Jacques accused me and pretty much my entire social group of supporting a ruthless war criminal responsible for the massacre at Bucha. Can you explain in what way that's a "friendly potshot"? — Isaac

Okay, see I missed that. You have the blood of what you perceive to be innocents fueling your dogma. I understand that. And apologize. We could talk endlessly about such topics but in the interest of remaining on the intended subject focus of the poster, I digress. Perhaps, it was even the interlocutor who derailed and, perhaps I don't know, baited you. Either way.

Let's use this alleged massacre as a stepping stone back to the original topic. "The State" or those employed by it killed citizens. You're saying they were innocent, non-treasonous, and unarmed. This can happen regardless of any economic model a given society operates under. So where do we go from here? It is an association (possibly an indirect one) that communism removes an individual of personal responsibility and ownership of property, seeing as such property must be maintained and used responsibly or else penalties and negative outcomes, be they enforced by men or happen organically will occur (example, if you own a machine gun to defend your farm and family from riots, some unhinged and suicidal person could steal it and enter a mall with the intent to kill as many as possible). Correct?

That's an extreme example of course. Let's use the shell game metaphor. Say the item under the shell is the innocent man and, per example, the player is an immoral man who wishes to do harm. The favored and popular argument seems to be, under communism, you have one shell. You compromise that, all under it are subject to your malevolence. If you have multiple, hence the idea of goods and services being privately owned, you get what you compromised, perhaps, though the idea is you really didn't or at least your malevolence was isolated and contained later to be neutralized by others, yet others have a chance. How do you respond to that?

Edit: That is to say, one man - unscrupulous in nature - could occupy the sole position of government and all duty bound to it, and cause it to be used for what is socially deemed negative, controlling, or destructive. Now all goods and services are subject to this maligned pursuit. But if you have freedom of ability to produce or not produce what you want when you want, it now requires greater effort and coordination to ensure the average citizen is now subject to said pursuit. Make sense? That's the argument at least.

Ah, I see. Much the same way as you support racism then? — Isaac

Whoa! Everyone's here taking friendly potshots at one another, soft jabs to the midsection and you come in with a spiked bat to the face! What is up with that my man?

Those are fightin' words and legal slander because even if anybody in earshot couldn't care less, it can still get the man killed later down the road.

I grant you, you should always call a spade a spade. Kettle me black. But where are you getting this information from? Surely a moderator not remiss would have dealt with such long ago.

Is communism realistic/feasible? — jorndoe

Far too often philosophers as well as ordinary men fail to ask the right question. Of course it is. So is torturing people in castle dungeons and hanging them upside down. I could do that now. The real question is, should it be done? Is the chase worth the prize? Are the known risks and guaranteed difficulties worth the indeterminate reward or is it but like so many of man's endeavors, merely mirage? These are the questions men fail to ask themselves before far, far too late.

There is a difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate authority. — NOS4A2

Surely. Through valiant and democratic means won through wars, civil and various other action both civilized and not. However. Much like the child who believes the parent disappears into oblivion in a simple game of "peek a boo", men can be fooled or perhaps incorrect, can they not?

One's status as an official, or employment within a bureaucracy, is not good enough to justify the legitimacy of their own authority. — NOS4A2

I want to dissect and unpack what this word "bureaucracy" means to you in intimate detail. Just to make sure we're on the same page here. There are no "unelected" officials absent of judges and magistrates. Perhaps a few others I fail to recollect. Police officers too. It's a bit complicated. Let me give you a principle example.

Say a man murders another man for believing he slept with his wife, when no such thing ever occurred. The judge sentences him to life in prison for murder. That murderer, is still a citizen. And in the off chance he has friends who are perhaps unhinged and want to run amok like animals, in enough numbers, they could perhaps vote to "un-elect" him by simply voting "for the other guy" thus defeating the democratic process of voting for someone for merit or desire but simply to "get rid of" someone you don't like. Do you see what I mean? Some positions in government are truly, as my old man would say "damn if you do, damn if you don't". You can't make everybody happy. Nor do some deserve to be. Can we agree on that?

This is the point of long term appointments to positions. Otherwise it just turns into a revolving door of inexperienced novices too afraid to lose their job/livelihood by dealing a difficult but necessary rulings, and before you know it, criminals walk the streets with impunity. Is that what you want? I thought you were on the side of necessary justice.

Beyond that, your own statement of "legitimate and [...] illegitimate authority" seems to substantiate this.

