I don't know what point you're disagreeing with — Judaka

I don't think that trolling is a valid, useful, or effective way of dealing with troublemakers.

You absolutely cannot control that and if you try to exercise a power you don't have then you'll look like a fool. — Judaka

Maybe that's the difference. I'm don't worry much about looking like a fool. You might have noticed that.

Hey moderators. You haven't responded, which I think is probably a good idea, but I hope you're paying attention.

Where possible, I favour taking it on, not least because if not challenged, it certainly won't either stop or go away! — tim wood

I don't disagree, but it matters how you take it on. Many times aggressive responses just contribute to the chaos.

Sometimes I'll troll people just because I don't like them. Trolling to me is a course of action that follows feeling no respect towards someone, thinking either they or their ideas are absurd. From my perspective, if you're being trolled by me, you deserved it for saying idiotic things. — Judaka

Reading your posts, I've seen a lot that are blunt and aggressive, even insulting, but I don't know of any that I'd consider trolling. Maybe I've missed those. And, of course, I disagree with your point.

Being trolled is an opportunity to build your character and know more about yourself. — Judaka

I agree with that, but maybe for different reasons.

A member of a philosophy forum who has a pattern of making wild claims and not supporting such claim should be banned, in my opinion. — praxis

The moderators have been known to ban someone for repeated frivolous or low-quality threads. To me, that doesn't seem like a solution that should be used very often.

We can know what someone believes in many cases through common sense, although I would understand if that was a problem for you. — S

Oh, S, and you were doing so well.

The point of course being that he has been known to make rash judgements and to jump to conclusions in this regard, and I'd have to agree. Not wanting to restart beef, Tim, just saying it how I see it. The elephant in the room this time is obviously NOS4A2, and Tim's opening post is basically just a verbose attack piece on him, with the intent of seeking attention, gathering supporters, and of influencing the decision-making of the site staff. It's a lynching, basically. Gather your pitchforks, fellow villagers! — S

I didn't even know who were talking about lynching until you brought it up. Till now, I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about an important issue.

Of course they could, but the sun 'could' explode in the next three seconds, we 'could' all suddenly lose the ability to read... But we don't act as if that were the case. We act with a presumption of expected result based on our theories. We presume consistent patterns will continue to be so until overwhelmingly contradicted by evidence to the contrary. So why shouldn't we treat plausible beliefs in the same way? — Isaac

Thanks for the opportunity to pull out, again, my favorite quote from Stephen Jay Gould:

“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’”

But in all seriousness, that was mostly good advice. Except for the part about finding fault. That's exactly what you should be doing. The less faults, the stronger the end product. The sooner they're identified, the sooner they can be addressed. — S

I hoped no one would notice I didn't get into this. So, thanks for that.

I agree to a point. My posts here disagree with some of what Tim wrote, but they still seem constructive to me. I his contributions thoughtful and helpful. I've been known to comment when I think a post is weak or poorly thought through. I've sometimes commented when I think someone is getting off OP or is being disruptive. I have been passionately blunt when I think someone's ideas are objectionable. I try to criticize the argument and not the poster.

Did I mention not calling anyone a dick? You helped me out with that one by giving me many opportunities to practice turning the other cheek.

These are like Readers Digest/dad jokes. — Hanover

At the heart of the matter is who shall hold the field. Reason, or attempts at same? Or rant and destructive behaviour? Of course our issues aren't even storms in teapot - maybe a thimble! But even at small scale the issues are real, nor is there anything about this site that in itself argues a suspension of rules of civil discourse. — tim wood

I think I know exactly how you feel. I don't want you to think I don't share your values. I know the feeling of standing on solid intellectual ground, with my feet under me, nice wide stance in front of someone else who stands the same. Both trying to work out the things that are important to us working with the other person. Ideas against ideas maybe, but not poster against poster. I like the people on this forum and I don't want to waste my time pissing on each others shoes. I don't want to distract from their voices.

As you can maybe see, I am skeptical that group action beyond that already provided by the moderators is the right way to go, but I think there may be individual things I can do to make things better. Some ideas:

I try to make sure I am not contributing to the problem. Make sure my posts are reasonably civil and respectful and not disruptive. Don’t call anybody a dick, no matter how much they deserve it. Make sure I try to stay on the subject as described in the OP. Respond to people when they comment on the things I’ve had to say. Try not to go too far off on a tangent. Never, never respond to anything @S has to say. I try to stay away from people I don’t get along with. I have had some success with all this, but I have a ways to go.

The best way to have some control over the course of the forum is to start high-quality threads and shepherd them through the process. No half-assed off the cuff dipsy-doodle themes. We’re supposed to be philosophers. Pick something you understand, know something about, and have thought about extensively. Don’t piss out thread after thread of meaningless bull shit. Describe the terms and goals of the OP clearly. Define terms. Describe what you want to include in the thread and specifically what you don’t want to include. During the discussion, protect the OP by letting people know when they are getting off track or being disruptive or heading off on a tangent. If you have to, go to the moderators. You have standing with your own threads, this is where you can make a difference.

Try to do similar things in your posts in other’s threads. They’re the boss. Stick with their Ops. Try to contribute if you can, not find fault. Again – make your point clearly, tie it into their posts, define terms. Support the original poster when people try to hijack their thread. Try not to go off on tangents. If you find yourself doing that, shift to a PM. If you don’t have anything substantive and relevant to add to the main thrust of the thread, go somewhere else.

In a limited way, take a little social control into your own hands. Politely point out to people when they are off-base without disrupting the discussion. Do it as a PM to avoid disruption if it makes sense. In other people’s threads, the original poster gets the final word.

Support the moderators. I try to be really careful about this – enlist their support. They are all hammers and we tend to look like nails to them, so don’t be heavy handed. Only bring them in if it’s important. Be fair.

For me, these are goals. I often fail to live up to my own standards. I'll keep trying.

Some scientists feel that religious Faith and rational Facts are mutually incompatible, and propose to resolve the conflict by assigning each approach to Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). — Gnomon

Love Stephen Jay Gould, who came up with that. His writing amazes me. I learned a lot about writing and truth from reading his essays. Hate NOMA. Complete bologna. ....Ok, now I've calmed down. Gould could condescend with the best of them.

So who is condescending to whom? — Gnomon

Yeah, but I'm talking to you, not them. Also, we claim to be the ones using reason. We're the ones who have to keep inappropriate emotion out of our arguments if we don't want to be hypocrites.

Feeling is much more personal and persuasive (and real) than abstract knowledge. But by translating passionate Feelings into impartial neutral Facts, humans can try to find some ground between opposing beliefs. And that is the function of Philosophy : to reconcile objective empirical Facts with subjective biased feelings. — Gnomon

I really disagree with this. There is no reason to translate feelings into facts. Facts are never neutral. As I've said, you can't reach the truth without human values. As I alluded to in the OP, there is only one world.

The difference between knowing something to be true, and feeling like something is true is that feeling like something is true allows you to actually experience what your mind knows. When you feel like something is true, then that principle can genuinely operate in your life. When you feel like something is true, it becomes a reality for you. — Gnomon

I'm not clear - is this what you believe or what you think I believe? Either way, I have no argument with the thought.

It's not as if that stopped while I was young. When I read about Peter Singer, I was incensed. Since, though, I've been able to mute the reaction to understand the argument. I still refuse to agree, but in as much as it is at no threat of becoming law, emotion strikes me as a limiter to understanding. Understanding not just of the other side, but of my own thought processes. — JosephS

I followed the link. Pretty terrible. I can face the things he has to say. I've talked with people who believe things that I find very distasteful without difficulty. I felt it was important to hear them respectfully and try to understand how they feel, but when it comes time for me to respond, if my anger and bitter disagreement aren't there, it's a lie and a passive capitulation. I try hard to be respectful, by which I mean to aim my passion at the argument rather than the person. I owe them that. Sometimes I fail. I don't see why dispassion is required for legitimate philosophy. I don't have to give up my humanity and decency in order to play by the rules.

