This thread wasnt intended to be about censorship, it was about the deletion of the thread, the weak reasons for that deletion and an overall point about how that sort of thing is detrimental to interesting discussions. (It destroys them)
There is a reason the most active topics are full of petty, pointless and dishonest back and forth. Its because that kind of behaviour is ignored or even championed (Streetlight for example) where as an honest question with no ill intention can get deleted because of a single word.
This “so what, fuck’em they're assholes” mentality is toxic and destructive to good discussions.

Sure, there is some logic to your argument but there is a specific point of logic (the law of non-contradiction) that you are ignoring.
Also, not assertions. Being able “to do anything” leads to an unavoidable contradiction. Maybe your unfamiliar with the rock so heavy it cannot be lifted? I understand you think thats dispelled by another use of “power to do anything” that just changes the rules ad Infiniti but its not. The reason its not is because then that would mean the parameters of the original task were not met, trading one logical contradiction for another. For example in the classic “can god create a rock he cannot lift” the ability to do anything means god can create the rock he cannot lift, resulting in something god cannot do (lift the rock). Thats a logical contradiction. So to avoid this logical contradiction you can simply have god now change the rules so that now he can lift the rock. The initial logical contradiction is avoided but now god wasn't able to do something else, create a rock he couldnt lift. The concept of being able to “do anything” is incoherent, by definition including nonsense (“anything” includes the “thing” nonsense). The concept always leads to contradiction because it defies its own parameters, like the squared circle it makes no sense.
Now, you can ignore that breach of logic to your hearts content but when you do, and try discussing it, I don’t know what you are talking about. As I said before, neither do you. Thats not intended to be snide, I mean it literally. The idea of being able to do anything is firmly entrenched on the other side of human comprehension, you do not know how it could possibly work and neither do I. Its just like the squared circle, you can say it, say the words, sure, no problem but you cannot draw it and you cannot describe it because it makes no sense. So too with being able to “do anything”, the words are empty placeholders. Semantic illusions with no substance.

Omnipotence, defined as being able to do anything, is a non-sensical term that has no real meaning. It is a paradoxical term, its own definition refutes it by showing a clear, inevitable contradiction. You are welcome to ignore logic but once you do that I don’t know what you are talking about anymore, and neither do you.

Ok.

That may be the way it emerged, I couldn't say, but thats not how I intend it nor do I think thats the way its generally understood today. Everyone knows what homophobe is, a person who hates or dislikes gay people, someone who holds being gay against someone. Thats whats not acceptable on this forum and thats what he was looking for.

Lol. I had forgotten about it but you keep reminding us.
I dont think there should be such a thing as a topic being too sensitive in a discussion forum. Any topic should be able to be breached by mature adults.

I don't know it is that straightforward. I just got a reply from my comment about philosophy and sex in which the person seemed to think that any discussion of sexuality on the forum was breaking the boundaries. So, I am not even making a jesting comment and I feel that I have broken a taboo. So, I am left feeling really confused. — Jack Cummins

No offense but I didnt find the masterbation thread compelling at all. Thats my point though, if people engage then it's probably worth keeping around, and let it die in its own. Even if its something I dont like or have interest n.

↪DingoJones I think this has been a rather robust discussion of the ethics surrounding the use of the word ‘defect’ with regard to gender (thanks to your efforts). Free speech somehow has a way of wriggling its way around pc. — Joshs

Well Im not really making the PC point. Im not even really sure PC is at work in a significant way among the mods. They seem to be concerned about guidlines, as they should be. If PC was a problem in this forum, wouldnt NOS be banned?
I even understand what that mod was looking for (homophobia), i just think he was mistaken about finding it.
Also, I get that this forum mod team doesnt have free speech as its highest priority, maybe its not even top 5. This isnt a platform for free speech, there are rules about what and how things can be said and consequences if those rules aren’t followed. They dont want this place to be filled with bigoted screwheads. I get it, I just think that a non-bigoted screwhead got caught in the crossfire. Maybe the mods disagree, but I think its very important to the forums quality and long term life span that we do not lose potential value (not necessarily for them, but for anyone less enlightened than them, who might benefit from a discussion they would find moral kindergarten) from discussions by casualties of that war with the bigots. Certainly the poster who was deleted would jave benighted from the discussion. That should mstter.

