Philosophy Discussion Forums

Krontheos wrote: I need a challenge;

I've been away doing other things, I seem to have missed Dirty Universe, but I remember Naughtorious and I thought he was just being silly.

I notice in another thread you claim you are good at philosophy.

I challenge you to demonstrate that.

I agree with you Krontheos. He is probably greatest thinker who is so fast in thinking and replying with posing a challenge, in this site. He is indepth and thoughtfully very matured. And I am deeply hurted seeing his posts/threads deleted. Deleting all his posts along with banning him is like killing a person along with perishing his identity of existence, existence of his ideas even. For me this is an example of a great evil potential which is inherent in this phpBB forum software, and the administrators administering it, which i recently acknowledged. I request that this should be avoided. Sorry for the advice.

Though I agree that DU has many intolerable behaviors, which cannot be tolerated in the world we live in. Secondly he seems to have some wrong ideas like truth should be spoken in forceful and abusive ways, and that can only helps to forward the truth. Though it is right IMO, but it is not right in discussion, where everybody is willingly present to understand the matter. To me abuse is a right approach, but the approach is relevant in "event related exchange of views" where nobody is talking to you directly and everybody seems to be talking to you in some ways indirectly, and forcing a view on you uncontrollably and events are trying to destroy you as well as your views. That is a time for being rebellious. Abuses and accusation absolutely have no relevance where people are talking to you directly and not going to suppress, kill or destroy you or your views. Truth is very technology oriented word, and this must be exercised in technical ways, and not in ignorant ways, like DU is exercising. But I think DU/Naughtorious is young in age, and it is the problem in this age due to biological factors, having no patience.

We can certainly make him come back at least by another name, but what we cannot do is making him to stay somewhat permanently here. So for making him permanently stay here, I think, we should advice him about the acceptable conduct.


DU,

Sorry if it feels bad DU. But I think you must be advised.

I think you are a seeker and lover of truth. For you truth must be spoken at any cost, I think so. And this lead to rebellious kind of attitude you exhibit, and it is due to young age(as per the appearance of Naughtorious in one of his profile picture). So hold on yourself, this is a wrong principle to speak the right thing or truth, imo.

I am of the firm opinion that speaking right or truth requires some principle which should be followed very consciously and thoughtfully. Using these principle (quite instinctual in me), I had never been in critical situation in at least discussion. The only thing, I found which tremendously controls me is events and opinions in silence, by group formed subconsciously and unknowingly, certain according to me an emotion's evil technology being played unconsciously. So here is my principle for speaking right and truth, forcefully but it is unknowingly forceful:-

First and foremost, is Save yourself at any cost. Secondly don't hurt anybody's feelings and emotions (only), or if you hurt try to neutralize it especially through logic and not simply by words. Thirdly don't be specific to a person or group, be all encompassing like considering whole world view, even for harming a person or a group. All these three are compatible to each other. Now the seemingly incompatible ones. Fourthly, Speak the truth any ways, but consider the previous foremost principles. Fifthly ascertain right or true must win at any cost. Sixthly keep the truth above all i.e. God, Religion, Ethnic group, Nation, Society and yourself but ascertain the previous principle. There are many things that should be known but I don't think you will need it.

These are fairly difficult to be followed and the synthesis of this principle are say logically and in an objective ways through knowledge and evidences and destroy what you do not wanted and build what you wanted. That's all.

After all it should be noted that emotions are enemy of truth. whenever you respond with intense emotions you are doing something wrong in misguidance of emotion, and you are not doing it but emotions are guiding you to do it. You are on the mental condition where emotions had convinced you that if you do things by this way you will win, but you didn't acknowledge that truth will lose. Your attitude will make you wrong, even if you are correct and this is what your emotions guided you for. You never show your particular nature but emotions force you to show, so always keep your emotions on check. Try not to respond to emotions, though it is difficult. Emotions are much more than what you can think about.

I am extremely sorry if it feels bad, or feels nonsense, but I find that you are in need of it and then you will perfectly right.

See you again. Thank you. Okisites.

This is a rather unfortunate result, and also a fundamental injustice, for two reasons.

First, "Dirty Universe/Naughtorious", who unfortunately cannot seem to maintain a workable and functional equilibrium and responsibility within the confining rules of a philosophy forum, an issue many of us struggle with at times, has therefore had his seemingly baseless rants and infractions deleted but has also had the valid contributions of his interesting and insightful thoughts and ideas deleted in a broad and sweeping effort, and in an apparently indifferent and careless attempt by the moderator to enforce the somewhat arbitrary interpretation of the rules designed to keep a functional structure to this site.

