One thing on this topic that I don’t see discussed is people’s right to listen. Why do some people get to decide what Im allowed to listen to?
If a bunch of people show up to listen to a speaker, especially one invited, why does some mob of haters get to decide for me that Im not going listen to them today?

Also, it’s very disappointing to see such a sad lack of self awareness on the part of those arguing against Counter Punch. Their use of free speech as a defence against shutting down someones ability to speak to people is shameful. The spirit of free speech is being mutilated there, whatever technicality, semantic style arguments you try and make it’s clear to anyone not using free speech as an argument tool to promote (force?) their views on others that free speech and shutting down a speaker are contradictory.

The best I can come up with is something like the value of a life is the value you assign to it. But this feels like it leaves out plenty. — Manuel

I think thats exactly what value human life has. Everyone picks and chooses what life is valuable, most people don’t care about vast swaths of life, from bacteria to insects. Others care about animals of all kinds, many just the cute ones. Some only really care about human lives and of course others only care about certain human lives. Some only care about their own lives but everyone picks and chooses, everyone assigns their own value to it.
Personally I think life's value should be judged according to that lifes merits and if certain criteria arent met (like if someone just goes around killing and spreading misery) then I can’t say I put any value on that at all.

Indeed

There are plenty of topics with low quality OPs that are not locked or deleted.

There are other topics like Is Murder Really That Bad? that are not locked or deleted.

Many feel that murder is more morally repugnant than homophobia or sexism in academia (or far-right rhetoric?), but not our high principled mods? — praxis

Ive wondered this myself. Could the Mods weigh in on this comment?

You made a claim but I don't see an argument to back up that claim and if you had one, it would like like this:

1.Blah blah blah (premises)
So,
2. There are no necessary truths (conclusion)

2 has to follow necessarily from 1 to make your case i.e. given the premises, the conclusion must be a necessary truth. In other words, either you're making a baseless claim (begging the question) or you're contradicting yourself. — TheMadFool

Well said. Much better than the way I put it. (In one of the other threads about the same thing.

no, that's not made anything clearer. But I am not confused and in need of enlightenment. I don't need to keep being told about necessity. I know it is invoked left right and centre and I know that the laws of logic are said to be necessary. I am saying that it adds nothing, isn't real and can be dispensed with. — Bartricks

So you do not understand, its not clear to you...yet you are still very certain that you aren't confused or need of enlightenment? Am I wasting my time, youre the preacher type not the learning/listening type? You arent even open to the possibility you are wrong here...its best to understand the opposing argument BEFORE concluding its wrong. You admitted yourself its not clear to you.
The laws of logic are necessary to be logical. If you do not want to be logical then ok, but as i said as soon as you do then nobody knows what your talking about, including you. Discarding logic is a commitment to being non-sensical.

As for not knowing what necessity is, I cannot comprehend what the word 'necessarily' corresponds to when it is added to true. So, a 'true' proposition is one that corresponds to the facts. What does a necessarily true one do? — Bartricks

Necessarily true refers to logical inference. It can be true that I am walking, and it would be necessarily true that I have legs to walk on. Its about logical sequence when you talk about something being necessarily true. If you are just talking about a specific instance of fact, the it would indeed be incorrect to use “necessarily” true.
So if you adjust your understanding of those terms, you will see how the law of non-contradictions is violated in the concept of omniscience. Hopefully anyway, if Ive explained it clearly.

MadFool is right, the question contradicts itself.
Its the same thing as in the omniscience thread, you aren’t grasping the law of non-contradiction. It precludes both of your arguments in the two threads.
You said you do not understand what “necessity actually is”, can you elaborate on that?

Fair enough. To me magical thinking is when a person just skips over inconvenient data and reasoning that doesnt support the conclusion they want to reach, like a kind of confirmation bias.
As far as being skeptical, I would say Im quite skeptical in general. I temper that with an open mind and willingness to explore things even if im skeptical of it.

That sounds about right. Use of “faith” in religious context is special pleading because that same standard is not applied to most other things in their life.