The best sorts of philosophical discussions I've been party to have been where the opposing sides helped each other with their arguments, filling in gaps, helping perfect the syllogisms. — JosephS

I share that ideal also and I think I even practice what I preach a reasonable percentage of the time. I have had my mind changed here on the forum many times.

When we're too married to the result, rather than to the philosophy of the matter, it approaches rhetoric, or worse. — JosephS

I don't share your disdain for rhetoric. I have toyed with a definition of truth as what you can convince people of. I can make a good argument for that at another time.

Maybe we here can start small. There are liars and trolls here. I propose that within an informal system of warnings, that recalcitrant offenders be banned. How do we recognize the lie? By its signs of evasion, avoidance, non-responsiveness, persistence, misdirection, confusion making, deliberate misstatement, & etc. This is a philosophy site: love of wisdom: willingness to learn and be corrected, and on the other side to be clear, patient, and an educator. And in the case of argument, to be clear, direct, and to the point. That is, not a sophistry site, nor a liar's nor a troll's site. They poison our place. Usually there is room for the liar, one can distance oneself from them. But the world has got small; they make themselves and their lies and purposes our business, even in those cases when the assure us the matter is "none" of our business. Ultimately it's them or us. Let's make it us — tim wood

I get annoyed at people who disrupt the forum. Lying though? What is there to lie about here? We're anonymous. We don't really deal in facts so much as opinions. How can an opinion be a lie? Trolling? I've been accused of trolling when expressing a sincere disagreement. As good philosophers, let's define it. From the web:

• A person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.
• A person who antagonizes (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.
• Someone that starts arguments or upsets people by posting off-topic or extraneous messages....Their goal is to cause people to get emotional and to harass people online.

Those seem like pretty good definitions to me. The emphasis is on disruption. Stopping the rest of us from having fun.

So what do we do about it...drum roll....nothing. Or at least nothing much. This is a well moderated forum. The moderators usually get crap when they delete posts or ban people. I think they walk a good line between rigid control and chaos.

Tim - how exactly do you propose to crack down? I get the impression this thread is in response to recent activities on the forum. I do see above average barking and hissing going around right now. Most of that seems to me to come from lack of discipline, courtesy, and familiarity with the forum rather than an effort to disrupt.

Lesser known movies:

• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – remake with Chevy Chase, Pauli Shore, and Sir Lawrence Olivier
• Uber Driver
• Indiana Jones and the Flat Tire
• Mystic River Pizza
• The Girl with the Hello Kitty Tattoo
• An Inconvenient Supreme Court
• Franz Kafka's It's a Wonderful Life

The Worthless Pseudo-Intellectual Nerousis Waste Of Time Trivial Folly Inconclusive Incoherent Play Dumb Charade Pathetic Morons I Hate You All Die Mother Fuckers Forum. — S

I think we have a winner.

I'm really confused. There are two almost identical threads going at the same time. They are discussing the same issues. The same people are participating in them. Hows about they be combined. There's also a separate anti-natalism thread still running.

I am not interested in this thread in getting into a discussion about antinatalism, — petrichor

Unless you enforce that, this will turn into a anti-natalism thread. They always do. Anti-natalists are .... persistent.

Username. Maybe that can be today's word of the day. — S

@s - The username of the beast.

others appreciate our intellectual prowess or the application of a bit of our knowledge — uncanni

You've come to the wrong place. On the forum all you'll find is lesser minds jealous of our brilliance.

ham — S

Bratwurst.

Number of letters in my first name: 6. Number of letters in my middle name: 6. Number of letters in my last name: 6. — S

There's only one letter in your name.

666-666-6666 The phone number of the beast — T Clark

I realized I left out some important information. First - I left out the country code. The full number should be - 66-666-666-6666.

Second - I forget to give the toll-free number - 800-666-666 - free in the USA.

Sorry. You deserve a better answer than that.

