So what's the deal with moderation?

Google

Web Adequacy.org

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 14

So what's the deal with moderation?

Author:

Topic:

Posted:

Feb 12, 2002

Comments:

Does moderation serve a purpose on this site, other than providing "that wuz kool" feedback? I've moderated up a few quality comments[1], so I'd like to know exactly what the effect is.

[1]elenchos will be surprised to learn some of them were his.

More diaries by jvance

	Bereft of Story Ideas
	It's Official: Zenith of Western Civilization Reached
	Movie Recommendation
	Bastards
	Myers Briggs Type Indicator
	All is Revealed

	Blah blah blah (none / 0) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 02:50:36 AM PST

	The only physical effect of moderation is on karm^H^H^H^Hmojo. Lots of 5s, you get to see the 0-rated comments. Lots of 0s, you get banned. There's nothing so wrong with giving Refutation the credit he deserves. My opinion of him has improved remarkably since he became a liberalist God-hater. An unreformed Aristotlean

	You just don't get it, do you? (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:34:27 AM PST

	The editor known as elenchos does not hate God. What's the point in hating an entirely imaginary entity? We can laugh at such things, sure, but hate them? Why bother? Also, I know what "liberalist" means, but I'm not sure you do. Keep trying. Hopefully, you'll start to understand if you stick with it long enough.

	Really? (none / 0) (#5)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 04:39:27 AM PST

	Then why do you proclaim your non-belief at every convenient and unconvenient opportunity? There are a million and a half things I don't believe in; for some reason, though, I don't have this uncontrollable urge to list them all to you. Why is that? Bonus points for the right answer. -- Peace and much love...

	Why do you hate courgettes? (none / 0) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:33:51 AM PST

	Top marks for the condescending tone, tkatchev. There's never going to be a single "right answer" for the age-old theological questions. But there's a lot of fun to be had in arguing them. In real life, only disturbed people go around evangelising at any opportunity. But the beauty of the internet is that it is not real life! As atheism is a definite belief in the non-existance of a god or gods, there are bound to be parallels with mainstream theism - like evangelism, or bigotry, or zealotry. BTW: Atheists can't actually hate God, for obvious reasons. I dunno, tkatchev, you can seem quite evangelistic at times. Perhaps the liberalist God-haters are actually angry at you. You could start labelling them "atkatchevists". An unreformed Aristotlean

	Good. (none / 0) (#18)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:02:45 AM PST

	You are making progress. You acknowledged that liberalism is just one of many religious ideologies that proliferate in our world. Also, I don't claim that every atheist hates God. I know that some atheists blithely go through life without noticing the obvious -- as a rule, they are pleasant, if somewhat simple-minded, people. However, some atheists are obviously very troubled individuals, with an obvious fear and loathing of God. These people know, at least subconsciously, that they are committing a grave mistake, but their adolescent rebelliousness drives them to continue to do stupid things. This is sort of a simpler, scaled-down version of satanism. -- Peace and much love...

	Why do you hate Slipknot? (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:50:03 AM PST

	You are making progress. You acknowledged that liberalism is just one of many religious ideologies that proliferate in our world. I agree - ferverant, religious belief in any particular ideology is a bad thing, as it blinds you to the merits of other ideologies. However, some atheists are obviously very troubled individuals, with an obvious fear and loathing of God. While I accept that there are troubled adolescents who simply want to be "anti-God", they sadly rule themselves out of true atheism by believing there is a god (or are gods) to hate. Their lack of sincerity is quite obvious. I have also met insincere Christians, but I am quite aware that they do not represent those who honestly believe in the Christian god. I know that some atheists blithely go through life without noticing the obvious May I remind you that the basis of religion is belief, not proof. This leads to circular logic - I would believe in gods if they obviously existed, but their existence is only obvious to a believer. It takes a leap of faith (thanks, nathan!) to cross to the opposite belief.

	Hello? (none / 0) (#26)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:56:08 AM PST

	You don't need to believe in something to hate it. For example, pretend that I was molested as a child by a man dressed as Santa Claus. I would probably grow up to have a fervent, irrational loathing of Santa Claus; that does not mean that I believe in him! Really, this is ridiculous. Why am I arguing such an obvious point? Hate, like faith, is a fundamentally irrational state of mind. Why do I have a feeling that you are purposefully trying to sidetrack me with idiotic arguments? Or are you honestly that dumb? -- Peace and much love...

	Why do you hate love? (none / 0) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:13:15 AM PST

	You don't need to believe in something to hate it. I disagree. If you want, you can hate other people's belief in something and lie to yourself by saying you hate the thing that the other people believe in. But that's just projection. You can't hate things that don't exist! "I really hate mauve morolians! If they actually existed, I'd be really really angry!" For example, pretend that I was molested as a child by a man dressed as Santa Claus. I would probably grow up to have a fervent, irrational loathing of Santa Claus; that does not mean that I believe in him! So, you actually hate being molested, and the symbolism of Santa reminds you being molested. So you're projecting again. Hate, like faith, is a fundamentally irrational state of mind. You say that like it's a bad thing! Love is also irrational. Wasn't Refutation telling you about this recently?

	Whatever. (none / 0) (#31)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:21:34 AM PST

	Look, does it matter whether you hate "the actual thing" or whether you hate "the projection of the thing"? Like I said, hate is a fundamentally irrational state of mind. As far as hate is concerned, there is no "exists" or "doesn't exist". Either you hate something, or you don't. Whether that thing "really" exists is a moot question. -- Peace and much love...

	Why do you hate atheists? (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:58:50 AM PST

	Look, does it matter whether you hate "the actual thing" or whether you hate "the projection of the thing"? It matters to psychologists. It matters to yourself, if you want to rid yourself of the hate. In any case, you hate both, as that's what projection is. From your other posts, it seems you have a projected hatred of atheism. Like I said, hate is a fundamentally irrational state of mind. And like I said, to be an atheist requires sincere belief. If you wanted to hate god(s), even irrationally, you'd have to throw your sincere beliefs (or 'liberalist dogmas' if you prefer) out of the window. Why would you do that? As far as hate is concerned, there is no "exists" or "doesn't exist". Either you hate something, or you don't. As I said, you can lie to yourself all you want. Whether that thing "really" exists is a moot question. Why have you put quote marks around 'really'? Are you trying to suggest there are things that exist, but don't 'really' exist? Oh no, the liberalist word tricks have infected me! Aargh! Oh no!

	Moron. (none / 0) (#45)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:22:17 PM PST

	I'll repeat my point for a third time, since you have problems with reading comprehension. Hate is an irrational state of mind. (See, nice bold type for those who have problems reading.) In fact, I'll repeat it again: Hate is an irrational state of mind. (Hope you don't miss it this time...) There is no logic in hate. You can hate something even if you know that it doesn't exist. Look at any phobia, for example. Just because you suddenly realized that something doesn't exist doesn't mean you suddenly stop hating it. Hate is an irrational state of mind -- logic doesn't play any role in hate. You sincerely believe that something doesn't exist and yet fervently hate it at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive, because hate is an irrational state of mind. Hope you don't miss my point this time around; god knows I've repeated it enough times. -- Peace and much love...

	If you wanted to say "I think atheists are ma (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:37:05 PM PST

	...then you should have just said it. You're trying to say people can think rationally (in order to sincerely believe) and irrationally (in order to hate) about the same entity at the same time. If they can, then they are mad. For your information, people can have phobias of real things, or imaginary things they believe are real. People don't fear things they also believe do not exist.

	That's not how the real world works. (none / 0) (#51)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:53:44 PM PST

	As a rule[1], people who have phobias know perfectly well that their phobias are silly. They just cannot do anything about it because their fear is irrational. The same holds for hate. You see, hate and fear are instinctive, animalistic emotions. They are triggered from brain centers that are completely uncorrelated with logic or rationality. Which is why little children are afraid of the dark and of scary movies. The kids know that these things are harmless in reality; nonetheless, they cannot control their emotions because these emotions are based on ancient, instinctive signals. One of two: either you are truly stupid, or you have never experienced true fear or hate in your life. I'm opting for the second choice -- from the looks of it, you are a pandered, spoiled white upper-middle-class suburban American teenager. [1] This does not hold for those who have chemical imbalances, i.e. schizophrenia. -- Peace and much love...

	Evilution. (none / 0) (#54)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 01:29:15 PM PST

	Which is why little children are afraid of the dark and of scary movies. The kids know that these things are harmless in reality; nonetheless, they cannot control their emotions because these emotions are based on ancient, instinctive signals. Yes yes. We have evolution to thank for that. Until youngsters are old enough to fend for themselves, they are best to stay with the safety of their parents. The best mechanism is to make them fear anywhere away from their parents. "Those who are not afraid of monsters tend not to leave descendents". Of course, for the sake of societal issues, we now keep children in seperate rooms from the parents, and they're still safe, so this behaviour will be unlearned in the future. But anyway, my point. Children fear the monsters because a mechanism in their brain overrides any rationalism they have and damn well makes the monsters real. It doesn't matter that the monsters don't really exist - they believe they do at the time they are fearing them. The fear itself drives their existance. So, again, you can't rationally believe something doesn't exist at the same time as fearing it. I'm fascinated to know why you think hatred is instinctive.

	really? (none / 0) (#59)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:15:40 PM PST

	We have evolution to thank for that. Until youngsters are old enough to fend for themselves, they are best to stay with the safety of their parents. Honest question: what does evolution NOT "explain"?

	A honest answer (none / 0) (#71)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:19:28 AM PST

	Honest question: what does evolution NOT "explain"? It doesn't explain much outside biology, behaviour and fossils.

	it explains behavior? (none / 0) (#78)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 04:39:18 AM PST

	I can explain behavior, too, for what it's worth; but not unlike evolution, I cannot confidently predict behavior with any degree of confidence. It is Intelligent Design for scientificists.

	Do you have a point to make? (none / 0) (#70)
	by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 12:39:21 AM PST

	I take it you agree with what I said. If I misread your argument, please repost and state your argument clearly and unambigiously. I have no idea what you were trying to say here. -- Peace and much love...

	It's not difficult. (none / 0) (#72)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:22:06 AM PST

	If I misread your argument, please repost and state your argument clearly and unambigiously. Well-balanced individuals cannot irrationally fear something at the same time as rationally believing it doesn't exist.

	That is simply untrue. (none / 0) (#74)
	by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:47:06 AM PST

	Lord help me. You are a moron. That is simply untrue. Are you telling me that if you find out that something is untrue, you all of a sudden stop fearing it? That's just false. That is not how the world works. If you do not understand what I am saying, you are simply stupid. (Or trolling.) -- Peace and much love...

