Ignore function?
-
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: October 13th, 2008, 7:50 am
I believe the ignore button is a good idea but it is just to handy, one should have to go a little out of their way to effect the process. It should not be readily available to impluse. I went years at one sight without having to place anyone on ignore. When someone just will not let up or their postings are truely a wash, and it does no good to appeal to the mods perhaps they do not agree, that's ok, but to save a conflict from going full tilt the button is a good idea. I guess what I am saying is one should have to go through a process to ignore someone not just hit a button.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 971
- Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am
Are you suggesting someone else be the authority over my decision to use the ignore button? I hope not. The process we go through should be a personal choice of action, shouldn't it? And I am strongly opposed to relying on authority to handle my personal affairs. That is for children. At what age do we become adults?boagie wrote:Hi Y'all!
I believe the ignore button is a good idea but it is just to handy, one should have to go a little out of their way to effect the process. It should not be readily available to impluse. I went years at one sight without having to place anyone on ignore. When someone just will not let up or their postings are truely a wash, and it does no good to appeal to the mods perhaps they do not agree, that's ok, but to save a conflict from going full tilt the button is a good idea. I guess what I am saying is one should have to go through a process to ignore someone not just hit a button.
Exactly what is mature behavior?
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 971
- Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am
I find what you say quite agreeable. I think the distinction between "personal attacks from attacks on a person's dearly held ideas". Is clearly the subject of the post. When the subject of a post is obvious another poster, it is not the subject under discussion. Using offensive phrasing when addressing a poster, is clearly a deliberate dig at the person. The differences seem like day and night to me.Belinda wrote:Athena is right. However there remains the difficulty of separating personal attacks from attacks on a person's dearly held ideas.The whole perception of one's identity can be bound up in some orthodoxy. The recent incidents when Muslims took offence when Muhammad was ridiculed illustrate this. Christians are much more tolerant to ridicule than Muslims, poor old tolerant Christians!
The only way out of the dilemma seems to me to be a sort of elevated paternalism towards the fixedly orthodox, as if they are not entirely responsible for their own ideas, like mentally ill people.I don't enjoy this as I am liberal by nature.
This is one reason I feel at ease in a forum like this where philosophy rules okay either in its orthodox form or in its organic form.
Here's a hug for DeMeriden for pointing out the difference.
-
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: October 13th, 2008, 7:50 am
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13818
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
(Athena)I think the distinction between "personal attacks from attacks on a person's dearly held ideas". Is clearly the subject of the post. When the subject of a post is obvious another poster, it is not the subject under discussion. Using offensive phrasing when addressing a poster, is clearly a deliberate dig at the person. The differences seem like day and night to me.
I agree . However, I don't think you have commented on the possibility that both philosophy and religion are often close to a person's self image, almost for some people Are the self image. Personally, I believe that we should allow ourselves the freedom to criticise any belief or point of order in a spirit of 'if you cannot be objective about a topic beware of having your feelings hurt'.
My guess is that some people will find their way to the philosophyclub because their idea of the nature of philosophy is that philosophy is a way to express religious devotion. How may this sort of poster be answered kindly?
-
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: October 13th, 2008, 7:50 am
"How may this sort of poster be answered kindly?"
This should be obvious I think to all, a philosophy site is not a santuary for unfounded ideas. One might ask what on earth is someone doing here that in fact cannot tolerate their beliefs being chanllenged. They are simply in the wrong place,no need to apologize, it is their mistake.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
We can respond to them by politely critiquing their arguments after careful consideration and politely and genuinely asking them followup questions, without sarcasm or ridicule. This is a place for open-minded, civil philosophical debate. If a person is so zealous that they do not like being questioned about their beliefs then they probably will not like it here, but if instead of civilly responding to the civil, philosophical arguments with more civil counterarguments they respond with any type of angry, offensive ad hominem arguments or otherwise off topic replies they will be warned and banned. Namely, please review rules 2 and 5 of the forum rules for more on this.Belinda wrote:My guess is that some people will find their way to the philosophyclub because their idea of the nature of philosophy is that philosophy is a way to express religious devotion. How may this sort of poster be answered kindly?
