I heard carbon monoxide more specifically. But I don’t think they know yet— nor why (ordinary) pills were scattered everywhere.

He was very old in any case— but still. I’d like to know, just out of curiosity.

Gene Hackman. That’s a big one.

You may not care whether a death was intended or not, but civilized nations do. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, the same civilized nations that murder with impunity, because their intentions are always humanitarian. If you believe all that, you’re welcome.

But speaking of taking action, I think some little twit following me around, slinging insults and interjecting himself in things I haven’t once involved him in, is certainly actionable. Borderline harassment, one night say.

Just sayin’. But it is certainly funny.

No one cares what you think. Least of all the moderators. Sorry that it triggers you.

(Actually, I’m not— it’s making my night to see your pretentiousness and hypocrisy prominently displayed.)

Looks like the courts are blocking most of these bogus executive orders. Not too surprising.

You would certainly know. You’re behaving like one.

Wolff is fantastic.

:lol:

:: shrug ::

Ok. Next time you exhume a dead thread for no reason other than some weird obsession/vendetta, take your own advice. Cool? Good— now run along, risible child.

:lol:

I love it when pretentious, sanctimonious lecturers of manners and positivity reveal themselves for what they are. It’s risible.

Its beyond me why we allow a child to run around this forum insulting everyone, — AmadeusD

You're a dick. — AmadeusD

:lol:

(Risible.)

Oh cool, it’s “risible” guy again. Yeah, coming from you I’m sure this all means a lot. Contributions like “What a thread” and laughing emojis really deepen the forum.

I hope you find something that brings you joy in life. This forum clearly isn’t it.

(PS—1. I only insult rude, sanctimonious twits; fortunately they’re a small minority— I’m good with everyone else. 2. If asking whether it’s cool if I start a separate thread is “insane,” maybe try a little self reflection. 3.— not sure where this obsession with me started, as I have no memory of you, but it does give me great joy that my presence here triggers you so. Must be rough. But also risible.)

Watched “The Apartment” (1960) and “It Happened One Night” (1934). Both good. I never saw either.

Is intention morally relevant to you? — BitconnectCarlos

Minimally. Why? Because professing benign intentions is the norm for states (and individuals) that commit crimes.

You do realize intention isn't purely internal, correct? — BitconnectCarlos

Hence why they’re professed.

I think you'd really like the climate change subreddit. — frank

:up:

But just as you can't troll, you can't bully either. — frank

I’m actually really nice. If people were equally nice, there’d be no problems.

I picked up on that bit from your OP. Sounds like a new rule for all posts. — Fire Ologist

No. Staying on topic isn’t a new thing.

universal rule — Fire Ologist

I haven’t once mentioned universal rules. The question was clear and simple. That people are struggling with it by — for various reasons — turning it into something it isn’t, really isn’t my problem. (But goes to show just what “studying philosophy” can do to the mind — and why most people should probably avoid it.)

Let the bombs and missiles fly! The Palestinians, like the Germans, need to get stomped on till they too wouldn't dream of ever voting in someone like Hamas again. — RogueAI

Usually something this gross doesn’t get said out loud. But I appreciate the transparency.

ISIS doesn't have an air force either. — BitconnectCarlos

True.

special stricture — Leontiskos

Nothing special about it.

Staying on topic isn’t that hard to enforce. I’ve done it; you’ve done it.

Also, I’d refer to this:

you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming

as basically what I was asking about. If it’s found to be the case that making a more specific thread is just as hard to moderate, fine.

I don’t see why people who want to discuss a particular topic must inevitably be disrupted and drowned out by useless “debate,” but so be it. In that case I should go to all the “God” threads, ignore the specific topic, and just bring the conversation back to how God doesn’t exist. Then keep doing so, even if ignored. I’m sure that would be within the spirit of the forum.

When Hamas gets an Air Force, let me know. But since they’ll be doing it with evil intentions in their hearts, I don’t see how it would change things.

climate change skepticism has to do with the effects of climate change. — Leontiskos

No it doesn’t. Any more than Holocaust denial “has to do” with the consequences of the Holocaust. You can make up a story about how “Gee, they ARE talking about the consequences—they just believe the consequences were nil,” but I don’t have time for silliness.

Accidental, intentional... doesn't matter. — BitconnectCarlos

When we do it it’s always with the best intentions.

What country do you live in? — RogueAI

It’s right there in my profile.

that is not the same as shooting a baby at point blank range — BitconnectCarlos

True, there is no moral equivalence. Bombing from the air is morally worse. But I’m glad you can see into people’s souls now. When they kill, it’s because of race and evil intentions — when we do it, it’s accidental and unintended.