There is something about an all-too-human God with character flaws that makes him far less believable. — petrichor

It's kind of a raw deal for God. People who don't believe in him wouldn't believe in him no matter how good he is. He can't win. Damned if he does.... well, I guess not.

I don't claim to have a great argument that would show some necessary connection between the goodness of God and the likelihood of his existence. But there is certainly something persuasive in an argument against a particular kind of God based on his character flaws. — petrichor

A lot of Gods are pretty hard on the help. Zeus raping. Shiva destroying all things. Loki bringing on Ragnarok. Those Mayan gods and their virgin sacrifices. You know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is something about an all-too-human God with character flaws that makes him far less believable. — petrichor

If only believable things are real, then Donald Trump wouldn't be President and fucking light would make up its mind.

I'm actually going to keep that one as the new title for the Donald Trump discussion. — Baden

As always, oh Wise One, we bow deeply in reverence for your judgment while we snicker and make obscene gestures behind your back.

How about 'Land of a Thousand Neurons"? — Baden

All entries welcome, no matter how lame. Final decision by @S and @Noble Dust.

• All the philosophy that's fit to print (and that Baden will tolerate)
• Land of a Thousand Neuroses
• Graveyard of Forgotten Ideas
• Plato's Retreat
• Thus Farted Zarathustra
• The Happiest Place on Earth
• Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Bullshit (Going out of business, thank you animal rights activists. I saw it in Madison Square Garden in 1958).

Terrible, horrible, monstrous words.

Why? Because I said so, that's why.

• Opt
• Gift (as a verb)
• Lifestyle
• Spot on
• Woo
• Woke (meaning opposed to prejudice)

So this is another of your threads where you are only interested in promoting your version of things and all other versions aren't normal or important. No thanks. — Harry Hindu

Maybe it would be best for you if you avoided my threads from now on.

I guess I'm asking is whether you feel dispassionate argumentation is somehow flawed. Where does emotion serve a purpose? — JosephS

For me, it comes down to this - all philosophical arguments involve human values and preferences. Values and preferences mean emotions and feelings. It is one of the great misunderstandings of philosophy that the issues we consider have resolutions that don't involve values. That they can be resolved by applying strict rationalist rules. This is especially true when we are discussing moral issues.

I think if you look through my posts on the forum, you'll see that I self-consciously bring feelings, emotions, preferences, and values into most of my arguments. That doesn't count the times when I've lost my temper out of frustration or because of perceived insult. I have no good excuses for those.

I don't know if you've gone all through this thread, so here are the posts I was referring to when I talked about my anger:

You're living in a dangerous world full of dangerous and evil people - if you want to be loved do your best to cultivate loving relationships with those who are already around, but don't summon into being vulnerable, innocent people so that you can be the centre of their attention. — Bartricks

This is the anti-natalist argument, one that I find contemptible. Full of anger and bitter hatred for the world and people in it. Nothing is more mean-spirited, graceless than this. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. — T Clark

Based on their words, Bartricks and his tribe hate the world and they hate people. They write off three billion years of our existence based on their brief, pitiful view of life. They sneer at human emotion, loyalty, community, and love. How can recognizing that not be part of a philosophical response to their positions?

I wonder what the demographers say about the impact of climate change on the world population, and I intend to see if I can find out. I certainly hope that it's been taken into consideration in their projected numbers. And at this point in time, I would have to express some skepticism about their projections precisely because global warming is impacting earth's inhabitants much faster than was anticipated 10 years ago. — uncanni

I'm guessing the numbers don't include the effects of climate change on population. I don't think anyone knows how to quantify that.

This is the same thing that occurs with rigorous, good therapy! The unexamined life... — uncanni

Maybe from therapy or meditation one could also hope for peace.

Plus, philosophical discussions are very helpful in impressing the dudes. At least in my experience. I therefore conclude that it can impress chicks as well. — uncanni

I haven't seen that my philosophical skills have impressed anyone much. Luckily, at 67 I don't have to worry about that.

