Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
Post: #16  Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:03 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
|
| Anon007 wrote: |
| It’s just that when it comes to philosophy, you’re going to get a lot of what you don’t want to think about … God, for instance. |
If you'd have said 'religion' instead of 'God', then no problem. But any so-called 'philosopher' who doesn't want to think about the concept of God, isn't really a philosopher  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon007
Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 33
|
| Post: #17 Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| fine ban me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lifegazer
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 499
Location: meaningless concept
|
| Post: #18 Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Anon007 wrote: |
| fine ban me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
"I’d think you’d also get some troublemakers in the sense of people lost at the moment."
Indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Softarget
Joined: 09 Dec 2009
Posts: 32
|
| Post: #19 Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think a lot of people get banned, and never really think about why.
No offense, but some people really deserve it, and never really figure out why. Food for thought, I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon007
Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 33
|
| Post: #20 Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Softarget wrote: |
I think a lot of people get banned, and never really think about why.
No offense, but some people really deserve it, and never really figure out why. Food for thought, I think. |
OMG a lot of exclamation points; she must deserve it, must deserve to be banned.
Food for what thought? I don’t see thought.
I see a man or woman that merely goes along with attacking someone. And by the way, I think being banned has everything to do with free speech not to mention laws on privacy, etc, etc. I’m hoping some people in here actually view this as political philosophy, but I won’t hold my tongue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 855
|
| Post: #21 Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Scott wrote: |
If you break the rules of a website, you'll get banned.
Forums are much less enjoyable when they are not heavily moderated with strict enforcement of clear rules.
For instance, it would be utterly unfair for people to join this forum to have, as openly stated on the forum rules, open-minded discussions without personal attacks and such only to be called an idiot or such. While people are free to be mean, anti-social or poor debaters, they have no right to join a private club with clear guidelines only to violate those guidelines. Besides, if one wants to talk in an unmoderated or very little moderated environment, one can go to such a place--at least insofar as they can find other people who want to have unmoderated conversations with them.
If you go to a dance club that has a specific, clearly displayed dress code and you are violating that dress code, you would likely be kicked out. It'd be unfair to everyone else if you weren't kicked out.
If you believe the moderator of a website or bouncer at a dance club abused his power or otherwise did not adhere to the forum's or club's rules, then that's a fair complaint. I suggest you direct the complaint to the owner or local authorities. To be fair, either the moderator needs his privileges removed or the rules need to be updated to match practice.
Anyway, I'm sorry some of you got banned from other places. I recommend you learn from it and abide by the rules elsewhere. On these forums I try to give people warnings. I find that if you delete any posts that break the rules, contact the poster and point out the relevant rules to the poster, there person will not bother to waster their time continuing posting rule-breaking posts that will just be deleted. They almost always either learn from their mistake and do a better job posting or just stop posting if they don't like the rules. So I almost never need to ban people--for as long as I have the time and patience to spend so much time deleting posts and explaining rules. Though occasionally one runs into a person that would keep breaking the rules without trying to improve even though they know their posts will be deleted. It would seem they are just some sort of troll who gets jollies out of annoying admins with rule-breaking posts that will be deleted until they are banned--very very rare and very pathetic. |
Scott, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, addresses this problem. It is flattering to think of being in these forums like being in private clubs. However, what happens to our liberty and democracy when everyone plays by the rules of private clubs, where the owners can be tyrants and patrons have no recourse, no power other than to submit to the dictates of the owner?
I came from a forum where what I said, would be deleted, or result in the thread being closed, or I would be penalized for discussing forum policy. I believe the complaint about being banned was being banned for presenting a thought that was not tolerated. In another forum, I was banned for insisting we could can study nature to know something of God. This is the perfect nit picky disagreement, of the nature that got me banned for using the word God as something that exist.
| Quote: |
Anon007 wrote:
It’s just that when it comes to philosophy, you’re going to get a lot of what you don’t want to think about … God, for instance. |
| Quote: |
| If you'd have said 'religion' instead of 'God', then no problem. But any so-called 'philosopher' who doesn't want to think about the concept of God, isn't really a philosopher Exclamation |
My, yes, Locke, has something to say about this. And this is a good opportunity to encourage everyone to choose Locke's " Two Treatises of Government" and participate in the book of the month study.
