That last thread grew rather sluggishly — we’re definitely dealing with slow Romero-esque zombies here. Which makes it easier to take them down.
TZT
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
That last thread grew rather sluggishly — we’re definitely dealing with slow Romero-esque zombies here. Which makes it easier to take them down.
Careful, Chas. That sort of consistency in position…
For what it’s worth, I am sorry for my part of the invective I’ve hurled your way.
!rxvy lqqnq!
Chas:
Yes, obviously.
How do you interpret “Considering your personality (persona?) though, it’s actually likely you were target of it.”?
fqenjxpno gkrg tavqnre zryobec ryggvy rinu v nzzbp uthbar lyqqb
jreoru rug ro gfhz
yyrj fn gv rqbprq gutvf bg aenry gutvz v nzzbp arrgevuggbe ugvj rzvg uthbar qarcf v sv gnug rfbcchf v
asshole @#500:
Yes, it’s my opinion that the slymepitizens are pretty fucking stupid, by and large. I’ve certainly seen you post some stupid shit, for instance (though no, I am not interested in hunting down any examples).
Well, that’s my opinion. I mean, I have other ones too but that’s the one you asked about.
Good luck trolling for gotchas!
It’s two different meanings, according to stone-standard internet usage as long as I can remember. Personality is me, real-life; on the internet nobody knows you’re a dog. That’s ‘persona’.
Jadehawk was doing me the kindness of doubting that I could possibly actually be such an asshole for real.
forget it Brownian, but thanks.
Chas, I do know the meaning of the words. :)
(I suppose it’s possible that a non-asshole can adopt and maintain an asshole persona for (non-roleplaying?) internet purposes)
one of these days somebody’s going to post in real pvqanyrpV fqenjxpno and confuse everybody.
John Morales:
I had you pegged as enough of an oldfart to have been around for USENet, the original home of Internet Performance Artists. No?
bg zla eru qrtanup nyhtalenuc ftbyorparvpfrec ab G____E erfh rug gnuj fv lrx abvgcleprq frn rug
ITAhpTLaOAEhMCEhMCEt40L7egEZ6kEFkSExMSGovBEhNDUhii2UUcwREiftVKM2vRDXgzLvLSE0NSF7i9Rf8hsEITEyIfi7KiqWBXwtYTCO78qIwH7ShyExMSEH60LgyC2+mWMP/n7m+dTLBFQX+0GT
LbiIeOqn2g==
======
That’s pretty much how I interpreted it, FWIW.
tigtog, I was around in BBS days, but didn’t get internet access until the early 90s.
(My first account via TELNET cost me 1 cent per kilobyte and I thought it a pretty good deal)
{KN> KHMZ` BL : ;BM FHK> <HFIEB<:M>=, p’F :?K:B=.
p :EP:RL =K>:F H? =HBG@ MA:M, ;NM p’F MHH E:SR.
Ah, ye sweet sounde of ye good olde modem connectynge!
Sounds like you might have missed the heyday of the most infamous grepping personas. More than a few of those personas were flaming arseholes, but by repute the associated personalities often belonged to warm/witty/wise humans.
I don’t see what you did there.
tigtog, yes, but I take your point.
TZT is already for the stuff that will make people mad, right? So why rot any of it?
I mostly remember not-connectynge, and much re-connectynge.
It was annoyynge.
01) For teh lulz
02) See below
03) To support the Tardigrade
04) To oppose the Tardigrade
05) Confusion to the enemy!
06) Because REASONS!
07) Hexapodia is the key insight
08) Rosebud
09) See above
10) Guru Meditation 1337
Ah, good old 90s, when hours of fun could be had with a 56k modem, a command line and an open Telnet port.
ixchel here:
We’re not morally responsible for past actions, but we’re morally responsible for present and future actions? But don’t all present and future actions eventually become past actions if you simply wait long enough?
So a criminal is morally responsible while he is premeditating a crime, but once he’s already committed it he’s off the hook?
—————-
owlmirror here:
y is true iff y’ is true. <~~~ Wrong.
If by "iff" I'm assuming you mean "if and only if". In other words you can say y’ being true is “necessary and sufficient” for y being true. But this is false.
It is true that y is a necessary condition for y’, but y is not sufficient for y’. Or, y’ is not necessary for y. That is because one can do X without choosing to do X (where X is any action). Doesn’t that sound familiar?
So because y is not sufficient for y’, or y’ is not necessary for y, then the statement y iff y’ is false. So your “proof” doesn’t work.
Phalacrocorax, z Třetího Světa
We must not let this tool fall into the hands of the enemy.
.RF>G> >AM ?H L=G:A >AM HMGB EE:? EHHM LBAM M>E MHG MLNF >P ,MG:>F p
Already a few furloughed dungeon denziens starting to show up.
[musical interlude]
Remember the good old 1980s?
<future past>
*whispers*
…and they’re talking about beer.
Acckk!
Meh.
Wannabes like SS can’t resist the cool people’s hangout.
Oh, Slanted Science, I did miss your pathetic levels of obsession with Pharyngula. But only a little bit. Because I’m not pathetic, like some people I could mention.
Ok, SS. You’re in. Just keep it on the downlow. They can see everything we do in the sidebar.
As long as we stay in here and exchange what would appear to be nonsense, the normies leave us alone.
Wait. What I’m I then?
Wannabe:
<snicker>
Hover over the dotted bits in my post.
MRAs from manboobz: http://manboobz.com/2012/07/30/the-spearhead-educated-women-are-destined-for-spinsterhood/ (WARNING: you actually have to read the article to figure it out).
I think you lost track of which is dependent on what.
So . . . now you’re saying the regression fails one level up, as it were? You cannot have chosen to have chosen to do other than what you have chosen.
Once again, you either did not understand what I wrote, or you’re destroying your own argument: You cannot have chosen to have chosen other than you have chosen, therefore, you cannot have chosen other than you have chosen.
So you don’t have free will (by that definition, at least).
Or, in other words:
The whole point of what I wrote is to posit that in at least some cases “you are able to choose other than you chose”, and show that, in the example that was being discussed in the comments leading up to my post, it must be false.
But now you’re positing that it must be false because there exists actions that you have not chosen to have chosen. Well, OK. It must be false that there is free will.
Once again, I think you lost track of which is dependent on what.
That’s the same conclusion my posting came to, after all. And therefore, you don’t have free will.
It’s a logical disproof of the existence of free will, if at any level at all, there is some action that you cannot have chosen (to have chosen (to have chosen))) (etc). And as a disproof, given the conditions under discussion, it works. Because free will doesn’t work, under those conditions (or, at least potentially, under any conditions … but I acknowledge that that needs more work than yet shown).
It’s funny to me, which is what counts.
lol, I’ve got to stick around for this attempt. A troll trying to act like a real person? How deliciously absurd.
Sidebar: Do the dudes at Spearhead genuinely think that telling women exactly what will drive the Spearhead dudes AWAY from women is going to make women NOT do those things?
If being educated is all it takes to drive useless whiny bigots away, all women would have PhDs.
Wannabe:
<snicker>
It was actually pretty damn funny, you imagining it was but allusion.
@ Illminata
Along those same lines: I often think that MGTOWers are pretty much the best way for misogynists to be. They don’t want to have sex with women or really interact with them at all? Not a huge loss, you know.
Slanted Science wrote:
If it’s a fresh start you’re wanting, Slanted Science, saying colossally stupid things like that is not the way to go about it.
lol, try again Slanted Science. First, you might want to learn what privilege means in the context you were trying to use it.
@ Slanted Science
*eye-roll*
< snark > Well thanks SS. All my hard work down the drain… </snark>
[Here we have created an endless thread to let trolls say what they have to say, and then the trolls don’t want to troll. Bah!]
@John Morales
Oh! mentat o’er Atlantis,
Oh! thou Penthesilea of Achilles,
Oh! lackland son of Eleanor ,
Thy measure not Joan du Arc,
Thy metere de Brinvilliers!!!
Crossposted:
Quick de-flounce (really, this is it):
Why in hell would I or any other regular want to be around with the likes of Slanted Science and andrewv696 welcome to walk in play?
Fuck this place.
Out.
K-ching!
(heh)
@ andrewv696
Well, troll, your “insult” has bored me nearly to death. I may as well just go to sleep now.
Andrewv696: THAT was the insult you said you were composing?
Boooooo.
andrew:
Yes; your execution is marginal. It’s cheap in some places too. Sorta deserves an 8. I guess. Going on the high side though.
Degree of difficulty: very low. Just the basic “you’re like bad people, not like good people” tripe. 1.5 on that.
9.5 total. Extremely doubtful for you.
Fresh meat for the Zombie Jebus!
Oh, fuck me. Now I suspect andrewv696 was banned for being mindbogglingly unfunny.
Best bit is the troll’s misconstruing the vocative case for an exclamation.
(Poseurs pose)
I am off to bed kiddies, response(s) forthcoming on the morrow.
Oh, the suspense is killing me! I just can’t wait to see what you come up with next!
I’ve pinched farts more eloquent than the likes of you.
@ TLC
I haven’t (internet) seen you in forever! Come to poke at the troll? I’m sorry to report it isn’t much fun :(
andrewv696:
Bedding kiddies ain’t the best way to express that you’re retreating in ignominy, troll.
(I know, it was unintentional, just another way the troll is dumb)
Yeah, that’s one of those cases where commas are important.
Yeah, the main problem with trolls is that they are SUPER boring.
