Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
For example, if a poster were to express a very negative view of, say, New Age, would that make them a New-Age-phobe, and thus, bannable (instantly)? — baker
But if there's some specific group you actually (not hypothetically) wish to express hatred towards and you're worried you'll get banned for it, feel free to run your proposed comment by us and we'll apply a common sense interpretation of the guidelines to it. — Baden
But if there's some specific group you actually (not hypothetically) wish to express hatred towards and you're worried you'll get banned for it, feel free to run your proposed comment by us and we'll apply a common sense interpretation of the guidelines to it. — Baden
The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all. — Schopenhauer
And so on. Where's the line? — baker
As a general matter, we don't render declaratory judgments, meaning there must be an actual case in controversy for us to rule. That means we don't entertain hypotheticals and then declare some sort of binding precedent. What we do is when there is an actual case, we read the rules and we interpret them, relying to some extent upon the way they were interpreted before.
To do otherwise would result in our continually responding to "what ifs," which we don't have time for, and which often wouldn't be helpful anyway because actual cases have all sorts of nuances that have to be considered. — Hanover
It is the concern only of trolls to know exactly how much offence they can give before they are ejected. — unenlightened
"....Women are...".
— Schopenhauer — emancipate
It is the concern only of trolls to know exactly how much offence they can give before they are ejected. — unenlightened
Misogyny is a bannable offence -- but only if declared by men?
General misanthrophy is okay, but not misogyny or misandry?
Hating Muricans is okay, hating Africans is not okay? How about Asians?
Hating blacks is not okay, hating whites is okay?
And so on. Where's the line? — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.