Ethics of this website?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Feedback » Ethics of this website? » Ethics of this website?

Ethics of this website?

Page: 1 2

Ethics of this website?

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 10/28/09 - 11:18 AM:	#11
Personally, I agree with the Kid, the mods are a bunch of goats who submit our brilliant works to random acts of editorial control at their whim. Trouble is, it works. This remains the best philosophy forum on the net.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559

Posted 10/28/09 - 12:16 PM:	#12
Banno wrote: Personally, I agree with the Kid, the mods are a bunch of goats who submit our brilliant works to random acts of editorial control at their whim. Trouble is, it works. This remains the best philosophy forum on the net. Amen. Thank Paul for that (and everyone else that contributes).
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2102

Posted 10/28/09 - 12:18 PM:	#13
I agree with Benkei and Hanover. The actual philosophical content of your post consists in a single sentence: "What would a Utilitarian and a Kantian think about prostitution or human trafficking?" The rest just said "I'm new," "I'm confused," and "thanks in advance." Now, those are all fine things to say -- we have all been new and confused (or if not, I've been new and confused enough in my time for all of us), and there's nothing wrong with being upfront with one's appreciation. But you could start a better thread, and simultaneously prove that you've been thinking about the topic on your own, by giving us some of your thoughts on the topic. What do you think a Utilitarian and/or a Kantian would think about prostitution or human trafficking? Why do you think that? It doesn't matter if you're dead wrong about it, just give everyone something to get started. Because someone might not know what a Utilitarian or a Kantian would think off the top of his head, but he might be able to latch onto the problem by thinking through a possible answer. (I go through this all the time: I'll be quite sure the accounts I've read regarding a particular issue -- even the brilliantly argued ones -- are deficient for one reason or another, but I won't have a clue as to what the proper solution might be. Luckily, figuring out what doesn't work constitutes the majority of a philosopher's job description.) I won't pretend that you don't open yourself up to both constructive and destructive criticism by putting your own thoughts out there, but you can disregard anyone who thinks you're stupid for making a mistake. Again, I've made more than enough mistakes in my philosophical career to make up for all the perfect thinkers among us, yet I'm pretty sure I'm not stupid. Though I might be mistaken about that.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 959

Posted 10/30/09 - 10:47 AM:	#14
ciceronianus wrote: Hanover wrote: ciceronianus wrote: Not to be uptight or anything, but its "Stuart", not "Stewart." I would have at least noted that, and I don't even participate in "running" this forum. For which many no doubt give thanks. I fear SliceyTheKid will overlook this clever retort, so I will provide it for him: it's it's, not its. Damnation! God's teeth! The worst part is, of course, the fact that I deserve it. From "The Top 10 Internet Rules and Laws": 4. Skitt’s Law Expressed as "any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself" or "the likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional to the embarrassment it will cause the poster."
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Kelby
analytic poop

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 372

Posted 10/30/09 - 11:14 AM:	#15
brainpharte wrote: From "The Top 10 Internet Rules and Laws": 4. Skitt’s Law Expressed as "any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself" or "the likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional to the embarrassment it will cause the poster." aren't you prescriptively supposed to have commas prior to a quot?

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/30/09 - 03:44 PM:	#16
It depends both on which version of English you use (American, Canadian, etc.) as well as the styling of discourse.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002

Total Topics: 465
Total Posts: 12173

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:57 PM:	#17
SliceyTheKid wrote: Really? When there was a thread 3 posts under mine where the OP had terrible grammar, asked his question in a short, uninformative paragraph and his reasoning for coming to these forums in the first place was, "I couldn't find it on Wikipedia!" However, his question was resolved, responded to and did not come under fire. Contrary to popular belief, website moderators and administrators are not omniscient. They read only a fraction of posts, and are incapable of acting on what they haven't seen unless somebody clicks the report button. Their inability to achieve such ultimate knowledge and power should not stop them from dealing with what they come across. The perfect is the enemy of the good. There are tens of thousands of horrible posts on this website that deserve to be deleted but haven't been. Edited by Paul on 10/30/09 - 07:02 PM

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 11/01/09 - 01:20 AM:	#18
Paul wrote: There are tens of thousands of horrible posts on this website that deserve to be deleted but haven't been. Please don't delete all of Banno's posts.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.