	Your reading comprehension fails you (none / 0) (#76)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 04:23:26 AM PST

	That is simply untrue. Are you telling me that if you find out that something is untrue, you all of a sudden stop fearing it? Where did you get that from? That is not what I said. I agree with you that what you have stated is untrue. You can rationally, sincerely believe something does not exist. This has nothing to believing something is true or untrue. However, if you fear something, your fear will make that something seem real to you. You cannot rationally believe that something does not exist while you are paralysed by the fear of it. So, as already explained at length, children can quite easily look under their bed in the daytime, find no monsters, and conclude that there are not monsters under their bed. But during the terror of the night, they could not possibly look under their bed to confirm their bold daytime assertion as the monsters would get them! As it happens, confronting your fears is a well known psychological method. This is usually how people are cured of phobias. But it does not work, as you state, "all of a sudden". I get the feeling you're being deliberately obtuse.

	Confronting your fears. (none / 0) (#82)
	by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 06:44:57 AM PST

	"Confronting your fears" has nothing to do with logic or rationality. The point of the method is not to "prove" to yourself that your fears are unfounded, (because you already know that[1]) rather the point is to empirically show that your fears are harmless. I can be afraid of something that doesn't exist; I cannot be afraid of something that I can easily overcome. [1] Unless you have some sort of physiological illness, of course. -- Peace and much love...

	We're getting somewhere. (none / 0) (#86)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 08:16:32 AM PST

	"Confronting your fears" has nothing to do with logic or rationality. The point of the method is not to "prove" to yourself that your fears are unfounded, (because you already know that[1]) rather the point is to empirically show that your fears are harmless. This sounds about right, although I think it's more about teaching yourself not to be affected by whatever it is you fear. From there, you can work on reducing your actual fear, now that it doesn't affect your behaviour. I can be afraid of something that doesn't exist I don't think that was in question. It was more that your fear made the non-existant thing seem real (to you). I cannot be afraid of something that I can easily overcome. Well, maybe you can't, but please feel for people who are afraid of (highly threatening) showers.

	Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! (none / 0) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:18:32 AM PST

	There are a million and a half things I don't believe in; for some reason, though, I don't have this uncontrollable urge to list them all to you. Why is that? Maybe it's because of that list of a million and a half things, there is only one item that is so consistently forced into areas of public discourse where it clearly does not belong, only one item where a person and his/her family may be threatened, harmed, or killed for not believing the exact same things that another person or group believes about that item, one item whose followers range from the benign to the criminally insane. I mean, when was the last time you had people on your front porch bleating about how great leprechauns are, and when was the last time some moron called you on the phone asking for donations for the Loch Ness Monster?

	Actually... (none / 0) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:27:53 AM PST

	when was the last time some moron called you on the phone asking for donations for the Loch Ness Monster? When you ignore your council tax reminders sent through the mail, Inverness council will phone you up.

	you are so right (none / 0) (#10)
	by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:35:21 AM PST

	As you don't believe in God, I'm going to threaten, harm, and kill your family. Say, you wouldn't happen to be a member of a minority ethnic group as well? Two birds with one stone... Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Think globally (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:32:12 AM PST

	It's not just the United States, and it's not just violence against people who don't believe in any gods. It's all of the violence between people who don't quite believe exactly the same things about their particular god(s) and their teachings. I don't know if it would even be possible to quantify the number of religiously-inspired murders that occur each year on a global basis. It would be a rather formidable task. The Middle East alone would be a nightmare; think of how much better it would be if those people would just sit down and realize that there are no Allahs or Yahwehs, no "divine rights" to any particular piece of land, and no rational reason not to lay down their arms and stop killing each other for having been born into the "wrong culture." Having said that, the US is not immune to this sort of violence. Take the recent case of Christian terrorism in Montana where theists firebombed the house of a lesbian couple with a young child (all three of which narrowly escaped with their lives.) I personally have gotten threatening e-mails and even phone calls to my home as a result of debates with theists. I'll say the same thing now that I said then: if you (and I don't mean you personally) come after me and my family, you'd damn well better get me on the first shot because I can guarantee that you won't have time for a second.

	Right. (none / 0) (#23)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:48:59 AM PST

	So, the enlightened atheists never killed anyone for disbelieving in their perverted liberalist dogma? For God's sake, read some history! The millions of people who died in the Gulag would be really happy to know that their suffering never really happened. You disgust me. Utterly. -- Peace and much love...

	Swings and roundabouts. (none / 0) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:58:38 AM PST

	So, the enlightened atheists never killed anyone for disbelieving in their perverted liberalist dogma? I have always been of the opinion that wars are conducted for the sake of power and control, not for religious belief. Perhaps I'm cynical. Religion does play a part in some conflicts, though - it's an effective way into dividing people into Them and Us, which is the first step to tyranny. This is entirely arbitrary - for example, look at the Christians fighting against, er, Christians in Ulster.

	Exactly. (none / 0) (#34)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:27:51 AM PST

	Which is why it's ridiculous to propose that atheism will solve all strife. You know, it has been tried before. We ended up with one of the most cynical and cruel genocides in history. -- Peace and much love...

	Trouble and strife (none / 0) (#41)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:09:41 PM PST

	Which is why it's ridiculous to propose that atheism will solve all strife. Yes. Atheism is basically another kind of faith, and declaring that everyone must become atheists is identical to saying everyone must become Christian, or saying everyone must be Islamic. There are two ways to avoid megalomanics exploiting our differences to create division: Everyone can be identical to everyone else. Same religion, same sex, same skin colour, same political allegiance, everything. This would involve a little eugenics if we were to start now. People can be different from one another, but nobody would be so closed-minded to label people by their differences. Unfortunately, neither solution is feasible, which is why we'll be stuck with wars and hatred and terrorism for the forseeable future.

