Color-text rule should be removed.

Here is the place for your suggestions, comments, or questions regarding the Philosophy Forums.
User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: Color-text rule should be removed.

Post by Subatomic God » May 17th, 2014, 3:30 pm

Spiral Out wrote:The analogy is quite accurate and sufficient. Nobody's freedoms are being transgressed upon by the rule. The rule makes perfect sense and is functional and relevant to this site's goals.

Sorry you cannot understand this. If it were a real issue then there would be far more members arguing this case. You're the only one who it matters this much to, which indicates a highly subjective and individual concern. That's fine, but Scott isn't going to change the rule.

As I said before, there is very good reason you're still here. It's because we all know this site is the best philosophy site on the internet, hands down. I've looked around at the other philosophy sites. Not one of them comes close to the level of thought and care that has gone into the design and structure of this site.
That's not the case, Spiral.

People are "afraid" of Scott. If you would read the comments, you'll see how much people wish to confront Scott - let's just say, they probably would rather confront their childhood fears first. Someone went as far as to call it draconian... it's really that bad. People don't try to change out of fear of losing what little privileges they have. Not because nobody cares about this. It's just not worth it to them to fight - nothing probably will be worth it, hence people's lives were taken away back in the ancient days for fighting the man in power. It's something you can't expect people to deal with in this day and age. I'm one of the few here that has the bravery to stand against this man's rules because I know he is wrong about them - that his rules are based on his own imagination, rather than the people's personal issues. I have explained this quite a lot throughout this thread, so I wish for you to take that into humble consideration.

Scott's rule has no reason behind it. It's only about him, in this case. If it was about us, the rule wouldn't exist, hence nobody is bothered by color-text so far. So why does this rule exist still, if nobody is apparently bothered by color-text? It exists, because it's dogmatic and insensible. It exists, because Scott doesn't want to change or accept that this rule is old and out-dated - and will never have a real purpose.

Discussing with Scott on this matter, is the same result as discussing with a racist, a sexist or a feminist. It's idolatry, not rationality. Power before people. Even though it's the people that grant them the power to begin with - biting the hand that feeds.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Color-text rule should be removed.

Post by Spiral Out » May 17th, 2014, 5:52 pm

I think you're being just a bit melodramatic here. If Scott was the cold & ugly tyrant you make him out to be then I'd think he'd just ban you outright and be done with it altogether.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've said what I had to say and now I'll step aside.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: Color-text rule should be removed.

Post by Subatomic God » May 17th, 2014, 8:26 pm

Spiral Out wrote:I think you're being just a bit melodramatic here. If Scott was the cold & ugly tyrant you make him out to be then I'd think he'd just ban you outright and be done with it altogether.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've said what I had to say and now I'll step aside.
That's because Scott isn't a tyrant; the impression of his gives off the same vibes of such. Perspective is enough to create quasi-real elements of experience that can advocate real physiological effects. It doesn't matter if Scott isn't a tyrant - the impression of his rules and the way he thinks is akin to a tyrant in spite of Scott's honest intentions. That is enough to throw back the followers into a false sense of insecurity and fear of losing their received privileges.

By not accepting change, and realizing that he had made a mistake in his ruling, hence he disregarded the demonstrations I had given him to show him that the rule was evidently unjustified and useless, as per the regards of the fellow members, with the "this board is not for everyone" cop-out - negating the opposition towards his rule and his reasoning for such - he only makes it more apparent that he is not willing to listen and will continue to invoke fear into people, because deep down we are always in a need for change; without that change, we become shattered in many ways that aren't linguistically conceivable. It creates a hole - we know that at least, and that's all it takes to drag anyone down to this poor, defenseless being that silences themselves in fear. Illusion - or reality - it doesn't matter. Scott's impression is poorly adjusted, which is why I am not going to let this fester. Scott is destroying freedom - let it be something as frivolous as color-text - he is still destroying art and expression for something that solely exists within his own misinformed mind, as I have demonstrated to the fullest extent by gathering opinions from people without bias or intentions to vilify my own standing. I'm here to reason, and work with Scott. Scott isn't here to reason - Scott is here to rationalize his rule for only one reason that is without virtue, and that is the same opaque agenda that a mother possesses when she would rather ignore her child's juvenile delinquency than to face reality.

Tyrants are tyrants because they can't face reality and will feed off of their own ruling and power. Scott may not be a tyrant, but he shares the same mentality of one. Again, read the comments - it's not just me here; Scott's presence is feared and respected in the same manner as the town's people respected their lord and master in the dark age. No matter how you twisted this, Spiral. It's demented. It's dishonest. It's destroying freedom. Scott created a site - he did not create us. Color-text is absolutely mutual; if you're honest, you'll agree that Scott's ruling is irrefutably selfish. He denied the refutations because he is rationalizing, not reasoning. This is idolatry - not rationality. Why are you defending this man, when it's clear that he is here to bite the hand that feeds (he would've recognized the refutations, rather than making a cop-out otherwise)? It's because you also fear him, but unlike others, you're too mentally unchained to make peace with your own insecurity, so you too, are rationalizing it and will flee the moment you feel like you're cornered, just like anyone with fear would. You have no reason to - you're a wild man, Spiral. So why pretend you're here to reason, when you're here to rationalize like Scott?
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

User avatar
Goldenphoenix
Posts: 25
Joined: August 18th, 2013, 1:29 pm

Re: Color-text rule should be removed.

Post by Goldenphoenix » May 18th, 2014, 2:30 pm

We can use colour, and yet, not - bummer!
Aedificem in veritáte et æquitáte

User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: Color-text rule should be removed.

Post by Okisites » May 18th, 2014, 3:06 pm

What do you think about this texts Subatomic God? Doesn't it diverting your imagination from real issue, or philosophical or scientific understanding of this? It is very easy, to understand, that such colourful texts, really diverts the concentration, from the real thought, what somebody is wanted to convey. Don't you think so? What this colour of texts suggests you, and what I am talking about?

This is very simple to understand, that this color of texts, revealing something different, than what I am trying to say,and that is what Scott is preventing. You have to understand this. And it is true we are afraid of Scott, but we are still a guests. Is being afraid of the owner makes us wrong, if we do have the reason for him being threatening for right reason. This colour of texts do have some different meaning, that I have to convey. And you have to admit that

What do you think?


-- Updated 23 May 2014, 01:33 to add the following --

I really feeling bad for you SG Sir. I do not mean by this color of texts that I am angry or something. I only mean that this color of texts reveal something different than what I mean to say.

I think, that you should concentrate on arguments and level of arguments that is presented here, rather than color of texts, because argument are the factors that is progressive to human and all, and not colors. It is very good opportunity for you to consider the right thing over illusion.

Thank You. Okisites
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller

User avatar
Subatomic God
Posts: 1494
Joined: October 15th, 2013, 11:09 pm

Re: Color-text rule should be removed.

Post by Subatomic God » May 18th, 2014, 4:27 pm

Okisites wrote:What do you think about this texts Subatomic God? Doesn't it diverting your imagination from real issue, or philosophical or scientific understanding of this? It is very easy, to understand, that such colourful texts, really diverts the concentration, from the real thought, what somebody is wanted to convey. Don't you think so? What this colour of texts suggests you, and what I am talking about?

This is very simple to understand, that this color of texts, revealing something different, than what I am trying to say,and that is what Scott is preventing. You have to understand this. And it is true we are afraid of Scott, but we are still a guests. Is being afraid of the owner makes us wrong, if we do have the reason for him being threatening for right reason. This colour of texts do have some different meaning, that I have to convey. And you have to admit that

What do you think?
I read everything as I did when it was in black text - in the same way I can appreciate a book's cover, but I don't allow it to define the message it represents aesthetically. Ideas are not colors - colors are not ideas. If anyone is distracted by color, then clearly they are not in their right mind to philosophize, no? If you can not concentrate on a message behind the color, then why respond to them with a mind that is unprepared to sift through the surface of portrayal? We talk to people behind their different styled cultures and clothing, so why is text any different? Your argument does not stand, when there are many other varieties of this same issue existing inside and outside of Scott's draconian system.

Purple was fine. I read other people's color-text fine. Color doesn't distract me, nor does people that can't seem to establish how absurd Scott's rule is, in spite of the mountains of evidence and contraries in the line of common sight. That's all in the person's mentality strength - it has nothing to do with color-text.
What do you call a cat wearing a turtle's shell on its back? A purpoise.

User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: Color-text rule should be removed.

Post by Okisites » June 9th, 2014, 2:23 pm

Subatomic God wrote:
Okisites wrote:What do you think about this texts Subatomic God? Doesn't it diverting your imagination from real issue, or philosophical or scientific understanding of this? It is very easy, to understand, that such colourful texts, really diverts the concentration, from the real thought, what somebody is wanted to convey. Don't you think so? What this colour of texts suggests you, and what I am talking about?

This is very simple to understand, that this color of texts, revealing something different, than what I am trying to say,and that is what Scott is preventing. You have to understand this. And it is true we are afraid of Scott, but we are still a guests. Is being afraid of the owner makes us wrong, if we do have the reason for him being threatening for right reason. This colour of texts do have some different meaning, that I have to convey. And you have to admit that

What do you think?
I read everything as I did when it was in black text - in the same way I can appreciate a book's cover, but I don't allow it to define the message it represents aesthetically. Ideas are not colors - colors are not ideas. If anyone is distracted by color, then clearly they are not in their right mind to philosophize, no? If you can not concentrate on a message behind the color, then why respond to them with a mind that is unprepared to sift through the surface of portrayal? We talk to people behind their different styled cultures and clothing, so why is text any different? Your argument does not stand, when there are many other varieties of this same issue existing inside and outside of Scott's draconian system.

Purple was fine. I read other people's color-text fine. Color doesn't distract me, nor does people that can't seem to establish how absurd Scott's rule is, in spite of the mountains of evidence and contraries in the line of common sight. That's all in the person's mentality strength - it has nothing to do with color-text.
SG Sir, it is really painful to see your post to me after so many days, and showing the same date, as the date of my reply to you, and in which my updated reply is also included. For your kind information, your reply appeared to me just yesterday, when I got the email of reply being made.

It is true that people get distracted by colour, if I chose to use different colours, for different meanings. Then there may arise a tendency among poster, to find and reveal meanings through colours.

And secondly, why to give more burden of colours to the minds of posters, when burden does not helping towards the goal of the site, and is absolutely unimportant for goal. Why to test a member’s ability to concentrate on a message behind the colours, when it is not necessary.

Though there are different styled cultures and clothing all over the world, but I think the texts are generally black, or blue. I don’t know why. Texts cannot represent culture and clothings, it is just for communication of ideas.

I am not talking against you, but I think you should concentrate more on arguments and reasoning, more than your own portrayal through colours. I don’t know why you are so obsessed with purple colour? Is it really because you love purple, or you just get attached to it because someone objects the use of colour? Some people, generally children, get attracted or attached to those things, they are objected for. Are you get attracted toward purple because it is objected to use, I am confused?

Leave this idea, it is really good site to discuss, otherwise people get abused in the name of expression of individual personality, and culture, in other sites, where vulgar thoughts are expressed in very shallow ways. There are problems everywhere. I think you should reconcile between merits and problems, very consciously.

Thank you Sir, Okisites.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller

Post Reply