It is at least possible that Christianity IS where it is...without Jesus having actually died on a cross.

Christianity may be the culmination of a long list of things that came together at a particular time...and the supposed "Jesus dying on the cross" may simply have been a means to an end.

The notion of loving one's enemies...of turning the cheek...and that sort of thing was given lip-service...but did not gain much traction back then. It needed some push. In fact, I suspect it needed lots of push.

Perhaps this is just the tires finally gaining that traction.

I'm an agnostic (sorta)...but the matters presently called "the teachings of Christ" are pretty advanced for that age. Hell...they are pretty advanced for the present day. (Wish today's Christians felt about the "teachings of Christ" the way Christ did.)

Baden
7.9k
And we have rules about language use / flaming etc. which we will enforce regardless of what anyone's philosophical position on that is. — Baden

But you are deciding a question I am raising is both "poor language" "substandard quality" and "flaming."

All I want to do is to discuss the topic.

Baden
7.9k

What the hell is going on? — Frank Apisa


You're obsessing over an idea that no one else but you thinks is important and repeated expressions of incredulity at the fact that no-one else thinks it's important are superfluous to our philosophical requirements here. — Baden

Are you saying that the censoring is going on for this reason???

Holy shit!

In any case, I am not the "only one" who thinks it is important.

DingoJones
787
↪Frank Apisa


Aside from the adult language thread, what were the other two threads that were shut down? Were you given a reason for either like you were for the adult language thread? — DingoJones

The Adult Language thread was closed to comments.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5949/adult-language

This thread was closed to comments:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6005/about-my-thread-adult-language

One thread was only up for a few hours before being deleted. The reason given was that it was of substandard quality (or wording to that effect.)

Cannot give a link to that...because it no longer is there.

DingoJones
786
↪Frank Apisa


No, not ok. I do know what Im talking about, and I am right. You just aren’t interested in the actual answer to your question about “whats going in here?”
The reality is that no one worthwhile was interested in your topic, so you ended up arguing with people on a treadmill, it was going nowhere. Maybe thats unfortunate, but it doesnt mean the topic itself is the reason for the closing of the thread.
Let me walk you through it...
You started a thread on a legit topic, you expressed your view in it and no one chose to engage in any meaningful way and it degenerated into a “shout-box” (initiated by you and your poor understanding of how your framing was being received) that resulted in catching the attention of a mod, who confirmed his intended action with another mod, and then shut down the thread. When you asked why, he answered you in a straightforward manner that you didnt pay attention to.
Thats it. Simple. Par for the course on a forum like this, better luck next time. So stop being a bitch about it and move on. — DingoJones

[Deleted}

This is an absurdity...and it appears the entire forum is an absurdity.

I've now had three deletions...all of which bear on the subject for which the deletions were ultimately made. If I had said, "Thank you very much for your help", instead of "fuck you very much for your help"...everything would have been fine. But...society has arbitrarily made certain words anathema..and you people are playing that game.

Okay...I get the picture. You do not want people who will argue something the way I was arguing this topic. (Yeah, I know...the usual "playing the victim" bullshit will ensure.)

I am NOT the victim. The victims here, if there are victims, are the people who think this forum is actually delivering on its promise of devotion to philosophy.

Hanover...you should be ashamed of yourself. You, too, Baden. I thought you were better than what you are showing here.

DingoJones
785

Why on Earth would a forum dedicated to philosophical discussions possibly consider it proper to be dismissive of lots and lots of discussion of these questions? — Frank Apisa


You aren’t paying attention. That is not the reason your thread was closed. It wasnt the questions, or even the vulgarity. It was the lack of substance in the thread, resulting from the shallow responses you received and your “shout box” responses in turn. The topic started with merit, as Baden mentioned and you seem to have ignored but which didnt get very far. It happens, stop being such a bitch about it. — DingoJones

[Deleted - Flaming]

Now...if you do not mind, I'd like someone who knows what the hell they are talking about to answer my question.

