Oompa loompa doompety doo
I’ve got an obvious puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you aren't dumb you’ll listen to me

What do you get when you split semantic twine
Batting strands about like a hair-brained feline
What are you at, it's misogyny you idiot
Why do you think you should bring it up, that

I don’t like the look of it

Oompa loompa doompety da
If you’re not pedantic you will go far
You will live without misogyny too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do

Absolute power corrupts absolutely — Leghorn

'Tis sad indeed what has become of jamalrob. But ne'er fear the tyrant shall be deposed one day and in his place we shall install the fairest and most equitable of democracies... ruled over with an iron first by me.

It seems you do nothing but wank in public...and no, that doesn't make you a philosopher... :wink: :rofl:

Nice try but meh... Try an Oompah song though and you might pass muster. :strong:

Oh no, I would never indulge in such doggerel; I'd rather be eliminated from the herd.

What is it that makes one form of intolerance less bad than any other? — Yohan

Intolerance of espoused^^ intolerance? Fuck yeah. 'Pissing on the floor or furniture' (though not on any other guest in particular – well, in any 'civilized' saloon, toss 'em out the goddamn door!) :fire:

i.e. assholery^^

I admire your enthusiasm.

"You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!" — Baden

But that was a test. The banned cannot return his everlasting gobstopper, and you will never say, “So shines a good deed in a weary world.”

Just as well.

Would that the gobstopper had fulfilled its employment, our martyr may never have been banned. :cry:

I've never heard 'would' used instead of the conjunction 'if' :chin:

Thread still open?

There's a certain philosophical genius in asking a question instead of making a declarative statement; especially when you don't want an intolerant response to your intolerance.

No, but you can be Pilate...as long as you wash the blood off your hands — Leghorn

:rofl:

I missed some entertaining stuff while I was asleep.

Now, would one of you tiny-booted muttonheads pass the mustard?

Thread still open? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, it's quite surprising. I think we, the staff, have a loose convention whereby it's the banner who is responsible for closing the thread. Baden might be leaving it open to catch some more misogynists.

Do you all realize that bans in cyberspace are equivalent to capital punishment in the real world? — TheMadFool

Not for those that have been on the forum for one or two days.

For those with over 10k posts and years of participation, that may be the case...

My point was not to ban anyone at least not on the strength of one outburst or statement. Delete offensive posts was my suggestion; reject the idea, not the person. So, your objection is misdirected. — Janus

Ah ok. So we should just delete any posts that seem pessimistic. Wouldn’t want it affecting people, their partners, or society after all. Gotcha.

My objection is to the idea that mods should be responsible for the societal and personal impact of the site. That’s ridiculous.

I think banning people for low quality posts is just a way to allow removal of aggravating people. Driving while annoying. — T Clark

I highly doubt that. A specific individual comes to mind.

Ah ok. So we should just delete any posts that seem pessimistic. Wouldn’t want it affecting people, their partners, or society after all. Gotcha.

My objection is to the idea that mods should be responsible for the societal and personal impact of the site. That’s ridiculous. — khaled

I haven't said that pessimistic posts should be deleted. What is to be deleted is up to the mods. I also haven't said they are or should be responsible for " the societal and personal impact of the site", I was just pointing to possible negative effects of such a rejection and advocating a bit of compassion.

All I was suggesting is deletion of offending posts (with of course a warning) rather than immediate banning in all cases; of course if the person persists in producing offensive posts then that would be another matter. What's "ridiculous" is putting words in the mouth of others..

Also, its kind of hypocritical in my eyes, that intolerance is ok as long as its only toward people with certain ideologies. Eg, its ok to express intolerance or be inflammatory toward republicans or religious people, or anti-vaccers etc here, up to a point. What is it that makes one form of intolerance less bad than any other? — Yohan

It is hypocritical only for those who profess tolerance for all. No one here lives up to that, as far as I can see, though some claim it. Which is far worse than being honest in my opinion. Would you be tolerant of someone trying to rob you? Or are you just another person who claims tolerance for all, until someone inconveniences you enough (like everyone else)?

