1otherS wrote:Carl G wrote:
Very few are banned. And they are not banned simply for having dissenting views.
I remember Laird being asked to leave.
Yes, that happened
here. David Quinn's own words:
It's there in everything you write, both directly and indirectly. Even when you are discussing pure philosophy, it's done in a way that safe-guards or enhances your attractiveness to women. Everything that comes out of your mouth is distorted by that perspective.
I also hold you largely responsible for the deterioration of the forum's standards over the past few months, more or less turning it into a ladies' salon where gossip and mundane observations dominated. So at the moment, I'm not all that well-disposed to you.
It is clear that you don't have any real interest or empathy for the values of this forum, so I really think you should go elsewhere. I'm sure there are plenty of sites where you can thrash out your obsession with women and relationships to your heart's content. I don't see why we should continue to accept you inflicting it upon us here.
And:
Of course. But it's become a waste of time in this case. There is just too much of a divide between your mentality and ours to cause any real dialectical sparks to occur. There is a limit to how much interest adolescence can provide.
You've had your time here and now it is time for change. The forum needs some renewal and this is a part of it.
I'll give you a few days to wrap up your affairs here, but then I expect you to do the honourable thing and move on.
Do you really see this as a simple case of censure of dissent?
Sschaula got shamed for disagreeing.
Have you got a link to that? Scott's a pretty tough boy. And I've never seen any of QRS purposefully shame anyone, that I could tell.
You see, I have some Genius-history under my belt as well and I have to tell you: disagreeance doesn't get handled maturely by the QRS-they usually resort to glib word games and ignoring valid points by others.
This is incorrect, as these are not their usual resort. Although David occaisonally folds a bit of Zennish humor into his writing, Dan is the only one of the three who wields the rapier wit you may be calling "glib word games." Is all employment of wit a game? And who is being ignored? Are all questions and all questioners bound to receive exactly the same response? What obligation do QRS have?
I think you are seeing myopically and projecting such things as shame, immaturity, and gaming where they do not exist.
Here's a much used tactic by DQ:
"I can safely ignore everything you say from now on."
What was this in response to? Who was the poster? Context.
Here's one from DR:
"Your question is stupid."
Was it? What was the question? Context is everything.
Is that the behaviour you would expect from individuals looking for perfection and rationality?
Yes or no, depending on context. Are all minds reached in the same exact way? Who is capable of understanding, and by what means? Should all who wander in here be here?
What do you think of this?:
1otherS
-I'm not saying I have complete sense, I'm just questioning the hardcore-ascetic and misogynist approach of the QRS. They still haven't convinced me their reasoning goes beyond romanticising of K & W 's self-castigation. A lot of what they write is just Schopenhauer 101 as well.
-Logic on itself only goes so far.
I've already said that from my point of view their writing clearly shows they are doing their own thinking.
And as far as I'm concerned you challenging what appears as asceticism and misogyny, as well as the validity of the logical approach, is fine. Make your arguments, let's hear them.
