Recent posts by Nokkenbuer on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / ram rahim +91-9694853595 love marriage problem solution babaji

Lol.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vaccines should be illegal

Lol. Why isn’t this shitposter banned yet? Is he just a guilty pleasure among the regulars?

cromagin2, when it’s a matter of public health and safety, the law and government has an obligation to ensure it is properly handled. Or should we start permitting parents to deny their children other potentially life-saving treatments simply because it’s their choice? There shouldn’t be an “opt-out” policy when it comes to public safety, only one for personal health among adults under specific circumstances, and only after fulfilling certain criteria (cf. DNR policies).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pledge of Mindfulness (Or BSG's last ditch effort)

I’m not sure if this thread was inspired by mine, or a thoughtful attempt separate from it, but I appreciate the attempt, BSG. Let’s just hope this thread doesn’t turn into the shit show that was mine, wherein the users proved the very points I tried to make. It’s rather disappointing when my satire turns out to be an accurate portrayal of events.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by cromagin2:

Don’t you think it’s wrong to use private email and private “PM’s” on the public forum? Those are private thoughts and feelings, is that not against the rules?

Of course it’s wrong, and there is an array of arguments to indicate as much. Some people don’t have the scruples or compunction to respect it, however, and find it more convenient, if not expedient, to utilize such information to their advantage. Oftentimes, however, it only reflects poorly on the individual and not the intended target. That’s assuming it’s even a true quotation and not taken out of context, of course. For all we know, people who do so could be fabricating it or embellishing, or taking the statements out of context to further their own agenda. Such is the misconduct of the misguided, however, and it shouldn’t come to be much of a surprise to those familiar with such kind.

Rarely is it ever justified or appropriate to share such information, and the PMs on a forum certainly don’t qualify except in the most extreme of circumstances. such as during an investigation by officials of the site (or law enforcement, of course).

My advice? Ignore and avoid them. Interacting with them only feeds their idiocy; they’re essentially trolls who believe that they’re saying. Don’t pay them heed, even if you must pay them respects.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Now, Nokken as OP may not have intended the thread to be about actual practical problems with SD but he also wanted to get banned so I’m kinda glad we made something productive come from this thread instead of essay-length meanderings.

Just to clarify, the purpose of my posting this was primarily as satire and to criticize this board for what I believe to be frivolous bickering, whining, and bitching, and to point out that much of the content of the threads here is no longer the sort one would expect and seek from a board purporting to be a haven of serious discussion. In case it wasn’t painfully obvious, many avoid this board for any other reason than to shitpost and troll precisely because hardly anyone respects it or trust its regulars to encourage a constructive and intellectually stimulating environment wherein people can discuss issues in a serious and rational manner. “Serious Discussion” has become a parody of itself and the only frequenters aside from the trolls are the regulars who are too busy bickering to fuck off and find a healthier forum for discourse.

I did, in fact, intend for this thread to spark debate, but I did not expect it to. Hence my foretelling near the end of the original post: I expected to be banned and to be silenced because I no longer have faith in this board or its moderation to adequately maintain a respectful community.

Originally posted by Kasic:
Now, Nokken as OP may not have intended the thread to be about actual practical problems with SD but he also wanted to get banned

This is something I don’t get. Why would he think posting this would get him banned?

I expected to be banned because my post was trollish, derisive, and provocative. It satisfies all the criteria for “trolling” and differs only in intent. Moreover, after seeing how many threads are locked without clear indication as to why, I saw little reason to believe my original post would be seen as anything more than the desperate attempt of a troll (as compared to the critical admonition that it was).


EDIT: I do admit that the post started out as a troll post, as could be deduced from the first paragraph (which, in my opinion, was a poor introduction to proper satire). After my first paragraph, which was intended to be the only paragraph, I decided that it would be pointless to shitpost since it didn’t really contribute to the board, and I’d therefore be hypocritical by contributing to the very problem I despised. So, I turned my post into satire. I probably should have rewritten the first paragraph, but I decided to leave it, if only to preserve my initial trolling intent.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

I feel like we’re getting way off-topic, and it may be best for us to end this digression into morality here.