Okay?

Bitter Crank
7.7k

The question of why certain words are considered offensive...and the extensions of that being the case... has more impact on life than most of the stuff being discussed here. — Frank Apisa


Much of what is discussed on this and similar sites has nothing to do with life as we know it. — Bitter Crank

It has lots to do with life as I know it, BC.

Right here, for instance, I am being shut-out with a topic I consider of paramount importance to being reasonable in civilization.

Why should "son-of-a-gun" be considered "acceptable" but "son-of-a-bitch" be held in contempt?

Why should "I disagree" be okay...but "fuck no" not be?

Why should "The dog defecated on my lawn" be okay (as to wording) but "the dog took a shit on my lawn" not be?

Why on Earth would a forum dedicated to philosophical discussions possibly consider it proper to be dismissive of lots and lots of discussion of these questions?

I am really trying to understand what is going on.

I've now had a totally valid and reasonable thread eliminated completely (with no chance for any comments)...and a thread shut down from further comments for what I see as no reason whatsoever. — Frank Apisa


This might be a case of moderator over-reach, but who are you going to call? 911 doesn't deal with this problem.

Some of us have larger apertures for acceptable topics and language use than others. Our unpaid, long-suffering moderators probably tend toward the more restrictive approach -- else they would not serve well as moderators. We don't want golden retriever moderators who completely fail as watch dogs at the gates of our esteemed forum. On the other hand we don't want pit bulls. We probably don't want overly dutiful bloodhounds either. (As James Thurber noted about the dutiful bloodhound, "The paths of glory at least lead to the grave. The paths of duty don't lead anywhere at all.").

We don't want yappy terrier moderators either, frenzied barking all the time. What do we want? St. Bernards, perhaps. Big lummoxes capable of plowing through the tedious snow drifts of arid topics to dig out victims of philosophical hypothermia.

Other dog breeds?[/quote]

DingoJones
783
You’ve already been informed why it was closed but have chosen not to accept that explanation bit rather strawman yourself into victimhood. Nobody missed the reason you were swearing and being vulgar, I dont think anyone really cared about that except a few people who were responding to your depthless and obvious point. There was nothing of substance going on, not entirely your fault but the thread died and was buried. This was explained to you but your resistant to it because you feel victimised by the mods but I am not a mod and have no particular dog in the fight so thought perhaps the 100% legit shutdown and explanation would be easier to accept coming from me, though obviously im not holding my breath.
And thats whats going on here, everything clear? — DingoJones

Not at all...but it does seem you feel better about yourself by venting that way.

I laughed. It is the best response I can give you.

Baden...the point I was making with the initiation of that thread....was the absurdity of language being designated as appropriate or inappropriate based on the usage of certain words. A part of the argument is, and of right should be, using said language and words as part of the discussion.

The word "fuck" is a word...nothing more. That it can be upsetting is the discussion being had. If instead of "fuck" I had used "doggone"...that thread would still be open. There are threads now open that are much more "shoutbox" than that one was.

What is happening here?

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum...and the topic of that thread is philosophical in nature...more so than many threads that have the names of philosophers and philosophical issue thrown about with abandon.

The question of why certain words are considered offensive...and the extensions of that being the case... has more impact on life than most of the stuff being discussed here.

I've now had a totally valid and reasonable thread eliminated completely (with no chance for any comments)...and a thread shut down from further comments for what I see as no reason whatsoever.

Why is this happening?

I ask again: What is going on here?

Brett
521

Just some commentary I think belongs in this thread. — Frank Apisa


What are you trying to say in relation to this thread? — Brett

What do you suppose I was trying to say in relation to this thread?

Brett
521

I have not even mentioned censorship. — Frank Apisa


You want to ban the idea of offensive words existing, as being offensive. — Brett

I want no such fucking thing...and have never suggested any such fucking thing.

