Your comment there was the first sour note since I set this up, and it's kind of disappointing. — jamalrob

Somebody liked it though.

I've known you for some time Tiff, I couldn't remember you saying anything of philosophical interest, but I thought I'd check the records.

I wasn't suggesting you should leave, I was suggesting you should stay and make more appropriate contributions.

I just looked at the discussions you have started at PF over the years Tiff. You might find it interesting to have a look yourself. I couldn't find a single topic with what I think of as philosophical content. There's a lot of embarrassing oversharing about your personal life, discussions about other people's personal lives and problems, sentimental poetry, pointless polls about drug use and the American political system, it's all just froth.

I'd like to ask you to leave all that crap behind, and make some philosophical contributions here. Deal with ideas, not personalities. If you want to "socialise", do it on Facebook or something.

That is pretty much what I don't come to a philosophy forum for Tiff.

I strongly agree with the Mayor about the downside of "likes".

Your Grandma's horoscope is commercial, she buys the newspaper to read it. "Woo" is sometimes used to refer to the commercial exploitation of superstition, but it's certainly not exclusively used for that purpose. So your attempted definition is inadequate. But somebody "liked" it. I wonder what they meant by that? Sir2U thinks we should use "likes" to say "I learned something from that". But in this case if the liker learned anything, what they learned was (in my opinion of course) mistaken.

But we don't all agree on that, and people wouldn't stick to the agreement even if we did. And it's difficult to ignore them, as they are stuck in a prominent place under our names.

No good complaining I suppose since apparently we can't get rid of them.

You ask us to accept at the outset that a moral obligation can be a fact, but I think that would involve a category error, a moral obligation is not the kind of thing that can be a fact. So I don't think anything useful can come of the discussion. But I may be missing something.

Is "Woo" really a category now?

What do I understand by "woo"? It can mean "to court". More recently it has been used to mean something like "superstition" or "the supernatural".

From now on I am only going to give "likes" when I really dislike something. So you'll never be sure if you are really liked or not. This subversion will ultimately lead to the collapse of the fascist "likes" regime.

I've given you one Sapentia.

Only idiots give "likes" so anybody with a lot of "likes" is popular with idiots. It's the same as the American electoral system I think.

I regard my tiny number of likes as a badge of honour.

Pathetic.

I'm less bothered now the "Leaderboard" has gone, that was truly pathetic, still don't like likes, and I don't use a phone for this purpose.

Nothing to stop you making a quick comment in the thread. Internal replies throw everything out of sequence, people tend to use them to make silly comments or to snipe.

Hanover, how far into the future does your concern with the fruit of your loins extend?

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

They add nothing but confusion!

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.

How do you mean "likely" Sapentia?

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

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

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?

Great, I voted again. What about you?

It's not really a Yes/No question is it? I mean I care a bit about how my actions might affect people in the future, but not very much.

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

I guess it is mostly people googling "philosophy forum". And Wosret.

Will you agree to give me lots of likes then?

Well done. Is there an option to disable "likes" altogether?

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