Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Scott, are there potential legal issues with RJG spreading COVID misinformation on the forum? I'm not sure where the lines are drawn here.

[RJG]

@Scott, are there potential legal issues with RJG spreading COVID misinformation on the forum? I'm not sure where the lines are drawn here

Seriously Greta? Can't you see that you are part of the elitist "cancel culture mob" arrogantly trying to "silence" people that don't agree with you and the government narrative?

If you truly believe I am spreading "misinformation" then it should be easy to prove me wrong. So instead of resorting to "canceling" me/us, how about using some logic (rationality) to prove us wrong?

It is precisely that you don't have a logical defense, that you resort to "canceling" and demeaning others that don't subscribe to your irrational views.

Greta, your bigotry towards those that disagree with your view disqualifies you as an unbiased administrator of this forum. You need to resign.

[RJG]

Greta, if you believe I've made an error in something I said, then point out the error using logic to show the error.

"Canceling" or "silencing" people because you disagree doesn't cut it.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Scott, are there potential legal issues with RJG spreading [alleged] COVID misinformation on the forum? I'm not sure where the lines are drawn here.

As long as the Forum Rules are followed, especially the rules prohibiting preaching and the rules regarding what qualifies as credible source, then I wouldn't expect any legal trouble for the website.

In any case, for fairness and clarity, the lines are drawn by the Forum Rules.

If any of the Forum Rules are unclear, or if there are suggestions for additional rules, such as stricter rules about what would qualify as a sufficient/credible source and additional rules about when a source/citation/etc. is needed (to avoid "preaching", a.k.a. ipse dixit), then we can consider making those changes to the rules.

[Sy Borg]

@Scott, are there potential legal issues with RJG spreading COVID misinformation on the forum? I'm not sure where the lines are drawn here

Seriously Greta? Can't you see that you are part of the elitist "cancel culture mob" arrogantly trying to "silence" people that don't agree with you and the government narrative?

If you truly believe I am spreading "misinformation" then it should be easy to prove me wrong. So instead of resorting to "canceling" me/us, how about using some logic (rationality) to prove us wrong?

It is precisely that you don't have a logical defense, that you resort to "canceling" and demeaning others that don't subscribe to your irrational views.

Greta, your bigotry towards those that disagree with your view disqualifies you as an unbiased administrator of this forum. You need to resign.

I was checking for potential legal issues in case someone follows your advice and gets sick with COVID unnecessarily. If someone takes your advice and dies, as Admin, I want to be sure that I am not liable, nor the forum. I am just being cautious.

I will give you the chance to retract your ad hominem attacks and over-the-top complaints - and to apologise. Otherwise, in 24 hours you be given an official warning, and extra official warnings will given for each future infraction. Up to three.

It's wildly inaccurate to call me an "elite", anyway. The "elites" are the 0.1 percenters. Do you really believe that my status and influence in society is greater than that of billionaires and other power players? I am not part of any movement, no party represents my preferences, and I repeat no party lines or repeat partisan clichés. Just one other little person trying to do the right thing. To my mind, the idea of seeing Anthony Fauci as being on the verge of making all of humanity extinct is 1) America-centric and 2) completely illogical.

You have a chance to clear the slate by retracting your personal attacks and, preferably, apologising as well. It is now entirely up to you now whether you stay here or whether work towards cancelling yourself.

[RJG]

Greta, your attempt to "cancel" ("silence") me by making threats of banishing me only proves my point of your elitist cancel-culture mentality. Your insults (and condescending comments) toward me, and now the threat of "cancelling" me makes you much more deserving of being banned from this forum.

Again, if you disagree with anything I said, then stop with the insults (and condescending remarks) and the threats against me and just respond with rationality and logic. Keep the negativity to yourself.

[Sy Borg]

I have not insulted you, RJG. However, denigrating people with the usual labels of right wing extremists, eg. "cancel culture" and "elites" is an ad hominem attack.

Not sure why asking the forum's owner about potential legal liability is deemed by you to not be legitimate. What if someone takes your advice and dies from COVID, and their relatives find out that this forum was the source?

I knew an apology would be unrealistic, so I deemed that "preferable". But you needed to at least recant the ad hominem attacks, but you doubled down and misused the moderation system.

[Sy Borg]

If any of the Forum Rules are unclear, or if there are suggestions for additional rules, such as stricter rules about what would qualify as a sufficient/credible source and additional rules about when a source/citation/etc. is needed (to avoid "preaching", a.k.a. ipse dixit), then we can consider making those changes to the rules.

Scott, in my experience, life does not like to fit neatly into our pre-set rules, hence the humongous tomes that would be needed to contain all the laws, regulations, standards, guidelines and case laws, that are ever-growing. Creating stricter citation rules would probably just inconvenience members who are making relatively innocent claims, whose errors can be corrected by other members.

So I don't worry about disinformation per se because it sets the stage for debate and/or correction. However, this is an unusual time, when risks to public health and civil order have not been greater for some decades. This particular time, coupled with with ever more impressionable people, unsure what or whom to believe, raises the stakes and responsibility for online services, both ethically and legally. We have seen this in unprecedented actions by social media companies to avoid doing more damage.

As far as I can tell, strict moderation in areas pertaining to civil order and COVID is as much as can be done. Believe me, I wish that was not the case!

[Steve3007]

Nonsense, ...you are STILL confusing "social distancing" with "herd immunity".

