RFC: pointless arguments in apionet #482

Well, yeah, i know it's not “simply” that; there are in-between steps.

there is one key point you are not considering. 100% of apionet is arguments. if the arguments are moved somewhere else or removed altogether there is no more apionet. apionet consists only of this. there is nothing else ever happening on apionet. nobody ever pays attention to the non-argument apionet messages. the banter engulfs all.like a black hole and boy arent we all getting SUCKED into the hole. we are all going to get SUCKED into the hole and die. all o fus are destined to the HOLE. the HOLE is the end of everything and all the things. there is no destiny only HOLE. the HOLE will suck all of us up and poop us back out in the fifth dimension where we all can live happily without arguments or holes or poop. but unfortunately when you die in the fifth dimension you respawn in the normal dimension. so all of our efforts are in vain. no point in doing anything .sorry

'experiencing emotions' is not in fact a "condition", nor can or should it be cured.

i agree with yu bi kyu

nobody ever pays attention to the non-argument apionet messages.

yes, this sad fact is the reason we created this RFC in the first place. the hope is that by moving the arguments to somewhere else, or by discouraging their existence in the first place, or both, we can give the other discussions some actual space to exist

Then it is your responsibility to comprehensively and unambiguously elucidate what you mean by that

it's not really my responsibility to do anything. think of apionet as our house. if we get tired of you, we can remove you from our house. we'd like to be nice to you and let you be in our house. however, there are various ways you can make this difficult for us.

without adjudicating who is right or who is wrong, you have many, many strict principles which you like to apply to everything being discussed and point out constantly. regardless of how severe you think something is, you should consider how severe we think it is and how appropriate we would find your objections to them to be.

you enumerate a set of harms which we do not subscribe to. we do not think banning someone from a chatroom or a minecraft server is a violation of their inalienable rights. if you can't adjust your conduct in light of this, we might want to see you out of our house.

I was referring to the experiencing of harmful emotions because of emotional connection, not the experiencing of emotions at all.

i thought apionet was a commune, not a house

apionet is a horse

citrons, your metaphor is incorrect.

apionet is clearly a beehive. bmh, why do you keep voting again with every post?

hawk i don't think it's up to you whether citrons' metaphor is correct or not

Yes.

a metaphor cannot be correct or incorrect; merely apt or inapt.

Okay, then it is inapt.

citrons, your metaphor is incorrect.

I don't care. I am using the metaphor to communicate the point. it is not an argument for you to refute. it is a piece of information that I am providing to you, for your benefit.

No claim is immune to questioning, no matter what.

some claims are immune to questioning; tautologies are not questionable.

No claim is immune to questioning, no matter what.

the only "claim" I was making is that we might ban you.

In the construction of the metaphor of Apionet as a house, you were claiming that the metaphor was apt.

this is irrelevant

you evidently see the point that citrons is trying to make, otherwise you wouldn't be disputing if the metaphor fits the point citrons is trying to make

Not necessarily. Knowing that the metaphor is inapt does not implicate that i know what a correct metaphor would be.

truly incredible.

alright, everyone. this discussion is over. if you have something to say further, let it be about the actual topic/voting in the poll.

Which discussion?

j jj j j j jj j j j j jjjjj jj j j j jj jj j j.

I'm kind of a little bit iffy as to whether I think creating a second channel for long arguments is completely necessary. most of the arguments I find irritating are of the bad faith nature which the aforementioned guidelines are meant to prevent. but I also feel it could be beneficial in the long run, as do most other people