That is really not what is happening here. — jamalrob

You have done less than nothing to reassure me of this. But let me guess: "I don't owe you any reassurance." Fine, then learn to live with my complaints of your ridiculous double standards.

How about this: she doesn't like me and is now a mod, which provides her the opportunity to unjustly censure me and others with impunity. Why "impunity" you ask? Because the mods routinely violate the very guidelines they're supposed to enforce, often egregiously so, as in the case of SLX.

Let's then say I complain about what I take to be unjust treatment and she confers with the other mods about whether she's in the right. Well, 1) the mods are predisposed to like and agree with her and 2) not a single mod thinks very highly of me. So what then? She gets away with it. There is no countervailing force among the mods, as Agustino would be, to dissent from the witch hunt. That's how Emptyheady got banned. That's how Baden could threaten Buxte with a ban on the dubious charge of sexism while turning a blind eye to the foul insults SLX spewed.

You don't owe me one. It's your forum. I've made what my issue is abundantly clear.

So it comes to this: "We value feedback and a diverse mod team, but on the other hand, fuck feedback and fuck having a diverse mod team. We're going to continue as is, and we're not going to tell you why! We have other priorities, and we're not telling you what those are either!"

Right. Well, at least your irrationality is on display for all to see.

Choosing mods has never been open to debate among the membership at large. As it always has been, the decision was a private one until you decided to make an issue out of it. It's certainly not true that asking to be a mod is a ticket to modhood. — jamalrob

So what is? The whim of the mods? Do the mods work in mysterious ways us mere mortals cannot fathom?

Why are they better? And whoever said there needed to be a precise number of mods?

alleviating your concerns about the mod team is not very high on our list of priorities — jamalrob

Good god man, you do realize this confirms precisely what I'm concerned about?

All I did was make someone a mod. — jamalrob

This sentence implies that it's not a big deal to make someone a mod. And yet, apparently it is. You casually decided to make TL a mod on the basis of her requesting to be one, but are now obstinately refusing to do the same when I and others request that someone else be a mod. You cannot fail to understand how infuriating you are being here.

I never agreed to make TL a mod, so no, I don't think I created this drama. You surely realize that Agustino is a lightning rod for the other mods. For that reason alone he would provide the aforementioned counterweight and alleviate virtually all the concerns I have with the mods.

So why not do it? What precludes him from being a mod? Whatever you say against him, I'm quite sure the same could be attributed to the current mods. So that leaves me with the notion that you just like seeing all this drama unfold and people like me endlessly complain.

Three people have now recommended Agustino as a mod. All it took for TL to become one was to ask. This isn't that hard. You likely know that my complaints about you and your fellow mods would end if you actually promoted him.

So what's holding you back, hmm?

An exasperating response. I don't dislike the forum. I don't dislike all the mods. What I do dislike is discussing these things. It seems as though some here secretly (or not so secretly) enjoy the drama. Well, I don't. And I proposed a very simple solution to end it, which you have now refused. So tell me, jamal, do you enjoy the drama too? For what reason is Agustino not ready?

An attempt at housekeeping in an increasingly shabby looking forum.

Taking just the people who've commented on this thread, I would nominate Noble Dust, BC, and Buxte as mods. However, the ultimate counterweight to the ideological and moderating proclivities of the current mod team would be Agustino. If TL is a mod I don't see why he can't be one either. So why not? If TL can be made a mod merely by asking, then surely Agu can be one by my recommending him.

Your fellow mods laugh at my and other posters' alleged "persecution complex." Okay, let's put the nail in that coffin by making Agustino a mod, and then threads like this will dry up.

Please note that I have never flagged anyone (except unintentionally one time, when I meant to hit 'Reply') or reported anyone, so my concerns are not borne out of a peevish desire for more control. My concern is rather that some of you are not enough like me in terms of your willingness to let things slide. Unambiguous and flagrant violations of the guidelines by certain members, including especially of your own mod team, are routinely ignored, while warnings are explicitly issued to certain members whose views are only vaguely interpreted as violations, so at the very least you are hypocrites.

Maybe I will start flagging now, though I doubt it will do much good.

I try very hard not to employ and to my knowledge have never employed such "rhetoric," which is commonly associated with immaturity, and yet I am accused of having failed to grow up. How ironic. And just look at the blasé way in which you admit to having falsely accused others of much worse, as if the degree to which you and others have flung around incendiary accusations justifies its occurrence. Sorry, but I refuse to engage in or condone such corrupt Internet behavior. Suck it up.

It is now because she's a mod. Otherwise, I wouldn't have cared. I didn't care as of this morning and haven't been on the forum much recently, but when I noticed that she was made a mod, sorry, but that really was too egregiously absurd a development to stay silent about.

Also, think about what you're saying. "So she didn't follow the guidelines she's now supposed to moderate and accused you of apologizing for rape, but so what, that's no big deal, get over it." In no way is that an appropriate response, but hey, I suppose you're welcome to it, owner-man.

I made her a mod, because she is a good thinker, a good writer, and shows good judgement. — jamalrob

Well, I beg to differ.

