So, the person in question was given a chance to repent? That was not how it appeared to me. — Janus

The person pre-empted his repention. He outright declared he'd never change. No chance given to repent, because he ab ovo rejected the notion. What do you do? You can't piss against the wind. You can't offer redemption to outright atheists. You can't offer probation to self-confessed serial murderers. You can't offer chocolate ice cream to highly diabetic people.

The latest banning, given the rules of this forum, shouldn’t be controversial.

Seems to me it’s fairly easy to get back on the site anyway, under a different name. That’s been pointed out several times. So if the person banned really wants to get back in, it’s realistic to assume they will.

if the person banned really wants to get back in, it’s realistic to assume they will. — Xtrix

And realistically speaking, likely they cannot change their ways and will get banned again. You aren't a cordial debater otherwise only to lose it totally at one specific issue.

And realistically speaking, likely they cannot change their ways and will get banned again. You aren't a cordial debater otherwise only to lose it totally at one specific issue. — ssu

I wonder which person out there holds the record for total cumulative amount of bannings...

One good thing that's come out of this discussion is that I've learned, partly thanks to Banno, that espouse does not mean advocate. The meanings are significantly further apart than I thought.

Philosophy is the UNFETTERED love of wisdom, and that means asking ANY question, however forbidden it be. Socrates wasn’t prevented by Athens from pursuing philosophy, nor are we by Modernity — Leghorn

Indeed, but a question was not asked. On the contrary, equality was ruled out absolutely. Thus it was the love of received dogma and prejudice, not the love of wisdom, that was censured.

In this thread we debate what constitutes excretion in the debating chamber. But when it happens, someone has to clean it up, and the cleaners are the rulers as they should be everywhere.

So for the love of Oprah and for the sake of baby jesus would you fucking morons quiet you stupid fingers and shut up about it already?!
I cant believe you idiots are STILL arguing about this.
So so dumb. — DingoJones

And now with that post you think yourself better than a racist. Nice.
Take it easy you little babe dictator, or just take your pills.

To The Mods

Do you all realize that bans in cyberspace are equivalent to capital punishment in the real world?

Bye, bye avatar. RIP all banned ex-forum members! :death: :flower:

Do you all realize that bans in cyberspace are equivalent to capital punishment in the real world? — TheMadFool

If they were being banned from cyberspace instead of a singe forum. More like being banished from a community.

I wonder if there would have been a debate if Michael had been racist or anti Semitic. I really don’t think so. People here are somehow fine when someone is banned for “low quality” but there is a debate when they openly say they’re misogynistic.

But this one I just found funny:

Banning them might just make them double down, which won't be the forum's problem, because they are gone from here, but it may become a greater problem for their partners, family or society. — Janus

If we’re concerned about the effects of the forum on individual lives maybe we should start banning any pessimistic users or threads eh. Wouldn’t want it to affect people, their partners, family or society.

I wonder if there would have been a debate if Michael had been racist or anti Semitic. I really don’t think so. People here are somehow fine when someone is banned for “low quality” but there is a debate when they openly say they’re misogynistic. — khaled

I've shared my view previously, that people's bad ideas should be addressed and refuted rather than banning or hating on the person infected with such bad ideas.

Also, its kind of hypocritical in my eyes, that intolerance is ok as long as its only toward people with certain ideologies. Eg, its ok to express intolerance or be inflammatory toward republicans or religious people, or anti-vaccers etc here, up to a point. What is it that makes one form of intolerance less bad than any other?

A forum has rules. Just stick to the rules. Just like a game. You wouldn't allow people to cheat, you ban them from the game.

Indeed, but a question was not asked. On the contrary, equality was ruled out absolutely. Thus it was the love of received dogma and prejudice, not the love of wisdom, that was censured. — unenlightened

Are you saying that the expression of dogma and prejudice is not allowed in this forum? that if Zwingli had instead said, “I’m an unrepentant animal hater. The concept that a beast is equal to a human being is absolutely ludicrous,” he would have been banned?

Other echo chambers are available.

he would have been banned? — Leghorn

He would on my watch. I always used to ban unrepentant sinners.

If only unrepentant Nazis would be banned! Sorry. I repent, really I do.

But it's difficult for me to mourn the loss of someone who insists on flaunting his prejudice. There's something showy, if not exhibitionist, in such posturings.

You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace.

I've shared my view previously, that people's bad ideas should be addressed and refuted rather than banning or hating on the person infected with such bad ideas. — Yohan

Up to a point I agree, but see the guidelines:

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

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

This won't change.

And now with that post you think yourself better than a racist. — dimosthenis9

I think he thinks himself smarter than those who debate the banning of an unrepentant misogynist, to be precise.

Would Heidegger be banned? Or is any Nazi, racist, or sexist (are homophobes or misogynists aexists?)welcome as long as he keeps his mouth shut?

One can hate women or white folks. Making their lives impossible or like a stay in hell is something completely different.

What a shameful few pages.

You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace. — Baden

:rofl:

Thus it was the love of received dogma and prejudice, not the love of wisdom, that was censured. — unenlightened

:100:

:up:

The notion that this forum has the power to reform bigotry isn’t shameful, just terribly naive.

What's shameful is spinelessness posing as principle. Misogynists discriminate against every second person of our community. Those who cry over them are ethical voids, and their 'principled stances' are simply cowardice. A bunch of condensed cowards whining is shameful.

Would Heidegger be banned? — Cartuna

Only in my dreams, alas.

I wonder which person out there holds the record for total cumulative amount of bannings... — The Opposite

I would think our friend Marco would be at the top.

I wonder if there would have been a debate if Michael had been racist or anti Semitic. I really don’t think so. People here are somehow fine when someone is banned for “low quality” but there is a debate when they openly say they’re misogynistic. — khaled

I think banning people for low quality posts is just a way to allow removal of aggravating people. Driving while annoying.

People have been banned for posts that are less offensive than the one in question.

You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace. — Baden

Hey.... It was just that once.

One good thing that's come out of this discussion is that I've learned, partly thanks to Banno, that espouse does not mean advocate. — jamalrob

It's the difference between living with your spouse and prostituting him/her.

Indeed :grin: