...it does not excuse an argumentative approach that is abusive. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
If a members prefer to engage in a finger pointing blame and shame manipulation by guilt campaign designed to edit everyone else to our taste, ok, go for it. That's a fool's errand imho, but there's no law against it. — Jake
Jake, it is a pleasure to meet you and I do appreciate and agree with your thoughtful response. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
My only pushback to you is that I don't believe for a minute that your inner "sage" would fall based on another persons opinion. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
There was a lot more to my post, that you cherry-picked, that establishes a different theme than what you seem to have gathered from it.
Nazis limited free speech. That is the similarity that your forum has, yes, but I was also referring to your "extremist" statements. Did you not argue that you should engage in extreme behavior to combat extreme behavior? That is what I was referring to in establishing a similarity between you and Nazis.
Sure, you have the right as a private owner of a website to establish certain rules and you don't throw people that break the rules into a concentration camp. That is obvious. It makes me think that you cherry-picked on purpose and misrepresented my post and me, to avoid having to address the meat of my post, or at least trying to insult my intelligence by thinking that I wouldn't know that difference.
You see, in a free society, where free ideas are allowed to compete and the winners are those that are coherent, reasonable and consistent, Nazism would never be able to gain a foothold. It is only when you allow a certain group or individual to gain a lot of power, that you run that risk. As long as true free speech and ideas are allowed to exist AND compete in the arena of reason (there must be a competition of ideas for progress to happen and to root out emotional ideologies like Nazism), then we don't really need rules for controlling it, do we?
Extreme reactions to extreme actions are not the answer. Reasonable reactions to extreme actions are the answer. You fight racism (hate) with reason, not reciprocal racism (hate). The emotions are not bearers of truth (other than the fact that you have them in certain situations). Reason is - and it is why reason always wins out when determining the truth. — Harry Hindu
I'm capable of analysing an argument, determining that it's fallacious, and then pointing that out in an arrogant or rude manner. — Sapientia
And so are you. — Sapientia
Ok, but what does the arrogant and rude manner have to do with analytical logic? — Jake
Isn't it a completely separate agenda? — Jake
And, I believe All Sight is making the case that using a rude and arrogant manner makes one less persuasive, and thus such a manner is reasonably labeled illogical. If you were to now argue that the speaker is not interested in be persuasive, then what does "pointing that out" mean. Pointing out to who, for what purpose? — Jake
What? WHAT? How dare you accuse me of being capable of rudeness you ignorant peasant!!!! :smile: Seriously, ya, definitely capable of stepping on my own message with rude language. Would this be a good place for me to disclose that I've been banned from more forums than most of you ever thought of visiting? True story! — Jake
Love is the pinnacle, I really believe. I'd rather not be taken seriously, than give up on love! It takes much much more strength to love in the face of hatred than to hate. The proof is in the difficulty of it. Hate is easy, love is hard. — All sight
It’s hard to take someone who holds such a shallow and idealistic view of love seriously, not to mention the melodrama. — praxis
It’s hard to take someone who holds such a shallow and idealistic view of love seriously, not to mention the melodrama.
— praxis
Sounds more like cynicism than wisdom to me. — Rank Amateur
It takes much much more strength to love in the face of hatred than to hate. — All sight
Hate is easy, love is hard. — All sight
The idea that 'niceness' must be maintained at all costs in the face of the hurt, abuse, and injustice is insane. It's an argument for coddled schoolchildren unexposed to the threats and reality of violence, poverty, and real pain that pervade all corners of the world. Or else it's the argument of those who are utterly blind to power relations and think that everyone speaks on an equal playing field as though the stakes of discussion are nothing more than parlour games in a gentlemen's club, and not, in some cases, lives. 'Niceness' is not some transcendental principle of discourse; it is a strategic tool to be employed in the right contexts - as is venom, abuse, and 'unpleasantness', each of which has its rightful and important place in all discussion. Trivial cordiality is a contributor, and not a panacea, to misery. — StreetlightX
Isn't that a big brother attitude or is it parental prerogatives? — TheMadFool
there's a meta-battle for framing going on — Baden
and no, reason demonstrably doesn't always "win" when determining the truth in that plenty of people are convinced by its opposite and ultimate agreement on what the truth is anyway, especially wrt moral issues, is rare. — Baden
Harry Hindu has every right to label the mod team Nazis (in whatever sense) if he wants (here in feedback anyway). It's up to us then to argue back if we want. It wouldn't be sensible for either of us to take any of that personally, and I wouldn't even bother calling it "abusive" as that in itself could be deemed just another label. Come to think of it, aren't we in danger of labelling the labelers, "labelers"! — Baden
You see, in a free society, where free ideas are allowed to compete and the winners are those that are coherent, reasonable and consistent, Nazism would never be able to gain a foothold. — Harry Hindu
Exactly. That is why I said that we need to dispense with the labeling and engage in reasoning your way through arguments. Labeling does nothing other than reinforce your already deeply held beliefs (beliefs with emotional attachments). — Harry Hindu
Where the ethical comes in is in terms of goals. What is the strategy aimed at achieving? — Baden
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.