Andrew is certainly a tedious one.
Hey Starstuff! I’ve been around, just distracted by PET and real life.
@ Sally
I must agree with you about this particular set of trolls. They’re no fun.
Without good chew toys to keep me here, I’m going to head to bed now. I’ve got an exam tomorrow anyway, so I should get some sleep.
@ TLC
Yeah, I haven’t been around much myself. I’ve been busy running all the things (and school and stuff). I actually was intending to start commenting more and then, well, I popped right into a shitstorm here.
@ andrewv696 (from #421 on TET)
I do not know about the IP thing. I thought everyone was granted amnesty. Your are free to troll away to your hearts content here. Alternatively you could start a discussion that is actually usefull to yourself and others. It really is up to you.
I am pleased to hear this. (For myself, I have no problem arguing.)
@ Josh
Our old way of doing things was not working. So we’ll have to try this for a while in order to take some responsibilities off PZ’s shoulders and place them on our own. We must create the space we want, by ourselves now.
Speaking only for myself, I am more than happy to engage with whoever and whatever I must in order to create such a place.
Horseshit.
Ing,
Atlas shrugged.
@JM
More of Atlas Spiked it in the End Zone
@ Ing
It is not working for PZ. He has expressed this clearly and unequivocally. As an exercise, just sit down and calculate how many thousands of hours he has had to spend to create this little haven in cyberspace.
Now, for once, we are being called on to step up to the plate. I suggest we do a good job as, I suspect, things are never going back to quite like they were before.
Which is the point, indeed.
The new system might also not work for some of us, what with trolls roaming free and all, and we’re about to find out how that will pan out, aren’t we. CLearly JM is enjoying himself so far…
Personally, I think PZ has thrown us into this to run some kind of cruel internet version of Lord of the Flies.
{theophontes snatches conch shell from rorschach and runs off, chuckling wickedly.}
I’ll reply to Tethys soon.
+++++
joey, what I’m proposing is even wonkier than that, actually. Did you click on the link in the section you quoted? My original wording was precise in a relevant way.
+++++
theophontes, you were warned. Besides, you are already the tardigrade, and you have the unwavering support of a pope and a doublepope, for a total of three popes.
+++++
Amusements:
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/File:Friendly_Persuasion.jpg#file
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/File:Thumbs_up.jpg#file
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/File:More_God,_less_you.jpg#file
http://pharyngula.wikia.com/wiki/File:Inflatable_nativity_scene.jpg#file
rorschach, :)
I’ve never hidden that I just like to argue and express myself; it just so happens that because I also like to be right, I am on the side of feminists and social progressives.
(Troll-bashing is a bonus!)
—
ॐ, with any luck, you’ll be able to demonstrate your worth in the days to come.
This lesser being is going to bed.
chigau, G’night.
(Better than me are you, Gunga Din*, and please accept my apology for yesterday. Sincerely.)
—
Yeah, I know you’re a woman. You’re still a better human being.
(sigh)
That came out wrong.
Gunga Din was a bloke, is all I meant.
(And the social status is irrelevant; ॐ is correct, I’m not a nice person, but I admire such. Seriously)
@ chigau
Miniscule invertebrate bedtime hugs sent to your USB.
*gasp*
flouncing ‘regulars’
it’s a freakin tragedy
I already warned you about conch shells.
Now where did I put my ass-kicking shoes?
The tragedy is that interesting, valuable commenters are lost, but the Kings of Tedium stay.
Actually, no.
The real tragedy, IMO, is that an excellent feminist writer was driven to the point of abandoning a carefully crafted safe space, thereby driving away the loudest, strongest voices in the comments in the fight against the bigots, while still keeping the Juggernaut of Mind-Deadening Repetition. That we know also drives people away.
I don’t blame PZ a bit. He lasted far longer than I would have. but its still a depressing shame that, because of one person’s inability to respect boundaries, decent people are being driven away from the site, and trolls replace them.
Well it’s not really about outsiders.
How can any of you laugh and joke amidst the tragedy that has befallen us?
*eyebrows like this \ / *
Illuminata, did I mention I’m not happy either?
I’m not happy.
I’ll give it time to settle out. And if it doesn’t, for the rage to grow even more…and if it doesn’t improve, there will be a RECKONING.
93+13=extra devious (I’m happy to verify that the operations are non-commuting)
.@TOYA?TU< EX>B RR: Y’Zc s?R>YSON 3j sYX>SORY >N{ sYX>=:X@O=X:Z-OZT: >N{ sYX>=:X@O=X:Z >N{ .CUT >; UZ =>YUVVAY ES>T> >NZ Y’UNC >XAY ZUT S’c ,X>B>CUb !=>@=>RCUTQ<u
*gulp*
Well, we all know who will be first against the wall. I don’t think he’ll be alone.
I saw what you did there Granny.
.RA?>X:B >; ZYAS >0
this language you are speaking…
All the pointless writing in code lately does not improve my mood, either. If I were still trying to moderate, I’d be positively wrathful.
Let me go further: if I were looking for indications that this experiment was going to work, the sudden eruption of people chattering away in encrypted messages ain’t it. It’s sending me the message that there’s something deeply pathological going on here. I make this a more open forum, so you react by making it more difficult to read? What the fuck is wrong with you people?
What is bluharmony’s trigger? She isn’t here anymore and hasn’t come back yet* (as far as I’ve noticed), but she has shown up on Jadehawk’s blog, so I’ll probably interact with her again, and I’d like to avoid triggering her.
ixchel, I promised to read the links you gave and to elaborate on the “straw Vulcan” accusation. That’ll have to wait; I’ve already procrastinated for far too long today while waiting to magically become less tired. :-/
* As Muse pointed out: “The Dungeon has been dissolved. All the inmates are free!”
Seconded!!!
she did. and yeah, that’s pretty much the first time I eplicitly noticed the dynamic that’s now playing out against SG.
In my recollection, the dynamic has played itself out against Algernon, SC, and SG most often; against me once, in a much more minor incident (and against some other people, at least one of whom wasn’t equipped to notice so it didn’t matter :-p )
:-) Who was that?
(When people say such things, I automatically wonder about myself, because I’m probably capable of not noticing. But I’m pretty sure I would have noticed several regulars suddenly being unfriendly to me.)
Fair enough, PZ. In the interest of the new self-regulation policy, I’m hereby banning myself for being a nuisance. As I’ve never made any relevant contribution so far, I’m sure it won’t be a great loss.
To make sure I’ll not cheat and try to circumvent the self-ban, I have changed my password to a random string and switched my e-mail to a bogus address. Once I log out, I won’t be able to log in again.
It’s been a nice two years reading Pharyngula, full of important lessons, so I’d like to leave a final note saying thanks for all the ghoti.
*Phalacrocorax dives into the shadows, never to be seen again*
owlmirror:
iff is a biconditional logical connective, so the order doesn’t matter. So y iff y’ is wrong.
Incorrect. The bolded sentence above basically says that if free will doesn’t exist, then that must mean indeterminism is impossible. But that, of course, is not true.
But you haven’t proved it must be false. That’s because y iff y’ is false.
Your logic is faulty; you’re giving an imprecise conclusion given the premise. A more precise conclusion, given the premise that there exists actions that you have not chosen to have chosen, would be that it must be false that there is free will for those actions. But that doesn’t mean that it’s an impossibility for there to exist actions where you can have chosen to have chosen, and thus free will exists for those actions.
You’re attempting to have your cake and eat it too. If you now argue that y iff y’ is false, then how can you argue for a necessary infinite regress at all? So you’ve just blown your original argument (that free will must have a necessary regression to infinity) out of the water.
Calm down, this is just a runaway joke!
GHOTIUGH!!!
Like the time when everyone tried to post in blackletter, tickling out Unicode to the max.
Hmmm, just noticed the dungeon has been dissolved. Does that mean I’m free to post in other threads?
FFS
And do you think the guy who was in charge of tracking all the comments and trying to maintain a limited level of savagery was happy about that little episode?
I sort of thought the comments were for people to discuss and argue with each other, but it turns out they were more enthusiastically used for intentional obfuscation. That I let it go on was not a sign that I was entertained by it.
Really, I have been pissed off so often over the years, and I’ve just had to choke it down and tolerate it.
PZ, as someone prone to being a pompous, opinionated ass myself, I can only thank you for putting up with us. I appreciate your investment, but probably not as much as you deserve.
It would be ironic if this experiment became destructive because the regulars were acting thoughtlessly whilst the suddenly-freed denizens of the dungeon were largely checking their behaviour (relatively speaking).
David,
Keep in mind that what I’m saying is “one who emphasizes a dichotomy in which rationality stands opposed to emotionality” is absolutely not me, never has been. I tell people to be more emotional so they can be more rational.
If you only want to say “one who disputes widely observed social conventions as irrational or immoral”, you needn’t trouble yourself; that is me.
Sorry.
The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation?
*whistles innocently*
@thunk (Фарингюловская Народная Республика)
(and others)
Recall that I noted that I am an Aspie, although to be more precise while I do fall within that spectrum, it is not clearly obvious all of the time. So given the above, I would have expected you to have indicated the scale of the score. So 9.5/100 or even 1,000 would have better illustrated your point I think.
And now for the rest of you:
You folks were warned ahead of time, that it was going to be bad prose/poetry and as far as I am concerned, I delivered what I promised, so no point in complaining now, althought that probably will not stop you.