Petesahooligan, feel free to PM me if you wish to continue this conversation (preferably just email me) or start a separate thread for us to migrate there. As vikaTae and others already pointed out, entertaining these hypotheticals are fairly pointless without input from the actual moderators of this forum. Keeping in mind the original post and direction of this thread, we’re wandering into philosophical discussions about general ethics and morality, and not about how this could pertain to the board in specific. As much as I’d like to continue, I don’t think it’s really wise to do so unless we redirect it back to the main topic exigent in this thread.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Well, let’s presume that we CAN measure morality. It doesn’t seem that out of reach. The challenge is not in the measurement but rather in the measurement against WHAT standard.

One might ask, “How many of the 10 Commandments have you broken this year?”

Christians may find this to be an acceptable evaluation while non-Christians may not.

[…]

As each person is different, (though maybe not as different as we would like to think), and each person is personally capable of having “good days and bad days,” the challenge doesn’t scale well when we start thinking about communities, much less nations. If people have “bad days,” I suppose nations can have “bad days” too.

Perhaps morality can be quantified and measured, but I’m not sure as to how this would manifest. You mention that there must be a standard whereby morality could be measured, and I think that’s quite obvious, but how would this standard be established in a manner that is not arbitrary or fallacious? That is my primary concern: unless the standard itself is adequately defined and qualified in a logical, beneficial, and philosophically virtuous way (the latter of which is still a matter of hot debate), I would consider it largely pointless or even counterproductive to attempt to measure morality by an arbitrary and structurally flawed standard of measurement. Relating to both the 10 Commandments (assuming we’re excluding the other 603 of the Torah) and the sort of normative ethical systems found in the “criminal class,” I would consider these moral systems to be founded on fundamentally flawed standards. They may work (“work” defined as achieving certain prescribed goals for a period of time), but I don’t believe this would imply that it is virtuous or good, and certainly not optimal, anymore than it would be for a society to be dictated by capital punishment for even the smallest of crimes.

Humanity certainly is dynamic and prone to lapses in moral conduct, but I think any truly universal and virtuous moral system would be able to address and adapt to these changes and instances without compromising on the structure as a whole. Although a standardization and generalization of morality can be beneficial aspects of the system, I don’t believe that precludes the ability for the system to make exceptions and operate differently depending upon the specific cases in which it applies (and doing so in such a way that it does not compromise on the integrity of the system). I am a major proponent of dynamic and adaptive systems when it comes to those which attempt to direct, define, or organize humanity. As I stated before, static systems fail because humans are not static components. In order for a universal moral system like the one I’ve described above to be truly universal, it must be capable of handling these changes in humanity on both individual and general levels.

Anyway, a universal moral system is primarily meant to systematize, standardize, codify, and organize a coherent and logical morality. It can be prescriptive, descriptive, and proscriptive, but that does not mean it fails when people fail to adhere to it. A moral system is meant to systematize conduct (among other things), but it does not necessarily take responsibility for the misconduct of its adherents, deliberate or not. People will undoubtedly misbehave and fail to respect the morals of the system, whether it be their own or society’s. The mark of an effective moral system is the ability to properly address and adapt to these instances. If it doesn’t, then that (in my opinion) indicates a flaw in the system itself.

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

The problem is, as vika pointed out, morality is ambiguous – each culture has its own morality, and even then it isn’t explicit. In some circles, adultery is a fairly acceptable thing, for instance, even if they’re of Christian background – so there goes the Ninth Commandment.

[…]

I guess, sadly, it all boils down to bureaucracy.

I agree with most of what you said, except that I believe morality isn’t so much ambiguous as it is vague. I understand what you mean, however,and if anything that just means that any effective moral system must necessarily be defined and unambiguous, both specific and general. The entire point of my recent posts on this digression from the main topic is precisely that: honor codes do not work unless they are enforced. Honor codes only operate effectively within certain moral stages, and even in those it is prone to abuse and negligence due to its unenforceability.

