Why is the Terrestial Forum more frequented ...

[_LDSToronto]

It's mostly typos, some genuine spelling errors. Yes, the spelling and grammar in my posts is notorious for leaving room for improvement. I joke about it all time. And no, copyediting [sic] (hyphen, dash or space is better) motivation and skill is not a particulary [sic] good barometer of intelligence. Posters who try to condscend [sic] the intelligence of others for occasional spelling errors in otherwise articulate, thoughtful prose come off as desperate and not the sharpest thinkers themselves.

Oh, I forget, we can only gauge someone's intelligence by how well they grasp "formal logic".

You hold to more dogmas than I've ever seen in my 37 year association with Mormonism.

Ray, have you met marg? You two would make a cute couple...

H.

[_LDSToronto]

"Copyediting" is just fine by the way. If you're going to be a grammar nazi, you might as well make sure you don't screw it up.

If you can spell, then jackasses can talk.

And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, have you met marg? You two would make a cute couple...

H.

For the record, I have never taken marg's criticisms of "the supernatural", or NDEs superficially, although I don't agree with them. To say that we'd make a "cute couple", just tells me how "this place" has reduced your IQ and observations by about 50%. You've been here five minutes, in comparison, but feel entirely free to go ahead and make your judgements. You're just "one of the crowd here", and you've become totally in harmony with them.

[Guest]

This is really a tangent to this thread.

Goodness. Marg, you insisted that it would be surprising if Dawkins was a determinist, then linked that book to say that he's not. I pointed out that it wouldn't be surprising if he was a determinist given that people who hold the ideas he does generally are, at least in the way that was relevant to the discussion at hand. Your link does not, at any point, provide evidence that he's not a determinist. All it does is show that he is not a genetic determinist (you are your genes), which is not the same thing. You have somehow warped this into me arguing with that Dawkins is a determinist in order to shift some burden on me I don't have. The topic of conversation is the fact that your citation doesn't say what you think it says. That's it.

OK EA that link didn't show that Dawkins isn't a determinist but it did show in my opinion that he doesn't particularly take much if any interest in that philosophical issue... leaving it up to philosophers if they want to spend their time philosophizing about it. I don't think he respects philosophy generally. Yes he respects Dennett, but on the whole I think modern philosophers he doesn't have much respect for. I tend to think he's agree with Peter Atkins when it comes to philosophy. in my opinion he's interested in dealing with issues and the world from a practical perspective. Assuming the quote is accurate, he says "I recognize that philosophically speaking determinism is a difficult issue, which philosophers have been talking about for centuries. My point was that genetics has nothing to contribute to that philosophical argument. The argument will go on, and it is an interesting and important argument, but if you are a determinist you are a determinist, and adding the word genetic doesn't make it any more deterministic. There is nothing peculiar about genetic determinism which makes it particularly sinister. "

If he was a determinist he would have said so. I don't think he thinks it's a resolvable issue.

The way the conversation went in the thread Roger said "...agree with Dawkins that everything is cosmologically pre-determined by previous causes." And I said, "I doubt very much this is Dawkins position, can you support it?" and you then said "I'd be shocked if Dawkins wasn't a determinist."

So I gather what you are saying is that whether or not Dawkins takes any interest in determinism as an issue to seriously think about, or specifies whether or not he holds a position...he is more likely than not to be a determinist..and by that I mean as how Roger put it, that he thinks everything is pre-determined by previous causes.

So on what basis do you speculate that? I'm talking about hard determinism. If that's not what you are referring to then what sort of determinism are you referring to?

If the world was deterministic then genetic determinism would be included.

No it wouldn't. It does not follow from the fact that if all current states are caused by prior states that all phenotypic traits are reducible to genetic causes. One is a general statement about causation, the other is a statement about types of causes. What Dawkins is saying is that if you are the byproduct of some set of chain of causes, then it is not more sinister if those causes happen to be genetic ones. He's also saying that genetic determinism doesn't prove the broader determinist view. Dawkins actually comes off nicely in that chapter, which is a helpful reminder that when he sticks to biology related issues he's good. So this wasn't a total waste.

This is in wikipedia : "Causal (or Nomological) determinism[1] and related Predeterminism propose that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events may not be specified, nor the origin of that universe. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing uncaused or self-caused." I fail to see how genetic determinism wouldn't be a sub set of everything in the world pre-determined. If everything is pre-determined then so would genes be and their influence on behavior. But frankly this sort of philosophy I'm not interested in, because in my opinion it's intellectual masturbation. So it's probably best you don't get into any explanation on this. It's not something I'm really desiring to know about.

[_marg]

With regards to the OP. I see nowhere on this board where any poster, including myself, has requested that the Terrestrial Forum follow any other rules than those specifically stated for the Terrestrial Forum.