I am merely pointing out the absurdity of the notion. I also am pointing out the fact that my guess is that the notion will be retained by society for as long as society exists.

Read what I write before commenting on what you want to suppose I wrote.

I like sushi
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa
It’s beautiful that people can be offended. Without such people where would comedy be?

Those that cling to being offended are after all the givers of Comedy. We feat on their sorry-ass flesh with decadent delight! Praise be the sensitive and frail who bemoan the woes of their circumstances above those of any other.

Such just desserts! Delicious! Yum yum :yum: — I like sushi

Indeed, Sushi.

Just posted in the forum and got notice of this post.

I LOVE it.

This thread is so long, I've not read through it, but two days ago I met with my sister (in from California) and we walked through the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC so we could chat while strolling through one of the world's great art collections.

I visit The Met often...and never fail to spend time in the Impressionist/post impressionist area to view the paintings of my personal favorite, Vincent Van Gogh.

He only sold one painting in his lifetime...and for all practical purposes, died a failure. Yet today, a painting of his (there are over 800) would sell for millions. One sold for $66 million a few years back.

Price is not the final indicator of beauty, but I look at a Van Gogh and damn near always come close to tears at what I see...and think about the man and his art.

Just some commentary I think belongs in this thread.

The so-called moralistic and naturalistic fallacies are not things that "ought to be avoided"...but are observations that should probably be considered when discussing aspects of society and human behavior...especially when considering political activism.

They are more likely a form of political bias confirmation than actual fallacies.

In any case, they are overstated. Most people do not argue from either position, but rather use elements of the two as structure to bolster positions they have already taken due to the political bias.

Fooloso4
517
One that some who are most adamant that they are not in a cage are trapped in is the result of what psychologist call the Dunning-Kruger effect. Tell tales signs include saying things like:

"Socrates was put to death for that kind of nonsense."

And:

"...I'll attempt to lower my game to the level you folk want." — Fooloso4

YOU may be trapped in a cage...and probably should be.

I am not.

In any case, thank you for showing that my comments have rattled you as much as they have. That is the first step toward having the message sink in.

I like sushi
1k
It is impossible to refute that I’m the product of a God made entirely of strawberry blancmange and chocolate drops. Who cares?

If you want to live believing something don’t bother me with it please :) — I like sushi

Bingo!

Richard B
29
Are there an practical consequences accepting “solipsism” is true vs it is not. I would venture to guess no one would do anything different in this world other than go around say “Solipsism is true”

My refutation of this idea is simple. Conceptual it is no different, practically, than utilizing the concepts in this world minus “solipsism” . But like any concept, maybe some future experience would make me reconsider. — Richard B

And those who choose to guess they are all that exists...are not doing anything more absurd than peole who guess there is a GOD...or who guess there are no gods.

Nothing wrong with guessing...although in areas like this, I personally do not do it. It matters not what is when dealing with my day to day life.

fishfry
607

Why is the word “cuff” just fine, but pronounced backwards, considered offensive? — Frank Apisa


As George Carlin said, you can prick your finger, but you can't finger your prick. — fishfry

Yup.

George Carlin was a hero of mine on this issue...which is an issue I have written about for decades now. He recognized the absurdity of some of the language conventions...and mocked them in an entertaining way.

The issue itself seems to set part of the world into a tizzy. (Talk about bullshit language!)

Anyway...I've given it a shot here. I may continue, but it seems the clientele is way too uptight for this kind of discussion. They'd rather pretend they understand what people like Wittgenstein, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Schopenhauer...suggested.

Gotta go with the flow!

I've been having a philosophical conversation with you. But it seems like nothing registers as 'philosophical' until that person either agrees with you or sets you up for some tawdry Oscar-Wilde-clone come back. You can't just sit at the wise-misanthrope home-plate waiting for fastballs down the center. You're neither Kurt Vonnegut nor Mark Twain.