	Correct (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:21:02 AM PST

	So, the enlightened atheists never killed anyone for disbelieving in their perverted liberalist dogma? This is essentially correct. The millions of people who died in the Gulag would be really happy to know that their suffering never really happened. You know, for an (ostensibly) intelligent individual you can be quite dense at time. Are you suggesting that Stalin stood up and said "I propose that we murder all these people in the name of .. uh .. in the name of there not being any gods." All of those people died at the hands of a brutal Communist despot, and if you think that has anything whatsoever to do with "enlightened atheism", then perhaps you ought to have a chat with the folks at the Ayn Rand Institute. On the other hand, I am quite sure that the participants in the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the afore-mentioned Montana firebombing were completely convinced that they were doing "the Lord's work." If this distinction is not meaningful to you then I do not believe that there is anything further to be discussed.

	Lord help me... (none / 0) (#33)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:25:43 AM PST

	Are you suggesting that Stalin stood up and said "I propose that we murder all these people in the name of .. uh .. in the name of there not being any gods." Yes. That is exactly what he said, in almost these exact words. READ SOME FUCKING HISTORY. You are very offensive to me. You know, half of my family on both sides has been wiped out because of people like you. I repeat, you are acting very crude. I personally know people who have been tortured and killed in the name of atheism. -- Peace and much love...

	Yet ANOTHER one who cannot .. (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:48:49 AM PST

	.. differentiate between atheism and Communism. Bah. What is it about this that is so difficult to understand? Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. That's all that it is. It does not imply any political, economic, or social policies, and it certainly does not give any justification to murder millions of people. Stalin was an atheist, but he was first and foremost a brutal Communist monster, and it is in that context that he perpetrated his atrocities. Your blaming his actions on atheism in general is a ridiculous and monstrous straw man. To put it another way, you may as well accuse the actor Tom Selleck of mass murder because he, like Stalin, wore a moustache. I am an Objectivist, and as such, I follow the teachings of Ayn Rand. Part of these teachings is that Communism and Theism are sicknesses that share a large number of common symptons: blind zealotry, violent opposition to differing views, brutal censorship, and collectivism. I believe that Communism is a greater sickness than Theism, but little good can come from either. I believe that a person's potential is greatest when he is freed from all the shackles that bind him. First and foremost are the shackles of meddlesome, interventionist governments, but religious shackles are high on the list as well. I don't mean to offend you, but it seems that it is only in your mind that these offenses exist. I despise the tactics of Stalin and his murderous thugs, and it is offensive to me that you would suggest otherwise.

	Ayn FUCKING Rand (none / 0) (#39)
	by nx01 on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:01:02 PM PST

	I thought I smelled her. Frankly, "Objectivism" (which is really just a bastard, unloved stepchild of ethical egoism) is an extremely silly philosophy. What makes you so important? If you cannot answer that, then your philosophy is an arbitrary docterine with no meaning, in the same way that racism is arbitrary. It was put this way by a professor I once knew: Any moral doctrine that assigns greater importance to the interests of one group than to those of another is unacceptably arbitrary unless there is some difference between the members of the groups that justifies treating them differently. Objectivism would have each person assign greater importance to his or her own interests than to the interests of others. But there is no general difference between oneself and others, to which each person can appeal, that justifies this difference in treatment. Therefore, objectivism is unacceptably arbitrary. Frankly, you really should look into finding a better philosopher. I would suggest Jesus Christ. Or, if you must keep to your aspiritual views, I'd suggest examining Hume, Kant, Sartre or some other decent, logically based philosopher. (yes, i am reposting this. good of you to notice.) "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it." -- James Gosling

	I just love Rand... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
	by jvance on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:14:59 PM PST

	Especially the part in The Virtue of Selfishness where she equates work (shuffling papers at a desk) with Work (F x d) and from that constructs one of her basic tenets: the importance of work. Any philosophy that's based on a homonym has my vote. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	interesting. (none / 0) (#57)
	by derek3000 on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 02:01:11 PM PST

	What makes you so important? What makes you more important than me? Any moral doctrine that assigns greater importance to the interests of one group than to those of another is unacceptably arbitrary unless there is some difference between the members of the groups that justifies treating them differently. So throw out every system we've ever tried to govern ourselves by. Maybe you disagree, but justification is subjective, no? And some people would have to make these subjective decisions, right? What do we have left? Or did you think that I was too stupid to see that you're trying to set us up for religion? Either you're a believer, or not. Do the rest of us a favor and let us discover God on our own. People appreciate things much more when they have to work for them. I'm agnostic, thanks. Atheism and (Xianism, Judaism, etc.) require the same leaps of faith that I am not ready to take, as we have discussed in this forum too many times. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	an end to "Xianism" (none / 0) (#65)
	by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 04:35:53 PM PST

	Is it really so hard to type "Christianity?" Nathan PS - Remember, agnosticism is more than just suspending judgement. "A-gnosis" is a construction meaning something like "someone who denies the possibility of mystical knowledge." That is, agnosticism is a positive statement in its own right. -N -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	hey! (none / 0) (#83)
	by derek3000 on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 06:46:10 AM PST

	Is it really so hard to type "Christianity?" Can't you let me be pretentious, just once? I never do it. Wait, before I forget: USian. Now I promise to never do it again. PS - Remember, agnosticism is more than just suspending judgement. "A-gnosis" is a construction meaning something like "someone who denies the possibility of mystical knowledge." That is, agnosticism is a positive statement in its own right. Acknowleged. Anyway, something that should make you happy: "a sympathetic antipathy and an antipathetic sympathy." All I can say is wow. In a good way. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Thanks (none / 0) (#94)
	by jvance on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 01:06:53 PM PST

	for reminding me why I started hanging around here. <p> Now a curveball. Is it possible to believe in God and still be an agnostic? </p> jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	off the cuff, (none / 0) (#95)
	by nathan on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 01:24:35 PM PST

