Does this actually make sense to anyone? — intrapersona

I hope not. We may need to call a philosophodoctor.

You know as much as I hate bullfighting, there is at least a cultural element to it. This was just bull fighting.

Well, either you're irrevocably naive or I'm irrevocably cynical. So, dead end.

So, he played with McGregor for a few rounds then when he felt like it, beat the crap out of him. That sounds like business not sport. Anyway, whatever, I'm not a fan.

:-d

30 million for McGregor. 100 million for Mayweather. They both win. The people who thought it was a real fight lose.

(Y)

So this is a spectacle for the masses, who are going to pay ninety-nine bucks each to watch this exhibition. What does this say about the masses? They are not interested in actual excellence, or competition. Only in the spectacle. Then what of philosophy? — fishfry

(Y)

I can but I'm not going to do it here as the situation is different. The explanation requested has been provided and the feedback discussion should not be used as a proxy for debating the deleted topic.

Yes, and it's more like 0.1%, I would say. Take a random sample of 1,000 people and I doubt you'll find much more than one with their passport on them*. Of course, that's the general population, not terrorists. Which leads back to why...

*Europeans more likely than Americans though since they tend to travel more.

EDIT: After some unscientific mental sampling I'm going to up that to 1%.

I hadn't really thought about it because it usually doesn't go in that direction and I don't expect it to be a problem. Is it a trick question or something? If so, let me know, and I'll come up with a better answer.

No worries

Guess I'll just bore you with some more airport pics.

I said:

Nobody should be telling women how they should feel about sexism — Baden

Hope it's clear now.

There are no "merits of sexism" that are recognised here. Period.

1) @Agustino You're not that bad and you're not that good. Your grandiose speeches about yourself are fun and I enjoy reading them. Your sexist comments, not so much. Don't make them any more. That's it really.
2) Nobody should be telling women how they should feel about sexism. If you can't walk in someone else's shoes, don't tell them which ones to wear.
3) @Mongrel What can I say? I don't blame you. I hope you'll change your mind.
4) Anyone got a lonely planet guide to Shanghai I can borrow?

Enter the "too much of nothing" problem mentioned by Dylan. — Bitter Crank

I've been doing plenty over the last few days, and I have a trip to prepare for, so no, I have no objection and no, I won't be talking about Kevin today.

EDIT: I did read the discussion just now though and seen as some unfortunate stuff has happened I may have to weigh in after all.

It would be were it the case. ;)

I have no objection.

Both of you are very valued posters and make good points. On the sexism issue specifically, Mongrel is correct. The policy has been clarified and we're moving on. On the slander issue, I agree with Bitter, we don't need specific rules above and beyond the guidelines. It would be covered under flaming, basically.

I think you're right on that point.

What @Agustino wants is written in the title of the OP. It's called "ATTENTION!". What @Agustino should do is go back to presenting his arguments and idoleology in a reasonable way, which he's perfectly capable of doing.

I don't know why Agustino's posts weren't if they were so clearly and obviously thought to be sexist in the first place. — Buxtebuddha

We were too permissive. We're trying to rectify that.

Sexism=prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

It was conclusive. He made some sexist remarks i.e. the ones that I noted were sexist and got no convincing dissent about.

Stereotyping women is sexist. He did that. It's not up for argument any more. Sexist comments like those by anyone will be deleted in future and those making them will receive a warning. Hope that's clear.

Finally, expect this discussion to be closed soon.

If this discussion continues to be mostly about insults and butting heads rather than a sensible debate, it will be locked. A policy statement has been made and everyone should be fairly clear about what is expected by this point.

You haven't been causing problems lately as far as I know. If you could just acknowledge your past comments have caused offence, and show a bit more restraint in future, we could move on. We don't have many female members here and we're not going to if they feel the environment is not conducive to their presence. Also, the guidelines are the guidelines.

We all remember our friend who was unfairly banned for "being a Nazi", even though he was no Nazi:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/57934#Post_57934 — Agustino

As much as it brings joy to my heart to be reminded of those events, we're not here to talk about vacuumbrain or whatever the Nazi sympathizer's name was. Any more off-topic stuff will be deleted.



I've been getting a lot of PMs lately so I've had to prioritize. If you want to open a separate discussion, feel free.

I need to take a break from the discussion for a little while. Feel free to continue the debate but just to clarify, sexist comments, which include stereotyping women, have no part to play in this forum except to be ridiculed, despised and ultimately deleted. I hope going forward everyone will take that on board.

I agree that's sexist (towards the end at least). Any dissenting opinions?

As I said, setting benchmarks here so feel free to pipe in.

Any off-topic stuff will be deleted. Let's try to stay on track here. (Start a separate discussion if you want to do that.)

I agree that's sexist. Any dissenting opinions?

@Mongrel It would be helpful if you could give at least one or two examples here of posts by @Agustino you consider objectionable. In which case we mods can transparently set some kind of a benchmark so everyone knows what is acceptable and what is not.

In any case, folks, here are the relevant guidelines:

"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."

"Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied."

So, the best use for this discussion would be to clarify as best we can what we consider sexist and how it will be dealt with.

I can only hope that @Agustino will use this opportunity to try to understand the effect some of his comments have had and will adjust himself accordingly.

Of course. And that's always been the case as per the guidelines. Let's not pretend though that there won't be disagreement over what constitutes a sexist remark.

Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up? — Mongrel

1) Opinion noted, but believe it or not, we don't read every @Agustino post (at least I don't) and rely on members to a degree to flag offensive posts. That or a PM is the most direct way of getting something dealt with.
2) Please use the feedback forum if you want to continue this. This discussion is not about Agustino and any more from anyone about him here will be deleted.

If the argument over removal centres around about whether the statue is offensive or not, there's no way to come to any conclusions. It's neither offensive nor inoffensive in itself, it only either offends or doesn't offend, and then it becomes a matter of weighting in terms of numbers, degree, proximity or whatever other variables are relevant. It's not a no-brainer either way as a statue of Hitler would be (although its prospects aren't helped by its most vocal (and violent) supporters being white supremacists as @StreetlightX points out). We've got a similar problem in Northern Ireland over flags and other cultural emblems. It's not something you should just take a hammer to without serious thought and widespread consultation.

Thus is identified the lacuna of falsity in my sorry tale. The shame.

Yet again you have proved yourself a liar and a cad, but it is the coward in you I find most distasteful.

Really. It was on the old PF. I don't remember the details but it was maybe ten lines of hyperbole. You apologized afterwards for being insulted by me and I gracefully accepted.

An Irishman walks out of a bar. — Michael

I did that once. The toilet was broken.



I'm getting a weird sense of deja vu here.



Remember that time I wrote an insult and you got insulted because you thought it was about you even though it wasn't. And @Banno reckoned the insult wasn't even that insulting anyway. Though it was supposed to be. Though not to you.