I second that nomination ! Out, Out, damned spot ! LoL !!! So get with the program and nominate some mod Bozotsky ! Nominate all of 'em ! hee !
draqon its not always immoral to kill. For instance is a doctor immoral for removing an ectopic pregancy? Is assiting someone is the terminal phase of a terimal illness who just wants to die because they feel there life is no longer worth living immoral? If so how?
How do either of those analogies apply to this situation? If someone wants to get banned they should be? They can just leave. Ectopic pregnancy? :bugeye: Ok, maybe you are saying that we should abort some members to save the "mother"?
your reading WAYYYYYYYYYYY to much into my post one ravenPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i wasnt challanging the potentual morality of BANNING people i was challanging draqons assertion that "killing" (ALL killing, every killing) is immoral
Banning people is too simplistic. What will be left of Sciforums then? From my casual observation, this forum works mainly because there is so much tension between people here, so challenging discussion and debate are ensured. Granted, not always very high-class discussion and debate, but challenging nonetheless. I think these challenges are what many people come here for in the first place. Without that tension, I suspect Sciforums would become like Philosophy Forums or some mediocre chat site, and rapidly lose membership. I think that some (if not many) of the people who want others be banned want that those others change and admit the erros of their ways in public. In other words, some of those who are loudly pro-banning actually just want some social drama. Banning the "misfits" provides such social drama - but only for a short while. Banning the "misfits" will only make the forum more mediocre and less interesting, or even kill it.
interesting what sort of challenges? like this, or is that old hat? what viewpoints are being offered at this time in sci and what are they? what pov would you like to be the status quo? edit: as an aside to the last question edit: the last question is an aside edit the last question is a non sequiter a standalone a whatnot
hmm what is this thread about? tongue in cheek, devils advocate, sarcastic whatnot? then why the goddamn votes?
I find that the thread topics themselves here are much the same as at many other places. But the meta-aspects are not. The psychological, sociological, meta-philosophical aspects of participating in a discussion and debate forum are especially challenging here, and these aspects show in how discussion is conducted here. I think the versatility of membership and the tension that thus exists between members makes for this challenge. For example, some members are deeply offended if logical flaws in their reasoning are pointed out. They call the "offender" cruel, hard-hearted etc. and even report them. Question: What is such an "offender" to do? At some forums, such an "offense" would warrant a warning from a moderator, or at least the issue would be expected to be swept under the rug, "getting along" and "mutual respect" valued above everything else, including critical thinking. At Sciforums, this doesn't seem to be the case yet, although some members here are very much in favor of that. Try out what it is like to have a discussion somewhere where you aren't really allowed to request that the other party explain or justify their position, and are instead expected to "respect" and "accept" the other person's position, no matter what it is, no matter what they claim or imply about you. Didn't say anything about a "status quo" ...
My opinion:I think you should ban everyone from the site for three days and install a stripper pole in the cesspool forum. Maybe establish a policy on the use of asparagus as a deadly weapon. And send everyone a cheese basket, too. Everyone appreciates a nice cheese basket.
