Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[Forty Two]

While I agree with you (and Hermit and Devogue and Jamest) that this new direction is the wrong path to take...

Don't pull me into this, please. I do not altogether agree that this is the wrong path to take. In fact, I think too many personal attacks have been let slip through. My disagreement with JimC's decision is limited to this: "you deserve to be hoist on your own petard and spanked by your own hypocrisy..." is in my opinion not a personal attack. I worded my objection like this: "Seth did not call us hypocrites. What he basically said was that we have indulged in hypocrisy. It therefore cannot be described as constituting a group attack against the membership here."

Unless I am misreading Forty Two's post, he is taking a similar position to mine, but I leave it to him to correct me if he deems that necessary.

I'd say that's fair, and I agree.

[Forty Two]

While I agree with you (and Hermit and Devogue and Jamest) that this new direction is the wrong path to take...

Don't pull me into this, please.

Yes, this thought occurred to me after it was too late to edit. It occurred to me from your almost totally ignored thread pleading for change that you do want to go down a path somewhat similar to this. Whether it's under the play nice rule or the personal attack rule, it seems to me you're happy to suspend any of us three because it upsets you.

I'm happy to see people suspended if they break the rules and the rules are fair and fairly applied. However, I view you as being among those who will engage in personal attacks in view of your posting history.

Unless I am misreading it, I'm pretty sure 42 is taking a similar position to me and Jamest in that this 'new direction' isn't something we really want to see happen. I.e. his point (a).

No, I think that it has its difficulties in enforcement. It's tough to make it work without someone complaining that they are being unfairly treated, that others get to engage in personal attacks, etc., or that something said by member X is o.k., but when member Y says it, it's not - because of posting history or other context.

It may well be fine -- I don't need to attack groups, and I generally don't. I will criticize groups in the sense of arguing against their ideology, but I generally don't call them names. I won't say I've never done it, so before you link to some thread I created that poked fun at or used provocative language against some group or other, I probably have done so. But, I'm cool with the new rule in principle -- my concern is with its application and with the risk that perhaps it may well take the wind out of some fun debates or exchanges. But, I'm not saying it will do that. I'm just warning of the danger and asking the moderators to look out for those dangers and be mindful of them. For me, I'll try to be as helpful as possible, and I won't be looking to push limits or make their jobs harder than they have to be.

[JimC]

We are only concerned about group attacks in so far as they are clearly meant to apply to members of the forum. For example "all those arsehole left-wingers out there, stealing or freedoms" attracts no penalty. However, in at least some contexts "you arsehole marxist bastards", when clearly directed to a significant number of members of the forum will attract exactly the same penalty as if it had been directed to a single member.

[Forty Two]

Fair enough.

Now, for the record: boobs.

[The Curious Squid]

It seems to me that the conflict comes from the fact that Rationalia is a weird mash up of ideas. It's both a socially relaxed place to talk and hang out as well as a place where people can have serious debates and discussions. It's a bit hard to moderate for both uses with one system. At the end of the day you'd think that common decency would keep the need for moderation to a minimum but from past experience there's always someone willing to get upset and take things way more seriously than they should.

[Exi5tentialist]

You've made a very illogical argument. You've asserted:

Each person has a different way of storing memory;
each person's experience of learning words is different
each person's significance attached to words is different
Therefore, every idea is part of a person

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

God - is this how people "reason" on this message board nowadays? Yes the conclusion does not follow from the premises, but that actually wasn't my argument.

To say an idea is part of every person because every idea is different for every person is thoroughly illogical. I know that. I didn't say that.

I say that this "idea" you've got that an "idea" is a "concept" is just rubbish. Ideas are little bits of electrical energy and chemical processes inside one person's brain. I don't believe there is any such thing as a concept. Pretending that concepts exist is just confused brains playing pretend realities. No, that reality doesn't exist. Ideas can't exist there. Ideas can only exist as part of a living brain. Part of a person. To attack an idea is to attack a person.

The alternative rules I would propose would be about the severity of attack, not which pretend reality the attack takes place in.

[piscator]

I remember when Miss Stein and Alice found a house in Bilignin they wished to rent for the summer. It sat high over the valley in a stand of fruit trees and had a view of Mont Blanc. Down in the valley the streams ran clear, flowers bloomed constantly, and all the children were pretty.

