Moderation and Morality.

[s1eep]

Does leadership force others to have objective morality about the leader and it's desires?

 

For example, the moderators here dislike 'soapboxing', and that is pretty much the common belief of all accepted members.

 

Are we led to believe that things are evil or good (objectively), depending on the beliefs of our leaders?

 

Is morality there but only in the dynamic and useful sense, it's ever changing depending on the situation---what 'objective morality' is?

Edited August 14, 2014 by s1eep

[swansont]

I think one's attitude toward soapboxing depends on whether one is standing on the soapbox or not. If there is a difference of opinion, being preached at is often less enjoyable than preaching. If I want to preach, I have a blog where I can do that, and participation by others is voluntary. You can do the same.

 

I don't see where any claim is made as to the goodness or evilness of the behavior dictated by the rules. The rules exist to facilitate useful discussion. Soapboxing is not discussion, and people are here to have discussions.

[s1eep]

I think one's attitude toward soapboxing depends on whether one is standing on the soapbox or not. If there is a difference of opinion, being preached at is often less enjoyable than preaching. If I want to preach, I have a blog where I can do that, and participation by others is voluntary. You can do the same.

 

I don't see where any claim is made as to the goodness or evilness of the behavior dictated by the rules. The rules exist to facilitate useful discussion. Soapboxing is not discussion, and people are here to have discussions.

By no means am I discrediting the rules. I think you do a good job of keeping the forum.

 

This discussion is just discussion.

 

I suppose you can say a lot of members are objective about the board as well...

 

Moderators are definitely objective about the board, they even go to lengths as to adjust it to get as close to perfection as possible. Do their credible (worthy to the cause) opinions, such as that 'soapboxing is unpleasant', cause us to believe they are evil (against the objective)?

 

Does it come with objective morality?

Edited August 14, 2014 by s1eep

[zapatos]

I think you are confusing 'morals' and 'rules'.

[s1eep]

I think you are confusing 'morals' and 'rules'.

No, the quintessence of this community.

 

The attitudes of all the members, the content within the replies themselves.

 

What drives the community. what morals they have in accordance with the leaders (or their) objectives.

 

I think you have really strict (maybe biblical) definitions of good and evil, that you can't think above or beyond.

 

If we're being more relaxed. It is evil, for the board, if we allow 'soapboxing', because then it wouldn't be as good.

Edited August 14, 2014 by s1eep

[swansont]

Do their credible (worthy to the cause) opinions, such as that 'soapboxing is unpleasant', cause us to believe they are evil (against the objective)?

 

 

You already have my input: no.

[s1eep]

 

You already have my input: no.

Okay, then I will wait for other inputs.

 

Can I ask why?

Edited August 14, 2014 by s1eep

[swansont]

Okay, then I will wait for other inputs.

 

Can I ask why?

 

I don't see it as an issue of being evil or good. It's simply not a moral issue.

[s1eep]

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"

I can see the correlation between how we behave about 'soapboxing'...

"the matter boiled down to simple morality: intolerant 'soapboxers' ought to be isolated".

[zapatos]

No, the quintessence of this community.

 

The attitudes of all the members, the content within the replies themselves.

 

What drives the community. what morals they have in accordance with the leaders (or their) objectives.

 

I think you have really strict (maybe biblical) definitions of good and evil, that you can't think above or beyond.

 

If we're being more relaxed. It is evil, for the board, if we allow 'soapboxing', because then it wouldn't be as good.

 

Have you considered the possibility that this site is not a miraculous collection of lemmings who readily give up their moral founding to some anonymous evil moderators ? But that perhaps it is you who simply cannot grasp the meaning behind interactions on a science forum?

 

What do you think the chances are that out of all the people on this site, YOU are the only one who 'gets it'?

[s1eep]

 

Have you considered the possibility that this site is not a miraculous collection of lemmings who readily give up their moral founding to some anonymous evil moderators ? But that perhaps it is you who simply cannot grasp the meaning behind interactions on a science forum?

 

What do you think the chances are that out of all the people on this site, YOU are the only one who 'gets it'?

Gets what?

 

And I'm not being entirely accurate, some members I imagine have greater intelligence and thus find it easier to reject fictitious moralities, and can at least notice them.

 

I believe there are people more intelligent than me, but I'm unsure whether there are many who are wiser (for example go check: "Humans and Earth" and what I stand for, plus maybe join in the the conversation/debate).

 

Is morality there, then?

Edited August 14, 2014 by s1eep

[swansont]

 

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

"the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"

I can see the correlation between how we behave about 'soapboxing'...

"the matter boiled down to simple morality: intolerant 'soapboxers' ought to be isolated".

 

 

It takes more than putting a phrase on either side of "ought to be" to make them similar.

 

Chocolate donuts ought to be eaten. Wow, morality!

[s1eep]

 

It takes more than putting a phrase on either side of "ought to be" to make them similar.

 

Chocolate donuts ought to be eaten. Wow, morality!

 

Chocolate is a noun. Intolerant and innocent are adjectives, and are related because they were both science-backed descriptions of a subject, not a subject themselves, or by itself.

 

If you were my leader, and you thought this way about chocolate donuts, you may affect my objective morality, but the problem is, for what objective is eating chocolate cake good? It is however, probably sarcastic, so I won't continue criticizing the irrationality behind eating chocolate donuts being good.

Edited August 14, 2014 by s1eep

[swansont]

Chocolate is a noun. Intolerant and innocent are adjectives, and are related because they were both science-backed descriptions of a subject, not a subject themselves, or by itself.

 

If you were my leader, and you thought this way about chocolate donuts, you may affect my objective morality, but the problem is, for what objective is eating chocolate cake good? It is however, probably sarcastic, so I won't continue criticizing the irrationality behind eating chocolate donuts being good.

 

Point taken. I need an adjective.

 

Delicious chocolate donuts ought to be eaten. Or, if you want a scientifically-backed description, use toroidal as the adjective. That it is irrational is the point of the sarcasm.

 

Moderators are not your leaders. Leader sort of implies that you can choose which one(s) to follow or not to follow.

[Phi for All]

For example, the moderators here dislike 'soapboxing', and that is pretty much the common belief of all accepted members.

 

Are we led to believe that things are evil or good (objectively), depending on the beliefs of our leaders?

 

I think, if one is really honest with oneself, having people talk at you is frustrating. And we do seem to attract our fair share of soapboxers who don't want discussion, they want to preach (no religious connotations intended) to the ignorant masses about whatever Light Bulb of Truth has gone off in their heads.

 

I'm not sure why people join this site, which is clearly for discussion amongst peers, and then proceed to preach about whatever has wadded up their panties. Other members try to provide perspective, and it's often rejected in favor of the rant. You can't discuss something with someone if your mind is already made up. Nobody wants to take their valuable time being open-minded with a closed mind. And ironically, it's usually those people who accuse others of being closed-minded because they aren't listening to the soapboxing.

 

There really aren't a lot of moral judgments to be made as an SFN moderator. The owners set the rules, and they've asked some of us to help moderate and enforce those rules. Setting the tone is about all we do as far as leadership. We're more like cops who only get activated when someone ignores the rules. The rest of the time we get to do what we joined to do, discuss science with other humans.

[s1eep]

 

I think, if one is really honest with oneself, having people talk at you is frustrating. And we do seem to attract our fair share of soapboxers who don't want discussion, they want to preach (no religious connotations intended) to the ignorant masses about whatever Light Bulb of Truth has gone off in their heads.

 

I'm not sure why people join this site, which is clearly for discussion amongst peers, and then proceed to preach about whatever has wadded up their panties. Other members try to provide perspective, and it's often rejected in favor of the rant. You can't discuss something with someone if your mind is already made up. Nobody wants to take their valuable time being open-minded with a closed mind. And ironically, it's usually those people who accuse others of being closed-minded because they aren't listening to the soapboxing.

 

There really aren't a lot of moral judgments to be made as an SFN moderator. The owners set the rules, and they've asked some of us to help moderate and enforce those rules. Setting the tone is about all we do as far as leadership. We're more like cops who only get activated when someone ignores the rules. The rest of the time we get to do what we joined to do, discuss science with other humans.