Can you elaborate on why my belief in reality is not skeptical enough? How did you reach that conclusion, and how do you know how skeptical of reality I am?
I dont agree with how you’ve defined magical thinking here, thats certainly not I how was using the term.

Its just a cute little game theists like to play, where they reverse things back onto the atheist. Projecting is the psych term I believe. So problems with theism like faith and special pleading are claimed to be atheist things. It makes them feel good but has no substance.

Ive never heard that particular argument before. Not sure any of its necessary, breaking the law of non-contradiction is enough to show the incoherence of omniscience.

Im not sure how you define atheism but I wouldn't say its a matter of anything about god per say. Its about what the person believes not about the actions or non-actions of the thing people believe in.
Religion and the belief in god are mired in cognitive dissonance (holding two contradictory beliefs at the same time), thats how you can people like Bartricks that can’t understand their error. Its not that Bartricks doesnt understand logic, its that he doesnt apply it where it interferes in his desire to believe in god. Many religious folks are like this, its a hallmark of magical thinking. (Maybe thats the layman term for cognitive dissonance :chin: ?)

Certainly not PC, no. I think that if expressing unpopular or non-PC views was enough alone to get you banned then you would have been banned. Even though they despise you, you remain. That speaks to whether or not the bannings are bias/PC driven. They dont seem to be, but then again you could be a sleeper agent for the mods, so that they can execute their PC agenda while having you to point to as evidence they dont have one. Diabolically clever!
(Im kidding of course.)

This thread wasnt intended to be about censorship, it was about the deletion of the thread, the weak reasons for that deletion and an overall point about how that sort of thing is detrimental to interesting discussions. (It destroys them)
There is a reason the most active topics are full of petty, pointless and dishonest back and forth. Its because that kind of behaviour is ignored or even championed (Streetlight for example) where as an honest question with no ill intention can get deleted because of a single word.
This “so what, fuck’em they're assholes” mentality is toxic and destructive to good discussions.

Sure, there is some logic to your argument but there is a specific point of logic (the law of non-contradiction) that you are ignoring.
Also, not assertions. Being able “to do anything” leads to an unavoidable contradiction. Maybe your unfamiliar with the rock so heavy it cannot be lifted? I understand you think thats dispelled by another use of “power to do anything” that just changes the rules ad Infiniti but its not. The reason its not is because then that would mean the parameters of the original task were not met, trading one logical contradiction for another. For example in the classic “can god create a rock he cannot lift” the ability to do anything means god can create the rock he cannot lift, resulting in something god cannot do (lift the rock). Thats a logical contradiction. So to avoid this logical contradiction you can simply have god now change the rules so that now he can lift the rock. The initial logical contradiction is avoided but now god wasn't able to do something else, create a rock he couldnt lift. The concept of being able to “do anything” is incoherent, by definition including nonsense (“anything” includes the “thing” nonsense). The concept always leads to contradiction because it defies its own parameters, like the squared circle it makes no sense.
Now, you can ignore that breach of logic to your hearts content but when you do, and try discussing it, I don’t know what you are talking about. As I said before, neither do you. Thats not intended to be snide, I mean it literally. The idea of being able to do anything is firmly entrenched on the other side of human comprehension, you do not know how it could possibly work and neither do I. Its just like the squared circle, you can say it, say the words, sure, no problem but you cannot draw it and you cannot describe it because it makes no sense. So too with being able to “do anything”, the words are empty placeholders. Semantic illusions with no substance.

Omnipotence, defined as being able to do anything, is a non-sensical term that has no real meaning. It is a paradoxical term, its own definition refutes it by showing a clear, inevitable contradiction. You are welcome to ignore logic but once you do that I don’t know what you are talking about anymore, and neither do you.

Ok.

That may be the way it emerged, I couldn't say, but thats not how I intend it nor do I think thats the way its generally understood today. Everyone knows what homophobe is, a person who hates or dislikes gay people, someone who holds being gay against someone. Thats whats not acceptable on this forum and thats what he was looking for.

