The image you posted shows the notification you get when the post was hidden by staff, i.e. a moderator, not because it accumulated enough flags. Here’s what it looks like when a post is hidden due to flagging:
As you can see, it specifies the reason why the post was removed: it accumulated enough flags for being off-topic.
I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that the system-generated message was a threat, or you’re referring to something else. FWIW, when I follow the link in your image and look at your hidden post, I can see that it was a “bump” post, which AFAIK used to be against the forum rules. It probably still is, as “bumps” are no-content posts.
Because if we do not agree on what the truth is, we have no foundation to debate around.
Beyond that, if what you say is true and all interpretations are “valid”, then you should advocate for the removal of the quote and reply system. You shouldn’t use them yourself as all opinions are to be “respected” as is. The forums should just be a bucket where we drop our opinions to be seen only and never questioned. As they are all “true” in their own way.
Scary that some people think this way. Relativism is just selfishness in disguise.
If I find a particularly irritating forum poster that goes on a personal attack against me or someone I care about, I’ll flag the single post, write a detailed report for the moderators, let them decide and get on with my day. If the irritating player continues, I put them on block. Permanently.
This appears to be a reasonable conversation. It has piqued my interest and made my spidey senses tingle. As always my ban hammer does look appealing, even though it is covered in a layer of dust, I only use it if the flag warrants it. I will if I am not sure why a post was flagged read through the topic before taking any action. As for flogging those that excessively flag posts, they are sternly warned.
It’s becoming derivative at this point. Looking at the breadth of work that is this thread, I’m satisfied with the representation of the realist’s perspective and I don’t usually entertain dialogue with anti-realists or relativists (purely because it seems pointless, no mal-intent here). The readers are capable of coming to their own conclusions based on what is here. Also, the OP has been answered by moderation.
The devil’s in the details, and the details are expressed through words, and “the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter – 'tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning”
But I don’t think words are the problem here. People can learn a whole foreign language without knowing a single word of it, as long as they have someone to communicate with and both sides are willing to engage.
It’s not that I don’t understand what @Palm522 is talking about with this “multiple truths” concept. It’s not even that I disagree completely. Sure, I can accept a different definition of what “truth” means and examine my own views within that different framework, only to find out that my point about science (for example) still stands, because it’s talking about reality and facts – things he calls “objective truth”.
The frustration for some of us in this discussion comes not from being unable or unwilling to examine his points of view and engage him in debate on his ground, it stems from his unwillingness to do likewise. At no point did he actually engage in anything close to debate, because his understanding of the debate simply does not include responding to any arguments with counterarguments, as evidenced by this comment:
Note that I emphasized the word “debate” here, and the sentence was embedded in a larger post talking precisely about how presenting counterarguments is the essence of a debate. And yet, the reply was yet another assertion that merely reasserting your opinions is somehow a sign of respect.
In the end, that’s why I stopped replying directly. I’ve seen no actual evidence of willingness to do anything except the fifth point on his list:
Yeah, wording matters, but actions are louder than words.
And I know why you are using “debate” in quotes. This is not a debate.
In a debate, the rules are written down and set, as is the framework for the subject matter. In a debate, nothing is left to “interpretation.” A debate about coal scrubbing technology in the 70s has actual verbiage that stated the agreed-upon 9.8 m/s/s gravity of Earth, the nitrogen/oxygen/trace in the atmosphere, the kind of coal, relative humidity, stack size, turbine type, combustion type, coolant temp and hundreds of other items. Those are known as facts.
You then go on to debate whether scrubbers do anything but line the pockets of General Electric. But facts are facts.
I think it’s kinda cool Cattibria said he’s watching the watchers. Keeps us all honest. :sideye:
I asked a few very specific questions. I’ll ask them again:
Why should I respect Kim Jong-un as a person?
Why should I respect the opinion that the Earth is flat? I’m not talking about respecting the person who holds that opinion, or their right to have or express that opinion, but the opinion itself.
If I don’t have to respect either of those, then why do you insist that respect cannot be gained or lost?
And this is why I said actions speak louder than words. You insist on respecting everyone and their opinion, you call me arrogant for allegedly asserting my opinion as universal, and then you go on and assert that my walls of text clearly add nothing to the discussion. Not much to say after that, really.
Personally I don’t mind what you call it, when you frame your central Director in any action as the entropy between a told truth and a seen truth.
I had a journalism colleague who swore by the idea that he would only believe in something if he saw it with his own eyes. And much like a trip through Vegas with Fear and Loathing, I spent a great deal of time talking to Flat Earthers, deniers of all sorts, and other disbelievers.
It is terribly wasteful to have to test all the theories in the known world, but I respect the process. So as normal, I have no qualm with you.
First of all, I sincerely thank you for addressing my arguments. Second, I will reply in turn and it will be long, so yeah, it’s another “wall of text”. If you’re going to be dismissive of it just because it’s long, please tell me right away, so I can stop trying to find a common ground with you. Your replies to me are just as long, and I read them word for word. If you don’t want to do the same, that is your right, but I don’t want to keep trying if that’s the case.
They’re extreme, but why does that make them flawed? If I didn’t say Kim Jong-un, if I said “an abusive manager who caused my co-worker to take the medical leave of absence by yelling at her incessantly”, would that somehow make it less flawed for you?
Of course respect has an ethical component, and many others. That’s why I have such a big problem with your insistence that respect cannot be earned or lost. You keep talking about how everyone has “their own truth” and how that can change over time. When I first met the manager I’m talking about, I respected him as much as I respect any other person I don’t personally know. Was I supposed to keep respecting him as much after all that he did?
Why is it arrogant to say that he lost my respect for being abusive to my coworkers and myself?
Sure, it has been proven by science, so it’s wrong. How about something that isn’t even provable by science? For example, how about “the world would be a better place if we were all blonde”? Is that okay? Would you respect that opinion? Again, I cannot stress this enough, I’m not talking about respecting the person with that opinion, or respecting their right to have or express that opinion, but rather the opinion itself.
Like I keep saying, I agree that it has nothing to do with respecting the person or respecting their right to be wrong. Like I keep saying, I’m making a difference between respecting a person and respecting the opinion itself. To put it in other words: I have no respect for the idea that “the world would be a better place if we were all blonde”, regardless of who says it. If the United Nations Human Rights Council tomorrow said those words, they would sound just as preposterous to me as if my next door neighbor said them.
I honestly have a feeling that we don’t understand each other because you don’t think the concept of “respect” can be applied to something as abstract as an idea. Is that the case?
This is why I keep asking you to read what I write, just as I read what you write. If I said a phrase like that without any context, I wouldn’t be surprised you thought I was being arrogant. But I have repeatedly given context for my idea that people can earn and lose each other’s respect based on their actions.
Going back to my example of the abusive manager – a real person who really did what I described – I do not consider that person to be worthy of my respect, no matter how much you think it makes me arrogant. He behaved very badly and I lost all respect for him. It has nothing to do with being a scholar or even with whether I am in any way superior or inferior to him in any quality. It has to do with what he did.
Yes. Really. Read the context, and you should be able to see why I consider it perfectly acceptable. Or if you skip all of the context again, let me give you another example right here: if I cheat on my wife repeatedly, am I worthy of her respect?
That’s because you ignored all the context around it. Of course you’ll find it arrogant. And yet I keep explaining what that means. Is it clearer now? Can you go a bit beyond this image of me that you painted in your mind and perhaps consider all my attempts to explain my position?
That last question is very interesting. My belief is that each one of us has to answer that question for themselves, on a case-by-case basis. For me, the respect that I have for an idea or an opinion (not the person) represents the degree to which I am prepared to consider that idea or opinion regardless of whether I agree with it.
I’ll try to explain what I mean by that. If someone says “the Earth is flat”, that’s an idea that I won’t even consider because it’s proven to be false. If someone says “the world would be a better place if everyone was blonde”, I won’t even consider it because it goes against my core values that define me. But if someone says “no one deserves a death sentence, not even an unrepentant, cold-blooded ■■■■■■ who has proudly claimed his crime”, I would be willing to hear their arguments, even though I strongly disagree with that opinion.
That’s why I believe that I can’t tell you – and you can’t tell me – which opinions you should respect. That’s something you have to answer on your own.
I don’t know, I’ve seen plenty of extreme opinions here that aren’t ethical or philosophical in nature. Here’s an example: people who play PVE should not participate in discussions about combat balance. It’s actually a pretty popular opinion on these forums and I have pretty much no respect for it.
Again, I’m not saying I don’t respect the people with that opinion or their right to have it, but I think the opinion itself is short-sighted and selfish. That doesn’t mean I think people who have that opinion are all short-sighted and selfish, just that particular opinion.
Likewise, I apologize if some of my reactions were stronger than it should have been. When I get frustrated, I can be very acerbic. I try not to, but I fail way too often.
Thanks for your willingness to stick with this conversation. I feel like we actually understand each other’s views better now, and understanding is always worth pursuing
or ignore. O have so many ignored now, it makes the forums funny because i will see replies to hidden and see I am making the right choice (for me) hiding the post.
I actually got flagged for
replying to a poster who passively gets personal, that they made my ignore list.
How do you know it is wrong? I ask because as a person who believes the world is not flat, I can only go on what others have seen and reported. (Pictures from space, scientific exponential formulas of curvature, etc). I have never personally witnessed the earth from a distance to see it as a globe.
I think I understand. You are saying when something is posted as an opinion, we as a forum should discuss how they got to that opinion, not just systematically dismiss I as wrong or untruthful. Is that correct? if so, then you are making sense to me.
And that right there is the reason you should respect the opinion of someone who believes in a flat earth. At least until and unless they start stubbornly and flatly denying any existence of evidence to the contrary. For example, if the Earth were flat, I could climb a tall building, look east and see the Eiffel Tower. The fact that I can’t is evidence that the landscape curves downward at some point, moving objects beyond that distance below line of sight and blocking my view. Thus proving that we are living on a doughnut.
Yeah, that’s pretty much what he’s getting at. Or that’s the way I read it anyway.
Ever been on an intercontinental flight? Or indeed, any flight where you can notice that the trajectory doesn’t seem to be a “straight line”? That’s because it’s shorter to fly a great circle route.
Ever called someone by phone and it’s not the same time there as it is where you are? That’s because they’re in a different time zone.
Ever been to a country in South America (or anywhere in southern hemisphere)? Notice the night sky looks different?
I could go on, but my point is that there’s ample evidence that the Earth is a globe. All of the above is the stuff that I’ve personally done and noticed. Now, sure, I could choose to believe it’s magic, or it’s all a great conspiracy. Without getting deeply epistemological, let’s just say we all gotta draw the line somewhere. So yeah, I’m willing to say I “know” the Earth is not flat, the same way I “know” homeopathic dilution is bunk.
And that right there is the reason you should respect the opinion of someone who believes in a flat earth. At least until and unless they start stubbornly and flatly denying any existence of evidence to the contrary. For example, if the Earth were flat, I could climb a tall building, look east and see the Eiffel Tower. The fact that I can’t is evidence that the landscape curves downward at some point, moving objects beyond that distance below line of sight and blocking my view. Thus proving that we are living on a doughnut. 