What makes some kinds of intolerance less bad than others? Many things. For instance, how harmful is the object of intolerance. I doubt you think intolerance of animal cruelty is as bad as intolerance of the existence of Jews. One is harmful one isn’t. And that leads to another difference: Accuracy of facts the intolerance is based on. Anti semites will claim that the existence of Jews is more harmful than animal cruelty, and will base their opinions on that. And they would be wrong, and their intolerance misplaced and unacceptable.

I also haven't said they are or should be responsible for " the societal and personal impact of the site", I was just pointing to possible negative effects of such a rejection and advocating a bit of compassion. — Janus

“You shouldn’t be responsible for societal impact”

“But watch out, doing this will cause have a negative societal impact, so you shouldn’t do it”

All I was suggesting is deletion of offending posts (with of course a warning) rather than immediate banning in all cases — Janus

It’s rarely in all cases. This is an exception, understandably because the banned member openly said he breaks a rule.

You're still imputing implications that I didn't intend. Anyway I have no interest in discussing this further, since my only purpose was to encourage the moderators to take a more compassionate line in cases like this; a purpose which has obviously failed and drawn some self-righteous ire to boot, so there is little point in continuing to talk about it.

my only purpose was to encourage the moderators to take a more compassionate line in cases like this; — Janus

I think they are being compassionate to the female philosophers on the site. Perhaps you could be more compassionate to the moderators; it is thanks to their unpaid efforts that the site is not overrun with conspiracy theorists, proselytisers of all flavours, haters of various sections of the membership, trolls and idiots. They get far more criticism than praise or thanks, and willingly subject themselves here to the public complaints of the very people they work to keep the site bearable for - the contributors. They are not perfect, but if you find a better free site for philosophical discussion I'll join you there.

they are being compassionate to the female philosophers on the site. — unenlightened

Exactly. The moral vacuity of those who would like to see "compassion" extended to bigots while having nothing to say about a full one half of the population for whom their being lesser-than is 'just another opinion' could not be a less compassionate stance. Compassion is excizing cancer not sympthizing with it.

It is hypocritical only for those who profess tolerance for all. No one here lives up to that, as far as I can see, though some claim it. Which is far worse than being honest in my opinion. Would you be tolerant of someone trying to rob you? Or are you just another person who claims tolerance for all, until someone inconveniences you enough (like everyone else)?

What makes some kinds of intolerance less bad than others? Many things. For instance, how harmful is the object of intolerance. I doubt you think intolerance of animal cruelty is as bad as intolerance of the existence of Jews. One is harmful one isn’t. And that leads to another difference: Accuracy of facts the intolerance is based on. Anti semites will claim that the existence of Jews is more harmful than animal cruelty, and will base their opinions on that. And they would be wrong, and their intolerance misplaced and unacceptable. — khaled

Want to start a thread on this topic? I think I was talking more about the spirit of intolerance. Hatred based on difference of race, sex, ideology. Hatred is an infection, and I think all forms of hatred are rooted in ideologies. But yeah, I'd prefer to get more philosophical in a philosophy thread.

It's amusing how up in arms the self-righteous become — Janus

There are two types of people in this world: the righteous and the wicked.
And it is invariably the righteous who determine who is in which group.

Quote from the publication "Murphy's Law" cca 1975

:up: The impulse to protect the aggressor here puzzles me too.

Baden might be leaving it open to catch some more misogynists. — jamalrob

Wanted to give a little warning before closing as it had become popular. Then it became funny. Will close soon and try not to steal the last word. :smile:

I think we, the staff, have a loose convention whereby it's the banner who is responsible for closing the thread. — jamalrob

I hate to be bound by convention, so locked. :cool:

@M777 was banned for being returning banned member @stoicHoneyBadger.

You don't get to be a Diogenes just because you masturbated in the marketplace.
— Baden

No, but you can be Pilate...as long as you wash the blood off your hands. — Leghorn

As far as we know, Pilate never masturbated in public. You're thinking of his great friend in Rome, Biggus Diccus.

Well, better late than never.

You're thinking of his great friend in Rome, Biggus Diccus. — Ciceronianus

He has a wife you know...