Who makes the decision about whether something is nonsense or rubbish? You seem to think that you are entitled to make that decision. — Agree-to-Disagree

You are right. Anything could be rubbish or sublime depending on the observer—it's just like art

I thought this was my home.
— unenlightened

Not unless you own it. — Arcane Sandwich

I cannot let this piece of elitist capitalist ideology stand unchallenged. :wink: Home is where the heart is. You may have your heart in your wallet, but not necessarily. Most of us do not own our own home. But "Everybody's got to be somewhere."

It takes a lot of effort for someone to watch a thread and keep it strictly on topic with mod powers. It would also be hard to police the boundary in a generic thread. Even though you can fairly reliably tell who is a climate change denier and who isn't based on how they argue.

If there are specific aspects of climate change adjacent philosophy someone wanted to discuss, it's probably easier to make an independent thread about it. Like how ought you prepare for the end of the world, what metaphysics is appropriate to even imagine climate change and so on.

That would also make it much easier to see which posts are on topic and which aren't. Climate change denial is definitely on topic in a generic thread about climate change related issues.

You could all just stay here, and let that thread do what it's meant to do -= allow for all discussion around climate change. Echo chambers aren't helpful, and are essentially anti-philosophical in terms of enquiry. Having an extremely intense emotional reaction to someone's input is not a problem of the thread title LMAO. Even when you're 'correct' as to why.

If someone tries to say something that denies reality, like “unicorns are shy”, there is a simple solution - ignore it. No need to respond about unicorns or their shyness.

If you think someone’s post is utterly delusional, don’t respond. Or better, humbly educate and clarify, and when the troll continues to miss the point or deny clear reality, stop responding.

But policing truth deniers and enforcing banning and deletions of ideas, in a forum whose sole currency is words and the ideas those words are about? Sounds antithetical to the methods of science and mission of philosophers.

Shut people up with truth. This isn’t a classroom where only the loud ones are heard over the noise - we get to carefully, thoughtfully say exactly what we want to say every time in TPF.

Basically, it sucks to have to explain oneself to people who disagree. People suck, but once in a while we learn from them, or they agree with us, and restate what we were trying to say only better.

So, to me, learning and stating things with clarity is worth all the endless, childish, pains of dialoging with you people. :lol:

So I totally disagree with the notion that there is no place on a climate change thread for the concept “not climate change”. It’s the same subject.

We are all too quick to judge each other. A “denier” is “a mindless simpleton” is a “sub-human” - by default, everyone who posts here is equally human so whatever we adjudge of the others, we risk adjudging of ourselves.

Be humble, tell them they are a good person but their arguments and words are shit, explain why, and move on.

It’s the only way to have a true philosophy forum like this if you ask me. Rules (law, reality, truth) and police (ethical action, necessity) are questions here, so we should resist using them to narrow the dialogue.

Echo chambers aren't helpful, and are essentially anti-philosophical in terms of enquiry. Having an extremely intense emotional reaction to someone's input is not a problem of the thread title LMAO. Even when you're 'correct' as to why. — AmadeusD

Basically what I said, only with your typical pith.

And we probably disagree with each other 75% of the time, which proves the rule that this forum doesn’t need a rule that would limit speech to echos, even if they are too wordy like mine.

But policing truth deniers and enforcing banning and deletions of ideas, — Fire Ologist

I’m not advocating that.

There is such a thing as staying on topic. The topic isn’t to debate whether climate change is happening. That should be a separate thread. Just as a thread about evolution shouldn’t include debates about creationism.

True, you can just ignore people— but then where’s the boundary? At what point should we have any rules at all? Next time a thread is started on Kant, I’ll start talking about Donald Trump. How’s that sound? Just ignore me — because any other action would be “antithetical to the methods of science and mission of philosophers.”

But policing truth deniers and enforcing banning and deletions of ideas,
— Fire Ologist

I’m not advocating that. — Mikie

Ok good. So this should be a moment of agreement where we can continue a conversation. We both basically seem to think the same thing: policing and banning and deletions are not to be advocated for the sake of staying on topic.

There is such a thing as staying on topic. The topic isn’t to debate whether climate change is happening. That should be a separate thread. Just as a thread about evolution shouldn’t include debates about creationism. — Mikie

I agree that a thread about X shouldn’t be spammed with discussions about Z or Q, and I happen to agree that creationism is theology whereas evolution is empirical science.

But climate change is empirical science so it is full of fact gathering that must be evaluated, analysis that begs further development, conclusions subject to logical scrutiny, hypotheses that prompt the whole process of fact gathering, analysis and conclusion again…. To say a hint of distrust of the soundness of a conclusion, or the counter example to some fact means the person has gone off topic - seems weak to me.

I feel your pain - I spend most of my time on the forum restating what I already said because people are taking it in the wrong direction, or just misinterpreting me.