What is your problem? — jamalrob

See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/129749#Post_129749

She would resurrect the neutral opinion I had of her prior to our most recent conservation if she would retract the accusation that I am an apologist for rape. Until then, no, I have no respect for her, whether intelligent or not. I'll take a low cognitively functioning but charitable and compassionate fellow biped making decisions over an "intelligent and sophisticated" assassin of character any day of the week.

You hit the nail on the head I believe.

Most intriguing, first because none of you could manage to think of a single reason why she ought not to be made a mod, and yet are thoroughly unsurprised that Agustino and I have complained about the decision. If you are unsurprised at our reaction, this means that you did know there to be potential reasons to be opposed to the choice, ones we can readily supply, such as the fact that TL has not followed the guidelines herself and has engaged in unsavory character assassination.

Second, because Sap just got done spending a paragraph telling me how he wasn't going to tell me anything, but now is okay with your posting this evidence. Strange little about face there.

Obviously you don't agree, which comes as no surprise. I'm under no obligation to discuss this in detail with you, and I've decided against doing so, for reasons that I'm at liberty not to disclose. — Sapientia

Fine, don't talk. As you say, you don't have to. But you must know that your silence only raises my suspicions about how it went down and why.

It means you still haven't answered my question but are merely kicking the can down the road. It's an expression commonly used. That someone asks to be a mod doesn't oblige you to make them one, so I still want to know why you chose to make her a mod.

I believe she asked. — Michael

More can kicking.

but also evenhanded and principled — T Clark

Not in my recent experience.

I am really curious how she will handle being a moderator. — T Clark

So am I. But I'm not optimistic.

She was made a moderator because her name was suggested and there was a consensus. — Sapientia

Stop beating around the bush. Why was her name suggested? Why also did there need to be another mod? I suppose it doesn't seem so inexplicable when one takes into account the fact that she shares the same antipathy for certain posters and certain ideas that most of the other mods do. I can surmise in this manner, but I would like a straight answer.

As Baden rightly pointed out, that is against the guidelines. — Sapientia

Maybe so, but you and I both know that discussion of moderation has occurred in the Shoutbox quite frequently in the past, discussion the mods engaged in and didn't choose to shut down, so appeals to the guidelines don't have much affect on me.

And, as long as the right call is made, I don't mind who makes it, or whether it is made by someone who happens to disagree with the member in question. — Sapientia

I don't mind that either. But the ability to make the right call is my concern here. After her vile accusations directed toward me in a recent discussion, I don't have much faith in said ability.

Okay, so I'm not wrong.

Here is the new thread in question. Care to provide any answers?

You say the Feedback category can be used to complain. I posted in a thread located in the Feedback category. I see no rule about bumping an older thread.

If eternity, then no, all seriousness (assuming that means profound philosophical notions, the gravity of the human condition, etc?) would not be done away with; they would be subsumed and brought to fruition through the outbreak of the finite into the infinite, into eternity, regardless of the actions of individuals. Maybe? — Noble Dust

I think "seriousness" could refer to what we believe and how we act. If these have no transcendent significance, as it were, then there is no reason not to commit suicide.

And what about silliness, by the way? — Noble Dust

Pardon?

Too bad we can't know that. — Buxtebuddha

But we can gain some intimation of that by looking at God's purported revelation.

This means that you think belief is required for salvation, and that one must choose one sort of salvation over another, ya? — Buxtebuddha

I still don't know exactly what you're packing into the word "belief." Perhaps your concern is that if salvation is possible or a future reality for one, then it makes little difference in terms of attaining it whether one believes in the possibility of salvation or not or whether one believes in one specific formulation of salvation than another. My reply would be that there are presumably reasons for believing that salvation is possible, such that one needn't just believe in its possibility credulously. I happen to think there are. I would also reply by saying that perhaps there are reasons for salvation in some sense depending on what we believe and what we do in this life. In other words, universalism with respect to salvation may be false.

Not sure where to post this, but I wanted to express my disapproval at TL becoming a mod, for whatever it's worth (which is likely nothing, I'm aware). I'm frankly shocked and would like an explanation, though I doubt the one I receive will consist of anything other than patronizing hand-wringing over my lodging this complaint.

She doesn't deserve being a mod, as she possesses even less fair-mindedness, civility, moral consistency, and knowledge of and willingness to engagement with actual philosophical topics than the present mod team. I discovered that in my recent interactions with her. She has great intolerance of those she disagrees with on social and political issues and mostly spends her time flirting with Hanover while haunting the Shoutbox. Why those attributes made someone think, "she'd make a great mod," is beyond me.

But I don't think denial of God in this life leads to hell, because I don't understand the importance of this life vs. eternity, if eternity does in fact exist. — Noble Dust

What do you make of Wittgenstein's remark: "if what we do now is to make no difference in the end, then all the seriousness of life is done away with."

Eh? — Noble Dust

Eh?