Nonetheless,
My critique would have started with the structure. I would have opined that it lacked form, that while clearly alliteration was not considered, that the closest it came to any sort of form was blank verse, albeit in passing.
Next, I had promised literary allusions, and said nothing about historical references, and at least one of them was possibly too obscure for North Americans, e.g. John “lackland”, cultural imperialism and all that.
I also might have have frowned upon the use of “du” for Joan, except that I got it right subsequently, implying that the use was deliberate, so I might have passed on that one, or just called it sloppy. Finally the use of “metere” was awful, any scornful calumny heaped upon it would have been justifiable.
In any event, when I proffer a deliberate insult, it will be in the form of “bad” prose. Any other perceived insult should probably be considered an inadvertent one.
I will be back later. There is a topic I wish to explore, and it has to do with the premise that MRA = misogyny (do not expect me to defend misogyny though). What I am interested in are your perceptions.
asshole: you’ve been hanging around MK Grey too much. You write like a twit. Please go away.
…people don’t know who John Lackland was?
I just take some perverse pride in the fact that my ggggg-whatever grandfather was a shitty enough king that they made the Magna Carta (to grossly oversimplify).
Sorry; I was irritable at the implication that people from my side of the pond are universally ignorant as to historical matters.
Let me put it in plain English:
It’s both sufficient and necessary to have chosen to have chosen to have chosen in order to have chosen to have chosen.
Otherwise, “choice” doesn’t mean what you want it to mean in “you can have chosen to have chosen other than you have chosen”.
That depends on what you mean by “indeterminism”. If you mean contra-causal free will (you seemed to be using it that way earlier), well, it tautological that it’s impossible if free will doesn’t exist. But if you mean simply that different choices can occur, then you’re simply not understanding what it actually means to choose to choose differently.
If some random (indeterminate) event occurs at a lower level of your mind, that in turn causes a different choice than might otherwise have been made, that random event isn’t one that you chose. You didn’t choose to choose other than you chose, and you would not have been able to choose other than you chose.
Maybe we need to drill this down to even more basic levels:
What does it mean to choose?
What does it mean to choose to choose?
If it’s false, then you’re not able to have chosen other than you have chose, which does prove that free will must be false.
The whole point of what you’re arguing with was to posit “actions where you can have chosen to have chosen”, follow the implications, and show that it’s actually impossible. You seem to be arguing that the proof is wrong — because of actions that you cannot have chosen other than you have chosen?
(Contra-causal) Free will can’t be shown to not exist because unchosen actions do exist?
ah. Well, I prefer ‘epigrammatic style’ but thank you for a straightforward response.
Opinion, no matter whom you’re talking about. You don’t say whom. (My comment was more in response to JoshOSD’s li’l whine above.) If I infer that you mean Aquaria, it’s an opinion I don’t share. She was passionate (to the point of obnoxious sometimes) and profane (I have no problem there), but her stuff never required much thought and I don’t think her writing was anything like ‘excellent’.
= chose to leave. Chose to leave rather than change her behavior or even endure mild criticism for flagrantly flouting the local mores about oppressive language.
? If Pharyngula was ever some kind of ‘safe space’ (not, evidently, for mentally retarded people, but I digress) it didn’t get that way by anything I’d call ‘careful crafting’.
The importance put on loudness aside, this is silly. No one person is indispensable in this noble battle to hold the comment-section of Pharyngula against the unenlightened.
And nobody is ‘driving’ anybody else’s decisions to stay or flounce.
yeah this I’ll just call bullshit.
opinion
= Are choosing to leave, many in what I interpret as a self-centered huff of injured entitlement.
There is no evidence of this. Not yet anyway.
Naw, man, this is just you not knowing what’s going on. Again.
Indeed. I hope everyone* realizes that my original comment was a 100% ironic poke at what I regard as the silly sekrit-messaging in which others have been indulging for months now.
*everybody except andrew69, because I do think it’s pretty funny, though also unfortunate, that he got trolled in.
Technically, PZ has said that all restrictions are lifted. I don’t think that’s true since, as he just posted above, if he gets annoyed enough, he’ll do . . . something unspecified. What, exactly? I have no idea. I don’t even know if he knows. Although, elsewhere, he wrote “if I do need to clean up the mess left over after this experiment, hydrofluoric acid and setting everything on fire works.” What does that even mean, for a blog? Again, no idea.
But, anyway, if you want to have long meandering arguments/discussion with long delays between posts, similar to the whole free will one, I think it’s best if you bring them here.
Naw, man, it’s just you guys putting up unnecessary obstacles to comprehension…and adding extra strain to my [former] job. But yeah, you don’t care. That’s the message I’ve been getting all along.
Yeah, suffer. Welcome to my world.
Again, I know, you don’t care.
Chas, I interpreted the excellent feminist writer bit as referring to PZ.
Ixchel
You don’t have to unless you want to. I think you do understand my larger point.
Humans are irrational emotional critters first, and rational critters second.
Pro-social lying is not amoral. (but it IS a fascinating quirk)
oooooooh. Yeah, I see that now. (As I said, I was only inferring the unspecified referent.)
Apologies for the misinterpretation. Uh, just move the comments about Aquaria a paragraph or two down, or, better, ignore ’em.
yeah…no. Not really. It’s just fucking around. Bit of–honestly–harmless fun. srsly.
As far as I know, nothing of actual substance has ever been communicated in code except for story-spoilers and (recently) potential triggers. Here @TZT it’s been pure silliness. As far as I know.
It is your world, PZ. We’re just fucking around in it. I can well understand the fatigue from dealing with years and years of daily comments, but to the extent that you seem to be taking something personally here, I hope your feelings can be assuaged. I am certain that no frequent or longtime commenter has ever done anything to intentionally cause you stress or suffering. We certainly tend to take it for granted that your zone is what it is without considering that that’s only because you work hard at it, but I can confidently speak for everybody around here when I say that, upon reflection, we appreciate it very much and indeed owe you our gratitude.
How does this add extra strain, exactly?
I mean, you see a comment written in what is superficially gibberish, and you think . . . what, exactly?
It’s hard to care about something that we don’t know about, because it isn’t always easy to know what will add extra strain.
Maybe if you explained more about what caused (or causes) problems for you, from your perspective, we’d be able to sympathize more.
From my perspective, coded text is a little puzzle to be solved, but I don’t have to solve the puzzle; I’m just curious. Same for the fraktur/blackletter stuff. I figure that those who aren’t curious will just skip over it.
And I figured that that was exactly what you were doing.
OK, now you say it made you angry. I’m not quite clear why. And there’s other stuff that is/was making you angry, and I don’t even know what exactly.
Exactly. You have zero responsibility. Everyone has no responsibility at all here.
Weird response.
Is that a Spockish statement of fact? Or a snarkily sarcastic allusion to actual anger?
Owlmirror’s comment was a similar question about what’s actually bugging you. Would you care to spell it out? Even if you feel it’s repeating yourself?
So. . . I should feel a responsibility to solve puzzles? You feel a responsibility to solve puzzles?
I’m very confused.
Here’s what I wrote on Facebook in response to NBC cutting the 7/7 part of our opening ceremony from their coverage (news of which can be found here at http://deadspin.com/5929778/heres-the-opening-ceremony-tribute-to-terrorism-victims-nbc-doesnt-want-you-to-see and in a follow up link on that page about NBC’s reasons):
Our men won a bronze in the gymnastics, damn proud of them. Still waiting for that elusive gold to come, but we’ve still got our real specialty events of track cycling, rowing, and sailing to come. And man, Phelps is having a real load of bad days at the office in terms of trying to get gold here isn’t he?
Women’s gymnastics and beach volleyball are sports I could watch all day, regardless of whether Brits are competing in them or not. Archery and Equestrian I find pretty neat too.
I think he’s saying HE has a responsibility to solve them when they’re there, because he is responsible for all the content here. That’s what the argument has been, right? That he should be doing this, or should be doing that, and any monitoring gets harder when stuff is coded.
Are you guys purposefully obtuse?
You get to do whatever you want — tinker with html/css, bury text in cryptic constructions, derail threads, tell me how to run the site, tell me about my screwups in running the site, ignore any rules I try to lay down — and if you don’t like the results, you walk away or wait for me to clean it up. Nobody else has anything invested here, and it shows.
That’s zero responsibility.
You put stuff here, I end up taking the responsibility for it…and even though I generally support what most of the people here say, I still can’t do that without taking the effort to look through it all. I have to eventually deal with whatever little explosions you set off just for the fun of seeing what happens.
Except now. Go ahead, fuck up whatever you want.
I think you’re missing a different perspective here, although I’m not PZ obviously, so I might have this wrong:
* PZ feels (quite rightly) a sense of responsibility for what gets approved for publication on his blog, since it can and will be taken as reflecting back on him, which is a big part of why he’s feeling angry right now.
* Writing comments in a cipher could quite easily circumvent the usual standards for what is acceptable content
* Malcontents tend to eventually exploit this sort of obfuscation convention for various vexatious/obnoxious displays
* Thus ciphered content makes PZ understandably wary of possible hidden agendas regarding such malcontents
It would certainly make me nervous for those reasons on my own blog.
I’m just going to go ahead and say what I think is going on, and PZ can correct me if I’m wrong. Although I have no expectation that he should do so, and don’t think anyone should take a lack of response to mean I’m right. He may have stopped reading my comments long ago, if he ever did.