Frank, you're much older than me, and I appreciate your wisdom, but your philosophy sucks. You have some vague problem w/ censorship. I'm sorry W.C. Fields never said 'fuck.' — csalisbury

That should have been, "Frank, you're much older than I."

Yeah...but my "philosophy" does not suck. And I am not interested in censorship on this issue.

I acknowledge point blank that things will not change. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of denoting certain words as "unacceptable"...a practice more pernicious than using the language some consider as unacceptable.

The word "shit" for instance should be every bit as acceptable as "feces." The arbitrary "one is acceptable the other is not" is an affront to intelligence, if not sanity.

You know the other words that should be every bit as acceptable as their "acceptable" counterparts.

I am not saying we will change and stop the nonsense any more than I am saying that "proper dress" should include a tie for "gentlemen" when on the floor of the House. I am merely attempting to discuss the issue...and not having a lot of success.

We invent these absurd "standards" and then live by them as though they make sense...when they make about as much sense as neck-banding or face tattooing or teeth sharpening.

It is a discussion about that...and appears to be so painful that some, like you at the moment, can barely tolerate it.

You have some vague, frankly stupid, ideas about how censorship works. They're not, or at least haven't been so far, interesting. — csalisbury

I have not even mentioned censorship.

A new thread of mine was censored, supposedly for being of low quality, mostly because I used some taboo words to make a point about them not being indicative of unfriendliness or anger.

So what is your point here?

That's what my post was. Either figure out how to respond interestingly, or keep doing your 'under appreciated golf course oscar wilde' bit for no one. — csalisbury

What is this about? I am not trying to be Oscar Wilde...and I AM responding interestingly. For some reason my responses bother people here...a good number of people, I acknowledge. But I am serious about the discussion and topic and truly do not understand what the fuck is going on with the reaction to me trying to make my point.

K?

NKBJ
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa


No really, don't bother. We like the air down here just fine without you. — NKBJ

I'm sure you do. You've had lots of time to adjust to it.

NKBJ
1.1k
Lol, Frank comparing himself to Socrates. :rofl:

You are a card. — NKBJ

I did not in any way compare myself to Socrates.

I compared myself to people like you.

But I will make an attempt to lower my game...so as to be at a level with the likes of you.

VagabondSpectre
1.6k

On something as personal as this...it is for HER to decide...not any regulated anything. — Frank Apisa


What if she was 12 instead of 17? (not a rhetorical question)

I'm not taking issue with the principle that individuals should have the right to make decisions for themselves, I'm raising the possibility that some people (such as a naive child) might not actually be intelligent/aware/cognizant enough to make the best decision.

I'm not denying that this particular 17 year old was cognizant enough to make her own choice (it's a complicated case that would require investigation to firmly judge), instead I'm going straight to the crux of the issue that the thread is based on: extreme youth makes suicide more controversial because we expect youth to correlate with naivete (and future potential). The older we make the woman in our example, the less intuitively controversial it becomes.

As I said in the post to which you originally responded, it's a complicated issue and we would have to look at the details of each specific case; there's no correct answer that must hold true for all cases. — VagabondSpectre

Actually, we are not that far apart, VS.

But as I said in an earlier post...on issues like this, my side of the issue cannot concede ground at the beginning of debate...or we end up with a mid-point that favors the extreme other side.

That is best illustrated in the "abortion" issue.

If the side I favor starts by saying "Well a woman should certainly have the right to terminate a pregnancy that is less than 8 weeks along"...and the debate is with someone insisting that a fertilized cell is already a human being...our side would be screwing ourselves in the debate.

So...the argument from our side MUST start with "a woman with a pregnancy occurring in her own body should have the right to terminate that pregnancy at any time for any reason."

We can make adjustments at some point...but not right now...and not while discussing the subject case.

Philosophy has always had that problem...people judging reasonable discussions to be low quality or injurious to certain sensibilities. Socrates was put to death for that kind of nonsense.