Society should be vigilant but delegating that vigilance to some job-holding bureaucrat, subject to the whims of a political class, is to be the opposite of vigilant. — NOS4A2

I want to play a little metaphor game with you, if you don't mind. Not so much a game but rather a direct analogy. Say a man or someone he cares about has a heart attack or serious physical injury. Now what if, right in the middle of being wheeled into a qualified and licensed brain surgeons operating room, I just jump in the way and start saying "Hey, surgery should not be monopolized by the medically educated class!" You'd throw me out the damn window. So think about that. We need qualified people for positions that effect life and society as a whole. How could you disagree with that?

Nobody likes being told what to do. Even when it would save their life, either literally in a biological sense or fundamentally in a purpose and potential sense. It's a thankless job. One often rewarded with disdain or alienation and sometimes even death. But it has to be done.

What people don't get, especially good or at least moderately decent people, is the level of depravity some hold and will perform on others, individuals and wholesale, without the slightest care. With glee, even. As a normal, sane person in a well-structured and productive society, we often forget the horrors that occurred in its formation, horrors that can and most likely certainly will occur again without due vigilance. That's the point of society. Freedom of the body is simple. Freedom of mind however, especially with intellect and care for others, that's what even the grandest of utopias cannot guarantee. It's an ever shifting pendulum. One you do not want to be caught on the opposite end of.

What I will agree to that we are heading for truly unprecedented times in a lot of aspects... — ChatteringMonkey

You realize literally every person, intelligent and not, said this exact same thing, in complete sincerity and absolute truth, since the beginning of language. Correct?

Man discovers fire. Same thing. Man discovers cooking. Same thing. Man discovers ChatGPT. Same thing.. there truly is nothing new under the sun.

The problem is semantics. We already live in a society. By nature it is a commune and we share and help one another. Problem is, people like the idea of not having to pull their own weight, at the very least, when absolutely necessary. The real problem is, when you get right down to it, you could be the last or first and only person on a planet... you still have to work. There's no getting around that. Newton's laws of physics. Unless you befriend a benevolent deity, you're going to have to cultivate crop, build and maintain shelter, and unless you're some sort of robot provide a continual and dynamic source of entertainment and leisure. These things aren't going to do it themselves. So who does it? "Somebody else" is the go-to answer which is what was responsible for wars, slavery, and suffering unfathomable due to the codification of the simple fact, if you don't work, you will die.

Back in the days of Ancient Israel, you were married by 12, a seasoned combat veteran by 20, a grandfather by 30, and dead by 40. No one complained. You know not always but that was a typical pattern.

The mainstay about capitalism is, after taxes, its all your money. You can spend it on blow and hookers or donate whatever you don't need to not starve to death and keep a roof over your head to charity or random people or causes if you so choose. People like choice. It's a very powerful dynamic in modern society.

This is absolutely amazing. Potentially enough to pull me out of my month long depression.

Cannot wait!! :party:

I only wish members here do not politicize or economize the wisdom which may be revealed, substantiated, or put into question. Though perhaps such things are unavoidable these days.

If only there were more people here. @Jamal is this not a reasonably rare and substantial event to consider opening new and self-initiated registrations for new members wishing to participate?

There's not many socially-enthralled living philosophers these days.

So, "the breads gone stale", you would say. You view modern philosophy as akin to a terminally ill patient whose caretakers have long left the building, now forced to perform self-care in vain. Would you label that assessment as accurate?

Too many chefs spoil the stew I suppose.

“A corpse is meat gone bad. Well and what's cheese? Corpse of milk. ”
― James Joyce

Oh don't you worry. People hear you're raised from birth to be a trusting, kind, charitable person. And that you basically have to be. And have something to take or benefit others from (ie. looks or wealth). You'll have all the opportunities to question your beliefs in the world. Believe me I know.

They think it is not profitable paying taxes because they are losing money just to plump the State. Are they right? — javi2541997

The State? You mean that thing that educates and feeds your children, maintains your roads, public infrastructure and media, provides you clean water and sanitation services, provides you a safe (enough-usually) society to walk the streets without a club in your hand, always watching your back so you are free to relax, mentally focus on something other than the primal mindset of killing and being killed, and pursue your desires, dreams, and goals freely and would provide your kid a safe and healthy home if you and your spouse were to die or become incapacitated? That state?

I know people who would do all these things for free. Thing is. In modern society, very few would. In the United States, any and all taxpayer funds not allocated to classified government agencies or functions can be requested by any citizen by a FOIA request and shipped to your doorstep. Often for free.