Rational policy as it applies to pricing individual economic decisions may help reduce the risk as we work towards a population equilibrium. — JosephS

As I said in my post, I'm not sure what the information I provided means for the issues we are discussing and I don't know what we can or should do about it, if anything. I just thought it was relevant.

As for your previous post about the anger I feel when dealing with anti-natalist arguments, I do plan to respond.

You pose very interesting questions. What I understand the philosopher to be saying is that it would be a good idea to reduce the human population at this point, because life on earth is in the process of becoming disasterous for millions of people. — uncanni

I don't intend this as point in favor any particular position - just some possibly relevant information. It is my understanding that demographers are pretty confident that the Earth's population growth rate will reach 0 in about the year 2100. At that time, they estimate there will be about 11 billion people living here.

My rational intuition tells me that there is not much we can do about this either way, assuming no catastrophic intervention. The Chinese took an extreme swing at dealing with the issue with their one-child policy which has had negative social effects with which they are now trying to deal.

What do you know for sure after studying philosophy? — Gregory

If things go well you:

• Know how to express your ideas clearly
• Understand what values are important to you
• Know what ways of thinking about things are the most useful for you
• Gain a better understanding about other people's values and beliefs
• Understand the unexamined assumptions you use in your thinking
• Learn to be more tolerant
• Can impress chicks. Well... no... sorry.

When push comes to shove, it's all about awareness.

"We are not part of the universe completely owned, but the whole universe partially possessed." Teilhard

Sounds like someone a Native American shaman would say. — Gregory

Similar ideas can be found in every philosophical, religious, spiritual, and mystical tradition.

"Faith can create its own reality, so blocking faith for this reason (a desire to be objective), other options are opened up, which people will say is faith still. — Gregory

Is that what Teilhard is saying? I don't get that from the quote. Maybe you should give us more to work with.

A very enlightening observation. To answer your question on what knowing feels like I'm reminded of Archimedes who, having discovered the law of buoyancy, ran naked through the streets shouting "Eureka!" — TheMadFool

You don't have to be Archimedes to have a sense of the comprehensive experience of knowing. I don't think it's an issue of intelligence. It's an issue of awareness. Knowledge is not all that simple - somehow connecting a phenomenon with a truth statement. It is worth some introspection.

I wouldn't put restrictions or enforce any sort of behavior. — TheMadFool

As you may have seen, I have a strong angry reaction to the anti-natalist argument. At the end, when both sides have laid out our positions and failed in our attempts to convince, as we always do, I want to ask that final question. It seems important.

No. I was not referring to any genetic determinism interpretation of evolution. I was just noting that "emotions" and "feelings" are internal motivators that urge you to keep doing the fitness maximizing stuff, and to quit doing the stuff that is not in the interest of your "selfish genes" (it's just a metaphor). But humans are able to overrule those urges when necessary, as in bravery despite the fight or flight feelings of fear. — Gnomon

I don't want to be pedantic, so I'll let @StreetlightX do it for me. Here is a portion of the OP from a discussion he started a couple of years ago. It changed the way I thought about genetics and evolution. The whole discussion is really interesting.

It's a common misunderstanding among the lay public that individual genes, or rather particular sequences of DNA, simply 'code' for particular individual traits. The idea is that there is a one-to-one correspondence between gene and trait (in a slogan: "DNA makes RNA. RNA makes protein. Proteins make us"). For a variety of technical reasons, this is not quite the case. In general terms, the main reason is that the exact process of 'gene expression' (the process by which gene gives rise to trait) matters a great deal to the 'finished product', such that a single gene may in fact give rise to multiple outcomes, depending of the dynamics of the actual process of expression. — StreetlightX

See, Streetlight, somebody does pay attention to you.

The "oversimplistic" closing remark was intended to cut through the BS surrounding feelings; not to be a complete overview of empirical knowledge versus "spiritual understandings". — Gnomon

Well, ok, but there was definitely a whiff of the rationalist condescension people use toward spiritual or religious ideas in your response.