The way that "philosophy" is defined is not at all strict, discussions on politics are allowed, discussions on raw logic puzzles are allowed, discussions on religion are allowed...pretty much everything is allowed. — ProtagoranSocratist

I think if the site has a value, it is to encourage critical thinking. Philosophy is not about establishing answers as much as learning how to think about questions. Good answers may be a by-product. But better habits of thought are of general value.

And the more cosmopolitan the thought styles, the more one would have to get out of one’s comfort zone to engage.

So yes to the variety of subject matter allowed. But also yes to even the different ways of arguing that people bring to the table.

It is then up to the mods where to draw a line between creative friction and disruptive or blinkered responses.

Are you just having a bad day, Jamal? Or has this been brewing for some time? :chin: — Outlander

@Harry Hindu has been discussed previously on the mod forum. This was not unexpected by any of the team and has nothing to do with @Jamal's or anyone else's mood.

Anyhow, banning isn't personal. @Harry Hindu, along with others who have been banned, have their good points (and there are members that got banned that I really miss, in fact). I was not a fan of Harry's style and I support the ban, but I wish him the best.

Thank you and others for the support.

If we are not allowed to question the sexual ethics of Western Europe, then we will not question the sexual ethics of Western Europe. But that sort of a rule should be made explicit. I don't see how those who question the sexual ethics of Western Europe can simply be threatened or banned for "abandoning reason." There are lots of people from other regions of the world on TPF. — Leontiskos

Questioning the sexual ethics of Western Europe is one thing; stating that gay people are degenerate and immoral (or that they behave immorally) is something else. Debating sex and gender is one thing; denying the identity or dignity of transgender people is another.

We won't tolerate intolerance. We want to ensure we have a shared foundation of mutual respect and the equal dignity of all participants regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Well, I say we don't tolerate intolerance, but in reality sometimes we do. I am inclined now to be more strict.

I banned @Pieter R van Wyk for self-promotion and crackpottery.

Jeez. And that guy knew how to write and read proofs.

I think I'll be staying in the Shoutbox for a while. Juust in case. :eyes:

I think I'll be staying in the Shoutbox for a while. Juust in case — Outlander

You have one thing the crackpots don't have, which is humility. You don't claim to have all the answers, so don't worry.

I don't claim to have all the answers either - just the right ones. :cool:

I don't claim to have all the answers either - just the right ones. :cool: — unenlightened

:lol: And when I am sure my writing is inspired by God, it is really disappointing the next day, to realize I was deluded.

I would say that quoting yourself, from a book as if the book were right simply out of merely existing, shows that in a doubletime fashion. I've been learning to just let people have their crazy thoughts. For the sake of not being banned, but still wanting to contribute on occasion when I finally catch something pertinent to me, and my life, then I decide if it's even worth my time discussing with people depending on who those people are. Which everyone is fair game after a certain cool down period. Some people have longer cooldown cycles than others.

Jamal...so if i'm understanding you correctly, you don't tolerate any type of self-promotion? Could you be more specific about the self-promotion you can't deal with?

@Jamal

I noticed that @Pieter R van Wyk’s account has been deleted. Are you deleting all accounts for banned people now or was that a request by him?

Jamal...so if i'm understanding you correctly, you don't tolerate any type of self-promotion? Could you be more specific about the self-promotion you can't deal with? — ProtagoranSocratist

For example, if you fill your posts mainly with quotations from a book you have written, and mention that book in every post, that counts as self-promotion. But in fact, Pieter was banned not just for self-promotion but also for evangelism and crackpottery, since he appeared to believe that his book held all the answers.

Generally, putting links to your work in every post is the main thing we don't allow.

Site guidelines

There is a large number of bright interesting people here.

I noticed that Pieter R van Wyk’s account has been deleted. Are you deleting all accounts for banned people now or was that a request by him? — T Clark

I don't usually do it unless I'm asked to do so but on this occasion I wanted to remove as many traces of him as possible without actually removing his posts, which woud be unnecessarily destructive.

Banned @ProtagoranSocratist because he asked us to: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16297/i-dont-think-the-site-overall-is-very-well-designed/p1

He wasn't serious at all. He just felt confused and perhaps anxious, but you knocked him down without a shred of compassion.

