Comments

  • Some people think better than others?
    Without addressing your questions in much detail, let me just ask: have you never had the feeling that you are talking to someone who is more intelligent than you? It's obvious to me that some people, including some people on this forum, think faster and deeper than I can. It might be interesting to delve into what this means, but on the surface I don't see a problem.

    It makes sense to say it because thinking is a general skill. To say someone thinks better is to make a general statement, which is appropriate when we're talking about a general skill. It's true that thinking combines different styles and motivations, and some may be better at logical development than intuitive or imaginative leaps, but to say someone is a better thinker in general is probably most often just to say that they are better at all of those things, and that their thinking skills can be applied widely.
  • Can anyone speak any languages other than English/What are the best ways to learn a second language?
    Swirl those hips with Enrique Iglesias. — TimeLine

    My spring and summer were plagued with "Súbeme la Radio" and "Despacito", playing constantly at the restaurant next door to my apartment, and I can't say the immersion helped at all.
  • Can anyone speak any languages other than English/What are the best ways to learn a second language?
    I've just moved to a Spanish speaking country and I need to learn Spanish.

    What are the best methods to learn a second language? Spanish or otherwise

    What are the benefits of speaking another language (other than ease of communication)?     — JJJJS

    I just want to say, don't be like me. I moved to Spain last year and haven't made much progress. It's partly because of the nature of my work (web development), and because all my friends here are English-speakers. But those are excuses. Duolingo says I'm 45% fluent, but if you saw me trying to hold a conversation you'd see that isn't true. Duolingo is pretty good, but it doesn't work on its own. It's not focused on everyday conversation. A typical example sentence is "the elephant walked near the strawberries". Useful for learning grammar but not very useful when talking to your neighbours.

    I do have one piece of advice, for what it's worth. If there are lots of English-speakers around they may, sometimes out of impatience, reject your attempts to speak Spanish and just let you use English instead (they will know you are a native English-speaker). What you should do in those situations is insist on using Spanish.
  • Transubstantiation
    ↪Sapientia
    I didn't respond to it because it was a silly point, and since you know I'm an intelligent person, you must know my answer: obviously you could be arrogant and right. I happen to think you are. But that's irrelevant to the point unenlightened was making.
  • Transubstantiation
    ↪Sapientia
    An incredible comment. You must be joking, and yet obviously you're not.

    Stating that something is the cold hard truth does not make it so. You merely repeat, again and again, "I am right, I am right, I am right", claiming to be speaking the truth (as if we thought you were arguing for something you did not believe), while your views are disputed by several people.
  • Transubstantiation
    Claims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's. — unenlightened

    Precisely.
  • For a better forum culture
    ↪ArguingWAristotleTiff
    I know, and you have a point, and it's exactly what I tried to address in my post.
  • For a better forum culture
    Let me add a point more relevant to the OP. As I have pointed out before, the single greatest need on this forum is a mod who can act as a counterweight to the present mod team. I suggested Agustino, i.e. someone who isn't best buds or ideologically sympathetic with the other mods.

    The mods have refused to allow this on utterly unexplained and arbitrary grounds. They say they desire feedback and a diverse mod team, but then turn around and say, "no, we don't have to listen to your feedback, and we're not going to make the mod team diverse by adding another mod." It would be the simplest thing in the world to shut people like me up by doing this, and yet, inexplicably, they refuse. So I will continue to have a cautious, skeptical attitude toward the leadership here.     — Thorongil

    Baden has already addressed this but I'd already written my own response so here it is...

    As I see it this discussion is not about ideology, but about tone, manners, and so on.

    But to address your point: we have listened to the feedback, and we do want a diverse mod team. Moderators are chosen on the basis of various qualities that have nothing to do with political or religious leanings, so what you see as a refusal to be diverse is honestly no such thing. Just because we don't want person "A" to be a mod, doesn't mean it's his religious or political views that are putting us off.
  • For a better forum culture
    Perhaps I'm wrong, but this is supposed to be a philosophy forum, not a bullshitting, verbal sparring ground for trolls and assholes or some sort of comedy club. — Buxtebuddha

    You're right, and I agree with several of your other points.

