To speak is to psychologise. Even to talk to the cat or the wall is to imaginatively endow it with a psyche. — unenlightened

My cat and my wall are my two best friends. They're also my only friends. We have such riveting conversations. They're good listeners.

I think there's a trend to be dismissive of thought experiments. I think this kind of misses the point.

And yes, it is irritating when people try to get away with breaking the rules. "Let's ignore the spirit of the thought experiment and look for a loophole!".

If that doesn't help, it is usually best to simply ignore such people.

Hmm.

Maybe that is also true of someone who wants to make this about "personal attacks", which demonstrates a clear violation of the principle of charity.

As true as the above is, this is a philosophy forum and the only appropriate reply to personal attacks, regardless of the possible psychological underpinnings, is calling it out. It is unacceptable, and is usually a clear sign that the author's position lacks 'substance'. If that doesn't help, it is usually best to simply ignore such people. — creativesoul

This highlights the problem well. What you're saying there is either true or false, but that's not a full explanation. What's interesting is why you might be saying it. That's part of the overall explanation.

Lol, I am not here to silence anyone. Do as thy please. — Wallows

Then what was your point? Saying that they don't have the authority to do what they're doing suggests that you don't think that they're permitted to do so, and should be silent unless they have approval from this presumed authority of yours. Who is this presumed authority? Is it you? Must we acquire your permission?

I think that people have been unfair to you. The humour is to be expected, and I'm okay with that, but what I take issue with is the criticism that your thought experiment shouldn't be taken seriously if we have our serious philosophy hat on, as opposed to our jester hat. My serious answer would be that I would probably kill a billion people, because I think I would rather it be the case that humanity live on. That says something about my values and my priorities, and the cost I would be willing to accept in order to shape the world according to my overriding preference.

Great minds think alike. (And everyone else should be taken out back and shot: a good beating is too lenient).

This is distorted. Just because psychology is a child of philosophy that does not grant authority by or from a philosopher to expound beliefs or assessments or some such matter in regards to what exactly is human nature. — Wallows

They already have that authority. We all do. We have it by default. On the contrary, you do not have the authority to silence us. It is our right to freedom of expression.

You have the right to disagree, not to silence.

Sweet Jesus, not more spam. Nothing in that copy-paste of your comment clarifies your meaning of "God". That is not helpful at all. How hard is it to understand the problem I've raised and respond accordingly? Your response should begin, "By 'God', I mean...".

This isn't like talking about a cat. We all know what a cat is. It would be safe to assume that we're all talking about the same thing in that case.

Do we know that God doesn't exist? Yes and no. It depends.

Is that a satisfactory answer? If not, then pull your bloody socks up and clarify!.

It is your responsibility, as the creator of this discussion, to act as chair, and to ensure that we're all talking about what we're supposed to be talking about, and not confused or unclear, and not talking past each other. Take responsibility and act to redress the problem!

It's similar to the logic behind my stance on offensive language. If the onus is on the person saying things, we are at the mercy of peoples sensitivity to offense. — DingoJones

I'm with you on that one in a number of conceivable cases, but not in others. I don't agree with casual references to a person or a group of people in racist language, for example. But I'm not absolutely against the use of that language or any language at all. So long as the context makes it okay, it's okay. It can be okay in comedy or sarcasm or irony or fiction or in talking about the terms themselves or in reappropriation. And if people are still offended regardless, then that's on them. I'm not in the wrong by default just because they're offended. They'd need to be justified.

The old fashioned objection to ad hominem arguments is not based on whether they are accurate or not in regards to any description of the interlocutor but that any such depictions fail to take responsibility for one's own thinking. — Valentinus

The common objection is that it's irrelevant. It is a fallacy of relevance, after all. It addresses the person rather than the substance of the argument. It's uncalled for.

Except that, sometimes, comments about the person you're talking to are very relevant. It's not all about the substance of the argument. It is not uncommon to encounter problems because of the person you're talking to.

If a person refers to themselves as an ism, and another person assumes that they possess any number of traits or beliefs based on their own preconceived notions of what that encompasses then I think that’s fine, but if the first person then corrects the person about the preconceived notion then the onus is on the second person to adjust their view, not say something like “...but you said you were a so and so ism!” or somesuch. — DingoJones

Yes, I agree with that, and with what Terrapin has said.

This spam is really getting on my nerves:

Here again... is a consequence of neglecting to draw the actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. Judgment is existentially dependent upon the latter. Being mistaken is not.

Is he trying to brain wash us or what? Stop trying to push your pet theory all of the time. Some of us are getting sick to death of it. I know as a matter of certainty that I am just one of several who feel this way about this content.

Can we add "thought/belief" to the spam filter, please?

