Or something labeled "for beginners" in some friendly way. We do get a regular stream of people describing themselves as new to philosophy , here to dip their toes, try out their pet theory on others, etc. — Srap Tasmaner

That's what the Learning Centre category is for. There is a question subcategory in there and resources for newbies (which anyone can add to).

Sub-forums for homework help, for instance. — Srap Tasmaner

On this one, I'd say no. We're not here to promote laziness. Students need to do their own homework or at least be able to start a proper OP that stimulates conversation from which they can then draw ideas.

Well, Pence, the walking corpse, would never be this much fun, that's for sure.

The would/wouldn't thing is particularly funny because his advisers came up with that idea after he had doubled down on Twitter and elsewhere on his Putin love. And the context when changed to "wouldn't" doesn't actually make any sense compared to the original which fit with everything he was saying... As Maw said though he'll just blow all this out of the water later anyway.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

For the right price — Sapientia

:grin: Thirty silver dollars I believe.

Oh, I meant I'd do it if we can figure out a way to integrate it. And I was being a bit tongue in cheek. If we do put up a disclaimer, we'll polish your rough-hewn words a bit to make them shine as they deserve.

By the way @Hanover, you know the more you show how much you hate us doing the superior European thing, the more I'm going to do it? You do know that, right? :hearts:

Yes, still listening. I'm not rejecting it out of hand. There have been a few occasions where warnings or deletions have escalated into situations that made a ban our only option. And we would obviously like to avoid that if possible. Banning stopped being fun a long time ago and will not be fun again until Hanover goes nuts and tells us all to fuck off.

So, just copy-paste your version minus the suffer bitch part, down with that...

I like the idea as long as it requires no extra work on my part. :100:

To expand on that, we care about the site and want it to work as well as possible, but we derive most of our enjoyment from posting just like everyone else, so we're not likely to want to make our own non-posting responsibilities more complicated or burdensome than they need to be. If that means less hand-holding, fine, we're likely to think the responsibility should lie more with the poster than with us.

We're users before we are mods — StreetlightX

:up:

I know state-run prisons are in a majority (though you still do that poorly as is evidenced by your 70% recidivism rate vs. Norway's 20%), but I'm objecting to a system that allows any for-profit prisons. And then I was broadening the conversation by pointing out that other countries that are less rampantly capitalist do these kinds of things better in general. But you seem to consider that as some kind of an insult. So, OK, you tell me then what is the ideal model of a prison system you would like to see in the US and how does it differ from the one you have now?

Or Norway and Australia, or Norway and Japan. Odd then that they have similar and similarly better health care systems than your country, isn't it? What's holding you back is not some magical retrograde cultural gene, it's your bad choices along with continuous negative thinking and excuses like you're demonstrating here. Where's that American can-do attitude when it's most needed?

The specifics of your idea may or may not be possible to implement, but the thought and feeling behind it are commendable. — 0 thru 9

I tend towards this view especially with the homepage set up here, but we'll continue to listen.

Or maybe the moderators are just too busy driving their Lambos and hanging with Elon Musk and the Winklevoss twins. :snicker: — 0 thru 9

Yes, we recently got a fifty percent payrise on our zero dollars per lifetime rate. Chuffed with that.

@Hanover

An example of a country with far better outcomes than yours in terms of their prison system is Norway. This is the type of thing if not the exact thing you should be aiming for. Look and learn. The answers are out there and they don't lie in profit for punishment. It takes a large investment in money and intelligence and the patience to allow it to pay off over time.

https://www.businessinsider.in/Why-Norways-Prison-System-Is-So-Successful/articleshow/45483042.cms

Don't worry, I've called my favorite judge and Sap's going down. I just need you to wire me a couple of grand though... :grimace:

There were two judges involved not one. But you shouldn't need to wait for these kind of abuses to understand that imprisoning people for profit will inevitably result in greedy people taking advantage of the system and causing harm. Your predominantly for-profit healthcare suffers from the same problem, which is why it's not rated even in the top twenty in the world and is by the estimation of your own politicians a complete mess. Again, no-one's recommending communism here, just saying look at the non-profit systems that have demonstrably better outcomes in Europe, particularly in Northern Europe and copy them. It's like you're standing there trying to play soccer with your butt while the other team is doing it far better with their feet and you wonder why you're losing. Don't be afraid of taking on better ideas that are staring you in the face.

Nice one. :100:

The main thing is that 95% of Breitbart readers will find a way to simultaneously interpret this as a win for the President and wish cancer good luck in defeating John McCain.

FYI: This poster has been banned for spam.

As per Maw's answer, I wasn't decrying his criminal tendencies but the situation in which they were allowed to flourish. He, as a sociopathic kidnapper, was allowed to do what he did for far too long out in the open in full view of society because he was enabled by a sick system. I'm glad he eventually got 28 years but it should have been more and imprisoning people should not be a for-profit enterprise as it opens up opportunities for this kind of corrupt behaviour.

Interesting. Got a link for that?

So @raza now that he's reversed himself and says he does blame Putin, I presume you will reverse too, and complement him on his magnificent volte-face, which you supported all along. Quick now before he changes his mind again...

Another prediction, this time a short term one. Based on the fact that Trump is a coward as he showed when he had to faceTheresa May and reversed his Sun interview criticisms, it'll be the same here. As soon as he's safely out of Putin's gaze he'll change his tune and try to clean up the mess — Baden

And he's doing that now with a press conference reading from a prepared statement saying he meant the opposite of what he actually said. Makes him look very weak and incompetent but marginally better than doubling down.