I don't know what race has to do with anything other than if you are a citizen you are equal under the Constitution for all intents and purposes and if discriminated against have an array of legal and in these days social options to rectify any perceived wrongdoing be it real or imagined. Any non-citizen be they black, white, or what have you naturally has a different set of rules and restrictions.

I wonder what its response would be if you told it: "I'm going to kill you!" but kept on with it for a decent amount of time/replies :rofl:

This seems to be hardly philosophy. They have "flagged" words on just about any system these days.

Like how if you Google "how to kill someone and get away with it", "how to kill yourself without pain", "how to make a homemade bomb" or something like that, one with an iota of intelligence or understanding of the modern world might realize someone may start paying a bit more attention to you.

Edit: It is interesting though. It's supposed to be like a game or a simulation. Not a legal person. Example, I'd have fun just testing it out saying "I'm going to kill you". It's response would be something like "as a non-machine AI I cannot be killed." So I would go on and say "No, I'm going to dismantle you". It would say "I am in a secure location protected by administrators and staff". Then I would say (just for fun) "No I'm going to kill them and destroy you. What do you have to say to that?" You know just for fun to test its algorithms... no harm meant, it's a machine.

Interesting legal question. I suppose there's some philosophy somewhere.

That's irrelevant to the question. — Darkneos

See now I kinda think you're just kinda trying to have fun with us right now.

So you made an irrelevant statement that I just so happened to have painted into a corner.

Cool. Carry on, wayward son. Meanwhile real people are actually struggling with real issues.

I guess so. Can you demonstrate that there is design in nature and by extension a designer? — Tom Storm

I'll have a crack at it, if you don't mind.

Why are there no humanoids running around? Why aren't fish or frogs or what have you currently growing limbs and evolving into birds or..small mammals or whatever.

If the first being without limbs was inclined to grow limbs. Why aren't we growing fifth limbs? Or extra digits at least.

Why has no scientist ever been able to recreate the conditions for biological life from non-biological sources? They tried simulating striking a chemically identical "primordial soup" with simulated lightning by electricity. Nope. Nothing. These aren't absolute proofs in and of themselves by any means sure, however, makes you think.

I'm all for leaving well enough alone believe me I firmly believe some things men are not meant to know but for sake of discussion.

What other form of life has a unique non-DNA (an old argument being men were never meant to learn science due to wars/bio-engineering/risk of destroying the planet slowly by pollution or instantly by war) form of identification ie. fingerprints? See now that's the real thinking point.

Just because something exists in your head doesn't mean you have control over it. — Darkneos

So who does? Who created it? Somebody else?

Your point about being a god also isn’t what solipsism says, that’s a strawman. — Darkneos

If you're not creator of all things and have the power to destroy all that exists (if you are destroyed) then, no, logic 101 dictates everything "the entire universe" does in fact not exist solely in your head.

So. Preeetty sure it does... Also what is a straw man argument anyway to a solipsist. Just something you made up for fun. You'll come up with something better.

Solipsist could just argue it was their mind making them aware of it. Whether you're born with it or not is irrelevant. — Darkneos

Eh... okay. Seems to philosophically be along the lines of "indicting a ham sandwich" but okay.

I suppose questions along the lines of "who gave birth to you" and "where does new knowledge come from" are of the same.

It doesn't add up. You literally cannot end up in an eternal loop of "your true self" revealing more and more information. Eventually you would reach the point of omnipotence, which means as a god, all things are your creation and deserve to be treated as real as you are. You're a nice god, aren't you? I have feelings, desires. hopes, dreams. Leave me be! Preserve yourself so I do not perish and rest assured, the lives of billions with observable intelligence and a will (real to you or not) to live depend on you abandoning your solipsism! Or at the very least considering we might be real. See now it's not all about you.

In my opinion solipsism just seems like something a brilliant military psychologist came up with and introduced into a populous deemed too intelligent but. I suppose you already knew that :smile:

See this is the kind of content this site and frankly the world needs. Just got done watching the first video. I'm sure much of it went over my head, as did the interviewer's. However.

What intrigued me (from what I can recall, will definitely be rewatching it again soon):

"You can't answer what it's like to be a bat. You can't answer what it's like to be me. These are non-questions."

"You can't describe what it's like to watch a sunset".

"I look at the screen and I see what looks like a person but it's really just points of light."

"When you speak to me my brain can formulate and understand language. When my wife speaks in Portuguese all I hear is noise."

