Re: God like attitudes of forum administrators.
Posted: June 14th, 2013, 7:09 am
What's the point in an open forum if speech is inhibited.
Philosophy for Philosophers
In what way do you think that Xris' OP is going to help us as forum users, or improve the forum itself?On the contrary, Xris expressing his concerns in an open forum helps all of us. No person or forum is above improvement.
Xris has a personal problem with Scott's actions towards him. So why did he make it a public issue? Personal issues between two people should be handled privately. To do otherwise is fallacious I feel, because the issue will not be resolved; only intensified. I don't think that the openness of communication is the issue here? Xris has a problem with receiving a warning and having his posts deleted. The same thing happened to me, but I broke the forum rules and so I was in the wrong, I didn't get upset about it, I was apologetic. The forum rules are not unreasonable (no personal attacks / ad hominems), but what I said to the guy that I was having a debate with, was very personal, and upon reflection I was quite embarrassed by it. The option to send private messages is there for good reason - to discuss private issues. People use private messages all the time, yet the internet has not withered away and died. Quite the opposite in fact.Though It is not always easy to do so, we all know, I think communication works the better the more open it is. Behold The Internet! it is basically open communication. I do not see anything wrong whith that approach. In my opinion, the Internet thrives on openness, if it ever becomes private, it simply withers away and dies.
I informed Xris about what I perceived as ad hominem and strawman fallacies in his comments in the open forum (in the topic), because we were having a debate. I wouldn't send him a private message about things like that. Pointing out fallacies is part and parcel of the philosophical debate as far as I am concerned, and should be done in the open, in the topic. Discussing warnings from the forum administrator can be a sensitive, emotional issue and so should be done in private, in my opinion.But then why censorship? Don't you think that your own position would look stronger, if you let the others see Xris supposedly offensive comments, since they would then see that he is 'wrong' and you are not?
Are you thus accusing Scott's methods of being the antithesis of Aristotle's, and that they were not philosophical? My aim is not to defend Scott or put you under the spot-light, I just noticed what you appear to have done here. You are of the opinion that one should speak their mind publicly anyway, so I doubt that you would have any issues with me asking you such a question openly.I think Aristotle would probably not have resorted to such, I dare say, unphilosophical means as to silence him by using violence, that is by calling in the authority or the police. That would have been below his dignity as a philosopher, at least that is what I hope, respecting Aristotle as, however mythical as a person, a great philosopher.
I agree that adversity helps us to grow and hurdle the obtacles that life places in front of us. However, I do think that in a world without adversity, the human race word grow and develop expontentially. What would there be to hold us back?How could we grow when all obstacles in the world were removed and if there was no adversity at all?
(Nested quote removed.)
In what way do you think that Xris' OP is going to help us as forum users, or improve the forum itself. (Nested quote removed.)
That would be true, if Xris position was that of innocence. However, what you do not appear to have taken into consideration, is that Xris is guilty of breaching the forum rules. That fact is without question. Furthermore, considering that he has been placed on probation, this is not the first, second or third time that he has done so. Thus, your analogy is not applicable to Xris' situation. A more apt analogy would be of a convicted criminal complaining that the sentence which has been handed to him is too harsh, and accusing the judge of being 'bias', because they made the decision without a jury verdict. You sound as though Xris is some type philosophical martyr or heroic in some way? He's just a guy upset about what's happened to him - nothing strange about that at all, but if I were in his situation, I would use it as an opportunity to reflect on: how my own actions and decisions managed to get me in such a mess.I look at Xris's OP as he being the person in the class that will ask the question everyone else want to ask but is afraid to ask. I admire him for speaking up when he thinks he has been wronged. It gives others the courage to take up for oneself. I really do not think Scott minds that he spoke openly. It also gives Scott the opportunity to explain his position.
That is an axiomatic statement yes. The same can be applied to anything in life I think, because perfection is unobtainable / unreachable.My sentence: "No person or forum is above improvement" stands on it's own.
Yes, when one member posts in the on-topic section that another member has committed an ad hominem (or broken a rule) that is off-topic and prohibited. Of course, that doesn't strictly apply to the off-topic section as stated in the forum rules and certainly doesn't mean I won't tell the user via a private message/warning that they have broken a rule.Misty wrote:Scott,
Doesn't telling someone they have committed ad hominem, etc., break forum rule G? I think it does.
It would be interesting to see what posts you are referring to? You indicated them to me.Fanman wrote:The Quirkster,
I think that it would of been a better idea for Xris to address his concerns to Scott in a private message. By choosing to address the issues on the actual forum, in an open topic, he has made it a political issue. Thereby causing people to take his or Scott's side. When the actual issue of: "Did Xris actually deserve the warning and to have his posts deleted" is lost and forgotten. I have had many arguments with Xris, and I have found his arguments on occasion to contain ad hominem and strawman fallicies (which I indicated to him). That is against the forum rules. That is that. Therefore, it is merely a case of Scott applying the forum rules to Xris, and not Scott unfairly prohibiting Xris' freedom of speech, being a dictator and 'bullying' Xris as his OP would cause one unknowing to believe. I believe that Aristotle would call Xris' OP - political rhetoric. Here, Scott is Xris' opponent.
There is no point in time where you will be able win. I am simply not bothered to go through our old debates in order to point out where you have committed ad hominem fallacies. Why would I want to do that, what do I have to prove? Anyone can see that you are no match for me in a philosophical argument.It would be interesting to see what posts you are referring to? You indicated them to me.
Is that how you see debate. A competition, what strange chappy you are. You wanted me to search for the very same thing that you are here admitting.So you admit that you constantly claim the same damage to your ego but you wanted me to prove it. Have you ever read Billy Bunter and the donuts?Fanman wrote:Xris, wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
There is no point in time where you will be able win. I am simply not bothered to go through our old debates in order to point out where you have committed ad hominem fallacies. Why would I want to do that, what do I have to prove? Anyone can see that you are no match for me in a philosophical argument.
Yes, I do pereceive debate as a competative exercise, not in all cases, but when the debaters have an opposing viewpoint. Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about with regards to the rest of your comment.Is that how you see debate. A competition, what strange chappy you are. You wanted me to search for the very same thing that you are here admitting.So you admit that you constantly claim the same damage to your ego but you wanted me to prove it. Have you ever read Billy Bunter and the donuts?
Fanman wrote:Xris, wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
Yes, I do pereceive debate as a competative exercise, not in all cases, but when the debaters have an opposing viewpoint. Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about with regards to the rest of your comment.