“Unwritten rules,” as far as I’m concerned, is an excuse for exploiting the system. Unless a rule is codified and clarified in some written and accessible capacity, I would not qualify it as a legitimate rule. “Unwritten rules” are those to which the corrupt, the abusive, the subversive, deceptive, and the inept appeal in any system in an attempt to redefine or reinterpret certain assumed aspects of the system, often with the purpose of somehow justifying their misconduct or invalidating the conduct of another. Unless the rule is written, no matter how obvious it may be, it is not a rule.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Also, a universal system of morality does not exist. So arguing that this universal system will do most of the work for us is pointless. Our brains are a product of evolution and upbringing. Nature and nurture. Every brain has slightly different genetics and a different upbringing. Every morality, as an emergent set of data in that brain is going to be slightly different. There are areas of overlap for the majority of systems in the current range of human moralities, but no overlap that comprises all systems.

I don’t really believe this is true. Although I can understand what you mean, I don’t think it’s impossible for a universal moral system like the one I’ve described above to exist. I don’t expect such a system to be perfect, per se, nor do I think that it will solve all of society’s woes. Yes, there will obviously be delinquents who resist and rebel, just as there will be critics who ridicule the system. I don’t think this reflects poorly on the system, though, only the individuals who refuse or fail to oblige. In the end, a Utopic universal moral system is impossible and I think it would be absurd to try and pretend like it could ever be realistically attained. However, I believe that a system could be developed which is a great improvement over the current ones, and which could effectively accomplish the goals it is intended to accomplish.

Any universal moral system must necessarily be dynamic and capable of change. Static systems never work because humanity and society are not static components. Any moral system which is rendered obsolete by the birth of a new generation or the differing upbringing of said generation is by definition not universal. Perhaps I’m not explaining myself well, but it appears that you don’t understand what I mean by “universal.”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Nokken: Do you have any ideas on how moral equivalency can be measured? It would stand to reason that if you had a test where two communities both tested equally on the “morality scale” then some intervening factor were introduced to one of them, the variance might suggest a process by which laws and policies could be measured in terms of morality.

One clear challenge in morality standards is that people generally view them in a dystopian fashion. The Western Hemisphere in particular find the idea of theocracies distasteful. Yet, for all our collective drum-beating for the merits of freedom and personal responsibility, we still have loads of victimless crimes being enforced. (Few politicians wish to be associated with the relaxation of pornography laws, for example.) I suppose it’s a matter of framing. We frame pornography as counter to our values as a nation, yet celebrate hypersexualized entertainment and advertising as a reflection of our virility. There are pitfalls throughout a universal moral code like this.

A universal moral code can apply to humanity, nation, region, community, and an individual. Yet, at any of these tiers it’s going to be measured as a bell curve. Within humanity there will be nations that are more or less “moral” than others, and within nations there will be regions that are more or less moral, and so on.

I have very high moral standards when it comes to social equity, and very lax moral standards when it comes to sexual politics. Want to walk around town with a huge dildo strapped to your head and offer free rides? Awesome. Want to only offer free rides to white people? Get the hell out of here.

I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking how morality can be quantified and measured? If so, then I’m not sure how to, if it even case. I consider morality to be something which can be qualified as compared to quantified—that it is measured in terms of the qualities inherent in the system rather than the quantity of “good” it can bring. If these qualities could be defined as individual components, I suppose a moral system could be measured by the quantity of its components, though this sounds like quite a haphazard attempt at quantifying something which may be intrinsically unquantifiable (at least, not in any meaningful way). With regard to the rest of your first paragraph, I don’t understand exactly what you mean, but I’ll try to respond.