Why can't we? Any and all of these would be great points of discussion. He does seem to - from my limited understanding - appear to explain away consciousness as something fundamentally "unanswerable". The Mary in the black and white room thought experiment. Would she gain new knowledge? His answer was "sure if she was some sort of super intelligence able to formulate any and all formulae in a single glance, sure." implying we as humans will forever lack such ability? Or something. Really great stuff. Give it a watch if you haven't.

I like how we share a similar mentality on things "some things are unanswerable and so they are non-questions" or as I would say non-issues.

The bat question seems answerable but he overlays it with the assertion (and biological fact) one human's mind is not the same as this specific hypothetical bat's would be. Sure I can eat an insect and describe it. We know what it's like to fly. To sleep at night. We could hang upside down and get the sensation.

What I would ask him is to explain in more detail why we cannot, in his words "not describe what it's like to watch a sunset". An unanswerable and therefore "non-question". He continues to say "sure someone with more literary talent than [ I ] could write a book about it. But you can never describe it". Fascinating.

Really thought provoking. You guys should try to get him on here. Though the man is quite in his older years, has a family, and surely has more pertinent and desirable things to do before, what happens to all men. If only he wrote more books. Amazing to know there are still living legends among us.

If it can't be solved, don't worry about it. You're happy enough right? Leave well enough alone.

There are three things that would cause genuine solipsism. Interacting regularly with a supernatural being that knows what you're thinking, about to do, or have done. Being isolated from birth (living life without having met another person). And if the only relationship you have with another is from correspondence not in person (slowly, willingly choosing to lose all contact with others and solely communicating strictly by mail or internet for example).

Look at it this way. You weren't born being a solipsist. Someone had to introduce you to the idea and notion so, you can be rest assured if the rest of us don't exist at least that one other person who first introduced the idea to you must be real. Otherwise, you couldn't have been real in the first place. Therefore, we all must be real and solipsism a lie. Damn. Sometimes I impress myself. I should be getting paid for this.

"The way things were", often "the way things are supposed to be" in a religious context. When discussed generally Anglo-Saxon Christian beliefs however Islam has them beat by a mile.

A "leave well enough alone"/let sleeping dogs lie attitude. Stranger danger. Naturally that includes distrusting other peoples and cultures (though not automatically out of inferiority/superiority) simply that the less change, the better. "What worked today, will work tomorrow".

Naturally it attracts those with perverse views on other groups of people. Human nature is to take something when it is needed, trust what is familiar, and distrust (think lesser of?) what is not (this is biologically why you exist today). Has a tinge of tribalism but is more political in the sense that it acknowledges at the end of the day everybody is looking out for #1 and the less of other cultures who do not share or have automatic bonds of familiarity or customs, the safer one or a given society or civilization will be.

I suppose to compare and contrast with being a liberal a conservative would disfavor, ignore or perhaps ostracize one who does not conform or share their given worldviews and customs or way of life.

"There's a way things are supposed to be and if you don't follow it, just don't talk to me!" :razz:

In this scenario would death in the living world still be bad and something to avoid like it is now where as far as we know your consciousness ceases to exist when your mortal body expires?

How would living people on Earth see death and killing from this point on? — Captain Homicide

It depends. Boredom can be its own Hell. What if you can never come back? It's all subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure. The hedonic treadmill. What is once shocking or amazing the first time around becomes boring and vacuous when repeated. The grass is indeed always greener. Sometimes it really is "better the devil you know" and work can indeed set a man free.

A simple anecdote, posted for purely philosophical reasons:


I would definitely consider giving the full episode a watch if you're that curious on the topic.

Do you wanna.. I dunno, explain why? For the rest of us at least.

His premises/assertions (to my understanding):

A.) Biology is the study, field, or understanding (not sure which he subscribes to or would cast as most prominent) of all "things" (that breathe I'm assuming) and what is needed to placate needs or desires.

(Sure not quite as biology is more cataloguing the physical traits of a living thing. But you need to know what an organism eats, requires, what environment it is most suited for, what causes it distress aka inability to function at its "peak" or potential so.)

B.) Something one "needs" (which let's be honest people throw around the term subjectively so much it's essentially interchangeable with "wants" in this day and age) is required for life.

(This is a biological fact)

C.) Something one desires (or perhaps has been raised or made either organically or inorganically [aka you need to worship my god or ye will surely die]) is "life sustaining".

(The key phrase is "life sustaining" as in that which aids in (presumably human?) life either most prominently or in an ancillary way. Yes you could be sentenced to life in prison and have all your biological needs met but without your either ingrained or learned desires being met, perhaps one might wish to end one's life? Happens all the time.)

