Now he's on my side against <spouge> and <nizzle> because they only reject the second premise.

If you stop and think for a minute, you'll quickly realize that of all the posters who want to reject the conclusion of the moral argument, half of them (or so) accept premise one and reject premise two, while the other half are the opposite. They reject premise two and accept premise one!

I am telling the truth when I say that the atheists support both premises of the moral argument. Correct? They just make sure, as individuals, not to support both at the same time. Still, it's true to say that they atheists support both premises.

Isn't that delicious?

The idea is to create a forum for those who only want to engage in discourse with other posters capable of a higher standard of rhetoric.

This is for libs, atheists, pagans, Catholics, homophiles, anti-white advocates, anti-American advocates, antifa loyalists -

- as well as for conservatives, Christians, patriots, homophobes, regular white folks, nationalists, anti-bolshevik-antifas, libertarians, anarchists, monarchists and so on.

You do not have to be an Elite Poster (which is kind of like being a Made Man on CG), but you do have to post in an academic tone and you must qualify according to Grahams Hierarchy of Disagreement.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...

What this means is that once you enter into debate with another poster(s), and your post expresses disagreement with someone's point, then you must respond with a level DH4-DH6 response. According to the link:

DH4 - <Counter Argument> - Contradicts and then backs it up with supporting reasoning/evidence.

DH5 - <Refutation> - Finds a mistake and explains why it's a mistake using quotes.

DH6 - <Refuting the Central Point> - Explicitly refutes the central point.

If your response does not meet this qualification, then it will be deleted.

There are those who think that <Big Pawn> will delete posts he doesn't like, even if they qualify, and <Big Pawn> will just say they didn't qualify. How to get around this?

Answer: When posting your response, indicate first the level of response you are giving. Start like this, "DH5 - refutation" and then follow according to Grahams hierarchy. It will be clear if you do this, when your posts do or do not actually meet the criteria.

Does every post have to be in line with Grahams Hierarchy of Disagreement?

No. We can have posts like, "Hey so and so, have you seen this item in the news yet?"

Or we can have a post that says, "I agree with so and so. His post was good".

But once a debate is entered into, the <Beautiful Pyramid> must be followed.

Clear enough?

What about when there is no debate happening? What will be allowed and deleted then?

Simple statements of disagreement will be allowed, but only as an introduction, or invitation to debate. For instance:

<X: I don't agree that a,b and c is correct>

<Y: It is correct because h,i, and j>

At this point the debate has started and all future posts must meet the standard.

Friendly posting is allowed, like, "Have you seen this website? I think you might like it. Here, check it out"

A post that is fishing for a debate and is deliberately provocative is also allowed. Example:

"I think all Christian Fundamentalists are in denial about reality"

That's allowed, but we must realize it is fishing for a response. Once a response is found, the debate begins and the discourse is immediately elevated.

What won't be allowed is endless piling on or backslapping. For instance, suppose <Big Pawn> dominates and humiliates an atheist lib as he always does. There may be a number of posters who say, "Good points <BP>" and things like that. That's okay. But it's not okay to repeat yourself. Just one such statement is allowed.

The reason is to keep the forum 95% substance and only 5% fluffy.

Aside from meeting the standards of the <Pyramid>, I will insist on academic tone. This means that I will have to abide by this as well. No insults, like, "I can't believe you really are this stupid" even if such a statement is followed by a very good academic response. It will be deleted. I will delete my own statement (if called out) and I'll delete yours too.

I will insist on academic tone. This means that I will have to abide by this as well. No insults, like, "I can't believe you really are this stupid" even if such a statement is followed by a very good academic response.>

I sincerely want to give the smart posters a place to debate without the stink of wet dog food everywhere.

Look at the <tuna>. You know that out of nearly EIGHTY THOUSAND posts, he rarely, if ever, rises above a DH3. This is very boring to me and I suspect others.

Or look at <Mark>. Say someone wants to debate Trump’s foreign policy or whatever. You’ve got a dog food glutton like <Mark>, who does not wipe his face clean, saying, “Trump is Orange bla bla bla”.

