I liked the bit where they all had ice-cream and talked about the ball game.

The rest was shit.

Strikes me (and still haven't had time to look into it in detail, so just an impression), he's a kind of British Jordan Peterson. Capable of making sensible criticisms of the worst of the left but incapable of not playing footsie with the worst of the right.

The Guardian reported in 2002 that Scruton had been writing about these issues while failing to disclose that he was receiving £54,000 a year from JTI

So not much scruple about spreading damaging propaganda for money, under the guise of political philosophy, which to my mind is a step or two beyond selective quoting to embarrass a political opponent. — unenlightened

Moral high ground rug pulled from beneath cloven hooves then.

The Dems are split on this. Sanders, Warren, and others have spoken up strongly whereas Pelosi and her ilk have melted like ice-cubes in a stream of dog piss.

The topic and Scruton's remarks could be used for the purpose you're suggesting, since skilful dog whistling does usually look like that. Though in this case I do doubt that their original intent is like that though. — fdrake

That's pretty much my view on it too.

Anyway, it's 2am here, so night all.

And mostly I'm looking at it from a practical point of view: i.e. what works. I don't see a huge moral issue either way.

As I said before, I agree with some of your points. This:

A philosophy forum should be all-inclusive to achieve maximal diversity of input. Otherwise, it's just a clubhouse you built for you and your buddies. — whollyrolling

I disagree with.

This:

If word got around that your site was a place that anyone, even bigots, could express their views, it would likely lead to the site's downfall. — whollyrolling

I agree with.

If we wanted quantity not quality, we wouldn't ban low quality. And if you think you can find higher quality elsewhere in an unmoderated popular philosophy forum, go for it, but you won't because we're right about what works and you're wrong.

@whollyrolling I agree with some of the rest of what you said, but it doesn't make me want to have an ignorant bigot like @sunknight back.

Stop pretending to be a rebel. If you really were, you would have left long ago. :razz:

A philosophy forum should be all-inclusive to achieve maximal diversity of input. Otherwise, it's just a clubhouse you built for you and your buddies. — whollyrolling

No, it's just a regular moderated forum with a clear set of guidelines boringly on display for all to see, and which, if we didn't enforce, we wouldn't have been able to foster quality and become as successful as we have. We don't get to ban people just because we don't like them, and there are plenty of posters around that are far from being our buddies.

Yes, or no, whichever one means I don't have to answer any more questions. :wink:

:scream:

And I've noted your noting of my note. (Don't think I won't be here all night on this one). :wink:

Lol, I was tempted to say "Yes or no, whichever one means he stays banned". :lol:

Noted.

can we not unban him? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

No.

Well, I suppose we don't have to open the banning thread now that this is here. But usual thing, 24hrs to let us know your feelings about the decision should you wish to do so.

:up:

Your English is fine. Mostly just a few spelling mistakes. There's a Grammarly extension for Chrome that can pick those up for you along with grammar issues (though it's not as accurate with regard to the latter).

Can't be more reasonable than that. You would probably be the perfect person if you stopped watching Fox News. :smile:

I'll PM you the answer. :halo:

Christ on a bike, you're doing it to me now. I think I'll go back to talking to @S about Mars Bars.

You said you were 'playing the idiot' not that you were an idiot.

What's the difference between playing the idiot and trolling?

Polls consistently show a preference among Americans for higher taxes on the rich. But somehow it never happens. What does happen is fiscally irresponsible tax breaks that drive national debt to unsustainable levels, and then that unsustainable debt is used as an excuse for cutting public services. And just in case anyone notices, induce distracting panic about immigrants, Muslims, PC, SJWs etc.

I think I'll give it a miss. I already suspect Hanover is hiding in my garden planning an unprovoked sexual assault and I'd rather not add to the paranoia thanks very much.

And in between getting your knickers in a twist because someone laughs along. Well, so long and thanks for all the figs. :ok:

And always remain on point. This discussion is supposed to be about the rules of philosophical dialogue.

My point was to have a joke with you.

Maybe you should learn the difference between... real insults and things you just find rude or insulting.

You should know how the conversation would go given what you wrote, especially before you edited it. If you want to be serious, be serious. If you want to give the impression you're not, expect others to act on that.

So now you've just edited out rules 10 and 11 where you said you were always right and never to take you seriously, and which were part of the reason I moved this to the lounge. Because I thought it wasn't... serious.

Bad form.

Anyway, here is the part you deleted:

"10. Learn that I'm always right, except when I'm wrong, which is never.

11. And finally, learn that I'm always joking, except when I'm deadly serious, which is never."

And you wrote this:

4. You should not evade the burden of justification or refuse to be reasonable when appropriate, which is almost always - setting aside some amount of permissible facetiousness - or withhold beliefs from scrutiny. If you cannot reasonably justify a belief or aren't willing to do so when confronted or challenged, then you should be explicit and honest about it. — S

But I thought I was being witty and comical with no holds barred... :cry:

Lounged.

12. Philosophical posts go in the philosophical categories. Random vaguely sounding philosophical stuff you thought up while sugar high on deep-fried Mars bars goes in the lounge.

Can you beef this up with some kind of empirical support and a bit more analysis (like taking a position on your own question)? Otherwise, as @Hanover suggested, it may be more suited to being merged into the Trump thread.

The I'll-see-what-I-can-get-away-with-and-if-I-can't-turn-it-into-a-win-anyway president.

I guess you can use this thread to discuss it. I've moved it to the Lounge from Feedback though as the discussion is not about this site but your project.

Absolute deadlock in a Parliament which is against everything and for nothing, so the only way out looks to be a general election or a people's vote. In the meantime, expect more extensions.

.. can you imagine? — S

Unfortunately, yes, great allies entwined by locks of bad hair.