It's a bit of a leap from, "What's morality? Is it anything other than how people feel, whether they approve or disapprove, etc. of interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette?", to, "What's a promise, and do they matter?".

Anyone notice how the tangents often seem to stem back to @creativesoul? Why are promises being talked about?

You know, giving up on all those things ain't all that bad.

Wallow wallow. — Wallows

It wouldn't be the end of the world. Or maybe it would be for me. But anyway, I'm convinced that I would be worse off otherwise, otherwise I would have simply quit. Quit my job, moved out, abandoned my principles, and so on.

Nuh huh. If you kick and beat her then she deserves better. I'm glad Oksa is with your mom. — Wallows

My mom? She likes to stick sharp pins in her and swing her around by her tail.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as they say.

The latter is the category I would like to have specified. Sounds just like the bot style spamming is what's indicated. — DingoJones

I agree. If the wording can be improved, I say improve it. But don't look to me for that.

The occurrence of it is definitely a problem. There are at least a few members here who have literally just copy-pasted text or duplicated a previous comment. That's the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. I hope this discussion sends out the message that this sort of thing is not okay.

Nobody wants that kind of slave life. It's not that simple. I have priorities, I have my own place, I have my principles, I have my desires, I have my plans.

And no she isn't. Take that back, or I'll wait until you're all cosy and warm, fast asleep in bed, and then drive a sword through your chest.

I wen't on retirement (disability) at the age of 25. Beat that. — Wallows

Oh yeah! Well I work full time breaking my back shifting heavy loads for minimum wage, plus commission if I can be a manipulative son of a bitch, also known as a good salesman. :meh:

Oksa is a nice cat. — Wallows

Yes, she is. Sometimes, when she's snuggled up in a little ball on the coach, I give her a kick, because it makes me feel better.

You know, I've seen things in therapy that indicate that dominance is intrinsically tied to ego-dom. I shit on that idea because I think it is dangerous to society and anyone interacting with. But, then again I have my issues. And, no, I ain't projecting them on poor you. — Wallows

It is very, very apparent in my workplace, for example.

What was her name? — Wallows

Anyway, see? I told you I mix it up. That was a sincere and heartfelt answer instead of a humorous diversion. The latter is my coping mechanism, you see.

Her name is Oksa. And she appreciates my sense of humour.

And, who cares about dominance. — Wallows

Lots and lots of people do. It is everywhere you look, if you know what to look for.

How is your cat doing? — Wallows

I haven't had her back at my place for a few months, and I miss her.

Oh the irony.

Okay, fine, whatever you say. I am a deluded egomaniac and this discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with me. I should shut up and stop psychologizing, because you don't approve of it.

Yes, I can read between the lines. You've said your piece, and it has failed to gain dominance over me. You can go back to your wallowing now.

Since you made this thread about yourself, I had no alternative. — Wallows

Oh, come on. Be more transparent. You made it with me in mind.

See and this is where psychologizing ends. Resentment, sulkiness, and grudge-bearing. I think you should be aware of that. — Wallows

No, it doesn't have to be like that. Dare I say it, but could that be projection? It is understandable for someone to react negatively to insinuations of paranoia and needless hostility. You don't have to be a psychologist to work that one out. But, I believe you said something about self-restraint, and our emotions and our psych can be restrained to some extent, which is important to bear in mind in relation to what you bring up and what we've been discussing.

And if you like solving puzzles, then solve a puzzle. Don't make people conform to your preconceptions. — Wallows

I don't take orders from you, and I find your judgement to be questionable.

Let's not get paranoid or needlessly hostile here. This thread wasn't all about you. — Wallows

No, not all about me, but I could see through it straight it away. Anyway, I thought that we had built some sort of connection which I found to be of great value, but it seems you've reacted badly to our recent exchanges. Maybe I will take a step back and leave you be.

Have fun wallowing. I am not such a big fan of wallowing, but like said, I am only human.

Maybe not; but, you've supplanted your psychologizing efforts and deemed them worthy of "the truth". Isn't that some derivative of dogmatic thinking or at least extremely biased thinking? — Wallows

No, I said that they aim for the truth. They're my best shot at it. And I even said that I could be reading too much into things at times and could be off the mark, but you don't care so much about that, do you? You care more about your own narrative of vilification. As if I don't get vilified enough as it is around here without you jumping on the god damn bandwagon.

All in all, to sum this discussion of yours up, I'd say that it is a veiled attack and a double standard.

See, just another attempt at psychologizing me, now. — Wallows

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with me doing that.