	I'd say yes for a Deist, no for a Theist. In my own opinion Deism is not all that philosophically tenable, because, as its God is impersonal and unknowable, its God is not particularly relevant to the human conditiom. Theism holds my interest more. The idea that men are made in the image of God describes humanity much more plausibly, in my opinion. Want me to launch a new diary entry on this topic? The 24-hour margin has nearly elapsed. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	crosstalk (5.00 / 1) (#67)
	by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:50:48 PM PST

	Objectivism is, funnily enough, a radically subjective philosophical system. The evidence of this is precisely that it takes the internality of the individual as the ambit of morality. There is no "right" thing for the individual to do; so long as he is serving his (enlightened) self-interest, he is doing the right thing, by definition. Of course, Objectivism reassures us, the individual's enlightened self-interest excludes act that limit the self, such as robbery. This makes sense in the context of enlightened self-interest because a robber doesn't create or discover anything. More generally, criminals are hurting themselves as well as others, and the reason not to be one is out of concern for yourself. Nonetheless, Objectivism is far closer to existentialism than it appears at first blush (or that, God knows, Rand would ever have admitted or even allowed to be said.) If we take it for granted that the atomic individual has the right to his own essential desires (his "nature",)[1] there can be no objective right or wrong in the world other than the fulfillment of one's own nature. (It's not important for this discussion whether this means expanding the self to some greater limits that are nonetheless inherent within its nature, or else fulfilling it within the nature it has now as it stands.) Getting back down to earth: "What makes you so important?" means "Why are you in particular a moral pivot point?" Why must any particular individual have relevance in developing a system of morality that could conceivably be applied to any human being? Contrariwise, "What makes you more important than me?" means "Why should any person subordinate his nature to some imposed system, so long as he's not an intolerable menace to other peoples' essential rights, such as security of the person?" [1] If we don't in fact, take it as given that every person has a right to his own nature, then there exists at least one supreme nature to which people must attempt to conform in order to be considered moral. I hope this muddies the waters all up. Glad to oblige. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I'm not blaming anyone. (none / 0) (#42)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:10:08 PM PST

	I'll keep it simple, since you seem to have the brain of a fucking mushroom: You said that atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity. That statement lead you to conclude that atheism is better because there have been no atrocities committed in the name of atheism. I pointed out that, yes, indeed atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism. The soviet persecution done in the name of atheism is several orders of magnitide more horrible than anthing done in the name of Christianity. What is so hard to understand here? Look, I don't care whether or not atheism is at fault for these atrocities. What matters is that people who committed these horrible acts did so in the name of atheism. They said so themselves; in fact, they were quite proud that they killed, tortured, and maimed in the name of atheism. -- Peace and much love...

	RE:I'm not blaming anyone. (none / 0) (#46)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:26:34 PM PST

	I'll keep it simple, since you seem to have the brain of a fucking mushroom: Since (s)he's an Objectivist, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.

	The fallacy of guilt by association (none / 0) (#49)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:40:38 PM PST

	What matters is that people who committed these horrible acts did so in the name of atheism. They said so themselves; in fact, they were quite proud that they killed, tortured, and maimed in the name of atheism. I'm going to go kill some people in the name of Barney the Dinosaur so people will associate him with evil.

	little dude (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:29:36 PM PST

	try to understand the meaning of your argument. christians were killed in the soviet union for believing in god. "atheists" were killed by christians for not believing in god. Therefore christians are bad (because they've kill "atheists") but atheists are not (because they've kill christians)?! you really dont see the flaws in your thinking, do you? hint: the only accurate generalization one can make is objectivists are fucking morons.

	This is outrageous. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
	by elenchos on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:09:26 PM PST

	Your vile insults against atheists are deeply offensive to me. In a truly civilized society, your hate speech would be banned. I personally know many athiests who will forever bear the scars of your cruel attacks. Additionally, I feel the need to mention that "READ SOME FUCKING HISTORY" is not an argument, and saying this does not lend authority to your postition. I would hope that no one would change his or her beliefs simply because some guy said "READ SOME FUCKING HISTORY" to him -- even if it was in all caps. Even if it were in all caps and bold type, it still would lack the minimal elements needed to form a persuasive argument. It leaves out objective facts, and leaves out any proposed points of agreement. Lacking these as a basis, the statement "READ SOME FUCKING HISTORY" does not allow you or any of us to find a conclusion supported by the points. I will grant that you were gallant in providing a decent amount of whitespace surrounding "READ SOME FUCKING HISTORY", but I must say, it is just not enough. There are some things even whitespace cannot help. By the way, finally, I think Stalin's God was Communism, and he killed in the name of the Communist Ideal. Like the September 11 terrorists, and you, Stalin thought he had a special relationship with "the absolute" and because others lacked this special relationship -- and even failed to acknowlege it -- their lives were devalued, to the point that they could be killed on a massive scale. I think you are obsessed with Stalin's atheism because it allows you to avoid noticing the similarities between your own inability to grant those who disagree with you even the most minimal consideration, and Stalin's disregard for the rights of his enemies. You call your own cherished beliefs "obvious", meaning they need no justification. Ergo, anyone who disagrees is guilty of willfully denying the "obvious" and so deserves whatever they get: the gulag, death in an inferno, or your, equally violent, terroristic hate flames on the web. We live in dark times, ruled by the fevered delusions of Central Asian fanatics, and I fear you are winning. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	My, my... (none / 0) (#43)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:14:49 PM PST

	You know, for an atheist, you seem to have a very horrible and personal fear of damnation. Why is that? If you don't believe in hell, why should you care that sombody is consigning you to an imaginary place? Notice that I never advocated any sort of persecution against your person. The most I ever did was rightfully point out that you are going to hell after death. Why does that bother you so much? -- Peace and much love...

