freemankind

This is exactly what I mean on this thread. You dislike and disagree, and you don't explain why, but blame it all on "civility". I don't know why you haven´t voted me down, because it definitely seems like the best way you could "reply" to me. This thread is "a waste of time", but you still come to post here and project onto me the fact that you are the one without any arguments, appealing to emotions and trolling...

See, this is what happens with dogma. As I said before, I am not the one defending the principle that one must be universally "curious" or "respectful"--however this contradicts the fact that you will be very offensive indeed if you question anyone's truth. It's always the same: the narcissist uses a principle to defend himself, then breaks it to attack... Talk about things getting boring...

Clearly, if people are new or don't know then it's worth telling them. You add nothing by repeating "it's boring" other than to contradict that this place has anything to do with personal truth--let alone serving customers.

Do you have any interest in the truth value of those adjectives--and their refutation--or is philosophy really all just a matter of name-calling for you? I suppose if you agree with--perhaps voted for--Xelent's mischaracterization of what I said, you would interpret I addressed you in particular; because if that is not the case then I don't understand how you could interpret I was calling you those things. Ah, wait... perhaps you interpreted I am addressing you because you recognize yourself in the kind of behavior I described.So, summing up this thread, basically one could make a post that only says "Stupid!" over here, see his post voted down, and be replied to by people who claim: - They are not stupid. - The word stupid could never be a truth statement. - The OP is stupid. - Calling people stupid is bad (universally). I hope calling this the "summit of inconsistency" will still be allowed by majority vote.

Well, on this thread so far I have been already called an asshole an a dick by "the community" (including staff) in posts that got positive or zero votes. I also see some similar behavior in other posts that are meant to hurt feelings and ostracize, not address any arguments... That's all I need to see, really. It's not me who is defending the principle of good manners and not hurting "childhood feelings"... I wouldn't reject a post containing valid arguments because of these things, because I know I have something to gain from it. Doing so and arguing that "your feelings are hurt" from having been bullied as a child is an equal form of defense; none of it has anything to do with the arguments that are already there, and certainly someone who can fallaciously negate the truth can also do so after a well-presented criticism. Being a "community" has never been about the truth, but about sheltering together from it in the illusion of having achieved it.

I can sure see that. But it's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about the criterion for determining truth (see the example of congress), not its enforcement (regardless of a country being a legitimate dominion, Obama can also tell you to leave the country if you don't like it). Now, your reply is fallacious, and you can see it got better votes than my original post. That makes the perfect illustration of what I'm saying. @JamesP So, if you get a majority bad philosophers signing up, then you will get negative feedback on posts with a positive truth value, will you not? But this is a forum on philosophy. How do you know the quality of this invested community will honor the purpose of this forum at any given point, or is the truth not the purpose of the forum? Freedom is, primarily, individual; is that not the main thesis espoused here? As I said, letting anyone into your community does not guarantee freedom because you don't know if they are free (philosophical). A free community is made up of free individuals. If the individuals you accept are not free then you will have a non-free community, and that's what the votes will reflect. "Helpful" is not a synonym for "good" in terms of philosophy. Obama would find Stefan extremely unhelpful in congress... I just saw it on that thread I mentioned. I can understand the OP's style was not the most appropriate, but the central argument was sound, and I did not see Stefan or anyone refute it appropriately. What happens is that people don't like the argument, and start attacking its presentation or secondary things, in order to bury it. That is anti-philosophical behavior, and it is what this system encourages. If the OP's post was so bad as to receive so many bad votes, then why did it get so many replies? Were perhaps those negative votes given by the people who replied? Why do people bother replying to something that isn't worth reading?

Something I have noticed as a new member is this forum reputation system. I see a lot of (great) info in FDR against democracy and what a ridiculous way to solve social problems it is... but then when it comes to solving social problems here that's basically what you guys use?? I don't see the difference between a post and a truth statement. It might have some noise, a certain style or even some fallacies, but it might also contain valuable statements—let alone true statements. So truth statements here get voted down or up in the same way they do at the societal or collective level in your average democracy... That's pretty amazing. That's basically saying that the owner (admin) prefers to use the criterion of a random sum of his visitors' valuations in ascertaining truth and justice inside the house; all in the light that he—supposedly—knows how to determine these better than the average person, and has suffered the same kind of collective ostracism for it, which he denounces. Or are there any indications I may be unaware of that people who sign up here make good judges in terms of the content of a post, which is what matters in relation to its truth value? If Stefan went to congress, wouldn't he be censored and voted down too by a majority? Would they not try to silence his rational arguments—which to them sound like pure insults and blasphemy—in the same manner, by appealing to the form not the content? It seems to me they would... I am speaking from my experience on this thread (Stefan's lack of integrity with Chomsky interview) but I guess it must happen all the time here. There are other aspects of the forum I have found very positive, and kudos for that, but this one is pretty disappointing.

Just a reminder to all that keep misunderstanding my side of the criticism here: the issue is not about Stefan's behavior in the interview, but about his justification of it on this thread (above) and how it contradicts podcast 87. It is not necessary that you understand or take into account Stefan's central argument (the state is in the family) too see this -- but, well, if you don't take it into account I can understand why your replies are the way they are...

Yes, and yes. In order to instill "cultural blindness" (the name of podcast 87) or false moral beliefs into a child you need to initiate force (neglecting a child you take responsibility for is also the initiation of force).

Logic is a bind for anyone making a truth proposition. And addressing truth propositions – not the name calling – is a bind for any philosopher whose integrity depends on it. Again, you seem to be blind to the fact that societies are made of people who were once children.

Would you say the same if this was about an interview with Mandela? Mandela also did a lot to expose state crimes... Chomsky may call himself an anarchist, but we all know what is required in order to get people to give up their property rights. He may not call that "the state", but for anarcho-capitalists that's just about the same thing. Honestly, people, why does everyone seem to ignore Stefan's main argument (the state is in the family) whenever the topic gets political in nature – let alone Stefan himself?. Surely what he said in podcast 87, etc. means that he knows Chomsky advocates the initiation of force, just like he honours his jewish upbringing. If it's ok to interview Chomsky, then why not Obama, another crazy lefty? All Stefan would have to do, is avoid criticizing Obama's statist beliefs and focus on his knowledge of everything he has in common with FDR – would be excellent publicity for sure!

Yes. No. He can criticise anyone about anything he wants, but this is a show about the NAP being valid – and "lefties" being violators of it – no? I don't understand why people here focus so much on the name calling. I am new to this forum, but I am quite surprised. I always thought philosophical people would focus on the arguments and ignore the rest. For someone who cares about the truth, "2+2=4" is the same as "2+2=4, idiot", no? If Chomsky is a crazy lefty, then surely it's ok to call him a crazy lefty...

I understand the purpose of interviewing people like Chomsky and not debate them; it is a very valid thing to do and does not question your integrity. However, please note that Stefan's old opinion and everything regarding podcast 87 contradicts what he has said on this thread, as FreeEach and I quoted. I think this is very unfortunate, and hope Stefan will explain why his position seems to have changed so much.

I took some time to research this. In this old podcast Stefan shows how he knows more about Chomsky than he says here (about domestic policy). He also mentions another podcast where he called him a "crazy lefty"... Stefan, could you explain? Listening to this podcast it was clear to me that you know he endorses the initiation of force (in the form of social programs) which he only denies due to his defence of his family and Jewish roots: 87. Cultural Blindness Posted: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:20:00 GMTPlay Now The beam and the mote... Chomsky and state violence

Great point Wuzzums. Culture depends completely on parenting. I actually don't respect people like Pinker much. They are far too lost in the abstract.