Right now we're paying $49 per month to PlushForums, with additional amounts required to maintain the subscription service. We currently have $220 in our PayPal account, with eight ongoing subscriptions of either $5/month or $10/quarter.

It's quite possible that they'll bump us up to the next level account some time this year, which is $70 per month, due to the number of members we have and the storage space we're using for uploads.

They're a lot of fun sometimes, and they do attract some interesting responses. And it's good to see basic mistakes exposed, for the benefit of onlookers.

Purely out of curiosity, moderators, what exactly connotes "evangelism"? I have no interest in anyone being warned or banned; the more bullshit evangelism the merrier, per my view (hence my entertainment of this thread). But I've always been interested in this issue with regards to the guidelines, and this thread seems like a prime example of secular evangelism. Maybe I'm wrong? — Noble Dust

You're right, but there have been so many responses that probably none of the mods would delete the discussion now. I've only just seen it.

I think this has been answered well enough, so I'm closing the discussion.

If that was the meaning then he was wrong to say it, in my opinion, but if by "here" he meant in that discussion, then he was right.

Yep, off-topic, so it was the right decision to put a stop to it in that discussion.

A friendly warning. If you find yourself defending convicted serial child rapists, please expect that you will shortly no longer be able to do so here. — StreetlightX

>:O Give me a break mate. I know nothing of this case or the people involved, but according to you, everyone who disagrees with the official reading of an event is wrong and must be ostracized. Because if the justice system decided he is a rapist, then it really follows that he is a rapist :s Ha ha - how funny. That's what Stalin used to do too. — Agustino

From here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2632/philosophy-websites/

I think the difficulty with your contextuality argument - although I basically agree with it - is that if enough twits overstep a certain sort of mark, then a rule starts being introduced. Like driving on one side of the road or the other, for instance. Pedestrians manage without such a rule but drivers can't. So it's worth thinking about what 'a certain sort of mark' is constituted by. 'Using power for sexual ends' might be one aspect of a description. — mcdoodle

Yes, I see what you mean. But this is where I want to stand up for the ability of people to negotiate these difficulties themselves. I'm not the only one who believes that some of the attitudes of MeToo represent an increasing infantilization of women.

Maybe so. But I will say that some of the fiercest debates I've seen about this, both in real life and online, have been between women.

See my edit.

It depends on what kind of interaction you've had with him up to that point, and on the qualities of that interaction. In my scenario--I possibly didn't describe it in enough detail--I had in mind coming up behind a man in the street and reaching around. I'm not sure why that came to mind, but hey.

EDIT: But I imagine the response to this might be to ask if I think the only unacceptable sexual advance is a sexual assault, and this shows why I don't want to get bogged down in details and definitions.

Sure, it might be pushing the language to call it harassment, but if it's "totally unacceptable" then surely it shouldn't be accepted as the norm? — Michael

It's unacceptable to pounce on a stranger, put your hand down his trousers and feel his balls, and it shouldn't be acceptable. That doesn't go against my point. Not all sexual advances are like that.

Does it matter what you call it? — Michael

It matters here because my point was that what you call it is revealing.

Yes, this is where we differ. I think it should be accepted as the norm, and I don't believe a single unrepeated unwanted advance amounts to harassment, although certainly it might sometimes be totally unacceptable.

It's revealing that you describe sexual advances with sordid expressions such as "cop a feel", and "grab an arse". What I think it reveals is the prudishness and regressiveness of the movement. Sexual advances do not always have the character of a grab, a grope or a lunge.

But you might follow it up with one. In fact it might be expected and desired. And still with no verbal confirmation. (I don't care if you wouldn't do it yourself; I'm pointing out that people and situations differ)

I think if your risky "advance" is some sort of sexual touching then you're doing it wrong. Is it so hard to ask/wait for verbal confirmation? — Michael

I look her in the eyes, smile, hold out my hand, and see if she takes it. — Michael

So, no verbal confirmation?