Lol. I had forgotten about it but you keep reminding us.
I dont think there should be such a thing as a topic being too sensitive in a discussion forum. Any topic should be able to be breached by mature adults.

I don't know it is that straightforward. I just got a reply from my comment about philosophy and sex in which the person seemed to think that any discussion of sexuality on the forum was breaking the boundaries. So, I am not even making a jesting comment and I feel that I have broken a taboo. So, I am left feeling really confused. — Jack Cummins

No offense but I didnt find the masterbation thread compelling at all. Thats my point though, if people engage then it's probably worth keeping around, and let it die in its own. Even if its something I dont like or have interest n.

↪DingoJones I think this has been a rather robust discussion of the ethics surrounding the use of the word ‘defect’ with regard to gender (thanks to your efforts). Free speech somehow has a way of wriggling its way around pc. — Joshs

Well Im not really making the PC point. Im not even really sure PC is at work in a significant way among the mods. They seem to be concerned about guidlines, as they should be. If PC was a problem in this forum, wouldnt NOS be banned?
I even understand what that mod was looking for (homophobia), i just think he was mistaken about finding it.
Also, I get that this forum mod team doesnt have free speech as its highest priority, maybe its not even top 5. This isnt a platform for free speech, there are rules about what and how things can be said and consequences if those rules aren’t followed. They dont want this place to be filled with bigoted screwheads. I get it, I just think that a non-bigoted screwhead got caught in the crossfire. Maybe the mods disagree, but I think its very important to the forums quality and long term life span that we do not lose potential value (not necessarily for them, but for anyone less enlightened than them, who might benefit from a discussion they would find moral kindergarten) from discussions by casualties of that war with the bigots. Certainly the poster who was deleted would jave benighted from the discussion. That should mstter.

Like who? And also, That wasnt why the thread was deleted, according to the mod who deleted it.
Also, “no YOU cant read”. Just flip what I said about you back around to deflect the actual point being made huh? Someone was saying something about childish behaviour? Grow up.

My view, as I've said on the mod forum, is that we're not a daycare centre for moral kindergarteners. — Baden

No one is asking you to, in fact the issue is why we aren’t allowed to engage the person. No babysitting involved other than checking for breaches of the guidelines which you do anyway, and potentially deleting something, which was done anyway.
I understand wanting to drop the hammer to deter bigots etc from polluting the forum, but thats not what this is. It really seemed like a sincere question, and not the kind of toxic garbage you are talking about.

This thread isnt about homosexuality being a defect, its about why the other thread was deleted. Are you even paying attention or, again, are you simply rules by your emotions?
No one is defending the claim that homosexuality is a defect. The opposite. Whats at issue is why we were not given the opportunity to correct that claim when it was made, especially since the OP was declared well intentioned by the mod who deleted it.

Is rape really that bad? Is being French a disability? Are the Chinese evil? Is homosexuality a defect? All questions of a similar offensiveness that need not be dignified here imho. — Baden

If someone is seriously confused about any of those then a response is warranted, as opposed to someone just being hateful where I would agree a response is less warranted.
If a person is sincerely asking the question, why wouldnt you respond? You dont believe in teaching moments?

I swear to God if you all turn this thread into one which was explicitly deleted by a mod I will ban the lot of you. — StreetlightX

That would only be appropriate if this thread was homophobic since that was the reason given for the other ones deletion. The topic itself wasnt the issue, and the topic in this thread has no homophobia so what are you even talking about? Is your modding guided entirely by your emotions/idealogy? You seem to be looking for teasons to exercise your banning power...

↪DingoJones
I would imagine that it may not have been so problematic if it had not been in the title. It would make it stand out like a newspaper headline. — Jack Cummins

Indeed, but mods should delete threads for their content more so than the thread name.
I just think its bad for this forum and its discussions to delete a thread like that, how many other threads get deleted before anyone sees it, and for such weak reasons.
The OP ended with an open ended “so, am I wrong?”. Apparently we have a bunch of people who know the answer was yes, but never got to tell him/her why or how.
I understand mods need to delete threads and enforce the guidelines but there is a level of comfort that with it that I think is damaging to discourse.