	Hell sounds pretty cool, actually. (none / 0) (#52)
	by elenchos on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 01:05:33 PM PST

	I bet Ozzy Osbourne does the music. Heh... no, it's probably more like Dante has it, which is still pretty cool. Cooler than seven times seven stupid virgins, for example. That's so frat boyish. Anyway, no, I don't fear your imaginary hell. I do fear getting assaulted, shot, blown up, crushed, stoned, immolated, tortured, exiled, censored, and flamed on the web by fanatics who think they and they alone know the One True Shining Path. Or whatever you call it. I fear these fanatics because they are dangerous, in the same way I fear crackhead gangsters. They kill people to get what they want. That doesn't mean that I think that not smoking crack will solve all the world's problems, or that all non-crack smokers are perfect. I'm sure you can show me a non-crack smoker who is evil. Fair enough. But I still have good reason to fear crackheads. And Godists. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	You poor, poor man... (none / 0) (#53)
	by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 01:26:08 PM PST

	I so feel for all the persecution you must suffer from the hands of Christians. Tell me, do you get assaulted, crushed, shot, blown up, stoned, immolated, tortured and exiled often? It must be very difficult for you. Really. I'm so sorry you must suffer such incredible hardship at the hands of Christians! Take care. I hope your personal safety isn't in any danger! You can never tell with the amount of anti-atheist hate killings occuring daily in our society. -- Peace and much love...

	Take pity on him! (none / 0) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 01:32:25 PM PST

	Refutation attends a Catholic school and they all know he's pro-abortion. You can just hear the guns cocking.

	You think it's a joke? (none / 0) (#58)
	by elenchos on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 02:56:47 PM PST

	Where do you think these nutjobs get their inspriation and their moral justification? My name isn't exactly on any anti-abortion hit list, but I take no comfort from that. It is enough to scare me to get a couple email threats, combined with seeing headlines of another doctor shot in the back, or another homosexual or African American lynched, or even 3,000 people murdered merely for not being in thrall to some theocractic maniac. The only reason the Aryan Nations isn't an immediate threat just across the Idaho border is because of the courage of people like Morris Dees who take them seriously enough to do something in response to the burning crosses and the death threats. These are the same violent terrorists who have tried to silence Adequacy.org, defenders of freedom. Your welcome, by the way. Maybe you can be smug, but I can hrear the guns cocking! Look, you've made me spoil my whitespace... I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Attn: Tkatchev (none / 0) (#89)
	by derek3000 on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 08:45:27 AM PST

	You call your own cherished beliefs "obvious", meaning they need no justification. Ergo, anyone who disagrees is guilty of willfully denying the "obvious" and so deserves whatever they get: the gulag, death in an inferno, or your, equally violent, terroristic hate flames on the web. Elenchos isn't the only one who interperets your posts this way--I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but this does seem to reflect at least some of your posts. While you make good points, you often re-state yours and call them 'obvious.' This is an argument of sorts--as long as you're talking to a brick wall. Also, it disappoints me to see you write like this when you said something very insightful about people a while ago that really made me think. I guess I keep forgetting that people aren't perfect, so maybe I'm being unreasonable. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	It may surprise you... (none / 0) (#91)
	by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 12:25:28 PM PST

	...but I have absolutely no intention of arguing with or evangelizing anybody. All I want is for people to realize that there are views on life that are radically different from their own. Most liberalists believe in some strange concept of "universal humanity", when in fact most people adhere to a very different viewpoint on what makes life worth living. -- Peace and much love...

	Agreement, with modification (none / 0) (#93)
	by jvance on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 12:53:09 PM PST

	All I want is for people to realize that there are views on life that are radically different from their own. Most liberalists believe in some strange concept of "universal humanity", when in fact most people adhere to a very different viewpoint on what makes life worth living. Make that last phrase "when in fact most people adhere to very different viewpoints on what makes life worth living" and we are in total agreement jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	I'm not so sure... (none / 0) (#98)
	by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 02:07:04 PM PST

	The vast majority of these weblogs are populated by people who subscribe to some sort of wacky humanist-universalist-rationalist viewpoint. I call this ideology "liberalism", for short. In fact, this ideology is so pervasive that most liberalists honestly think that it is something universal to all people; those who don't fit in this liberalist mold must necessarily be not quite right in the head, with a "logic deficiency". -- Peace and much love...

	Ok. (none / 0) (#96)
	by derek3000 on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 01:32:21 PM PST

	...but I have absolutely no intention of arguing with or evangelizing anybody. Fair enough; just understand that when you flame people, it doesn't come across that way at all. You have a good command of rhetoric, and I mean that in the bad way and the good way. All I want is for people to realize that there are views on life that are radically different from their own. Your point about expressing a different view is well taken--I'm beginning to understand what you mean about logic and proof. But I could envision a typical tkatchev response as saying something to the effect that I should have already understood that. You say these things as if it's a matter of reading comprehension--it's not. It's the idea that you shouldn't take everyone at their word, especially those who you know only through this impersonal medium. If you're frustrated with peoples reluctance to consider your views, understand that you display the same behavior. You act as if we should accept your posts as Truth. I'd like to think you know better than that. Something nice I found today: "Most people are subjective toward themselves and objective toward all others, frightfully objective sometimes--but the task is precisely to be objective toward oneself and subjective toward all others." Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love Take it for what it's worth. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Hey... (none / 0) (#97)
	by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 02:03:54 PM PST

	Nothing personal... :) -- Peace and much love...