Are you fucking joking? I presume that what PZ is taking personally is having invested countless thousands of hours in making this place what it is, he can’t trust the regulars to actually take responsibility for their part in this shared project.
You’re just fucking around in PZ’s world? That must seem like a very facile response to his hard work. Well done!
Except that it fucking well isn’t, it seems to be the response of someone who has just found out that people who appeared to be invested in a co-operative project are apparently acting like entitled arseholes. As though the time they’ve spent utilizing this resource is equivalent to the time and effort spent providing it.
This is unhelpful bullshit. If you don’t feel a responsibility to solve them, then perhaps you should feel as though you have enough of a stake to question them. If not, then perhaps you should accept that PZ has ownership and that you should keep fucking quiet and not question his opinion on the matter.
Did everyone really think that PZ’s only contribution to this site was OP’s and a few occasional comments? A lot of this looks like ingratitude. There are people who think this should be run as a democracy, but they’ve never had to do anything other than post comments in the relatively safe and expansive place PZ provided.
Fucking hell, if you can’t just thank PZ for his efforts and then try to make his life easier when he is clearly feeling unappreciated and frustrated, then you’re just being graceless and insensitive.
If rot-39-ing or Befunging (it is Befunge, right, Owlmirror?) were intended to hide some nefarious commenting, well, yes, that would be
frustratingdetrimental to the blog’s content.What’s been said in code, though, is not. Had it been, it would have been called out in plaintext, I’m pretty sure. (Even I figured out rot-39, and I’m just about the world’s worst cryptographer.)
—
Do you have to? Apparently WP doesn’t offer a “report as abuse” feature, but maybe a back-channel? If SG can hack the CSS to make comment numbers work, maybe something similar to generate a mailto:? /just_thinking_out_loud
—
You can confidently speak for me, at least, Chas. ;)
Thank you, PZ.
FTR, I hadn’t seen #622 before posting #623.
Quantum post-tanglement. :)
I’m sure I matter less than nothing since I haven’t been here very long *but* my opinion on the rot whrblgarble is that once I see more than one in a row, I have no interest in the thread any more since I can’t possibly know what the fuck is going on unless I take my time and translate. I might do that if someone is speaking the only language they know, otherwise, it’s just a waste of my time IMO since if the whrblgarbler wanted everyone to read it, they would just post it in plain text.
CT, rot-13-ing came up most recently on TET to avoid giving away spoilers about Prometheus. It’s a pretty well-known Internet standard.
The more esoteric encodings are in-jokes between people who know what they’re dealing with. Nothing of consequence has (as far as I can tell) been discussed that way.
Like I said before, if someone said something outrageous in code, I’m pretty sure it would be called out in plaintext.
CT, yeah, after the first couple such comments, I too have just skipped all the coded comments; I have no reason to bother with some add-on to my browser or select-cut-change focus-paste-decrypt-change focus manoeuvres just to see if there’s anything worth reading in them.
PZ:
No, I assure you, no. Not purposefully.
Are you being purposefully opaque? No. OK.
And yet…
You realize, right, that by and large it’s different people doing all those different things? You run a big blog. Many people read and comment. Diversities of opinion, many strong, are to be expected. I mean, what do you expect?
I’m curious about the rules you feel you’ve tried to lay down but have been ignored. I can’t think of any. The html/css thing?
Yes, OK, I guess.
And you think the situation ought to be different somehow? It’s not fair that…that what? That people comment on your blog in ways that–unbeknownst to them in almost all cases–are a pain in the ass to you somehow?
Make some rules. People will deal. People won’t read your mind, though. That’s impossible.
I guess so. I mean, nobody’s really doing that or has done it much as far as I know (there was that Geiger incident…) but yes, if it happens on your blog I guess you have to deal with it. Because who else is going to deal with the comment section of youir blog? I know it wasn’t always so giant, but, well, now it is.
Nobody wants to fuck up anything, man. That’s what I’ve been trying to say. If you think farting around with fonts and ciphers, or derailing threads, or whatever, is fucking things up, then say so. People will do their best to follow and/or police your rules for you if they’re explicit and fair. Probably even if they’re not.
tigtog:
That (and the rest of the comment) is a good point.
However, nothing like that has been going on. If it was, I agree that people wouldn’t let it slide when detected. And it hasn’t been.
I swear, the rot39 thing was supposed to be making fun of the semi-hidden mouse-over messaging people have been playing with, also non-maliciously.
Bummer:
He…he can’t? Because…because why again?
well…pretty much, yeah.
What are you doing here? Striding forward arm-in-arm with strong diverse cadres of comrades toward a glorious future of our shared co-operative Project? (Not that there’s anything wrong with that. More power to you.)
I am quite certain that PZ does not work hard running his blog for me. And maybe he read to the end of my comment.
Have a nice day!
or, you know, not…
How, again? By disagreeing or, no, agreeing or…being goofy with backwards rot13? Seriously, what are you talking about? Who are the apparent arse-actors?
As though?
What are you talking about? (applies to remainder of comment too)
cm:
Or they could be private-key cryptography based encodings functioning as a back-channel for some particular grouping of commenters, put in public for the lulz.
Not by me, since I skip them.
Well, Chas, there is one rule people seem to be ignoring: don’t piss PZ off.
Corollary: don’t do things that PZ has in the past said piss him off.
(How hard is that?)
John, it’s not hard if you know what they are.
Fucking around with fonts and colors? Being ixchel? What are you talking about?
cm: What you said and what I said really didn’t intersect in any way. You are saying “it’s not important”. I’m saying “whrblgarble interrupts the thread and makes what comes after extremely unclear since it’s not obvious what people are commenting on”. It’s really irrelevant if it’s important or not. It derails the thread for me just by being there since it’s takes time I don’t want to take to copypasta. how do I know if the comments after it are responding to the whrblgarble?
John Morales, I don’t think they are just there for the lulz. I think there’s just some unclear thinking happening because people want to minimize what they are saying for various reasons.
I mean, now we know he is displeased by rot13. And, again, I can understand why. But has it ever pissed him off before?
How about when people were posting in g**gle-translated Macedonian the other day?
I don’t (at least when I can). :-p
—
Pharyngula: Steganography Edition!
The better steganogrophers would post normal-seeming content (I dunno, rat updates? Catholic misdemeanours?) with even more coded messages. Now we have to search the archives!
(Don’t even get me started on the Tardigrade’s pronouncements …)
Chas, it’s kinda like being around someone for years; by then, most people develop a sense of what might piss them off. Doesn’t mean they won’t surprise you sometimes, of course.
For example, I reckon PZ is not worried about ROT13 per se, and I doubt it bugs him when it’s used to avoid spoilers or triggering or whatever (obviously, I could be wrong about that).
Anyway, I’m not gonna try to put down some sort of ruleset; just saying, out of pragmatism if nothing else (in my case, out of respect, too) I’m gonna try not to piss him off.
cm, that would be pretty low bandwith, but.
(Hm, now if people suddenly start a spate of lengthy comments, I might become suspicious :) )
There are a great many things that have pissed me off before. But I don’t expect everyone to be my clone here, and in the spirit of tolerance I just grit my teeth and let them all sail by.
But there can be a point where all the crap just piles up and I can’t take any more. Especially when the party-goers at my place start telling me who and what I can and can’t tell are exceeding the limits of my hospitality. Who owns this place?
That was a person. Me. I was doing it, as a joke, to protest the rot13. Will not happen again. Sorry.
You (and the others who conceived and brought to fruition FreeThoughtBlogs) do. And final decisions are yours. None of us agree with you about everything and, I suspect, you like it that way. Objecting to a decision does not mean that I, or any one else (probably?) is denying your right to make that decision.
Personally, I don’t get it.
Have you been listening over the last year? Yes to all.
Which social conventions, and what social conventions would you replace them with?
@StarStuff, a soulless cunt 30 July 2012 at 11:15 pm
I do not understand the MGTOW crowd as abstaining from sex per se, although I get the impression at least one of them advocates it. I was under the impression that what they advocate is in effect to “drop out” in that they are not doing the traditional things such as seeking a career the white picket fence etc. etc.
I also can not say that I am under they impression that as a whole they hate women either. I take it that you think they do though?
I also read the Spearhead article and the manboobz take on it, but it was fairly clear to me that the focus on the topic was limited to what others describe as the “prole” class.
The middle and upper class have a different perspective so the “prole” girls have greatly reduced chances of successful traditional family formation due to class barriers and a greatly reduced pool of choices.
andrewv696, you are less clueless than .
<faint praise>
Yeah. This. I thought this was the kind of thing hat you were encouraging. I’m not trying to antagonize you; I was genuinely surprised that of all of the shit that we pull around here that this is the one that got your goat.
My many thoughts on this matter have taken a distant second to my geeking out over gymnastics.
@CT 31 July 2012 at 7:00 pm
Actually, I did see some comments which I thought were better NOT made in clear text. Not only was the subject sensitive, but the person was soliciting for help and advise on how to deal with what seemed to be a very real issue.
My $0.02 anyway. I also have nothing else to say on the topic.
Oops. Blockqutoe fail in comment 92. FIFY:
:-) Who was that?
(When people say such things, I automatically wonder about myself, because I’m probably capable of not noticing. But I’m pretty sure I would have noticed several regulars suddenly being unfriendly to me.)
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
I didn’t notice any malicious encryption then or now, nor any reason to suspect that such a thing was going on, is what I’m saying. The subthread in which this was developed was all slap-happy, the plain text just as much as the blackletter.