Like who? And also, That wasnt why the thread was deleted, according to the mod who deleted it.
Also, “no YOU cant read”. Just flip what I said about you back around to deflect the actual point being made huh? Someone was saying something about childish behaviour? Grow up.

My view, as I've said on the mod forum, is that we're not a daycare centre for moral kindergarteners. — Baden

No one is asking you to, in fact the issue is why we aren’t allowed to engage the person. No babysitting involved other than checking for breaches of the guidelines which you do anyway, and potentially deleting something, which was done anyway.
I understand wanting to drop the hammer to deter bigots etc from polluting the forum, but thats not what this is. It really seemed like a sincere question, and not the kind of toxic garbage you are talking about.

This thread isnt about homosexuality being a defect, its about why the other thread was deleted. Are you even paying attention or, again, are you simply rules by your emotions?
No one is defending the claim that homosexuality is a defect. The opposite. Whats at issue is why we were not given the opportunity to correct that claim when it was made, especially since the OP was declared well intentioned by the mod who deleted it.

Is rape really that bad? Is being French a disability? Are the Chinese evil? Is homosexuality a defect? All questions of a similar offensiveness that need not be dignified here imho. — Baden

If someone is seriously confused about any of those then a response is warranted, as opposed to someone just being hateful where I would agree a response is less warranted.
If a person is sincerely asking the question, why wouldnt you respond? You dont believe in teaching moments?

I swear to God if you all turn this thread into one which was explicitly deleted by a mod I will ban the lot of you. — StreetlightX

That would only be appropriate if this thread was homophobic since that was the reason given for the other ones deletion. The topic itself wasnt the issue, and the topic in this thread has no homophobia so what are you even talking about? Is your modding guided entirely by your emotions/idealogy? You seem to be looking for teasons to exercise your banning power...

↪DingoJones
I would imagine that it may not have been so problematic if it had not been in the title. It would make it stand out like a newspaper headline. — Jack Cummins

Indeed, but mods should delete threads for their content more so than the thread name.
I just think its bad for this forum and its discussions to delete a thread like that, how many other threads get deleted before anyone sees it, and for such weak reasons.
The OP ended with an open ended “so, am I wrong?”. Apparently we have a bunch of people who know the answer was yes, but never got to tell him/her why or how.
I understand mods need to delete threads and enforce the guidelines but there is a level of comfort that with it that I think is damaging to discourse.

Well, it isn't clear to me that we're here to learn whether homosexuality, or being Black, or being Jewish, or being disabled, etc. is or is not a defect. — Ciceronianus the White

Obviously I meant learning in the broader sense. We are here to discuss things, discussion is important in learning about your own positions as well as others. Discussion is prevented by such deletion. That homosexuality is not a defect might be obvious to me and you, but not to others.

No, Im aware. I realise its use by homophobic or anti-gay rhetoric. Its something ignorant people use, and its also something people use when they hate/dislike gay people. Only the former applied to that OP, I saw no hate in it. My point in this thread is about discourse. That person asked an honest question and was not allowed an honest answer. That person can’t learn why “defect” is problematic unless its pointed out to them. This cannot be done if their post is deleted.

Homophobic? Because of the word “defect”? Did you miss the disclaimer portion, where the poster explained explicit non-homophobic behaviour in their day to day life?
Also, how do you reconcile the post being homophobic AND well intentioned?
It was an honest question by the poster and was not homophobic. It was a a good faith OP in my view, could you have perhaps made a kneejerk reaction that you could rectify?

