A refuge of civility

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.

A refuge of civility

Post Number:#1  Postby Chasw » January 31st, 2017, 3:52 pm

I enjoy participating in philosophical discussions here and at another, similar forum associated with a magazine about philosophy, far away from here in cyberspace. I can't help but notice a stark difference between the consistent practice of civility we enjoy here, vs the vulgar and unseemly attacks on one another sometimes displayed at that other forum. Just about any philosophical discussion can become contentious, given enough time, but somehow selected members of that crowd all too frequently resort to angry insults, without any censure from moderators.

I only assume the correspondents here are better educated, more refined, and therefore more civil and courteous to each other, regardless of how outrageous our individual arguments might be. Kudos to all of you - CW
The central question of human existence is not why we are here, but rather why we behave the way we do - http://onhumanaffairs.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Chasw
 
Posts: 133 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
Location: Seattle, USA
Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel

A refuge of civility



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: A refuge of civility

Post Number:#2  Postby Human00 » March 17th, 2017, 5:57 am

I made an account here because I wanted to DISCUSS different views and opinions. If you're not open to at least hearing what other people are thinking then why join in a discussion where you know your particular views might not be met.
User avatar
Human00
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 1 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 17th, 2017, 4:47 am

Re: A refuge of civility

Post Number:#3  Postby -1- » March 22nd, 2017, 10:01 am

I think the key to the success of this site to keep debates civil, is successful and efficient monitoring and censuring of the site. Monitoring for ad hominem and other attacks, and mercilessly deleting posts or members who violate it. I support this practice fully.

My only beef is that some members here do not respond to reason and to logical arguments. They stick to their dogmatic beliefs and when convincing arguments are brought up against their beloved dogma, then they simply ignore that argument and continue as if their dogma has not been proven wrong.

This should not be tolerated on a philosophy forum. If a person's proposal or argument is defeated; or shown to be non-sensical; or shown to contradict the law of excluded middle; or is shown to use the wrong logic; then they should be forced to adhere to the result, and cease and desist from promoting their own agendas when those agendas are proven false, wrong, inappropriate or plain stupid.

I would also suggest that REASON be a deciding factor in the same way. Reason or reasonable ideas are not so easily identified, and unreasonable ideas are hard to prove unreasonable. So we need a judgement call here by the moderators at most times, and I suggest, and am willing to abide with, a process to only weed out those posts which are grossly unreasonable. For instance, as an instance, if someone proves that the universe is run on skate boards, and proves it with mathematical formulas, where THE MATH FORMULAS' VARIABLES ARE NOT EXPLAINED IN LONG HAND what they stand for.

As it stands, the current practice is to allow rampant idiotic ideas to run amok, and I resent that. I actually SUFFER when I painstakingly prove someone else wrong, in an air-tight, fool-proof, irrefusable way, and they simply ignore it and sing their false ideas on, and do not admit to defeat by argument. It takes too much out of me, and also when people, in reply to my posts, just talk about things as if they were pertinent and to defeat me and to tire me out, but their points are irrelevant and easily refuted -- yet I need to spend energy to reply to them. This sort of tactic comes from the smarter and more educated members, while the "ignoring the reason" comes form seemingly less educated, and intellectually less gifted members. And then there is the religious lot which I won't even engage, they are so frustrating to talk to.

Many people resent me on this site, and rightfully so, for I am liable to present a veritable challenge to their posts and ideas. I don't mind the resentment, but I mind being forced into explaining little details, and I mind being forced to not see the fruit of my arguments in debates.

Am I expecting too much from the moderators to keep the debates adhere to logic and reason? Yes, it seems they are already overworked. I, however, am so frustrated now on this site, despite its civility, that I can't any more meaningfully engage in debate, for I fear the futility of failure despite my best efforts to convince others to accept what I think.
Sweat the small stuff... because then the big stuff will take care of itself.
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 116 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: A refuge of civility

Post Number:#4  Postby LuckyR » Yesterday, 4:48 pm

I understand -1-'s post, though I appreciate why things happen the way they do, so it doesn't bother me.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 1901 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: A refuge of civility

Post Number:#5  Postby Chasw » Today, 9:30 am

-1- wrote:I ...snip...

My only beef is that some members here do not respond to reason and to logical arguments. They stick to their dogmatic beliefs and when convincing arguments are brought up against their beloved dogma, then they simply ignore that argument and continue as if their dogma has not been proven wrong.

This should not be tolerated on a philosophy forum. If a person's proposal or argument is defeated; or shown to be non-sensical; or shown to contradict the law of excluded middle; or is shown to use the wrong logic; then they should be forced to adhere to the result, and cease and desist from promoting their own agendas when those agendas are proven false, wrong, inappropriate or plain stupid.

snip

Am I expecting too much from the moderators to keep the debates adhere to logic and reason? ...snip....



With all due respect, -1-. you are asking for way too much. Humans by nature are inconsistent in responding to reason. Philosophy in particular gives rise to dogmatic beliefs. Everybody, including those with open minds, have their own agendas. What you may think of as false, wrong, etc., others may think of as brilliant. Such is inherent in intellectual discourse.

Yes, you are asking too much from the moderators to police our posts for "correct" reasoning. It is more than enough that they squelch any and all abuses of common courtesy. You may write something I consider dead wrong on many counts, but that is no excuse for me to call your intelligence or sanity into question. Compared to other philosophy discussion groups, this one is an island of calmness and respect. That's all I ask for. - CW
The central question of human existence is not why we are here, but rather why we behave the way we do - http://onhumanaffairs.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Chasw
 
Posts: 133 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 1st, 2012, 9:13 am
Location: Seattle, USA
Favorite Philosopher: GWF Hegel


Return to Philosophers' Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST