thus giving the many people who have a beef with me one less opportunity to display their motivated reasoning. — Mikie

You get that feeling too.
The book referred to should have been posted in your Lounge OP. Alas, that OP was only just discovered.
Good luck.

cheery smile

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

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:

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.

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.

Then it’s truly remarkable how wanting to avoid those discussions by narrowing the conversation down in a separate thread is considered problematic. — Mikie

Making a separate thread is no help. You could make a million threads on geophysics and flat-earthers could post in all of them.

According to you, there’s basically no way to do so. Fine—point made. I don’t agree. — Mikie

And yet you're faced with the contradiction that even according to the topic of your new thread climate change skepticism is on-topic given that climate change skepticism has to do with the effects of climate change. Your Holocaust counterpoint was . But we will agree to disagree.

Granted, I don't think the way TPF is set up is inevitable. Other approaches are possible. But TPF's approach is not particularly bad.

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.

I think Holocaust denial is an oblique attack on Jews. It's meant to show disrespect. Climate change skepticism isn't an attack on anyone, though the deployer may be aware that it's a good way to get someone's goat.

think Holocaust denial is an oblique attack on Jews. It's meant to show disrespect. Climate change skepticism isn't an attack on anyone, though the deployer may be aware that it's a good way to get someone's goat. — frank

I'd also add that we look to the rules to determine if there is a violation, and we try to make rules explicit as needed so that we don't have to rely upon general principles of right and wrong to determine if there were a violation.

It's for that reason I asked for citation to a rule for justification for modding on the basis of whose post we find more justifiable.

A Holocaust denier would be in violation of the rule:

"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."

That is, it's a black and white rule that is clear for posters and mods. It's much more difficult to enforce a "rule" that is implied because it's debatable even what the rule is.

As an example, when AI became prevalent, a rule was then created. We didn't feel we could enforce something we never made clearly a rule.

The point being is that an argument for a rule violation is far more persuaive by reference to the rule violated as opposed to what one thinks the rule ought to be and enforcing it upon general rules of fair play.

That is, expect there to be legalistic enforcement of the rules as the ordinary course, but expect equitable enforcement of general principles of fairness extraordinary.

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.

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. — Mikie

It happens constantly, and it's not against the ethos of the forum.

What you could do is, instead of asking for a special stricture in your thread, propose a new forum approach that would apply to all threads.

In retrospect I might have just submitted it to them privately — Mikie

That’s the crux of the objections to seeking a rule. There is no universal rule to devise to prevent the problem you are having that doesn’t limit speech.

The problem and the solution exists in the specifics, not in the form of the universal rules.

If someone makes a metaphysical claim or a linguistic claim under an original post focused on epistemology, couldn’t the poster claim the same exact problem has arisen as yours? Do we really need to address this with a rule, or shouldn’t we let free debate address these issues, and the wisdom of the moderators judge when things are getting out of hand?

special stricture — Leontiskos

Nothing special about it.

I don’t see why people who want to discuss a particular topic must inevitably be disrupted and drowned out by useless “debate,” — Mikie

The problem with this statement Mikie is who defines what is "useless".

Your opinion of what is useless is different to many other people's opinion of what is useless.

Why should your opinion have priority?

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.)

and not having on-topic posts be constantly drowned out by nonsense? — Mikie

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

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.

I think you'd really like the climate change subreddit. Their posting structure makes it practically impossible to troll. Trolls just disappear down the branches. Plus with enough down votes, a post will disappear. But just as you can't troll, you can't bully either. They'll bomb you for that.

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

:up:

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

:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:

Its beyond me why we allow a child to run around this forum insulting everyone, making absolutely insane posts that belittle the forum, its members and its intent - and he's just... Here. Doing all that.

Probably time to clean up. Congrats on the consensus Mikie.

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.)

You're a dick. Dress it up however you want.

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

You're a dick. — AmadeusD

:lol:

(Risible.)

*quotes Mikies entire post history and leaves an emoji. Like a fucking child*.

:lol:

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

Post again.

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.

No.

:lol:

:: shrug ::