Of course they could, but the sun 'could' explode in the next three seconds, we 'could' all suddenly lose the ability to read... But we don't act as if that were the case. We act with a presumption of expected result based on our theories. We presume consistent patterns will continue to be so until overwhelmingly contradicted by evidence to the contrary. So why shouldn't we treat plausible beliefs in the same way? — Isaac

Thanks for the opportunity to pull out, again, my favorite quote from Stephen Jay Gould:

“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’”

The point of course being that he has been known to make rash judgements and to jump to conclusions in this regard, and I'd have to agree. Not wanting to restart beef, Tim, just saying it how I see it. The elephant in the room this time is obviously NOS4A2, and Tim's opening post is basically just a verbose attack piece on him, with the intent of seeking attention, gathering supporters, and of influencing the decision-making of the site staff. It's a lynching, basically. Gather your pitchforks, fellow villagers! — S

I didn't even know who were talking about lynching until you brought it up. Till now, I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about an important issue.

We can know what someone believes in many cases through common sense, although I would understand if that was a problem for you. — S

Oh, S, and you were doing so well.

Yes. And there are clear forum standards for that, I think.
However, apparent trolling is treated differently.

I've just been scrolling down the Trump thread and caught this response of yours:

"There’s only one way to stop a troll from trolling and that is to deny them attention. Personally, I don’t think he should be stopped. As someone mentioned, it’s good that there’s at least one person participating in this topic with a different view, even if he’s just playing around."

So, even if we accept that it might be best not to give a troll attention, we just might carry on the conversation to see how far it progresses before it reaches banning point ?
It could be viewed as good practice in using judgement and anger control...and knowing when to contact the mods. Others see it as a form of entertainment and prod back in similar fashion. It ends up in a vicious circle. Nothing virtuous about it.

It's interesting to see how the mods judge the to and fro.
And when any banning takes place, for whatever reason.

A member of a philosophy forum who has a pattern of making wild claims and not supporting such claim should be banned, in my opinion. — praxis

The moderators have been known to ban someone for repeated frivolous or low-quality threads. To me, that doesn't seem like a solution that should be used very often.

Even within lies, you can find worthwhile truths. I'm happy to troll people if I think that there's no chance of having a reasonable discussion with them. Sometimes I'll troll people just because I don't like them. Trolling to me is a course of action that follows feeling no respect towards someone, thinking either they or their ideas are absurd. From my perspective, if you're being trolled by me, you deserved it for saying idiotic things.

I don't think there's always value to trying to have a discussion in earnest with people because of either one or both parties. Though, I also think that people troll because they want to take part in conversations where they have nothing of value to contribute.

Trolling is a hostile action, which often works because people haven't accepted that they can't control the actions of the troll. The only option is to recognise that this person is trying to get under your skin and show them that it won't work. If you get annoyed you lose, if you show you can't be annoyed then you win. I think people who hate trolls probably lose more than they win. You can try to disregard that and justify your frustration but how can it be that the troll successfully trolls you and you got frustrated but that's showing your virtue? That's delusional.

Being trolled is an opportunity to build your character and know more about yourself. Ultimately, if you accept that there are always going to be those who will violently disagree with every idea you have and everything you are then you won't be surprised when your paths cross. It won't be surprising that people will do their best to upset you and you'll see it for what it is and handle it with grace. You cannot isolate yourself from it AND use the internet.

The elephant in the room this time is obviously NOS4A2, and Tim's opening post is basically just a verbose attack piece on him, with the intent of seeking attention, gathering supporters, and of influencing the decision-making of the site staff. It's a lynching, basically. Gather your pitchforks, fellow villagers!
— S

I didn't even know who were talking about lynching until you brought it up. Till now, I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about an important issue. — T Clark

Yes. It was cleverly and carefully presented as an objective piece of philosophy.
Yes. Still important in itself.
However, anyone following @tim wood 'Comments' would see the underlying issue. The provocation and anger involved.

It's clearly not about a lynching. But the OP is a lengthy and 'verbose attack piece'.
No need for pitchforks but beware the forked tongue.
I think I prefer open and downright dishonesty to this.

Would I be fairly representing a consensus of posters to this thread so far that the troll-liar wins the field - (and that site management is very-good to exemplary, which I agree with)? Keeping in mind, please, that by "lie" I mean not just a post but a pattern of posts and responses. As I read the above, implicit is that everyone is operating within the bounds of good faith. The question was, what to do about them what don't. The answer seems to be, nothing.

When I look at the world around me, and consider what I know of its history, I begin to think that "nothing" is a head-in-the-sand maneuver and perhaps not best - for anyone. @T Clark , lists suggestions that he apparently makes consciously that I am going to try to adopt for the simple quality of them. But while they're good advice in terms of courtesy and getting along, I'm thinking they cannot in themselves exhaust the repertoire. We still need something in addition.

Maybe the question in a more general even speculative form: the liar causes damage, in some cases and in some persons, a lot of damage. What have folks done about such people - those who've had the experience and can share in not-too-personal terms? My own limited experience tells me it's appropriate to run away if possible, that time is needed to cure the injury, and that a person has to watch him- or herself for signs of trauma. The alternatives are to stay in and pretend it isn't happening, or in some way or other to take it on. Where possible, I favour taking it on, not least because if not challenged, it certainly won't either stop or go away!

Oh, S, and you were doing so well. — T Clark

I didn't do nufin', gov.

Sometimes I'll troll people just because I don't like them. Trolling to me is a course of action that follows feeling no respect towards someone, thinking either they or their ideas are absurd. From my perspective, if you're being trolled by me, you deserved it for saying idiotic things. — Judaka

Reading your posts, I've seen a lot that are blunt and aggressive, even insulting, but I don't know of any that I'd consider trolling. Maybe I've missed those. And, of course, I disagree with your point.