The only issue was the house was occupied by a French army officer. Miss Stein really wanted to rent the house so she decided to use her influence in Paris to have him promoted and posted overseas. I tried to argue with her that this was a poor solution and there were certainly plenty of nice houses in Bilagrin not occupied by army officers. But arguing with Miss Stein was about as frustrating and useless as debating anything here on TRG. After all, he WAS going to get a promotion.

Miss Stein was successful and eventually got her summer house. The army officer was posted to Africa and soon afterwards war.broke out with Morocco. He died in a prison near Meknes while Alice made lovely pies of apricots and plums from the orchards nearby and cooled them on the window sill of what had once been his kitchen.

I am not sure if that is gentrification but I believe it is close.

[JimC]

Exi5stentialist wrote:

...The alternative rules I would propose...

[pErvinalia]

You've made a very illogical argument. You've asserted:

Each person has a different way of storing memory;
each person's experience of learning words is different
each person's significance attached to words is different
Therefore, every idea is part of a person

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

God - is this how people "reason" on this message board nowadays? Yes the conclusion does not follow from the premises, but that actually wasn't my argument.

To say an idea is part of every person because every idea is different for every person is thoroughly illogical. I know that. I didn't say that.

I say that this "idea" you've got that an "idea" is a "concept" is just rubbish. Ideas are little bits of electrical energy and chemical processes inside one person's brain. I don't believe there is any such thing as a concept. Pretending that concepts exist is just confused brains playing pretend realities. No, that reality doesn't exist. Ideas can't exist there. Ideas can only exist as part of a living brain. Part of a person. To attack an idea is to attack a person.

Unfortunately your logic is contradictory as I have showed and you have noted yourself. So your point is fallacious, and should be ignored.

[Exi5tentialist]

Unfortunately your logic is contradictory as I have showed and you have noted yourself. So your point is fallacious, and should be ignored.

I'm only out to invite logic, I realise I cannot force it out of you. My reason for raising this subject was to see if, for the purposes of my own understanding, I could get someone to explain this rule in more logical terms. Unfortunately, very little robust argument has been forthcoming. The other side's arguments all have big gaping holes in them. All you keep doing is asserting that it is ok to attack an idea but not a person, as if re-stating the rule explains the logic behind it. This website is hopelessly in thrall to a dualism that defines a concept as existing in a different realm of reality from a person. People keep denying it, then reverting back to it.

Anyway, thanks for your time, I'm sorry we could not have explored our respective views more rationally.

[rainbow]

Anyway, thanks for your time, I'm sorry we could not have explored our respective views more rationally.

Your bad.

There is nothing more irrational than coming here and expecting a rational argument.

[pErvinalia]

Unfortunately your logic is contradictory as I have showed and you have noted yourself. So your point is fallacious, and should be ignored.

I'm only out to invite logic, I realise I cannot force it out of you. My reason for raising this subject was to see if, for the purposes of my own understanding, I could get someone to explain this rule in more logical terms. Unfortunately, very little robust argument has been forthcoming. The other side's arguments all have big gaping holes in them. All you keep doing is asserting that it is ok to attack an idea but not a person, as if re-stating the rule explains the logic behind it. This website is hopelessly in thrall to a dualism that defines a concept as existing in a different realm of reality from a person. People keep denying it, then reverting back to it.

Anyway, thanks for your time, I'm sorry we could not have explored our respective views more rationally.

Given your own logical explication fell short, it's a bit rich asking for a logically sound reasoning for the rule.

What we've got is a rule that, while potentially making an arbitrary distinction, can at least be reasonably defended in the context of what a discussion forum is. That is, a discussion forum exists to challenge ideas. Attacking ideas, while perhaps less than optimal in a strict materialist sense, is simply an extension of challenging ideas. That's why it can be reasoned that attacks on ideas can be justified, but attacks on the person can't.

[pErvinalia]

Anyway, thanks for your time, I'm sorry we could not have explored our respective views more rationally.

Your bad.

There is nothing more irrational than coming here and expecting a rational argument.

Expecting a rational argument *from you*.

Yes, that is correct.

[rainbow]

Anyway, thanks for your time, I'm sorry we could not have explored our respective views more rationally.

Your bad.

There is nothing more irrational than coming here and expecting a rational argument.

Expecting a rational argument *from you*.

Your attempt at an Ad Hominem is the merest attempt to deflect from the paucity of your argument.

[pErvinalia]

Your ad hominem against the whole membership is the merest attempt to deflect from the paucity of your argument.