Now, I might be psychologizing too; — Wallows

Nothing wrong with that. Please do, I find it interesting, and it can be productive.

but, you seem to derive some satisfaction from pushing people's buttons and seeing what happens. That's immature and childish. Can we act like adults now? — Wallows

I agree with your psychological assessment, and I think that I am quite aware of my habitual behaviours, vices, psychology, etc.. I think that we're both quite self-aware.

I tend to mix it up. I can be deadly serious one moment, and facetious the next. Provocative one moment, and tedious the next. Profoundly wise, extremely childish. What can I say? I am human, all too human. Guilty as charged.

Well, clearly, with the latest thread that popped up, you were not displaying restraint. — Wallows

I exercise restraint when I feel like doing so, not when you want me to do so.

Yeah, well now that's dogmatism and quite dangerous if you don't mind me adding. — Wallows

That is not dogmatism at all! How absurd. Aiming for the truth is not dogmatism. You should look up what dogmatism is.

The following segment of the guidelines seems of relevance:

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Advertisers, spammers: Instant deletion of post followed by ban.

And anything can be reported through the flagging button (bottom left-hand corner of a comment, then click the one that looks like a flag) or by other means, such as contacting a member of staff.

Yeah, that needs deflating. — Wallows

So I can wallow about like you? No thanks.

Yes, there's a huge overlap between psychology and philosophy. All I'm saying is that some line should be drawn before we start conducting "assessments" of people on online forums. — Wallows

That's fine, and I agree. We probably just have a different sense of where exactly to draw the line. I am much more of a freedom of expression type than you, but not as extreme as Terrapin. For example, you've complained before about expressions of humour not to your taste.

Not, but they should be monitored. — Wallows

Monitored? You mean that we should rely on our judgement and exercise restraint when deemed appropriate? I already do that, and we have the moderators for anything that slips through the net and goes too far.

Yeah, that may be true; but, psychologizing and assessment making are one thing, rational discourse another. — Wallows

They have the same aim: the truth. That's something I think everyone here should care about.

Yes, it's odd. Especially since I'm known for my delicate handling of such situations. Nothing says delicate like, "Stop spamming!".

There were parts of your posts of questionable relevance to the discussion topics, which S reacted to with the spam accusation. — fdrake

I know I'm far from perfect, but I don't spam like that. Those posts are very much a pattern, and they are a problem in my assessment. I don't think that I'm alone in making that assessment.

Really, he should be thanking me for pointing out this problem, so that he has an opportunity to do something about it. But I understand that it's very hard to be thankful under the circumstances.

I would not do that under any circumstances. — Frank Apisa

What he means is that he wouldn't do so with the realisation that it is spamming.

In one instance, S made a threat about banning. — Frank Apisa

I explained that it wasn't a threat. That's just his misinterpretation. It was a warning, as in an advisement of precaution. It wouldn't make sense for me to threaten him with something not within my power, and knowingly so.

Since I did not know who are the chiefs and who are the Indians, I got hot. Very hot, in fact, Apologized once...and then got hit with another "spamming" comment. — Frank Apisa

Yes, he got another comment about spamming because he repeated the spam, and I am not exactly the type to be silenced if I object to something.

I thought it might be the owner or a moderator...and I was willing to leave the forum if unwelcome. — Frank Apisa

Wait. Am I being referred to as an "it"? :lol:

Yes you're not; but you are saying that you can't prove the non-existence or existence of something. Of course you can that's silly. — SethRy

Not just something, something in particular, namely God. But Maureen hasn't made clear the meaning she intended for this discussion, and until she does, we are at risk of talking past each other.

For some reason, she has decided to completely ignore this problem, instead of addressing it.

Fuck you! — Frank Apisa

:grin:

Ah, anti-ism-ism.

I'm not a member of staff.

Staff: https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/members/staff

Owner: https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/1/jamalrob

The complaint here is that he didn't take too kindly to my objection to his spamming.

I no longer care about your meaning. I have heard the same nonsense from you time after time...and I have never considered telling you to shut up...or threatened you with banning for spamming.

I intend to find out who owns this site...and who is moderating it. If you are not the owner or a moderator...I am telling you to go fuck yourself. If, on the other hand, you are the owner or a moderator...I will voluntarily leave the forum. — Frank Apisa

Uh oh, flaming. I am not the owner or a moderator, although I have a pretty good understanding from a moderator's perspective, having been one myself here for a couple of years. It wasn't a threat, it was an advising of precaution. Although the second time around I simply told you to stop spamming, which is an imperative.

You're free to ignore it. I have no authority in that sense. But I don't like spam on this forum. Maybe they were more tolerant of it in your previous forum.

You're welcome, although your judgement on wisdom is less so.

Touché. :grin:

Obviously I have not made it. YOU are not conceding it...are you? — Frank Apisa

That's a different meaning to what I meant. Obviously.