I'm not sure I want to give you the example you're looking for, because I don't want to stray from my point, which is that all of this "it's really quite simple" stuff forecloses on the possibilities to the detriment of sexual interaction, and what we tolerate in terms of physical contact and flirtation differs from person to person. Your comments express a wish to impose a regime of flirtation that you believe is the only permissible one. I was pointing out that it's not always easy, and in some of those cases it is worth trying (for both parties, obviously).

Just so we get a good idea because I might not be "manly" enough — Benkei

Note that it's not really--or not only--about "manliness", because what I'm saying goes both ways.

So yeah, I admit I'm reluctant to give an example. You go first...

It is indeed and should be a social restriction on how a lot men behave towards women because women don't want to be treated that way. They can't be much clearer about that than they have been recently. — Benkei

Treated what way? And who is "they"? All women? And note that I'm not arguing against the metoo movement as such, but with some of the attitudes that have come out of it, from some campaigners and commentators.

The solution is really quite simple. You should pay attention to the person you're interested in and read their actions and hear their words. I've misread flirtation in the past but that became clear before I even touched her. It really isn't that hard and I'm not even good at reading people or moods. That fact makes the problem even more egregious as it takes very little effort to avoid this shit. — Benkei

The problem with these sentiments, which I've seen all over the place recently, is that they don't take account of the richness of life. Thus they amount to an acceptance of new social restrictions surrounding sex, an impoverishment of sexual interaction and a degradation of individual autonomy, decades after the freedoms gained in the sexual liberation of the sixties.

Everyone is different, and even if you're good at reading signals, still sometimes it is hard to know if your advance will be welcome or not. Sometimes you do have to take risks.

It really boils down to respecting people instead of seeing them as objects to conquer or use. — Benkei

But sometimes people want to be treated like that. Sometimes people want to be conquered and used. People play games. It's part of the fun, and inevitably it will often misfire. But it's ok to make a mistake; it becomes harassment only if you keep on doing it, and that's where respect comes in.

Is it not possible to criticize academic fads, feminism, and such without being tarred by the alt-right brush? — Bitter Crank

Alas, no.

(Y)

Indeed, I find some of that movement's attitudes highly objectionable. It's not sacrosanct.

But sexual advances, wanted and unwanted, are an ordinary part of life and not in themselves bad, regrettable or traumatic. Unlike rape.

That is the insulting conflation.

Good topic.

Cool. You be the voice of reason and I'll be the voice of irreverent libertinism.

Your consistency is admirable. :)

But that could also be a funny joke. In fact I've heard it told by women as a joke before.

If at this point you get all po-faced about it, I give up.

It could be either I think. But if you're right, I think that makes the joke even funnier because of the hint of absurdity.

Some people gain a sense of self-esteem, or at least a sense of their own attractiveness, and maybe some feeling of sexual power and confidence, if they are frequently approached, even if the approachers are unattractive to them. This is a pretty ordinary thing, I think. It can be better to have options. There is self-deprecating humour in lamenting one's lack of attraction even to people one wouldn't want to say yes to.

Explaining a joke always makes me feel dirty afterwards.

Starting with such a bold claim does not endear readers to take you seriously. — charleton

I disagree. I very much appreciate it when someone begins with a bold, clear claim, and then goes on to argue for it.

@StreetlightX has some good advice, but my own experience is that unless I am forced to read a book, I cannot maintain concentration unless I also maintain my passionate interest in it. So if you're not studying philosophy in an academic setting, don't beat yourself up about the fact that Aristotle sends you to sleep, and instead read the books that interest you and excite you. (Note that this doesn't simply mean read the easy ones.)

You've been using the word belief in an eccentric, non-philosophical way. In philosophy, a belief is a kind of propositional attitude: the attitude you have when you take something to be true. Whether it counts as knowledge depends on whether it's true (and justified). Knowledge is thus a subset of belief. A lot of beliefs are false, but some are true.