    I look at the list of comments you provide. They are inconsiderate, arrogant, snotty and smug. They are also bad philosophy. On the other hand, I don't see any of them that should be deleted. Be that as it may, I have made the case before that moderators should be held to a higher standard than regular posters. Otherwise, the credibility of the forum is undermined. — T Clark

    I agree with all of this. The crucial part of the guidelines is here:

    2) Tone matters:

    A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

    3) Context matters:

    The amount of leeway you get on the above depends to a degree on where you post and what the topic under discussion is. You're likely to have more freedom in the Shoutbox or in discussions in the Lounge, for example, than in the philosophical discussions.

    A respectful tone is merely desirable, and being disrespectful is not always a case for action by the moderators. However, it seems fair to expect moderators themselves to live up to what is desirable, and to almost always be respectful.

    And although inconsiderate, arrogant, snotty and smug comments are more tolerated in the Shoutbox, when the discussion there has developed into a substantive philosophical debate that really belongs in Philosophy of Religion, that leeway doesn't apply.

    I will be urging all of the moderators to try to live up to the spirit, and not merely the letter, of the guidelines, and I will be keeping an eye on how that goes.
  • Is sexual harassment a product of a sexually repressive environment?
    If you want to stop sexual harassment, change the power relationships. — T Clark

    But some power relationships are personal: there will surely always be people who have more forceful personalities, who are more aggressive, or who are more willing to use people to get what they want than others. I'm reminded of the anarchistic hippy communes of the sixties, which had no power groups or hierarchies, but which apparently degenerated because certain individuals were able to bully others into submission.
  • Is a fish wet in water?
    ↪Πετροκότσυφας
    Nicely put.
  • Feedback
    ↪Agustino
    I don't know why TimeLine said "I'm learning".
  • Feedback
    ↪Agustino
    According to the change log, that was Noble Dust's own edit.
  • Is a fish wet in water?
    ↪Posty McPostface
    On the other hand, if I was soaked by rain and I said I was as wet as a fish, you would know what I meant. It's not nonsense. The primary problem then--the way that language has gone on holiday--might be to look for a definitive answer, which is to give in to the pull of the thought of wetness.
  • Is a fish wet in water?
    ↪Posty McPostface
    Pretty much, I reckon.
  • Is a fish wet in water?
    ↪Posty McPostface
    Πετροκότσυφας got the gist of my comment, and it's a standard interpretation of Wittgenstein.

    For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday. — Wittgenstein, PI 38

    That's pretty much what I meant. To ask "is a fish wet in water" is to use language without a proper appreciation or understanding of language, i.e., without a sensitivity to context, and so on.

    EDIT: By the way, I'm not sure if I want to entirely endorse the strong interpretation of this view, namely that all philosophical problems are mere linguistic confusions.
  • Is a fish wet in water?
    I feel as though language has failed us here, just not sure how. — Posty McPostface

    Or maybe we have failed language, just by asking the question.
  • Transubstantiation
    Really? How so? — Sapientia

    Yep, it's among mostly American Protestants that you find the creationists and fundamentalists. On the various brands of Christianity, their doctrines and histories, you could do worse than read A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch.

    Specifically on the relationship between literalism and Roman Catholicism, you could read this article from a leading Jesuit magazine:

    A Fundamental Challenge: Three ways to combat biblical literalism
  • Transubstantiation
    Yes, I agree with the absurdity of expecting people to believe in a literal interpretation, or expecting people to buy that it's reasonable and not a matter of blind faith. I also agree that there's special pleading involved, on account of it being religious, and being of this particular religion. If I were a Christian, I would definitely not be a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I would be a Protestant. — Sapientia

    Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. Personally I'd be a Catholic. Better buildings, among other things.
  • Cut the crap already
    you are not dishing up idle chatter — Bitter Crank
    :-}
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Akanthinos
    We have staff-only discussions but I don't know how Thorongil found out. Admins and mods do have a little telltale icon on their avatars though.
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Thorongil
    I don't know what you're talking about
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Thorongil
    I've said several times that I think highly of your contributions, at least when you're not whining. I don't think you've been under-moderated and I don't particularly want to see you being singled out. TimeLine's mod powers have nothing to do with you.
  • Cut the crap already
    So that's what it is? There's a suspicion that TimeLine has been brought on to the staff to silence certain people or crack down on something in particular? That is really not what is happening here.
  • Cut the crap already
    I don't see why I owe you an explanation. We're always looking for potential mods, and the qualities we look for are those you'd expect us to look for.