	Just like... (none / 0) (#99)
	by derek3000 on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 04:26:06 PM PST

	a russian bastard to be all about disarmament. ;) ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	Simple. (none / 0) (#79)
	by derek3000 on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:30:33 AM PST

	Well, then atheists could say the same thing you say when people attack Christians for the Crusades--'they weren't real atheists, they don't really represent what we stand for'. Wow, that was easy. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	See my previous comment (none / 0) (#80)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:50:20 AM PST

	religious wars are political, not religious

	Of course. I forgot. (none / 0) (#15)
	by nx01 on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 09:08:59 AM PST

	The poor, opressed athiest. Oh, to be as happy, as blissful, to live such a life of ease as the religious! But alas, I cannot, for I have such an Amazingly Superior Intellect that I cannot believe in such things! And moreover, some people don't like me because I disagree with them! I don't like them! Please. Anyone with an opinion is going to run into people that disagree with them. This includes both athiests and religious. Also: many geniuses and social revolutionaries throughout history have encountered hostility for their ideas. However, encountering hostility doesn't give your ideas any backing. It could just mean that you are just an argumentative jackass who insists on attempting to debate religion using tired arguments with anyone who won't simply walk away. In your case, I'd be willing to bet this is the case. "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it." -- James Gosling

	Oh please.... (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:24:48 AM PST

	insists on attempting to debate religion using tired arguments If there are any brand new arguments for debating religion with, I'd love to know about them.

	indeed: (none / 0) (#66)
	by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:39:44 PM PST

	"[T]here is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes, 1:9. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Haven't you... (none / 0) (#88)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 08:29:11 AM PST

	posted that quote before? In response to the same sort of comment?

	funny thing (none / 0) (#6)
	by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:31:22 AM PST

	I don't believe I've ever heard 'elenchos' (if that is even his real name!) say that he doesn't believe in Lunix. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	That's because... (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:58:07 AM PST

	Lunix physically exists, and is therefore not a matter for faith or belief. Do you believe in bus stops? An unreformed Aristotlean

	even more confused (none / 0) (#13)
	by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:43:30 AM PST

	Lunix physically exists, and is therefore not a matter for faith or belief. I thought Hume more or less demolished empiricism a good two hundred and fifty years ago? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Please, (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 09:00:40 AM PST

	spare us the hoary old ontological argument. To paraphrase Adams, go kill yourself on a zebra crossing, dude. <br><i>An unreformed Aristotlean</i>

	free clue (none / 0) (#16)
	by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 09:10:49 AM PST

	Although I didn't mention the ontological argument, I do hope that you impressed yourself with a half-understood polysyllabic. St Anselm -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Well done, you win (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:12:51 AM PST

	Although I didn't mention the ontological argument, I do hope that you impressed yourself with a half-understood polysyllabic. Ok, just for you, nathan, I'll go to the library, look up Hume's stuff, and read it for ten minutes, and find out that it's not about the nature of being or the objective existance of objects. Will it make you happy? In the meantime, can you please let me know, in simple words that I'll understand, why faith or belief is required to accept that physical objects exist?

	Okay (none / 0) (#20)
	by jvance on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:21:29 AM PST

	because you have no direct knowledge of the objects around you. You only have what your senses tell you. You must _believe_ that your senses are not lying. While you're at the library, pick up Wittgenstein's "On Certainty." It's a quick read. jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	While you're there... (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:29:23 AM PST

	can you let me know if an object exists independantly of my belief in its existance?

	That depends (none / 0) (#25)
	by jvance on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:52:48 AM PST

	The existence of objects is debatable. I guess that goes back to your 'hoary old ontological argument.' I happen to <i>believe</i> in the existence of things in themselves. I also <i>believe</i> that our perceptions of them can never be perfect. Given these foundations, my answer is yes, objects exist (or don't) independent of your belief in their existence[1]. It follows that your belief in the existence of, say, Lunix has no bearing on the actual existence of Lunix. On rereading your question, it appears that you may be asking me whether I can verify the existence of a particular object for you. The answer to that is no. jvance [1] a concrete example would be a 19th century physician who does not believe in germs. Or a particular 21st century physician who doesn't believe in a certain virus. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	I was asking in the general case (none / 0) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:15:59 AM PST

	So you were right the first time.

	indeed. (none / 0) (#56)
	by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 01:36:04 PM PST

	Lunix physically exists, and is therefore not a matter for faith or belief... Much like God. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Much like the Tooth Fairy (none / 0) (#73)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:32:18 AM PST

	Explaining a lack of empirical evidence by attacking the validity all empirical evidence does not convince me of your point. I lack the depth of reading to quote some famous people who have already said this. Could you help?

	You mean... (none / 0) (#75)
	by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:49:26 AM PST

	You mean, the "tooth fairy" doesn't really exist? On the contrary, I have very good empirical evidence that the "tooth fairy" does indeed exist. You better show me some very good counter-arguements if you want me to take you seriously. -- Peace and much love...

	As you asked... (none / 0) (#77)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 04:39:00 AM PST

	On the contrary, I have very good empirical evidence that the "tooth fairy" does indeed exist. You better show me some very good counter-arguements if you want me to take you seriously. I have some empirical evidence in the form of a videotape of my parents removing my tooth from under my pillow and replacing it with money. (I also have some digitally edited fake video footage of a fairy doing the same, for when I'm trying to convince people that the tooth fairy does exist. But that's not important.)