If we went round this buoy yet again, would it involve you denying a link between the density of a system of objects and distance between the objects, as it did last time? Or would there be a fun new angle with a fun new analogy?

[RJG]

If we went round this buoy yet again, would it involve you denying a link between the density of a system of objects and distance between the objects, as it did last time?

What does a "density of a system of objects" have to do with anything? This has nothing to do with herd immunity.

Do you not read anything I write? AGAIN, herd immunity has nothing to do with the density of immune people (by itself), it has to do with the density, or saturation level (percentage) of immune people-to-total people within a given environment. Can you understand this simple point?

The more immune people relative to the total number of people within a herd of people, gives an increased protective effect. This protective effect is not because of "distance", it is because these immune people STOP the transmission of the virus, thereby preventing the virus from transmitting to a neighboring vulnerable person. Again, take a look at the graphics to help you understand "herd immunity" and to grasp the difference between "social distancing".

Social distancing works by increasing the distance between people.
Herd immunity works because immune people STOP the transmission of the virus.

Steve, it appears to me that you are intentionally playing games, and arguing just for the sake of arguing so as to irrationally defend a view that does not agree with science, nor of logic.

[Steve3007]

Steve, it appears to me that you are intentionally playing games, and arguing just for the sake of arguing so as to irrationally defend a view that does not agree with science, nor of logic.

My view on all this is that even when I place your factual errors and self contradictions directly in front of you, as plainly as I possibly can, you simply won't acknowledge them. You absolutely will not under any circumstances whatever admit to having said something that doesn't make sense. As I've said, it's as if you've backed yourself into having to claim that 2 + 2 = 5, but just cannot admit that 2 + 2 = 4, so have to carry on.

If it were almost anyone but you I'd be surprised and puzzled by this behaviour, but past conversations with you mean that it is less surprising. But it's pretty clear that you think roughly the same thing about me. So there's really nothing else to do but treat all of this as a bit of fun and try to forget that, unlike previous topics we've discussed, this one directly affects people's health.

So let's leave it there eh. I probably won't stop posting on this topic. But it's clear that there are absolutely no circumstances whatever under which I would convince you that you have made a mistake on any subject at all. And you think the same of me.

[RJG]

My view on all this is that even when I place your factual errors and self contradictions directly in front of you, as plainly as I possibly can, you simply won't acknowledge them.

Put these so-called "factual errors" and "self-contradictions" in front of me NOW! Don't be coy. Don't be shy. Be SPECIFIC. Put forth the actual specific error that you claim I am making and let's rationally evaluate it. I would love to see it! In fact, put my so-called error(s) in a syllogism so that it is very clear and obvious to everyone.

And please don't go say "go search conversation xyz, it is in there somewhere" or "here is the link to my proof of your error". This is just more dodgery (avoidance technique). Be specific, lay out the error in front of all of us in a simple syllogism.

You absolutely will not under any circumstances whatever admit to having said something that doesn't make sense. As I've said, it's as if you've backed yourself into having to claim that 2 + 2 = 5, but just cannot admit that 2 + 2 = 4, so have to carry on.

Steve, just look at your words above. Filled with non-specifics and vagueness. This seems to be your standard M.O. whenever you don't want to accept the science and logic that contradicts your pre-determined view.

Again, anybody can say these types of words, and make these kind of vague and condescending type statements, but if you want to make your case, or prove me wrong, then you gotta use logic or actual science, and you gotta be specific, and not resort to dodgery statements.

So let's leave it there eh. I probably won't stop posting on this topic. But it's clear that there are absolutely no circumstances whatever under which I would convince you that you have made a mistake on any subject at all. And you think the same of me.

I absolutely don't mind being proven wrong (especially on this topic), but you gotta use logic, and reasoning. We shouldn't believe certain things just because it is what we want to believe, or because we heard it from someone we respect or admire, or it is what is most popular right now.

There has to be some real rationality to our beliefs. If you are not interested in arguing from a pure rational basis (and leaving the personal/emotional stuff out of it), then no offense, I'm not interested in arguing (discussion/debate) with you.

This is a very serious topic, we need to put aside the "game playing" and the "defending of our pre-conditioned beliefs", and start looking at this from a logical rational perspective.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I have removed the above posts as off-topic since, in my possibly mistaken opinion, they seem to have become personal. In my opinion, the below quoted comments especially, are not on-topic in regard to the topic "Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?".

In the on-topic forums, personal matters are considered off-topic. Moreover, even one off-topic remark is strictly prohibited if it is negative in nature. Personal matters include statements about the intentions or nature of another member.

Here are some of the statements from the above post that stand out to me as seeming to me as being personal in a way that is prohibited by the Forum Rules:

Do you not read anything I write? AGAIN,

Steve, it appears to me that you are intentionally playing games, and arguing just for the sake of arguing so as to irrationally defend a view...

---

You absolutely will not under any circumstances whatever admit to having said something that doesn't make sense.

If it were almost anyone but you I'd be surprised and puzzled by this behaviour...

---

This is just more dodgery (avoidance technique).

Steve, just look at your words above. Filled with non-specifics and vagueness. This seems to be your standard M.O.

---

[RJG]

Scott, and you are okay with Steve's words to me? My words are in direct response to his personal accusations. But his words are okay whereas my are wrong?

[RJG]

Can I use his same exact words he used against me to say back to him? and would you still delete my post and not his?