Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
No one has free will.
I mean it doesn't surprise me at all that you believe that people don't have free will, but the existence of it is trivially easy to prove
Parental rights especially in divorce to begin with, do you think character has no role in assigning children in a divorce in case of controversy? It does in most western countries.
Then you can lose licenses to work in many professions if you are an addict in many countries.
Should I go on?
I mean it doesn't surprise me at all that you believe that people don't have free will, but the existence of it is trivially easy to prove
Free will might very well not exist but if it doesn't then literally nothing matters because no one among us is choosing what he says or does so who cares about that scenario? If it's all deterministic we aren't choosing anything at any step so it will all happen no matter what, our thinking about it won't change anything.
If instead there is choice at any point...
Basically Pascal wager but for free will is the only rational approach
If this argument has any force for you then what changes if the two bottles a day were cheaper?
That more people will drink them? idea for pro healthcare leftists is they want public healthcare but they try to dissuade you from behaviors that negatively effect health with taxes (because even them end up realizing subsidizing bad behaviors is obscene morally and pragmatically)
That more people will drink them? idea for pro healthcare leftists is they want public healthcare but they try to dissuade you from behaviors that negatively effect health with taxes (because even them end up realizing subsidizing bad behaviors is obscene morally and pragmatically)
It's tought to drink more but i'm game if it helps.
The rest is on the right lines imo. They try to dissade us from behaviors that are considered bad for our health. Whatever we think of that it'sa moral point, not the rather disingenuous fincancial one.
Whether free will exists or not is an interesting philosophical question. But regardless, society basically requires that we act as if it does exist for most people. Societies cant really function otherwise.
Parental rights especially in divorce to begin with, do you think character has no role in assigning children in a divorce in case of controversy? It does in most western countries.
Then you can lose licenses to work in many professions if you are an addict in many countries.
Should I go on?
So what rights should we remove from fatties?
It's tought to drink more but i'm game if it helps.
The rest is on the right lines imo. They try to dissade us from behaviors that are considered bad for our health. Whatever we think of that it'sa moral point, not the rather disingenuous fincancial one.
If it was for moral reasons they would subsidize vaping as it is clearly infinitely better for health than actual smoking.
Instead they tax it anyway (in excess of VAT, with special extra taxes) because otherwise revenue drops too much.
That's how you know they are lying to you about the moral reason for vice taxes.
(I realize vaping isn't extra-taxed in the UK but it is in most of Continental Europe and the USA).
None if we drop the idea it is an addiction.
Or we should treat them the same we treat an heroine addict if we want to make the addiction claim.
My point was about consistency of treatment in the "discourse".
Ofc the best solution would simply be the same as always, allow full freedom and remove subsidies for bad behavior (any public health subsidizing).
If all healthcare is private and the state is fully barred from doing anything about healthcare, insurance companies will price your fatness properly and then it's about you, you eat less **** or exercise more you pay lower rate, or not, not my business.
None if we drop the idea it is an addiction.
Or we should treat them the same we treat an heroine addict if we want to make the addiction claim.
My point was about consistency of treatment in the "discourse".
Ofc the best solution would simply be the same as always, allow full freedom and remove subsidies for bad behavior (any public health subsidizing)
Well, I imagine if they commit crimes to get money for more food, we'd currently send them to some sort of program or lock them up for repeated offences, same as with heroin addicts. I suppose we could set up some sort of fork exchange facility to make sure they always have clean cutlery. What else do we do with heroin addicts?
Well, I imagine if they commit crimes to get money for more food, we'd send them to some sort of program or lock them up for repeated offences. I suppose we could set up some sort of fork exchange facility to make sure they always have clean cutlery. What else do we do with heroin addicts?
As I said: we give children to the other parent in case of a controversial divorce.
We remove their licenses as lawyers, physicians and other professions.
We ban them from testifying in court depending on details.
You can discriminate as an employer against addicts which keep abusing a substance.
Details might vary by country but that's the general idea.
If obesity is predicated on a complete lack of self control of the scale where your body size gets uncontrollable, with huge well known disastrous consequences for your health, and that's considered something you as an individual can't control, do you really think it would be reasonable to let that person be legally in charge of say 26 kids for 7 hours? A person who provenly can't control basic elements of his life?
As I said: we give children to the other parent in case of a controversial divorce.
We remove their licenses as lawyers, physicians and other professions.
We ban them from testifying in court depending on details.
You can discriminate as an employer against addicts which keep abusing a substance.
Details might vary by country but that's the general idea.
If obesity is predicated on a complete lack of self control of the scale where your body siz
A lot of the things you listed are a result of criminal offenses the addict commits or behaviour the addict exhibits, not in and of itself because someone is addicted to a substance. How many of those things happen to the suburban housewife who pops a valium every few hours? A 40-a day smoker? A lawyer who knocks back a fifth of JD on the daily?
A lot of the things you listed are a result of criminal offenses the addict commits or behaviour the addict exhibits. How many of those things happen to the suburban housewife who pops a valid every few hours?
Not at all (for the illegal acts). Sure for the behavior.
You can lose custody for legal substance abuse, and you can lose your license as a lawyer also.
I don't know what a valid is but presuming that's a psychotropic substance, that habit can and will be used by a divorcing husband against the wife, if the divorcing husband is inclined to do so.
Not at all.
You can lose custody for legal substance abuse, and you can lose your license as a lawyer also.
I don't know what a valid is but presuming that's a psychotropic substance, that habit can and will be used by a divorcing husband against the wife, if the divorcing husband is inclined to do so
That's fine and it's for the judge to decide in a given specific case. Losing a court case is not the same thing as "taking away rights". The same judge is free to take morbid obesity into consideration, so I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.
How many of those things happen to the suburban housewife who pops a valium every few hours? A 40-a day smoker? A lawyer who knocks back a fifth of JD on the daily?