But of course what we think it means would be even more important, since if we get it wrong, we might go to hell...? — Noble Dust

This very much depends on the sort of God you have in mind. The Christian God, whom Buxte has spoken of, is thought to be most fully revealed in the person of Christ, and he doesn't strike me as someone who would damn a person for innocently believing the wrong thing. The Catholic Church, for example, claims that one goes to hell by committing a mortal sin. But to commit a mortal sin, one must possess complete and perfect knowledge of what one is doing. That being the case, one might believe the wrong thing by being deceived, and so be without perfect knowledge that one has sinned, in which case one wouldn't be damned.

But a key difference between Buddhism and Christianity is the emphasis on belief in the latter. — Wayfarer

Not to sound too sharp, but I think this is a cliche with little basis in fact.

The Buddhist attitude is ‘ehipassiko’, meaning ‘come and see’. — Wayfarer

Christians have used this expression as well.

Karen Armstrong — Wayfarer

This may be the problem. I would not recommend reading her at all.

So what's the point of doing good on earth if we all are saved without even needing to try and live moral lives? — Buxtebuddha

Therein lies the rub with universalism.

Who do you admire? — Buxtebuddha

I think this should be "whom." I have orders to report such things by the grammar Nazi high command.

Another thought: is believing in the possibility of salvation the same as believing in salvation? — Buxtebuddha

I would say so.

In light of this, am I believing enough in order to be saved, or must I go out on a limb and put all my eggs in one notion of salvation's basket? — Buxtebuddha

You might, but I should think you would want to explore all the baskets instead of just arbitrarily halting at the position you currently occupy. You can't advance the likelihood by standing still where you are now, but it may be that you can get closer by putting your eggs in one basket, after having determined to a reasonable degree that you ought to put them there.

After all, believing in one kind of salvation over another doesn't ensure that you're saved! — Buxtebuddha

True, though again, it does no harm, and may even help ensure one's salvation, to believe in one kind as opposed to another. One thing I will add is that you seem to assume that salvation occurs after death. Not all soteriologies propose that. Buddhism asserts that salvation, attaining nirvana, is possible in this life. So you would want to judge whether you think that's true, because if it is, you have even less reason to stand still. Or, if you choose to accept rebirth, which it would be incumbent on you to do were you to take the Buddhist route, you may believe you will require many more rebirths before reaching awakening. Even so, there are means recommended by Buddhism to shorten that length of time, like meditation, which you could start right now.

If man is intrinsically good, then salvation makes no sense. — Mariner

But doesn't Abrahamic anthropology affirm that man is intrinsically good? He is corrupted, fallen, but still good, inasmuch as he exists at all, since being and goodness are convertible terms in traditional Christian thought.

In a Buddhist (and Hindu) sense, must one step aboard the karmic treadmill in order to achieve enlightenment, or can one munch upon a doughnut on the sidelines and still, somehow, be elevated to a state of having been saved? — Buxtebuddha

Keep in mind that in Indian religion, it is precisely the karmic treadmill, known as samsara, that one endeavors to liberate oneself from. Having any sort of karma, even good karma, is in the end a hindrance to liberation. This is why before the Buddha departed the world, he had burned away all his remaining karma. He didn't die, since death is the result of karmic processes. This is the goal of the Jain ascetics who practice sallekhana as well. I may have misunderstood the meaning of your metaphor here, though.

That being said, there are means to aid one's salvation in Indian religion that operate according to something like grace, and so only require sincere belief. In Hinduism, the various gods and their avatars perform this function. In Buddhism, the celestial bodhisattvas, especially Amitabha, can assist one with their superabundant good karma. All one need do is believe and chant his name. They retain and store this good karma because they have staved off parinirvana and choose to stay in samsara until all sentient beings are liberated.

Even within human interaction, is belief in another's potential to be saved when they themselves do not believe in salvation, enough for them to be saved? — Buxtebuddha

I don't think we have that kind of power.

In a way I think the Christian God may be similar, in that he believes in his salvation being able to believe in themselves, and as a result, him as well. — Buxtebuddha

Do you mean to say the Christian God believes that humans will be saved? I think it's rather that he desires this. God doesn't have beliefs, but he does have desires, one of which is that all will be saved. Because desiring something doesn't make it so, however, the possibility of hell (that not all will be saved) remains open. This is similar to your desiring the good for your friend. The mere desire alone has no efficacy with respect to her becoming a better person or what have you. That's entirely up to her.

Yet, it would seem that if one does not believe in the Christian God, you won't be saved. — Buxtebuddha

What matters, of course, is what God thinks it means. Within Christianity, I would say this means trusting in who Jesus allegedly is and has done.

So what's your ideal world? — MountainDwarf

Unending contact with and contemplation of the good, the true, and the beautiful, which is not possible to achieve through human effort or in this lifetime. Your scenario sounds rather nightmarish.

I would have to be blind not to.

The point Sapientia is making (and I agree with his view) is that jobs that involve saving lives, or enhancing minds (teachers, for instance) are worth more than making money, and that those worthwhile jobs should be paid more. — Bitter Crank

See? Bitter Crank gets it. Agustino, Thorongil, and Michael need to up their game. — Sapientia

I can agree with BC, which I do, without subscribing to the boilerplate Marxism you've been peddling in this thread.