But, I think, we have to remain willing to steer the conversations where we think they should go and cannot make a rule that would be able to be applied in any just, equitable, functional manner to keep conversations from veering off topic. People make metaphysical points all of the time here and others only want to talk about language and logic in refutation of the metaphysics. There is no rule to prevent this.

People say “”the black cat is on the red mat” as a basis for an optics conversation, or a physics conversation, or an epistemological conversation, or a metaphysical conversation, or an ontological conversation, or as an example for a linguistic conversation. If I want to stay epistemological about it, great, but I can’t imagine a rule that would help steer people away from saying something about optics or metaphysics or linguistics.

Next time a thread is started on Kant, I’ll start talking about Donald Trump. How’s that sound? — Mikie

Do you really think that is what I meant? I know my thoughts were subject to the extreme interpretation that I am advocating for no rules at all. I’m not.

But what is the rule you want? How would you frame the specific words of the rule?

A rule for this issue is at best “stay on topic, and don’t be an asshole.” And I give the moderators full discretion at determining what is beyond the limits of “on topic” and who is being “an asshole.” That’s not up to me because it’s not my forum, and this vague rule gives me an opportunity to speak my mind despite anything anyone else says, and I don’t want that to change. So we don’t need any more rules.

If you post about X, and someone goes utterly off topic and carries the whole post in another direction, I’d say, tell the mods and let them delete or not delete as they see fit, and if it’s not enough, try to start your post again. Reword it and try again. I’m sure some sort of targeted trolling or spamming or ignorance would be addressed by the mods.

We don’t need a rule. I wouldn’t know how to frame it. Saying a topic like evolution that prompts a reply about creationism should somehow be prohibited seems utterly impossible to codify into a general rule.

Like I said, talking with people sucks. Most of us don’t know what we are talking about or how to say it best, or both. TPF is where we get to test and improve our own thoughts and writing - let the rest of the trolls have at it.

But what is the rule you want? How would you frame the specific words of the rule? — Fire Ologist

What’s already in place: if you want to debate climate change, whether it’s happening, whether it’s human caused, etc., go to the debate thread. Simply a matter of staying on topic.

But climate change is empirical science so it is full of fact gathering that must be evaluated, analysis that begs further development, conclusions subject to logical scrutiny, hypotheses that prompt the whole process of fact gathering, analysis and conclusion again…. To say a hint of distrust of the soundness of a conclusion, or the counter example to some fact means the person has gone off topic - seems weak to me. — Fire Ologist

I’m all for that. The last sentence has nothing to do with me.

I’m interested in discussing the predictions and obstacles in the way of mitigation. I’m not interested in debating climate deniers who pretend to be doing this.

I’m not interested in debating climate deniers who pretend to be doing this. — Mikie

Cool.

Do you guys think the thread suggested demands an acceptance that one's ideology is the only one worth having, or do you distinguish it from this rule? — Hanover

This is the right question. :up:

Positions on climate change are ideological. The TPF taboos are also ideological, but whereas a taboo against Holocaust denial is ideological, there are significant differences in the international Overton window with respect to these two issues. I don't see how an international website should impose local taboos on an international user base.

(Note that words like 'ideology' and 'taboo' are here being used in a technical, non-pejorative sense.)

I like the idea of a to this issue, but one-off requests that lack overall consistency with the ethos of the forum, and which create lots of extra work for moderators do not seem like a great option. At some point you're looking for a think tank rather than a philosophy forum.

one-off requests that lack overall consistency with the ethos of the forum, and which create lots of extra work for moderators do not seem like a great option. — Leontiskos

It’s exactly consistent with the ethos of the forum, and actually saves moderators time.

So I have no idea what you’re talking about.

It’s exactly consistent with the ethos of the forum — Mikie

I find 's point more persuasive than your assertion.

and actually saves moderators time. — Mikie

I find 's post more persuasive than your assertion.

Having a thread which allows for a single stance is directly against the ethos of the forum. Mikies behaviour in general, for the last year at least has been almost unacceptably so.

This should not surprise. He's like the kid every lets run around and do weird shit because they're not to be taken too seriously.

find ↪Hanover's point more persuasive than your assertion. — Leontiskos

Which had nothing to do with what you said.

find ↪fdrake's post more persuasive than your assertion. — Leontiskos

Which has nothing to do with what you said.

And neither had much to do with what I said either.

Having a thread which allows for a single stance is directly against the ethos of the forum. — AmadeusD

That’s not what was said. Try reading.

Mikies behaviour in general, for the last year at least has been almost unacceptably so. — AmadeusD

Is this English? You write as well as you read.

He's like the kid every lets run around and do weird shit because they're not to be taken too seriously. — AmadeusD

I don’t recall having any interaction with you whatsoever, so not sure where this is coming from.