Yes, “defect” stood out right away as problematic. Thats the primary mistake made by the poster, a simple enough mistake to point out if the thread hadnt been deleted.

Dingo, you do know that homosexuals can have kids, right? I feel like given that new information you may want to revise your response. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes I realise that but pointing it out is pedantic, a waste of my time and a failure to address the main issue. Leave such commentary to the petty.
Thank god for you though :roll:

↪ssu
Interesting. I wonder if it is the media, internet and social media which have created this environment or just the politicisation of everything? When you put it like that, I probably should have just avoided this thread altogether. — Judaka

Social media plays a big role, its a fact that it creates tension. Its designed to. I recommend The Social Dilemma, eye opening.
Also, it wasnt a waste of time responding to whats his face the Kenosha wanker. You exposed him and other people here can see, you were speaking to them as much as to him so yes it was worth you bothering.

Perhaps it's telling of our times that Peterson is referred to being a philosopher.

Anyway, I have become extremely sceptical to anyone who today is a critic of some person. Now days there simply is no objectivity or any will to try to understand the other. As a Finnish saying goes: it's like "The Devil reading the Bible". It gets interest, clicks. The critic has either an agenda or simply promotes his views to his or her own tribe of similar thinking people. Perhaps it is far too confusing for people if you agree with one thing and disagree with another thing that some person has said. That seems lax, weak. Nope, tribalism has to dominate! You are either for or against and either with us or against us!

The solution? Listen to the people yourself and make up your mind without the people who have chewed the message for you before hand. — ssu

The most wisdom in a post on this thread yet. :up:

I see. So more like a cultural dark ages rather than some sort of apocalyptic reset?

What kind of world are you living in if you cannot see the deep chaos into which humanity is descending? — Jack Cummins

Im not sure what you are referencing, where did I give that impression?

How do you imagine the “new Dark Ages” looking in thrse modern times?

↪DingoJones Might be traumatic brain injuries (a lot of that going around lately) that causes would-be philosophers to get thick as a brick and kill themselves by Mod. You know, too much social media trauma, too many Trump tweets, too much doom scrolling, too many things for sale on line, heat stress from global warming (even in the dead of winter), too many choices on Netflix, and so on. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I intended to include those things under “a sign of the times”. Social media and fear based news are big parts of it in the general public but I thought there might be something specific to this forum. Perhaps suicide by mod is one of the ways those with a philosophical bent express that stress.

Well i wasnt talking about specific kinds of discourse. Obviously there are going to be better or worse forms by of it. If you are just yelling at them and not listening you wont make much headway. So maybe I should amend my claim to “good discourse is the best remedy for bad ideas.”

I think what Isaac is trying to say is that you are very unlikely to change someone's mind in a non-professional conversation (like an internet forum) just by making what you think are good arguments. If you want to change people's minds, you need to first figure out what context they formed their opinion in in the first place, and then try to give them a new context in which they can then come to new conclusions. — Echarmion

Ok, thanks.

So in what way would someone figure out that context and provide them with a new context if not through discourse. Amend that, what better way than discourse?

I dont think you’ve been as clear as you think. Id rather not guess and then have it cause confusion later on, so im trying to get a concise answer.
So I guess you think membership into another group? Thats a superior remedy in your view?

So your superior remedy is...?

Address the reason why someone is attracted to it. — Isaac

To a bad idea? Any number of reasons. I dont follow why that answer challenges the assertion I made about discourse being the best remedy. Non-sequitor I would call it, but maybe Im missing something.
So do you have a superior remedy?

Regardless of what folks are after on a forum like this, what purpose should a forum like this serve? I.e. what's a place like this good for, anyway? — Pfhorrest

I suppose the purpose of this forum is more or less specific to each person, falling under some broad categories. I think learning through discourse is a good general purpose of any forum.

What is your superior remedy to a bad idea?

Thinking back several decades when I was growing up, to be different in any way meant to be evil, or at least wrong or defective.

