posted
Puffy Treat had a thread with Richard Taylor the actor in the title, and I wrote two posts about Richard Taylor the philosopher. I don't know who deleted the thread or why, but I was trying mightily to say something worth hearing, and I deeply resent that the thread was deleted.
I know that some people have a casual attitude about deleting threads, but I find the practice deeply frustrating, doubly so because I was not warned and now both posts are presumably lost.
Well, thankfully, they were saved in my browser. __________________
Richard Taylor is also the name of a philosopher who has written extensively on virtue ethics. He understands the two current philosophical ethical schools as consequentialism(so called because the agent acts to bring about a certain result, utilitarianism for example is where one acts to maximize good, or some variants of Christianity where one acts to earn a place in heaven. In short, in consequentialism, the action is guided by the result it's supposed to bring about) and deontology(from the Greek deon, duty, where one acts out of a sense of obligation, without regard to the outcome, think of Abraham being ordered to kill Issac, or even Spiderman's noblesse oblige where he feels obliged to help for no other reason than chance and circumstance have put him in a position to help.)
Well, Taylor finds both systems entirely too dry to be compelling. Utilitarianism he finds uncompelling because it doesn't take individuals, special relationships, or beneficence seriously. He throws out deontology because he thinks there needs to be a lawgiver, the Judeo-Christian God, for any of these higher obligations to hold intelligibly. He advocates an approach to ethics based on character. He thinks that the idea of moral equality and the Christian virtue of meekness have confused our thinking on the subject of what it is to be a good person, and that ethical philosophers should not concern themselves about the intricacies of divining the right action in a given instance as much as they should think about what it is to be a good person. In other words, goodness isn't what a person does as much as who a person is, and a good person is justifiably proud, personally excellent, and promotes and appreciates human flourishing in ways unique and wonderfully human. His big dichotomy is that he considers deontology to be the ethics of duty vs. personal excellence as the ethics of aspiration.
Taylor's Virtue Ethics: An Introduction is a clear and engaging little book.
He understands Aristotle's distinction between conventional virtue: don't steal, drive on the right side of the road, et. al., as necessary for the survival of the species, and should be approached with careful moderation, or the "the golden mean," but that intellectual virtue, the powers of perception, creativity, insight, and reason that are uniquely human, should be pursued immoderately in the name of personal excellence and human flourishing. There is a great section in the book where Taylor talks about the ethics of duty, and the preponderance of 'Thou shall not' in the Judeo-Christian ethos, and that at some point in time, the ideas of Goodness and blamelessness became co-mingled in a truly awful way. In short, Taylor argues that to be good, it's not enough to be blameless. Yet, somehow we have come to think that if we don't do anything "wrong," we must be good people.
I'm actually working on a story that puts all of these views into conflict. Philosophy departments are littered with Kantians(deontologists) of differing stripes, but there is no denying that duty is dry business, and "practical" social science and business departments are full of vague utilitarians, but they will squash an individual like bug if the right graph tells them to. This ethical vacuum creates space for those Ayn Rand objectivists, who speak with deadly severity about the compelling attraction of personal excellence, but along with this comes a dangerous egoism, because they can't understand why the rest of the world shouldn't be reduced to "living tools" so that the Great People thrive. The answer, I think, is that human flourishing and excellence must come from a place of equality. I mean, the runner doesn't excel because he is given a head start. Vaguely, I think that human flourishing and excellence is only compelling as long the ones who flourish and excel are comparable to the rest of humanity, and that personal excellence needs to flourish without degrading humanity in the processes.
Sports offer a simple model, and I guess the Olympics are the highest example of this personal excellence and just pride that goes along with emerging from a group of equals. Or Battle School, or the Harry Potter equivalent.
I think that theater and music offer another metaphor for the compelling attraction of personal excellence, and the necessity of group endeavor, because I think that this human flourishing becomes more beautiful as it is tied, not to convention, like the rules of football or bridge or chess, but to endeavors that are tied to the uniquely beautiful aspects of human life, that's why excellent humanitarians-- excellent writers, artists, teachers, et al-- are the pinnacle of this flourishing.
posted
no, just happened. While I disagree with Puffy's decision to delete that thread, I do think your posts were completely unrelated to the topic at hand. I think a request to post them in their own thread would have sufficed though.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puffy Treat had a thread with Richard Taylor the actor in the title
He's not an actor. You didn't read the body of my post or the article I linked to, did you?
and I wrote two posts about Richard Taylor the philosopher. I don't know who deleted the thread or why, but I was trying mightily to say something worth hearing, and I deeply resent that the thread was deleted.
Then in the future, make a separate thread about that topic.
I know that some people have a casual attitude about deleting threads, but I find the practice deeply frustrating, doubly so because I was not warned and now both posts are presumably lost.
I know some people have a casual attitude about derailing threads. If someone does so twice, in a manner that makes it clear they have no interest in the actual topic I posted on or in returning the thread to its true purpose...then I am very likely to delete it.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puffy I read your post, and Irami's and tried to take the thread back on topic.
While I understand your frustration that the thread was derailed I don't think deleting it is the answer. It's very frustrating for everyone involved.
Unfortunately, you cannot control where a thread goes. Some people will take it to different places. That's not necessarily a bad thing...it's just the nature of Hatrack. There are many people here who would have been interested in the original topic that won't get to see it all now.
so while I appreciate that you were ill that your thread was taken somewhere you didn't want it to go, I wish you hadn't deleted it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:but I was trying mightily to say something worth hearing
Maybe you should have said it in an appropriate place then. While Puffy did a bad thing by deleting the thread, what you did was almost as disrespectful.
Also, after reading what you wrote, I'm still waiting for the something worth hearing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know some people have a casual attitude about derailing threads. If someone does so twice, in a manner that makes it clear they have no interest in the actual topic I posted on or in returning the thread to its true purpose...then I am very likely to delete it.
The implication here is that the thread's "true purpose" is the one imparted to it by the thread starter. I think that's false, but unfortunately the fact that members have the ability to delete threads they start fosters that attitude.
I would love it if the ability for members to delete threads they started were removed.
While I'm at it, I'd also love to see the ten-minute unlabeled edit window disappear -- all edits should be marked as such, especially in a forum with discussions that can move as quickly as they sometimes do here.
And, just for the triple play, I'd like to see the ability to delete posts in general disappear, except for moderators and administrators.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky just took the words out of my mouth. Well, execpt for his third point (which I don't disagree with, but which I hadn't thought about myself).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a very big difference between a thread drifting when more than one person involved in it branch off the conversation and someone shoe-horning their own stuff into it. In this case, Irami seems to have ignored everything posted on the thread entirely and instead posted something completely unrelated except for the guy's name.
I don't think people deciding to post things almost entirely unrelated to any of the conversation in the thread can be considered drift or a legitimate, respectful way to behave.
---
That being said, I agree with nearly all of what twinky said.
quote:I don't think people deciding to post things almost entirely unrelated to any of the conversation in the thread can be considered drift or a legitimate, respectful way to behave.
I don't think that I could make a blanket statement to that effect. There have been circumstances in which I've found it to be an appropriate or at least understandable response to what has been going on in the thread.
That said, I agree with you that Irami acted inappropriately by posting what he did where he did. Everyone, including him, would have been better served had he just created a thread of his own.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Twinky if his third point still allows someone to remove all content from a post - that is, simply removing the "Delete Post" functionality while still allowing the current editing functionality.
That said, there's a difference between normal thread creep and simply starting a brand new discussion about a totally different topic.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also agree with twinky on all but his last point. I like to be able to delete my posts in case of a grievous error, posting in the wrong thread when you have multiple windows (I've done it a lot), etc.
I definitely agree with the 10 minute edit rule, I've run into that a couple of times this week. I called somebody on editing their post, and they denied it, even though I referenced specific wording from their original post. They still claimed not to have edited their post and made fun of the accusation saying they must have had "733t h4x0r skillz" to do that. Making fun of the statement instead of disproving it was only further proof of its truth.
I've long since believed the ability to delete threads shouldn't belong to anyone buy moderators/administrators. I've deleted a thread back when I first started at Hatrack, and nobody confronted me about it. I still felt as though I was deleting well thought out arguments and commentaries of other members, which should have never been my right.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think there is a very big difference between a thread drifting when more than one person involved in it branch off the conversation and someone shoe-horning their own stuff into it.
