The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Lagayscienza wrote:Alias, please don't do that. Good minds are already getting thin on the ground here after the departure of Leo et al. If good posters keep leaving I might be reduced to going back to Reddit.
Once I collect a couple of implacable enemies, there is no point. This happens regularly on forums : a certain element - and it's not always the same one*- takes over and the tone changes. It's not an enjoyable intellectual exercise anymore; it's a field of ungowa. That's why some of us migrate. I've already overstayed my usual sojourn here - for the sake of you three smart and interesting women. In a few months or years, the climate may change; I'll check from time to time.
* but tends to be one of five major categories: macho **** [I see on preview the censor-bot doesn't put enough asterisks: the impolite word was sh*th**ds], supercilious pissants, PC mimosas, religious zealots with bullhorns or narcissistic adolescents.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
We did recently lose some very good minds from the forum. We also lost some distracting zealots. I'm still finding interesting things being discussed regularly.
[
Greta wrote:It seems to me, and with respect, that Elder is a "type". Obvious Leo was another in a similar vein,
Alec Smart wrote:There's no comparison. Leo can be abrasive but he's straight forward and genuine, Elder is just a manipulative fake.
Do you believe that Elder has any redeeming qualities? If so, what are they?
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
Belinda wrote:Elder, it's your moral duty to keep talking despite that gratuitous obscenity
Which should take precedence, Elder’s “moral duty to talk” or Elder’s liberty not to talk? That Elder has a moral duty to continue posting on these forums leads to some absurdities.
Is it only Elder that has a moral duty to post? Is it just a select few that have a moral duty to post? Or does everyone have a moral duty to post on these forums?
Greta wrote:
Do you believe that Elder has any redeeming qualities? If so, what are they?
Once I'd formed an opinion of him, which didn't take long, I'm afraid I saw everything he did as suspicious or sinister. Maybe I over reacted to him. I think his type are dangerous if enough people take any notice of them but, luckily, he hasn't got the charisma to attract a significant following. I don't know if he's got any redeeming qualities, I've been too preoccupied by his negative qualities to notice. Do you think he has any?
-- Updated July 30th, 2015, 5:44 pm to add the following --
Gary S wrote:
Is it only Elder that has a moral duty to post?
I think everybody who tried to show him for what he was were performing a moral duty.
Gary S , I think that communicating with others is a moral duty. Obviously there are people who are unable to communicate, but Elder is not one of those.
I am telling you that "Elder" though he is an Elder (in our country we consider elderly people as children, who are needed to be seriously warned and punished when time requires) is an (most likely) an a troll. He is a troll, to be frank.
And I don't understand, why you call the name of Leo (obvious Leo), that bastard son of a prostitute, who, however being a brilliant person, have been disrespectful towards "Quotidian", who had never said anything wrong towards anybody, or this son of a prostitute "Obvious Leo", and secondly, I have found him supporting the idea (same sex marriage), with no proper reason, but out of prejudice and irrationality. I can't understand how can this person, whose mother is a prostitute, can have a honest outlook towards the issues. Why you keep taking his name in this forum?
Obvious Leo, of course he is an brilliant person, whoever this bastard is, but he showed a very bad behaviour towards the people who are not doing anything bad or wrong towards him, or anybody else, but, still this son of prostitute (probably) continued to abuse a polite people, contributing people, down-to-earth people. This bastard (obvious Leo) have done tremendous loss to the arguments and discussions, going on this forums.
Those are fools and offsprings of the prostitution, who supports and have good thinking about Obvious Leo, quite frankly.
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
It would seem that Elder's final post has spawned a philosophical paradox.
The posts above are successfully arguing about arguments.
Please continue.
And thank you Elder for all your posts prior.
Humanity has been galvanized by the internet. Its' a virtual, neural web of collective consciousness. And in this social-electric state, we all have a say; From the darkest corners of thought to the most enlightened. It's a mirror of all our minds.
Belinda wrote:Gary S , I think that communicating with others is a moral duty.
Are you saying that Elder has a moral duty to communicate with others in general, or that he has a moral duty to communicate with us via this forum? I assume the latter because he did not say he would no longer communicate with others, only that he would no longer use this forum.
Okisites wrote:
Those are fools and offsprings of the prostitution, who supports and have good thinking about Obvious Leo, quite frankly.
Have you been drinking again, OKsites?
Sure sounds like it. I think philosophy forums and booze are not a good combination.
Okisites, apart from your belief that Leo's mother was a prostitute and apart from his support for gay marriage, what was it about Leo that provokes such venom in you?
-- Updated July 31st, 2015, 3:13 pm to add the following --
I personally can't see that Leo and Elder had much in common.
Belinda wrote:Gary S , I think that communicating with others is a moral duty.
Are you saying that Elder has a moral duty to communicate with others in general, or that he has a moral duty to communicate with us via this forum? I assume the latter because he did not say he would no longer communicate with others, only that he would no longer use this forum.
Now that you draw my closer attention, I mean the former, that Elder and everybody else who can, has a moral duty to communicate with others. I seem to remember thinking that Elder might be afraid to communicate after the vituperation which has been unnecessary, in my opinion.
I should reply also to Alec Smart who has asked me something or other about possible duty to communicate.
Belinda wrote:Obviously there are people who are unable to communicate, but Elder is not one of those.
Some people don't want to be communicated with in that fashion so they communicated their displeasure. What's the problem?
I don't quite understand what you mean by "in this fashion". I never felt that Elder was passive aggressive. BTW as a woman I well know what passive aggressive means; there are such people as male chauvinists but with Elder I cannot say that there has been any male chauvinism specifically in the form of patronising language, nor BTW with anyone else here .
I suppose I ought to have taken it up with him that the word 'insane' should not be used as a general insult because clinically insane people are as decent as anyone else.
My problem is that I don't like to see anyone being slated by several others all at the same time.
Greta wrote:Do you believe that Elder has any redeeming qualities? If so, what are they?
Alec Smart wrote:Once I'd formed an opinion of him, which didn't take long, I'm afraid I saw everything he did as suspicious or sinister. Maybe I over reacted to him.
Yep, you overreacted. What you're talking about - forming an early negative impression of a person and then finding it hard to see any positives in them - is called the "horns effect". It's the opposite to the halo effect, which every person who's interviewed people for jobs will know about. They are perceptual distortions that can cloud the judgement of anyone from cleaners to scientists. There's some former members about whom I've struggled to think of positives but, if I'm objective, I can just see another person trying to do the best they can.
Alec Smart wrote:I think his type are dangerous if enough people take any notice of them but, luckily, he hasn't got the charisma to attract a significant following. I don't know if he's got any redeeming qualities, I've been too preoccupied by his negative qualities to notice. Do you think he has any?
Elder? Dangerous? He's just another older fellow who wants to share his learning and talk about deep issues with people before he gets too old or snuffs it. He means well, just that he was too disrespectful of theists. I'd suggest a touch of horns effect in play there too.
One last thing ... bring back the Alfred avatar!
BTW Okisites, stay off the juice. You are more transparent than you realise. Deep breaths. Think happy thoughts. It's all not as serious as you think.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.