If what you mean in the first paragraph is that if two societies could be determined equal in morality (assuming morality could be quantified and/or measured), and that a change in one or more variables in one could indicate where laws and regulations may be required (and this could be different in the other society, despite displaying the same moral characteristics); I’m not sure where I would disagree. I suppose I could point out that morality is a dynamic and shifting aspect of any individual, let alone a society, and therefore the moral state of any society at a given point is insufficient indication of its past or future moral state(s). Therefore, relying on the current moral state to determine where laws and regulations might be needed would ultimately fail to provide any substantial system, even if the laws and regulations adapt to changes in morality within that society. An effective system must be both universal and universally applicable, and thus any laws or regulations must be able to apply to every significant facet of the society to which it pertains. Otherwise, the system will itself be insufficient to adequately support any universal moral system, and thus fail to properly govern society.

The United States does not adhere to any universal moral code, and if anything it is more of an exemplar of a dysfunctional and discordant system comprising inconsistent and conflicting views, and vague ideals which shift meaning depending on the contexts in which they are invoked. The rather hypocritical views and moral bearings of pornography is just one of countless examples of how society, in particular that of the United States, is a haphazard system synthesizing disparate belief systems into an abominable whole.

A universal moral system like I described above would have to necessarily apply to all societies and demographics to rightly satisfy the criteria for universality. If it fails to adapt to shifts in society or excludes a certain type of society, it is therefore not universal.

cormagin2, I’m not sure how your post pertains to the discussion. It seems directed toward Pete, but it’s nevertheless rather empty rhetoric about the evils of pornography and its effects on society.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / PotUS' SotUA

I want to vote, and try to, but I don’t believe my vote usually counts, especially since I don’t really subscribe to the two-party system. I do not attend rallies, and I believe they are largely pointless or inefficient wastes of my time, though I’ve never personally attended one and can’t really comment on it from an informed, first-hand view. Likewise with local political meetings, such as city councils and assemblies, though I merit them as a bit more valuable. I do not trust that my opinion will be heard, though, because most people prefer conformity and not challenging consensus, whereas that is almost all I do. I sign online petitions and promote awareness or discussion on certain issues online, but I’m otherwise not involved in any sort of political activism.

I do not trust society, nor our culture, nor the political climate in the United States to respect or value my opinions unless they’re concise; easy to understand; consistent with the norms, mores, and customs of society; and don’t challenge convention or the system. For these reasons, among others, I usually distance myself from political or social activism except where noted above because I suspect my opinions and views will be disparaged, denigrated, and thoroughly ignored in favor of the stupidity and partisanship of the general populace.

To clarify, I identify as a Moderate Independent with progressive and liberal leanings. If I had to vote either Democrat or Republican (United States parties), I’d either vote Democrat or decline to vote altogether. I’m not interested in voting for the lesser of two evils, though if I had to choose I’d choose the least evil of the two. Most times, it would be the Democrats.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by cromagin2:

I have seen it personally. The USA does not really take drunk driving seriously. They say they do, but in reality they do not. I could cite countless news stories of OWI and DWI where people get caught the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, etc. time and they keep driving. They get insurance and their licences back. The laws have no teeth. Watch how quickly drunk driving goes away to miniscule levels if you make the law “One and you are done” meaning if you drive drunk 1 time and get caught and convicted, you lose the car OR the car you were borrowing from someone else. Do it twice, mandatory 2 year jail term. Americans respond well to severe punishments ( as do most people ) and you need to make it so severe no one in their right mind would ever drink and drive.
The stigma you say is there but it not as severe as other countries. For heavens sake they hold tailgating parties where people drink heavily and go to bars and drink heavily and then drive home. Parents in the USA hold underage drinking parties.
The very culture ( which is a lack of culture ) in the USA promotes irresponsible drinking behavior from an early age, unlike many European countries.

Perhaps I’m just ignorant about such events, then. From my experience, the culture of the United States (I believe there is a culture) is certainly in a deplorable state, and there are definitely many problems (such as the occurrences you cited above), but I remain unconvinced that this is a prevalent and predominant aspect. Generally, I notice people condemning drunk driving and those who participate in such activities are usually the ones who do not care nor heed nor respect those admonitions. Perhaps it’s a flaw in the culture, or of the society, or merely of its lowest common denominators. Whatever the case, I’m unsure that a strengthening of penalties for drunk driving would fix the issue. I’m not against it, per se, but I feel such sanctions should be more severe for repeated offenders, but not necessarily for first-time violators.

