Good Bye

Posted by TruthFreedom1 11 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
184 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

argumentum ad hominem: Passing judgement on a perception of character. I have never passed character judgement on a person on this site or at any time unless I have first been attacked in such a way. I did not come here to engage in this way. I have come to believe that you might not have an objective bone in your body. Leonard Peikoff says the Objectivist movement is "a closed system and not open to change." I think he was right. I am open to change which is why I came here. That was obviously a mistake. People who have closed minds to the opinions of other and who don't show respect for those opinions (agreed or not) are destined to wallow in a stagnant world, but hey who am I to pass judgement. Its to bad the moderators of this site don't do something about such things. And now I bid you adieu... Probably to a loud chorus of cheers... Phhht

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by John_Emerson 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't believe it was disrespect for the CIA. It was a statement indicating his belief that the end justifies the means... Kind of like "the man in roomette 7, car #2... who believed that he had the right... to wreck lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder - for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of 'a good cause'"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    inferences. You have to discern to get through each decision you make. judging is an extra step. you are assessing value or worth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WillH 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Are you sure that is always true? What I mean is when you meet people do you not treat them with respect until they give you reason not to? Do you demand proof that a person is respectable before you grant them respect?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    see, I don't like the agree/disagree concept. first, let me say I up vote for agree often. But I up vote for disagree which I think is good for conversations. I expect disagreement among such astute thinkers. It's important for us to have those conversations. While I'm tempted to down vote for "lousy logic" in and of itself I think might chill the conversation. All of us have blindspots. For me, it's getting to the point where I am looking for agendas intent on converting an objectivist, capitalistic, logical frame of mind. Many in here ignore those posts. Fine. But new people coming to the site at any given time could see the board completely full of posts inconsistent with the stated mission of the site. I'm interested in possible solutions to this and so are many producers and guests. thanks for your comment and keep them coming. ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wait.. I thought the up/down votes signified "advances/doesn't-advance the conversation.

    As usual, I suggest expanded voting buttons explicitly including, for example, "I agree/disagree." Then add complimentary/derogatory choices... <grin>

    >>>>>>>>> correction! My bad! I guess that after I noticed "added to the conversation" as the mouse-over for "thumbs up," I didn't even notice the popup for "thumbs-down."

    I would, therefore, suggest that the thumbs-down popup be replaced with "Does not add to the conversation," or that an additional bunch of selections for "agree, disagree, spam" be ADDED. It just seems like, pardon the expression, "lousy logic" to imply that the converse of "adds to the discussion" is "this is spam."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wow... I had to immediately bookmark THAT link!
    Yep, we've seen them all, here and elsewhere.
    Most of the items on that list are the reasons I left current.com a year or two ago and have dropped out of "discussions" on the Linked In White House Group's forum.
    It's much better here!
    Sorry to hear about anyone leaving. Everyone has their limits, whether we agree or understand them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mckenziecalhoun 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, it's a difference in level.
    Neither of the two situations is true:
    Math studies and codifies philosophy.
    Philosophy studies and codifies math.
    And since logic studies and codifies reasoning (it is that study and set of codes) and reasoning does study and codify logic, then there is no parallel between the two in the sense I am using.
    Logic is the formal study of reasoning and its codification for understanding. Those who have taken logic are simply, and hopefully, more aware of the workings of logic and the things that are not good reasoning (example: the cat is black, that dog is black, therefore, the dog is a cat).

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
    Just pointed out on the site today as a quick and easy list of fallacies codified by logic.
    Not a 100% accurate, but useful.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I like that, Herd of Cats HA! :-)
    I usually use "Barking Dogs".
    You are correct. Not many people are willing to try to lower the volume and restore civility to a conversation. I blame DC for that. Talk about a herd of cats :-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    currently a down vote means "spam" as the site has set the guidelines. I have seen down votes probably mean "idiot." More often than not, they happen when they continue to argue, but not using reason or citing false information. downvotes also occur when the commenter engages in ad hominem or other discrediting forms of argument. Honestly, down votes are not used that often on this site. as to the behavior modification comment, I just don't see that happening with this herd of cats. Do you? ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wespotts 11 years, 4 months ago
    TruthFreedom,

    You mentioned you came here because you're open to change. Based on your parting comments I'm just wondering who you hoped to change.

    Here's your hat, what's your hurry?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 11 years, 4 months ago
    Peikoff is wrong. Objectivism is as open as it gets. It is the subjective thought process that, unwilling or unable to "change," that is closed. Suggesting that Objectivism change is no different than suggesting that a lion or mouse should change its nature.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Voting a comment down (i.e.: "you're an idiot") doesn't help. Are you disagreeing that the person of the attack is an idiot, or are you disagreeing with how the commenter attacked the other, or that they attacked them at all?
    It's better to say to the attacker, "their post doesn't help the conversation, and that perhaps they should elucidate their thoughts." If the goal is a free exchange of views then that's what we have to strive for. Demeaning someone wastes all of our time.
    I would say it's more of a 'public shaming' for behavior then it is censorship, as opposed to having a moderator simply remove a post because someone didn't like it.
    That does raise the next question, is Behavior modification (in this regard) different then censorship?
    We're talking about civility.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Humm. I'm not disagreeing at all, but could the difference in definition lay in differences between Math and Philosophy?

    I have little background in philosophy as a science, so I may be totally off base here and if so I respectfully withdrawal. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your assertion of indifference crossed a decency line. I've seen you use your mind brilliantly so there was no reason to resort to such a vile description to make your point. Why did you do that? Is it one of those things where you just write it, and then regret it or do you really not see how the remarks were incredibly offensive to a normally reasonable audience? Were you drinking? Help me understand, Hiraghm.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    excellent points, mc, thanks.
    "However, clearly the site doesn't pass the threshold of a set number of people who use logic and reasoning..."
    to Truth's satisfaction (as you said in the second half of the sentence)?
    I only commented to Truth's lack of reasoning and logic on his posts. Many, many others were conspicuously not participating on his posts. There is very little moderation of posts. It's up to all participating to choose which posts are relevant and add to the discussion.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 11 years, 4 months ago
    there will always be those that will attack another because they don't know how to have a civil discussion. I wouldn't fault the whole group.
    As for moderators, would you rather have an open, honest, uncensored discussion, or something more like how yahoo blindly censors words because someone might get offended and get their feelings hurt?
    I would rather not have some arbitrator determine what is and is not acceptable, and allow the community of posters to express their concerns at someone for an unfair attack on another. If no one comes to your defense, then perhaps you are overly sensitive. Censorship is wrong, always.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo