Discussion of Forum Rules - OLD
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: September 15th, 2010, 12:21 am
-
- Posts: 649
- Joined: July 19th, 2010, 9:46 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Peter Singer _ David Pearce
I don't think everyone presupposes an unquestionable source of authority. And simply stating what one believes and trying to convince others is not preaching. It becomes preaching when it is done in almost every thread, and when the person doesn't even listen to the arguments and keeps posting the same stuff, i.e. Bible verses even though it has been pointed out that they don't count as a valid source of knowledge.Augustus Calvin wrote:Your rule against 'preaching' was particularly annoying. Everyone presupposes an unquestionable source of authority when approaching an argument - why not allow the users to evaluate and criticize each other logically rather than playing the 'thought police'?
- pjkeeley
- Posts: 695
- Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am
Thought police? Is that kind of hyperbole really necessary in reference to an internet forum?Augustus Calvin wrote:I joined this forum about 15 minutes ago. Already I have noticed such an absurd quantity of rules and stipulations that I doubt if I will be back. Your rule against 'preaching' was particularly annoying. Everyone presupposes an unquestionable source of authority when approaching an argument - why not allow the users to evaluate and criticize each other logically rather than playing the 'thought police'?
I think the rule against preaching is perfectly reasonable. Preaching isn't philosophy. This is a philosophy forum.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13815
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Some actual theist preachers , who earn their livings from preaching, would benfit us here especially if the professional preachers were literate.The benefit would be to sharpen our wits on their ideas, and perhaps get some novel ideas from their ideas.We none of us philosophers have to buy the whole farm.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
All arguments start from somewhere and contains some assumptions. The thing that isn't allowed which can be called "preaching" and can occur in non-religious topics as well as religious ones is when someone does not post an argument at all but only posts statements.
For instance, if I created a thread with just the following post, it would be deleted as preaching:
It is not whether or not the series of statements is about religion, about science or whatever that makes it in violation of rule #7, i.e. "preaching." As in the case of the non-religious example above, what makes it a violation is that it is not philosophy; it does not contain an argument or questions.The sky is interestingly beautiful blue. It is not red. It is not green. It is not pink. It it not ugly or disgusting. It is not boring. The sky is very blue. The sky is very beautiful. The sky is very interesting.
Thank you for asking questions about the rules. If any of you have any other questions about the rules, please post them. I want the rules to be simple and clear.
"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.
- Im4ever
- Posts: 28
- Joined: October 26th, 2010, 3:24 pm
Reference Rule #2: A heated on topic debate is a heated on topic debate. However, a flaming attack is not a heated on topic debate.
Putting a smiley face at the end of a dozen sentences of burning napalm will not turn your flaming attack into a heated on topic debate.
If you can not refute the idea or argument of the person who made the post with the wisdom of your prose in your response, ad hominem attacks will not refute the idea or argument either.
Scott, if this needs to be somewhere else, PM me and let me know. Just had to get this off my chest so I can get to bed.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: October 30th, 2010, 11:15 pm
Re: Philosophy Forums Rules
Allan/ Aka admiral usher
-
- Posts: 1510
- Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
- Location: Dryden ON Canada
Each time I had used the name of the recently departed terrorist, coincidence?
Or is there a filter for extreme scumbags.
I had posted on other topics with no problem.
I will try again without the use of that name.
-
- Posts: 1510
- Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
- Location: Dryden ON Canada
However this shows a side of you I have not seen before.
I was starting to think I was doing something wrong, so read the rules again and found that I had pretty well stayed within the rules.
Being a one finger typist it was a case of "what the......" when the very weighty response just vanished.
This happened while i was typing and before submitting.
- Eston
- Posts: 85
- Joined: August 19th, 2011, 3:33 pm
Re: Philosophy Forums Rules
eston e. roberts
(eston)
-
- Posts: 809
- Joined: March 30th, 2012, 2:42 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nietzsche
Re: Philosophy Forums Rules
- WILAWAI_42
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: May 17th, 2012, 5:10 pm
Re: Philosophy Forums Rules
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