He's an adult who told us what he wanted. I'm not going to infantilise him.

Yeah, "hard cheese, mate" blah, blah, blah.

You are rude, Michael.

Too bad. I kind of liked them, even though we did bark at each other once or twice.

He's an adult who told us what he wanted. — Michael

What proof do you have of any of this? Even if legal proof is available (which it's not). You would still have no idea that his understanding of the things you consider the boundaries of fact and fiction are the same as what you consider standard.

Like a ripple in a pool of dark. We splash upon what we see, never knowing what it may reach, or what affect it may truly have.

Admit it. You just wanted to blow off the steam you couldn't elsewhere. Go on, no shame.

What proof do you have of any of this? — Outlander

Proof that he's an adult or proof that he told us that he wants to be banned?

This is the proof that he told us that he wants to be banned, from the discussion I linked to above:

I do think it's rude that I explicitly asked Jamal also to be banned more than once, and for whatever reason he kept questioning me about it, in which I felt compelled not to respond just because I already answered the question. I have recently realized how much irritates me when people keep asking me to repeat myself.

So there: i did what was asked of me, now I'm going to ask that I get banned from this message board so that it's no longer a source of confusion and anxiety. Thank you. — ProtagoranSocratist

And this is the proof that he's an adult:

It's usually inconsequential, but during one college course i had a long time ago... — ProtagoranSocratist

I don't understand what either you or javi2541997 are expecting of us. For us to refuse to ban someone who asks to be banned because we clearly know better than them what's best for them? That would be incredibly condescending.

I don't understand what either you or javi2541997 are expecting of us. — Michael

I expected that you would have given him the opportunity to calm down and reflect about his words. Perhaps, he might have thought it twice, and the situation would be different.

Well, I know I have to carry on and leave it there. Banned members do not come back, so I guess my arguments are flat and worthless.

I suppose there's simply not very many fresh faces around these parts lately. I admired the new energy is all, objectionable as it was, it was a challenge, I suppose. Something to correct or understand, if nothing else. And really now, would philosophy itself even exist if no such things were ever present? Riddle me that someday. :wink:

Either way I trust in every staff member's judgement. Not just by position bias but by personal immersion in the character one can reasonably derive from their input here.

I do recall personally his "please ban me" thread. I just considered that online spontaneity. A simple overreaction. Remember not everyone has been here so long as to have respect for the place as something different from opening up a random website on one's phone one day while bored. Some folk see this amazing venue, made solely possible only by the staff of course, as something rare not only in their own lives but even as far as most common "places" online. To some, this may be like an outlet, an escape, a sanctuary if you will, where, no perhaps we don't fully appreciate for what it is, but we appreciate it enough for as it is to become.. comfortable, perhaps. And in comfort we reveal our true selves, the good, the bad, and everything in between.

I have read the posts where he did request a ban, twice. Yes. However. And this is the "gotcha." No where can i recall did he request a "permanent" ban. So, he could have merely been referring to what is known here as "a suspension", which and yes, is effectively a ban for a given period, remains a unique request.

Ah well. What's the gent have to do anyway if he had a strong objection? Wait 60 days until the new forum launches? :lol:

No where can i recall did he request a "permanent" ban. — Outlander

That would be a bit weird wouldn't it? "Can I be banned for 45 days after which I will have calmed down and want to come back please?"

That would be a bit weird wouldn't it? "Can I be banned for 45 days after which I will have calmed down and want to come back please?" — bert1

No, it is not weird. This is what the "suspended" status is intended for.

I have read the posts where he did request a ban, twice. — Outlander

In one of those discussions, I asked why he or she did not simply withdraw. The answer was that participation was experienced as a compulsion.

I get that.

@Jamal as the pusher man.

I can quite any time I like...

I know you are joking and are reflecting upon years of participation.

I have had different times when I broke off from the discussion for different reasons. I miss some of those who have wandered off.

My room is at the back end of the motel and the car has gas.

That poster said a few weeks ago s/he wanted to be banned for some reason, but then kept posting. My impression was that s/he was a thoughtful contributor, but not very well-versed. Maybe wrestling with some existential angst, which online philosophy isn't necessarily going to be a cure for.