I’m too good for that, quite frankly, and in my eyes there are others who are also too good for that.

<tga>, debates are no fun if the other guy is genuinely too stupid to realize he’s stuck, or that he’s not on the point, or that he’s been refuted. Look at <jiffy> for example. He actually still says the moral argument is invalid.

Or how about <perf> who hasn’t made an intelligent comment about any topic up for debate?

You know Ive called <mort> a terrorist sympathizer, especially since that’s what he was doing, but at least <mort> sometimes raises his game to DH4-DH6, and is intelligent enough to know where he is and what his next step must be in a debate.

I applaud your initiative. This is a really great idea.

To be honest, I am often disappointed by the level of discourse on the Rogoff page. Granted, there are some interesting debates going on there from time to time, but often they deteriorate quickly into gratuitous insults thrown back and forth. And then, unfortunately, there are some kibitzers there which posts I simply scroll down on when I encounter them..

Other posters have had similar forums in the past but, in my opinion, they were marred by the fact that academic tone was unfortunately equated to political correctness.

I want this to be a place where all verboten topics are freely discussed. In the sense of political correctness, this forum will be X rated.

What I don’t want is idle chatter, even if it’s friendly and directed toward me. However, I expect to tolerate some of it because were all human.

I am also thinking about officially moderating debates here. The way I would do that is to analyze the responses in terms of the hierarchy of disagreement and make a judgment about who had the better responses, but not just based on my own opinion, but based on Grahams hierarchy. We might adopt a familiar debate structure such as both sides beginning with an opening statement, after agreeing on the topic for debate, and then each side having three follow-ups for rebuttals followed by concluding statements from both sides.

This is for libs, atheists, pagans, Catholics, homophiles, anti-white advocates, anti-American advocates, antifa loyalists>

Heh, heh, I see you grouped Catholics
with the "good" crowd.

I just don't see libs "debating" ever.
There are reasons the folks on the Rogoff page are like they are, and that wont change.

He posts here whenever he wants and I never delete his posts, but he just deletes mine.

I guess he can do that because it is his forum, after all. I mean, why obscure the important stuff:

<technical draw: Lost: Cat

May be dead and alive.

If found alive don't look at it again. Call Dr. Erwin Schrödinger. Thank you.>

If the majority of my comments were like this, I wouldn't bother typing or speaking. You might as well post:

"One two, buckle my shoe
You, me, you, you, you!"

Why waste one's breath on such idle chatter?

People are talking about God and life, and a guy erases all that to make room for "one two, buckle my shoe".

Imagine if the disciples were hanging out with Jesus one day, and every time Jesus said something to one of them, they said, "One two, buckle my shoe".

"Sorry Jesus, I'm just a clown. I'm a joker. The only reason I exist is for humor, because humor is the most important thing in life, especially as I near death"

Or say Paul shows up at Peter's house and says to Peter, "There are men teaching that Moses lied about what is in Genesis. They've made up this story called evolution and they are corrupting the people."

To this, Peter replies, "One two, buckle my shoe, joke's on me, joke's on you! Ah shucks, Paul, I don't care about that stuff. I'm too busy being a clown - and all those letters you wrote me? I threw scribbled them out and wrote jokes on them. Here, you know the epistle to the Romans? Read it now:

One two, buckle my shoe
Joke's on me, joke's on you!

I needed your scroll to write down these jokes, I hope you understand. Feel free to send me another scroll anytime, but be aware, if I feel a good joke coming on, I'm going to erase your words to make more room for other jokes, like this one:

My cat is dead. My cat is alive.
Tell schrodinger."

Apparently, many do not. I see some otherwise intelligent people on this website who are laying in the hammock when they are supposed to be out there preaching the truth to the lie.

I browse some forums and I see things like this:

<Forum Admin: Biddle biddle, baddle, baddle, I think I'm gonna skididdle, skadaddle!">

And someone will actually take the time to respond thus:

<Person 1: Well, if I biddle my biddle and baddle my baddle, I get biddle baddled!>

To which <person 2> responds, <Well, you may biddle and baddle while she baddles and biddles, but no one but me biddles the baddle on the buttle!>

The the <Forum Admin> will respond, <Don't you mean buddle buddle buddle bittle buddle? Careful not to put your handing in the boddle biddle!>

And they carry on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Then you visit the forum again in 4 days and see that they are still carrying on with no end in sight.

