Why am I not banned?

[quadraphonics]

Ahhh... That was a specific example of you trolling. OK.

It's an example of both of us trolling. As I explicitly said at that time. Is it really so hard to just read what I write and stop cramming words into my mouth?

What, exactly is "a relevant instantiation of the sort of characteristics that make these forums so ripe for trolling"? Any thread in Business & Economics that you participate in?

Essentially any thread found on these forums is so ripe - that's the appeal. It's what draws the audience, animates the mods, etc. It's the entire raison d'etre of this forum.

The instantiation in question was your ill-considered attempt to pretend one side or another in these troll-fests is actually not trolling, but doing something academically rigorous and honorable, and to side with them. And you chose BillyT, of all posters, to wage that battle over.

Which kind of goes to show how this dynamic gets sustained, anyway. There's a sucker born every minute.

So the definition that I linked to is wrong? Do tell...

It's not exactly wrong, so much as it is an object lesson rather than a conventional "definition." This being typical of Urban Dictionary, if you weren't aware.

So are you saying that those of us who "get" interesting or funny internet content are trolling?

No. That "definition" is a red herring, intended exactly to produce these kinds of perverse inferences. For the amusement of those who know better - those "definitions" (like almost everything on Urban Dictionary) are themselves fairly advanced trolls.

Which is not to say that the observation there that lulz is the only reason anyone does anything (on the internet) isn't exactly true. Why would anyone go and engage strangers anonymously, if not to troll? The sort of unaccountable ego-gratification that results in trolling is inherent in that mode of interaction. That's why the terms "troll" and "lulz" arose to describe what happens when people interact that way; we didn't have those terms, until we had anonymous internet message boards to give rise to such phenomena. It's systematic, and by the time you're here arguing with strangers under a psuedonym, you're already implicated.

 

[birch]

On the contrary, you'll find that in most cases the "naysayers" are actually the ones who say "We don't know, let's have more investigation" and the believers who claim they do know: "Ooh! It's a ghost!"


Rubbish again. We demand "proof" that things are as they are claimed to be by the gullible.

and this is all just blatant dishonesty.

it was clear that not everyone said it was a ghost as well as admitting that we don't know what it is but you ignore that. the term 'ghost' is used for something that is not understood but you also ignore that. is 'apparition' better for you? you are the one who has simple black/white thinking as were the majority of the ones who troll that subject.

why do you think that someone's experience makes them automatically gullible? they are just relating it and that they do not know what it is and neither do you. your retarded logic as some others here is that it is totally illegitimate simply because there is no understanding of it all currently.

i think it's you who is rather gullible as are some others who are so sure of their black and white world. lol

 

[glaucon]

dwy is not the only one who is an idiot at times. as this above example so clearly shows he is among them, though he and others believe they are not.

there is no understanding of context. for instance, philosophy is largely based on suppositions and opinions.

..in your opinion.

Take some philosophy courses, you'll learn otherwise...

 

[Dywyddyr]

and this all just blatant dishonesty.

Wrong again.
Or did you just decide to ignore "in most cases".

the term 'ghost' is used for something that is not understood but you also ignore that.

I think you'll find that the word "ghost" has a particular meaning.

why do you think that someone's experience makes them automatically gullible?

I don't. As I pointed out in the actual thread (a point you apparently gave all possible consideration to before "responding" with "What the fuck is your problem?"). What is gullible is the assignation of labels and causes based on speculation without foundation.

your retarded logic as some others here is that it is totally illegitimate simply because there is no understanding of it all currently.

I think you should re-read the thread. That hasn't been the case.

 

[birch]

..in your opinion.

Take some philosophy courses, you'll learn otherwise...

it's a construct, learn that.

 

[glaucon]

you implied that topics under philosophy are not based on suppositions or opinions as if there is some concrete proof that it's not specious. even many of glaucon's opinions are specious because that is the nature of that type of subject to a large extent though we can tell ourselves it isn't.

Wholly incorrect.

I tend, in my life as well as on here, to refrain from opining. If I ever do express an opinion on here, it is either specifically outside of the Philosophy subforum (eg., Free Thoughts, Art and Culture) or is expressly indicated to be such.

You clearly have no clue whatsoever as to what Philosophy is.

First and foremost of concern to Philosophy is reasoned argumentation. Period. Full stop. It is about a procedure, a method; the content, whether factual or, as you see it, a matter of opinion is, at best, secondary.