Sure. I don't think that justifies deleting the thread, however.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I agree with Twinky if his third point still allows someone to remove all content from a post - that is, simply removing the "Delete Post" functionality while still allowing the current editing functionality.
That's exactly what I want.
Reading threads that contained posts that were deleted can be quite confusing; even if a person wants to remove all of the content of their post (e.g. due to posting in the wrong thread), I think some indication that there was once a post there should remain.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, goodness isn't what a person does as much as who a person is, and a good person is justifiably proud
I don't think I've ever known anyone who was a genuinely good person, who was proud of themselves for being a good person... generally it seems the more one aspires to be kind, thoughtful, just and decent, the more one realizes one's weaknesses. The good people I know, for the most part, are the ones who are TRYING to be good and are quite aware of their failings. I know a few who talk about how good they are, but they're generally pretty obnoxious... So how does one know, in Richard Taylor's system, when one has managed to become a good person?
(hopefully that hasn't de-railed the thread... the two topics in one are confusing to me )
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely delete threads. I've deleted several over the years. They weren't huge and it wasn't done capriciously. They were personal and someone used them to audition for crappy-person-of-the-year. I'm enormously grateful for the ability to delete threads. I'm comfortable with my ability to not abuse it.
It's like most other freedoms - some abuse it. The answer is not to take away the freedom.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciated you attempt to get things back on track, Belle. But Irami followed that with another, longer post about his unrelated subject, not acknowledging that it was out of place. It wasn't normal topic drift so much as it was a hi-jacking.
That miffed me, and the tone he adopts in this post leaves me with no regrets over deleting it. He had no interest in my topic, he was going on at some length about his own thing...and he can do that in his own thread.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: the implication here is that the thread's "true purpose" is the one imparted to it by the thread starter. I think that's false, but unfortunately the fact that members have the ability to delete threads they start fosters that attitude.
Implication, nothing. I explicitly said it. I don't mind normal drift and asides, but Irami was not doing that sort of thing.
I don't appreciate that, and I find it interesting that my deletion is seen as the "bad" thing, here.
Edit: Okay, now it's my final thoughts on the matter.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think both of y'all are getting tssked at.
For another perspective, I, who happily deletes thread when I think it appropriate, think you shouldn't have done it. It wasn't a personal thread and you weren't being hurt by its continued existence. Irami was trying to co-opt it, but it wasn't going to work. Be confident in your topics - if it's something people want to talk about, it'll happen. If it isn't, let it go. There will be another day.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the deletion of the thread by the thread starter removes others' posts, then the deletion is abuse.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I find it interesting that my deletion is seen as the "bad" thing, here.
It isn't seen as the bad thing -- at least, not by me. I think this is an instance of "two wrongs don't make a right."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: I don't agree. That isn't an argument - it's an attempt to shut down the argument by defining the terms. I absolutely do not agree with your definition. This is not an area of moral absolutes.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I find it interesting that my deletion is seen as the "bad" thing, here.
Your deletion is seen as the greater "bad" thing here, but most people have agreed that they found Irami's post to be a negative thing as well.
[Edit--Crap. Looks like a half dozen people made the same point before I could post it. Stupid work, getting in the way of my posting!]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag: I don't agree. That isn't an argument - it's an attempt to shut down the argument by defining the terms. I absolutely do not agree with your definition. This is not an area of moral absolutes.
Which is exactly what you were doing by starting with the assumption that there is non-abusive thread deleting - you defined "abusive" so as to definitionally exclude certain acts. So now, according to your standards of what is an argument, we've established that neither one of us made an argument. Fine.
But don't accuse me of shutting down arguments unless you're willing to admit that you did the same thing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: That isn't an argument - it's an attempt to shut down the argument by defining the terms.
As long as we're talking about terms, I think what we're talking about is a privilege rather than a freedom.
Deleting the posts of others in the general case isn't allowed unless you're a moderator or administrator. I don't think having the first post in a given thread should allow an exception to that.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I absolutely delete threads. I've deleted several over the years. They weren't huge and it wasn't done capriciously. They were personal and someone used them to audition for crappy-person-of-the-year.
posted
Squicky, I can't imagine a single good thing coming from that line of conversation. Are you naming yourself as one of the people? I wasn't even thinking of you and don't care to be reminded.