I definitely agree that drunk driving is a major issue and the penalties are insufficient for those who repeatedly disregard the laws against it; however, I’m concerned that if the severity of breaking those laws are increased in all areas, it may negatively and unfairly impact those who make a mistake for the first time as compared to those who deliberately break the law yet another time. In other words, if the penalties against drunk driving are increased, they should increase only for repeated offenders, not those who broke it for the first time. As for the latter, rehabilitation or instruction would be a preferable consequence to punitive measures.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / PotUS' SotUA

Excuse my cynicism, but with all due respect to the State of the Union Address, I no longer merit it as a worthwhile exposition of what is to come. The speeches are written by trained rhetoricians and the content of the message is generic, vague, and unsurprising. The topics discussed are largely the same as always and devoid of any substance; the emotional appeals and sentiments are tiresome and hollow; the demands are interesting but largely vacuous; and the speech as a whole gives me the impression that it was staged and insincere (which is at least half-true).

I agreed with some of the points, disagreed with others, and I’m unsure about still others. Overall, however, my criticism lies in the speech itself and not the points it addresses, since I find it difficult to believe much of what is said when so much of it is obscured by rhetorical appeals and ambiguity. There are some gems in the speech, but I’ve grown weary of having to sift through the shit to uncover the diamonds in the dirt.

President Obama requests bipartisanship and an active resistance to the cynicism that seems to have taken hold of the governing body. Perhaps it’s just me, but I find it ironic that the speech itself conflicted with these two very pleadings. Hypocrisy is not an admirable trait, and the possession of it by our leading admiral is a cause for concern.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by cromagin2:

Imagine how badly this would go over in the USA which prides itself on drunk driving and is not serious about it!

I don’t really think this is an accurate or fair assessment of the United States and its cultural attitude to drunk driving. Yes, drunk driving may be prioritized differently from other misconduct, but it is still a serious and punishable offense, and is a sensitive topic for many. There is also a cultural stigma surrounding drunk driving—namely, that is is irresponsible and reckless behavior which is not only illegal, but also potentially deadly. Some demographics of the population might disagree, but these demographics typically fall into the impetuous and impulsive categories of adolescents and young adults, the majority of whom only condone drunk driving due to ignorance of (or lack of consideration for) its consequences.

I don’t really know enough about drunk driving laws and penalties in Japan, nor do I sufficiently know enough about it in the United States, to really comment on the rest of what you said. I do think that your concluding statement is inaccurate, though.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Off Topic is below Average.

Off-Topic is a place to go when you want to shitpost and let off steam. It’s a place which caters to the children, the trolls, and the bored forum-goers who are seeking something to do. Comparing Serious Discussion to Off-Topic is like comparing a formal discussion among a committee of rational minds (see my analysis of this subforum for a better understanding of what I mean) with an informal party of people trying to chill after a long day of work: they are disparate entities which fulfill different functions and operate in conflicting ways with the aim of satisfying separate goals. I’d say you’re comparing apples to oranges, but clichés are so, well, cliché.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Well, THAT’S interesting. (From a quality control standpoint I love your response, Nokkenbuer.)

The summary of the summary of Kohlberg’s stages is:

1. Obedience and punishment orientation (how can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation (what’s in it for me?)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity (the good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (law and order morality)
5. Social contract orientation (greatest good for the greatest number)
6. Universal ethical principles (thorough altruism)

Enforcement from an authoritative source falls into the first level of moral development. It’s the kind of moral correction we expect from our parents and police.

(I didn’t know anything about this before a few minutes ago. Great food for thought.)

