I'd rather get my way than have a say.

business — unenlightened

Isn't it non-profit?

gender imbalance of the forum — unenlightened

I personally would expect such a gender imbalance in philosophy, just as I'd expect one in war for example (although in war it would be even more imbalanced than here generally, just cause war is a lot more conflictual). Men and women are different in some regards, so it's only natural that there will be some activities which are liked, in general, more by men than by women, and the other way around too.

total absence of female staff — unenlightened

I agree, just like the total absence of conservative or religious staff. I voiced this concern already, and I was told we're free to have a religious staff member, but it seems we haven't got one yet.

IF the rules state "don't pick your nose" but you continually belch, you've met the decorum required by regulation but it's not a very high standard. I suggest we should aim higher even if we won't enforce that higher standard. In this particular instance I think giving more due to how others receive your words would be better and would lead to a more effective communication. I've tried to illustrate this before with how Martin Luther King would communicate if he'd been "frank" and not take how people receive his words into account: "racism should stop." Instead he started with "I have a dream..." and painted a picture of the future that resonated with others on an emotional level. That's effective communication. — Benkei

Notwithstanding the condescension coming from me towards longstanding forum members such as yourself, but you can take your high standard and gently place it in a little box, gift wrap it and send it via post back to yourself. So, what if the rules were that all TPF members are equal, but some are more equal than others?

This is about content, not about emotion. I personally meant none of that about Tiff but it was my attempt to convey the freedom we should have to speak as we are and show more relativity to the art of communication. I have been attacked by members here and have been approached by mods asking me if I want some support and I have refused because I will defend tooth and nail their right to speak with condescension. As I said, the only time moderation is necessary is when there is a clear demonstration of this "racism" where incitement is visible. How people respond on an emotional level is irrelevant.

given the gender imbalance of the forum... total absence of female staff... universal gender pay gap — unenlightened

There is no reason why any particular forum open to all will have or should have a 50/50 male/female participation rate. This is a voluntary organization. There are no material benefits to be derived from participation, and no one is being deprived of material benefits by not participating.

I consider the level of decorum maintained by participants and moderators, to be eminently satisfactory. On only a few occasions have I observed unsatisfactory decorum from only a few participants. Adults should be, and generally are able to tolerate the occasional lapse of decorum without requiring restorative medication.

I said in some regards, philosophy, just like war, is conflictual by nature. — Agustino

Yes. I find conflict (vigorous, even heated, debate and discussion) between individuals holding different views to be far more interesting than a feast of concurrence by mild mannered Caspar Milquetoasts. Adults should be, and generally are able to tolerate conflict in debate and discussion. I can live with unenlightened thinking we should have gender parity.

Not everyone believes that war is madness. — Agustino

Clearly, there is a difference between WWII and our war on Iraq. I don't think the war on Iraq was madness: it was stupidity and arrogance justified through subterfuge for goals which were at best half-baked.

Stop worrying. Be happy people, god damn it.

Men and women are different in some regards — Agustino

I've noticed that.

I don't think the war on Iraq was madness: it was stupidity and arrogance justified through subterfuge for goals which were at best half-baked. — Bitter Crank

Military-industrial something that doesn't care what we say? :D

Perhaps you've listened to this before or read about the professor's work, but it turns out the gender pay gap isn't what its claimed to be: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Instead he [Martin Luther King] started with "I have a dream..." and painted a picture of the future that resonated with others on an emotional level. That's effective communication.
— Benkei

This is about content, not about emotion. ... How people respond on an emotional level is irrelevant. — TimeLine

It's funny that you would say something like this, being as skilled in the use of rhetoric as you are.

This is about content, not about emotion. — TimeLine

Quite obviously it isn't despite your repeated attempts to try to make it so. If it was, your condescension would be absent and emotions wouldn't be rising to a boiling point when all I'm suggesting is a bit of forbearance on the one hand and compassion in the other.

There's also a difference between defending a person's right to being a dick and having a preference that he doesn't act like one. I might have the right to call you a cunt, but let's not pretend that it's preferable.

Quite obviously it isn't despite your repeated attempts to try to make it so. If it was, your condescension would be absent and emotions wouldn't be rising to a boiling point when all I'm suggesting is a bit of forbearance on the one hand and compassion in the other. — Benkei

Quite obviously? Ok, wait, I said:

This is about content, not about emotion — TimeLine

And you said:

Quite obviously it isn't — Benkei

Gracious, so now philosophy is not about content, but about emotion? Whilst at this stage the only emotion I am conveying is laughter, if it is obvious, then why is stating the obvious so difficult for you?

