Hello from Western Australia

[Oxpiu]

Hi,

My name is Philip O'Neil. I am a mathematician who studied philosophy in university. I am passionate about my views on ternary (3 part) logic and it's impact on the world. I used to get involved more on forums 20 years ago. I am considering spending more time on forums and less time on social media as my memory is that people tend to treat me with more respect on forums than they do on social media. I guess that I was never a big fan of using photos and videos on the internet to express myself and forums provided that environment that was more text based and more based on what you say than how you look. I find this forum interesting. I am being drawn back to philosophy and I look forward to exploring discussions on this forum.

[RickLewis]

Hi Philip, and welcome.

I'm afraid we had to take the forum down just after you joined it, (but not BECAUSE you joined it!) and we've only just put it up again.

[Immanuel Can]

Hi,

My name is Philip O'Neil. I am a mathematician who studied philosophy in university. I am passionate about my views on ternary (3 part) logic and it's impact on the world. I used to get involved more on forums 20 years ago. I am considering spending more time on forums and less time on social media as my memory is that people tend to treat me with more respect on forums than they do on social media. I guess that I was never a big fan of using photos and videos on the internet to express myself and forums provided that environment that was more text based and more based on what you say than how you look. I find this forum interesting. I am being drawn back to philosophy and I look forward to exploring discussions on this forum.

Welcome, Phil. It's quiet here at the moment, but it's bound to pick up, once the old crowd adjusts to the change.

[RickLewis]

Hi IC. It's nice to see you here again. I thought we'd packed up the forum forever, but Bora and I decided to give it one last try.

[Immanuel Can]

Hi IC. It's nice to see you here again. I thought we'd packed up the forum forever, but Bora and I decided to give it one last try.

Well, it's a funny old thing, this forum. It's not exactly staying on topic in relationship to the magazine, for sure. But it has proved to have some durability of its own, so it seems to be serving some purpose people care about, something at least tangentially related to philosophy. And I suppose that if you editors are looking for different topics to make the subject of subsequent issues, here is not a bad place to pick up some off-beat ideas about what philosophy might engage. The minds here have certainly been diverse...and sometimes perverse, too.

I like the idea of firming up a few boundaries for conduct here...not that topics need to be taboo, but rather that there ought to be a reasonable standard of politeness, even in the most heated debates about any topic. Ad hominems, character assassination, slander, backbiting, name-calling, false accusations and such are mere impediments to discussion of any topic, and thus actually counterproductive if discussion is the point, as I'm sure you realize. The last incarnation of the forum was pretty hands-off about moderation, which was a good experiment; but I think we also learned how easily trolls can throw sand in the works when they have too much latitude.

I don't think basic politeness and human decency are unfair things to ask of contributors. I've never seen a reason for people to be rude or hateful to each other, no matter how much they may disagree...so tightening up the rules of engagement somewhat makes good sense to me. I don't think it will suffocate any worthwhile contributions, and it might make everybody much happier in the long run. No doubt it will make discussion go better.

Good luck with the relaunch. It's good of you to persevere on our behalf.

[phyllo]

Ironic, since you routinely ad hom people.

But let's assume that you have turned over a new leaf.

A few years ago, we tried to get a higher standard of conduct at ILovePhilosophy. It failed because nobody had the time or money to do any moderating. Volunteer moderators get burned out by the hostility of the posters they try to control. It's a thankless job.

[RickLewis]

Yes, moderation is a big issue.

I'm a fairly mild guy and I truly believe in respectful discussion. I think sweet reason is the only way to communicate. I think that we have to assume the basic intelligence and good will of the people we are debating with, or else what is the point? And yet I have to admit... on certain social media channels in the past (okay, Twitter) I occasionally (not often, I promise) found myself directing the rudest abuse at complete strangers. That's hideous. I generally deleted those postings once I calmed down. I hate that I ever did that. I'd rather debate in a place that is moderated, so long as the moderation is not too heavy.

The lack of good moderators is not a problem now, because we've only just restarted so there are not many postings. AMod says he'll look in from time to time. I do agree that we should moderate a bit more than in the past, and on the lines IC is suggesting. In other words, not too many fiddly rules, but firmly insisting on basic respect for all other members.

[phyllo]

I'm prepared to overlook the occasional lapses but some posters have been nasty in huge numbers of posts.

I know that I don't need to list names.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, moderation is a big issue.

I'm a fairly mild guy and I truly believe in respectful discussion. I think sweet reason is the only way to communicate. I think that we have to assume the basic intelligence and good will of the people we are debating with, or else what is the point? And yet I have to admit... on certain social media channels in the past (okay, Twitter) I occasionally (not often, I promise) found myself directing the rudest abuse at complete strangers. That's hideous. I generally deleted those postings once I calmed down. I hate that I ever did that. I'd rather debate in a place that is moderated, so long as the moderation is not too heavy.

The lack of good moderators is not a problem now, because we've only just restarted so there are not many postings. AMod says he'll look in from time to time. I do agree that we should moderate a bit more than in the past, and on the lines IC is suggesting. In other words, not too many fiddly rules, but firmly insisting on basic respect for all other members.

Well, I'm guilty of being abusive also. IC irks me to no end with his "polite" abuse of atheists.

[phyllo]

Well, I'm guilty of being abusive also. IC irks me to no end with his "polite" abuse of atheists.

But you keep coming back for more.

[Gary Childress]

Well, I'm guilty of being abusive also. IC irks me to no end with his "polite" abuse of atheists.

But you keep coming back for more.

I like the forum. It's just IC's passive/aggressive abuse that I don't like.

IC: "Accept Jesus as God or go to Hell".

Me: "Sorry, not buying it, asshole."

EXPLANATION: I'll accept Jesus as an exemplary human being but not as God.

[Gary Childress]

The Bible, to more modern eyes, is little more than a book of prejudices. That anyone accepts it as "the Gospel" is an affront to anyone who isn't among the "chosen". It has some basic moral wisdom in terms of thou shalt not kill and being charitable, but that wisdom is unfortunately destroyed by much of the rest of the content.

[phyllo]

I like the forum. It's just IC's passive/aggressive abuse that I don't like.

I meant that you keep engaging with IC even when you could easily avoid him.

[Gary Childress]

I like the forum. It's just IC's passive/aggressive abuse that I don't like.

I meant that you keep engaging with IC even when you could easily avoid him.

When I see someone posting BS I don't want to leave it sit there unchallenged. All IC does is repeat Bible school talking points designed to privilege Christians over non-Christians. And he professes that "logic" dictates his personal opinion. And he hasn't demonstrated a sound argument to back it up. But still insists that "logic" backs him up.

[Impenitent]

who needs faith when one has logical certainty?

-Imp