Leaderboard

Finally after 2 years of Trump bashing Sam Harris has done a conversation with the (not quiet committed to actually being a...) Trump supporter Scott Adams. It's a pretty good debate actually, recommend you give it a listen, Scott Adams is a great mind (if a bit docile). Sam has disabled comments on his website so I added The Untruth About Donald Trump to Sam's Tweet thread. Please retweet, heart or share it if you're a Twitter user. Tweet threads can be a surprisingly effective way to get a message in front of a lot of eyeballs.

Ha! I was gonna start a thread about this exact topic. Listening to the podcast right now, halfway in and I'm completely triggered by Sam. Was he always this much of an idiot? I have read everything he has ever written and watched all of his debates and considered him one of my heroes a few years back. Now he's just a petulant loser in my eyes. Was he always like this? If so what does it say about me that I used to admire such a person? I watched a couple of minutes of his most recent Joe Rogan appearance and he literally looked like a homeless person (see pic). Did he also get a stroke or something? At this point it would be his only saving grace. Scott: Trump is a master persuader. Sam: No he's not! He didn't persuade me! Scott: But he's the president against all odds. Sam: Doesn't matter! He's a liar and morally bankrupt! Scott: How do you know he has no morals? Sam: Because of the things he says! Scott: How can you trust the things he says if he's a liar? Sam: [autistic screeching] Sam's level of debate is abysmal. WTF.

If you could provide us with these posts you speak of, then perhaps we could review them to help you resolve this issue. Any conclusion without them is purely speculative and perhaps a biased one at that. Your implying that the FDR forum is not operating under free market principles without providing a clear case for your speculation. Does FDR receive tax payer revenue? Does FDR lobby the government for favourable legislation? Who is forced to participate / contribute to FDR? We can only conclude, at best, that "this may be just my experience" because we lack the empirical evidence to determine your claim. Who are these "certain members"? How do they "go out of their way to bully others"? How did you determine they "bully others"? How do you know members have "quit because of it"? How much more likely is it that the forum software was upgraded so that FDR and perhaps ourselves could benefit from a more secure, less buggy, sleeker, and an improved forum interface? Please provide your reasoning as to how you concluded that the [perceived] decline of activity here resulted in the forum software upgrade. I'm curious to read what you come here for if you don't mind sharing.

The point I was trying to help you understand is - you have assumed FDR is over-regulated because you experienced issues posting. Your conclusion (FDR is over-regulated) was based on unknown posting issues. Your reasoning has holes. When I ask for your evidence to support your assumption and you cannot provide it, then why should we agree with your conclusion? Incorrect. You do not get to redefine terms. A donation is a gift given by physical or legal persons, typically for charitable purposes and/or to benefit a cause. A tax (from the Latin taxo) is a financial charge or some other type of levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or a legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state in order to fund various public expenditures.[1] A failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to taxation, is usually punishable by law. You're just saying stuff. What are the "goods"? How are they "undoubtedly limited by the admins"? You have not argued anything here. How do you know that people are using the reputation system the way you expect? Do you have a log of all reputation points and the reasoning behind them? The answer is no, nobody can provide the empirical evidence to support their argument that the reputation system here on FDR is being used to accurately rate member arguments. Making accusations of members misconduct without evidence and reasoning is a sign that you lack the integrity of being honest nor your capacity to understand the severity of your claim. I hope you can understand and make the necessary correction. I never agreed to this. I put forth the "likelihood". You did not read what I wrote. You're also reaching on your speculation which is significantly less likely to be true than the ones I provided. You have extremely limited time interfacing with the forum software. Perhaps the admins experienced some buggy behaviour and for them an upgrade was desired. Please take the time to read and understand - this question was not directed to you. Sorry to be abrasive but it is annoying knowing that some people do not take the effort. Me want your thoughts - what podcasts & book content & why?

You originally wrote an unsubstantiated response to the OP's question. When asked for evidence, you deflect with even more unsubstantiated responses and passive aggression defences, as shown below: The value gained from exposing the lack of evidence in your responses, is to show and remind others of a standard to empirical based philosophy - otherwise, things become subjective and unverifiable. Threads like this one appear as a growing result from a lack of logical arguments supported or backed by evidence. If the comments here turn into the kind found on YouTube or Facebook, the philosophical passion is drained from some members to engage in serious conversations - the wrapping of non-arguments in philosophical language is transparent to those who recognize sophistry. The appropriate response can only be to bring about the change that is missing - not more unsubstantiated thoughts. While there are other contributing factors like the ability to have better conversations outside of texting and the satisfied early FDR members for philosophy, it could be argued that the recent increase of political discussion has quickly attracted a different group of unlike minded people, however, this is in accordance with FDRs goals - to bring philosophy to the world. With the provided forum, open access to an extensive amount of knowledge, and new members, it is up to those who are willing to reason from first principles (in accordance with empirical evidence) to add their voice when they can, regardless if it's difficult. The alternative is relativism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qpXdEnaHCE

Definition of social media : forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos) Therefore, forums = a form of social media and it's purpose is equal in the present.

Please do not put words in my mouth - your re-framing is inaccurate. The prior posts are here for anyone to read. Finally, actual evidence to support your speculation, not just your words - thank you. Why was that so hard? Next, we could investigate why there was a delay in the posts. The best people to help you would be the forum administrators. If your really curious and want the truth, perhaps contact Michael at [email protected] with the relevant information. For what it's worth, I've had some posts marked as "hidden" and shown as pink/red after clicking the Submit Reply button. I don't know why this occurs but I move on with my life as the post eventually goes through. It's great to read that you're trying to present evidence to support your thought...but your ethnicity does not excuse you from others questioning your integrity. Definition of bullying (source: Merriam-Webster) : abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger, more powerful, etc. : the actions and behavior of a bully In the context of this thread, we're not interested in your ethnicity. We're interested in your ability to provide reason and evidence to this conversation. These are the only apologies of yours that I found, as shown below: If "Pardon me for not being clear." was not passive aggression, then I would apologize for my accusation....however, my conversation with you thus far has left me to conclude, with a high probability, that you don't know what it is to be passive aggressive. Even I'm having to keep checking with myself to make sure that I'm as assertive as possible in this conversation. I'm not sure what you mean by "chess games". My understanding is that treating a conversation like a chess game would be to engage in a conversation where the other participants are treated as opponent(s) with the purpose of placing said opponent(s) under an inescapable threat of defeat/capture. Where as, the definition of debate is: a contention by words or arguments. Our polite chat about politics became a heated debate. a regulated discussion of a proposition (see 1proposition 1b) between two matched sides. The difference would be having an argument using reasoning (the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way) as opposed to having a position regardless of reason and evidence. What's your thoughts? Perhaps I've exhibited this "chess game" behaviour.

Concern trolls are people that raise issues in the guise of helping but actually detract from a forum or a conversation by wasting time and increasing frustration.