The fact that you misunderstand this is the source of your confusion with respect to Dywyddyr's posting style, and his comments herein.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

O.K. dribble double time . Do we rationalize our own thoughts ? It has been said humans seek out patterns and the patterns are not necessarily there. Where our minds are drawn to specific elements that force patterns from randomness . O.K. D - Day tear that up.
Do Patterns exist regardless of observation ? I think they do. Can you pick out similarities and consider them to be a pattern and if so are the negative results a pattern also. Lets say you have a bunch of cars rolling down a hill and it is a well used road . The traffic patterns are relatively the same day to day and you have determined this from observation of specific times of the day . Like 5:00 P.M. there is x amount of cars and at 3 :00 A.M. there is X amount of cars . In my mind a pattern exists out side of my observing and documenting the traffic pattern .
So what am I trying to say here you might ask your self ?
Hell who knows , but tolling can be fun nun the less

 

[birch]

Wholly incorrect.

I tend, in my life as well as on here, to refrain from opining. If I ever do express an opinion on here, it is either specifically outside of the Philosophy subforum (eg., Free Thoughts, Art and Culture) or is expressly indicated to be such.

You clearly have no clue whatsoever as to what Philosophy is.

First and foremost of concern to Philosophy is reasoned argumentation. Period. Full stop. It is about a procedure, a method; the content, whether factual or, as you see it, a matter of opinion is, at best, secondary.

The fact that you misunderstand this is the source of your confusion with respect to Dywyddyr's posting style, and his comments herein.

you are wholly mislead. philosophy is a subjective "subject" and that is why there is more than one school of thought. reasoned argumentation is still based on subjective points of view. when a point is agreed upon to be largely true, that is only based on agreement.

as for dywy, he is not always correct and has his blind spots or is erroneous just as anybody else.

i am not confused about his style because it's not even a style, that is your opinion. it is a tactic.

 

[quadraphonics]

Stilted re-characterisations?

Yep.

You claimed something that went directly against what I had said in previous posts.

That's right. We're having an argument. That involves me making claims that are directly against your own. You don't get to demand that I admit I'm wrong because you disagree with me. Obviously.

This sort of fugue into ill-posed, reflexive theoretical defense is a classic defense mechanism of the troll who won't admit to himself what he's actually about. When one presses towards the heart of the lie, the inconsistency becomes more acute and apparent - hence the morass of aggressive supremacism and mangled theoretical argument. In real life, this would be the part where you either storm away in a huff, or we commence with a physical altercation.

All of which is why such trolls are ill-advised to ply their wares anywhere that attracts many other trolls. Because they make fat targets, you see?

"Dismissive superior tone"?

Yep - do you disagree? Is this feature not obvious, salient and common in your output here? Did you not, in this very thread, characterize your mode of engagement here as seeking out "idiots" to "shock?"

This is, indeed, a very common mode of interaction here. Probably, the dominant one. And why wouldn't it be? It's relentlessly, unapologetically pursued at the highest levels of the moderation here.

Ah right. My writing style (which also happens to match my speaking style) is also against me.

It's only against your refusal to honestly admit what you're about.

And: the issue is the mode in which you engage others here. You can hardly complain about your writing style figuring into that. It's directly relevant. Indeed, it's almost the only thing about you that is relevant to that question. It reveals how you see your audience, how you view yourself in relation to them, etc.

So, again: the bizarre attempt to dodge by feigning shock at the obvious. A troll itself, or genuine confusion?

 

[Dywyddyr]

as for dywy, he is not always correct

That has been pointed out. And admitted by me.

i am not confused about his style because it's not even a style, that is your opinion. it is a tactic.

Again you're incorrect. And assuming. It is not a tactic.
Why on earth would I need a "tactic"?
What do you think I'm trying achieve with this "tactic"?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

that was good . some big new word too. I like that

 

[birch]

What is gullible is the assignation of labels and causes based on speculation without foundation.

that is really stupid. what are you supposed to call something that is not understood yet to describe it?? lol.

how is it wrong to speculate on something even though it is not understood? what makes you the arbiter of 'foundation'? the experience was the foundation or is that too hard to grasp?

 

[420Joey]

So why apologise for "missing my intentions" later in the same post?


And what exactly do you think I'm postulating?


Apparently.


Go back and read what I actually did say.


