It sickens me with all those halfwitted fools pesting the fora. Babbeling about this is a truth, that is a lie. He is good, that one is evil. Too many good topics are worn down with unproductive philosophers who comes with their outdated ways, it's a real shame that they can't be kept to their own fora, where they belong.

I wish the mods and admins would construct some new rules about this.

Thanks.

The fools on this forum are geniuses compared to those encountered elsewhere. Maybe their ignorance makes everyone else look better?

I agree that there are many comments made in threads that might be better expressed or better thought out, and some remarks are made that seem to me highly discourteous , and others that seem to me to be plainly silly.

But this happens in any community of individuals, and internet forums are no exception---far, far, far from it because of its anonymous nature.

I doubt there is any kind of remedy for this, although I have to admit that, inasmuch as I hold philosophy and intellectual discourse in very high esteem, I wish there were. Frankly I would not participate in Philforum if I did not think there were many in this community who did not share these values.

Additional rules do not seem an answer, and enforcing these becomes extremely subjective and often disruptive to the community by increasing the bickering in the threads. One censors, even now, expression in the community with great trepidation, especially when the subject at hand is not blatantly in violation of the few rules we do have and attempt to maintain.

With the new ownership of Philforum will soon come new software that will in many respects address these concerns, and allow the community greater influence in enforcing whatever standards it seems warranted, and allow greater individual preferences in doing so.

But in the end, it is only by personal example and personal commitment to philosophical discourse, it is only by how each improves the quality of the content of the forum, that will achieve anything. Just as good money drives out bad, so does good discourse drive out drivel.

John

And, of course, those who spout drivel may become too embarrassed to continue after their drivel is commented on. I say, "may" since there is evidence that some people may be incapable of being embarrassed. Let them serve as an example for the rest of us.

I have noticed continuous drivel from some, regardless of what is pointed out about it. I don't think embarrassment is going to solve the problem, or even come close to being a solution.

I suspect that there are no good remedies for the problem. It would take a very calm and judicious hand to properly ban those whose "contributions" are worthless, without having any dampening effect on the other discourse. It is a problem such that the cures that might be imposed are likely to be worse than the disease.

Is this disease contagious?

Is this disease contagious?

Is this disease contagious?

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Bad posts tend to encourage more bad posts. (There are even trite sayings about such matters, such as "birds of a feather flock together".) Also, bad posts can make some people angry, and posts made in anger tend to be less good than ones made calmly, so even someone who normally posts well might be led to post something not worth reading. I can think of an example of this, with someone who I suspect would not mind being named, but I expect that it would be a violation of forum rules to do so. It would involve a kind of insult (though a much greater compliment), and that is, I think, not in accordance with the stated rules of this forum.

It sickens me with all those halfwitted fools pesting the fora. Babbeling about this is a truth, that is a lie. He is good, that one is evil. Too many good topics are worn down with unproductive philosophers who comes with their outdated ways, it's a real shame that they can't be kept to their own fora, where they belong.

I wish the mods and admins would construct some new rules about this.

Thanks.

The fools on this forum are geniuses compared to those encountered elsewhere. ...

It sickens me with all those halfwitted fools pesting the fora. Babbeling about this is a truth, that is a lie. He is good, that one is evil. Too many good topics are worn down with unproductive philosophers who comes with their outdated ways, it's a real shame that they can't be kept to their own fora, where they belong.

I wish the mods and admins would construct some new rules about this.

Thanks.

This post sounds like one of those, "I don't like what you are saying so I want you to go away." Instead of making a counter argument or taking a moment to point out the flaw in their reasoning.

Censorship is pretty much built up on this idea. I don't support it. There are some whom I don't think are here for any philosophical discussion, or a discussion at all, but I wouldn't want them banned or silenced because I might not agree with their posts.

If you don't like someones post either counter or ignore it. How hard is that? If you don't like a particular member, ignore them, how hard is that? I don't see why "your" standard should be used to censor them. What makes your position superior to all others?

But is it not to agree with their posts to be annoyed by their using this forum in ways it is not meant to be used, by, as you put it, not wanting to engage in philosophical discussion, or discussion at all? To me, that is not not agreeing with their posts, that is not agreeing with their posting. It is one thing to disagree with what they post (of course they should not be banned for that). But how about not agreeing with their reasons for posting? And what sort of posts they post?

Intentions are incredibly hard to see, unless they actually tell you or you have read countless posts to begin to see similar patterns. Other than that you can't determine a posting intention.

Well from your perspective it might appear as if they have no good reasoning behind posting, but maybe for them they are in line with the forum rules. I don't think you can honestly judge someone's posting intentions. Usually the only time these intentions get brought up is when someone simply doesn't like a poster or a post in particular. Intentions are incredibly hard to see, unless they actually tell you or you have read countless posts to begin to see similar patterns. Other than that you can't determine a posting intention.

Suppose someone joins the forum and then posts porn. Would I have to read countless posts from this person it order to determine their intention? Would their intention even matter?

I was only repeating your point, that their purpose was not to engage in philosophical discussion, or even discussion. I was assuming this was true. Whether, of course, it is true, is a different matter, and maybe we cannot tell. Although I think we can sometimes.