|
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
 Posted - 08/11/2004 : 08:38:21
|
It appears that moral philosophy agrees that the first virtue of all human institutions is the advancement of social justice. The standard for judgement for all institutions is--does this institution advance justice? John Rawls, in his book “A Theory of Justice”, defines justice as fairness. The two words are not synonymous but the key to understanding justice is the concept of fairness. Thus an institution is judged upon how well it serves social justice.
Internet discussion forums are a relatively new human institution and I suspect that not a great deal of thought has gone into trying to determine how well this institution serves social justice. I suspect that this might be a good time to consider this question and since it is easier to grapple with a problem of this nature when we focus on a particular example I think we might focus on this particular forum.
Every thing on the Internet appears to be ‘Dodge City'—I mean that the Internet has few restraints or enforced regulations and depend almost completely upon the discretion of the individual components. I am not aware of any force outside the Internet component that would cause an Internet site to be forced off the net. It seems that we must judge a discussion forum based solely upon the degree upon which it seems to cherish justice—fairness.
I suspect we can say almost the same thing about individual humans—I mean that we humans have few restraints in the moral realm. If we chose not to accept moral obligations--what is to force us to recognize any obligation we choose not to accept? Perhaps our comprehension of justice is the only guide we all have. We see some young people in the US today accepting an obligation to serve in the military but we see far fewer not doing so. Do we see any adults accepting any obligation to serve the country commensurate with that of some of our young people?
Well back to the future. What are the acceptable norms of a discussion forum on the Internet? Is it similar to a radio broadcasting network? Is it similar to a newspaper?
What is the judgement of the management of this forum regarding the recent activity of their representative we know as Dave? What answer might the management of this forum make to the questions regarding the norms for discussion forums? What are the views of the silent ‘lurkers'?
Are we seeing evidence of the tyranny of the majority as discussed by de Tocqueville in “Democracy in America”? Does silence by the bystanders indicate approval? What happens in any community or institution when quantity overrides quality?
Does some of the actions by Dave and his group represent an attempt to bully other members?
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 10:37:39 [Permalink]
|
Well, you asked for it.
Dave is pointing out your tactics. He has provided links to them and he also mentions some behaviors which I can first handedly attest to.
You post but when challenged on a subject or point in your post you have called the person a heckler or claimed unfamiliarity with the subject and deferred to an author of dubious merit.
You claim to be the "Johnny Appleseed of Critical Thinking", yet you do not have a firm grasp of critical thinking nor do you practice it.
That tends to piss people off in this forum.
Tyranny of the majority my ass. In the several BBSes that I have been a co-sysop or technical advisor, the sysop's job is to keep the forums moving. It appears through the myriad posts that you've made that you are unwilling or unable to support your little truisms surrounded in commentary that is usually not your own. Under the rules of logical discourse, you are the claimant by making these posts. It is up to you to defend them.
You have set yourself up as a type of netizen called the Target by Mike Reed.
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame68.html
The actions by Dave and people like minded to him (he has no such group which will follow him like sheep to the slaughter) are in response to your continuing failure to even make attempts to defend your assertations.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 12:12:16 [Permalink]
|
Justice for me is eye for an eye, so Im looking forward to thousands of years repressing the religious folk, maybe well kill them for refusing to admit they really respect science.
And it has been clearly shown that you are unable to back up your extremly vague statements such as "If we choose not to accept moral obligations."
Whose morals are we talking about here? Because right now im working with some cannibals and they are confused. My morals include the preservation of animals before humans, is that ok? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 12:43:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You claim to be the "Johnny Appleseed of Critical Thinking", yet you do not have a firm grasp of critical thinking nor do you practice it.
You forgot to mention how humble he is.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 15:17:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
What is the judgement of the management of this forum regarding the recent activity of their representative we know as Dave?
Why don't you ask? quote:
What answer might the management of this forum make to the questions regarding the norms for discussion forums?
What does this even mean?
quote:
What are the views of the silent ‘lurkers'?
Does it matter? quote:
Are we seeing evidence of the tyranny of the majority as discussed by de Tocqueville in “Democracy in America”?
Don't know haven't read it.
quote:
Does silence by the bystanders indicate approval?
Are you looking for more supporters? quote:
What happens in any community or institution when quantity overrides quality?
Is there a connection to this somewhere in this topic?
quote:
Does some of the actions by Dave and his group represent an attempt to bully other members?
Not in my opinion.
Coberst, are you capable of actually discussing anything?
What does it mean to you that some of us are bored with your posts?
Is it OK if I and others ignore your posts but come to the defense of Dave in this one case?
What does it mean to you that Dave felt the need to let others know you post and post but never respond?
Does it bother you that forums are mostly populated by people who are actually interested in what others have to say?
What happens to that interest if it is never reciprocated?
What does it mean that one sided conversations are quickly left to dangle in the wind? |
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 15:49:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Coberst, are you capable of actually discussing anything?
What does it mean to you that some of us are bored with your posts?
Is it OK if I and others ignore your posts but come to the defense of Dave in this one case?
What does it mean to you that Dave felt the need to let others know you post and post but never respond?
Does it bother you that forums are mostly populated by people who are actually interested in what others have to say?
What happens to that interest if it is never reciprocated?
What does it mean that one sided conversations are quickly left to dangle in the wind?
Oh yeah, this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'd like to remark about the lack of meaningful discussion. Here's a perfect example of what one runs into when attempting to discuss things with coberst.
I said:
Posted - 07/24/2004 : 13:24:22 N C More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I really was hoping for that "positive affect". A helpful piece of advice, a patronizing attitude towards others is not a useful prelude to discussion. A very large number of people have been telling you the exact same things. Is it your contention that all of these people are unsophisticated and/or ignorant? Think carefully and critically about this. If you conclude that every person who has pointed out your repetitive statements is intellectually deficient then there's not much point in continuing to post to such an audience...is there?"
And this is what I received as a response:
Posted - 07/24/2004 : 16:49:15 coberst
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"N C Moore
I have been followed about by a roaming bunch of hecklers who spend all their energy making cute remarks. Whenever you and your friends want to engage in a discussion of the isuue I will do so. I will not engage in foolish banter going nowhere. Also it is my contention that if you do not attempt to understand a subject you are going to continue to be unsophisticated in that subject. The greatest handicap in approaching a new subject matter is to assume that you already know what it is about before you ever make an effort to understand what is being said. It seems to be a human characteristic to do a "turtle" at the approach of anything new. Being negative saves you the trouble of trying to understand what another is saying."
It was at this point that I realized any further attempt at discussion would not be useful. Now, this is only one example but with the same outcome that many have encountered (especially Dave, who really tried "above and beyond the call of duty").
|
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 16:16:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It was at this point that I realized any further attempt at discussion would not be useful. Now, this is only one example but with the same outcome that many have encountered (especially Dave, who really tried "above and beyond the call of duty").
Dave went above and beyond the call of duty to, as they say, "Call you on your bullshit." No one likes that but you have to call a spade a spade.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 17:43:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coberst
What is the judgment of the management of this forum regarding the recent activity of their representative we know as Dave?
Dave wouldn't have remained a moderator/editor unless he had proved himself before the management. My experience of Dave is that he's good and trustworthy in the pursuit of critical thinking. His judgments in past has been fair and I feel confident he will continue doing a good job.
quote:
What are the views of the silent ‘lurkers'?
I've mostly lurked in threads started or involving coberst because I feel that most of the other users (Dave, Rick, Cuneiformist...) are already expressing my feelings about you coberst. My additions would just be redundant.
quote:
Does silence by the bystanders indicate approval?
My silence has been an approval of Dave questioning the point of you posting here...
quote:
What happens in any community or institution when quantity overrides quality?
Well, since you are the cause of quantity as opposed to quality, it's increasing my disinterest in reading threads you started.
quote:
Does some of the actions by Dave and his group represent an attempt to bully other members?
Not by a long shot. At least not that I know of. Do you think there are actions you consider bullying? If so, could you please point to them, because I don't feel inclined to go out of my way looking for them. I find your threads mostly boring, because your initial posts are lacking substance. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 23:37:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
coberst:
What is the judgment of the management of this forum regarding the recent activity of their representative we know as Dave?
Dave, your fired!
Coberst, really, you probably arn't but you should be kidding. I may have been around here longer, but Dave is as much management as I am. In many ways more so. With that in mind, I find the above question offensive. Figure it out yourself... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 00:28:09 [Permalink]
|
It appears that moral philosophy agrees that the first virtue of all human institutions is the advancement of social justice.
Human institutions – you mean the Navy, the Marines, the Army, the Air Force, etc…?
The standard for judgment for all institutions is--does this institution advance justice?
All institutions – you mean art galleries, blues bands, Chinese restaurants, baseball teams, etc…?
John Rawls, in his book “A Theory of Justice”, defines justice as fairness. The two words are not synonymous but the key to understanding justice is the concept of fairness. Thus an institution is judged upon how well it serves social justice.
Internet discussion forums are a relatively new human institution and I suspect that not a great deal of thought has gone into trying to determine how well this institution serves social justice.
I'm glad. Sorry Granny, your website bulletin board of quilting pictures is not just or fair to those without sowing machines.
I suspect that this might be a good time to consider this question and since it is easier to grapple with a problem of this nature when we focus on a particular example I think we might focus on this particular forum.
In other words: You feel that some Skeptic Friends are being unfair.
Every thing on the Internet appears to be ‘Dodge City'—I mean that the Internet has few restraints or enforced regulations and depend almost completely upon the discretion of the individual components.
Enjoy it while you can. I'm sure there are people who would like it to be “fair and balanced” – i.e. regulated with free thought made illegal.
I am not aware of any force outside the Internet component that would cause an Internet site to be forced off the net.
That's good.
It seems that we must judge a discussion forum based solely upon the degree upon which it seems to cherish justice—fairness.
No. I'm of the opinion that a form can have rules about being polite, avoiding naughty words, ad hominims, name calling, trolls, and the fairness of avoiding violations of fair use provisions for copyrighted material. Its up to the owners of the forum.
I suspect we can say almost the same thing about individual humans—I mean that we humans have few restraints in the moral realm.
Who's morals? Who's restraints? “Individual humans” of all cultures and countries presumably? What about Eskimo society?
If we chose not to accept moral obligations--what is to force us to recognize any obligation we choose not to accept? Perhaps our comprehension of justice is the only guide we all have.
People are motivated also by injustice.
We see some young people in the US today accepting an obligation to serve in the military but we see far fewer not doing so. Do we see any adults accepting any obligation to serve the country commensurate with that of some of our young people?
That's because we have a President who says we are at war while insisting that everybody go out, spend money, shop, and make no sacrifices.
Well back to the future. What are the acceptable norms of a discussion forum on the Internet? Is it similar to a radio broadcasting network? Is it similar to a newspaper?
You are applying a broad vague paintbrush illogically to this one thread. You might want to ask: What are the acceptable norms of this website? Simple: read the FAQ.
What is the judgment of the management of this forum regarding the recent activity of their representative we know as Dave? What answer might the management of this forum make to the questions regarding the norms for discussion forums?
I suspect SFN management might have considered in general their concept of a skeptic forum when setting up this forum. (Sorry, I've momentarily adapted your writing style.) You have a knack for telescoping trivia into a ponderous tributary.
What are the views of the silent ‘lurker |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
