Freedomain Radio

We started a conversation about determinism, and it was pointed out that this is not a welcome topic on FDR (EDIT: Thanks to Dave Bockman for the reminder).

I want to apologize for breaking the forum guidelines which I think are 100 % reasonable and necessary to keep the site civil and enjoyable. Your reasons for not wanting to see discussions about this topic on the boards are totally justified.

If I understand the policy correctly now, talking about Determinism is forbidden. So, I apologize for starting that thread insofar as that I should have read the forum policies more carefully.

If there is, indeed, a full ban on the topic of Determinism, then, for whatever it's worth, I cannot condone this decision. For me, banning any topic is absurd, offensive, unpleasant, and uncivil. I can't say for sure that this is a rational reaction rather than an emotional one, but it certainly feels that way.

I think there's a bit of confusion about this little affair, and I guess I need to clarify why I started this thread.

Determinism is a topic that I haven't discussed or thought about a lot, since it seems so patently ridiculous. That being said, my apology isn't about talking about determinism, it's about respect.

When it was pointed out that discussions about this topic are not "allowed", I went "Nah, they must be joking." Then I checked the House Rules and began to wonder why this was the case when it is a big topic in philosophical circles. I watched Stef's debate and read his notification about his weariness. This topic isn't forbidden or banned on FDR - it has simply been requested that this disruptive conversation be taken elsewhere. If Stef has been talking to people who will not listen for three years, his irritation is completely justified.

I apologized for this reason. I forgot the House Rules. I think this board is fantastic, the guidelines are fair, and it's my responsibility to follow them. I want to be a part of this conversation.

Consider FDR as a pub. It's private property. The owner is very jovial and active and friendly to his guests, and the house rules are reasonable. The owner has to deal with a lot of crap and his attitude is just amazing in this regard. Now and again, a drunken and disorderly customer walks in and starts picking fights, abusing the bartender and calling the owner names. The owner is perfectly within his rights to remove this customer and tell him to take his business somewhere else where this kind of behavior is tolerated.

The only person in the pub who can do whatever he pleases is the owner. If you are in his house, you stick by his rules. That's just common courtesy.

I have posted some passive aggressive posts here, and for those I apologized publicly. It is similar to sitting in a pub and listening to some stranger just start shouting about his personal issues for no reason. It is disruptive and irritating, and it brings no constructive content to any kind of discussion.

I sometimes get defensive about trolling and get carried away. But it doesn't really help if I start shouting at bad customers - I still make a lot of noise and my shouting bothers people at other tables, even if they agree with me.

I used to be addicted to arguing about stuff - it's the last remnant of passive aggression. If you love to watch a TV show because it sucks hard, you are passive aggressive (addicted to the thing that causes you irritation). The only way to break away from this pattern is to disengage.

hkw:

If I understand the policy correctly now, talking about Determinism is forbidden. So, I apologize for starting that thread insofar as that I should have read the forum policies more carefully.

If there is, indeed, a full ban on the topic of Determinism, then, for whatever it's worth, I cannot condone this decision. For me, banning any topic is absurd, offensive, unpleasant, and uncivil. I can't say for sure that this is a rational reaction rather than an emotional one, but it certainly feels that way.

Perhaps you could put the resources in to start your own philosophical board that allows it?

Can someone link me to the house rules? i though i've read them before but i cant find them!

I think it's also worth remembering that there have been literally dozens of long threads about determinism and multiple podcast debates.  If you're interested in the topic, it's worth reading and listening to these debates.

rpellow:

Can someone link me to the house rules? i though i've read them before but i cant find them!

Here you go:

http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/user/CreateUser.aspx?ReturnUrl=

hkw:

If I understand the policy correctly now, talking about Determinism is forbidden. So, I apologize for starting that thread insofar as that I should have read the forum policies more carefully.

If there is, indeed, a full ban on the topic of Determinism, then, for whatever it's worth, I cannot condone this decision. For me, banning any topic is absurd, offensive, unpleasant, and uncivil. I can't say for sure that this is a rational reaction rather than an emotional one, but it certainly feels that way.

I would wonder if there couldn't be a reasonable compromise.   What if off-topic conversations could simply be moved to an "off-topic" category in the Forums?  (Note:  would require moderators....)

This would allow people who missed previous conversations to pursue their muse while allowing others to simply ignore it.  And it would still allow Stefan to control the focus of his creation.   

Phil Crimmins:

Perhaps you could put the resources in to start your own philosophical board that allows it?

I certainly can! There is nothing coercive going on here. I only have a couple of friendly and humble thoughts on this.

1. How many dollars does it cost to allow people to conduct discussions on the boards, given that they already exists? I don't know, but I'm guessing it's only a few pence compared to the bandwidth that it takes to stream audio and video. (Of course, the audio and video are of much greater utility, so this is perhaps an unfair comparison.) I've never been a board moderator, but I don't quite understand the purpose of banning certain topics when posters are not particularly requiring to read or respond to those threads. I would not be surprised if there is a really great reason why it is unreasonable to simply skip over threads with the word "Determinism" in the title if you don't want to talk about Determinism, it just hasn't occurred to me yet.

2. I routinely hear Stefan state that it is critical to be so open-minded about your views as to be able to re-visit even your most treasured ones (while not questioning your methodology). So, while I completely understand why it would be tedious for anyone to repeat the same old arguments, banning a topic seems like it would also toss new and novel arguments on that topic to the wind. It's no great tragedy in my opinion that Determinism might be banned, but for the reason I just stated, a blanket ban on the topic does not seem to me to contribute positively toward "the greatest Philosophical conversation in history", and possibly even takes away from it. Given my fondness and respect for that conversation, I naturally feel anxiety about anything that I perceive to detract from it.

Frankly, I think Stefan is much smarter than I in matters of philosophy, so I readily admit that I may have simply missed out on the times when he swatted down these points and more, or simply failed to understand them.

We could, in the true capitalist tradition, outsource the discussion?

Here is an idea, if anyone from FDR does want to take part in any discussion about determinsm should meet on another forum, such as for example;

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/metaphysics/

people posting should put "FDR" in the title of there post to distinguish it from there regular posts.

This way people who are new, interested or still feel that they can put forward a good arguement for determinism have that oppertunity without disturbing the people who have discussed it ad nauseam.