BlueManedHawk

Which discussion?

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

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

No claim is immune to questioning, no matter what.

Okay, then it is inapt.

Yes.

citrons, your metaphor is incorrect.

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

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

Is that a condition that can be cured?

How so?

making the saying of that thing not cause the harmful affectation is also an option

note here that this option is not possible; you'd have to somehow get everyone involved to agree the saying of that thing does not cause the harmful affectation, which is borderline impossible.

People are able to change their minds.

caesar, there have been arguments with you wherein you have completely denied direct evidence provided against your claims.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

since, if you were immediately able to recognize it, you probably wouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Humans sometimes act irrationally or make mistakes.

you are breaking the guidelines right now.

Faceless words on a screen communicate nuance poorly.

instead of reverting to your dogmatic principles, I will ask you to instead consider why someone might dislike having their interest called "objectively harmful and masochistic".

Assuming ‘interest’ refers to ‘thing that one has an interest in doing’ and not ‘thing one is epistimologically interested in’, and with effort to make as few other assumptions about the containing conversation as possible, and with effort to list only those which apply to the whole set of possible containing conversations instead of those which apply only to a subset, consideration has revealed that possible reasons include:

• The claim is incorrect.
• The claim is incorrect, and others are ignorant of why and therefore think it's correct.
• Unexpected acquiration of new information requires planchanging.

These are all of the reasons i can think of.

I concede that it may be difficult, for one reason or another, to consider how what you say affects another person. but when they tell you how it affects them, you should actually listen to them.

I do this. If the affectation is harmful, as i assume you are implyïng, there are multiple methods of solving that; halting saying of that thing is one option, but making the saying of that thing not cause the harmful affectation is also an option; my own past experience has shown that if the latter is possible, it is most optimal to pursue it long-term.

if you can't understand this, we might have to just ban you. again. indefinitely. oh, how unethical!

I have been complying with that already. All punitive criminal justice systems are immoral.

consider the fact that I mean words the way I mean them, not the way you mean them. when I say "kind and appropriate", I mean "kind and appropriate" by my standards, not by yours. I am expecting you to adhere to "kind and appropriate" by my standards.

Then it is your responsibility to comprehensively and unambiguously elucidate what you mean by that, extending such elucidation upon requests for clarification, so that all subordinate to power may know that the enforcement of the law is consistent and knowable.

I propose we create a second channel, with a policy similar to what I have described, on a trial basis, for a period of say 2 weeks. After that, we can discuss its efficacy. If it isn't working, we can unimplement it again.

I'm all aboard hanging a question mark on our assumptions and testing ideas by experiment, but is 2 weeks a sufficient sample size?

?

the fact that you are willing to acknowledge no problem in your behavior is a problem.

What that i should be is there?

#4670:

one thing we could easily do is to create a second channel that long arguments can be moved into.

Opposed: In the past, i have seen this tried and not work; it creates an atmosphere under which arguments are encouraged to happen because there is persistent systematic acknowledgement of their existence. There is also a heap paradox problem in the definition of ‘long arguments’: any drawage of the line will most likely be arbitrary, and leaving it up to “administrative discretion” creates a hole through which those with administrative power are given infinite power. Enforcement of a law to move arguments would require administrative intervention, something not always possible and something which would upset the atmosphere of Apionet.

#4612:

someone going around telling people that things they are interested in are "objectively harmful and masochistic" or "regressive propaganda" doesn't seem very nice to me.

When descriptions are levied upon things, politeness is irrelevant: things are not people, and have no feelings that can be hurt. It is irrational for a person to take offense on behalf of things.

#4613

when you disagree with someone about something, make sure that:

[Criteria list snipped; see o.g. post]

I've observed all people of Apionet doing their best to comply with these criteria, with mistakes and insufficiency being rare. Formal instantiation would be redundant.

What?

Yes.

No.

razetime: I'm sorry, but how that connects i don't see. Could you elucidate?

This is interesting: the <pulsate> tag applied to consecutions of the same character creates a sort of one-dimensional mwáray effect (at least on my machine).

Why not?

Have such models been experimented with yet?

fuck

What?

It's inconvenient and inelegant to have to target implementations.

Why?

who is "we"? what do you mean by "target"?

Yes.

Why?