Harbal is 100% right. One thread that seems to fit the bill of what he is talking about would be the Is Pedophilia Wrong? thread where the OP claimed that it was not in fact wrong. Now, while the OP by all accounts adhered to the forum rules, the topic inevitably and unsurprisingly drew emotional and vitriolic responses of which I can only presume penalization followed. I am with Harbal completely on this. He's our gadfly and we need him.Harbal wrote:anyone who has spent any significant amount of time on these forums cannot have failed to become aware of the fact that there are a number of posters who, while being careful to stay within the rules, are deliberately provocative in the topics they create. They initiate discussions with the deliberate intention of eliciting an extreme reaction and then look on, all sweet and innocent, while the sucker who took the bait gets punished. I think this should be taken into account before transgressors of the rules are sentenced.
How long?
- FerrumIntellectus
- Posts: 314
- Joined: May 6th, 2013, 11:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Deleuze
Re: How long?
Ludwig Wittgenstein
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: How long?
It would appear that this is merely attempting to shift the responsibility away from the responsible party. One cannot blame others for one's actions.Harbal wrote:anyone who has spent any significant amount of time on these forums cannot have failed to become aware of the fact that there are a number of posters who, while being careful to stay within the rules, are deliberately provocative in the topics they create. They initiate discussions with the deliberate intention of eliciting an extreme reaction and then look on, all sweet and innocent, while the sucker who took the bait gets punished. I think this should be taken into account before transgressors of the rules are sentenced.
Women often deliberately dress in provocative attire and/or act in a provocative manner. Does that mean they should be held responsible for being sexually assaulted?
- FerrumIntellectus
- Posts: 314
- Joined: May 6th, 2013, 11:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Deleuze
Re: How long?
I could see what you mean Spiral. Obviously people have their own agency for a reason and should act appropriately with it given the circumstances. However in Harbal's defense, I think what he is really pointing to are posters who post topics not of philosophical substance or engagement, but merely for provocation and controversy. Again like the one thread I mentioned in my first post. I remember you dismissed it as nonsense as well so I'm sure you can be sympathetic to the irritation of those like Harbal.It would appear that this is merely attempting to shift the responsibility away from the responsible party. One cannot blame others for one's actions.
Women often deliberately dress in provocative attire and/or act in a provocative manner. Does that mean they should be held responsible for being sexually assaulted?
Ludwig Wittgenstein
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: How long?
I understand what Harbal is saying, however, would we still hold the woman who dresses and acts provocatively in order to get us to buy her drinks (or gifts), but who is actually not emotionally available or sexually receptive, responsible for our actions?FerrumIntellectus wrote:I think what he is really pointing to are posters who post topics not of philosophical substance or engagement, but merely for provocation and controversy.
What were we expecting?
The bottom line is: you fell for it, so now you gotta own it.
-
- Posts: 1532
- Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
- Location: Yorkshire
Re: How long?
But they expect to be able to provoke without any advances being made towards them. They don't do it with the intention of being assaulted so that they can go and report it to the police.Spiral Out wrote: Women often deliberately dress in provocative attire and/or act in a provocative manner. Does that mean they should be held responsible for being sexually assaulted?
-- Updated May 17th, 2015, 7:05 am to add the following --
If I made an offensive post and you removed it you would blame me for your actions.Spiral Out wrote: It would appear that this is merely attempting to shift the responsibility away from the responsible party. One cannot blame others for one's actions.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: How long?
This is the problem with proving intent. You can only assume what their intents are.Harbal wrote:But they expect to be able to provoke without any advances being made towards them. They don't do it with the intention of being assaulted so that they can go and report it to the police.
We can make all manner of assumptions in order to reinforce our emotional states. We cannot look at these things objectively so we end up with guesses that are conditioned by our past experiences.
Besides, if you assume that their intents are not genuine then don't participate.
We both know the rules of the forums. You're speaking in terms of bare cause and effect and stripped of any contextual basis.Harbal wrote:If I made an offensive post and you removed it you would blame me for your actions.
I know what you're saying, but the responsibility is always on the poster to follow the rules of the this site. There are always going to be controversial, emotional and provocative topics but that's inherent to most philosophical discussions.
-
- Posts: 1532
- Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
- Location: Yorkshire
Re: How long?