Banning Anon007 for pushing the point with exclamations, is like shooting Patrick Henry for his remark, "Give me Liberty or give me death." We could throw in Martin Luther, Galileo, the Puritans and Quakers. My yes, such people are trouble makers, and where would be without them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon007
Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 33
|
| Post: #22 Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Wow, you are an Athena. Love it. Thank God for women.
Unfortunately, though, I think we need to start with the poor as far as readings because if we are to acknowledge how the white man wrote our history, we have to start with why we don't know about pretty much anything else. Truth is I'm sure the poor had opinions but they weren't accepted. That's something I hope changes. That's something I want to learn about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 855
|
| Post: #23 Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Anon007, I am feeling excited about sharing Locke's Two Treatises with everyone, and following up with "Madness and Civilization" by Michel Foucault. I am holding my breath, hoping Scott can tolerate us, and that female participation in the discussion does not hinder male participation. If anyone has not been heard from throughout history, it is women.
All cultures maintain a protected and restricted truth. Those truths are being challenged as never before, and we are experiencing rapid cultural change. Some for the good and some is not so good. We live in exciting times.
Locke makes an argument that a man can not make himself a slave, but for thousands of years, women have been as slaves. I don't think industrial man as ever been that far from being a slave himself. Without mass education and modern technology, we would be in a sorry state for sure. The woman's place in society depended on her husband's position, and she was not always free to choose who her husband would be. At times women have been denied all property rights. Women and children have been treated as men's property. I wonder what this awareness will do to a discussion of Locke's Two Treatises of Government? I wonder how Scott reacts to some of the female post. I wonder how well males and females are going to mesh in these discussions. Well the men be more objective and the women more subjective? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 883
|
| Post: #24 Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| athena wrote: |
| Scott, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, addresses this problem. It is flattering to think of being in these forums like being in private clubs. However, what happens to our liberty and democracy when everyone plays by the rules of private clubs, where the owners can be tyrants and patrons have no recourse, no power other than to submit to the dictates of the owner? |
Just briefly, since I haven't read the book so won't participate in the book of the month (unless I pick it up quickly), I think this is part of the reason why governments do have a duty to make sure people have equal opportunity. Eminent domain, e.g., can tear down or redistribute parts of a club if it takes up so much land that it forces people to live illegally on the premises.
However, the internet isn't going to run out of space  Maybe domain names with less than twenty characters...
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 855
|
| Post: #25 Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Government can not do everything for the people. There are two ways to have social control, culture or authority over the people. Our liberty depends on culture for social control not government authority over the people.
If we are not educated in principles and devoted to living by them, no government can create for us a life worth living. So if a forum owner lacks democratic principles, and makes arbitrary decisions caring nothing about the consent of the people, I am gone. Only when we so defend our democracy with a willingness to defend our liberty, will have our democracy with liberty, and not a police state.
I think we better read and discuss Locke's Two Treatises of Government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon007
Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 33
|
| Post: #26 Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
OK, I want to read Locke. The only thinking I had was I don't want to be swayed to think a certain way before I learned differently. I wanted to experience some roots first.
Where I am at is I think government is doing too much. Our government is getting away with too much of everything; we are legislating and taxing everything to ****, expending, expending.
Isn't it that every civilization like this has died/ended?
Anyway, whatever book you choose, besides search for meaning, I'll read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1559
|
| Post: #27 Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Liberty means I can run this forum how I want and anyone else can choose to not join and participate or do the work to make and run their own website. Those who would want to fight against my right to run my forum how I want would be fighting against liberty in a very black-and-white instance of what is and is not liberty.
That I may exercise my liberty to choose to run this site in a way that people would like to attract those people to use it is, in liberty, my choice to do or not do just as it may be the choice of a homeowner to choose to have a popular theme for a house-party that would attract guests. If one doesn't like the theme of the homeowners party then they do not have to go to the his home for the party, and if one does not like how I run my site they do not have to use it.