Well, more specifically, I believe a coherent, effective, and functional system of social organization and interaction would have to satisfy the views and desires of people from all stages of moral development. (Ironically enough, I would only trust individuals from the highest stage of moral development to adequately form such a system, the Curse of Knowledge aside.) In other words, a functional and universal moral-ethical-social system would have to satisfy all stages in order to rightly qualify as “universal.” It would have to be enforceable through rewards and punishments (Stage I); provide incentives and disincentives to encourage proper self-interested conduct (Stage II); reinforce positive and negative connotations to certain behaviors which can be socially favorable or damning (Stage III); operate compatibly (and preferably through) a governing body or bodies of sociocultural and political authority (Stage IV); structurally satisfy utilitarian and egalitarian aims of establishing a social contract wherein all constituents are valued in some meaningful capacity and operate for the mutual benefit of all parties (Stage V); satisfy the universal ethical principles discovered, assumed, or valued by humanity, such as reciprocal altruism, equal rights, and a multicultural toleration of potentially conflicting views and ideals (Stage VI); and, finally, it must be capable of withstanding a rigorous philosophical analysis and operate in a logical, consistent, and cogent way which fulfills the spiritual or transcendental concerns of humanity (Stage VII and beyond). Given that there is so much speculation surrounding stages of moral development beyond Stage VI, however, I think it’s safe to ignore them—at least, until they can be substantiated.

Given this criteria, one might find it surprising that effectively all current moral systems are structurally flawed and fail to universally apply in a manner consistent with the varying moral stages wherein different portions of the population reside. The closest I believe we as a species have ever gotten would be the complex and rigorous ethical system developed by Immanuel Kant, among perhaps a few others. Yet, even these systems are flawed because they are often based on the more advanced, post-conventional moral viewpoints and fail to satisfy or appeal to lower moral stages, frequently deeming them unworthy of consideration. They may be virtuous and ethical, and beautifully constructed, but they are also esoteric and arguably too advanced for a general populace. However moral they may be, they ultimately fail in terms of universality (and Kant would hate to be accused of that) because they fail to satisfy the moral stages of all constituents of humanity.

One could argue that this is the fault of humanity, the majority of which is too ignorant and primitive for such advanced systems, but this sort of elitism fails to actually address the problem. However stupid and misguided the plebs and proles may be, an effective system of conduct must universally apply to all demographics if it wishes to truly accomplish what it wishes to attain—presumably, a moral and virtuous society. (I’ll ignore amoral or antimoral—or “transmoral” or whatever you wish to call them—systems, such as Nietzsche’s, because they are more so systems which pertain more toward individual conduct and the exploitation of the structure of society as compared to replacing said structure.) In a similar respect, it would be quite idealistic and unreasonable to argue that society and its constituents should be improved and elevated to greater moral height in order to adequately match such advanced systems, for this approach again attempts to resolve the issue by fixing aspects of humanity which very well may never disappear. Any universal system of moral, ethical, and social behavior and conduct must be able to sufficiently support these wayward variables, as compared to exclude them under the excuse that they are unfit for the system. Doing so is counterproductive because it attempts to reshape the creators and creatures to fit the system rather than the system to fit its constituents.

Apologies for the rather long and wordy response, Pete. I find myself digressing a lot whenever I attempt to expound my views or elucidate my arguments. Feel free to skip what you think may be impertinent.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Does that mean that the reason people act honorably is because they are afraid of getting fined if they don’t?

I don’t really concur with cromagin2’s statements, but I’d say that honorable or virtuous conduct—or any conduct, for that matter—is typically only performed out of fear of punishment or incentive of reward, and rarely is right action rightly acted for its own sake (i.e., because it’s right). That’s why prescriptive laws and proscriptive regulations exist, why religions are so prevalent and powerful, why crimes are punished and good behavior is rewarded: without reason to perform an action, such as the promise of reward or threat of punishment for doing it or abstaining from doing it, most people are inclined to see the action as pointless or unworthy of being performed (or trivial and unworthy of being considered).

Drawing from Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (which I believe to be one of the few coherent systems of understanding morality), most people fall into conventional moral stages of development, and many remain there for the rest of their lives. Seldom do people surpass conventional morality, and those who do often struggle with whether to exercise their morality since much of advanced moral rationale is controversial. The few brave enough to uphold their post-conventional moral standards are typically shunned, disparaged, and denigrated for them. Post-conventional morality is viewed as unconventional morality; those who are post-conventional in their moral thinking are typically misunderstood by less advanced parties.

With the sort of “honor code” mentioned above, and in general any ethical or social code of conduct, it can really only operate effectively if it is enforceable and and there are consequences for following or failing to follow it. This is a requisite because it is a fundamental component of conventional moral views, and thus the majority (who are conventionally moral) will only respect and follow such a system if there is an established structure of enforceable rewards and/or punishments. As unfortunate as it may be, any coherent moral, ethical, or social system of conduct and behavior must possess an appended set of rewards and/or punishments in order to properly function among all demographics. Otherwise, it will more likely than not exclude or disenfranchise one or more parties—and that, in most cases, is terms for considering the system dysfunctional.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by cromagin2:

I have been on a lot of forums over the years and the number 1 reason why they fail and become crazy places is the lack of leadership from forum moderators. Frankly, some people are terrible moderators or have been a moderator for so long they have lost perspective. The 2nd reason is the moderator becoming too friendly with the users and thus favoritism, and the 3rd reason I have found is the moderator’s heart is not into his or her job anymore. That is why I have always been in favor of term limits for moderators so they do not get burnt out and ineffective.

I would volunteer to be a moderator, since I’m very objective and even if I disagree with something, I always refuse to abuse my power. The thing, though, is that I might not have enough time to moderate since I already do so elsewhere. Anyway, I doubt I’d qualify.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by JohannasGarden:

@Nokkenbuer—I apologize if I wasn’t clear enough in my first response that I really appreciate your post and this thread. My comments about you criticizing me and the other mods and disagreeing with many of your conclusions is actually my opinion, but I made the comment in a tongue in cheek way. My first response was a more formal way of saying, “OMG, I think you just called me a reactionary bitch who inhibits free discussion and you did it so well that I loved every moment of it!”—-So, seriously, I always thought it was great. I read the conclusion as something like “Is this really worth doing at all? No!” which I would disagree with, however, you got at some actual truths in each paragraph.

In addition, I think most of us appreciate intelligent humor, which was well exhibited there. And even though the ability think about things seriously and argue critically with others are positive traits, most of us who possess them would do well to laugh at ourselves more often.

Want to add a paragraph that takes on the tendency of some good threads to turn into the last couple of pages of this thread? ;-P

Don’t worry, I know you were just kidding. Also, sure, I’ll give it a shot. It’s not like I have anything else better to do. In fact, I’ll give you two (and a half):

What is it you seek in derailing threads and deriding all those who oppose you in all your eloquent etiquette, insatiable intellect, and formidable forethought? What is it that you aim to accomplish, seek to satisfy, or hope to have? Must you necessarily flaunt your aptitude for assholery, your predisposition to prejudice, and your emphasis on the emphatic emancipation of the ignorant proles and plebs through trolling and webbing your idiotic ideologies and ostentatious opinions for which no one asked, no one wanted, and no one cares? Do you not consider the karma of your kidding, the consequences of your con sequences, the repercussions of the incessant percussion that is your virtual voice? Or is it all irrelevant to you, wholly and indivisibly impertinent for one so elevated in status and superiority such as yourself to possibly, probably, or even potentially acquiesce to reluctantly step down from your lofty throne of thorns, to descend down into the deep darkness of the abysmally ignorant abyss that is humanity, and perhaps or perchance enlighten us in a way which does not employ eristics and a contentious lack of conscience?

Of course, because for you, by virtue of being you and only you, only you matter to you, and none other than you—not even not-you—could hope to attain the ambrosia with which you bathe yourself and your words in all your basking glory. It matters not and naught that your empty words fall on deaf ears, that those to whom you preach ignore most of what you espouse. Nay, you are more content leading the blind, for only you could truly perceive their wretchedness, being most clearly the one whose eyes could truly see. So good for you, and God help you, for surely none other than He walks among us and teaches us who wish not to be taught!

Arrogance is ignorance and folly is for fools, though you, O Leader of Men, know this all greater than any other. If not, how else could you exemplify such traits with such titillating perfection? After all, ’tis but an act, and you are the actor who shows us our fallacies by committing them all in turn. Thank you, and bless you, O Blessed One! For without you, one could not hope to discern between the logical and absurd. You allot the latter; now, we shall wait for the former to form.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Here’s mine. You’d probably like that webcomic too, Nokken.

Indeed I did. Thanks for sharing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I’m accustomed to having my opinions dismissed for one reason or another. It’s part of my upbringing—atypical Jewish family of intellectuals, rebellious punk-rock youth, liberal arts education, and a career (now) in community actions that many people are resistant to.

However, it’s only online that I find the kind of viciousness where people seem to actually want to HURT the people they disagree with. I was criticized for my views on pacifism, and criticized for my expression of those views, and criticized when I “recklessly exposed people around me to risk” by naively revealing personal information about myself.

Ah, so you’re a pacifistic, liberal, hippie Jew with a fetish for anarchy? That’s not something I see every day.

If it weren’t for my oath to not participate in SD in any major capacity, I’d stick around and try to discuss stuff with you because I believe we would agree (and disagree) on a lot of things. Feel free to email me if you’d ever like to talk about stuff.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

You know vika, this reminds me a lot of the time you thought karma was a pedophile because you misread one of his rants. Remember that? You should, he reminds you of it frequently.

People still use “pedophile” as an insult? I’m not particularly surprised, but I’d at least like to think we’ve moved past such idiocy, at least among the more informed demographics.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

I think that serious discussions on the internet are dumb.

The internet is purely for entertainment.

You wouldnt play Call of Duty to debate if unborn baby murder should be legal.

same goes for the internet

I disagree. I believe the Internet is the pristine surrogate (and sometimes improvement) of the classical agora, wherein people can discuss and interact on all varieties of topics and issues, both serious and lacking thereof. I find that the Internet has provided me with an outlet of expression which I very well might have not acquired elsewhere were it not available to me. Writing is the easiest and clearest way for me to express myself, and I strongly believe an argument online is infinitely better than one in-person due to all the resources one has available, such as citations and a wealth of information at my finger tips. Of course, the Internet necessarily deprives people of certain core mechanics of conversation, but I believe this is a worthwhile sacrifice, especially when the discourse is of a serious nature, wherein ideas are discussed and examined and not the people who voice them.

Casual conversation is better in-person. Logical, rigorous debate is better online. At least, that is my experience.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

I, for one, am glad that my thread stimulated some thoughtful and constructive debate as compared to simply shit flinging. I’m pleasantly surprised.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by vikaTae:

It’s a very different concept, supplying a person a full embodiment avatar with all their sensory apparatus and muscle control systems diverted through it, as contrasted to demanding they share full identity information with every conversation.

The former, does not require identity disclosure unless the person wishes it, and would be highly effective. The same as you don’t need to share full identity and address information to talk cordially to random strangers in the street, the supermarket, or the pub.

What you do need however, is that feeling of physical proximity, the ability to converse with the full spectra of conscious and unconscious signals at your brain’s command, and receive the same from them, in order to trigger most if not all of the long-evolved social bonding pathways our brains use.

Oh boy, Second Life VR for agora-style intellectual exchanges, here we come!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

I think another problem is also that some people just don’t want to understand what their adversaries want to convey. That, unfortunately, is a barrier you can’t really go around, because there is no-one waiting on the other side, so it’s pointless even if you do manage to go around it.

That’s why I refrain from participating in most discussions these days, whether it be on SD, or Google+, or elsewhere. It just seems futile in most circumstances, so I simply don’t participate.