Dag - okay. I guess it isn't a discussion. I don't think it is abuse, and I haven't been convinced that it is. It certainly isn't a right, but it's like...the ability to choose our own username or reset our password or join in the first place. It's possible because of the programming. I suppose I could be confusing freedoms and abilities, but I do not concede the word privilege.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just correcting another of your lies. Deleting threads to cover up your misdeeds may get rid of the physical evidence, but that doesn't mean you should be able to come back and lie about it later.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, seriously, I wasn't even thinking of you. I was thinking of my wedding dress thread where KoM suggested I hang myself with it.
I wasn't remembering you or pointing you out. You never cross my mind unless you throw yourself across my path.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that was an instance where I actually agreed that deleting the thread was appropriate. That doesn't mean the other cases where you delete threads to cover up you looking bad are appropriate.
But it doesn't seem to matter, because even the people who are giving Puffy a hard time here don't seem to think it is worthy of comment when you do it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Squicky, seriously, I wasn't even thinking of you. I was thinking of my wedding dress thread where KoM suggested I hang myself with it.
WHAT?!?
He really said that?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But it doesn't seem to matter, because even the people who are giving Puffy a hard time here don't seem to think it is worthy of comment when you do it.
Or, perhaps, they didn't happen to be around when she did it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I absolutely delete threads. I've deleted several over the years. They weren't huge and it wasn't done capriciously. They were personal and someone used them to audition for crappy-person-of-the-year.
Or you get caught in a lie or looking foolish. And then you lie about that.
As long as someone's going to dredge up an old thread when talking about thread deletion, especially with such an inaccurate summary, it's only fair to point out that the dredged up thread (the deleted one) contained copious amounts of bad behavior making it a perfect example of "two wrongs don't make a right" when it comes to thread deletion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, goodness isn't what a person does as much as who a person is, and a good person is justifiably proud, personally excellent, and promotes and appreciates human flourishing in ways unique and wonderfully human.
This is almost the exact opposite of the truth, as far as I'm concerned.
Being good is meaningless -- both personally and socially -- without acting good. Moreover, I balk at his definition of "good;" while each of the items is broad enough to include the things I consider important, they're also broad enough to include things I consider irrelevant distractions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, please, no dredging. I'd actually completely forgotten about the entire incident altogether.
In fact, I had to think for a bit to even come up with an example of a thread I'd deleted because I tend to forget fights and their players completely after the dust settles. Please, I don't want to stir up/dredge up the dust. Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted it clear that disagreeing with you on thread deletion and agreeing with others regarding that did not equate to agreeing with certain other posts on the subject.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being good is meaningless -- both personally and socially -- without acting good. Moreover, I balk at his definition of "good;" while each of the items is broad enough to include the things I consider important, they're also broad enough to include things I consider irrelevant distractions.
posted
For the record, while I don't always agree with specific thread deletions, I hope that ability will not be taken away. I love the ten-minute edit window, and I would be quite unhappy with losing the ability to delete a post.
A vote for Rivka is a vote for the status quo!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: ... It's possible because of the programming. I suppose I could be confusing freedoms and abilities, but I do not concede the word privilege.
Presumably the programming allows for very many things. The fact that something is possible does not really imply that anyone (including the programmer) necessarily made any judgement that what is possible is automatically non-abusive.
Spam and any number of possible exploits are obvious examples.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, as was established earlier today in another thread, I don't have a local supply. And while I do have a brand-new niece (born less than 24 hours ago), you can't have her.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: ... It's possible because of the programming. I suppose I could be confusing freedoms and abilities, but I do not concede the word privilege.
Presumably the programming allows for very many things. The fact that something is possible does not really imply that anyone (including the programmer) necessarily made any judgement that what is possible is automatically non-abusive.
Spam and any number of possible exploits are obvious examples.
However, these are not only made possible by programming, but deliberately-made choices by the Hatrack PTB. They have chosen to have PMs, icons, sigs, and various other features turned off; and to have these particular features turned on.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Making fun of the statement instead of disproving it was only further proof of its truth.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
WHAT?!?![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'd actually completely forgotten about the entire incident altogether. 
