1- develop better counter arguments to their positions. simpler, stronger, smarter.

2- if they are not being banned for "fighting dirty" then you can to in return. now you might be thinking: 'never argue with a pig because you will both get dirty and he will like it' but i say get used to the dirt because its everywhere in life. you cant always stay clean. master everything at every level.

improvise, adapt, overcome

I already have got my counter arguments. I'm choosing to not wasting my time arguing with the immoral about what morals are.

Besides the point though, rules are being broken and I'm sick of it. He needs to go.

Besides the point though, rules are being broken and I'm sick of it. He needs to go. — Mark Dennis

when i used to use facebook philosophy groups i had tons of people blocked. i would just keep joining more and more groups and blocking all the morons. that way i still had tons of good people to debate in my main feed

Tell me about it, did you know that the FB block list has a set amount so you can only block so many people?

We don't even get the option to block anyone here. He has been told to stop speaking to me or I will call my lawyer. Freak keeps talking about my kid now and for some reason is assuming my child is a girl which is disturbing enough.

on FB i wouldnt even type responses to alot of poeple. i would just respond in memes only haha. i have a thousand pre-made memes covering all sorts of possible responses. i would only type back if someone showed real intelligence an interest.

eventually i got perma banned from FB, for breaking their rules, and havnt tried appealing it.

1- develop better counter arguments to their positions. simpler, stronger, smarter. — OmniscientNihilist

on FB i wouldnt even type responses to alot of poeple. i would just respond in memes only haha. — OmniscientNihilist

I sense a disturbance in the force...

I sense a disturbance in the force... — Wallows

memes can be very effective for morons

basically a simple counter argument with a picture

a picture says a thoussand words

Sick to death of the moderators ignoring this guy. — Mark Dennis

I have not had the pleasure of talking to this person myself, but I have noticed over my time here that some of the mods are just very inconsistent with their judgments about what the correct "tone" is and when someone is going too far. On the whole, though, they err on the side of leniency, except in matters of getting "off-topic." They pounce on that without fail. :smirk:

memes can be very effective for morons — OmniscientNihilist

Well, that's quite the overgeneralization. I'd think FB encourages the hyping up of concepts, as pictures tend to attract more attention than well thought out contemplative posts.

I suppose I'm just glad this isn't Facebook.

when youve been debating philosophy for 20 years you hear the same things over and over and over. which is why i have a thousand memes ready as responses. it saved me time.

when youve been debating philosophy for 20 years you hear the same things over and over and over. which is why i have a thousand memes ready as responses. it saved me time. — OmniscientNihilist

Cool beans, though, there's an element to philosophy that seems to encourage a selfless desire to engage with the hoi polloi, don't you think?

I don't like Bartrick's posts, so I avoid them, but don't see any grounds for banning him (unlike the resident MAGA troll who has had it coming a long time.)

there's an element to philosophy that seems to encourage a selfless desire to engage with the hoi polloi, don't you think? — Wallows

i just wanted to test my conclusions, against masses, to see if they would hold up

i just wanted to test my conclusions, against masses, to see if they would hold up — OmniscientNihilist

I suppose Socrates wasn't Buddha in trying to alleviate the suffering of individuals by engaging with them. Arguably, so?

I suppose Socrates wasn't Buddha in trying to alleviate the suffering of individuals by engaging with them. Arguably, so? — Wallows

he would use the socratic method because it avoid ego

if you directly challenge peoples beliefs it triggers ego which puts up defensive walls

otherwise you can just walk poeple into seeing their own contradictions

he would use the socratic method because it avoid ego

if you directly challenge peoples beliefs it triggers ego which puts up defensive walls

otherwise you can just walk poeple into seeing their own contradictions — OmniscientNihilist

He seemingly failed at this task, with the judgement passed over him leading him to drink the hemlock...

Why do you think he failed at this?

Why do you think he failed at this? — Wallows

truth vs power

the eternal war

he would use the socratic method because it avoid ego — OmniscientNihilist

truth vs power

the eternal war — OmniscientNihilist

Lot's of seemingly joint discontinuities here... Care to connect the dots for me?

Lot's of seemingly joint discontinuities here... Care to connect the dots for me? — Wallows

truth vs pleasure
truth vs power
truth vs surival
truth vs bias
logic vs emotions
mind vs body

truth vs pleasure
truth vs bias
logic vs emotions — OmniscientNihilist

Truth and logic are good friends. :halo:

I think we should strive to be more logical, then?

I think we should strive to be more logical, then? — Wallows

like machines

i wonder what the next step beyond machines will be. what will machines create that will eventually surpass them?

humans genocide animals, machines genocide humans, ??? genocides machines...