You’re in good company though — basic tribalism. Your equivalent is out there, only they justify Hamas’ killings. And have better arguments.

rejected — BitconnectCarlos

Nope — laughed at it.

Yep. If you make a thread on geophysics or evolution, then posts from flat-earthers and creationists would be on topic. I'm glad you're figuring this out. :up: — Leontiskos

Then it’s truly remarkable how wanting to avoid those discussions by narrowing the conversation down in a separate thread is considered problematic. According to you, there’s basically no way to do so. Fine—point made. I don’t agree.

It's instructive that it is not only your opponents who believe you are attempting to prevent free expression, but ↪even those who agree with you. — Leontiskos

So is there an actual problem with reading comprehension here? Or are you just being lazy? Or perhaps just wanting to be silly for some reason?

The suggestion isn’t to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone— however deserving.
— Mikie

Whereas my suggestion is precisely the opposite, to prevent the expression of nonsense and rubbish, and ban people who persist in so doing. I guess it must be an ideological disagreement. — unenlightened

How someone can read this and conclude that he believes I’m attempting to “prevent free speech,” I don’t know. But you do you.

My ↪point was that the topic as you defined it includes the folks you are attempting to exclude. This is no coincidence. — Leontiskos

Yeah, and geophysics includes flat-earthers, and evolution includes creationists, etc. Got it. Whatever you say.

So this is another logical error, — Leontiskos

Which implies one has already been made. Which is not true, except my you.

Denying the Holocaust in a Holocaust thread is not against the philosophical ethos of the forum. — Leontiskos

Then your idea of what the “ethos” of the forum is is your own problem.

I don’t see any issue whatsoever with keeping things on topic, and don’t see it contravening anything— whether it’s rules or poorly-defined spirits.

Speaking of which — I’m moving this to the other thread.

.

It's not about Climate Change Skepticism, but about Climate Change Amelioration Skepticism — kazan

I can’t say I fully understood all of your post, but appreciate the effort. There’s certainly a lot of debate about how best to mitigate the problems we’re already seeing and will continue to see. No doubt.

The OP was really just a question for moderators. It was about whether I could create another thread without it being considered redundant (and therefore merged). In retrospect I might have just submitted it to them privately —thus giving the many people who have a beef with me one less opportunity to display their motivated reasoning.

:yawn:

Trotting out the tired WWII comparisons and the trusty ol’ “when the good guys do it, it’s not intentional.” Keep up the good work. :up:

So whichever side kills more babies is the bad side? Is that how we see history? — BitconnectCarlos

That’s a decent rule of thumb, sure.

So kill as many [Palestinian] babies as you like — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, that’s been the status quo for a long time. You always seem fine with it— or find a creative way to justify it. Just do the same when it’s Palestinians killing Israelis.

So the Israeli terrorists are still exchanging hostages. Glad to see the ceasefire is holding up, despite Trump and companies best efforts to derail it.

Hey remember when Trump said “ALL hostages must be released by Saturday or there will be hell to pay?” :lol: Thankfully, no one takes that imbecile seriously.

https://interestingengineering.com/energy/sodium-ev-battery-pushes-performance

Still a ways to go, but promising. There’s really not enough lithium for the long term.

Logic 101: those that deny the Holocaust ARE discussing the Holocaust — Namely, that its effects were nil (i.e., didn’t happen). Gotta allow that in a thread on the Holocaust, because otherwise it’s against the ethos of the forum.

Must be fun arguing against strawmen.

The OP's presuppositions are always open to debate as long as they are within the broad topic. — Leontiskos

Climate change denial is definitely on topic in a generic thread about climate change — fdrake

I, and others, don’t necessarily even agree with this — but given what’s actually been said, that’s exactly the point: simce it’s so generic and so broad, and thus gets spammed and trolled often because of it, why not create another thread that’s more specific. That was the question to the moderators. Pretty straightforward— except for those who want to make a show of their dedication to free speech and open debate; in that case, deliberately exaggerating the request is essential. Gives them something to fight for — even if it’s made of straw.

In other words, what you are proposing is a special stricture on a thread, not a topic. — Leontiskos

No. I’m proposing a more specific topic, and hoping to keep to that topic. Asking that people stay on topic, moving posts to another thread, etc., is constantly done by moderators here. Whether they agree that a separate thread should be created and not be redundant was the question— for them.