Where's the bit about them committing treason?

It appears to me that US and UN opposition to Trump would like conflicts to break out to try to paint Trump as a failure. — raza

Evidence?

Also, conflicts are on the cards to detract from the actual evidence of actual treason and collusions of the Clinton cabal. — raza

Evidence?

But a war between Russia and the US was never on the cards for the simple reason it's in neither's interest to the most dramatic degree possible, i.e. mutual annihilation. So, sure none of us want that but it wasn't going to happen no matter who was President. And it certainly wasn't going to be caused by Trump pointing out to Putin that he wasn't happy with Russia's cyber attacks on the US. It was a low bar which he managed to slide under for no apparent reason.



On foreign policy, he's simply a buffoon. There's nothing much else to it. He knows almost nothing and just goes with his gut. So, I don't think it's possible to significantly underestimate him. On domestic, he's good at relating to his base and relies more on his advisers to sort out the details. The Republicans won't dump him because they're afraid of his base, and the Dems don't have the power to. So, it seems you're stuck with him until 2020. As I said earlier Pence is equally if not more slimey, and has none of the entertainment value so...

Putin is a master of this game — tim wood

Unfortunately, Putin doesn't have to be a master to outfox Trump, he only has to be... conscious. A ten-year old child could learn the beat-Trump-on-foreign-policy strategy: flatter his ego and then sit back and watch as he does everything you want him to do.

What's weird is you can't admit your almost-exclusive function here is to promote Trump. It's not against the rules. You can support anyone you like within reasonable boundaries. Why dance around it? That's what you're here for. Embrace it.

The vast majority of your overall posts are about Trump and the Mueller investigation and on Trump's side. So, your almost-exclusive function here is to promote Trump. That doesn't make you guilty of anything. It's just an observation.

So my response to that would mean I would be talking about Trump, yeah? — raza

You're not the only one who talks too much about Trump. Many of us do. But it's odd that you came here apparently exclusively to promote Trump. You don't appear to have any other function. I think that's what @Jeremiah's talking about. (But I'm not going to comment on the Russian cyber-troll accusation, which is just speculation.)

If I may expand this topic slightly to include closed threads... (If not here, would it be better in the Shoutbox, or a new thread?). First of all, many thanks to the moderators for their work to keep this place up and running, and not devolving into a mud wrestling match. Easier said than done, probably like trying to herd dozens of obstinate cats. :wink:

But I wonder if in some cases, the closing of a thread like for instance the one by Marcus de Brun about education and racism (which was probably started because of a understandable and deserved banning) was a bit premature. I mean, even if the premise of a thread is borderline wacky, maybe giving it time to be shown or proven to be “wacky” or wrong would perhaps be better than quickly putting a padlock on it. At least for appearances sake, which is not unimportant. And also to let others attempt to argue against the OP or at least give some differing takes. I know you can’t make a purse out of a sow’s ear, but maybe there is a point buried somewhere in the haystack of words. Of course if a poster is trolling, baiting others, or looking for a glorious funeral pyre martyrdom, then that is another thing entirely... — 0 thru 9

I'll resist the temptation to debate this here as it's off-topic. Marcus has not been banned! :party: . All's I say is I think I gave the opportunity for an elucidation and none was forthcoming. But let's please keep this discussion purely about bannings. Not wanting to be heavy handed but anything else will be considered deleteable. So, last chance to comment on internetstranger's banning before this gets temporarily closed again.

Also, for the sake for being fair I think the option of a temporary suspension should be seriously considered. Even IF they “don’t work” 99% of the time, suspensions would STILL be a good idea, imho. The appearances of fairness is not mere window dressing. — 0 thru 9

Noted.

OK, well, it's fair enough to register discontent. That's what this discussion is primarily for.

I'm sure internetstranger, if he's reading this, will be comforted by your support, so you may have achieved something, but being honest there will be no dramatic changes in the ban policy in the short term at least. We mods, most of us, have been around this and the previous philosophy forum for years, over a decade in some cases, and our aggregate experience suggests temporary bans (which have been tried before) don't work.

That's what the "non-negotiable" bit pertains to. It just wouldn't be practical to have public appeal trials after bannings and possible reinstatements.

The question in respect of the duration of the ban and the opportunity for an appeal is not contained here. — Marcus de Brun

Yes it is, very specifically:

"Bans are permanent and non-negotiable."

We have to strike a balance somewhere. I suppose we may kill a few metaphorical babies but if the water's too dirty, the only people who'll want to drink here will be pigs, no?

Well, if and when you start your own forum, you might find them useful to prevent the place turning into the equivalent of a YouTube comments page despite all the good ideas therein.

Is there an opportunity to appeal against a 'banning' and are such bans permanent? — Marcus de Brun

If you had read the guidelines, you would know the answer to that question. Please go and read them.

And it would be useful for me as I feel my own ban is immanent? — Marcus de Brun

Please stop being dramatic and a martyr. There's no need for it. If you were in trouble, you would have received a warning. We're not looking to ban people. It's a hassle and work we don't want.

f you really don't care then why are you arguing it and calling it fact? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It's not as important because they did the right thing (wouldn't any country want to find out if their election was interfered with?) but my love for Hanover compels me to answer even his more pointless questions.

And Obama suggesting that he will have "more flexibility" in his second term was? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I can't access the video so maybe you can explain and justify the equivalency you are trying to draw here. (Bear in mind though this discussion is not about Obama and I'm not an Obama fan, so I'm not a partisan with regard to him and Trump. I don't like either).