Complaining about getting banned from a website for breaking certain rules or complaining about the public rules of the website as some sort of alleged infringement of one's liberty is seems as utterly inaccurate to me as complaining for being kicked out of a party at someone's home after one breaks the rules clearly laid out by the party-throwing homeowner or complaining about the rules as some sort of alleged infringement of one's liberty. Trying to force the party-throwing homeowner to have guests in his home that he doesn't want who do things in his home that he tells them no to do is an infringement of liberty.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1919
|
| Post: #28 Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I have to agree with Scott on this one and would go even further as to contend that any argument which pretends to tell Scott how he should run "His" site, to which he is solely responsible for its maintenance, material content and financial duties, is irrational, and to even equate his responsibilities and any disagreements there of as a question of any other person's right to free speech and liberty is extreme, particularly since Scott gives each person the right to freely engage without force, either monetarily, by demand or by arbitrary discriminatory restrictions. And, even if he wants to discriminate this is not a public forum and is Scott's personal property to which I would allow no man to demand how I should utilize my own property. Scott could just as easily shut this site down which would upset me, but I would understand seeing that some don't have the sense to appreciate Scott's invention for our good as well as his own.
Are some people really this dense!!!
We are Scott's guests and should behave in the manner of guests by respecting Scott's right's to have rules and guidelines which make him comfortable to open his door to us, as each one of us would want any guest to have for our homes and property.
I didn't want to get involved in this discussion since, by any measure and degree, it is ridiculous. Now this may get deleted, and no matter how upset I may want to get over that possibility there is no way that I would could take Scott's right away to do it.
Now please, get over yourselves. If what we say is so damn important and special then go out and try to get published and make Scott pay for what you have to say, if he so chooses as a free man.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon007
Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 33
|
| Post: #29 Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Either this is or isn't a philosophy forum. If I am going to debate about something that relates to philosophy, then it should be debated as legitimately philosophical.
I wasn't aiming anything at Scott or this forum per say, but was speakingv in general. Thus, to turn this into an argument is just that: there is no debate.
Tell me where I said something against someone? And if you do prove that, then give me a chance to change.
This isn't about what you can and cannot do, this is about philosophy or it isn't. This is either about a healthy debate or it isn't.
And if it is about a healthy debate, then give a legitimate response or tell me how I can unsubscribe. I don't see where I can unsubscribe. I'd like to do so at
this time because I see this as going nowhere, at least not as a philosophical discussion.
It looks like an argument.
Please tell me how to unsubscribe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 855
|
| Post: #30 Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Scott, the kings of England could not have made a better argument about what liberty is. What you are talking about sure is not rule by reason. It is rule by whim grounded in the power to do as one pleases to those who can never be more than unprotected subjects in relation to those in power. All that is separating your argument from one King James might make is, the size of your kingdom, and this seems common to all forums. It is just hugely disappointing to find that true here. I am overwhelmed with feelings of hopeless to know a man who suggest reading John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government" has defended power, instead of the rule by reason, which is the subject of this thread.
Are you aware that John Locke did everything possible to prevent more than a couple of people knowing he wrote "Two Treatises of Government"? Not even the printer knew his identity. We would not know he wrote it, if it were not for his will. For awhile he lived in hiding because he so feared for his life. When a forum owner or mods, bans a person, it isn't exactly the same as killing that person, but in away it is the same. It is very painful, and relationships, and sometimes it happens so unexpectedly it can not be prevented. At other times we are aware of the risk we take, but believe what we have to say is so important, the risk must be taken. This is one of those for me.
We are not talking about being banned because of repeatedly breaking rules, but being banned because an owner or mod doesn't like what is being said. Sure that is the owners liberty, but it sure violates our liberty, and Locke argues against that kind of power, and in favor of rule by reason and rule by consensus.
Juice, everyone of us had better take responsibility for this forum, because that is the only way it is going to be a high quality forum. One man alone can not create a good forum. Moderating would be a nightmare if the posters refused to be respectful and were otherwise careless with the post. How awful to say only one person has responsibility for the forum. There is the king and then his children? We are not all responsible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