The way he speaks to people is intolerable and lacks respect and whenever he hears an argument that stumps him he tells the person to relearn even though hes the one who doesnt seem to undertsand what he is talking about. His pathetic stoicism critique comes from a misunderstanding of temperence and that misunderstanding has not been shown to be being practiced by any stoic that I'm aware of. Only reason he is here is to try and convince people not to have babies.

He breaks the rules on tone with almost everyone that speaks to him and meets the site definition of evangelism by being a hard dogmatic ideologue. But sure, lets all just ignore the rule breaks and let our community descend into chaos all to defend one arrogant and belligerent narc. Why not? Its only our community right?

Seriously wayfarer read the rules again and look at his responses to most people. Tone Matters, incendiary personal arguments are not philosophy. In fact, ad hom is the surest sign of a weak argument. If he can dish it out like that then he should be banned.

Would you like to explain how he hasnt broken the rules? Am I missing some line at the bottom of the guidelines that says "These arent really the rules we just put them here as a joke"? You really think he hasn't broken any rules? Read his last ten comments to people that arent me and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Why are you covering for him?

A couple of his posts were reported and I deleted them for being too personal. That's the type of thing that could get someone banned if it was a pattern because it could be considered trolling. But just being an unpleasant dick isn't in itself a banning offence. I'll raise it in the mod forum.

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

@Baden So he's not breaking this rule with his views on antinatalism? He's not going to convince anyone with that and calling people stupid for not agreeing to me fits the definition of this rule break very neatly.

Seriously wayfarer read the rules again and look at his responses to most people. — Mark Dennis

I agree his tone is obnoxious but I dealt with it by ignoring his posts. But I do see your point also and would have not the least objection if banning was the outcome.

That was genuinely what I had elected to do awhile ago. Was going fine until he stsrted trying to muscle into conversations I was having with other people and tagging my responses to someone else who I do actually enjoy speaking with.

A couple of his posts were reported and I deleted them for being too personal. That's the type of thing that could get someone banned if it was a pattern because it could be considered trolling. — Baden

There are more than a few people who leave forums because of unpleasant attacks or trolling. It is unfortunate that they leave - better to stay and improve than be chased away. But only if they think it's worth it. I've been on the point of leaving many times. However, I simply take a break to gain perspective.
Prioritise my time and energy.

The one thing that would help identify the pattern in someone's inappropriate behaviour would be if people flagged up such posts i.e. report them. On a regular basis. Mods can't see everything.

Why people can't or won't use this function is interesting. I suppose it's like being a tell-tale in the playground crying and running off to the teacher. Nobody wants to be that kid, do they?
However, if there is bullying involved, this needs to be addressed.

As a matter of interest, I didn't report @Bartricks in his later responses to me, perhaps I should have. I didn't see it as anything destructive, a 'horrible attack'. Instead, I gave a brief reply and then ignored.

Another thing, that might be considered a pattern is that of returning to posts and editing them after the discussion has moved on without informimg the interlocutors. It is dishonest and only a keen eye can detect this and call it out - as @Wallows did with @Bartricks in the Stoicism thread.

I don't particularly like threads calling for a Banning of someone. Nor do I like the 'Bannings' thread.
The latter could be renamed the (Reason for) 'Leavings' thread. This would give a good overview of why people leave, or are made to leave, and then issues can be addressed.

The banned person goes through a shaming process which is far from ideal, especially if there are mental health issues involved. They can still read what is being said of them for better or worse with no recourse to defend selves.

I would hope that, after reflection and having time out, people would feel able to return without any grand declarations having to be made.

i say get used to the dirt because its everywhere in life. you cant always stay clean. master everything at every level.

improvise, adapt, overcome — OmniscientNihilist

Well said.

But just being an unpleasant dick isn't in itself a banning offence. — Baden

Why not? I mean, I'm all for philosophy done with passion, but done badly - just to be obnoxious... I don't get why these people are allowed to remain. It's not like the Internet is going to run out of space for discussion forums. I think it would be a lot better if we (or some other forum, of course - I'm speaking hypothetically) had a relatively clear set of standards which differed from those of other forums sufficiently to give a range of options depending on how people choose to engage.

At the moment it's much like the chore of buying jeans - you have choice of over a thousand varieties, all of which virtually identically match the fashion of the day.

With Facebook, twitter, reddit and several other philosophy forums, I don't see why each one need cater to the same wide-as-possible audience.

Obviously, this forum might choose to cater to the borderline-sociopathic-narcissist market, I'm not in a position to suggest which way you should go, I'm just saying I don't think there's any harm in picking a way and being polite but firm with those who don't fit that ethos.

Edit - I take it all back. I've just had a look at one other philosophy forum and some of the stuff on reddit and twitter... Good God! I'll just keep quiet about what now seem like minor infractions.