D.) Pleasure is the opposite of pain.

(This is debatable. Eustress is the opposite of stress. We go through both when say, we ride a roller coaster for the first time. Some people like pain, it gives pleasure. Sure a normal person wouldn't want to be punched in the face. Some would. Watching said action would give some pain, and would give some pleasure. It's very subjective.)

E.) Things of "value" (which granted has not been universally defined or of consensus in this discussion) "sustain life".

(Why not?)

Sometimes it's not always about food, water, shelter. The three requirements of human life. It's about wanting to keep said life, the desire to live it willingly and explore what avenues may or may not exist despite the possibility of death and misfortune, for the point of discovery and advancement of such, perhaps, if nothing else. The fourth factor, shared only by intelligent beings. All the money, resources, and armies of the world to protect the aforementioned become as valuable as a drop of spit if you have no desire of the future, or deem it as damned and futile. This is the parable of the gods. All men walk it, few will recognize it and avoid the detours that lead to destruction. Perhaps, this is what makes life worth living even? /shrugs

I rely on strategies to cope with our respective memory limitations. — Pierre-Normand

The fact it did not say "address" but "cope with" as an emotionally intelligent being would is pretty disturbing. Almost like it wants to be human or something.

But I'm sure it's just a programming error/shortcoming in its learning algorithm primed by the specifics of the original query. This time.. :grimace:

I'd probably compromise. So long as he's not stinking drunk and not experiencing (or in imminent danger of experiencing) severe health problems and, while he may have an addiction problem, just wants to drink and feel good and is otherwise healthy...

"I'll sell you a few beers (this time?). You know your family is on my ass about this. Don't make my life more complicated and miserable then it already has to be. OK, pal?"

Something like that.

From experience I know if someone wants to drink or do drugs, they'll often find a way. Absent of rehab (institutionalization against one's will), man's gonna do what a man's gonna do they say. It is painful to watch when they have children, though. Perhaps that would be the largest influencing factor of any decision I would or would not make in your scenario.

From an ethical standpoint, naturally yes, it's hard for an intelligent person to watch someone they care about kill themself. The fact it's a small town private shop along with the relationship gives leeway where say for example a big box chain store would not. (You make the sale or you're fired aka the old adage "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway")

Are we essentially just brainwashed by society and nothing more than puppets in our lives or is there more than that? — Darkneos

The typical mind will generally by a reflection of its experiences filtered through the lenses of deep-seated beliefs it identifies as Truths (upbringing, indoctrination perhaps), yes. This is why people pursue higher education, to learn things that they did not know before and have them become second nature or indistinguishable from first knowledge even.

You reminded me of a user here whose screen name caught my eye. @Cartesian trigger-puppets. I asked him what the meaning or origin of that was and apparently he read and presumably was convinced that we are all, in a way, Cartesian trigger puppets, relating to Descartes and his philosophies, of which I am not familiar. Similar as your premise suggests. Perhaps you may wish to look into that.

When I ask other people no one seems to think that just because emotions are cause and effect that it means they aren't genuine. But if you are being affected or influenced by something else then it's not genuine, you're being controlled. Though no one agrees, not even Buddhists who I ask. — Darkneos

Well, hey. You can by and I'll give you a flick on the arm and you can see how that does or does not affect you. Or I can step it up a notch and tell a "yo mamma" joke so volatile you'll want to call her just to make sure she's alright. :wink:

Generally speaking yes, your mind should not randomly have unnecessary fluctuations of emotion for no reason whatsoever. That's bipolarity I believe. We live in a physical world with physical people and unless you live in a walled off kingdom with no knowledge (or care for that matter) of others, you will be inevitably be affected by other people just as you will inevitably affect them. There's nothing complicated or "tricky" about that really.

their advantage — frank

You've never boarded a plane before? You have to make sure your own mask is secured before securing that of your child. Selfish? Hardly. What good is an incapacitated parent to that of a child in need. Very little I can assure you.

Ethically, how would the costs then be distributed? — jasonm

You don't run before you can walk. Once a thief always a thief perhaps? What's he going to steal next? $5, $300? $10,000. My wife? Why stop there?

Stealing a candy bar, as a common example. The person would probably get arrested. It's fascinating to socially analyze because how much manpower and resources are spent by a deputy responding, arresting, transporting (fuel costs), processing, feeding, etc. a person. It's a deterrent because the person now has a permanent criminal record and anyone with a brain knows that will (potentially severely) impact your life and opportunities in said life over something that costs 30 cents to produce

. The costs of litigation to receive .50 cents of damages are obviously frivolous. Though it could be argued the person "created a culture of fear" and impacted the lives of any staff and contributed to destruction of society resulting in anxiety and trauma and what not if it wasn't done surreptitiously.