Being trolled is an opportunity to build your character and know more about yourself. — Judaka

I agree with that, but maybe for different reasons.

The question was, what to do about them what don't. The answer seems to be, nothing. — tim wood

Not true.

Where possible, I favour taking it on, not least because if not challenged, it certainly won't either stop or go away! — tim wood

I don't disagree, but it matters how you take it on. Many times aggressive responses just contribute to the chaos.

We still need something in addition. — tim wood

We or you?

I don't disagree, but it matters how you take it on. Many times aggressive responses just contribute to the chaos. — T Clark

Indeed :up:

Hey moderators. You haven't responded, which I think is probably a good idea, but I hope you're paying attention.

Hey moderators. You haven't responded, which I think is probably a good idea, but I hope you're paying attention. — T Clark

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? They're watching, popcorn in hand.

It's clearly not about a lynching. But it is a lengthy and 'verbose attack piece'.
No need for pitchforks but beware the forked tongue.
I think I prefer open and downright dishonesty to this. — Amity

Thank you for telling me what I am thinking, what I am doing, and what my motivation is. How did you get so perceptive, wise, and smart? Or is it possible you might just be mistaken?

Or is it possible you might just be mistaken? — tim wood

Not a chance. You have already told a downright lie.

Trolling is a hostile action, — Judaka

Hard to be clearer than this! And it's also your choice to be hostile, yes? How do you reconcile your inclination to hostility, when it occurs, to whatever in the way of responsibility you may have to both be civil and maintain civility?

Yeah, I don't troll on this forum, not much at least. I don't know what point you're disagreeing with but the reality is that you cannot control the troll and your reaction is the only thing that can be controlled. If you try to control the troll, you reveal your own powerlessness and you spiral into greater frustration and anger but if you handle yourself well then you will win in every sense. Spectators will support you, you'll feel good about yourself and the troll who failed to upset you will be revealed as a troll.

Whether the troll thinks you deserve to be trolled or not is irrelevant and it's only worthwhile to note that because if you are a reasonable and sensible person then perhaps the troll has misjudged you. Regardless of what the best outcome is of being trolled, to not aspire towards that but instead try to control whether people troll or not is delusional. You absolutely cannot control that and if you try to exercise a power you don't have then you'll look like a fool.

Not a chance. You have already told a downright lie. — Amity

At least half-a-dozen before breakfast. But please assist me: which one do you have in mind?

But please assist me: which one do you have in mind? — tim wood

Request denied.

Makes sense to me. Anyone can report anyone, of course, but making it a private affair might be the more sensible course of action to take.

but the reality is that you cannot control the troll and your reaction is the only thing that can be controlled. — Judaka

:up: :clap:
And that must be the end of it? Perhaps with respect to online trolling you are precisely and exactly correct - and certainly wise....

You absolutely cannot control that and if you try to exercise a power you don't have then you'll look like a fool. — Judaka

Indeed, that may be me! Or is yours the possibility of defeatism - even if wise and prudent? Is no reaction to the lie the only right and true course?

I didn't even know who you were talking about lynching until you brought it up. Till now, I just saw it as an opportunity to talk about an important issue. — T Clark

It's something of a skill. I've seen more subtle attack pieces. This one from me in response to Wallows is funny to look back on: Overcoming. It was a pretty good opening post, I thought. You know, two birds, one stone and all.

Can you two knock it off please. — fdrake

:lol:

Yes, it's my choice to be hostile, I do not need validation from anyone but myself. I have the capacity to be unkind. When I believe it is right to be unkind then it is right. I know that no matter what I believed there'll be people who disagree, it was never an option to act in accordance with all the responsibilities people think I have.

In this forum and in life, you can only try to act in a way that leaves you without regret. That most often leads to an outcome that favours you. My hostility is measured, I won't be hostile where I think that the result will be unfavourable for me. So with the troll, I am not defeated but rather I aspire towards a favourable outcome.

If I had the power to make it so nobody ever trolled me then that would certainly be a favourable situation for me but seeing as I don't have that power, it's unrealistic. Applying an unrealistic solution can't be favourable.

I don't know what point you're disagreeing with — Judaka

I don't think that trolling is a valid, useful, or effective way of dealing with troublemakers.

You absolutely cannot control that and if you try to exercise a power you don't have then you'll look like a fool. — Judaka

Maybe that's the difference. I'm don't worry much about looking like a fool. You might have noticed that.

Maybe that's the difference. I'm don't worry much about looking like a fool. You might have noticed that. — T Clark

:zip:

Yes, it's my choice to be hostile, I do not need validation from anyone but myself. I have the capacity to be unkind. When I believe it is right to be unkind then it is right. I know that no matter what I believed there'll be people who disagree, it was never an option to act in accordance with all the responsibilities people think I have. — Judaka

Well, on this forum, you do have responsibilities. They are spelled out in the Site Guidelines. There are, as discussed in this thread, procedures for dealing with people if they don't live up to them. As I indicated, I haven't seen anything from you that rises to that level.

I read this as a statement of a personal philosophy. More power to you; you apparently have one; most folks don't, or certainly could not articulate even a part of one. I'm inclined to "disagree" with yours, but there is much unassailable truth within it. Perhaps it's a matter of yours and my senses of proportion being different.

But I do find what I think is a error in your thinking, at least as expressed here. I wonder if you'll consider it - no need to reply to it.

When I believe it is right to be unkind then it is right. — Judaka

Your two "right"s are two different words. You can get from believing to being only on the arguments that a) what you believe is the right, or, b) that in this case your belief (just) happens to be right. As you have it, you're conflating "right" with "right-for-you" or "right-because-you-think-so," and that's at least a problem.