My thread was FAR from low quality...particularly when compared with some of the pretentious crap that infests this place. My thread was an extension of a thread already in play...and of significant importance in a discussion of "Philosophy of Language."

Anyway...I acknowledge you people have the right to run the site as you see fit.

I'd say "I'll try to up my game"...but I want my posts and threads accepted, so instead...

...I'll attempt to lower my game to the level you folk want.

Shamshir
299
↪Frank Apisa
The details aren't important. At least not right now. Eternity is on a rather tight deadline. We'll get back to that later. — Shamshir

I can't even figure out why you thought that a clever response, Shamshir. I gotta ease up on your. I see the strain is taking its toll on you.

Fool
66
You guys keep quoting me. I’m a different fool. Btw this conversation seems rather childish. — Fool

I'm the guy using "Fool" for that fool who thinks he is a philosopher. I apologize...and will use his/her full name from this point on...although "fool" seems appropriate.

VagabondSpectre
1.6k

And, of course, YOU want to be able to decide if a person is "cognizant enough...just as I am sure you would want ME to be the judge if YOU are...right? — Frank Apisa


Shirley, I would never!

It's not for "me" or "us"; in this case it's for her legal guardians to determine, and also perhaps for trained and regulated health and mental health professionals. — VagabondSpectre

On something as personal as this...it is for HER to decide...not any regulated anything.

Her parents apparently conceded that she was unhappy to the point where she wanted to end her life...and in fact, did. Although that had to be done in a gruesome way, because people interfered with her ability to do it with dignity.

Shamshir
298
↪Frank Apisa
Well, well! What a turn of events this is! It's new, and I like new, even if it's bad. And this is bad, isn't it? My, my. — Shamshir

If that is the best you can do...you probably should not have done it.

Fooloso4
511
Yes, perhaps you are lying about your age. You do us a service but yourself a disservice by calling your own veracity into question. — Fooloso4

I did not call my veracity into question. I merely mentioned that you were not being accurate.

You ought to work on that.

Keep digging Frank! — Fool

I will leave the "digging" to you. Although I think you have dug deep enough. Try getting out of your hole.

You are evidently still fighting your own demons (or perhaps you were lying when you said that at one time you were "zealous religious"). Now you are zealous about bearing witness to the good news that you do not do believing. Your struggles are your own, but as with many who have been reformed you have a compulsive need to reform others. When you insist that what others believe is a blind guess then it is no longer just about you and whatever your beliefs may or may not be.

I do not do "believing."

I am merely presenting a cogent argument about the word "believe" when used in a religious discussion context. You seem to resent that. Work on that also.

As for my previous time as a religious person...I grew out of it. As St. Paul said, ""When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

1 Corinthians 13:11

unenlightened
3.6k

Let's say it's 50/50. — NKBJ


Let's say I've been gently boiling you in oil for a few years - for your own good mind - and not enough to do more than make your life unbearable. And let's say, because you are a bit sceptical and I am optimistic, that a few more years of constant agony will give a 50 % chance of recovery. "My argument stands" doesn't really do very much here. Any price is worth paying to someone who doesn't have to pay the price. — unenlightened

Yup.

That is the reason why NKBJ has decided she/he gets to make decisions for others in situations like this.

I just do not understand the "LIFE no matter how miserable rather than death" mentality.

Benkei
2k

She lives, there is a chance (I would say very good, you may say very poor, so let's settle on 50%) that she will live a good life. — NKBJ



You think this is a negotiation? Then we're definitely not settling on 50-50 when you've already admitted treatment is woefully inadequate. The question might be what likelihood of no improvement would you require to allow for euthanasia?

Personally, I'd allow euthanasia when the likelihood of suicide, regardless of the level of suffering, is close to 100% as was the case here. — Benkei

Absolutely.

But the "I know better buttinski's" want their decisions about someone else to take precedence over the wishes of the individual.