I am not at "boiling point" by the way and that is merely your imagination projecting notions of what I apparently appear to be, hence the point of being relative. A person from some part of the world who has a different culture to you, that may be young, that may view cursing as a normal part of their day-to-day, may attempt to convey a philosophical point - albeit does so differently and with difficulty - should not be excluded because they fail to articulate themselves with "decorum". You should be smart enough to read through that and see what it is they are trying to articulate.

There's also a difference between defending a person's right being a dick and having a preference that he doesn't act like one. I might have the right to call you a cunt but let's not pretend it's preferable. — Benkei

You still have not answered the question. What is this decorum? You can call me a cunt and I can get offended but I will still defend your right to say that; but to say that all women are cunts and articulate justifications for it is a different story. What more do you want? How far does it need to go in order to please you?

@unenlightened fiddles while Rome burns.

I personally think he is. — TimeLine

Thanks. I personally think that I am as well, and I think that Benkei must have meant something else, like being a people pleaser, although that wouldn't be true either: I can be when I want to be. That's how I earn a living.

Pleasuring people for a living is supposedly the oldest profession. No wonder you get cranky at times.

I've tried to illustrate this before with how Martin Luther King would communicate if he'd been "frank" and not take how people receive his words into account: "racism should stop." Instead he started with "I have a dream..." and painted a picture of the future that resonated with others on an emotional level. That's effective communication. — Benkei

Whether or not it's effective is relative. Effective at what and in what way? If the goal was succinctness, then it would not be as effective. It's more poetic, but that just ain't my style. I can be eloquonent and poetic when I want to be, but I prefer to get straight down to business with a straight-talking no-nonsense kind of language.

I totally agree I can be blunt. — Benkei

I totally agree as well. I've seen it. So there's an element of hypocrisy here.

I also don't have an issue with Sapientia on a personal level as the way we communicate tends to be similar so there is no static on the line between him and me. But as a consequence I think I recognise quite easily the areas of improvement and I've been very active in the past two years trying to improve my influence in the work environment through communication skills. It's more difficult for people who think facts and veracity are by far the most important (like me) and I (and I think Sapienta as well) need to be reminded regularly that not everybody thinks the same and reaching those people require other "stylistic" approaches. It's a bit of tact, part inspiration and a lot of shifting gears in how we talk to others.

If someone says, "wow, that's way too blunt" I can defend myself or I can say "Oh, sorry about that. what part did you take offence with?" The first tends to be our automatic reaction (Westerners tend to be argumentative) the second is probably much more conducive to a reasonable conversation. So really I just want to urge Sapientia to try different approaches because in my experience it does pay off. — Benkei

That's fair enough. — Baden

Fair to an unspecified degree which may or may not be enough.

(Westerners tend to be argumentative?! No we're not. Prove it!)

I agree, just like the total absence of conservative or religious staff. I voiced this concern already, and I was told we're free to have a religious staff member, but it seems we haven't got one yet. — Agustino

You could take a stab at converting me. :D

You could take a stab at converting me. :D — Sapientia

>:O

Whether or not it's effective is relative. Effective at what and in what way? — Sapientia

As I understand it, rhetoric attempts to paint a persuasive picture that resonates with a particular audience by aligning values and/or purposes. Like logic, it can be an effective tool in argumentation: not just to persuade, but also to aid in the understanding and appreciation of an argument.

As I understand it, rhetoric attempts to paint a persuasive picture that resonates with a particular audience by aligning values and/or purposes. Like logic, it can be an effective tool in argumentation: not just to persuade, but also to aid in the understanding and appreciation of an argument. — praxis

I have a dream that one day the sons of those who speak frankly and the sons of those who wax poetic will be able to sit down together at the table of philosophy.

I have a dream that one day this forum will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "This may all be pointless".

@Benkei

Fair to an unspecified degree which may or may not be enough — Sapientia

It's fair enough to offer advice on effective communication. And it's fair enough to disregard it. I'm all for people getting along but I'm also all for people being themselves. Even Kevin, as long as he doesn't kill anyone (or piss them off so much that they kill him). We may even need Kevins - as long as they're not racist, sexist or trolling Kevins or some-other-way-obviously-unsuited-to-the-forum Kevins - to keep us on our toes. Maybe a verbal dance with a Kevin helps us to perfect our tango. Maybe, though we do wish Kevin would check himself sometimes, we recognize he may bring out as much of the best as the worst in us and if he were absent in every way in all of us, there would be a little less spark in our engines, a little less juice in our marrow. Don't get me wrong, I'm not glorifying Kevin, Kevin can be a right pain in the ass, just putting the lad in context, just staring into a bubbling cauldron and wondering if what makes it toil and trouble is also what makes it potent and keeps the magic alive.