Second, as I alluded to above, the interpretation of the rules tends to allow for the obvious trolling activities of the likes of "Liberationcollective/M16A4" as long as it possesses the appearance of conforming to these rules in the technical or literal sense, but in the interpretive sense such a blindness to the reality of the intended message behind the ideas no matter the structure of the wording utilized is fundamentally unjustified and not in keeping with fair and equitable discourse that the rules are designed to facilitate and protect.

It is quite obvious that those who seek to disrupt the discussions, insult other members and cause a general discord within these forums are free to do so, and are in fact protected by the rules set forth as long as they are clever enough to technically conform to these rules, but while also taking advantage of the very structure of the rules in order to circumvent the intended purpose.

I think the injustice is to be found both in the abilities, intents, interpretations, and perhaps also the inabilities, of both the members to circumvent and/or conform to the rules and of the moderator to enforce the rules.

I also think that a rewrite of the rules is necessary in order to prevent such injustices in the future.

This is a rather unfortunate result, and also a fundamental injustice, for two reasons.

First, "Dirty Universe/Naughtorious", who unfortunately cannot seem to maintain a workable and functional equilibrium and responsibility within the confining rules of a philosophy forum, an issue many of us struggle with at times, has therefore had his seemingly baseless rants and infractions deleted but has also had the valid contributions of his interesting and insightful thoughts and ideas deleted in a broad and sweeping effort, and in an apparently indifferent and careless attempt by the moderator to enforce the somewhat arbitrary interpretation of the rules designed to keep a functional structure to this site.

Second, as I alluded to above, the interpretation of the rules tends to allow for the obvious trolling activities of the likes of "Liberationcollective/M16A4" as long as it possesses the appearance of conforming to these rules in the technical or literal sense, but in the interpretive sense such a blindness to the reality of the intended message behind the ideas no matter the structure of the wording utilized is fundamentally unjustified and not in keeping with fair and equitable discourse that the rules are designed to facilitate and protect.

It is quite obvious that those who seek to disrupt the discussions, insult other members and cause a general discord within these forums are free to do so, and are in fact protected by the rules set forth as long as they are clever enough to technically conform to these rules, but while also taking advantage of the very structure of the rules in order to circumvent the intended purpose.

I think the injustice is to be found both in the abilities, intents, interpretations, and perhaps also the inabilities, of both the members to circumvent and/or conform to the rules and of the moderator to enforce the rules.

I also think that a rewrite of the rules is necessary in order to prevent such injustices in the future.

I echo these sentiments wholeheartedly. I believe there must be a distinction made between thoughtful and provocative posts like his thread regarding mind sentience, and the posts that were filled with antagonism and anger. DU is a good person and an insightful human being at the end of the day. Yes he blew his lid in a few posts, but I was guilty of the same thing only a few months back. It happens to the best of us and when you really allow yourself to know him, you see that there is a man with quality character who at the very least should have had a board warning issued. I know Scott wants to run a genuine Philosophy site of discourse over disrespect, but there has got to be a better methodology than outright termination of the account of the accused.

Like the name Naughtorius, I miss the name Dirty Universe. He is misunderstood. He is a good man with human frustrations. He desires truth. I saw good changes while being DU so I must ask, was he banned because of earlier posts and change not recognized? I saw a lot of his "destructive behaviors" the way I watch TV....A good movie may have objectionable content, but the movie was good. Sometimes it takes something bad to make a person see something good. I miss you DU. Your name should be CHALLENGE. Misty

Like the name Naughtorius, I miss the name Dirty Universe. He is misunderstood. He is a good man with human frustrations. He desires truth. I saw good changes while being DU so I must ask, was he banned because of earlier posts and change not recognized? I saw a lot of his "destructive behaviors" the way I watch TV....A good movie may have objectionable content, but the movie was good. Sometimes it takes something bad to make a person see something good. I miss you DU. Your name should be CHALLENGE. Misty

You and Spiral hit it dead on. Dirty Universe has a passion for Philosophy and truth that we can all appreciate. He does not cease nor desist until he feels he has solved the problems of the world around him. That is what we need more of in this forum rather than pseudo intellectuals whose arguments amount to logical circle jerks. Yes, he was prone to frustration that would manifest itself into occasional outbursts but he is only human. He immerses himself into every inquiry the world poses upon him, and I would rather be a member of a club that associates with men of such a cloth, than of one where such men are castigated when they falter.

I AM SO ANGRY!! So much for private pm's! Even pm's I saved and highly value from DU are GONE! Where is there any privacy???? I WANT WHAT WAS MINE, BACK!

Hear Hear!

All great responses, I personally find it abhorrent on a philosophy forum to delete/remove material, even if it is against the rules and the member banned. If anybody can/should delete philosophy participation then it should be the author of the material, not an administrator/moderator. I also strongly advocate self-responsibility of moderating, to put this responsibility on the thread-creators, not arbitrarily assigned forum moderators.

