be within the spirit of the forum.
It happens constantly, and it's not against the ethos of the forum.
What you could do is, instead of asking for a special stricture in your thread, propose a new forum approach that would apply to all threads.
Thats the crux of the objections to seeking a rule. There is no universal rule to devise to prevent the problem you are having that doesnt limit speech.
The problem and the solution exists in the specifics, not in the form of the universal rules.
If someone makes a metaphysical claim or a linguistic claim under an original post focused on epistemology, couldnt the poster claim the same exact problem has arisen as yours? Do we really need to address this with a rule, or shouldnt we let free debate address these issues, and the wisdom of the moderators judge when things are getting out of hand?
Nothing special about it.
The problem with this statement Mikie is who defines what is "useless".
Your opinion of what is useless is different to many other people's opinion of what is useless.
Why should your opinion have priority?
I havent once mentioned universal rules. The question was clear and simple. That people are struggling with it by for various reasons turning it into something it isnt, really isnt my problem. (But goes to show just what studying philosophy can do to the mind and why most people should probably avoid it.)
I picked up on that bit from your OP. Sounds like a new rule for all posts.
No. Staying on topic isnt a new thing.
I think you'd really like the climate change subreddit. Their posting structure makes it practically impossible to troll. Trolls just disappear down the branches. Plus with enough down votes, a post will disappear. But just as you can't troll, you can't bully either. They'll bomb you for that.
:up:
Quoting frank
Im actually really nice. If people were equally nice, thered be no problems.
:up:
:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:
Probably time to clean up. Congrats on the consensus Mikie.
I hope you find something that brings you joy in life. This forum clearly isnt it.
(PS1. I only insult rude, sanctimonious twits; fortunately theyre a small minority Im good with everyone else. 2. If asking whether its cool if I start a separate thread is insane, maybe try a little self reflection. 3. not sure where this obsession with me started, as I have no memory of you, but it does give me great joy that my presence here triggers you so. Must be rough. But also risible.)
Quoting AmadeusD
:lol:
(Risible.)
:lol:
I love it when pretentious, sanctimonious lecturers of manners and positivity reveal themselves for what they are. Its risible.
Ok. Next time you exhume a dead thread for no reason other than some weird obsession/vendetta, take your own advice. Cool? Good now run along, risible child.
:: shrug ::
You would certainly know. Youre behaving like one.
This thread speaks extremely loudly for itself. Mods, this is in the correct place to be actioned.
No one cares what you think. Least of all the moderators. Sorry that it triggers you.
(Actually, Im not its making my night to see your pretentiousness and hypocrisy prominently displayed.)
Just sayin. But it is certainly funny.