If you interrupt this with a word about God, they say, "Sorry, your posts have been deleted. I don't have time in my life for that stuff."

Not some people. They take the lamp, put a cover over it, and then draw silly faces and pictures on the cover because it's so important to be funny.

Really funny.

<let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven...>

Who has time for that? When there are 40,000 of these to write:

"One two, buckle my shoe,
Joke's on me, joke's on you

Biddle biddle, baddle baddle,
the cat's alive, the cat's a daddle!"

Cover the lamp God has given you, so that no light shines through. Then crawl back in the hammock and lay there all day, all night, a slothful, evil servant.

When you stand before the Judge, just say,

"Knock knock! Who's there?
I don't know, why should I care?"

LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!

LOLOOLOLOL!!!!

Yes, that was a good post by <CW>

<...but it won’t be easy. Last time I tried to do this some of the frequent posters got really pissy when I deleted their posts for not meeting the guidelines. For example, < optimal play> still resents me because of this and even called me little Hitler because I deleted his posts.>

Yes, I was part of that. You deleted one of my posts, and to this day I think it was an error. Why?

One of the rules you had established was that, if you are asked a question, you have to answer it.

I think of this as the <saffuna> rule. You were clearly frustrated at trying to have a serious debate with him, because he would not answer any question put to him.

<OP> asked me a question in your forum. I followed the rules and answered, as required, and you deleted his post and mine too!

The forum was created for elevated discussion on politics, religion and philosophy. That was the primary guideline, so as to keep low level yap out of the forum, lest it be no different than any other forum.

Given that, then the rule is you must answer a question directly.

It would have been appreciated and appropriate if you had not responded to his quarrel about who said what in the JFQ forum. I wrote about 2000 words on how it would be about elevated discussion and right away it goes off the rails.

Then, if I hadn’t deleted it, others would say, “bp demands elevated discussion only, unless you’re on his side!”

At this point, those that want to root their snouts in the wet dog food of the rogoff trough can just do that. The page has changed since the good days of 2013-2015.

<op> and <focus> don’t like my idea and already rejected it, but there are people like <count> and <troller> who are game. Maybe I can get a whole pool of new blood then.

<Because honestly, I’m bored here now. Did you see my debate with <tabanus>? So boring. So low level. A waste of time really.>

There's always chess to discuss on this site, you know.>

BP has already addressed that topic:

There's always chess to discuss on this site, you know.>

Practice what you preach. You didn't discuss chess here just now.

Take your "wish you wells" elsewhere as I don't want any well wishing from the likes of you.

If you want to come here to debate, then you can do that. But don't come here to wish me well. I'm not here to make friends and to be nice.

https://www.amren.com/news/2018/09/...

So the Muzzies can knock down our buildings and kill 3000 innocent people, but the college doesn't want the 9/11 memorial because it will anger the Muzzies.

What could drive such madness you wonder?

Answer: liberalism

Why should liberalism be so evil?

Yes, the idea is to get a better <Rogoff>. Exactly.

In the philosophical thought of the week, I'll have to include some political issues since people like to comment on that and almost nobody likes to comment on philosophy, even though philosophy underpins politics.

<The Good Anteater>

The surest sign someone is not leaving cg.com is that they constantly tell everyone they are leaving.

Plenty of worthy folks have left, such as <Open Defence>, <Malthrope>, <Klangenfarben>, <karpova>, and <thomas tonk>, just off the top of my head. None of them publicly posted their intent.

The only case I can think of in which a member said he was going to leave, and then really left, is <Gozza> (AJ Goldsby).

On a semi-related topic, to my knowledge the only person at this website who ever promised to stop trolling <Gozza>, and then actually stopped trolling <Gozza>, is <Hayden/Colonel Mortimer>.