As people have been saying, if something malicious had been going on, I’m sure people would have pointed it out in plain text or in e-mails to you. I definitely would have (I’ve read most of the blackletter, I think, and some of the rot13).
Finally, why didn’t you say right away that you had a problem with it? I can’t imagine people would have tried to defy you. Till now, I didn’t know you had a problem because I’m of course not used to seeing things from your perspective!
I mean neither. I mean your not taking into account how easily some people react to some things in ways that make it difficult for them to stay or become rational. I’ll try to look for examples… as soon as possible. *sigh*
“Life is short, but snakes are long”
…For the record, you won’t be surprised to see me write that plenty of widely observed social conventions are irrational and/or immoral. We’re probably not in complete agreement over which ones those are, though; so maybe we should take up Sally’s offer for discussing this. :-)
:-D :-D :-D
(…I get it; it’s just not plain!)
Oh, yeah, I don’t like that style either. I’m just too obsessive to let it piss me off that much. :-)
…by which I mean FIFM, “fixed it for me”. *facepalm*
It worked the first time, too. You are improving your presentation so it is more clear for us, no? You already knew what parts were others, and what parts were yours.
@ carlie
Indeed.
@ cm’s
Good point. That critter’s actions have been apalling. From inciting insurrection to creating entire alternative realms in sekret messages. Not to mention the dozens of faked photographs ¹ it has linked to.
……………
¹ hack:
When you really stop and think about it, this whole bruhaha can be blamed on just one person.
Rebecca Watson.
@Slanted Science 30 July 2012 at 11:37 pm
I think I see what you were trying to do. However it failed because even I saw the comment as sardonic/ironic/. I believe you would have done better to wait for a real example rather than manufacture one.
With that said, I have linked below a clear example of a woman who is unaware of her sense of entitlement and blind to her privilege.
http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/asking-for-sex-what-do-you-do-when-the-guy-says-no/
You are going to have to read the article though. Among other things, this clearly illustrates what “rape culture” looks like from the inside and also shows how this trope originated.
MRAs deny that “rape culture” exists even as they acknowledge that a minority of men are rapists. What they fail to realize is that the women who defined “rape culture” are speaking from their interior landscape. If you look at it in that context, you understand that Dworkin and Brownmiller were repelled by their rape fantasies, and responded by externalizing and projecting them.
One of the comments on the article:
We live in interesting times.
so…
Mandated default font, size & color? (‘cepting I guess Comic Sans?)
English only?
No sekrits?
are these New Rules, whether de jure or de facto?
@Slanted Science,
Followup to my previous post.
I recommend that you do not comment on the article I linked.
You should read all of the comments though because:
While you might focus on just the issues I mentioned, there are others such as relative power dynamics within relationships, family formation among the various socioeconomic classes and sexual stereotypes within and without racial boundarys. Not to mention relative sexual marketplace value.
YMMV
Quinn Martindale, assuming you are not trolling, you’ll see this comment.
I’m going to read Mark White’s paper.
I recommend this from John Humbach. I also recommend you skip his sections III and IV, because they are irrelevant to his point that compatibilism is virtue ethics and virtue ethics is immoral.
consciousness razor
Ixchel
First of all, I’ll set out my position. I believe in negative-retributive consequentialism as the proper basis of punishment. That means that I think punishments should be designed to maximize utility but that we should avoid “undeserved” punishments. I tend to accept all of the standard justifications for punishment: Deterrence, denunciation, incapacitation, restitution, rehabilitation and retribution.
Retribution is therefore a justification for punishment because 1) “justice” pleases people; and 2)”injustice” displeases people. People feel happier when people get their “just deserts” regardless of whether those “just deserts” exist or not. Because of the negative utility of punishment, this principle is only useful to prevent punishment. Thus the negative utility from the punishment of the innocent scapegoat outweighs whatever good comes from the other justifications.
In the thread, I was taking Mark White’s position and attempting to argue for positive retributivism, I position I find intriguing but do not hold. Sorry for trolling. The Humbach paper looks interesting.
The justifications you gave are not for punishment but for taking some form of action or another. For example, you ought to deter crime because you want less crime; but that is not a justification for punishment, because neither what you do to deter crime nor having less crime as a result need involve punishing anyone.
Those are not simply about what pleases or displeases people, except retribution, which serves no other purpose. That is, unless you explain why you think causing people harm, merely to “please” other people, would be moral.
People feel happier when other people get nonexistent things? What is it that makes them feel happier? It couldn’t be the nonexistent thing itself, since that would be unable to cause anything.
This is seriously how you set out your position?
I think the US goes way overboard on the punishment angle, but I think it’s hard to argue that punishment does nothing to deter crime. A country without punishment for criminal behavior would almost certainly have a higher crime rate.
On the other hand, a criminal system shouldn’t be based on satisfying our instinctual lust for blood.
What are you almost certain about, exactly? In other words, what do you think it means to be “without punishment”?
Compared to what, the exact same country that doesn’t have punishment for criminal behavior? And how are we defining punishment? Keep in mind that under discussion was retributive punishment; rehabilitation can be used, and almost certainly a country with a focus on rehabilitation would have a lower crime rate than one that was focused merely on retribution, which does little for recidivism (and in many cases exacerbates it).
Nobody’s arguing that punishment does nothing to deter crime. As I understand CR, the argument is merely that retribution is not necessary in order to deter/reduce crime.
It’s unnecessary as well as immoral, and that applies more generally than situations where one could deter or reduce “crime.” Get in an argument with some random person on the street? Even if they’re horribly wrong, and it would really please you deep down in your Kantian special places, you shouldn’t punish them.
consciousness razor:
I think we’ve got a disagreement on the meaning of the word punishment. I’m using it in the traditional criminal justice sense: imposing something unpleasant (e.g. a fine or imprisonment) on someone who has acted in a way proscribed by society. Society’s motivation for imposing this suffering is irrelevant to whether or not it is a punishment. Thus, one justification for speeding tickets, for example, is that it deters risky behavior.
Reading the Humbach article, I think Humbach agrees with my definition. Contrasting the infliction of suffering “for such purposes as retribution, expressing social outrage or providing an ‘appropriate response'” with “reasonable programs of incapacitation, carefully calibrated deterrence or honest efforts to rehabilitate.” But all seem to be included in his discussion of “the punishment imposed under the criminal law.”
So I think everyone agrees that society should lock up a person who has killed and will continue to kill indiscriminately unless they are physically stopped from doing so. I think this constitutes punishment as much as mandatory rehab courses for those who commit crimes due to substance addiction does.
I honestly don’t see the controversy from a utilitarian standpoint. If inflicting suffering on someone causes more good than bad, then it is moral. We know from numerous animal and human studies that people derive pleasure from punishing cheaters. Practically, I think that this pleasure virtually never outweighs the harm caused by punishment. Thus punishment can only be justified by the other goods it creates.
On the other hand, I think wrongfully punishing someone causes a great deal of negative utility to everyone involved that almost always outweighs the other positive benefits. Thus, no matter the good that would come from punishing an innocent scapegoat in terms of deterrence, such punishment is not justified.
This does seem to be empirically true, but the magnitude of the effect seems unclear. See “A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders.” and “The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews” (behind a pay wall)(“The preponderance of research evidence, therefore, supports the general conclusion that rehabilitation treatment is capable of reducing the reoffense rates of convicted offenders and that it has greater capability for doing so than correctional sanctions.”)
Obviously this has significant implications for how we should treat offenders. But forcing someone into a rehabilitation program and thus curtailing their liberty is still a punishment.
They™ are predicting thunderstorms.
chigau, weather change forecast is for Monday.
@ixchel, I finished the article. I certainly understand the claim that moral responsibility and therefore “just deserts” are impossible in the absence of free will. The article does not address either the Rawlsian idea of institutional justice nor the more general concept of consequentialist retributivism.For an in-depth discussion of such a hybrid system, I recommend my Crim Law professor’s “Punishment and Justice”.
John Morales
It had better not rain this coming weekend or I will have words for God (or whichever of Xir flunkies does weather).
owlmirror:
No, it is not.
It is sufficient and necessary if you are arguing for free will to exist at that particular regress stage and choice. But that doesn’t mean that free will doesn’t exist for the stage one level up.
In other words, if I can not have chosen to have chosen to have chosen, that can mean I am compelled (by forces outside my control) to have chosen to have chosen. So free will may not exist in that particular regress level. But in one level up, I still have chosen to have chosen. So free will can still exist on that level.
For example, let’s say I take a gun to your head and force you to choose to pick between waffles or pancakes for breakfast. You are not choosing to choose to pick between waffles or pancakes, because I’m forcing you to choose to pick between waffles or pancakes. But you still have the ability to choose to pick between waffles or pancakes, even though you can not choose to choose to pick between waffles or pancakes. And my forcing you to choose to pick between waffles/pancakes doesn’t affect your ability to choose to pick between waffles/pancakes.
I’ve simply been refuting your claims that an “infinite regress” is necessary for free will to exist. It is not.
ixchel:
Wonky is an understatement.
If you mean this link, I have. This is what you say there…
If there is no free will, it doesn’t make sense to say “we should take” or “we should try”…or we should anything. We will do whatever we are compelled to do by the forces of nature and/or chance. Whether “what should be done” ends up happening, we have no control over. As Yoda so eloquenty put it… Do or do not, there is not try.