To imply that any poster has requested that measures be taken to moderate this forum, following CF rules, is grossly overstating the case.

Exactly, no one is asking to change the rules to make them stricter. The strict rules are in place, they just aren't being generally moderated for. SP expressed in the opening post that he likes the status quo...which means he prefers that blatant personal attacks be allowed.

In that case, the rule no blatant personal attacks should be removed. If the rule no blatant personal attacks is to be adhered to, then that would require more vigilance, more reporting of violations..and perhaps even some measure to penalize frequent violators who create excessive work for mods. It's been my impression based on experience that the report button isn't very effective because the few times I've used it ..it was ignored. But maybe things have changed on that.

[_marg]

I didn't' say anything about whether marg should be taken seriously or addressed. I said she is a poor debater and DCP will pick on poor debators on topics he wouldn't touch if more knowledgeable, skilled interlocuters are about. So I am saying that he is wont to take on the small fish, but the taken seriously stuff is of your own invention.

You are being dishonest EA, of course you inferred I shouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously "the small fish" aren't supposed to be taken seriously.

I agree with you that DCP spends lots of time arguing over nothing of any importance using sophistry, sarcasm and put downs of his critic. It's a game to him. He's not in it for intellectual honest discussion purposes. He's obviously extremely intelligent, especially verbal intelligence and has an excellent memory. He has to be aware that his position in defending church claims regarding the Book of Mormon is not defensible and so he's likely mainly interested in message board discussions as a sort of sport. So yes, he's not likely going to be very interested in spending time discussing with anyone in an area of interest that is critical to his position and in which they have more knowledge than he does. That's not as fun as playing with easy targets.

Using me as an example though indicates some sort of grudge you have. Dan and I years ago, agreed to not discuss with each other. Of course I'm a small fish compared to others in the Mormon net community and I don't claim to be a great debater. I try to be honest, real and I do do research..for example in areas related to the Spalding discussion.

I suppose it's a combination of you having a grudge and I'm an easy target with few people to cause you flack in coming to my defense. You really have no idea, what the arguments on Spalding entail and that's been my main focus.

I get the impression you think philosophy is the end all and be all in discussions. As you know I don't share your favorable opinion in that regard. But you do have Stak you can spar with, so I'm happy for you.

[_sock puppet]

With regards to the OP. I see nowhere on this board where any poster, including myself, has requested that the Terrestrial Forum follow any other rules than those specifically stated for the Terrestrial Forum.

To imply that any poster has requested that measures be taken to moderate this forum, following CF rules, is grossly overstating the case.

Exactly, no one is asking to change the rules to make them stricter. The strict rules are in place, they just aren't being generally moderated for. SP expressed in the opening post that he likes the status quo...which means he prefers that blatant personal attacks be allowed.

The Mods have moved several posts/threads from here in the TerrF to the TelF for, among other things, including blatant personal attacks. Shades has explained that a personal zinger, cleverly written and which also makes a point apart from just the personal attack will be allowed to remain. A slam on another poster that is not clever and does not also make any point is moved.

It's a matter of enforcement sensibilities. It is like the highway patrol choosing to allow speeding if it is either just 10 mph or less over the posted limit or is part of the flow of traffic that is going faster. We don't need Mods with the enforcement sensibilities of a Pharisee, like Deputy Barney Fife. I for one would oppose Modhood for anyone who complains about the balance that the Mods here have struck for the TerrF.

I prefer the level of moderation in the TerrF to that in the CF. You tighten the level of moderation here in the TerrF, traffic will drop off--to the level that it is in the CF.

In that case, the rule no blatant personal attacks should be removed. If the rule no blatant personal attacks is to be adhered to, then that would require more vigilance, more reporting of violations..and perhaps even some measure to penalize frequent violators who create excessive work for mods. It's been my impression based on experience that the report button isn't very effective because the few times I've used it ..it was ignored.

Thank God.

But maybe things have changed on that.

Let's hope not.

If you only like the way things are in the CF, you are free to exercise the self-discipline to only read and post in the CF. Why complain about a forum others like when there's another one fit for your sensibilities? You don't need to change the rules. You don't need to up the level of enforcement. You need only focus your reading/posting on the CK. But you will probably find it boring or you'd already be doing that. You come here because it is the most interesting, so stop bitching about the very aspect that make the TerrF interesting enough to draw the major traffic--and draws you yourself.

[_LDSToronto]

Exactly, no one is asking to change the rules to make them stricter.

You, marg, are a liar. You said, on this thread:

the rule no blatant personal attacks should be removed.

H.

[_harmony]

Perhaps it all comes down to the definition of "blatant".

[_marg]

Exactly, no one is asking to change the rules to make them stricter.

You, marg, are a liar. You said, on this thread:

the rule no blatant personal attacks should be removed.

ha ha

it's a choice either enforce the rule or it should be removed.