Can we be relaxed and group all the things we don't like, associated with things against the quality of this board, evil (used as an adjective to describe something against my will, what was to experience a more reputable forum)? What I'm trying to say is, it's not that it's disliked, but that it's to be disliked, what is good for the board, is, ultimately, and that's what I'm trying to say, there is that which is against my will and that which is with my will.

 

When people join a site they usually have something to say; I know that there are crazy people out there, in fact I think most of the human population is crazy. Moderation is good, I have nothing against it but I have problems with some of the rules sometimes. For example, I think 'soapboxing' is a rather loose term to be using in law, and can apply to many things and isn't so accurately defining what it's against. It's more of a trap than it is a law, because you don't have any inclination of what you're trying to avoid so a moderator can jump out at you, and be essentially, perverse, 'thuggish', etc, but for reason of the prosperous board. Presumably for non-sequitor reasons. I agree that close-mindedness is bad, which is why I'm, what I've decided to call "Anti-Theist"; basically, against Theists, because their so close-minded about stupidity. Everyone is a bit close-minded sometimes, we have to accept that, especially in debate, you can't expect others to accept that you're right so easily.

 

And as for your last paragraph, the morality is upon the people under the leaders, and although there aren't a lot of moral judgements (which I presume you mean by diversity of tools and actions as such; this place is moderated well) for a moderator, morality is there. It could be more prominent, where there was greater diversity in tools and actions, in other cases beyond the forum; objective morality, in the sense that I'm using, a relaxed approach to collect all that is to be disliked and call it evil and it be a logical statement?

 

EDIT: On the statement, of 'to be disliked', it's also that we dislike it, but neither is less significant than the other if we're being scientific.

EDIT: And by no means am I saying it's always the case of us disliking it that makes it evil, I imagine there can be other reasons.

Edited August 15, 2014 by s1eep

[Endy0816]

 

It's more of a trap than it is a law, because you don't have any inclination of what you're trying to avoid

 

Did you ask for clarification?

 

 

especially in debate, you can't expect others to accept that you're right so easily.

 

We're not on a Debate forum. We are on a Discussion forum.

 

A discussion is about sharing knowledge and views. You aren't trying to "win" you are trying to exchange ideas.

 

[s1eep]

 

Did you ask for clarification?

 

 

We're not on a Debate forum. We are on a Discussion forum.

 

A discussion is about sharing knowledge and views. You aren't trying to "win" you are trying to exchange ideas.

 

Sometimes ideas conflict and debates happen, which is what we were talking about.

 

Way to subtract the post I was responding to...

[Endy0816]

Sometimes ideas conflict and debates happen, which is what we were talking about.

 

It is moral to enforce rules another has freely agreed to. It doesn't even matter what the moderators themselves think on the rule, they are merely asked to enforce it.

 

When ideas conflict in a discussion you look at the logic behind what they are saying. If it is valid you update your own thinking, acknowledge the fact and proceed accordingly. If it is not you point out the way in which it is not valid.

 

If you try to "win" a discussion you are only going to "lose" when the other parties end up dismissing your views as having value.

 

 

Way to subtract the post I was responding to...

 

I copy-pasted points I was responding to. I didn't want to post the whole post and risk the thread devolving.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Endy0816

[swansont]

I think 'soapboxing' is a rather loose term to be using in law, and can apply to many things and isn't so accurately defining what it's against. It's more of a trap than it is a law, because you don't have any inclination of what you're trying to avoid so a moderator can jump out at you, and be essentially, perverse, 'thuggish', etc, but for reason of the prosperous board.

 

In the several cases where you have been cited, it was explained to you exactly what was going on. If you have no inclination of what you should be avoiding it's because you aren't paying attention.

[s1eep]

 

In the several cases where you have been cited, it was explained to you exactly what was going on. If you have no inclination of what you should be avoiding it's because you aren't paying attention.

Can you describe 'soapboxing' to me, in your own words, without using a 'flimsy' definition? When we encounter things that are flimsy, we usually dismiss them as non-consistent/non-existent.