So what you say is utterly incoherent given your stance on free will’s nonexistence. Claiming that we have no moral responsibility for past actions but are morally responsible for present and future actions is the epitome of having your cake and eating it too.
Josh here:
This can be the place to go down that road. Anyone else share this view?
^botched link above
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/01/the-only-abortion-argument-that-counts/comment-page-1/#comment-419210
@joey:
There’s good eating on a
fetusnewborn infant? :)I don’t know that I could make the argument that a newborn infant isn’t a person, but I can see the general shape of that argument in my head. Maybe if you start with a definition of personhood? I find Mary Anne Warren’s criteria useful as a rough starting point.
you’ve already been there, and have been shown to be presuppositional and stupid. Don’t bother, as you will appear even stupider.
joey, you’re making the idle argument for fatalism again. It’s as wrong now as it was thousands of years ago.
Of course it does. Read how determinists cross the street again. Maybe just go ahead and read it ten more times, and save me the trouble of telling you over and over again.
People who try to do X will exhibit different behavior than people who do not try to do X.
@ joey
I would tend to agree with Josh. But what is the point in my arguing with someone who does not entertain other peoples’ rational arguments?
ixchel:
No, I am not. I’m not claiming that one should not try. I’m claiming that the ability to try is essentially equivalent to freely willing something, so if free will is nonexistent then same goes with the ability to try. Can a puppet on a string “try” something that is contrary to what the puppeteer compels the puppet to do? How exactly are we any different than a self-aware marionette, with the natural laws of physics the one manipulating our strings?
I have, and when you linked that several months back I gave you my response. We are not in control of our beliefs and desires. Saying that we are suggests that free will exists. Our beliefs/desires couldn’t have been otherwise than what they were. Unless you believe our beliefs/desires are somehow contra-causal. Do you?
Even if there is such a phenomenon as an ability to try, we are not in control over it. We cannot have tried other than what we’ve tried.
Alright.
joey, you are stupid.
You’re wrong. People obviously try things, whether or not they have free will.
Puppets don’t have minds; they do not experience trying.
How exactly? We’re not made of wood.
The pertinent bit is that we react to others’ words;
if someone says “we should try to do X” then people react differently than if that person had not said so.
Therefore it matters to say “we should try to do X.”
And we don’t need to be in control of our beliefs and desires for statements like “we should try to do X” to make a difference in behavior.
Quinn Martindale:
I’ve been busy, so sorry I didn’t have a chance to reply sooner.
What I’m saying is that there are methods of deterrence, rehabilitation, and the like, which are not a punishment; and to use methods which punish people is unethical. I would argue whether something is really rehabilitation, for example, if it can be meaningfully construed as a form of punishment, so maybe we disagree with the meaning of that word.* However, even if I grant that some things can be both because someone finds it “unpleasant” (which would make the term punishment nearly useless as a distinction, since nearly everything could be considered one), then that form of rehabilitation may be the wrong thing to do, if there are other forms of rehabilitation (or other methods entirely) which could be used instead.
*Deterrence, incapacitation, etc., may be trickier, but generally the effect is what I care about, not the intent. If the effect is nothing other than punishment, then I would not consider them worthwhile or ethically justified.
Then why bother mentioning people’s “pleasure” from punishing others, if it rarely if ever outweighs the harm? I never claimed it was impossible in principle for inflicting suffering to do more good than bad. But the mere existence of some amount of pleasure derived from punishing people can’t be assumed to outweigh it, in almost all cases.
———
joey:
That is false. You are claiming something false, and you could try not to do that, which doesn’t imply you have magical superpowers.
Puppets are not sentient beings, so no, they cannot try anything.
Uh, we’re not? We do in fact obey the laws of physics, because we’re not supernatural beings. I don’t know. Maybe self-aware marionettes are supposed to be magical — Pinocchio seems like a good example — in which case we would be different.
So what can’t the laws of physics explain, exactly? That we make choices, or that we try to do things? How silly. I thought all this time you were trying to pretend you had some middle ground which didn’t involve supernaturalism. I’d be glad if you were done playing that little game, but I doubt you are.
Interesting discussion. I haven’t read half of it. It seems like she keeps thinking in patriarchal categories, but the commenters are trying to talk her out of that.
ixchel:
Well, okay. People obviously choose things, whether or not they have free will. I’m sure you agree with that.
But you claim that you cannot have chosen to have chosen otherwise. Well, can you have chosen to have tried otherwise?
ixchel:
Sure, and statements like “we have moral responsibility” and “free will exists” can also make a difference in behavior. That doesn’t necessarily make those statements true. Nor does that mean we could have chosen otherwise than to say (or not say) those statements.
consciousness razor:
Can we have moral responsibility (for past, present, and future actions) without having free will? My opinion is that you can’t have it both ways, that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between the two. What’s your take?
*snicker* Your OPINION = presuppositional bullshit. Not a thinker be you.
PZ says:
“You people realize I have to decode your shit to figure out you aren’t saying asshattish shit, right?”
Others respond:
“BUT ITS NOT LIKE WE’RE SAYING ANYTHING BAD!!!”
At least, that’s how it seems.
joey troll,
Dumbass, you know the answer. Don’t ask like you don’t know.
The statement that “we should try to make the world better” is a true statement.
It doesn’t need to mean that.
@consciousness razor
I understand that there are a lot of things society can do to reduce crime that are not punishment. That’s one of the many reasons to try and reduce poverty. Voluntary rehabilitation, e.g. job training programs, is great public policy. But the question of what sort of social programs we should have is distinct from the question of how we should respond to people who engage in proscribed behavior.
If it true, as John Humbach (who ixchel cited) writes, that “when faced with criminality, we are morally obliged to do something” then society has to decide what that something is. Anything unpleasant that society regularly does in response to criminality is punishment. Community service, fines and imprisonment are all punishment regardless of whether they intend to deter, rehabilitate or merely enact retribution.
You say
Punishment is a useful term in the criminal justice sense. It is shorthand for a subset of societal responses to criminal behavior. We agree that some sorts of punishments, i.e., those designed merely to inflict suffering on wrongdoers, are inherently morally wrong. (I don’t think you understand that this is currently a minority position among the philosophy of law community due to the proliferation of hybrid systems.)
So if you’re arguing that punishment solely for the sake of retribution (e.g. Kant’s hanging of the murderer before dissolving society), you can just say that. You can say punishment can never be a just desert because individual moral responsibility doesn’t exist. I understand and agree with those arguments. (I took another position in the other thread for the sake of the argument.) But it’s not helpful to define punishment to only include those cases because then we are unable to distinguish between incapaciation based on punishment (e.g jail sentences for murders) and incapacitation based on future dangerous (
last line should be:
future dangerousness (e.g. civil commitment).
Sorry for one-liners. I have to pack.
“You can do what you want, but you can’t want what you want.”
Joey, I have stuff keeping me busy, so your failure to understand will have to wait. Your mind is like a brick wall, and figuring out how to deal with that brick wall — or even if I have the tools to deal with it — will just take too much time that I don’t have right now.
That depends on what you mean by a “social program.” For example, a prison system is a social program. It’s just not the same kind of social program as a job training program, just like the latter isn’t the same as a methadone clinic.
Is that so? It depends entirely on the alleged criminal’s (or someone else’s) subjective experience of the unpleasantness of a society’s response? And what does regularity have to do with it?
Our criminal justice system (in the U.S.) finds a lot of things useful which are unnecessary and unethical. If some in the system, or philosophers defending it, are apt to call practically everything a “punishment” even if that’s unwarranted, that’s not my problem, except in the sense that they’re trying to legitimize it with a false equivalence with some things which are justifiable.
What’s the point of discussing this with you, if you’re not going to make your arguendo claims apparent and make it clear what you’re trying to do with them? Joey is doing more than his share of that for this thread, thank you.
By the way, I think moral responsibility is fine, just that people don’t deserve whatever might happen to them.
Who am I not helping? I haven’t denied some people find various things unpleasant, just that some are not punishments. The distinction between societal actions which are pleasant or unpleasant can still be made without reference to punishment (in fact, I just did it), and the distinction between unpleasant things and punishing things can also be made.
It’s not just defenders of the system who use punishment the way I’ve defined it. Practically everyone who studies the philosophy of law uses it that way. They’re not doing so in order to create a false equivalency. Rather, defining it that way allows the discussion of questions like in what cases or for what motivations is punishment justified. It also matches up fairly well to real world systems. What alternative definition are you proposing?
You’ve lost me completely. Are you trying to distinguish moral responsibility from desert?
Why are we distinguishing unpleasant and punishing things? Presumably, we both agree that punishment is a subset of unpleasant. Would you agree with the following statement, using punishment as I’ve defined, “punishment cannot be justified simply by a desire for retribution?”
The larger point I’m making is this: many smart people believe that retribution can be an end in itself even if free will doesn’t exist. I was taking that position in the other thread because other commentators seemed to take it for granted that we should not punish if that punishment did more harm than good on an extremely limited scale (the “punishing bad parents harms their children so don’t do it).
I’ve laid out my personal position at the beginning of this conversation: we should punish if it does more good than harm UNLESS the person does not deserve the punishment. I’ve explained the factors I think go into determining the good a punishment does. The disagreement I think we’re discussing those factors justify the creation of societal structures that inflict suffering on people who violate social norms. I can’t tell whether you support or oppose that.
So, do you think it’s moral to jail murderers as a general rule? If not, what factors must be met to jail a particular murderer?
Do, or do not; there is no ‘try’.
Finally.
A philosopher I can grok.
chigau, you grok deepitudes, then.
(trying is a category of doing)
You keep taking for granted your assumption that it’s possible for people to deserve punishment.
Most of us here aren’t interested in taking logically impossible nonsense for granted.
Further to ixchel:
“Punishment” in Norway. Compare this to the iniquitous microcosm of ‘Merkin society that suffers through the prison system there:
Crime and Punishment, Norway style
Quotes:
Welcome to the world’s nicest prison
Quotes:
Numbers you want? Reoffending: Norway 20% (in two years following), Bostoy 16% (in two years following), USA 43% (in three years following)
It’s a quote from fucking Yoda, you stiff.
You are arguing with a goddamn puppet.
@ixchel,
Referencing well known philosophers and linking an in-depth article discussing the subject is not taking anything for granted. Basically I believe that it’s possible for people to not deserve punishment because just institutions ought not inflict such punishments. I apologize for not making clear in the other thread that I was taking a position that I do not hold, but I laid out my position in this thread at the beginning of this conversation.
@theophontes
From the first article you cite:
Restricting someone’s freedom of movement (something unpleasant) because they broke a law is a form of punishment. I’ve never said punishments have to be harsh in order to be justified. Indeed, milder punishments are far more likely to be justified because they have to do less good in order to overcome the harm inflicted by the punishment. Norway is a great example of a side-constrained consequentialist (aka negative-retributivist) system because they are 1)outcome focused and 2)don’t put innocent people in jail.
I didn’t mean they were all trying to be fallacious; but that they were trying to legitimize it, whether they realize what they’re doing or not.
Punishment has to be done with the intention of making someone suffer, without that suffering being justified with some benefit which significantly outweighs it. For the sake of clarity, note that I don’t care about intentions when it comes to what is ethical (just consequences, which in this case are unjustified), but that doesn’t stop anyone from having intentions and acting upon them unethically — which it is, because they have bad consequences which are unjustified.
For example, suppose someone has a restriction on their driver’s license to wear glasses. Maybe wearing glasses irritates them, makes them feel bad about themselves or causes others to treat them badly. Whatever the case, that’s unpleasant. It’s a law which forces a person to experience some amount of suffering, in order to reduce the risk of them causing others more serious harm by getting into an accident, and that’s not a punishment. A ward of the state who has to leave the custody of their parents even when they don’t want to, or take medications against their will (if say, it has unpleasant side-effects), is also not being punished.
Yep. People are responsible for their actions, which doesn’t mean they deserve anything for them.
I’m doing that because you’ve been conflating them.
———
But the question is, are you? ;)
haw
On the internet, nobody knows you’re a ventriloquist’s dummy. (Though they might suspect sometimes.)
This is quite obviously false. Most people can want to change what they want, and sometimes succeed in doing so.
I’d be grateful if one of the incompatibilists would link to a succinct explanation (either here or elsewhere) of how you can have moral responsibility without desert; in normal parlance the two concepts are very closely connected.
consciousness razor
So punishment is unjustified by definition. Excellent circular reasoning. Your definition is incoherent and useless. It’s incoherent because it evaluates an intention by its actual consequences rather than evaluating an action. It’s useless for two reasons. First, some retributivists see retribution as a benefit in itself which outweighs the harm it does to the subject of the retribution. Thus, using your definition, they would not see retribution against a law breaker as punishment which is an absurd result. Second, it fails to distinguish what punishment means in ordinary language from categorically different sorts of actions. It literally does not differentiate between crime and punishment.
I didn’t just make it up in the definition. What’s the justification? Maybe use an example.
I’m not evaluating an intention.
Some of us don’t give a fuck about how retributivists see things or what they find useful. If in some way some kind of retribution does benefit someone, somehow, significantly more than it harms anyone else, where’s the evidence? Give a single example and justify why you’re correct about it.
“Crime” is a legal issue for governments deal with. Sometimes punishment is illegal and thus criminal, but other times it is simply immoral. On the other hand, sometimes “crime” is not immoral. So there you have it. However, if you expect me to say sometimes punishment is okay, I have no reason to do that, because you’ve given no reason whatsoever to think that’s the case.
If and when you guys want to take a break from trolling each other, I have a question.
When someone expresses a critique of feminism, does your response include the assumption that the criticism is prompted by a hatred of women?
I ask because I usually get an emotional response (thus perpetuating the stereotypes of women as emotional and illogical) from women. The men are usually more logical (but not always).
Very rarely do I get a logical response from a woman (there are exceptions).
andrewv696
How HOW do you know from words-on-a-screen which commenters are “women”?
andrewv696, go fuck yourself.
and what are your criteria for classifying a response as “emotional” as opposed to “logical”?
Gee, women get pissed off when you question their right to full person-hood? And this surprises you?
Let me google that for you
@chigau (違う) 4 August 2012 at 2:46 pm
A response like yours is a good example of “logical”. See other responses for the emotional ones, which also fall into the category of “not worth responing to”.
Anyway, my question is still :
Note I still have no clue if you are male or female (as yet), not that it matters to me.
It depends on the critique and the follow-up comments. If someone asks a question about feminism and follows it up with “Very rarely do I get a logical response from a woman” then it’s obvious that person is an asshole trying to troll. The dismissive “da wimmenz is all emotional” bullshit is a clear sign of either stupidity or misogyny.
So which are you, andrewv696, stupid or a misogynist? Please note these choices are not mutually exclusive.
1) Is angry about the sudden realization, due to his keen and penetrating man-wisdom, that some women respond emotionally to some subjects about themselves.
2) Dismisses his assertions, insinuations, loaded questions and/or analogies, which he refers to as “logic.”
3) Says nice things about what she likes and mean things about what she doesn’t like.
4) Kills babies, doesn’t love Jebus, menstruates, has no penis, etc.
andrewv696
So I’m “logical” (by your definition)(whee yipeee hooray).
I’m also a woman, by the most mundane, old-fashioned definition.
Gad, you’re a knob.
and your still-question is not coherent:
critique ≠ criticism
@Tethys 4 August 2012 at 2:47 pm
Ahahaha! Wonderful counter meme. Thanks for that.
Maybe andrewv696 is eleven years old and was raised by wolves — stupid, misogynist wolves which were bred by Vulcans.
andrewv696: Seldom have I encountered a man who was willing to argue against my basic personhood who would have been convinced by logic. If daily encounters with the women who surround him have not yet convinced him that women are fully human and fully deserving of equality in society, then I fail to see why he is worth the time and energy for me to make arguments that should have been gobsmackingly obvious in the first place.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Appropos of that, I would tell you to go fuck yourself, but that is a pleasurable activity and I wish no pleasure upon you, you unsubtle intellectual abortion.
When someone expresses a critique of feminism, does your response include the assumption that the criticism is prompted by a hatred of women?
andrewv696
critique ≠ criticism
What information do you seek?
The answer is obvious, andrewv696. Of course I do. I always assume exactly what you assume that I assume. If you ever get around to critiquing feminism, you can safely assume that I assume things about you.
@Jennifer, Uppity Bitch and General Malcontent 4 August 2012 at 3:22 pm
Can you break that down by socioeconomic status?
Or it will just confirm what he already thinks. That the majority of women are not equall, and are not deserving of that status, even if he is willing to conceed that they are human.
You do realize that many men implicitly believe that?
If that critique of feminism has its foundational argument(s) predicated on the denial of the fundamental equal humanity of women, then it IS an argument prompted by a hatred of women, even if that prompt did not originate with the specific person making that argument, who might be making said argument in ignorance of its foundation.
No assumptions of any kind are required.
If they are not deserving of equal status then then are NOT fully human BY DEFINITION.
Even if such men think that they are conceding that women are human, THEY ARE NOT.
chigau (違う) 4 August 2012 at 3:29 pm
When someone expresses a critique of feminism, does your response include the assumption that the criticism is prompted by a hatred of women?
Well, if they follow it up with the stupidity of saying women are not worth listening to because they’re so emotional when you insult them, there isn’t really much assuming going on now is there?
ps. Gas-lighting is not a meme.
pps. Fuck off asshole.
Logical enough for you, shitstain?
no with a caveat
It depends on the criticism and how is it presented. Some people are just plain obvious. You for example.
@Amphiox 4 August 2012 at 3:36 pm
A fairly honest answer at last! Thanks.
I mean, I’m making the wild guess here that andrewv696’s “critique” of feminism isn’t that some of its manifestations maintain gender essentialist norms and justify transphobia in order to enforce an artificial male-female dichotomy. His “critique” sounds like something more along the lines of, “Bitches think bad TROLOLOLOL.” And, however badly he may want that to be a critique, it’s not. “Women are stupid” is not a critique.
But, hey, subject-verb agreement! It’s kind of impressive from a thinker of his caliber.
I tend to take people with male-name-69.. as their ‘nym as a clue announcing that they are misogynist trolls.
Does this idiot really think we are unaware that he got banned exactly for this reason?
But he thinks he is such a keen logical mind! *eyeroll*
@Jennifer, Uppity Bitch and General Malcontent 4 August 2012 at 3:45 pm
Assertion without fact. I asked a question:
Instead I get an emotional response?
I am going to have to stop responding to you if you continue to emote.
Oh noes! It might STFU! However will we live without andrew the asshole being a hateful lying misogyny troll?
critique ≠ criticism
silly female!
