Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Chit-Chat » Should we update to new forum software? » 1/11/2019 4:38 pm

We have always had rules against  trolling and baiting. Like most forums I've come across, we don't define these exactly, as that isn't always possible. You know it when you see it. It can be hard, though, to say where inveterate sophism ends and actual baiting and trolling begins. Don't worry. In the future sophists will get the benefit of the doubt.

Chit-Chat » Should we update to new forum software? » 1/10/2019 10:27 pm

The other one I banned was Stardusty. I was a bit conflicted, as he was a massive troll, but I had promised him his own thread where he could troll to his heart's content if he left Feser's. As he didn't actually take that off, and waited until Feser banned him, I thought it was okay to ban him when his trolling became too tedious.

Chit-Chat » Should we update to new forum software? » 1/10/2019 9:30 pm


Yes, he was/is literally obsessed by that thread he started and the arguments that arose from it. He asked to be banned for six months. I was reluctant at first, but then did agreed. Then he came back still raging when the ban ran out. Stalking might be excessive, but he certainly tried to continue that argument by whatever means he could - PM, emails (he was able to use the email list on the reading group we set up to get hold of certain members' email addresses) and Feser's - right down to the rather silly insults he uses. He did get my email and PM'd me, but I just blocked him, so he was stuck using Feser's blog, though Feser seems to have got sick of such silliness and deleted his ravings the last time he popped up (which was only a month or two ago, a year after the original thread that sparked it all off). I don't much like banning and other sanctions. I've preferred just to lock threads and delete posts and hope that sufficed. But I thought AKG did cross a line. Plus, given that he has shown clear issues, by raging about arguments in one thread for months, across the internet, it is probably better for him he was rebanned.

On Clinias,

I don't think he was banned. He just went off in a huff after he had his pro-slavery thread locked and was told to not keep posting to threads where he was the only active participant. It's one thing to post a couple of times without anyone else responding, but posting half a dozen times or more over an extended period, when no one else is contributing, is a bit silly, especially if much of what you post is conspiracy laden, anti-Semitic rants.

Chit-Chat » Should we update to new forum software? » 1/09/2019 3:30 pm

Yes. He asked to be banned, so eventually I banned him for six months. After six months he came back, and he was even more unhinged and, what is more important, he'd developed a taste for stalking members through PMs, email, and at Feser's, so I rebanned him permanently.

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/07/2019 5:30 am


You made some strong, very controversial assumptions without unpacking or defending them. It's up to you, but you won't win anyone over or make a meaningful contribution to discussion that way. I am not a libertarian, so I'm not here to defend libertarianism per se or that particular book, but there are worthwhile ways of criticising libertarianism and classical liberalism and less worthwhile ones. Collapsing classical liberalism and libertarianism into Objectivism is not accurate or helpful, when classical liberalism clearly predates Ayn Rand by centuries and even in the post-war revival of strands of classical liberalism, known as libertarianism, Rand was one amongst a host of figures, from Albert Jay Nock to Murray Rothbard. Nor is making the hugely simplistic comment that libertarianism is selfish and Christianity unselfish, therefore they must be incompatible, likely to add much to meaningful debate. There are all sorts of issues that would need addressing to conclude that, as Daniel touches on, like what policy best contributes to human welfare and what is the moral role of the state compared with the role of the individual (after all it is very simplistic to just equate state action with the individual virtues).

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/05/2019 7:45 pm


It might be helpful to the discussion (and I mean this sincerely) if you unpacked your assertion about those thinkers and selfishness. Such strong claims surely need some explanation and support. 

Chit-Chat » Should we update to new forum software? » 1/05/2019 1:58 am

It is certainly a shame we haven't always been able to act on the complaints of members. On that I agree with you.

Chit-Chat » Should we update to new forum software? » 1/04/2019 6:03 am

I drifted into low-tolerance moderation of ranting, trolling, and rank sophistry, for better or worse. I think moderation will be less severe in the new forum, so you don't need to worry.

I believe only two members have been banned from the forum (apart from spammers and bots), and they both deserved it.

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/04/2019 4:52 am


I think that there is something in what you say, though I'm not sure I'd put it in quite that way. Still, to play devil's advocate, I think a libertarian might respond in two ways. If the libertarian holds to something like the harm principle or self-ownership as a deontological principle, then he would no doubt suggest you have a right to use your own liberties and property, and most of the externalities in question can't deprive a man of these freedoms. A libertarian might also suggest that externalities are myriad and even recursive - in the sense that government intervention to solve them create their own externalities - so it would take practically unlimited government action to truly do away with them (if it were possible at all), and any attempt would be fatal to liberty.

Practical Philosophy » I hate libertarianism » 1/04/2019 4:02 am

Yes, Objectivism is generally considered a sub-set (and just a sub-set) of classical liberalism and libertarianism.

It often isn't easy to be exact a about where one ideology ends and another begins. But that doesn't mean there aren't differences between ideologies, such as conservatism and classical liberalism. Libertarian conservatism, being an amalgamation of different ideologies is bound to be imprecise and idiosyncratic. Cruz is most certainly no libertarian, by the normal use of that term in America. Most libertarians wouldn't call consider him one. Rand Paul is a little more problematic, but he is considerably more conservative than many libertarians, not just personally, but politically.

By the way, who says these two rely on Ayn Rand for their philosophy? I would like to see proof of that.

Board footera


Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum