I'm sorry for being such a negative nancy in this thread. I love people talking to each other, finding places to do so. It just scares me to see that you can no longer speak your mind on the internet without fearing a witch hunt and your career. As a philosopher that feels so wrong. Being able to speak your mind is almost paramount to understanding the world around you and to me that is a vital part of why you are still alive./To understand the world around you is to be able to do something predictable with it. It's vital to your functioning in life. The one mind you have to understand this reality with is very limited in exposure and scope, from which it follows that having multiple minds work together to create an understanding of reality is likely a desirable method for any human being./ So any landmines or roadblocks you place to stop people from just being able to state what they think is true, even if it's something you (I) completely disagree with, is something that I can't agree with insofar that the freedom allows for the sharing of ideas. /A degree of freedom could be an impairment to the ability to learn from each other, which is the important part here for you as a living being trying to function in this world and chase whatever you want. Too much or too little freedom could be undesirable in the sharing of information online./
And that is why I don't like it when people, no matter how many, decide what is wrong or right to say on a forum without the science to back up that it is limiting the ability to share ideas in variety without that involvement. /With which I emphasize that the amount of people agreeing to something does not make it more or less true, but they can determine what is considered right or wrong. If you don't have research, or a lot of experience and experimentation, to back up your method of moderating a forum for instance, then you don't really know what you are doing. And what you are doing should be in service of allowing the sharing of ideas./ Because if you do it wrong you create a place that inbreeds misunderstanding instead of breeding understanding./By limiting the pool of thoughts that can interact with one another, but creating the illusion of an open conversation between people, you fool the minds of people into believing that the ideas that survived moderation are the ideas that survived the minds of others./ I believe that misunderstanding is the root of all evil. /I can't go too deep into this on here, but in short I am of the belief that if a person would understand what 'doing you wrong' would actually do to you, your life, the relationships you have with the people you know, and how similar you both are as people and the world you want to live in, that they would not be able to do you wrong. It has a strong connection with the philosophy that people always have the right intention, determinism when it comes to decision making, but that's a bit tough to explain here./ That's why I don't like such a place. I want everyone to be as wise and full of understanding as possible. So that their ideas are strong and can withstand reality, based on the knowledge of many. (Even if that means you disagree with everything I say.) /With which I mean that life is not about you agreeing with me, but about gaining understanding as that is the right thing to do (to get us where we want to get to). Reality trumps all ideas, and if your ideas don't line up with reality it'll hurt. It's not in my interest to see people get hurt before they understand./ That process involves a whole lot of human failure, as this person has demonstrated. "Door schade en schande wordt men wijs." /We don't have a full understanding, so of course when we reach out to other people we will say ignorant things. And by talking about these thoughts we have a chance to learn how right or wrong we are./ Nobody's ideas are infallible, not even yours. I think we must allow for that. /It's easy to accept that nobody's ideas are infallible, but it's tougher to accept that your ideas are part of that. People will make these mistakes even if they don't want to. It's natural, and there should be room for people to say dumb things and go into conversation with them before we decide to ruin their financial life./
I'm saying I would have preferred a conversation, over a termination. Now none of us have grown wiser, except for him, that he will speak his mind no more. /We have taught him that he can't live a life the way that you would. We gave him nothing to learn from and we have learned nothing from what he said because we never tried to understand./ But what's done is done and let's do things better next time. /I get the people behind the witch hunt and that their intentions are right, and that they are beyond conversation. But maybe what's happening here is not exactly achieving what these people wanted. Maybe entering a conversation like a human being would have been the better choice and a chance for everyone to learn a little about what's happening in the world. Maybe not. Who knows? Can we talk about it? I could be wrong, you know./
Log in to comment