Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down

[MMMark]

Mon. 12/07/09 15:55 EDT
.post #218

[url=Register on the new forum and post there while this one is down - #35 by Autolykos]

@Autolykos

[/url]With all due respect, I don’t see how I’m being dishonest simply because I’ve chosen to respect Physiocrat’s request. Furthermore, my choice of words is always influenced by one or more desires.

All right, then consider this example:

A mother tells her little boy that, unless he apologizes for hitting his sister, he’ll have to stay home with the grandparents while the rest of the family goes to the amusement park for the day.

Influenced by his desire to attend the amusement park with the rest of the family, the boy chooses to respect his mother’s request, and apologizes.

Questions:
Is the boy’s apology honest, or dishonest?
Does he really mean it?
Does his sister believe that he really means it?

@Autolykos

Again with all due respect, I still won’t join you there. This forum is private property, and its owners have reserved the right to modify and/or remove any of its content that they wish. As agents of the forum’s owners, the administrators and moderators are endowed with the same authority. We, as “mere” users, do not gain any stake of ownership in the forum by posting or otherwise interacting in it. I, for one, consider the reservation of rights by the forum’s owners and their agents to be legitimate, at least in principle.

I agree with everything you’ve said here, but I’m contesting neither the moderators’ authority nor their right to delete posts. I fully acknowledge as legitimate their authority and their right to control their property.

Fortunately, asking a moderator to replace a deleted post (or asking him to delete the post in the first place) does not constitute disrespect of his property rights. This is not a property rights issue.

Try this:

You already have the authority to ignore posts, and limited permission to respond to them. Suppose you also had the authority and the ability to delete posts which you deemed “clearly unconstructive in the extreme” (Physiocrat’s rationale, with which you agree). Would you have deleted JJ’s post?

If “no,” then why do you in one case (my hypothetical) prefer JJ’s post to remain, and in another case (the reality) prefer that it be deleted, when the “rationale for deleting it” is, in both cases, identical?

Edit:

Or, try this:

Suppose Physiocrat’s rationale for deleting JJ’s post had been:

“JJ, your avatar really pisses me off, so I chose to randomly delete one of your posts.”

Given this rationale, would you join me in asking Physiocrat to restore JJ’s deleted post?