I'm also all for listening to complaints, the complainants have their place in the mix too, but rather than simply stir, suggest us a new recipe that we can cook.

Anyway, as you can probably tell, I'm hungry. Time for breakfast. And Kevin is not on the menu.

You could take a stab at converting me. — Sapientia

If he stabbed you in the right way, he could turn you into an angel, and you might have a chance at becoming a saint (but probably not).

It's fair enough to offer advice on effective communication. — Baden

Fair to the power of ten divided by the sum of the square route of perhaps.

Maths is not on the menu either. More like Red Hot Chilli Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex(ism) Magik. 8-)

I have a dream that one day this forum will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "This may all be pointless". — Sapientia

Ever hear Harry Nilsson's musical story of Oblio and his dog Arrow who lived in The Land of Point? It's about Oblio a pointless child who, unlike everyone and everything else in The Land of point-- didn't have a point. He was finally exiled to the Pointless Forest -- except that when he got there, he discovered that everything in the Pointless Forest had a point.

And so on to the pointed end of the story, which may or may not have had a point.

[Exactly, Praxis. And nowadays there's a lot of research on how to communicate effectively. Sapientia and TimeLine seem to prefer to ignore it even if it would help them (and others) in being effective communicators.]

Quite obviously? Ok, wait, I said:

This is about content, not about emotion
— TimeLine

And you said:

Quite obviously it isn't
— Benkei

Gracious, so now philosophy is not about content, but about emotion? Whilst at this stage the only emotion I am conveying is laughter, if it is obvious, then why is stating the obvious so difficult for you? — TimeLine

Since the word philosophy didn't appear in your previous post "this" didn't seem to refer to it but to the discussion. Even so, the point stands, you're the one getting emotional, not me, so you're undermining your point through action. The fact that I say it is emotional doesn't preclude content, so you're attributing a position to me that isn't mine. Apparently you need an adversary but I'm not him.

As to the standards, I've already said forbearance and compassion. If that's too vague for you I can't help you.

Since the word philosophy didn't appear in your previous post "this" didn't seem to refer to it but to the discussion. — Benkei

What else could we be possibly talking about? The name of this forum is called The Philosophy Forum. It is a forum for ordinary people talking philosophy. The content will be philosophical.

Even so, the point stands, you're the one getting emotional, not me, so you're undermining your point through action. The fact that I say it is emotional doesn't preclude content, so you're attributing a position to me that isn't mine. Apparently you need an adversary but I'm not him. — Benkei

No, I don't need an adversary, you made a statement and I responded. That is three times now you have pretended I - me, the personal me - is doing something that she is not, falsely attributing emotions to me, which is nothing more than an ad hominem and your way to justify a non-argument. Your imagination precludes the very problem and you set the standards because your so-called "decorum" is to make your little bourgeois idea of forum etiquette suitable for enough for you.

Your etiquette? Your decorum? Like starting a forum post and writing this?

On suicidal thoughts. "Don't have them."
Fuck normal people. "Fuck you too." — Benkei

Wait, didn't you say:

As to the standards, I've already said forbearance and compassion. If that's too vague for you I can't help you. — Benkei

Right. So, it's ok for you to start a thread and say that, but we - us little people - must show, what, you forbearance and compassion?

Thanks. I personally think that I am as well, and I think that Benkei must have meant something else, like being a people pleaser, although that wouldn't be true either: I can be when I want to be. That's how I earn a living. — Sapientia

I personally do not want to respond to you because I am afraid of drawing you into a possible guilt by association if everyone starts to get angry with me.

Nevertheless, for me, I have never seen you say or do anything wrong and the emotions here are the petitions made against you by persons who I feel expect everyone to behave as they would and not as everyone should, which is by being themselves still subject to forum regulations. I would not want you to be anyone else, just as much as I would not want Agustino or Hanover or everyone to be subject to apparent unwritten rules of 'decorum'. It is just so Orwellian.

There are only several things I am dedicated too; anti-racism, freedom of speech and women/children' rights. Anything that may disturb that will disturb me.

@TimeLine does have a tendency to keep a secret file with everything you said in the past, regardless of the context it was said in - it can be used at the right time, like now >:) . Methinks she would make a wonderful secret service agent.