 

The description, "someone who stands at a podium and preaches his idea", can be applied to most threads and posts on this forum; "and is ignorant of what others are saying", is more specific, the non-flimsy part of the rule. I think you'll find the flimsy part of the rule, paves the way for abuse of power through the moderators own ego and opinions. In cases where one person believes he/she is correct, and takes notice of someone's proof (which is usually not 100% true, and sometimes complete lies), but dismisses it as incorrect, the moderator can say, "you're soapboxing", because they were ignorant, for a reason other than being ignorant (in a useful way, to support one's belief further because one believes they have the correct answer even after the proof was shown). Then, the moderator looks righteous, but it's simply the flimsy definition that stood, which makes no sense really.

Edited August 15, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

 

When ideas conflict in a discussion you look at the logic behind what they are saying. If it is valid you update your own thinking, acknowledge the fact and proceed accordingly. If it is not you point out the way in which it is not valid.

 

Very well said. And exactly the way science should work, updating always to the best supported explanations.

 

And this is the part a preacher will probably never understand. They have no intention of ever changing their minds. They don't feel the need to "update [their] own thinking" because they've joined here to spread the word about the idea they've locked onto (thus closing their minds to discussion in any form). They falsely consider their own logic to be faultless and ignore efforts to show them otherwise.

 

They're happy to take questions from the audience gathered around their soapbox, but they don't really want anyone trying to refute their Truth.

[s1eep]

 

Very well said. And exactly the way science should work, updating always to the best supported explanations.

 

And this is the part a preacher will probably never understand. They have no intention of ever changing their minds. They don't feel the need to "update [their] own thinking" because they've joined here to spread the word about the idea they've locked onto (thus closing their minds to discussion in any form). They falsely consider their own logic to be faultless and ignore efforts to show them otherwise.

 

They're happy to take questions from the audience gathered around their soapbox, but they don't really want anyone trying to refute their Truth.

To be honest, I do update my thinking anyway, but I'll have to come out here, I find myself advancing faster through debate.

 

I'll take your advice though, but I have many ideas of my own that I'd like to clear up first. If something I find more rational comes along, I'll probably change for the better.

 

I'm no preacher, I just have a very unique perspective on many subjects; what I say is controversial, they are new things, and if true, it changes things. I guess, maybe that is what I'm trying to do, change things, but it's not for my own benefit. And I'm by no means preaching beliefs, I'm trying to articulate on my beliefs, otherwise, I wouldn't believe in them.

 

I find it hard to put trust in other scientists when we live in a reality that is supremely artificial. A lot of people have no concern for the pure things, like trust. That doesn't mean I will say you're incorrect, if you are correct, but I wouldn't go to you first.

Edited August 15, 2014 by s1eep

[swansont]

Can you describe 'soapboxing' to me, in your own words, without using a 'flimsy' definition? When we encounter things that are flimsy, we usually dismiss them as non-consistent/non-existent.

 

Making pronouncements without regard to any dissenting point of view or other contradiction. That would include repeating what you say without addressing points others bring up, or not backing up claims of fact with credible sources.

 

Let's compare:

 

Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

 

How did I do? And what is unclear about the statement of the rule?

 

The description, "someone who stands at a podium and preaches his idea", can be applied to most threads and posts on this forum; "and is ignorant of what others are saying", is more specific, the non-flimsy part of the rule. I think you'll find the flimsy part of the rule, paves the way for abuse of power through the moderators own ego and opinions. In cases where one person believes he/she is correct, and takes notice of someone's proof (which is usually not 100% true, and sometimes complete lies), but dismisses it as incorrect, the moderator can say, "you're soapboxing", because they were ignorant, for a reason other than being ignorant (in a useful way, to support one's belief further because one believes they have the correct answer even after the proof was shown). Then, the moderator looks righteous, but it's simply the flimsy definition that stood, which makes no sense really.

 

But that's not the entirety of the description. Additional context is given in the rule, quoted above.

[s1eep]

 

Making pronouncements without regard to any dissenting point of view or other contradiction. That would include repeating what you say without addressing points others bring up, or not backing up claims of fact with credible sources.

 

Let's compare:

 

 

How did I do? And what is unclear about the statement of the rule?

 

But that's not the entirety of the description. Additional context is given in the rule, quoted above.

Okay, then I am wrong.