What you say is correct and that is the way the law has to operate in the "real world". This is just a discussion forum, nobody is going to get beaten up or raped. I've had offensive things said to me, sometimes I deserved it, sometimes I didn't but I got over it without any permanent damage. Of course there have to be rules, if people got inundated with insults and abuse in response to every post they made they wouldn't hang around for long. You can tell when a poster is just inviting a strong reaction and when this is the case there is nothing to prevent some discretion being applied before any course of action is decided on.
-- Updated May 17th, 2015, 2:17 pm to add the following --
Yes, I know. I didn't think I'd get away with that one but it was worth trying.Spiral Out wrote:We both know the rules of the forums. You're speaking in terms of bare cause and effect and stripped of any contextual basis.Harbal wrote:If I made an offensive post and you removed it you would blame me for your actions.
It's all very well saying that but sometimes it's just too hard to resist.Besides, if you assume that their intents are not genuine then don't participate.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: How long?
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: How long?
Harbal wrote:there are a number of posters who, while being careful to stay within the rules, are deliberately provocative in the topics they create
The very first rule in the forum rules links to the following elaboration on how the forums are "simultaneously uncensored and strictly moderated": http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 525#p34525FerrumIntellectus wrote:One thread that seems to fit the bill of what he is talking about would be the Is Pedophilia Wrong? thread where the OP claimed that it was not in fact wrong. Now, while the OP by all accounts adhered to the forum rules, the topic inevitably and unsurprisingly drew emotional and vitriolic responses
"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.
-
- Posts: 1532
- Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
- Location: Yorkshire
Re: How long?
That's something to think about.Scott wrote:I welcome rule-abiding trolls with open arms (as well as those who aren't merely playing devil's advocate for the benefit of our philosophizing).
- Lacewing
- Premium Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:45 pm
Re: How long?
The fact that he only had 21 warnings in 2,815 posts actually shows that he demonstrated incredible restraint.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: How long?
Not if you browse through the numerous members who have more posts than that who have less warnings.Lacewing wrote:I miss Obvious Leo.
The fact that he only had 21 warnings in 2,815 posts actually shows that he demonstrated incredible restraint.
That's 21 times I could have playing with my son and daughter instead of fixing the vandalism of my website by those who violate the conditions on which I agree to publicly publish their writings.
I suggest those that wish to publish such vulgar personal attacks instead submit their insulting swear words about strangers on the internet to a philosophy journal or the editorial section of their local newspaper. Maybe they want it. I am not interested in publishing it.
"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.
- Okisites
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nature
Re: How long?
Spelling of "Simultaneously" is wrong.Scott wrote: The very first rule in the forum rules links to the following elaboration on how the forums are "simelteonously uncensored and strictly moderated": http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 525#p34525
-- Updated 26 May 2015, 22:18 to add the following --
I think I have only 1 warning, and that was about grammar. It seems you have more warnings.Lacewing wrote:I miss Obvious Leo.
The fact that he only had 21 warnings in 2,815 posts actually shows that he demonstrated incredible restraint.
- Lacewing
- Premium Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:45 pm
Re: How long?
I was thinking it was incredible restraint for HIM!Scott wrote:Not if you browse through the numerous members who have more posts than that who have less warnings.Lacewing wrote:I miss Obvious Leo.
The fact that he only had 21 warnings in 2,815 posts actually shows that he demonstrated incredible restraint.
That's 21 times I could have playing with my son and daughter instead of fixing the vandalism of my website by those who violate the conditions on which I agree to publicly publish their writings.
I do not blame you Scott for NOT wanting your site filled with abuses that require constant tending.
A lot of us humans are out of control of ourselves. We collectively mess up everything we get involved in, and then wonder why it's ALL messed up. Of course, people are different in how they are offended. For example, for me: there is a certain level of cursing that I think is very clarifying; while there are other behaviors that stay within the rules, but seem like a far greater offense because they are a disrespectful and wasteful use of everyone's energy. However, I realize that it's nearly impossible to find and maintain the balance that works for everyone... and, truly, Scott, you've created an awesome site.
I can still miss Leo's brilliance and honesty... and still think that there are those with fewer warnings who are more wasteful and disrespectful... and still understand and respect what you offer and ask. It seems to be the nature of our world that a certain dance is required to keep order, but within the order there is chaos and madness.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: How long?
It will be interesting to see if Okisites's outrageous comment finds equivalent punishment.
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