Fooloso4
509

No...at 82 (83 in August)...I am far from a child. — Frank Apisa


Yes Frank. I am aware of your chronological age. — Fooloso4

You are aware of what I say my chronological age to be.

Try to be precise...if you are going to continue this pretense of intellectualism.

tim wood
2.4k

That is something we all have to accept...and I now accept you are one of those people. — Frank Apisa

And I accept you for some reason appear not to understand that two different things are different. And until you make some progress there, religion is only one of many things you will never understand. Let's try this: number: no one has ever seen one; they're just a guess, yes? — tim wood

What does that have to do with "believe" is a word that disguises a guess.

Don't let the pressure get to you.

Stay as real as you can.

Shamshir
295
↪Frank Apisa
I run the Fo'c's'le, a boarding house for sailors. Sorry, I reserve my beds for seamen. — Shamshir

Except for that extra "a" in the last word...I suspect that may be true.

Harry Hindu
2k
↪Frank Apisa
wasnt that essentially the point of my post? I know that I have a mind. Therefore, if solipsism is true, I would be the solipsist. I don't need to prove to you that I have a mind for me to know that I have a mind. — Harry Hindu

But there is NO way for me to know I am conversing with a "you"...or just having a conversation with myself in an illusion in which I am the only being.

Being solipsistic, by the way, does not mean denying that others exist. It simply means that I can only KNOW that I exist. You may actually exist. I cannot know it. I cannot know my wife exists...or my closest friends. But, of course, they may.

Solipsism merely acknowledges what we can know...in the truest sense.

Fooloso4
508
↪Frank Apisa


Frank you really are a child! — Fooloso4

No...at 82 (83 in August)...I am far from a child.

Repeating the same thing over and over again, putting it in ALL CAPS, throwing tantrums and stomping your feet, none of it changes the vacuousness of your claim.

There is nothing vacuous about any of my comments or claims.

I understand that you are not yet up to speed...and cannot fully appreciate what I am saying or the value of it. Perhaps some day you will get there...or you may remain the fool you use for the pretension: Fooloso4.

Up to you. Good stuff being thrown your way. Make some use of it rather than indulging your anger.

Shamshir
292
↪Frank Apisa
Optimism! How adorable! I love it! Even at the end, you make me laugh. I'm lying. That wasn't funny at all. — Shamshir

Okay...then I am not sorry your marital situation is so bad.

Harry Hindu
2k
If solipsism is true, then I am the solipsist and you all wouldnt even be mindless zombies. You all would simply be mindless strings of scribbles on a screen.

If solipsism is true, then why would it seem like I am just another human with a mind in the world? How and why would this illusion of a world with other minds exist? — Harry Hindu

I do NOT know that you exist, Harry.

You may be part of an illusion attempting to make me think there is no illusion.

Fooloso4
507
↪Frank Apisa


Frank, it is because I actually have an interest in philosophical discussion that I am not going to sink to your level. You have dug yourself into a hole and with every effort to extricate yourself you sink lower and lower. It is not just your failure to understand what the term 'believe' means but your philosophical and emotional immaturity. Happy to do my part to make that evident to anyone here who is not already aware of it. — Fooloso4

You would need to climb a ladder to get "to my level", Fool. But nice try at attempting to get to where you think I am...after pretending you would not do it.

I know what "believe" means...and I know how it is used. In conversations about religion...which is what this is. "Believe" is a word used to disguise a blind guess.

You cannot refute it...so you attempt this bullshit. But you are a waif here.

"I 'believe' (in) God"...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS BEING DISGUISED.

"I 'believe' there are no gods"...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS BEING DISGUISED.

"I 'believe' it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS BEING DISGUISED.

I hope you finally get that!

I hope it doesn't happen when you are repairing a roof or trimming the top of a tree...because when it hits you it is going to kick your ass harder than it has ever been kicked. Don't want you hurting yourself discovering a truth you should be getting right here.