I don't care. You've proved yourself to be a risible character with absolutely zero self-awareness. Enjoy.

You've proved yourself to be a risible character with absolutely zero self-awareness. — AmadeusD

I don’t even know who the hell you are, but OK!

“Risible” — :lol: That tells me all I need to know about you, in any case. (Speaking of “self-awareness.”)

Having a thread which allows for a single stance is directly against the ethos of the forum. — AmadeusD

:up:

Yeah— you’re right. Keeping a thread on a topic is definitely against the forum’s “ethos.”

If you’re both too stupid to understand what’s been said, and don’t bother to read, or “Don’t care,” then consider shutting the fuck up next time. :up: :grin:

- At this point I would usually take the trouble of demonstrating that you're an idiot, except for the fact that it is already well-known and this thread is more "proof in the pudding." Go find a climate change safe space and stop pretending at philosophy.

Yeah, says the guy who takes “let’s stay on topic” as “insisting on one stance is against the forum’s ethos.”

Yes, among you and those line you, I’m sure it’s “well known.” In fact I hope it is, because maybe you’ll stop bothering me with stupid bullshit like this.

Maybe petition for a thread called, "New Thread Skepticism," and ask the mods to enforce a rule where everyone who disagrees with Mikie must post there instead of here. Or better yet, ask the mods to create a new forum, "The Other Philosophy Forum," and have them enforce a rule where everyone who disagrees with Mikie must post on that forum instead of this forum. Then you won't have to deal with these pesky disagreements. Because that obviously won't create extra work for moderators! It will "actually save moderators time." :lol:

“let’s stay on topic” — Mikie

TPF doesn't moderate sub-topic premises, such that an OP could set out an ideological premise which is not allowed to be disputed within the thread. The OP's presuppositions are always open to debate as long as they are within the broad topic. Ergo:

Climate change denial is definitely on topic in a generic thread about climate change related issues. — fdrake

In my opinion what you are asking for is a form of evangelization, and contravenes that rule. But even if it isn't evangelization it would still be a request to moderate a sub-topic premise. In other words, what you are proposing is a special stricture on a thread, not a topic.

Must be fun arguing against strawmen.

The OP's presuppositions are always open to debate as long as they are within the broad topic. — Leontiskos

Climate change denial is definitely on topic in a generic thread about climate change — fdrake

I, and others, don’t necessarily even agree with this — but given what’s actually been said, that’s exactly the point: simce it’s so generic and so broad, and thus gets spammed and trolled often because of it, why not create another thread that’s more specific. That was the question to the moderators. Pretty straightforward— except for those who want to make a show of their dedication to free speech and open debate; in that case, deliberately exaggerating the request is essential. Gives them something to fight for — even if it’s made of straw.

In other words, what you are proposing is a special stricture on a thread, not a topic. — Leontiskos

No. I’m proposing a more specific topic, and hoping to keep to that topic. Asking that people stay on topic, moving posts to another thread, etc., is constantly done by moderators here. Whether they agree that a separate thread should be created and not be redundant was the question— for them.

@Mikie,

It's not about Climate Change Skepticism, but about Climate Change Amelioration Skepticism, according to the author's radio interview's findings.
So can't vouch for what is not yet read, but it is an aspect that may interest you.

"Breaking together, a freedom loving response to collapse" by Jim Bendell.

( If this OP is really about questions of Climate Change and not a request for further refined information about how to treat sacred cows without upsetting the cow worshiping population.)

Please, don't let this insert interrupt a good old ding dong.

hopeful smile

It's not about Climate Change Skepticism, but about Climate Change Amelioration Skepticism — kazan

I can’t say I fully understood all of your post, but appreciate the effort. There’s certainly a lot of debate about how best to mitigate the problems we’re already seeing and will continue to see. No doubt.

The OP was really just a question for moderators. It was about whether I could create another thread without it being considered redundant (and therefore merged). In retrospect I might have just submitted it to them privately —thus giving the many people who have a beef with me one less opportunity to display their motivated reasoning.

So this is another logical error, — Leontiskos

Which implies one has already been made. Which is not true, except my you.

Denying the Holocaust in a Holocaust thread is not against the philosophical ethos of the forum. — Leontiskos

Then your idea of what the “ethos” of the forum is is your own problem.

I don’t see any issue whatsoever with keeping things on topic, and don’t see it contravening anything— whether it’s rules or poorly-defined spirits.

Speaking of which — I’m moving this to the other thread.

My ↪point was that the topic as you defined it includes the folks you are attempting to exclude. This is no coincidence. — Leontiskos

Yeah, and geophysics includes flat-earthers, and evolution includes creationists, etc. Got it. Whatever you say.

It's instructive that it is not only your opponents who believe you are attempting to prevent free expression, but .