Howdy!

Not a great fan myself, but I would say definitely yes. And there are no doubt some other missing categories because I was just testing when I set it up.

Definitely need one. It kind of counts.

It only counts because people persist in stupidity... definite no. X-)

It would be good to keep all the religious nonsense in one place.

I think the more to discuss, the better, so I'm in favor of it.

I also think you should immediately create an unmoderated section just so people will know that there is a jail, since some heathens here obviously have no fear of hell.

I also think you should immediately create an unmoderated section just so people will know that there is a jail, since some heathens here obviously have no fear of hell. — Hanover

Or just ban them from the site. Although, perhaps it'd be good to have a forum to move any pseudophilosophy and/or threads of an insufficient quality, if there isn't one yet. It can at least provide some entertainment.

I believe very strongly in free speech. Do you realise Sapentia that you are advocating banning people for not believing in Hell?

Nah, it can fit in metaphysics and ethics.

Or we could send them back to PF 1.0.

Also, I've always thought that metaphysics and epistemology should be separate.

I just realized that if you hover just to the right of where it says "minutes ago" that the word "reply" will appear. I'll be a master in no time.

What? No I'm not. By "heathens" I metaphorically meant only members that have violated the forum rules a sufficient number of times to warrant them being banned. A "PF heathen" rather than the usual sort.

Sorry for the confusion.

And besides, "free speech" should and does have limits.

It's a moot point whether free speech should have limits. Personally I am in favour of complete freedom in a forum like this, as long as there are no negative legal or physical consequences.

I signed up to the Terms of Service without reading them as usual, but I just had a quick look and I think the forum rules there don't go much beyond "no negative legal or physical consequences".

Are there other forum rules I should know about?

And besides, "free speech" should and does have limits. — Sapientia

Really? Sounds like a discussion in the making.

Two discussions: one philosophical, the other about the rules here.

I just realized that if you hover just to the right of where it says "minutes ago" that the word "reply" will appear. I'll be a master in no time. — Hanover

It actually appears when you hover over someone's post, not just on that specific space. And you quote by selecting the text at which point a quote button will appear near the selected text.

t actually appears when you hover over someone's post, not just on that specific space. And you quote by selecting the text at which point a quote button will appear near the selected text. — Benkei

Cool...

Thanks Benkei, I was just about to ask about quoting.

I wonder if he knows how to select text?

There will likely be rules very similar to Philosophy Forums. There wasn't an "unmoderated" forum on the other site for most of it's existence. Instead, "heathens" were just banned from posting. In my view, it's not essential to preserve posting rights indefinitely, and have "heathens" restricted to an unmoderated forum.

How do you mean "likely" Sapentia?

Well, let me put it this way: I think I know jamalrob well enough to predict the sort of rules that he'll put in place. I predict that free speech on this site will have at least one restriction, namely that you won't be able to post whatever you like wherever you like for as long as you like. If this restriction isn't put in place, I predict that the overall quality of this philosophy forum will diminish as a result.

Ok, so you're assuming that this will be a (quite possibly benevolent) dictatorship. But that is only an assumption. I think it is a matter that merits discussion.

I don't know jamalrob well enough to predict what he might do.

mwaha

JamalRob is the new Porat. After seeing how simply we all gave up information to that Brooklyn thug, he thought, I can do this too and better by lulling them into a false sense of security.

You better not have used the same password for this site as you do for your e-mail or you're doomed...

Is it not currently a de facto dictatorship? Anyway, I hope that whatever form of governance this site takes, it works just as well - if not better - than the other site. If it's to be more democratic, I still think we need a worthy constitution - which might mean that it be formed undemocratically to an extent, for example, by overruling absolute majority decisions.

Perhaps if a majority of members make a poor decision, then a majority of elites can overrule them.

And if a majority of elites make a poor decision...? Tuff shit? Lol.

Could we simply call it 'Fetisch of Religion'? :D

Anyway...

... it's a 'soft target' and a location to rant and rave.

I'd rather think it is more a sub-section of Social Sciences, but I don't think many would agree.

Perhaps we could make it more sexy and exciting by calling it 'Tent Revival' or 'Soapbox Sophistry' la Elmer Gantry? (L)

It has it's place... I suppose.

The bigger question I would have is do we have an option for internal replies?

This is very useful, especially in a Philosophy of Religion section.

Meow!

GREG

No no no, no internal replies, they are terrible, NOOOOOOOOOO!

They add nothing but confusion!

The bigger question I would have is: do we have an option for internal replies? — Mayor of Simpleton

If not, I hope it stays that way.

If we're going to have Philosophy of Religion back, we should get KwalishKid back too.