Mr Person said:

hmmn said:

I notice a lot of this as well.  This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.

---

I think this is definitely the wrong attitude.  People who think this way seem to believe that PS&P is a tool for them to hear what they want to hear about their own niche ideas.  The painful truth is that not every hypothetical scenario is worthy of pages of good faith debating.  I like that the bar is kept so high here.   

Keep in mind also that this forum has been around for over a decade (along with some of it's members), and the ideas brought forth for discussion are rarely fresh or novel. If you use the search function, or the related threads feature at the bottom of each thread, you'll see that most topics have been discussed many times.  So it's humorous when new members walk into the tail end of a 12 year conversation and expect everyone to get solemn and sincere for their pet topic.

---

Beanhead said:

How does fruitful debate arise from two wrong choices.

---

SneezingPenis said:

I am one of those people. I was here when this place was called Philosophy & Spirituality (or were they flip-flopped?). I too was guilty of having philosophical hubris (probably still am), but after the semantics and calling out of logical fallacies (by use of logical fallacies) we could eventually get down to some really good discussions/debates about metaphysical shit.
relatively good... i guess one could equate a few years in here and watching donnie darko a few times to a college credit towards philo 101.

btw, is orgone still around here? or diploid? or the red panda obsessors?

---

I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the semantics issue, and I empathize with everyone who finds it frustrating trying to have a real discussion here.  Stupid me, I just keep thinking there are diamonds in all this rough.

SneezingPenis said:

Beanhead said:

How does fruitful debate arise from two wrong choices.

---

what makes them wrong? in the subjective realm of morality, the stark polarity of answers given by the overwhelming majority shows that one of the answers is in fact not wrong.
after all that is what morality is governed by: a collective agreement of where the arbitrary line is drawn on certain issues.

---

Because the initial hypothesis is flawed and two wrongs don't make a right:

1) imagine that there are 5 workers, working on some train tracks and a train is coming. the only thing you can do to save them is pull a lever to make the train switch tracks, but there is 1 person working over there. Basically, your choice is to pull the lever, kill 1 guy and save 5, or do nothing and 5 people will die.

-> There are 5 people yet it's possible to kill one and 5 remain = does that mean i'm a trainworker too?

IF No: i'm not allowed around/on the traintracks and there is no lever to pull here, that's something that gets decided by the driver of the train, otherwise camera's follow the movement and the grid is automated.

I'd be shocked, with no feeling of guilt.

IF yes: I worked there for years? i'd know my fellow trainworkers and i'd call the person in danger or i'd yell his/their name(s). Waving my arms, screaming my lungs out.

Basically you make it seem like a simple choice but i'm not a hero nor do I need the power of life and death in my hands. I guess instead of the lever i'd make the automated grid my excuse.

Hypothesis 2: Be it through mechanical means or by your own hands, the blood sticks... Also on my hands (grid-excuse).

At the harbour I worked last summer there was a guy who couldn't work for over a year due to medical issues, when I started there he just came around and he would show me the ropes. He was so happy to be working again, like the harbour was his life and he finally returned!
Then he got squashed by tons of steel.

Now I feel bad for this however death is inevitable and I can cope with that. Apply your hypothesis (read: murder) to this situation and i'd end up an addict or killing myself because of your "moral relativism"

TLDR: semantics-bs, murderer-society, i'm dumb and I don't get it.

Beanhead said:

TLDR: i'm dumb and I don't get it.

---

Mr Person said:

hmmn said:

I notice a lot of this as well.  This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.

---

I think this is definitely the wrong attitude.  People who think this way seem to believe that PS&P is a tool for them to hear what they want to hear about their own niche ideas.  The painful truth is that not every hypothetical scenario is worthy of pages of good faith debating.  I like that the bar is kept so high here.   

Keep in mind also that this forum has been around for over a decade (along with some of it's members), and the ideas brought forth for discussion are rarely fresh or novel. If you use the search function, or the related threads feature at the bottom of each thread, you'll see that most topics have been discussed many times.  So it's humorous when new members walk into the tail end of a 12 year conversation and expect everyone to get solemn and sincere for their pet topic.

---

Vaipen said:

Mr Person said:

hmmn said:

I notice a lot of this as well.  This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.

---

I think this is definitely the wrong attitude.  People who think this way seem to believe that PS&P is a tool for them to hear what they want to hear about their own niche ideas.  The painful truth is that not every hypothetical scenario is worthy of pages of good faith debating.  I like that the bar is kept so high here.   

Keep in mind also that this forum has been around for over a decade (along with some of it's members), and the ideas brought forth for discussion are rarely fresh or novel. If you use the search function, or the related threads feature at the bottom of each thread, you'll see that most topics have been discussed many times.  So it's humorous when new members walk into the tail end of a 12 year conversation and expect everyone to get solemn and sincere for their pet topic.

---

And why is that humorous? All of us are at different levels of understanding when we come here. A teacher gets new students every year and has to repeat the same stuff again and again. And when a child doesn't get it, he needs to work with that child one on one so he gets it.

What you are saying is that once something has been discussed, the thread becomes a manual or textbook and no more replies are really needed. But that is not how a forum works. A forum is a dynamic process whereby people subscribe and unsubscribe and in the meantime participate on various levels of interaction and knowledge level. It is the interaction, the communication that is the reason we are here, not the content. We can look up content in a non-forum website. A forum by definition is a place of interaction between members.

I don't see why old timers should have some protection against newcomers, not why do they should feel above the rest because they have already discussed at length some topic or another. If you do not wish to rehash, then do not participate in a discussion, it is that simple. When they do, how is that different from a newbie wanting to explain his ideas and hoping for a platform? Both could be in it for the acknowledgement or the ego trip. The only difference is that the old timer feels he has more right to be annoyed for not getting the ego-boost he beleieves he deserves, while the newbie believes he has the right to have his fair say about the issue.

I also don't see why there should be a limit on whether or not something falls above some unseen and arbitrary line of discussion for it to be allowable to be discussed. I don't see it cannot be expected that from a rehashing some newbie will enter a new argument or come with a nice insight. Indeed, if we dismiss all noobs, referring to ancient topics, the purpose of interaction is diminished. Ideas and inspiration come from this exchange, not by checking off arguments already discussed before.

---