It's a difficult one, certainly, I suppose it subscribes to a loose doctrine of self-determination.

No, that's right, I've just expressed concern about a nascent culture of arbitrary approval, in itself not always a terrible thing, but time has shown it has proven itself to be corrosive to progress.

Abso-fucking-lutely.  

Good luck to you as well.

*leans over his shoulder in the dark of a new thread and lifts airdata's popcorn*

My point is far from ridiculous.


My post is not aimed at you in particular (and that is stated in my post), it aims to make the point that those seemingly most in favour of these new rules appear to be, if anything, more exposed to them than those questioning the need for them.


I am basing ideas about what might be good or bad for a forum on what I think might be good or bad for a forum.


The 'in the past' part is an insertion, but, yes, generally that's the point being made, whilst perhaps not hypocritical (it seems like too strong a term) those in favour of the new rules are in danger of falling foul of those new rules as much as the 'ideologues' they seek to drive out of the forum.

It's not an argument, it's only supportive of an argument, it's only illustrative of a point.

The point is that setting in place limitations that people might find themselves casually in breach of (and here the point that some of those most vocal in their support are themselves culprits becomes illustrative) might have (my own opinion is 'will likely have') consequences that will do more to stymie a healthy and robust community spirit than a more laissez faire approach (but of course not giving free reign to naked abuse).

Brilliant !! 

Not particularly.


I plainly use the word 'shit' in my own post, so am unlikely to read your allusion as profane.


I was responding to the post I quoted.



I am not basing my opinions about what might be good or bad for a forum on what might be good or bad for me as an individual.

Yes, that is my claim, that 'truthers' readily accuse those who don't subscribe to their notions as being benighted and clueless fools, of being credulous sheep (or 'sheeple') unaware (or 'unawoken') to the dark machinations of the world that they, uniquely, are alive to.


I absolutely agree, healthy skepticism is a very good thing, question everything, take nothing on faith. But, no, I don't agree that the detail of an argument should be ignored for the greater good of the broader argument, ideas are built on the foundation stones of these details.


A wonderfully concise self-defeating statement.   In your rush to admonish people who 'slander' (libel) others you manage to squeeze in the idea that these people are 'talking shit', 'closed minded' and 'afraid of the truth'.

 

Or as an old friend once said "swearing is for cunts".

Disbelieve in what eactly ?

Your claims cover the usual misanthropic spectrum of conspiracism, everything from musings on superstition to mass indoctrination, from the nefarious underpinnings of media to schooling and advertising, from your parents being willingly credulous consumers of propaganda to the United Nations being . . . well being something (typically the case is not made only alluded to), from the Club of Rome to Luciferians, from the Freemasons to . . . well just about everything is involved in this vast and insidious all pervasive conspiracy.

My main interest (and criticism) is the methodology employed to arrive at and to hold on to these ideas  - the sheer contempt for others who might hold differing views, contempt regularly drifting over into misanthropy, and the simplistic dichotomies/trichotomies conspiracy theorists tend to divide the world into (which often sees them march headlong into straw man arguments) - think of it as a kind of intellectual curiosity, a kind of social anthropological interest rather than an exercise in proving or disproving your various conspiracy notions.


Again, for clarity, you've not stated what 'it' is, but I will read it as a 'vast and secretive web of deceit' know only to a small band of unusually insightful 'truthers' bravely sounding the alarm for all mankind ?



Here we have the first (I would guess of many) false dichotomies (and it's corollary straw man argument):

If someone disagrees or challenges your ideas they are immediately labelled as mindless automaton who credulously accept the word of their 'controllers', anyone who might question some of your ideas have unshakable faith in their leaders - and have no evidence to back up their position.



Here we have another 2 stalwarts of conspiracism, firstly the 'research device' - regardless of what opinions the conspiracy theorists comes up against he (or she) can simply brush them aside by explaining that they simply need to do more research, you don't believe my claims ? Then you just need to keep researching until you do ! And secondly the looming threat alluded to here (be prepared . . . we never know when the shit will hit the fan) - all branches of magical thinking tend to have a great happening, an epoch changing event as part of their canon (a revolution, a great awakening, a rapture, the return of the 12th Imam, a global war . . .etc) and there tends to be two universals to these great happenings, the first is that the event will happen in the lifetime of the subscriber to the idea and the second is that he (or she) will be on the 'winning' or 'righteous' side.


Here in the UK we have no right to bear arms and yet we have all those measures in place (bailouts, interest rate changes, quantitative easing, social programs . . .etc) - The same can be said of most countries, in light of this, perhaps your notion that the right to bear arms is causally related to these measures might be wrong ?

Ok, I've thought about this . . .

I am hereby selling my guess of $ 16.40 to the highest bidder, just think this choice piece of numerical real estate can be yours for a few pieces of Bitcoin.

Any reasonable offers accepted.

 

(edited in the intrests of brevity/sanity)

This is simply the same tired old conspiracism that has washed around the internet for more than a decade.

These ideas tend to be held with such inerrant devotion that it becomes difficult for the adherents to even listen to discussion of (let alone challenge or criticism of) these ideas, to do anything other than wholly subscribe to every part of these ideas is seen as an act of hostility by conspiracy theorists. Rational discussion tends to be out of the question.

As soon as you see the high water mark of epistemological arrogance - "wake up" - you pretty much know the conversation is limited.

I don't think the goal is to "add trouble" or to "make some people lose coins", I think you might have misunderstood the aims here.
With a finite amount of Bitcoins available and a slow erosion of that number through loss the upside is longevity of the Bitcoin idea.

There are 8 European counties with a higher standard of living that the US (2010 HDI figures), although the US does consistently very well and is rarely (from year to year) outside the top 10 countries (although it is at number 12 for 2010 figures I expect it to be back around 8 in the 2011 figures for all the obvious reasons).


   1.    Norway 0.876
   2.    Australia 0.864
   3.    Sweden 0.824
   4.    Netherlands 0.818
   5.    Germany 0.814
   6.    Switzerland 0.813
   7.    Ireland 0.813
   8.    Canada 0.812
   9.    Iceland 0.811
   10.    Denmark 0.810
   11.    Finland 0.806
   12.    United States 0.799
   13.    Belgium 0.794
   14.    France 0.792
   15.    Czech Republic 0.790
   16.    Austria 0.787
   17.    Spain 0.779
   18.    Luxembourg 0.775
   19.    Slovenia 0.771
   20.    Greece 0.768
   21.    United Kingdom 0.766
   22.    Slovakia 0.764
   23.    Israel 0.763
   24.    Italy 0.752
   25.    Hungary 0.736
   26.    Estonia 0.733
   27.    South Korea 0.731
   28.    Cyprus 0.716
   29.    Poland 0.709
   30.    Portugal 0.700

I am heading over to the Bitcoin faceut with my sleeping bag and camp stove (and my 600 Gmail accounts).

 

Oddly those who are most vocal in their support for the new policy ('I support the new policy 100%.") seem to be the ones most casually in breach of the new policy.

Section one asks us to keep our posts calm and polite, but here we see people who are against these new rules labeled as 'ideologues' and dumped in the same bucket as 'trolls' and 'spammers' - and are invited to go elsewhere and swim in an ocean of shit.

If you are in support of the new policy "100%" how do you square your use of 'shouting' (capitalized text) when it's clearly discouraged by the new policy ?

To be honest I am not looking for an answer, my question is rhetorical, (it's not even aimed at you in particular), I am just making the point that even during the early birth pangs of this new policy those most supportive of it are already in breach of it.

Add in a moderator (not now perhaps, but in 6 months or 2 years) who you end up in disagreement with and you, yourself, might find your posts deleted as you have already met the criteria.

We will just have to agree to disagree here, I can see no ill intent in the OP nor justification for the idea that it is 'filled with spite'.

It seems like an attempt at a discussion about the new forum rules, an attempt that has been met with fairly naked hostility (and even 'spite') that is not present in the OP.

'Bad guy' ?

Not at all, I am not someone who supports this kind of moderation, so I am 'against' these rules (at least in their current form / as listed).

I am all for you being able post as you see fit, I am just pointing out that if you do support these rules then you are not following them.



Again, I think my posts have been entirely reasonable.

If there was something I said in my post that was wrong please point it out and I will try and clarify my point.

But as it stands my point remains, the very rules you are so vehemently defending you, yourself, are in breach of.

I am in broad agreement with 'unemployed'.



Vegetta, oddly for someone who is (presumably) supportive of these new rules, your opening gambit in this thread is in breach of much of section one, even putting aside the unwarranted hostility and seeming inability to respond politely and calmly - your capitalized 'shouting' alone sees you break these rules.