You, on the other hand, seem to take belief to mean faith, such as religious faith. This is not what it means, except perhaps colloquially. The philosophical use fits with the ordinary use of the word: I believe that the woman I call my mother is my female biological parent (it might not be true, and if it's not true, then it's not knowledge); I believe that human beings evolved over millions of years (I'd say that's true, which would make it true belief, i.e., knowledge); I believe that Kennedy was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone (I'd say that's true too, but it could turn out not to be).

None of this is to argue against your characterization of religion, faith, or atheism. It's just to let you know how belief is conventionally used in philosophy.

Let us begin with the observation that knowledge is a mental state; that is, knowledge exists in one's mind, and unthinking things cannot know anything. Further, knowledge is a specific kind of mental state. While "that"-clauses can also be used to describe desires and intentions, these cannot constitute knowledge. Rather, knowledge is a kind of belief. If one has no beliefs about a particular matter, one cannot have knowledge about it. — IEP

http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/#SH2a

Also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

This "oh, rock's dead, today's music's shit" is really uninteresting. From the surface to the depths, there are good songs being made. And I say good because originality alone isn't sufficient. There are lots of original stuff that suck. But eitherway, original music is born every day on popular genres. That's not even worth the time to discuss much in depth. What's more interesting to discuss is the change in the structure of the music business and how that change has affected both the artists and the listeners of specific genres. In my view, the whole thing has become more decentrilised, so, at least in terms of distribution and availability, it takes more effort from the listener to reach stuff that pre-broadband internet and pre-new recording technology could be reached either through multinational conglomerates or through a number of indie labels. Strangely, this is because more music than ever is readily available to simple folks. — Πετροκότσυφας

(Y)

And I suspect that many people who complain about "music these days" just don't know where to find it now, especially people who grew up in the seventies or eighties (or before), who compare their cherished LPs with what they hear on today's mainstream radio. It might also be psychologically preferable to think that music is worse than to face the possibility that one is stuck in the past, out of touch, boring, and so on.

On the other hand I think there is some reason to mourn the days when music was centralized, and hundreds would queue up outside the main record shop in town to get the latest album by whoever.

On the other hand, if you regard something as pernicious, arguing against it might seem to be the right thing to do, even if it's not exactly the done thing within philosophy.

I think that's what Harry Hindu was saying at least, and I agree with you: there is an overwhelming profusion of interesting new music. The sentiment that "music ain't what it used to be" often seems to be just a nostalgia for the big rock groups of the seventies like Pink Floyd and Genesis, combined with a refusal to listen to anything else. It's not music that's got worse, but their taste.

This is what I said:

Your focus seems to be on progressive rock, which I'd argue has a natural tendency to degenerate into uninteresting stadium rock when the big money comes along.

But sure, there are many exceptions. Although note that King Crimson is now focused on the back catalogue rather than new stuff. Anyway, I'm not denying that many musicians continue to evolve, in fact that was my main point.

It's odd to be accused of political correctness of all things. In any case, thanks for your concern. We'll be trying to maintain standards, as always.

Maybe the majority of musicians don't compromise as they grow older, and you haven't noticed simply because they're less famous. And there are many even among the famous who have carried on being creative, resisting superstardom blandness, such as Frank Zappa, Scott Walker, Bjork, and many jazz musicians, like Ornette Coleman. Your focus seems to be on progressive rock, which I'd argue has a natural tendency to degenerate into uninteresting stadium rock when the big money comes along. This might apply to rock music generally, and I think rock music is an essentially commercial blip in the history of music based around the sale of albums.

Yeah but you can drop them, or rather, they're often implicit.

You could have said enviaré to mean "I will send". I do like Spanish.

Take a Spanish lover. The best place to learn a language is in bed. — unenlightened

This is a good tip. I know a Spanish woman who got her then-boyfriend, a Scotsman, from zero up to fluent in one month, as she didn't speak English. I met her myself hoping I could fast-track my way to fluency in the same way, but we didn't hit it off.

Yeah, that makes sense. When everything is reggaeton, it's too easy to just turn off one's ears.