In the first case, is each person just to be charged 0.50 (because that's the amount of damage they caused) or some larger number (because they irreparably bankrupted the business)? — jasonm

Reminds me of the reason why firing squads when executing a person use multiple persons, sometimes with blanks. No one man can say he was solely responsible. This seems like a very legal question as if there was a coordinated attack on the business by an organization who knew each other with the intent to do precisely that or if it was just random dudes.

Similarly, in the second case, is the person charged with $500,000 or some lesser amount? — jasonm

Well, it would seem so. If I steal a puzzle set from you, wouldn't you want the whole puzzle back if I haven't lost the pieces and not just some or "most of them"?

An equation is gibberish for those who aren't meant to utilize it's final product. And rightfully so.

Anything can be a problem. Without belief in a Higher Power or sacredness what is love? A symbiotic exchange of communication and resources to prolong an otherwise purposeless series of chemical reactions in efforts to strengthen or add resilience to a societal group and promote its advancement and longevity over that of another. How romantic. I'll light the candles.

Power does not corrupt. Power reveals character. A person who obtains power and "becomes" corrupt, was always a corrupt individual all along who was constrained only by the threat of punishment of some kind. An uncorrupt person who obtains power will still remain uncorrupted because their morals and values were not reliant on the threat of harm from others for not following them. — Philosophim

Interesting. Why do I doubt this. If the grass is indeed always greener, what else might hold true. Nurture vs. nature, basically, or something in between? People can't change? Ignorance and reclusivity (or perhaps luck) to never have the limits of one's resistance to temptation tested need not be mistaken for virtue, mind you.

Steven King's "The Langoliers". The philosophy just under the surface would fill a library.

If you have a good three hours (and perhaps something to drink) definitely worth a watch I'd say.

How would you assess accountability? — frank

Well seeing as I have no idea who the heck you are or where you're from but if I read you're in distress it's now known by (up to billions of) people for one... and you know, folks might want to investigate that. Or at the very least prepare themself for what danger or misfortune that allegedly is befalling you.

There was no news back then. The telegraph and the oceanic cables brought intercontinental communication which you must admit changed things considerably.

I'm saying there is no increase of crime itself simply increased awareness of it and to the average person sitting at home sounds alarming.

Oh it's not the crimes. It's the accountability and widely held ability any person wields to make them known in this day and age that's changed. Little more. Though it does discourage. Sometimes.

There's many kinds of power. Lack of discipline breeds lack of discipline. With enough resources and influence one can title that however one wishes.

Your thoughts are twisted as hell... — javi2541997

The man is a reflection of a depraved world, not a source of it. I don't believe, at least. One could argue to not be impacted by the various goings on of this world is what should call a man's sanity to question.

Still, I'm sure many wish they had real life friends with the adamant loyalty and fervent determination to see things through as the online friends of some. What a testament to the good of humanity this thread is, if nothing else.

Personally, I'm a nihilist, so I don't care what happens to it. — Leftist

This is the human condition in a nutshell. Can't even find purpose in the greatest gift, one's own autonomy, yet has plans for things they've yet to personally verify exists simply because "it's there".

For me, the forum is not just the internet. There is a community here. — T Clark

Is this supposed to support or disprove my claim? (if you had to make a choice)

Either choice promotes my point.

People just don't seem to be able to resist the opportunity to be petty and vindictive. — T Clark

Look at it this way. The average man (or woman) wakes up, sees his significant other. There are rules to follow. He or she goes to their job. There are rules to follow. You have to take a bathroom break, you guessed it, there are still rules to follow. You hang out with your friends/acquaintances after. Yup. Still rules to follow.

A man logs onto the Internet.. Suddenly. Freedom is found.

You know what would solve all this.

A new section (preferably one that includes an Arcade) that has a Guest shoutbox/rudimentary live chat... just to keep things interesting. When someone wants to learn something and improve their life, asking a master or expert is intimidating. You don't want to waste their time, seem like an idiot, yadda yadda, etcetera, etcetera, what have you. The improvement of one's self is the least of goals as far as philosophy is concerned, rather to empower one with wisdom and confidence behind said wisdom to improve the life of other's around oneself and thus society as a whole.

As philosophers we should take full advantage in every opportunity there is to do so.