Well, it isn't clear to me that we're here to learn whether homosexuality, or being Black, or being Jewish, or being disabled, etc. is or is not a defect. — Ciceronianus the White

Obviously I meant learning in the broader sense. We are here to discuss things, discussion is important in learning about your own positions as well as others. Discussion is prevented by such deletion. That homosexuality is not a defect might be obvious to me and you, but not to others.

No, Im aware. I realise its use by homophobic or anti-gay rhetoric. Its something ignorant people use, and its also something people use when they hate/dislike gay people. Only the former applied to that OP, I saw no hate in it. My point in this thread is about discourse. That person asked an honest question and was not allowed an honest answer. That person can’t learn why “defect” is problematic unless its pointed out to them. This cannot be done if their post is deleted.

Homophobic? Because of the word “defect”? Did you miss the disclaimer portion, where the poster explained explicit non-homophobic behaviour in their day to day life?
Also, how do you reconcile the post being homophobic AND well intentioned?
It was an honest question by the poster and was not homophobic. It was a a good faith OP in my view, could you have perhaps made a kneejerk reaction that you could rectify?

Yes, “defect” stood out right away as problematic. Thats the primary mistake made by the poster, a simple enough mistake to point out if the thread hadnt been deleted.

Dingo, you do know that homosexuals can have kids, right? I feel like given that new information you may want to revise your response. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes I realise that but pointing it out is pedantic, a waste of my time and a failure to address the main issue. Leave such commentary to the petty.
Thank god for you though :roll:

↪ssu
Interesting. I wonder if it is the media, internet and social media which have created this environment or just the politicisation of everything? When you put it like that, I probably should have just avoided this thread altogether. — Judaka

Social media plays a big role, its a fact that it creates tension. Its designed to. I recommend The Social Dilemma, eye opening.
Also, it wasnt a waste of time responding to whats his face the Kenosha wanker. You exposed him and other people here can see, you were speaking to them as much as to him so yes it was worth you bothering.

Perhaps it's telling of our times that Peterson is referred to being a philosopher.

Anyway, I have become extremely sceptical to anyone who today is a critic of some person. Now days there simply is no objectivity or any will to try to understand the other. As a Finnish saying goes: it's like "The Devil reading the Bible". It gets interest, clicks. The critic has either an agenda or simply promotes his views to his or her own tribe of similar thinking people. Perhaps it is far too confusing for people if you agree with one thing and disagree with another thing that some person has said. That seems lax, weak. Nope, tribalism has to dominate! You are either for or against and either with us or against us!

The solution? Listen to the people yourself and make up your mind without the people who have chewed the message for you before hand. — ssu

The most wisdom in a post on this thread yet. :up:

I see. So more like a cultural dark ages rather than some sort of apocalyptic reset?

What kind of world are you living in if you cannot see the deep chaos into which humanity is descending? — Jack Cummins

Im not sure what you are referencing, where did I give that impression?

How do you imagine the “new Dark Ages” looking in thrse modern times?

↪DingoJones Might be traumatic brain injuries (a lot of that going around lately) that causes would-be philosophers to get thick as a brick and kill themselves by Mod. You know, too much social media trauma, too many Trump tweets, too much doom scrolling, too many things for sale on line, heat stress from global warming (even in the dead of winter), too many choices on Netflix, and so on. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I intended to include those things under “a sign of the times”. Social media and fear based news are big parts of it in the general public but I thought there might be something specific to this forum. Perhaps suicide by mod is one of the ways those with a philosophical bent express that stress.

Well i wasnt talking about specific kinds of discourse. Obviously there are going to be better or worse forms by of it. If you are just yelling at them and not listening you wont make much headway. So maybe I should amend my claim to “good discourse is the best remedy for bad ideas.”