There are no axioms on this.


What you claim I "put on myself" is not what I actually do.


How many more times: I have an interest in why people believe what they believe. Got it yet?


Please learn to read. That is not what I claimed at all. Go back and look at earlier posts if you need clarification.


Have you tried doing more than skimming my posts in those sections?


Or is it progress in that at least it's separating the wheat from the chaff?


Because I have an interest in those subjects.

You claim you have interest in these subjects but cant keep an open mind regarding the subjects at hand. You dismiss everything based on narrow criteria that conforms to standards of science. You are essentially inturn demanding proof of the unprovable. I asked you this question before; short of god appearing infront of you stating he exists what would proof look like? Would the stated scenario be considered proof under your criteria.

I'm not saying let's entertain baseless thoughts; we can challenge them. But for every argument to regress to the demand of emperism rather than arguing a philosophy or theory to contrast you often limit the discussion off course it's intended purpose. If it was to discuss the validity of proof it would be one thing. Your comments are at times helpful if the poster is blatantly oblivious, even than, it's not much short of a waste of time on your part. You should make your point and move on. I just see you antagonizing some posters, sorry I just feel that its the case at times, maybe this is a distorted observation based on some bias I have with you. I'm not sure, not that it matters as much, but you just come off to me as a jerk who upholds flawed lines of logic because of sheer arrogance when your obviously smart enough to know better. It's your egocentric nature that fuels what "glaucon" over-rationalizes as "a posting style" it's not the underlying purpose of the desire to understand like you claim.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That's right. We're having an argument. That involves me making claims that are directly against your own.

But, since I know why I post and you're just assuming where do you think the weight of "evidence" lies?

In real life, this would be the part where you either storm away in a huff, or we commence with a physical altercation.

Really? I'm in the habit of neither.

Yep - do you disagree?

Absolutely. Like I said, it's the also the way I speak. I have no problems in the pub or anywhere else I go.

Did you not, in this very thread, characterize your mode of engagement here as seeking out "idiots" to "shock?"

As a matter of fact I didn't. And that's where you claimed something that disagreed entirely with what I had said earlier.

And: the issue is the mode in which you engage others here. You can hardly complain about your writing style figuring into that. It's directly relevant. Indeed, it's almost the only thing about you that is relevant to that question. It reveals how you see your audience, how you view yourself in relation to them, etc.

Or maybe it just says something about my general vocabulary and phraseology.

So, again: the bizarre attempt to dodge by feigning shock at the obvious. A troll itself, or genuine confusion?

Genuine confusion.

 

[glaucon]

no, there's such thing as how soon do you decide something is wrong or correct.

Sure there is; it's called being pragmatic.

take you for example, you're absolutely the worst mod on sciforums when it comes to premature mod actions, which made me loath you as a mod and eventually avoid your subfora, which became a place to things you agree with only, it's simply impossible, just IMPOSSIBLE, for the philosophy subfora to contain something you disagree with, it's a glaucon's-thoughts-only place. why? because you believe you are right and everyone opposing you is wrong. simple. as. that.

I'm glad you have an opinion.

Alas, in Philosophy, opinion is worthless. And that's not just my thought...

There are correct ways to argumentation; those who do not follow those ways are, by definition, incorrect. It's my responsibility as GP Mod, to promote those established methods, and to curtail all others. Whether or not I agree with what's being posted is irrelevant. This is why, to a great degree, I refrain from actively being personally engaged in GP threads.

unless i'm mistaken you seem to have some formal education of some sort in philosophy, ...

Irrelevant, but correct.

...which is why you self appointed yourself the single authority in regard to it here, ...

Erroneous.
No Mod here is self-appointed.

... while there's no controversial about right and wrong in any field as much as philosophy, ...

Most philosophers, both historical, contemporary, and scholarly would utterly disagree with you.
Oh, that includes me as well.

...
actually the rise of such conflict in any other field is due to different philosophies, and yet you waste not a second in considering what you find "incorrect" before the hitting the "lock thread" or "delete" buttons.

Erroneous; see above comment re. methodology.

SO COULDN'T YOU ASK FOR CLARIFICATION?????????

I did.
You refused.
End of story.

when everybody understands something and start debating it, and YOU fail to understand it, do you try to understand what everybody is talking about so you can get in the discussion? naah, you shut them off all of them, because if they understand something you don't, then what they're discussing is "unclear". and when you find something unclear, you fix those others who find it clear

You're assuming that 'everyone'(sic) understood it. You know what assuming does....