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 971
- Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am
Look Missy, I am not talking about objecting to someone's argument. If you paid more attention to what I am saying, instead of just writing out of you own head, you would understand I am saying no should have to read post that are as offensive as this one. Sorry, but I can think of a no better way to get my point across.Belinda wrote:(Athena)I think the distinction between "personal attacks from attacks on a person's dearly held ideas". Is clearly the subject of the post. When the subject of a post is obvious another poster, it is not the subject under discussion. Using offensive phrasing when addressing a poster, is clearly a deliberate dig at the person. The differences seem like day and night to me.
I agree . However, I don't think you have commented on the possibility that both philosophy and religion are often close to a person's self image, almost for some people Are the self image. Personally, I believe that we should allow ourselves the freedom to criticise any belief or point of order in a spirit of 'if you cannot be objective about a topic beware of having your feelings hurt'.
My guess is that some people will find their way to the philosophyclub because their idea of the nature of philosophy is that philosophy is a way to express religious devotion. How may this sort of poster be answered kindly?
The problem isn't a person's argument, but how that argument is made. Someone has attacked me so many times, I am avoiding this person, and that is regrettable, because it was stimulating responding to this person's argument. Unfortunately this person thinks there is nothing wrong with presenting his arguments in a very offensive way. The moral is- I stop reading when what a person says makes me feel bad. It is nice to come here without fear of how badly one person is going to make feel. And Missy, if you have any brains, you will agree these offensive words are personal attacks, and are not a subjective arguments.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 971
- Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am
Wow, now that is the path to self improvement. I am afraid I fall way short of the ideal you stated, and I hope you repeat it often, calling me back to the path I want to follow.Scott wrote:We can respond to them by politely critiquing their arguments after careful consideration and politely and genuinely asking them followup questions, without sarcasm or ridicule. This is a place for open-minded, civil philosophical debate. If a person is so zealous that they do not like being questioned about their beliefs then they probably will not like it here, but if instead of civilly responding to the civil, philosophical arguments with more civil counterarguments they respond with any type of angry, offensive ad hominem arguments or otherwise off topic replies they will be warned and banned. Namely, please review rules 2 and 5 of the forum rules for more on this.Belinda wrote:My guess is that some people will find their way to the philosophyclub because their idea of the nature of philosophy is that philosophy is a way to express religious devotion. How may this sort of poster be answered kindly?
This is the way to democracy with liberty/ Imagine what a wonderful reality we would have if the majority in our society were aware of what Scott is saying and took it to heart. My grandmother actually lived with people who lived by the standard Scott has set. I mean her generation was so focused on human dignity and honor, that they had a powerful profound effect on all those around them.
I think it is time for me to make a donation, because Scott you are doing what our society desperately needs. If all of us would create a society around Scott's advise, we will realize how awesome democracy with liberty can be.
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
The appeal of the internet and the nonphysical interactions it allows is the purpose of its appeal.
It seems oxymoronic to allow this medium which has no real physical identity to effect one in such a way that it manifests itself as reality.
For all I know I could be interacting with myself. If I tell myself to jump from a bridge using this medium should I take it seriously?
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13818
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 971
- Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am
I don't think you are being fully honest with yourself. If you didn't get more out of this than you get out of talking yourself in the mirror, you would not be doing it.Juice wrote:How does one allow nonentities to influence a real entity to the point that it creates a physical reaction?
The appeal of the internet and the nonphysical interactions it allows is the purpose of its appeal.
It seems oxymoronic to allow this medium which has no real physical identity to effect one in such a way that it manifests itself as reality.
For all I know I could be interacting with myself. If I tell myself to jump from a bridge using this medium should I take it seriously?
What we have here are real emotional and intellectual people and this is far from being nonentities. I notice you use a military symbol. Perhaps dehumanizing others is more complete for you than some of the rest of us?
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
It is a completely mental exercise, no test, no grade, just words on a screen which have no physical identity. It cannot hurt anyone. So when one believes they have been hurt by it then that too is "mental".
Now excuse me I am engaged in the torture of some Taliban on another site.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023