	So? (none / 0) (#81)
	by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 06:38:07 AM PST

	The fact that you have a tape that doesn't prove the existence of the "tooth fairy" doesn't mean anthing. Pretend I have a tape of the second episode of "Star Wars" at home; does it count as empirical evidence disproving the tooth fairy? Consider it a logical puzzle. (Hint: How is the first tape different from the second tape?) -- Peace and much love...

	On tooth fairies, and such (none / 0) (#84)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 07:10:46 AM PST

	The fact that you have a tape that doesn't prove the existence of the "tooth fairy" doesn't mean anthing. Well, yes, because you can't disprove the existence of anything, in the same way that you can't prove the existence of anything, in the same way you can prove, perceptually, black is white and white is black. Basically, some philosophical branches are of no use to the world and exist purely for argumentative pleasure. The existence of the tooth fairy is borne out of attempts to explain why, if you put one of your milk teeth under your pillow at night, it somehow becomes money by the morning. If you have any evidence of tooth fairies predating evidence of the teeth-for-money phenomenon, please show it. By offering alternative, equally plausible evidence for the basis of this phenomenon, I lend credence to the proposal that the parents themselves act as "tooth fairies". I also have testimony from several parents that they are themselves responsible for the teeth-money exchange. Do you have the testimony of tooth fairies making the counter-claim? Or would you prefer to attack the credibility of these parents instead?

	OK. (none / 0) (#85)
	by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 07:32:43 AM PST

	So, basically, that means that the non-existence of the tooth fairy "feels" more right to you, and therefore you choose to believe that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Actually, that is a much more intellectually honest and productive position. I congratulate you on having the willpower to admit that formal logic plays no role in deciding this dillemma. -- Peace and much love...

	You just used that phrase... (none / 0) (#87)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 08:26:27 AM PST

	...in another thread, and you used it to denigrate. So I shall not comment on it, suffice to say that the justice system is built on judges juries "feeling" that the prosecution showed that the guilt of the defendant. It could be said that they "felt" it was "more right" that the defendant was guilty. In fact, there's a particular level of "more right" involved - it's called "beyond reasonable doubt".

	nope, try again (none / 0) (#92)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 12:44:42 PM PST

	tkatchev said I congratulate you on having the willpower to admit that formal logic plays no role in deciding this dillemma. What happens in court is buyers market in logical fallacies, notably ad hominem and genetic. Juries are hardly capable of assigning culpability based on the correct use of formal logic by lawyers, and they are neither expected nor asked to do any such thing. Dont be daft, it's all rhetoric except for the evidence; and belief in the Truth of empirical evidence was "felt" by the individual jurists long before the actual crime was committed.

	Really? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
	by jvance on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 09:23:59 AM PST

	I recall that he knocked the props out from under causal connection, but I don't remember that as being a death-blow to empiricism. Rather the opposite, since (he argued) the only method we have of learning about the objects around us is induction. But what do I know. I only read An Enquiry into Human Understanding, and not his Treatise, and that was 20 years ago. I do recall that Berkeley clarified the distinction between our perceptions and things in themselves. I think he argued that things in themselves don't really exist except as perceptions in the Mind of God. So maybe Refutation is only perceiving God's idea of Lunix. That's just perverted. jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	Read: (none / 0) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:28:58 AM PST

	Jung

	Synchronicity? (none / 0) (#36)
	by jvance on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:46:03 AM PST

	It was a great album. I wonder if I still have it (the book.) I'll dig around when I get home. jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	I think I get it now (none / 0) (#12)
	by jvance on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:19:09 AM PST

	Bonus points are awarded for straying the furthest from the nominal topic. Therefore, osm gets 5. The rest of you are a bunch of fucking amateurs. And what's the deal with the poll, elevating poltroon to the level of porn? There's something going on here, and on reflection I don't think I want to know. jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	Cool (none / 0) (#60)
	by jvance on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:25:08 PM PST

	Nothing referenced in the parent comment exists anymore. How's that for answering the question of the Absolute? jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	What do you expect (none / 0) (#61)
	by osm on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:30:01 PM PST

	I have no doubt offended someone or some thing. I can see my comment, outlined in red, waiting for me to unhide it. We have both seen it and can fantasize about the sweet nectar of Eva Habermann's womanhood to our heart's content.

	oops (5.00 / 1) (#62)
	by osm on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:32:36 PM PST

	the sweet nectar of Eva Habermann's womanhood did it again. damn.

	Not to start a flamewar... (none / 0) (#63)
	by jvance on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:50:35 PM PST

	...but what is your opinion of Xenia Seeberg? -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	Xenia Seeburg (none / 0) (#64)
	by osm on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:53:56 PM PST

	I just don't see it.

	Through moderation, (3.33 / 3) (#68)
	by poltroon on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:03:09 PM PST

	you extol your marvelous editors, so that they may not cast spells on you. In your case, though, it is evidently too late.

	Moderation Tip (2.50 / 2) (#121)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 11:21:07 AM PST

	Hey, keep the shit the way it is mostly. But do add moderation features. But heres an idea. Make a boolean moderation system. In such a system there would only be 2 levels of moderation. Make it so that by default everbody including the anonymous posts are mod 1 which are plain sight visible. Make the trolls and extremely offtopic or unintelligable posts mod 0. This way you dont actually delete messages, you just kind of hide them. That way people can look at the trolls and stupid shit if they choose to. Personally I find some of the troll posts extremely entertaining. And you;ll most likely get lots of kids doin their FP shit and what not, increasing traffic to your site. There would be good markiting potential for your site with the increased traffic. Trolls make purchases too you know. And companies would love to advertise to them.

	Dear Troll, (none / 0) (#122)
	by jvance on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 10:47:51 PM PST

	Get thy skanky ass back to Slashdot. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.