And again, it's a matter of method.

you believe you know everything, and you're not even "modest" to share your absolute knowledge with others.
what good is you absolute knowledge then?
deciding others are wrong.
you're so right you can't even discuss it with those "idiots"(as D puts it), not because it might be wrong, hell no, but...idk, because you're lazy? because they don't deserve it? because it's more fun??

lol

You should see me discuss philosophy in the classroom or a pub...

glaucon doesn't understand what DISCUSSION forums mean, ...

Oh please enlighten me.

You would be hard pressed to find an actual discussion here that lasts for more than 15 minutes before it derails and dissolves off into some minor quibble about terminology or interpretation, and ultimately goes so far off the track as to be unrecognizable.

Why?

Typically because of an exceedingly poorly conceived and written OP, lacking anything resembling a valid argument, where terms are explicitly determined such that a minimum of possible interpretation can occur.
In other words: sensibly composed.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You claim you have interest in these subjects but cant keep an open mind regarding the subjects at hand.

No, you're mistaken. You seem to assume that because I question I'm not open.

You dismiss everything based on narrow criteria that conforms to standards of science.

No. Try to read my answers for once.

short of god appearing infront of you stating he exists what would proof look like? Would the stated scenario be considered proof under your criteria.

Just appearing in front of me? How would that be proof? How would HE (oh you used that word, after castigating me so many times for it) prove he was god? Hey, I just appeared, surely that proves I'm god! Hardly...

I'm not saying let's entertain baseless thoughts; we can challenge them. But for every argument to regress to the demand of emperical evidence rather than arguing a philosophy or theory in contrast is limiting the discussion of the intended purpose.

Except that I don't demand empirical proof every time.

You should make your point and move on.

How would I learn anything by doing that?

 

[glaucon]

you are wholly mislead.

Ah.
Damn, what then did I do to receive those Degrees?

hmmmm

In any case, you would do well to note that what I noted as the sine qua non of Philosophy is present in all and any 'school of thought'. You seem to be paying more attention to differences in approach, or content.

...
philosophy is a subjective "subject" and that is why there is more than one school of thought.

And I suppose this only occurs in the field of Philosophy...

.....interesting....

...
reasoned argumentation is still based on subjective points of view.

Utterly incorrect.

Start with Aristotle's Prior Analytics, and then read every other logic book written since.
You'll note that there has been a progressive growth which has established the method of reasoned argumentation.
Note the definite article there..

 

[quinnsong]

Just a general comment regarding the use of logic to get an understanding of unexplained phenomena.

Science and logic are our best hope currently at knowing what is not known yet. Many of us have had strange occurrences that we could not readily explain or cannot to this day, but I personally look to logic and science and not Walt Disney for answers to these occurences. If an occurrence is unknown as of yet we as humans will suppose many explanations for said event and we must use logic and reason with each explanation to see if it holds water and if it does then we have just learned something previously unknown. Gotta ask those hard logical questions even if it shoots down previously held preconceived perceptions.

As an added bonus you may be able to out logic Dywddyr in pseudo and para in the unforseeable future.

 

[420Joey]

Sure there is; it's called being pragmatic.

Philosophy is loosely based at best, the vigorous standards you speak of and moderate with is based on logical reasoning. Suppositions being the basis of which - as philosophy is one of the few avenues we can discuss things outside our immediate nature with no real frame of reference besides what is considered true in our physical reality and not that it matters but it perplexes me to think you would limit any philosophy discussions basis to the adherence of certain principles or frames of reference alone. If the course of discussion is obstructed than in my humblest of opinions, is when moderation should be taking place. If people are completely unsensible; than that's being called pragmatic. But philosophy is one of the few arenas where people can speculate reasonably; without it science is of little value to those trying to compose a picture and not just look at the paint.

 

[420Joey]

No, you're mistaken. You seem to assume that because I question I'm not open.


No. Try to read my answers for once.


Just appearing in front of me? How would that be proof? How would HE (oh you used that word, after castigating me so many times for it) prove he was god? Hey, I just appeared, surely that proves I'm god! Hardly...


Except that I don't demand empirical proof every time.


How would I learn anything by doing that?

Ok. I retract that statement. I'll let you know next time I see you doing it. It makes more sense that way.