    Unless you tell us what your issue is, I can't see this discussion going anywhere.
  • Cut the crap already
    Choosing mods has never been open to debate among the membership at large. As usual, the decision was a private one, until you decided to make an issue out of it. It's certainly not true that asking to be a mod is a ticket to modhood.

    Again, what is your problem?
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Thorongil
    Believe it or not, alleviating your concerns about the mod team is not very high on our list of priorities when it comes to selecting new mods. I really still have no idea why you're harping on about Agustino.

    All I did was make someone a mod. You created the drama.
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Thorongil
    You created this drama, as I see it. You often do. As for Agustino, I've no idea why you're talking about him or why you think he'd make a good mod.
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Thorongil
    If you didn't have such a deep antipathy to this forum and the people who run it, I'd rather make you a mod. We're waiting for Agustino to ripen before we approach him. He's not quite ready.
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Buxtebuddha
    (Y)
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Thorongil
    Some of the mods are much, much quicker to delete posts than I would be. I have no reason to think TimeLine will as zealous as those members of the staff, and I see no reason to think she will pick on anyone.
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Buxtebuddha
    You're on my shortlist already
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Buxtebuddha
    Thanks for the support :)
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Thorongil
    You're making a mountain out of a molehill. But okay, your refusal is noted.
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Thorongil
    Honestly man, just grow up and stop playing the victim. She employed rhetoric. I've done much worse. Suck it up.
  • Cut the crap already
    ↪Thorongil
    Get over it, it's no big deal.
  • Cut the crap already
    1) Who made TimeLine a mod and why?

    2) Why was the thread I made my comment in closed?

    3) Why were my recent comments in the Shoutbox deleted and who deleted them?

    4) Is there any assurance that TimeLine will not censure posters and posts with whom and which she disagrees     — Thorongil

    I made her a mod, because she is a good thinker, a good writer, and shows good judgement.

    I don't know anything about 2 and 3.

    I don't understand 4. Can there ever be such an assurance? Why would you expect one? Why do you have a concern about it in this case? What is your problem?
  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    ↪schopenhauer1
    Happy Friday to you too Schop! X-)
  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    I pretty much agree with Masha Gessen's recent articles about these issues in the New Yorker.

    In the current American conversation, women are increasingly treated as children: defenseless, incapable of consent, always on the verge of being victimized. This should give us pause. Being infantilized has never worked out well for women. — Masha Gessen
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/sex-consent-dangers-of-misplaced-scale

    The other relevant one:
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/when-does-a-watershed-become-a-sex-panic

    One of the most important points she makes, aside from the one about the infantilization of women, is that sexual assault and harassment (the latter of which I think can be usefully defined here as repeated and sometimes coercive sexual advances when the advancer knows his attention is unwelcome) are trivialized when they're conflated with unwelcome flirting (you don't know until you try) and drunken bad sex. That this conflation is happening in the present discourse I think shows that predatory and coercive sexual behaviour is being essentialized as something intrinsic to being a man, on a continuum alongside normal sexual interaction.

    There's a pretty balanced podcast on Slate where they talk about whether what we're seeing is a moral panic ("sex panic"). Generally they see it as a very good thing that sexual coercion and assault are being exposed, but they do have concerns that it is indeed becoming a moral panic--and personally I would go much further than they do in those concerns.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/doublex_gabfest/2017/11/doublex_gabfest_on_kill_all_normies_sex_panic_and_she_s_gotta_have_it.html?ref=hvper.com
  • Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
    ↪WISDOMfromPO-MO
    (Y)
Home » Jamal