agun

Hi Stefan, I am still awaiting your response to a post I wrote almost 3 months ago. I'd really apreciate it if you could take the time to respond to it.[] I agree, but without a discussion aren't we making the journey of a determinist towards truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue harder? I myself have contradictory ideas that support both free-will and determinism. I am leaning towards free will because I am typing this message, but I also think about the Poincaré recurrence theorem and how a scientist claims to have calculated the recurrence time for our causal patch and our universe. It means that the number of events possible is finite and they repeat, so in the amount of time calculated by the scientist (named Don Page) we will be having this discussion again, thus there is no free will, but I am pretty sure I'm deciding to write this message. As you can see I am not 100% sure that we have free-will. I think the best way I can advance in my path towards the truth of the subject is through the discussion of it with other people. I am confused as to why you would close the topic and obstaculize such discussion.

FDR claims to be the largest philosophy conversation in the world. I don't think banning or strongly discouraging the discussion of certain topics is the way to have a philosophy discussion. I have argumented why I think this way in previous posts.

However little the topic of Free-will vs Determinism progressed, it's more than it's progressing now that the conversation has been stopped. Should we stop all other debates that have little to no progress? How are we even defining progress? Do you mean progress in terms of conclusion or in terms of things learnt like debating skills? and where is the evidence of this lack of progress? So far, the only evidence you have given is anecdotic.

Thank you but I did not ask for your help.

Would you care to share the insight you may have gathered from my previous posts? It might be useful for me to grow as a person, provided that such insights are free from countertransference. In any case, any argument that takes the form of "he is wrong about x because previously he said y" is an ad hominem fallacy.

Banning philosophical conversations is not what a philosophy forum is about. Even taking a pro child-abuse stance in a debate about child abuse should be allowed. After all, if the person promoting child abuse comes to a philosophy forum looking for a debate then he or she is seeking the truth and If he or she learns that child abuse is wrong then maybe some children will be saved from being abused and the consequences of being abused. Socrates said that he only knows he knows nothing to remind us of the complexity of philosophy. To dismiss determinism as a self refuting statement or "self detonating statement" is ignoring the complexity of the topic. As far as I'm know, Stefan has banned (or at least strongly discouraged) the discussion of Determinism and UPB on the boards. This is his reasoning (taken from here:http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/25920.aspx) He finds the debating of complex topics like ethics and determinism to be rather fruitless for various reasons. This is his opinion based on his experience. He has strongly discouraged the discussion of such topics due to his experience of fruitlessness. What if other users don't find it fruitless? It doesn't matter. It seems only Stefan's opinion matters. I he where argumenting that the debating of complex topics on the board is fruitless, then where is the evidence for such claims? However, on this thread: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/19312.aspx, Stefan gives a different reason for strongly discouraging the debating of determinism through the closing of the thread. Now it's because he has no respect left for it. Why would he have no respect left for such a complex issue? Also, one last little thing I noticed on his thread about debating UPB: Petty insecurities. All you people with social phobia that struggle with this phobia everyday for years that in many cases can bring on a panic attack just at the thought of talking to a stranger on the phone, it's all just petty insecurities and you are selfish and inmature to put them over your search for the truth. This is a very arrogant and abusive thing to say to those of us who suffer from social anxiety disorder.

I was not attacking you, If I had it would of been an ad hominem, not a strawman. You took it personal and decided to defend against it by calling me names when all that was needed was to simply point it out. No, I cannot stop you from derailing the topic. I asked you to do it in another thread in order to keep this one on-topic. It's exactly what you have done in your previous posts. Both quoting only parts and taking it personal. Freudian slip? No, I want you to keep on topic. I never said I wanted you off the thread. I suspect that is part of the imagined injury you are defending against. Maybe you projected your rejection onto me.

You are correct, it's not disrespectful. I should of said It's arrogant. So what would be arrogant in that situation? Not having any respect left for the determinist position and not being willing to debate or let others debate on the subject on a philosophy forum is arrogant because it treats the determinist position as inferior and not deserving of debate. Furthermore, should we ban the discussion of any topic that Stefan strongly disagrees with?

Calling me "Mr. Strawman" was unnecesary agression. Now you belive that you can know the truth? Then I guess when you reach that stage of "I know" the forum will no longer have any sympatico for you because: I'd like it if you could explain yourself a little better because right now this makes absolutelly no sense to me. If you dismiss my ideas as nonsense, then why are you replying? If you want to debate wether or not my ideas are worth debating (impossible to argument without ad hominems, btw) then go ahead, but please do it in another thread. I want to keep this thread on topic.

You are correct, it's not disrespectful. I should of said It's arrogant.

So you don't know the truth, but you are trying to find out the truth yet you believe one cannot know the truth. That makes no sense. This thread was not created to debate about Determinism vs Free-Will, but rather to debate wether or not a philosophy forum should ban the discussion of such an important philosophical issue. Personally I find it to be unreasonable. Just imagine Stefan telling people like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein (both determinists) that he has no respect left for their position and that he would be wasting his personal resources debating with them. It's disrespectful to say the least.

Stefan, I still await your response to my argument in favor of the discussion of Determinism vs Free-will on this philosophy forum. Do you still hold your position that Determinism has no place in a philosophical discussion?

I think the fact that intelligent people are debating about free-will vs determinism is enough evidence that the solution to the problem is not obvious. If such solution is not obvious then I think the discussion should have a place in a forum about the discussion of philosophy. Even if such solution where obvious I think that we should allow the discussion for the sake of the journey towards truth of those who do not yet grasp the obvious solution. I also think that debating improves our debating skills, which is always useful. However, as Stefan is the owner and has expressed his dislike towards the discussion of such topic I think that, as guests, we should respect his preferences and discuss determinism vs free-will elsewhere. Or at least until he changes his mind, if he ever does.

I find it interesting but dissapointing that many of you try to put the focus upon my self knowledge instead of directly debating my arguments. Surelly if my arguments against a postcount are wrong you guys could argument the reasons why you believe so instead of creating ad homien fallacies. I am not demanding the removal of the postcount, I am argumenting why I think it's detrimental to a philosophy oriented forum. There is a huge difference between demanding and argumenting. Could you at least provide an argument as to why you think it's "a little troubling" to argument that the forum will be better optimized to the discussion of philosophy without a post count? Could you also explain what was the initial purpose of the postcount, keeping in mind we already have the date we joined the forum right above the postcount, and why it's important?

I appreciate your concern for my self knowledge. As I've stated before, I've been through all those questions (and more) before I created the thread and still had the thought that the postcount has no place in a philosophy forum because I could not come up with any important reason as to why we have it but I could see how it could create problems. Throughout the thread there have been some users who have talked about some preconceptions that the postcount creates. Sure these are projections of a user onto another user, but the postcount is the catalyzer and as it serves no important purpose I think it's much better to remove the postcount than to fill the forums with more noise that hinders the discussion of more important topics. The postcount is not to blame but I think that if we can have a forum where there are the least number of elements that aid in the creation of preconceptions the better. It's about optimization rather than problem solving. Finally, If the preconceptions of others are only a problem for them, then why do people try to create a good impression in a job interview? Would you feel completely equal about someone who shows up to a job interview at a computer repair workshop in a hoodie and mud stained jean shorts than someone who shows up nicely dressed and groomed? I think the postcount is part of the user's image on the forums, low postcount being "less powerful" and more "likely to be a troll" and thus like showing up badly dressed. I think we can optimize the system, that's all.