I know you are joking and are reflecting upon years of participation. — Paine

....yesss....

....joking....

:fear:

Interesting response.

Do you regret your participation in any way?

Only in that I'm here when I could be setting more seed trays. But I like doing both, and think I've a reasonable balance. Wife might disagree.

I am familiar with that adversarial model.

I have had different times when I broke off from the discussion for different reasons. I miss some of those who have wandered off. — Paine

Yes. I feel the same way.

m

↪Paine Jamal as the pusher man.

I can quite any time I like... — Banno

I wonder if he has to attend philo-anon meetings now. “Hello everybody, my name is ProtagoranSocratist and I’m a phil-aholic.”

Wife might disagree. — Banno

Mine complains about time spent (or wasted) with my ‘invisible friends’. I protest that folks do far worse things online than debate philosophy. Not a winning argument least as far as she’s concerned.

:rofl:

I wonder if he has to attend philo-anon meetings now. “Hello everybody, my name is ProtagoranSocratist and I’m a phil-aholic.” — Joshs

Ha ha. Getting a real taste of aging, illness, and death, such as in the form of looking after a demented, barely mobile, incontinent elderly relative is very existentially wholesome. Cures one of silly ideas.

He's an adult who told us what he wanted. I'm not going to infantilise him. — Michael

Hard to argue with that. :up:
And I believe this is the second time, so he is clearly persistent.

So, If I ask you to help me kill myself twice, you will do it without winking, because I am an "adult".

This is surprising, coming from a "philosopher" like you.

That’s a terrible analogy. A more appropriate one is the gambling addict who asks to be banned from a casino.

I know, I'm upset too, javi. Arguably I was upset already and it had nothing to do with this banning. But the now-banned user was not only quite clear but quite insistent as well. There is little to be upset at, I fear.

The result appears to be the same: justify yourself to drag others into the gutter.

That’s a terrible analogy. A more appropriate one is the gambling addict who asks to be banned from a casino. — Michael

Yep. :up:

Honestly, I think there needs to be a "right to self-ban" when it comes to technology, given its addictive nature. Additionally, computers, phones, and tablets should be required by law to include the ability to self-limit oneself. In my opinion what @Michael has done is not only morally permissible, it is morally praiseworthy. Refusing someone's request to limit their addiction is what would be morally problematic.

(At the same time I understand why the initial request was deferred given the emotional nature of that case.)

Honestly, I think there needs to be a "right to self-ban" when it comes to technology, given its addictive nature. Additionally, computers, phones, and tablets should be required by law to include the ability to self-limit oneself. — Leontiskos

Metaphorical band-aid on a wound that ultimately requires something else. Couldn't hurt, sure. In fact it might even help, until people start to think such a transient and short-lived remedy solved it and so don't make any reasonable attempt to actually address the deeper, underlying root issue, of course. :brow:

I have an idea—why don’t we close out this thread for now. It’s getting sort of personal.

I have an idea—why don’t we close out this thread for now. It’s getting sort of personal. — T Clark

While that may be a good idea, it should be mentioned that bannings are inherently personal. Are they not? :smile:

Note: I didn't mean to suggest that anything in my last post applies to the recently banned user personally, it was simply a reply to the general idea of a "self-banning" as far as those with a compulsion to use, anything really, but specifically technology, irresponsibly.

I requested Michael in The Shoutbox to ban me; he can do it whenever he wants from now on because it is "morally praiseworthy" to keep me away from my addictions and emotional instability, as the philosopher stated.

Metaphorical band-aid on a wound that ultimately requires something else. — Outlander

Would you say the same thing about the gambling addict who avoids casinos? I don't say that avoiding casinos is the perfect remedy, but I also don't see that imperfect remedies should be neglected. Oftentimes the only options we have are imperfect.

All this over someone who literally said, word-for-word "I want to be banned." :rofl:

What a caring community! :heart:

Would you say the same thing about the gambling addict who avoids casinos? — Leontiskos

No, because that's proof they're treating the root issue by avoiding the problem by using their own willpower. The dynamic you mentioned (or someone mentioned) was to make some other force or entity other than one's self entirely responsible for the individual avoiding something they claim to have a problem controlling or utilizing responsibly, thus removing what is the only true solution (willpower) from the equation entirely. A literal world of difference.

Right, and I should have been more specific. I should have said, "Would you say the same thing about the gambling addict who asks to be banned from casinos?"

In any case, you seem to think that the root problem is being addressed by mere avoidance, as long as the avoidance is volitional. There are other views which would say that mere avoidance does not address the root problem, and I had mistakenly assumed that you were included in that group.

(I don't mean to draw us off on a tangent, but some of this is relevant up to a point. I will let you have the last word.)

No, because that's proof they're treating the root issue by avoiding the problem by using their own willpower. — Outlander

Maybe @Michael was compelled by the same powerful forces that @ProtagoranSocratist was when he asked to be banned and he couldn't stop himself from banning him, and here you go blaming Michael for what he could not control. And maybe I'm just doing the same with whatever I'm saying, and then your responses aren't to be blamed either because you're just being immovable you.

Or maybe we just take things at face value. He wanted banning, he asked for banning, and he got banning. We're not impossible to reach out to, so if he pleads temporary insanity and wants to return, we can consider it then. At this point, defenses are being made for him that he hasn't even claimed himself. It's possible he's happy not being here.

I second your motion.

Or maybe we just take things at face value. He wanted banning, he asked for banning, and he got banning. — Hanover

Right. That's not only my but the general sentiment of the active participants in this thread at this time.

We're not impossible to reach out to, so if he pleads temporary insanity and wants to return, we can consider it then. — Hanover

Mm, that's not what I've been made aware of.

See the "official rules" thread, specifically this stipulation:
"Bans are permanent and non-negotiable."

"Bans are permanent and non-negotiable." — Outlander

That's true, and I don't want to suggest a change in the text of the rules so people might think there are simple ways back, but there are imaginable scenarios where things can be reconsidered, which is just an admission sometimes further review is warranted.

My point is that this case isn't such an extraordinary instance because it's all so speculative that the person even wants back or regrets his request.

Seemed more than straightforward to me. I can’t believe this is “controversial” enough to fill a couple pages.