What do you think drives the social pressure for conformity? — baker

Thats not been my experience at all.
I think social pressure to conform comes from our ape brain, the primitive instincts that remain from our evolutionary past.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? Have you honestly seen any evidence of it, in general. Do people, in your experience, generally have a tendency to listen to arguments (no matter who they're from) and alter their opinions accordingly? — Isaac

Took a pretty leap to get to that bolded portion sir. Thats not what im saying. No matter who they’re from? Where did you get that from what I said?

For my part, the thing that I tend to find stressful is the perception that nobody agrees with me. Even if I know better, if I'm well aware of prominent thinkers who agree with me... they're not here, or anywhere else that I am. — Pfhorrest

Im the opposite, I don’t care if people agree with me or not. Im just not that invested in any conclusion I reach. By design, I think this is useful for avoiding bias, or dogmatism. People get married to their conclusions and end up closing their minds in various ways that Id rather avoid. Plus, most people are dumb so its hard to care what they think.

I think the forum would be a much more pleasant place if people generally would do things like that more often. — Pfhorrest

Maybe, but Im not sure pleasantness is what folks are after on a forum like this.

All discourse is overshadowed by the power differentials at play. Even at a philosophy forum, where the power of the argument should be bigger than the strength of the argument from power. But in reality, the argument from power is always the strongest one. — baker

This reference to power seemed to be your main point. I dont think it overshadows all discourse, its just another factor and it may or may not be a significant factor in any given case.

As far as I have seen, it's always been like that. — baker

Its always been a thing yes, but thats not the same as that thing becoming more widespread or significant. Im talking about the latter.

Some ideas shouldn't be tolerated. Fascism is one. Tolerating it leads to, well, you've seen what just happened. — Baden

Depends on what you mean by tolerate. The best remedy for bad ideas like fascism is discussion, to show where these ideas fail and where they lead. So I think being tolerant of the idea in the arena of discourse is tolerable, even preferable. Outside that arena, say in the political arena, fascism just cannot be tolerated in a civil society. We’ve tried it, seen it, we dont like it so if someone wants to use it in an arena like that then its going to have to win in the battleground of ideas first.

Unfortunately it is, it is a sign of the times, which indeed I find very worrisome. The US looks bad now, and I don't want similar things happening here.

I remember the old PF. When Dubya Bush invaded Iraq and the WoT was in full swing, it wasn't at all so hateful, even if it was a bit tense as people came on the Forum to defend the US decision while others naturally were against it. But that was 17 years ago on another site. Then there are a lot of the same people here. Yet it didn't go on the level of personal insults as now. Or if it did, snap, they w — ssu

Its been ramping up for years, decades. I remember how people hated Bush jr, how he became a joke. Remember the show That’s My Bush (i think that was the name)? It was a sitcom about how stupid george bush was. That stood out. A sitcom making fun of the sitting president. Then came Obama. The hatred was so toxic and unhinged, and not just the racists. Average people suddenly became these rabid, decisional attack dogs. Obama was Hitler, he was the anti-christ. Didnt think it would get much worse than that but then of course Trump, wanders in off the tv set and taps into all that venom and darkness to get elected and now discourse is dead, everyones lost their minds. All it took was social media to make it easier for stupidity and division to widen and spread. Now, difference of opinion is a difference of good and evil in the hearts and minds of most people.

Now it's acceptable at least for some to use language, even mods, to use language that would have gotten them off the old site. Just stick to the rules and them being the same for everybody. Some could point fingers, but I think that it indeed is about the times we live in. — ssu

I cant say im much bothered by language. Just words to me, same as others. If “go fuck yourself” conveys the emotion or expression your going for then go ahead.

PF is in my view a "canary in the coal mine". If here different ideas aren't tolerated, then where then? — ssu

Indeed. The battleground of ideas has been demolished and reseeded to grow a sturdy crop of dogma and toxic ideology.

Good point.

Same here. Its strange and zi have a curiosity the strange.