If I create a thread and it gets spammed off-topic by lower minds, trying to divert the topic, in order to ignore the central points (obfuscation), then this technically is legal and with the rulebook of the forum. But it is bad-faith argument. Bad-faith argument is legal, but, anti-philosophical.

-- Updated October 19th, 2013, 12:05 pm to add the following --

Toadny wrote:Ribbit, ribbit, ribbit, ribbit

Welcome back, Toadny, I have a variety of threads created to challenge others here, take a look at my authored topics if you like.

All great responses, I personally find it abhorrent on a philosophy forum to delete/remove material, even if it is against the rules and the member banned. If anybody can/should delete philosophy participation then it should be the author of the material, not an administrator/moderator. I also strongly advocate self-responsibility of moderating, to put this responsibility on the thread-creators, not arbitrarily assigned forum moderators.

This is actually an excellent point Krontheos! I was pondering awhile back the prospect of asking Scott if he would allow us the function of locking or even outright deleting topics that we personally start. If anything, the very least we should be permitted is the ability to delete posts that we start. True we are given the capability of editing them, but what if someone wants to start a fresh conversation unfettered by those past insights? To put it succinctly, user empowerment should definitely be more of a focus.

Krontheos wrote:Hear Hear!

All great responses, I personally find it abhorrent on a philosophy forum to delete/remove material, even if it is against the rules and the member banned. If anybody can/should delete philosophy participation then it should be the author of the material, not an administrator/moderator. I also strongly advocate self-responsibility of moderating, to put this responsibility on the thread-creators, not arbitrarily assigned forum moderators.

If I create a thread and it gets spammed off-topic by lower minds, trying to divert the topic, in order to ignore the central points (obfuscation), then this technically is legal and with the rulebook of the forum. But it is bad-faith argument. Bad-faith argument is legal, but, anti-philosophical.
(Nested quote removed.)

I concur. Sometimes when two people are conversing and there is teasing, they are the only ones who understand the context, but others can push that damn button because they see something that offends them. I think this is being treated like children who need to be corrected. I hate it. I am adult enough to leave a conversation if it is offensive to me or I just cannot get along with another person. I had some awkward exchanges with DU but we became friends. I saved some of his pm's where I think his heart was speaking. It hurts me that I cannot read them now. I am not a child and I think I can discern my own friendships. Something needs to change here. I am dumbfounded all DU's wonderful insights were deleted along with his mistakes. I cannot believe this happened.

Thank you.

DU suggested I leave the forum, arguing in exactly the same way that I was banned from the other main philosophy site. Saying that what I argue is pseudophilosophy. DU is tyrannical in style, always crossing borders, which is also the favorite hobby of dictators, but then borders of nations.

Krontheos wrote:I see that DU/Naughtorious' posts have been deleted/censored. I disagree with this decision and strongly recommend to unban Naughtorious. Because he really is the only thinker on the forum that I feel 'improves' thought, intelligence, and philosophy around here. I need a challenge; Naughtorious provided me with one. He had the ability to provoke and think, to really inquire into a philosophical topic. I feel that many other members try their best, but, Naughtorious really stands-apart and deserves more recognition.

That said, I want to see him returned/restored, how can we make this happen?

To add to your OP, DU was also colorful and hilarious. He is a 21 year old brilliant thinker. I have cried a lot today over this very bad decision to delete him as if he made no contribution to this PC, buried like he died, but buried with all memories erased. It sickens me. I remember a saying when i was a kid: Sticks and stones will break my bones, but WORDS will never hurt me. Are we ADULTS who fend for ourselves OR BABIES who need protection?

-- Updated Sat Oct 19, 2013 1:09 pm to add the following --

Syamsu wrote:DU suggested I leave the forum, arguing in exactly the same way that I was banned from the other main philosophy site. Saying that what I argue is pseudophilosophy. DU is tyrannical in style, always crossing borders, which is also the favorite hobby of dictators, but then borders of nations.

Dictators control peoples lives, Syamsu, DU did not dictate control over other people, he used words that another person could ignore and walk away from, or if brave, confront.

I looked it up Misty, it was you after all who made the argument that if you can't fly then free will doesn't exist. I called it the superman argument against free will.

On this forum we are operating in a delusional state where free will is not commonly established. We do not subjectively acknowledge each others emotional state, who each is as being the owner of their decisions. The atmosphere on the forum is just as vicious and hateful if in a country the right of people to choose is not established, like in the sovjet union or nazi germany. That's how it is, the game of life being played here is phony, there is no genuine emotion, the environment is unsafe for any genuine emotion. DU did not have any meaningful passion, he hated subjectivity, he was just high.