Only those who have completed the full Kolinahr may petition to address andrew696969!
Wait, emoting actually gets him to stop replying?
Well, then. You are a nasty, disingenuous creature of such low intellectual stature that I am rather ashamed of the fact that I share a common species with you. (That is, unless you are one of the proverbial monkeys at a typewriter and you managed to hammer this out after some infinities of time. I would have preferred the Shakespeare; it has more dick jokes and at least demonstrates an understanding of its own vocabulary.)
My first comment on the thread where I was eventually banned, not because of my arguments aparrently but because I am a “Slymepitter”.
Do not take my word for it, go see for yourself.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/25/congratulations-to-the-civilized-scots/comment-page-1/#comment-410773
andrewv696, you haven’t gone and fucked yourself yet. That was a polite request.
I will be back, going to make a coffee. Honest answers appreciated!
@chigau (違う) 4 August 2012 at 4:02 pm
Your concern is noted.
#236
Yep, you’re an asshole.
I don’t know, it may just be my emotions talking, but for some reason I doubt andrewv696 gives a fuck about homosexuals. Of course, being a skeptic, I doubt everything.
You are very stupid.
You’re welcome!
Fuck off and die, slimepitter.
Honest enough for you, asshole?
Well I am off (for now, not a flounce). I can say that I am fairly happy that I got at least one apparently honest response contrary to expectations.
You guys have a pretty “bad” (and justified reputation) so I am not surprised. For example, West Hunter, author of “Race, IQ, and Wealth” which has got approving noises in lefty circles, does not think too much of you.
How do you like being lumped into the same category as Stormfront?
The only link that works BTW is to the Slymepit, you are going to have to use it if you want to read the reference in context. (I used bold instead of underline here)
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&p=5860&hilit=AndrewV69#p5857
consciousness razor:
I’ve already laid out potential justifications for punishment. See 156. Here’s an example of how we might evaluate a punishment:
Carl murders Victor. The state, in response to this violation of its laws, imprisons Carl. Is this justified?
Yes, because imprisoning murderers produces net positive utility.
1)Deterrence: Other people are less likely to murder if they know the state does bad things to murderers.
2)Denunciation: People feel happier when their society expresses values they share. In this case, murder is bad.
3)Incapaciation: Carl is prevented from doing other bad things.
4)Restitution: Imprisonment is not justified by restitution. An example of restitution is forcing a wrongdoer to return what they have wrongfully taken or repair what they have damaged.
5)Rehabilitation: If the prison is such that Carl improves himself, this might be a justification for imprisonment.
6)Retribution: Victor’s family is happier than in the case where Carl is not punished.
The Ultimatum Game shows that people are willing to pay to punish people who have treated them unfairly. Therefore retribution has some utility for victims of unfairness. Additionally, you also have to consider the disutility of not exacting retribution. Victims are upset when the people who harmed them go unpunished.
The main problem here is your refusal to let punishment mean what it means in ordinary language. Of course inflicting suffering without sufficient justification is immoral. Why not acknowledge what the word actually means and then discuss whether or not it’s justified.
I answered your questions, so let me repeat what I’ve already asked: Is imprisoning murderers as a general rule justified? If not, when it is appropriate to imprison them?
So I’ve been observing the recent blog debate between Kazim of the Atheist Experience and Pastor Stephen Feinstein which can be found here .
For the record, I believe that Kazim is absolutely kicking Feinstein’s ass here, and that while there are still apparently another two rounds to go of what is apparently supposed to be a five round affair, I certainly think that Kazim has pretty much scored a KO, or at the very least a TKO, and no matter what responses Feinstein gives in his remaining two posts, he’s no way he can win any rational Judge’s Decision (okay, that’s enough UFC/MMA analogies).
However, I have to question the decision Kazim made to disable comments for each of his respective blog posts on this topic. I get that both he and Feinstein wish for their debate to be a “one on one affair”, but frankly how it’s not beneficial to have some extra feedback from other commenters that could have added some additional critiques on issues within Feinstein’s post that Kazim may have missed (and vice versa for commenters on Feinstein’s blog, though I’m sure those comments would be of a lesser quality) is something that eludes me. Considering how we atheists get rightfully annoyed at people who engage us and then complain when more than one person responds to whatever they say, isn’t this double standards?
I realise Kazim is trying to be as respectful as he can to Feinstein, but surely the latter was aware that he’s addressing a guy with an audience and if he can’t handle the equally intelligent views of Kazim’s audience then he shouldn’t have tried to expose himself to the heat?
Fuck. Here’s the shortcut since for some reason that last one didn’t work: http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/07/31/reply-to-stephen-feinstein-round-three/
jonmilne, you could email Kazim and ask, you know. :)
(It may be the case that without such a concession, you’d not have such a debate to follow)
andrewv696:
Who?
(Also, so what?)
You imagine I should care about such stupidities?
(You really are clueless when you imagine appeals to authority or popularity trump reality)
Chas:
<snicker>
You imagined I was unaware of that?
“I say bitches ain’t shit, and then the men sometimes give me logical responses, but the bitches go all crazy emotional about it! I don’t get it.”
“…and of course, this just proves even more that bitches ain’t shit.”
@chigau (違う) 4 August 2012 at 4:20 pm
Thanks!
See #213 and #223.
Hmmmm … it just occurred to me that I may have misjudged you and you were being sincere.
My apologies if that was the case.
@John Morales 4 August 2012 at 7:31 pm
snicker.
(pure golden irony)
andrewv696 #252
meh
You’re still stupid.
@carlie 4 August 2012 at 9:49 pm
This seems to be a reoccurring complaint. Is this specific to your environment?
Apart from “rap” do the people in your environment say things like this?
andrewv696, even when it’s cargo-cult style, imitation nonetheless indicates sincere flattery.
(You’re not so stupid as not to recognise your superiors, and not so egoistic as to try to avoid aping them)
@chigau (違う) 4 August 2012 at 9:56 pm
Awwwww. Too bad. I hear there is no cure for it.
@John Morales 4 August 2012 at 10:01 pm
There you go once again. Damming with faint praise, trolling, and recently, compliments that are not.
LMAO.
OK folks I am off. I will return upon the morrow.
andrewv696, win-win, ain’t it?
(And all the time blog-hits pile up, and PZ’s coffers swell)
Meh, you’re not merely ‘off’, you’re rancid.
[meta]
No fucking stamina, these specimens.
and xe’s still stupid
Perhaps because you keep saying it?
Only because you’re in it at the moment.
chigau, a moth is only a moth; what’s the point in blaming such for flying into the flame?
(A bright flame, is Pharyngula)
John Morales
and what is the ultimate fate of the moth vs the flame?
Nommy barbecued moth for the keepers of the flame!
Apologies for OT (if possible here), but I encountered a strange mixture of bourbon and loving this community in a topical thread.
So a noobie question: is there a way to move my comments here, or am I doomed to looking really bad? To clarify, I don’t know if there are moderators other than PZ (who really should be doing topical research, stop reading this).
Anyway, sorry to get carried away.
PatrickG, to quote Omar Khayyám:
—
Bah.
Welcome to Pharyngula!
<sigh>
Quietude ain’t my thing.
No, John, I didn’t imagine anything. I just read the words you chose to type. You responded to a light-hearted pop-culture reference and a facetious reply with staright-faced pedantry. This makes you a stiff either way. Actually, knowing the source of the reference just makes you stiffer. So shove your condescending snickers up your ass (if there’s still room with all those sticks up there).
@ John Morales
Ooooh! Not yet!
Induction into the Hallowed Halls of Pharyngula must needs be preceded by the obligatory
trial by fireloud and raucus argument with ॐ.Re: John Morales @247:
Yeah I did send an email afterwards, thank you. I just figured in a public domain it might be more likely to be answered. I added this addendum to my email in response to what you said:
Elsewhere, on an Olympics related matter… Hot damn, our athletes are fucking awesome! Four more golds and us Brits will have surpassed the amount we got in Beijing! Murray, Ennis, Farrah, Hoy, Ainslie, Wiggans, possibly Pendleton and Grainger as well – One thing is for sure: the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award is going to have a fucker of a tough decision. I’d give it to Ennis. Just.
Jon :)
andrewv696
It really depends who is doing the lumping. If the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote an article on Pharyngula, that would be an eye opener. I would need to take some time to evaluate my ideas, and the company I keep.
If it turns out to be some moron on slymepit (ahem) then why exactly would I give a fuck? I don’t care about what people think of me unless I respect them first.
Also, its pretty funny that some asshole who posts in a forum notorious for its sexism is comparing pharyngula to stormf**nt. You know the stormf**nt assholes like to complain about ‘reverse racism’ right? Has “reverse – misogyny” become a thing yet in the slime pit? Or is this whole thing just because people at pharyngula say “fuck” a lot?
More thunderstorms predicted.
:)
In southeast Michigan there is grass coming up through the straw mats that were our lawns…
“Severe Thunderstorm Watch” even!
@ John Morales
Hah! Well done, well done.
Though, I do wish to clarify: are there moderators? Or should I just worry about shark attacks?
ixchel:
That’s just as “true” as the statement “we should try to do things that maximize our own pleasure”. But that’s another subject of debate.
I’m still trying to understand your position that moral responsibility could exist without free will. I just don’t see it.
————-
consciousness razor:
I would also like to hear your thoughts on “MR-compatibilism”.
————-
owlmirror:
No prob.
NEW THREAD.